What do you think of the movie/book Watchmen?

Through Mary, Comforter of the Afflicted,

Now I know what your thinking: ‘Ooh! a comic book fan! Fascist!’ Well don’t. I’m one of those people who thinks that just because they are not into comics or are very fond of philosophical stuff it means that such people are idiots or losers (even though everyone should find out the meaning of life and search for the true faith). I also don’t make up excuses for the ‘moral lapses’ of the famed creators and writers of such comics.

That said, what do people think on both the movie and comic of Watchmen? I never went to see the film in theaters, but then I started to read about film itself, and then the book and I started to get interested. I saw clips of the film on you tube and I got hooked. I understood the message that Watchmen was trying to bring and rather than being an anarchist, cruel, nasty, nauseating film, it actually is the complete opposite as it gave me more hope, with the Blessed Virgins help than ever.

And no, Watchmen is NOT anti-women, it is NOT anarchist like V for Vendetta (which I haven’t read), it is NOT pornographic and it certainly isn’t bad in the least. I mean, good grief, I can’t describe how much I love the comic and the film.

If you haven’t seen the film, than I suggest buying the directors cut (the theatrical cut is good but the directors cut is much better) and with a Catholic mind and trust in the Blessed Virgin (seriously, if it weren’t for confidence in Mary I think I would have totally missed the point) see it. In fact, here are a few scenes from the film itself but beware, they contain SPOILERS Also, beware as they contain violence, bad words and sexual references but really, they aren’t done to shock but for the art.

The Comedian fights an attempted murderer: youtube.com/watch?v=zx9bttHYZz8

The famous opening scene showing the comics back story. In the very first clip, the first Nite Owl is defending a family from a robber with a gun. Notice the posters in the background showing Batman, implying that in this universe, Nite Owl killed Batman off from ever existing. Well, thats a cruel joke! youtube.com/watch?v=14vTrFyHO94

The best of Rorschach. I’ll be talking about Rorschach below as he is unarguably my favorite character in the whole book, even though he is not much of a role model: youtube.com/watch?v=VY4_hfqQW0E&feature=related

Dr. Osterman transforms into the god like Doctor Manhattan: youtube.com/watch?v=NDGhd3mlAbc

Watchmen Vietnam. This scene is very disturbing. There is no gore but a guy shoots a pregnant woman:(. No, he certainly is one of the most despicable characters in all of fiction: youtube.com/watch?v=vAt3za6aN94&feature=related


Granted, I’ve lost my hope that humanity by itself can do any good. Richard Dawkins, on of the most bigoted and ignorant atheists in the world (his answer to not knowing alot about catholic doctrine? That we don’t need evidence to not believe in leprechauns :banghead:) says that humanity does not need religion to advance the morals of the people but that they simply '‘evolved’ it. Did the Aztecs and Incas, one of the most murderous and uncivilized tribes that existed, moral with their polygamy and mass murder? Were the Romans moral with all their sex and rape? I don’t think so, and rather than humans by themselves advancing morals, it has been proved time and time again that we mutilate them. What about slavery? What about all the wars and perversions which even Catholics themselves committed?

What I’m saying is that we need Mary and God’s help, or rather God through Mary’s help in order to advance and live life to the fullest.

not this is really even related to your post by much but, I’ve often wondered how much of Dr.Manhattan was actual actor versus gifting him with a lot of extra cgi…:stuck_out_tongue: (it should be blatantly obvious which appendage I am refering to) :rotfl:

Actually, I think the CGI makes him more God like. It doesn’t appear to be too fake and in fact tey spent 10 million dollars of the budget on Doc. Manhattan.

I thought the film was very good and unusually true to the book. What did you think of the ending though? Was it better in the book, where the alien was the enemy, or in the film where Dr. Manhattan was the enemy?

Rorschach is definitely my favourite character as well.

The whole idea of changing a detail (in the case, the outcome of the Vietnam war) and how that would alter reality is a powerful idea!

Granted, I’ve lost my hope that humanity by itself can do any good. Richard Dawkins, on of the most bigoted and ignorant atheists in the world (his answer to not knowing alot about catholic doctrine? That we don’t need evidence to not believe in leprechauns ) says that humanity does not need religion to advance the morals of the people but that they simply '‘evolved’ it. Did the Aztecs and Incas, one of the most murderous and uncivilized tribes that existed, moral with their polygamy and mass murder? Were the Romans moral with all their sex and rape? I don’t think so, and rather than humans by themselves advancing morals, it has been proved time and time again that we mutilate them. What about slavery? What about all the wars and perversions which even Catholics themselves committed?

I’ve lost my hope in humanity as well; though I envy you retained faith in God. When you give up on people and lack a faith in God it can make life in this world be a very bleak and pointless existance.

Anyways to the point of the OP.

I read the comic, the only hero in there was Rorschach.

Everyone else swallowed Ozymandias lie and played along with it out of utilitarian reasoning-leaving truth to die underneath a false utopia.

I’m a huge Alan Moore fan. I like the fact that he makes his stories ambiguous and the movie did a great job of retaining that. The movie is great, I wish all the other Alan Moore based movies were this good (looks angrily at League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.).

I have to disagree. First off, with Rorschach being the ONLY hero… you must realize that Doc Manhattan, Nite Owl and Silk Spectre only agreed to not expose Veidt to protect people from suffering from something much worse: World War III. They were damned if they stayed quite and Earth was damned if they didn’t. They kept it to themselves to protect people. While you can’t support their decision you must understand why they did it. It wasn’t because they were cowards, it was because they wanted to protect people.

Irena Gut was a Catholic girl (who sadly fell out of the Church in 1956, and with this in mind it wasn’t because the Church ‘did nothing’ to help the Jews because it did and even the flipping Israeli government admitted it.) who hid Jews in some place. A German Nazi bastard found out but instead of turning them in, he made a deal with her that she have sex with him in exchange for not revealing the Jews’ whereabouts. She did and she was upset. That was rape, pure an simple. When she went to a country Priest, he, without being anti-semitic, without being a jerk but purely because he cared for her soul, he told her to turn them out. This is a real life case of moral ambiguity as what did she have to do? Let herself be raped and molested everyday and preserve her soul but sending the Jews to their deaths or would she continue being raped? Was the Priest a villain because he basically told her to not let herself suffer such an ordeal?

What she did was heroic but what the priest did wasn’t villainous. Its, confusing.

When Rorschach wanted to expose veidt, he only wanted to do it to not only protect the honor of those people who died but to go totally against deceiving the world in order to do good. Veidt didn’t make people more moral, he mutilated human dignity and morality.

Also, the reason Rorschach chose to die reveals something else about his character: that in the end, he always wanted to have hope in people, that he really loves those who are good and all that. Remember when he called President Trumann and the Comedian ‘Patriots’? Well, apparently the events of WATCHMEN changed his mind on them as he didn’t appreciate blowing up millions of innocent people to save billions. In fact, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how were those innocent Japanese guilty of war crimes?

Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.

There are some other things that hit me alot but well, I’m going to wait for what other people think. In the meanwhile, here is some funny Watchmen stuff:

youtube.com/watch?v=cOhk8BWeD2Q There is one sexual joke but it is pretty mild and this is very funny.

Funniesr still. Did you know there was a Watchmen animated series? NOT! The cartoon short is riddled with Watchmen lore. You just have to see it’s usbtlety, its genuis! youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w&feature=related

(SPOILERS!) I like both endings. The squid in the comic made sense, as it united the countries of the woprld to fight agaisnt an alien threat. The ending in the film also made snese to me. For one thing, the scale of destruction was wider, with major cities in the world being destroyed, making it seem as if ALL the countries in the world are in danger. Secondly, humans will agree on anything. If they saw Doctor Mahattan, a god they know exists and who is very dangerous, while at the same time knowing SOME of his limits, hell bent on the world’s destruction, they’d fight agaisnt him.

They changed the ending now it sucks! People drew the line here. Both endings make sense at least to me and I stated my reaosns why I believe this to be so.

The ending in the comic is there because Watchmen is in some sense a deconstructionist work and is iconoclastic in that it is knocking down typical plots like this found in decades worth of superhero comics. Such a description though is reductionist. Watchmen was meant originally to use characters from the Charlton comic book company that DC had bought the rights to. However the DC president and others had plans for these characters to be revamped and used elsewhere so that was not allowed. All the major characters in Watchmen have rough analogs in the preceding Charlton characters, although some of the minor characters do not or fit the template of two or three characters combined. Rorschach is based on the Question who was a character with a similar black and white approach to justice as his creator is a well known proponent of objectivist philsophy. Rorschach though is far more brutal than the Question as he was created in a later era where more liberty to show the results of such an approach were allowable.

Rorschach is one of the few characters with integrity, yet he is also undeniably mentally ill. But then the same could be said for many of the major characters and perhaps for all humanity. It’s these ambiguities that set Moore above your standard superhero slugfest at his best. Rorschach is the product of a highly unpleasant background and that colours his whole view of life and it’s something he sadly never manages to totally reconcile with. You can see moments when a more rounded human being peeps through at points which is what gives the character poignancy and elevates him over many similar characters.

The Comedian is of course not a patriot, he simply plays up the image of been one. He would probably appreciate the comedy inherent in Rorschach regarding him as such a great patriot. That would be all part of the joke to him I suspect from his viewpoint.

Like your golden age Green Lantern costume! even though its ridiculous.

I like your comments but, in all honesty, Rorschach is the kind of guy you want to give a hug to to cheer him up. He’s such a psychopath yet he’s so likable at the same time. When I saw his flashbacks in his interrogation in the film I felt sorry for him, but in the comic, just thinking about it makes me teary eyed. Also, in Chapter VI, page 11, panel 5, Walter’s expression and pose really did send chills down my spine. It was so creepy yet depressing.

Another thing. As a superhero, despite his brutality, he’s better than Tim Burton’s Batman. No, he’s not better than Batman, one of the greatest superheroes of all time, but compared to the Burton Batman he’s superman compared to Burton’s Batman. Burtons Batman isn’t Batman because he wants to protect the innocent and prevent the same ordeal that he passed through happening to them but rather because he’s angry, wants to get revenge on criminals and just upholds the law. This is proven at the very beginning when a family gets mugged by two, well, muggers, who get attacked by Batman where he says the famous ‘I’m Batman’. Does Bats collect the families money? Does he go and accompany them to their safety, either to the hospital or to their home? Does he bring the criminals to the police? Does he interrogate them? No, I think your expecting too much of Batman! Man, for protecting the innocent Batman sure sucks!

Seriously, how are supposed to care for the people he is supposed to protect if he doesn’t do that? The worst part of this is that when Keaton (who certainly isn’t Bruce Wayne) finds out that the Joker is the one who killed his parents, he goes: ‘What the hell am I doing, I’m off on a killing spree!’, and starts murdering all the criminals he comes across. Not only does this make no damned sense at all (seriously, if Batman was so angry why didn’t he kill criminals the instant h became Batman? Until then, he never killed them. There is a scene where he shoots his grapple to wards a henchman, pulls him over a ledge but instead of letting him fall he arranges the grapple so that the man is hanging alive from the ledge), it goes against everything Batman is for. He would never stoop to the level of criminals because he doesn’t want to enjoy killing them. Hey, who said superhero’s are for kids? They can be as inspirational and mature as…

Oh. Er… drat. Well, the silver age doesn’tr count as in the 1980’s, the Batman story arcs were rebooted with Batman: Year one, a much more mature story than, well, this. Ironically, Batman Begins took inspiration from Year one and it itself is a much better written, much more mature version of a story which was ruined by… this.


I see we have a Nostalgia Critic fan!

Well, I like the Nostalgia Critic’s videos, I really do. They are really insightful even though he does swear alot sometimes and make some crude jokes so we shouldn’t laugh at those. I have great respect for everyone at TGWTG as they do videos for the art. Well, maybe except the Distressed Watcher. He truly is a hateful person and one should avoid his videos at all times. I like Spoony’s videos too despite hearing him being a troll sometimes, and I also really like Linkara. He almost never swears and is more dedicated to his craft than the others. I really suggest that people check their videos out, especially the Nostalgia Critic’s review of ‘The Room’. I had never laughed so much up to that point, and despite making some sexual jokes, I’ll say that compared to his other jokes they are very tame and fit the situation an no, there isn’t any pornography in the video either despite the characters engaging in alot of sex. I suggest you see the review, and trust me, Tommy Wiseus acting simply killed me laughing to say it.

Talking about the TGWTG site, I admit that I’ve seen some of the angry video game nerds videos and while I did enjoy them, I find his scat jokes to be so crude, so disgusting and generally unfunny. Goodness gracious I hate those jokes. If you want to see his videos, skip his disgusting scat references. They are just sinful and wrong to listen to. Don’t tell me that I’m wrong, nothing will change my mind on the nerd. I hear his a very nice guy in real life ubt that doesn’t make his jokes any less sinful.

Back to the NC. I really suggest watching his reviews, just don’t mind his swearing and obscenities and the often tastelessness of the film. Don’t worry though, the critic often makes fun of this tastelessness. I suggest starting with his reviews of ‘The Room’, ‘Garbage Pail Kids’, ‘Baby Genuises’ and ‘Jingle All the way’. They are my favorite ones, although I really like alot of his other material. Just don’t take him as a role model, please don’t.

On you tube, there are alot of videos showing clips from the movie and if people have the time you would find alot of videos featuring clips form the Watchmen film and if you go to the comments you would read alot of insights from the viewers, alot of them which are very intelligent. In fact alot of these insights show that the viewers get some parts of the book so much that they embrace not the overall message of the book (read: moral ambiguity) but the philosophies of one of the characters.

Lets take for example the Comedian. He seems to have a fandom only slightly smaller than Rorschach’s and this is his philosophy: Society is so bad, so capable of doing evil that trying to make it better would be futile.Hence, humanity is a joke on us: no matter what we do we will never convince the whole of humanity to be good. With this in mind, the Comedian decided to become a parody of society. He decided to exploit all it’s faults and only became superhero just to exploit this joke even more. Heroes aren’t immaculate beings, they all have flaws,but the Comedian chose to take this up to eleven.

One you tuber whom I discussed this with even said: ‘the Comedian is the most human character because he is the one who is most similar to human nature.’ Those are almost his exact words. And I disagree with him. In fact, out of all the Watchmen the Comedian is the one I hate the most (my favorite is Rorschach because he is just so fascinating).

The Church teaches that while human nature is fallen because of the sin of Adam and Eve, we become evil by the actions which we do. The Blessed Virgin is human yet She is FAR from evil. And while humanity by itself can do no good, with God and Mary’s help we can do anything. It was with Mary and God’s grace that the saints brought all those souls to heaven, it was with Their grace that they saved thousands of Jews in WWII, that they saved alot of prostituted children, that they brought humanitarian aid to poor countries. Saint Francis Xavier, Saint John Bosco, Saint Mary Mazarello, Saint Euphrasia Pelletier, Pope Pius X, Pius XII, Leo XIII, Pius IX, etc…

To the poster who said he lost his faith in humanity, I don’t mean to be rude but, I may not have faith in humans who don’t know what is good for them (democracy, bah! stupid French revolution) but I have faith in the Blessed Mother who with Her we can do anything. She who can even make God Himself love us, even when He permits Satan to make us into complete monsters, even when He lacks that will to bring us to heaven with Her grace, care and love She’ll make us Saints and have Him love them back.

This movie was absolutely disgusting. I’m ashamed that I have fellow Catholics that can overlook the pornographic facets of this film and call it a great movie. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Every single sexual act was purely immoral, be it forced, with groups (if you want to call Dr. Manhattan’s ability to replicate himself as a form of group sex), or outside of wedlock… or a combination there of. And it wasn’t just implied, it was graphic. I was completely shocked when I saw this movie in theaters. And I was a high school student at the time. That tells you just how gross this movie was. You’re completely sick my friend.

I’ve lost hope in my fellow Catholics. Sexual immorality is tearing this society apart. Look no further for an explanation to the massive divorce rate. Yet there are some among us who turn a blind eye to this filth.

There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, artistic about pornographic scenes in contemporary film. If you want to see artistic nudity, go to your local art museum.

I enjoyed the movie. It was pretty well done.

Glad to see other Alan Moore/Watchmen fans aboard! :thumbsup:

Faithbuild, I have to disagree with you. No, I didn’t see the sex scenes except part of the first one as I knew that no actual sex was going to take place and in fact I covered my eyes when the second one did. No, I am not sick in my mind because I called this type of sex scene art. From what I’ve read it isn’t really pornographic, just simulated and we don’t see anyone’s genitals. It wasn’t gross because it was found in the book and it wasn’t immoral because it didn’t explicitly support pre-marital sex but it only showed the character’s experience with it.

I get that your offended because sex outside marriage is immoral and in fact, not only do I have the same view but I’m a huge supporter of modesty. But this was for art. It wasn’t pornography and the way they shot it was (and the way it was written and drawn in the book) wasn’t there for sexual arousal but so that we could enter into the mind’s of the characters.

Even so, you can’t call the movie disgusting just for this one ‘explicit’ scene. There is an attempted rape scene yet to say that the film supports rape because it depicts it is like saying we support homosexuality and abortion because we live in America. It, makes no sense. In fact, the Comedian is stopped and beaten up by another superhero before he could do anything to Sally. Also, the ‘group’ sex scene was far from graphic. We only see Laurie’s face when Doc. Manhattans hands are touching it. What does she do when she sees three ‘Docs’? She gets up and leaves home. I mean seriously, authors who include sexual themes in their books aren’t depraved. In fact, I’m writing a bookwith the Blessed Virgin as the main character and its going to have alot of sexual themes such as rape, sexual immorality, purity, child abuse, etc… is it because I’m immoral? No, its because I want to explore such serious themes, the effect they have on one’s mind and etc…

If we actuallydid engage in such immoral things and were ahem, aroused by the sex, then yes, you would have reason to rebuke us. However, if we weren’t and only ‘enjoyed’ the sexual exploits of the characters because it revealed what their motivations are then no, you have no reason to rebuke us. If you want to call people out for enjoying immoral activities, talk to those who enjoy Seltzer and Friedberg’s films, or exploitation movies or the old James Bond films (well,some of them admittedly). Or those who enjoy reading the Marquis de Sade’s books (read: NOBODY, not even the most depraved enjoy his books).

I love Alan Moore’s books, even though I don’t own many. I only have Watchmen and League of Extraordinary gentlmen which I also like. Watchmen is, amazing. Its my favorite novel of alltime if I haven’t said it and I REALLY recommend it to those who want to enjoy something fun and thought provoking.

Or alternatively if you want to understand that the movie is at best a faint reflection within a refleciton of the source material I would advise reading the book which avoids many of the painful mistakes the book makes. Although sex does play a part in it and Moore has never shied away from sex in his printed works. Although he tends to be far more lyrical than the cheesecake stuff in the movie. The Watchmen move is a curate’s egg. For everything it gets right or handles with flair it then proceeds to make you cringe in the next scene.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.