Be hard pressed to top last time's discussion but armed with the ability to talk about the entire work we should be able to. Apologies if I tagged anyone who doesn't want to be tagged.
Who wants to lead the next round?
--
So this is one of the coolest things I've ever read. It has now been about a month since I finished it, but I'll dredge up some thoughts. I love Rorschach's moral equivalence disguised as moral absolutism; his sequences remain my favorite to read. I love that early on we get a juxtaposition of old-guard superheroes and the younger generation -- actually I'm glad Moore included two generations to begin with, instead of merely focusing his story on the main characters and then flashing back to characters we never meet in the present. Dr. Manhattan's perspective on time is some fine writing -- that's not an easy idea to portray to viewers -- I think the medium helped.
Other highlights: the Comedian, absolutely vital character; every sequence at the newsstand; the scenes on Mars; and finally, the art itself. Gritty and perfect.
Last thing -- Complexity just linked me this brief article about Terry Gilliam's thoughts on Zach Snyder's movie ending.
eightbitsamurai, StJohn, DiamondLou86, AnSionnachRua, _refugee_, minimum_wage, flagamuffin, fuffle, b_b, hugitout, JakobVirgil, zebra2, AdSeriatim, mk, thenewgreen, SufficientGrace, ecib, kleinbl00, cliffelam, hootsbox, lil, rezzeJ, cgod, blackbootz, onehunna, AshShields, BLOB_CASTLE, insomniasexx, kuli, louderwords, Floatbox, maynard, hiss, NikolaiFyodorov, Meriadoc, wasoxygen, BlackBird, jayfixkleenit, crimsonlight, Kaius, spearhard, humanodon
The author of the book of Kings answers the question of who is fit to be a king by offers us three cases 3 men Saul (a prophet), David (a hero) and Solomon (the wisest man in the world). (s)he than shows us how each of them failed and hence no man should be king. (S)he was prolly some kinda anarchist or romanticized the rule of the Judges. I think the archmagnus Alan Moore is using the same rhetorical plan. He presents us with each of the Superhero archetypes and shows us how they are Naive, unhuman, or just plain evil. The high tech dilettante - is just play acting The heroine - is just furniture the superman - has no human connection the vigilante - is a sociopath the genius - is a conman the super soldier - is a scumbag Capes suck
As far as "next round," it looks kind of like the sci fi club is pointed towards Rendezvous with Rama - one of three Sci Fi "triple crown" winners (Hugo, Nebula, Campbell) and the only one, in my opinion, worth a shit. It's also short and not a downer which, for sci fi, is almost a rarity. y'all come.
I have more to say in addition to this, but my least favorite character was Dr. Manhattan. I agree that Moore does a good job regarding his perspective on time, but I think he bit off more than anyone could chew with that, and it shows. IMO it would have played better had Dr. Manhattan actually misinterpreted or over-estimated his own prescient abilities. Every time a limitless being interacts and learns something from a human, I cringe a bit. Dr. Manhattan could have been flawed in a more compelling way. I do like how Rorschach commits suicide by Manhattan. I'm extremely glad I read this. It is brilliant.
It's a tough call - omnipotence and omniscience would drown out everything else and Moore definitely wanted to say a thing or two about Superman. But yes - he's imperfect. It makes sense to me when I consider him as a newborn god pretending to be human for shits'n'giggles.
I can see that. However, the one thing that sets Manhattan apart from Superman, is that Superman is a bit of an oaf, whereas Manhattan's obtuseness stems from his inability to empathize with the human perspective. I suppose the same might be said of Superman, but I'm not sure that Manhattan ever fooled himself into believing that we has connecting. My superhero experience is limited, but I always felt that Superman was a guy that convinces himself that he cares more than he does. Building such a spectacular timepiece palace on Mars seemed like something that would interest someone connected to time and space, and at that point, it felt out of step with his evolution to me. Manhattan's shrinking outfit was a brilliant metaphor for his loss of connectivity. I would think that the place he brings Laurie to on Mars would either be just some weird cube, or someplace built completely for her benefit, like her living room. I'd prefer the weird cube, since he wasn't thoughtful enough to remember her need to respire. I dunno. I appreciated the nod to his past with the watch-making pieces, but going that route, he should have made the whole of Mars into a clock.
Frank Miller's take on Superman was that he was Lawful Good but didn't care much for introspection. He was black'n'white and not particularly deep about anything, which made for superficial success but not much else. Doctor Manhattan, on the other hand, is kind of a true neutral - he's aloof from everything. Manhattan's constructions, to me, had a lot in common with the bizarre assemblages Lem talked about in Solaris - things that had no discernible purpose, but that clearly reflected an intelligent hand.
Damn, I'm skimming through the book again and there are just too many good moments. - chapter 6: the interaction between the Doctor and Rorschach is amazing. The stories Rorschach tells really do have an impact on the Doctor, whose seemingly endless optimism at the beginning is slowly deconstructed, until he realizes the emptiness of it all. If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. - chapter 7: Power and powerless. Compare and contrast. - chapter 8: two-nothing - chapter 9: besides the really amazing scenes on Mars, I really like the sense of scale they drew, with the mountain slowly becoming bigger and later on the zooming out to reveal the smiley face in the surface of Mars, and beyond that, the endlessness of the solar system. It really made the conversation Jon was having so much more substantial. Goosebumps were had. The other chapters: I had already seen the movie before, so I instantly noticed all the foreshadowing and knew sorta what was gonna happen. Still, the boat exploding and the monster itself were really shocking. And I did it 35 minutes ago is still the best ending ever. Someone said that Ozymandias' reasoning was wrong, but I can't recall why. Anyone care to put his speech in perspective? It seems so convincing.
I don't think the ending is really as important as the journey, but anyway - Ozy wins in the end, but he (and we) see that his win is only temporary at best. He seeks reassurance from Jon, that it all worked out in the end, and he's told "nothing ever ends". Also, we know the whole scheme starts to crumble if the word gets out, hence Rorschach's death - but the story ends with Rorschach's journal seeing daylight.
The first page of the book is just amazing. I like how it sends the message that the book will be heavy on symbolism right off the bat. It's just amazing how the images and the text intertwine and add meaning to the story. It's the perfect example of the fact that graphic novels are not just illustrated books. I'm glad I re-read it, I missed a lot on my first read 2 years ago.
I recently discovered the work of Alan Moore. He instantly become one of my favorite author (And I didnt even know yet about his reckless political views)
I even read his non-illustrated book -not so good- Watchmen is dense -not as much as my favorite "from hell" - with a lot of cool character.
Just for Rorschach the book is worth reading. A psychopathic who is also a very true super-hero was something totally original. We needed Rorschach as much as we needed Lorenzaccio or even Hamlet.
Dr Manhantan seems more a plot device -justifying the alternate reality- than a real character. Moore did a better job -and a more fun one - at portraying an all powerful being in "Supreme" I watched the movie a few month ago. I was very disappointed by the music score (you cannot use super known song without distracting the audience from the story). But I though the end was more clever than in the comic-book -a nice surprise-. To anyone who liked the book or the movie, you can easily read anything by Moore, it will be good.
I think the Internet is fixating on that today because Reddit found it. There were about five different versions of Watchmen through the years, including a Joel Schumacher one that would have starred Schwartzenegger as Manhattan. None of them got past the planning stage. You would not believe the stupid shit that happens at the planning stage, and it takes an idiot to think it matters. The ending of World War Z didn't happen until they'd finished the movie, showed it to audiences, and panicked because everyone hated it. Hello $70m in reshoots.
The ending of World War Z didn't happen until they'd finished the movie, showed it to audiences, and panicked because everyone hated it. Hello $70m in reshoots.
So what you're saying is that WWZ's ending used to be even worse?! Such a lazy ending as is. -'Ive got an idea, lets introduce narration, that'll fix this".
http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/06/25/world-war-z-alternate-ending/ http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/world-war-zs-original-crazy-russian-ending.html Yeah, when you're bringing in Damon Lindelof to fix things, you're officially fucked.