Who watches the Watchmen? thread

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > Who watches the Watchmen? thread

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

lurker2006 posted:

Am I the only one who finds the old man lynching Judd to be kind of off putting? However much of a piece of poo poo Judd might secretly be the brutality of how he was killed seems at odds with the ah shucks demeanor of the old man and the seemingly genuine affection Judd had for Angela.

I mean I definitely felt like what happened to Judd was uncomfortably brutal and tough to see given the time we�d spent with him, but were we supposed to react differently? I don�t think the intent was for anybody to go �gently caress yeah� in that moment, it�s horrifying for both the viewer and the character, regardless of what we might suspect.

I always get super sad at the Comedian�s death in Watchmen too, not because he wasn�t a piece of poo poo, but because there�s something inherently sad and helpless about such a tough old secretly sentimental son of a bitch getting beaten that thoroughly and killed that violently. It�s a normal reaction imo

# ¿ Nov 3, 2019 19:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:05

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Rocksicles posted:

I think i hate this thread...

it�s not great

# ¿ Nov 4, 2019 17:06

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Mameluke posted:

We do see at least one obvious consequence of reparations in the first episode, that Angela used hers to buy the soon-to-open bakery she uses as a cover story.

I also noticed, during the briefing on Angela, there's a line about her kids at the bottom that's always cut off by the one agent's head. I wonder when we're going to learn more about their situation

Also, what the hell was with all the dirty looks Cal was flinging Laurie? Between that and him vanishing on the White Night, something is totally up.

is there reason to think there's more to her kids? we already know they were her partner's children, and she adopted them after they were orphaned during the White Night.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2019 17:47

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

The spacesuit and frozen clone thing definitely makes me believe the idea that Veidt is on Mars or something but I just can�t get past that all these scenarios just don�t seem like poo poo Dr Manhattan would do. Even if dude really did have renewed interest in life, human or otherwise, sealing Veidt in an elaborate fake 18th century Scottish estate for unknown reasons seems needlessly complicated in a very human way that I can�t imagine Manhattan being interested in. And if it is punishment or a lesson or whatever, it seems uncharacteristically petty or pointed.

To me it seems like the kind of obtuse dandy poo poo Veidt would think up, not the Doctor. Dammit, I need more data

# ¿ Nov 5, 2019 17:32

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

It is really hard for me to imagine anyone besides Billy Crudup voicing Manhattan

# ¿ Nov 6, 2019 17:00

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Sleeveless posted:

For like a second I was rolling my eyes at someone unironically quoting the Shelley poem in a way that goes completely against the meaning of it and then I remembered that OZY Fest exists and that I overestimated humanity.

�admittedly ours is a stupid and wrong interpretation - because that�s who we are�

# ¿ Nov 6, 2019 17:27

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

I mean, Ozymandias is extremely dumb. His whole plan is idiotic

# ¿ Nov 6, 2019 19:33

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Nail Rat posted:

Speaking of Ozy and lack of security/safetey, I never really got the scene in the comics where Rorschach is talking to him in his office and there are giant open windows....high up in a skyscraper...in heavy rain.

there were open windows? maybe the movie is running together with the book in my mind

# ¿ Nov 6, 2019 20:13

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

duck trucker posted:

A military child only speaking English but understanding another language being spoken back to them is not something to get hung up on.

this is how i am with Spanish. I took years and years of it and have spent most of my life immersed in exclusively Spanish speaking communities but i�m a dumb motherfucker who�s never got any real intuitive grasp of being able to write or speak it. but i can understand it being spoken to me just fine. it�s weird

# ¿ Dec 4, 2019 17:59

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

its just too weird for me that its not billy crudup manhattan. i knew obviously it wouldnt be but i didn�t realize how much i�d internalized that depiction of him

# ¿ Dec 9, 2019 04:49

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

this episode�s veidt stuff felt like a direct refutation of the reading of veidt as anything other than a deluded narcissist shithead which i really enjoy

# ¿ Dec 9, 2019 05:19

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

feedmyleg posted:

That was clunky as hell. Some good moments for sure, but overall a pretty big disappointment. Jon approaches Angela and falls for her because... the plot necessitates it? Very weak. All the Adrian stuff was gold though.

he falls for her because he tells her she can�t save him and she tries anyway. he experiences time non-linearly, it�s not any more plot necessitated than any reason for anyone falling in love with anyone

if you take issue with deterministic universe hijinks watchmen may not be your bag baby

# ¿ Dec 9, 2019 05:31

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

feedmyleg posted:

Yeah, I got that. But unless there's some revelation in the next episode that he was consciously using falling in love with Angela as a means to an end because she was the only person who was at the center of this all and he wanted to preserve humanity, then it only exists as a coincidental plot contrivance. He didn't meet Angela organically and then events feel into place deterministically, he met her because the story dictated that he go meet her. Without intent it's coincidence and feels cheap.

what are you talking about

# ¿ Dec 9, 2019 05:40

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:

I'm glad I got bored and slept through the movie as that seems to be the sticking point for people who didn't like this episode.

yeah it doesn�t help. I liked the episode though, has some rough moments (doc�s CGI/makeup looks hilarious, they should not have had that really silly line from Angela stating the obvious) but overall i was super hooked. its not the shows fault billy crudup/snyder just absolutely crushed that part in the movie

# ¿ Dec 9, 2019 06:08

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Le Saboteur posted:

I think Yahya Abdul-Mateens performance as Manhattan is a nice growth on Crudups performance. He�s clearly become a different being since the 80s, with Veidt even remarking on it. It�s easy enough for me to admire both performances.

thats sort of how i came around on if as the episode progressed. he�s matured more and gotten better at reconciling his godhood and humanity it feels like.

a big thing people apparently still misunderstand about the character (despite the text explicitly pointing it out) is that doc is not a god, not emotionless, and not omniscient. he is a man with many of the powers of a god. he still gets boners and chases jailbait, is susceptible to being tricked, to vanity, to selfishness, to making mistakes, to being wrong, to getting mad or sad or lonely, or arriving at the wrong conclusions.

its the same people who take veidt on his word that he�s an infallible self assured genius just doing necessary evil and is ultimately Right, and as evidence of that rightness cite doc�s agreement.

for some reason many people just accept these characters� claims about who they are/how they see themselves but do not engage with the straight up text of who they actually are.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2019 06:24

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

King Of Coons posted:

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of mental gymnastics white men are willing to perform to deny rorschach is a misogynistic, racist, homophobe. It's endlessly entertaining while simultaneously filling me with a deep sadness.

hey we only know for sure that he�s a misogynist homophobe

i mean he�s almost definitely a racist too but i don�t remember him actually making any racist comments in the book

# ¿ Dec 11, 2019 18:11

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

tadashi posted:

The racism is implied because, if he believes the other stuff, it follows he's a racist.

well yeah. that and the white supremacists wearing his face think he�s super cool and i mean if anybody�s gonna know

# ¿ Dec 11, 2019 19:29

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Zaphod42 posted:

Yeah this is wrong.

Man I'm sad that everybody is getting so hungup on Manhattan.

Its not that he can't change his mind. Its that he already made up his mind and already did the thing. Its always "too late" for him to choose something different, because it already happened.

Manhattan can pick any choice he wants at any moment. But he can't change his options based on the past or future any more than we can. You can't change what you had for breakfast because it already happened. Its set in stone.

You say "well, why can't Manhattan look forward, see what happens, and then change something?" Because for him to see it, it has to already have happened.

One goon explained it well a couple pages ago, for Manhattan everything is happening simultaneously. Imagine we were to create a billion clones of manhattan and teleport each clone to a different second of time. Each clone makes the best decision he can. All that happens *before* the show starts, because if Manhattan knows what happens, it has to be decided already.

That's why he still reacts to things in the moment as though he didn't already know them, but he did also already know them. The moment where he is told already happened. He knows that he'll be told, but he was told before he was able to see that he'll be told. Its all happening simultaneously.

this is the correct explanation

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 01:00

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

Zaphod42 posted:

This is where it gets real tricky, but I think its still all consistent.

Jon does know things that will happen before they do, like how he tells Angela in the bar that they're going to go out on a date. Its not that he can't see the future. He just can't change his own actions.

He always talked to Angela and always talked to Will. That's consistent. He doesn't change anything about what he does.

The part where it gets real tricky is because Angela and Will are both experiencing time in a linear forward fashion, and out of order, and ask him something, and then make up their minds based on what he tells them.

So it seems like Angela has to ask Jon before Jon can ask Will. But if Time isn't this linear flow but this one constant thing, then that "order of operations" doesn't really need to exist at all. Angela needs to ask Jon, and Jon needs to tell Will. Jon tells Will, and then Angela asks Jon. The order doesn't matter, because of Manhattan. Both will happen, that's all that matters.

Manhattan himself couldn't really do that, because he's already experienced all time. But Angela and Will haven't. Like... (and this is where it gets super confusing) from Manhattan's perspective they have, but from their own perspective when he tells them they haven't yet, and then they make a decision, and then Manhattan sees that decision and knows they were always going to make it before they did.

The show is very comfortable with time paradoxes as long as they're completely consistent in the end. How the paradox "got started" is unknowable, and that's the "chicken and egg" problem that the show tried to explain so much.

this is also correct

it isn�t that hard to understand. angela always asked doc that question and he always asked will who always found out that way. it happened that way because it always happened that way. it was able to always happen that way because of doc.

it�s a deterministic universe. doc is a puppet who can see the strings. he�s not a puppeteer and any apparent puppeteering he does only appears to be so due to everyone else including us perceiving events he is involved in linearly

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 01:46

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

laurie loving sucks and always has

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 02:50

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

even blue men crave young flesh

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 07:54

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

beanieson posted:

Well poo poo. Did goons miss this prior to now? I don�t remember seeing it itt

i dont know if it came up in this topic but i think one dude on reddit caught it

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 16:02

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

AtraMorS posted:

So I've always preferred to read the comic's Manhattan a lot differently. Don't get me wrong, the explanation of Manhattan y'all are going over is valid in the comic and enforced in the show, but Manhattan always made more sense to me this way:

He can't actually see the future. That part is just bullshit. He's just a really good predictor of things, kind of like parlor trick predictions. He thinks he can see the future--he's not exactly lying to everyone or pulling a con--but he wants time to work this way. It absolves him of making actual choices or dealing with the responsibility of choice, and he is loving terrified of responsibility. His whole life, he's let other people choose his path. Dad says I'll be a watchmaker, so I'll be a watchmaker. Now dad says it's physics, so it's physics. What's that? Burn down a Vietnamese village? Yes, Mr. President. The idea that all this has already happened is just what he wants to be true, and the root cause of his detachment from humanity isn't his godlike powers; it's a fear of free will.

It's been a while since the last time I read it so correct me if I'm wrong, but if you get really skeptical about it, the comic never gives you any actual proof that he's all that omniscient. You do get that sequence where he's talking about past and present happening at once, but that sequence conspicuously never shows us anything that would happen later in the comic that we, as readers, could use to confirm his abilities. So I see him in the comic a lot more like Billy Pilgrim in that he absolutely believes what he's saying, but he's still a very unreliable authority, at least on the way time works. It's entirely possible that he's making it all up, the same way Pilgrim may be making up the Trafalmadorians to rationalize PTSD flashbacks.

I dunno, those two characters have such a similar presentation of time that once I got the idea in my head that Doc might be similarly unreliable, I couldn't get it out.

while i don�t think the not actually being able to see the future thing holds up (because he doesn�t make any claim to seeing the future because there is no future, determinism, non linear time blabla etc) i think the rest of your read on Doc�s personality/flaws is spot on. imo it�s important to always remember that about the guy. not only is he not a god, he is a man who is flawed in a lot of very clear and relatably human ways, and his detachment circa 85 is as much a result of his emotional immaturity and self absorption as it is anything else. he�s like a teen dude hitting his ayn rand libertarian phase hard. by the HBO show we see he seems to have matured somewhat

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 17:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:05

Mandrel: Sep 24, 2006

also regarding doc faking seeing the future, he never pretends to be able to see all the future, it�s just his own. any theories or claims he makes to things that don�t directly involve him ARE just educated guesses based on his own lived experiences (all of which he is experiencing all of the time at once). he outright states he isn�t omniscient at all.

he cannot see the future, only his own future, which isn�t future at all to him

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 18:05

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > Who watches the Watchmen? thread