Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Roth posted:

Just saying, because I think it would have been incredibly weird had this happened

Well, of course? That's the point. He doesn't do that. Comeon.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Roth
Jul 9, 2016

Zaphod42 posted:

Well, of course? That's literally what I said.

I thought you had meant otherwise, since "Ozymandias was right" is a very common take with Watchmen fans.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Roth posted:

I thought you had meant otherwise, since "Ozymandias was right" is a very common take with Watchmen fans.

I mean, whether Ozy's plan was just or not is tangential to whether Rorschach had changed as a character. The point is Rorschach sees it as wrong, because he is uncompromising. This is the same as he was at the start of the story, so his character is static, and does not undergo an arc. That's all I was saying, which was in response to the goon I quoted. All that holds true whether you think Ozy is a hero or a monster, because its a comment on Rorschach's character.

I do think Ozy is obviously the villain, and I like what the watchmen TV series did with him even if it isn't Moore cannon.

Its good art though because it really makes you think. Beyond just "do the ends justify the means", it raises questions about human beings that we presumably would need to be scared into doing the right thing, but if we'd just get over ourselves we could live in utopia. Also the ending with Rorschach's journal, the truth will make it out, which is a good thing, but then that ends up undoing all those deaths. What does "right" mean in all that mess? Fun stuff to think about.

Of course its all contrived, its basically a galactic trolley problem which never really exists as such.

Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Mar 16, 2021

Mr. Apollo
Nov 8, 2000

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1371644253802143747?s=20

The virtual premier that was supposed to happen tonight is on hold because of the Microsoft Teams outage.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

Roth posted:

I thought you had meant otherwise, since "Ozymandias was right" is a very common take with Watchmen fans.

There is merit to that due to comics supergenius being better than real world supergenius. The entire point is these philosophical points taken to their theoretical extent outside the bounds of human fallacy. Which is why if you take it that way and Manhattan as the arbiter, it leans on the side of utilitarianism in the end.

Which is also why HBO sequel is much better than the comics version in saying "nah," just a band aid and it was ego pretending to be pure utilitarianism.

The REAL Goobusters
Apr 25, 2008

Zaphod42 posted:

Oh for sure. Its just like, where else would you hear about this? I haven't seen commercials about it on TV or the net, I haven't seen movie sites talking about it, so at that point word of mouth from friends is the only way to know. Blockbuster doesn't exist anymore! I guess the ultimate cut may be on HBO max or something?

Literally not lying, the only way to hear about this was definitely within the fans themselves. Interviews from everyone pre release and post release of the original cut. Things execs would say in the press. Things Danny elfman would say. A lot of stuff just wasn’t lining up correctly. Geoff Johns too. There was a lot a ton of coverage of the film shoot as well. Then you got podcasts with people who were there on set or even people like Kevin Smith that had some insider knowledge. Once Zack Snyder joined VERO social network and would consistently hint at things it just felt like more and more people were correct with their suspicions. You really had to search for it if you wanted info on the Snyder cut some years ago. It’s a lot more documented now but back then it was all over the place

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Zaphod42 posted:

No, and its not the point of that story nor what I was saying. Did you not get my point?

Are you arguing that Rorschach did go through a character arc... but just never got a chance to show it? That's not really how characters work?

Or are you saying that by dying he was deciding not to be hypocritical? That's not really supported either.

Either way, the phrase "i'll look down and say, no" is the same attitude as the end. He isn't redeemed or changed. That's the point.

Change isn't the only way for characters to have an arc. In fact, none of the characters really have an arc by that definition and that's sort of the point. Ozymandias is an arrogant prick at the beginning and end. Dryberg and Laurie ultimately have no real convictions at the beginning and end. Manhattan sort of has one, where he's on his way to disconnection from humanity, seems to reconnect, then fucks off. the story just takes them to the natural end that arises from their character flaws: Ozymandias committing mass murder and thinking he's right, Laurie and Dan kind of just accepting that and Rorschach actually sticking to his guns.

Assuming that a character arc requires some change of beliefs is a bit prescriptivist.

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

"There's no such thing as a Snyder Cut, and you're delusional for thinking so!"

"Even if there is a Snyder Cut, it wouldn't differ substantially from the Whedon version."

"All the additional footage couldn't possibly save this turd of a movie, no matter what."

"The positive reviews are just paid shills." <=== We Are Here

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

Darko posted:

There is merit to that due to comics supergenius being better than real world supergenius. The entire point is these philosophical points taken to their theoretical extent outside the bounds of human fallacy. Which is why if you take it that way and Manhattan as the arbiter, it leans on the side of utilitarianism in the end.

Which is also why HBO sequel is much better than the comics version in saying "nah," just a band aid and it was ego pretending to be pure utilitarianism.

the hbo show thought the solution to racism was to turn a corrupt cop into a god

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Darko posted:

There is merit to that due to comics supergenius being better than real world supergenius. The entire point is these philosophical points taken to their theoretical extent outside the bounds of human fallacy. Which is why if you take it that way and Manhattan as the arbiter, it leans on the side of utilitarianism in the end.

Which is also why HBO sequel is much better than the comics version in saying "nah," just a band aid and it was ego pretending to be pure utilitarianism.

Yeah exactly.

And if you want to explore the idea of the horrors of utilitarianism given prescience, there's always Dune :) (Really more in Messiah, Children, God Emperor, but yeah)

Snowman_McK posted:

Change isn't the only way for characters to have an arc. In fact, none of the characters really have an arc by that definition and that's sort of the point. Ozymandias is an arrogant prick at the beginning and end. Dryberg and Laurie ultimately have no real convictions at the beginning and end. Manhattan sort of has one, where he's on his way to disconnection from humanity, seems to reconnect, then fucks off. the story just takes them to the natural end that arises from their character flaws: Ozymandias committing mass murder and thinking he's right, Laurie and Dan kind of just accepting that and Rorschach actually sticking to his guns.

Assuming that a character arc requires some change of beliefs is a bit prescriptivist.

Well, what would you define a character arc as then? Ultimately we're getting into an argument of semantics if we aren't careful here. What really matters is the concepts more than the words.

But its possible we're just on an entirely different page on what we're meaning here so good to be clear.

A plot arc can certainly not require characters to change, but I feel like a character arc does. Manhattan does have an arc in that we experience (in the comics especially non-chronologically) how he goes from a normal person to a god, and how his relationships fall apart and he fucks off to Mars. By the end he basically doesn't care about humans. That's change I think. I agree most of the characters don't change, and like I said before a good story (with plot arcs) can still have static characters. I would say Dan does grow a bit, he realizes that he's impotent because his life is boring and he misses being a caped hero (even if he was bad at it), Silk Spectre learns about her father and spends time with Dan instead of Manhattan, they change a bit. But definitely Rorschach is a constant.

Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Mar 16, 2021

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

Mantis42 posted:

the hbo show thought the solution to racism was to turn a corrupt cop into a god

Nope, it was a black woman that fell into the same trap her gay grandfather did about believing she could utilize people that bought into the system against it. It was only after rejecting the system completely that she got Godhood. Note she was specifically not a cop and found out her cop boss was literal Klan at the point when she got that power. And only because culturally appropriating Manhattan got Jungle Fever. Which is funny.

Seyser Koze
Dec 15, 2013

Mucho Mucho
Nap Ghost

Mantis42 posted:

"There's no such thing as a Snyder Cut, and you're delusional for thinking so!"

"Even if there is a Snyder Cut, it wouldn't differ substantially from the Whedon version."

"All the additional footage couldn't possibly save this turd of a movie, no matter what."

"The positive reviews are just paid shills." <=== We Are Here

— 9th March, the Anthropophagus has quitted his den

— 10th, the Corsican Ogre has landed at Cape Juan

— 11th, the Tiger has arrived at Gap

— 12th, the Monster slept at Grenoble

— 13th, the Tyrant has passed through Lyons

— 14th, the Usurper is directing his steps towards Dijon, but the brave and loyal Burgundians have risen en masse and surrounded him on all sides

— 18th, Bonaparte is only sixty leagues from the capital; he has been fortunate enough to escape the hands of his pursuers

— 19th, Bonaparte is advancing with rapid steps, but he will never enter Paris

— 20th, Napoleon will, tomorrow, be under our ramparts

— 21st, the Emperor is at Fontainbleau

— 22nd, His Imperial and Royal Majesty, yesterday evening, arrived at the Tuileries, amidst the joyful acclamations of his devoted and faithful subjects.

Piell
Sep 3, 2006

Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer


Young Orc
The Snyder cut didn't exist. Thats why they paid 70 million to make it

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Zaphod42 posted:

Yeah exactly.

And if you want to explore the idea of the horrors of utilitarianism given prescience, there's always Dune :) (Really more in Messiah, Children, God Emperor, but yeah)


Well, what would you define a character arc as then? Ultimately we're getting into an argument of semantics if we aren't careful here. What really matters is the concepts more than the words.

But its possible we're just on an entirely different page on what we're meaning here so good to be clear.

A plot arc can certainly not require characters to change, but I feel like a character arc does. Manhattan does have an arc in that we experience (in the comics especially non-chronologically) how he goes from a normal person to a god, and how his relationships fall apart and he fucks off to Mars. By the end he basically doesn't care about humans. That's change I think. I agree most of the characters don't change, and like I said before a good story (with plot arcs) can still have static characters. I would say Dan does grow a bit, he realizes that he's impotent because his life is boring and he misses being a caped hero (even if he was bad at it), Silk Spectre learns about her father and spends time with Dan instead of Manhattan, they change a bit. But definitely Rorschach is a constant.

You're largely describing changes in their circumstances, not their characters. If you take how they react to Ozy's plan as the indication of whether they have arcs, none of them have arcs, since, despite their journeys through the story, they are still the fundamentally flawed people they were at the beginning. The ending reveals those flaws as permanent, immutable.

AccountSupervisor
Aug 3, 2004

I am greatful for my loop pedal

Piell posted:

The Snyder cut didn't exist. Thats why they paid 70 million to make it

Well it exists now so may I ask who in the flying son of krypton gives a gently caress anymore.

This isnt even meant to be at you, just in general, that entire debate just seems utterly petty and unbelievably childish now that were here, majority positive reviews out and just awaiting official release.



AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Mar 16, 2021

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Snowman_McK posted:

You're largely describing changes in their circumstances, not their characters.

They're intertwined, as they usually are. One drives the other.

Snowman_McK posted:

If you take how they react to Ozy's plan as the indication of whether they have arcs, none of them have arcs, since, despite their journeys through the story, they are still the fundamentally flawed people they were at the beginning. The ending reveals those flaws as permanent, immutable.

Why does that have to be the thing that defines it? The point is that that's a conflict for Rorschach. That's why I cited it. Just because that's the climax doesn't mean that's the only way to indicate a character change; there's other ways your character can change. Having a character trait that changes and ties into the climax of the plot can definitely be very thematic or good writing, but I don't think its inherently necessary for all characters. Some can change in ways that just drive the plot forward before that point, for one.

But if your argument is that all the characters in Watchmen are pretty static, yeah I generally agree. I feel like I was having one conversation (Rorschach doesn't change) and now you're coming at me trying to discuss something completely different (all the characters don't change!) which doesn't contradict my point at all? Or are you saying that they all DO change, just not in that way? I'm lost on what you're driving at.

I asked you "Well, what would you define a character arc as then?" and you didn't even try to answer it, which seems odd? That's the most straightforward way to move this conversation forward. Just supply a definition and then we can both be on the same page. I'll let you pick whatever you want so I'm not being prescriptivist. But you're refusing to even offer a stance.

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

Naw, Zaphod is right in that Manhattan, Dan and Laurie have arcs. Manhattan finally rejects the last of his humanity and learns to appreciate life on it's own terms while accepting his godhood. Dan learns to embrace his love of masked violence and to stop living in the past/in fear. Laurie goes from seeing her life as this awful burden thrust upon her by an uncaring mother to learning to understand and forgive the mistakes of past generations, etc.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Zaphod42 posted:

Why does that have to be the thing that defines it?

Because that's the scene that you chose to demonstrate that Rorschach doesn't have an arc. I'm very much going off your rules.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Snowman_McK posted:

Because that's the scene that you chose to demonstrate that Rorschach doesn't have an arc. I'm very much going off your rules.

One scene defining one character doesn't mean that's the only scene that could define any character, that doesn't follow at all. That's some massive oversimplification.

That's some "a baseball is an example of a ball, so all balls are baseballs" logic right there. That's not a fair logical interpretation of what I said.

I'm going to ask you again, "What is a character arc if not personal growth or change?"

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

AccountSupervisor posted:

Well it exists now so may I ask who in the flying son of krypton gives a gently caress anymore.

This isnt even meant to be at you, just in general, that entire debate just seems utterly petty and unbelievably childish now that were here, majority positive reviews out and just awaiting official release.

It's literally people that can't say "I made a mistake" holding on to it.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Zaphod42 posted:

One scene defining one character doesn't mean that's the only scene that could define any character, that doesn't follow at all. That's some massive oversimplification.

That's some "a baseball is an example of a ball, so all balls are baseballs" logic right there. That's not a fair logical interpretation of what I said.

I'm going to ask you again, "What is a character arc if not personal growth or change?"

It kind of follows when it's the story's penultimate scene and, in every case, it's entirely in tune with who they were at the beginning of the story too.

I actually answered that somewhere above, but just in case i forgot, it could also be a change in circumstances revealing who they always were.

Mr. Apollo
Nov 8, 2000

Mr. Apollo posted:

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1371644253802143747?s=20

The virtual premier that was supposed to happen tonight is on hold because of the Microsoft Teams outage.

Zack is getting mad.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

Snowman_McK posted:

Because that's the scene that you chose to demonstrate that Rorschach doesn't have an arc. I'm very much going off your rules.

I'd argue he doesn't have an arc outside of his backstory, which is also his issue since he's the only one that can't evolve. That's why he is the one that dies, outside of Comedian, which is just a point to show Ozy is flawed.

Piell
Sep 3, 2006

Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer


Young Orc

Darko posted:

It's literally people that can't say "I made a mistake" holding on to it.

Its literally a response to someone mocking the claim in the first place. Factually, the snyder cut didn't exist

As far as the movie itself i expect it to be decently good but overly long

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Darko posted:

I'd argue he doesn't have an arc outside of his backstory, which is also his issue since he's the only one that can't evolve. That's why he is the one that dies, outside of Comedian, which is just a point to show Ozy is flawed.

I would argue that Laurie and Dan also don't evolve. They're both comfortable and complacent at the lovely state of the world at the beginning, and in the end they find a way to be at peace with yet more awfulness. It works as a meta commentary on the nature of comic books as well, that no matter what shenanigans a character might go through in a story, they're forbidden from fundamentally changing.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Snowman_McK posted:

It kind of follows when it's the story's penultimate scene and, in every case, it's entirely in tune with who they were at the beginning of the story too.

I actually answered that somewhere above, but just in case i forgot, it could also be a change in circumstances revealing who they always were.

Yeah but like I already said above, it could take place earlier in a story. What if they weren't present? What if the part of their character that changed wouldn't affect how they view Ozy, but themselves or the world (see: Dan, Silk) What if the story has multiple plots or themes? It depends.

That's... feels like a tricky edge case scenario. You've got me there, although I'd say that still counts as a "change" of personality of sorts. But it feels funny to call what I said earlier Prescriptivist and then not actually have a vastly different answer!

Anyways, I don't think Rorschach had a reveal of who he always was (a hypocrite) at the end, he stood by his guns on that one, so it seems like we're mostly in violent agreement here.

AccountSupervisor
Aug 3, 2004

I am greatful for my loop pedal

Piell posted:

Its literally a response to someone mocking the claim in the first place. Factually, the snyder cut didn't exist

As far as the movie itself i expect it to be decently good but overly long

Correct, a snydercut existed.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Zaphod42 posted:

Yeah but like I already said above, it could take place earlier in a story. What if they weren't present? What if the part of their character that changed wouldn't affect how they view Ozy, but themselves or the world (see: Dan, Silk) What if the story has multiple plots or themes? It depends.

In all those hypothetical situations, you're right, it wouldn't work. However, in Watchmen, it does work, though.

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

Snowman_McK posted:

I would argue that Laurie and Dan also don't evolve. They're both comfortable and complacent at the lovely state of the world at the beginning, and in the end they find a way to be at peace with yet more awfulness. It works as a meta commentary on the nature of comic books as well, that no matter what shenanigans a character might go through in a story, they're forbidden from fundamentally changing.

They arguably become much worst people but negative growth is still an arc.

e: Basically the Ozymandias scene does represent the fulfillment of their arcs, in that it they actively choose to buy into the ideology of the superhero by supporting Veidt, whereas at the beginning of the story they're internally conflicted over their superhero nature.

Mantis42 fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Mar 16, 2021

2house2fly
Nov 14, 2012

You did a super job wrapping things up! And I'm not just saying that because I have to!
Rorschach's actual arc is to get a bit easier to deal with once he and Dan start palling around again, apologising to Dan when he goes too far insulting Laurie etc. Dan is his link to the world, like Laurie is for Dr Manhattan- he's on the opposite end of the spectrum, where Manhattan is the literally galaxy-brained Adonis and Rorschach is the scrawny stinking bigot who can barely talk

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

Piell posted:

Its literally a response to someone mocking the claim in the first place. Factually, the snyder cut didn't exist

As far as the movie itself i expect it to be decently good but overly long

It did factually exist which is the problem. Everyone who cares about film knows assembly cuts exist that are shown to studios. This is what was asked for. This existed.

The trolls that are attacking the people asking for that obviously know nothing about film and are just going after a strawman.

2house2fly
Nov 14, 2012

You did a super job wrapping things up! And I'm not just saying that because I have to!

Mantis42 posted:

They arguably become much worst people but negative growth is still an arc.

Oh for sure. Rorschach and Manhattan are like an angel and a devil on their shoulders when they find out what Veidt did. The glowing invincible godlike being says it's OK, and the ugly hateful tramp says it isn't OK. They end up listening to the angel, of course!

I like the movie adding a bit where Dan witnesses Rorschach's death and attacks Veidt. It's like even with having the atrocity brought home to him directly in front of his face like that... he doesn't have what it takes. He just leaves and gets on with his life

The REAL Goobusters
Apr 25, 2008
It’s just moving goal posts. You won’t win with those people. I would just ignore tbh

CelticPredator
Oct 11, 2013
🍀👽🆚🪖🏋

So in 2003 the alien quadrilogy had an assembly cut of Alien 3. The extra scenes were unfinished and rough. The audio was broken for a lot of these extra scenes. It added a lot. It was almost like a new film. But it was incomplete.

For the anthology they remastered the clips and had actors including Weaver and Dance come back for ADR to complete it. And now when you watch it it’s a complete movie.



So does that mean the assembly cut didn’t exist because they didn’t spend money touching it up?

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Mantis42 posted:

They arguably become much worst people but negative growth is still an arc.

e: Basically the Ozymandias scene does represent the fulfillment of their arcs, in that it they actively choose to buy into the ideology of the superhero by supporting Veidt, whereas at the beginning of the story they're internally conflicted over their superhero nature.

i don't think they do buy specifically into the ideology of the superhero, I think they accept the idea that 'someone else will sort it out' which is, i guess, an aspect of the superhero. It's just that they're not heroes themselves anymore and accept this. It parallel where they are at the beginning, both having settled into supporting roles in life.

Mr. Apollo
Nov 8, 2000

Here are two promo clips. No spoilers or anything. One is a brief clip of Diana vs Steppenwolf in the tunnel and the other is the League discussing using the Motherbox to bring back Superman in the Wayne Hanger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-duMaYnxVE

ruddiger
Jun 3, 2004

Mantis42 posted:

the hbo show thought the solution to racism was to turn a corrupt cop into a god

While she was a corrupt cop propping up a corrupt system, I would think learning her adopted father who raised her and nurtured her cop ideology was a card carrying member of the ku klux klan and her real father was a closeted gay African American police officer in the 50s who gave birth to vigilantism, not to fight purse snatchers but to kill racist cops, might have changed her views somewhat by the end of the show.

teagone
Jun 10, 2003

That was pretty intense, huh?

Piell posted:

Factually, the snyder cut didn't exist

:wrong:

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Mantis42 posted:

They arguably become much worst people but negative growth is still an arc.

e: Basically the Ozymandias scene does represent the fulfillment of their arcs, in that it they actively choose to buy into the ideology of the superhero by supporting Veidt, whereas at the beginning of the story they're internally conflicted over their superhero nature.

Snowman_McK posted:

i don't think they do buy specifically into the ideology of the superhero, I think they accept the idea that 'someone else will sort it out' which is, i guess, an aspect of the superhero. It's just that they're not heroes themselves anymore and accept this. It parallel where they are at the beginning, both having settled into supporting roles in life.

Its less the aspect of the superhero and more specifically the aspect of the vigilante (to bring things back to MvS!)

I see where Mantis42 is coming from, they start as disillusioned with vigilanteeism and then by the end they accept that on a larger scale Ozy being a huge celebrity and killing to make the world a better place is okay.

But I think I'm with you that overall its not so much them buying into vigilanteeism so much as just accepting they are powerless and it has already been done. In a way, once already done, trying to out the truth is just compounding on the loss. Their hands are forced by Veidt, and initially they are against him until they learn its already happened and his plan was a success.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AccountSupervisor
Aug 3, 2004

I am greatful for my loop pedal

Mr. Apollo posted:

Here are two promo clips. No spoilers or anything. One is a brief clip of Diana vs Steppenwolf in the tunnel and the other is the League discussing using the Motherbox to bring back Superman in the Wayne Hanger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-duMaYnxVE

Maaaaan that little detail of her putting her lasso away, busting out her shield and then flipping her sword in her hands :cool:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply