Beware the Watchmen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Raiyan 1.0:

SnakeoilSage:

Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War.

Except for the bit where Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre.

And that makes it good because..?

Technically, Kick Ass is a deconstruction of the superhero genre, too.

SnakeoilSage:

Raiyan 1.0:

SnakeoilSage:

Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War.

Except for the bit where Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre.

And that makes it good because..?

Technically, Kick Ass is a deconstruction of the superhero genre, too.

No, my point is Watchmen didn't solely revolve around the Cold War. The war provided the setting, and I can't see how it's impossible to have a Watchmen-esque narrative in some timeline/conflict other than the Cold War. Thus my issue with your statement that without the Cold War, the Watchmen is irrelevant.

[From Wikipedia] The series was an "obituary for the concept of heroes in general and superheroes in particular." Moore added that to place faith in such icons was to give up personal responsibility to "the Reagans, Thatchers, and other 'Watchmen' of the world who supposed to 'rescue' us and perhaps lay waste to the planet in the process".

I see you defending Nixon for stopping the war in Vietnam, but he didn't do that before dropping more bombs in Cambodia than the Allied Forces did in WWII. You defend Nixon for starting peace talks with China; but to do that he had to keep an open channel through Pakistan - and to keep the Pakistani dictator happy, Nixon funded their genocide against Bangladesh back in '71.

Obviously, Nixon and Kissinger felt they were necessary evils for long term stability. As does probably Cheney and Obama about a decade long war in the Middle East with millions of civilian casualties. Are their actions justified? Was Ozymandias' actions justified? Issues like that have never stopped being irrelevant. And this is just one character.

Thus my issue with your statement: "Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War. It couldn't exist without the mistakes of the Cold War taken to extremes that we as human beings managed to avoid (barely) despite our own darker traits." It was never about whether you like it or not (which is entirely up to you).

Raiyan 1.0:
No, my point is Watchmen didn't solely revolve around the Cold War. The war provided the setting, and I can't see how it's impossible to have a Watchmen-esque narrative in some timeline/conflict other than the Cold War. Thus my issue with your statement that without the Cold War, the Watchmen is irrelevant.

[From Wikipedia] The series was an "obituary for the concept of heroes in general and superheroes in particular." Moore added that to place faith in such icons was to give up personal responsibility to "the Reagans, Thatchers, and other 'Watchmen' of the world who supposed to 'rescue' us and perhaps lay waste to the planet in the process".

I see you defending Nixon for stopping the war in Vietnam, but he didn't do that before dropping more bombs in Cambodia than the Allied Forces did in WWII. You defend Nixon for starting peace talks with China; but to do that he had to keep an open channel through Pakistan - and to keep the Pakistani dictator happy, Nixon funded their genocide against Bangladesh back in '71.

Obviously, Nixon and Kissinger felt they were necessary evils for long term stability. As does probably Cheney and Obama about a decade long war in the Middle East with millions of civilian casualties. Are their actions justified? Was Ozymandias' actions justified? Issues like that have never stopped being irrelevant. And this is just one character.

Thus my issue with your statement: "Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War. It couldn't exist without the mistakes of the Cold War taken to extremes that we as human beings managed to avoid (barely) despite our own darker traits." It was never about whether you like it or not (which is entirely up to you).

Until Iran actually gets a nuke and somehow threatens total global extinction with it, you're not making a very valid case for Watchmen being able to exist outside of a bizarro world were Nixon is a Greg Stillson-esque president and the existence of superheroes has escalated the Cold War.

SnakeoilSage:

Until Iran actually gets a nuke and somehow threatens total global extinction with it, you're not making a very valid case for Watchmen being able to exist outside of a bizarro world were Nixon is a Greg Stillson-esque president and the existence of superheroes has escalated the Cold War.

Sure, because superhero-sized egos and delusional goals can't be portrayed without nukes. *rolls eyes*

Raiyan 1.0:

SnakeoilSage:

Until Iran actually gets a nuke and somehow threatens total global extinction with it, you're not making a very valid case for Watchmen being able to exist outside of a bizarro world were Nixon is a Greg Stillson-esque president and the existence of superheroes has escalated the Cold War.

Sure, because superhero-sized egos and delusional goals can't be portrayed without nukes. *rolls eyes*

They can, and that's the problem. Watchmen doesn't work without the bombs dropping. Kick Ass deconstructed the superhero genre much better than Watchmen. And hey, no nukes. Not one.

The impact of Watchmen is lessened when you realize how much it relies on contrived circumstances to make itself work.

SnakeoilSage:

They can, and that's the problem. Watchmen doesn't work without the bombs dropping. Kick Ass deconstructed the superhero genre much better than Watchmen. And hey, no nukes. Not one.

The impact of Watchmen is lessened when you realize how much it relies on contrived circumstances to make itself work.

It's kind of curious how you're fixated with the Cold War/Nixon facet of the story. I just told you in a previous comment how Ozymandias' actions can be an allegory for the ones of Cheney/Obama. And the conflicts of the rest of the heroes were on a personal level.

You're looking too much in the literal narrative, instead of the allegories it stands for.

Raiyan 1.0:
It's kind of curious how you're fixated with the Cold War/Nixon facet of the story. I just told you in a previous comment how Ozymandias' actions can be an allegory for the ones of Cheney/Obama. And the conflicts of the rest of the heroes were on a personal level.

You're looking too much in the literal narrative, instead of the allegories it stands for.

Yes, it is curious how I seem fixated on the Cold War/Nixon facet; it's almost like you've been aruging about it with me all day.

I feel that Watchmen is contrived, padded with an unecessary secondary plot that has only symbolic connections to the main plot, and in the end, as Dr. Manhattan states, "nothing ever end:" doomsday isn't averted, just delayed. The people aren't enlightened above their destructive path, only manipulated and lied to. And its implied that not only will Ozymandias' artificial peace be short-lived, but the impending backlash will likely be worse than the war he tried to avert, making everything we've read up until now completely pointless.

SnakeoilSage:

I feel that Watchmen is contrived, padded with an unecessary secondary plot that has only symbolic connections to the main plot, and in the end, as Dr. Manhattan states, "nothing ever end:" doomsday isn't averted, just delayed. The people aren't enlightened above their destructive path, only manipulated and lied to. And its implied that not only will Ozymandias' artificial peace be short-lived, but the impending backlash will likely be worse than the war he tried to avert, making everything we've read up until now completely pointless.

And that's exactly how the real world is.

Raiyan 1.0:
And that's exactly how the real world is.

No, it really isn't.

Wasn't the comic basically told through flashbacks most of the time anyway? Why would prequels matter. Also, i didn't read this comic as a story about retired superheroes coming back in action, i read this story about some lunatics dressing up in costumes and shaping a world nobody wants to live in. The comedian is an alcoholic psychopath with little humanity left. Night owl is a sexually frustrated sociopath who can only have sex, while in costume. Rorshach has no humanity left what so ever, and he's basically the worst parts of Batman (y'know the facist, right wing part) Gone insane, kind of symbolising the only thing the city deserves. And Silk Spectre is a dissillusioned teenager inside a thirty year old's body trying to cope with the fact that her mother was a goddamn psycho, respectably. The movie for me accomplished all of those things, but i will say that the ultimate cut is my favorite, not because it's more like the books, but because we see more of the pre-Suckerpunch Zach Snyder taking liberties with the story and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.

SnakeoilSage:

Raiyan 1.0:

SnakeoilSage:

Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War.

Except for the bit where Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre.

And that makes it good because..?

Technically, Kick Ass is a deconstruction of the superhero genre, too.

Why did I keep hearing this Kickass Watchmen comparision?

Even to think about kickass *as* a suprehero deconstruction, it deconstructs as much as it rebuilds, an that only limits to comic itself.

THE Watchmen, on the other hand, deals with the entire hero-loving, success-feathering premise of the American dream; with it's literature, deprived all our hope, leaving only ashes.

When I finished the Kickass, I feel amused; when I finished THE Watchmen, I feel exhausted, and lonely, and sad.

So these two are basically uncomparable.

P. S. is it legal to revive this thread? sorry I'm new here.

ancylostomiasis:

SnakeoilSage:

Raiyan 1.0:

Except for the bit where Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre.

And that makes it good because..?

Technically, Kick Ass is a deconstruction of the superhero genre, too.

Why did I keep hearing this Kickass Watchmen comparision?

Even to think about kickass *as* a suprehero deconstruction, it deconstructs as much as it rebuilds, an that only limits to comic itself.

THE Watchmen, on the other hand, deals with the entire hero-loving, success-feathering premise of the American dream; with it's literature, deprived all our hope, leaving only ashes.

When I finished the Kickass, I feel amused; when I finished THE Watchmen, I feel exhausted, and lonely, and sad.

So these two are basically uncomparable.

P. S. is it legal to revive this thread? sorry I'm new here.

It's the difference of authors. The Kick-Ass comics are basically a hateful rant against the superhero genre, bitterly pointing out how stupid trying to be a super hero would be in the real world. Watchmen doesn't hate superheroes, it just puts them in a situation where bravery and superpowers can't save the day, and they have to deal with the consequences of making harsh decisions they never imagined themselves making. It's like Superman being forced to use a gun to defend himself. Because it's done in a way that makes you sympathize with their decisions, even relate to them, you come out of it sad, because they feel sad.

Kick-Ass on the other hand is just bile. I think Movie-Bob talks about it in his Kick-Ass 2 review, and how he's glad the movies have not stayed true to the source material, instead aiming the movies at a more optimistic portrayal of people trying to be superheroes in the real world. It makes them more sympathetic, even as it points out that you can't be Batman, effortlessly saving the day.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here