Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

Rorschach is the most overtly moral character in the story.

Captain Lorax, "Big Figure" is being played by this dude, Danny Woodburn:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/Danny%20Woodburn.jpg

^^^are you fucking kidding me

there are no moral characters in the graphic novel

FWIW, I think this film's gonna be huge regardless of how it's reviewed and even if it's good or not.
patiently waiting

A huge piece of crap.

I think it's going to do three good weeks of box office then drop like it was pushed off a table.

there are no moral characters in the graphic novel

― Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:38 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

they all think they're really moral, but iirc each one seems to have a personal code that becomes impotent when confronted with the complications of the real world

I can get why Dan calls Rorschach the only character in the novel and understand why he appeals to so many people - he's the only one who doesn't sacrifice his principles. What these people often conveniently overlook is that Rorscach's principles are completely fucked up - he is an utterly alienated, sadistic bastard, devoid of compassion and empathy. The only difference between him and Ozymandias is that Veidt actually found a way to impact the world on a scale that Rorscach only wishes he was capable of. Rorscach does not have any problem with mass murder per se, he just has a problem with the person orchestrating it being someone other than himself and someone who is not aligned with Rorscach's particular principles.

But there is no one in the book who presents an uncompromised moral, humanist, empathetic voice (ie a Jesus or a Gandhi or lolz an Alan Moore)

only MORAL character

i thought rorschach's appeal was always his holden caulfield-esque righteous contempt that invites identification from alienated young men, tbh

well yeah that too

Rorschy had the best zings

> But there is no one in the book who presents an uncompromised moral, humanist, empathetic voice (ie a Jesus or a Gandhi or lolz an Alan Moore)

To Moore's credit, even when he does create a character who takes this pov, notably Miracleman and Swamp Thing, he recognizes the OTHER problems with it.

I would like to point out two things:

- Rorschach's viewpoint being fucked up does not automatically make it immoral.
- "Moral" does not automatically mean "humanist" or "empathetic".

lol, Rorschach would break all your fingers if he caught you equivocating like that

Rorschach isn't the only one who doesn't sacrifice his principles.

There's The Comedian. My favorite character.
"Listen... once you figure out what a joke everything is, being a comedian is the only thing that makes sense"

He was the only one who "got it". He stopped the Crimebusters from forming. But that was outta principle. He was the true cynic and realist of the novel. And he was right about the rest of the world being a joke that cant be saved (in the long run). He lived just to get by and didn't care who he was working for. A government stooge - nah - he just did what he was good at and kept on helping America through his job even though he saw how worthless one person's influence is. He never really gave up and sacrificed his principles because he continued his government job - albeit in vain. He was not a quitter.

Yeah he was a terrible person... but some reasons why he is my favorite are:
1.) he was the only one who saw the world as a joke.
2.) he had smarts. For instance he confronted Dr. Manhattan when the Dr. didn't do anything to stop him from killing the pregnant Vietnamese chick. He knew the Dr.s worst flaw but didn't hold it against him.
3.) when Rorschach says "Blake is interesting. I have never met anyone so deliberately amoral. He suits the climate here: the madness, the pointless butchery... as I come to understand Vietnam and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Blake's different. He understands perfectly... and he doesn't care."

note: Captain Lorax's favorite is the guy who shoots a woman who's pregnant with his child

3) that's not Rorscach, that's Dr. Manhattan

Uh the Comedian doesn't have any principles.

Comedian doesn't sacrifice his principles because he has none to sacrifice

haha x-post

Alan Moore is the first person to really make a superhero like The Comedian. Originality points.
Also he is arguably the coolest looking character.

You are an idiot.

That's what Alan Moore is thinking about you right now.

- "Moral" does not automatically mean "humanist" or "empathetic".

it does to me. Morality is a human construct applying to human relations. If a moral system doesn't involve an implicit understanding that people are alike (ie, "gosh that would suck if someone did that to me, maybe I shouldn't do that to other people, since they are, after all, LIKE ME") I don't think it can truly be called a moral system.

x-post

He's also thinking that he can cast a spell to make your head explode, but that's beside the point.

The comedian's principles: foresight to not be a humanist, and he wasn't a quitter. Heh, not really much there, but he would say the same thing about the rest of the world and he would be right.

at least in the watchmen world - I can't say it's the same as our world.

I would think its fairly obvious that Rorscach's "principles" exist solely as a rationalization for his violent mysanthropy - which he himself makes pretty explicitly clear in his "origin story" issue. It isn't exactly a consistent moral code as much as it is simple self-justification, an excuse for him to do horrible things to people.

"not quitting" is a principle?

oh wait yr a sock puppet aren't you

the comedian's willful amorality is a sort of principle

i accept the argument that rorschach is the only character in the comic who really fights to maintain his own morality as well as the moral order of the world around him (though his pursuit of this is clearly insane/delusional). viedt's superficial morality is a self serving sham to be abandoned when convenient, dreiberg lacks the courage of whatever convictions he imagines he has, dr. manhattan has "transcended" such trivial concerns, and laurie s... well, moore doesn't seem terribly interested in her moral agency.

it's tempting to criticize rorschach's ostensible morality as mere self-justification, but the same could be said of anyone who casts themselves as judge & jury in ethical matters. rorshach seems bound by the principles he seeks to impose on others, and that's close enough to count.

finally, it seems absurd to suggest that a morality must be human or empathetic in order to be valid. moral systems can be indifferent to suffering, or even cruel. only requirement is that the system define the good/acceptable and the bad/unacceptable.

its more than not quitting, its about doing one's duty, doing whats best for the country. who cares if he did it in vain (and knew his attempts were vain). he did "the best a man can do" anyways.

doing one's duty, doing whats best for the country

hahaha wtf

are you defending the comdedian??? he didn't "do his duty". he fucked shit up, raped and murdered, for money and for fun.

it was in the best interests of the country that he impregnate and kill that Vietnamese peasant!

the country is his audience. he had a government job. he was doing what they think is the best for the country.
rape and murder is something they didn't know about and I wont back him up there.

also "willful amorality is a sort of principle " is a good way to describe the other point I was making higher up

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj242/donaldparsley/habbah.jpg

rape and murder is something they didn't know about

O RLY

(not clear at all that he raped her, btw)

The Comedian is a horrible human being (but i'm not getting into the 'rape' and murder - makes me not like him - America didn't know about it, only a select few)

but he has principles. that's what I was arguing about.
his perspective fits perfectly with the book - and that's what I like about him. once again, he was the only one that figured out what a joke everything is.

it seems absurd to suggest that a morality must be human or empathetic in order to be valid. moral systems can be indifferent to suffering, or even cruel. only requirement is that the system define the good/acceptable and the bad/unacceptable.

hey I see where you're comin from - its just that since its always humans devising moral systems inevitably what is designated as good/unacceptable and bad/unacceptable is done in the context of human behavior (altho lolz I would love to see a moral system that, say, designates gravity or dirt as unacceptable). I'll grant you that there are moral systems that don't require any empathy or have any issues with inflicting suffering (nazis, stalinists, islamo-fascists, etc.) but by and large these systems are more like outbreaks of mass psychosis and I have a hard time really accepting them as moral. But then what do I know I am a pansy liberal.

adam is a fanboy.
i think he hates the film.
http://thequietus.com/articles/01215-the-watchmen-reviewed-has-it-killed-the-comic-book-adaptation-dead

only requirement is that the system define the good/acceptable and the bad/unacceptable.

Good how? Bad how? Good for health? Legally good? Aesthetically? Scientifically? Religously? Ok there might be some overlap between some these terms but you can't get away without defining any terms whatsoever. Obviously humanity is the concern of human morality - which is the only kind we currently know. And I would argue that suffering, or lack of, is intrinsically a concern of morality. A system that ignores suffering or even promotes it is by definition amoral or immoral.

The morality question is a major philosophical discussion that could make up its own thread. Personally, I think the inherent ambiguity of the terms "good" and "bad" render this statement incorrect: A system that ignores suffering or even promotes it is by definition amoral or immoral. The reason I believe this is because I do not think morality in its strictest terms is about alleviating suffering; it is about adhering to a code of ethics, whose rules in and of themselves have been designated as desirable or "good" based on a set of observations and principles that are by no means guaranteed to be liberal, humanistic, or particularly nice.

Y'all need one (1) of this:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51wSCX%2BqQFL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

i'm a clicking, but i still cant look inside.

want/do not want

morality discussion sinkhole: Morality - Ethics

adam is a fanboy.
i think he hates the film.
http://thequietus.com/articles/01215-the-watchmen-reviewed-has-it-killed-the-comic-book-adaptation-dead

― mark e, Friday, February 27, 2009 9:56 AM (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

anyone who writes this annoyingly hating it makes me wanna see it opening night

more from adam re the film away from the OTT-ness of that review :

My girlfriend never read watchmen and she thought it was shocking. Without knowing the source material, a whole gang of it doesn't make sense!

i guess thats more on the button.

Why are the people who hate this writing so badly about it? I look forward to reading a decent review, positive or negative. "The worst comic book movie ever to see daylight?" Ah, calm down and shut up.

(He's wrong about the new ending too - it's actually cleverer and more logical than the book.)

ledge:

1) "Humanist" does not mean "concerned with humanity.

2) Thinking about morality exclusively in terms of alleviating suffering is a very modern, Western phenomenon. In most pre-modern or non-Western cultures, lack of suffering is at most a fortunate side-effect of moral behavior, and morality is defined largely through other concepts. (cf. Confucianism)