Watchmen VS. The Dark Knight

[DaMovieMan]

Which is the better comic book film? Which is the best comic book film made? Is there a better comic book film than either of these? If so, explain yourself.

Putting aside the fact that TDK made millions more than Watchmen could probably dream of making (wider fanbase, Ledger's death, sequel to an already popular film etc. are all huge factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the films).

I saw both films twice. On the second viewing of TDK I noticed major flaws and realized just how overrated it is by the die-hard fans. Too much action with little room to breath and get emotionally invested in any character (apart from Gordon and his family in the end), Ledger's complete dominance and scene-stealing performance that's better than anything else in the film by far, cheesy factors here and there etc.
Watchmen's second viewing just cemented that it was a good film all around. More grounded performances, better story, bigger themes, more thought-provoking than The Dark Knight in my opinion. The only reason they have the same exact score is because Watchmen could of been better handled given its source material.

But I'm giving the edge to Watchmen. There's no better comic book film I can think of right now.

Start the lashings...

[Le_Big_Mac]

The Dark Knight by far. It's overrated too, but it's still the best superhero movie there is.

[athf1980]

I voted for TDK but watchmen is still a pretty good movie

[LordSimen]

They're both great movies, but The Dark Knight can't hold a candle to the masterpiece that is Watchmen.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

The Dark Knight doesn't dishonor its source material to the extent that Watchmen does. So I'm going with that.

[Cronos]

Watchmen... The Dark Knight was good, but not as good.

[CosmicPuppet]

The Dark Knight is simply a better told story for the screen. Watchmen is a masterpiece in comic book form. The Dark Knight doesn't sacrifice any of its material for length whereas

Watchmen had to do that much more to even be palpable for mass audience consumption, but even then, it didn't grasp all the ideas the book contained. I felt that was more important overall than having every little scene from the book... such as showing Nite Owl's dream but never going into the Keene Act and Rorschach's hatred by the general public. Or extending scenes past length while forgetting to extend Laurie's revelation or even Nite Owl I's death, which is some of the best drama in the story.

[Badbird]

Between these two? I'd say Watchmen. If only because Rorschach does a better Batman Voice than Batman.

I give them both 7/10

[DaMovieMan]

The Dark Knight doesn't dishonor its source material to the extent that Watchmen does. So I'm going with that.

The Dark Knight didn't have source material. It borrowed its story-lines from various comic books. So i find that a little unfair...plus we're talking about the films not the original sources.

[Sgizzy316]

I enjoyed Watchmen, but I don't think it could hold The Dark Knight's jock

[Mr. Creasy]

The Dark Knight by far... Watchmen is good but not a masterpiece as Batman.

[Hucksta G]

Close one...they are two of my favorite comic book movies but gonna give it to Watchmen. Although I prefer Sin City and Road to Perdition.

[fooknasty]

The Dark Knight, not even close. Watchmen isn't even in the top ten of great comic book/graphic novel adaptions.

[QUENTIN]

Richard Donner's original Superman is still the best superhero movie ever made and the best adaptation of a comic book/graphic novel.

Of the two, the incompetently made and overlong but occasionally fantastic Dark Knight (7/10) is better than the competent but muddled, overlong, and unexceptional Watchmen (6/10).

[BoBoi]

I'm going with The Dark Knight. I think it's by far the better movie of the two. I gave TDK an A, Watchmen gets a solid B+. The only thing that I can complain about TDK is that Maggie was miscast, and no matter how bad Katie Holmes was in Batman Begins, character discontinuity can sometimes be frustrated, especially if the whole cast is still there.

[ilovemovies]

the incompetently made and overlong but occasionally fantastic Dark Knight (7/10)

I don't get this. How can a movie be incompetently made and still be occasionally fantastic?

[APzombie]

incompetently made is a strong phrase for The Dark Knight. If it's incompetently made, what does that make 98% of other high budget action films?

TDK is legions better than the mind numbingly tedious Snyder film.

[LordSimen]

incompetently made is a strong phrase for The Dark Knight. If it's incompetently made, what does that make 98% of other high budget action films?

I would agree that incompetently made would be a bit of an overstatement, but I will say that Watchmen is definitely much more competently done than The Dark Knight. By leaps and bounds.

[Smarmy Douche]

Watchmen is an prodigiously bad movie. A Watchmen vs. Batman and Robin thread would be more reasonable.

The Dark Knight is alright. But it has a couple really good scenes and Ledger carries the whole film on his back impressively. Batman Begins was a better film.

There has not yet been a superhero movie that is truly great.

[ilovemovies]

IMO, the best comic book/graphic novel adaptation is Road to Perdition followed VERY closely by V for Vendetta.

[DaMovieMan]

I can see how someone can say TDK is incompetent with splashes of brilliance here and there. When a movie relies so heavily on one character to save it from being simply an average action film I can't say the film has much quality.
Watchmen is more of a team-effort, almost every character is equally important in the telling of the story and the structure of the storyline is a clear progression.

Both films suffer from cliche's and both are a little too long for their own good, (except with Watchmen there are only a few scenes that could of been trimmed while in TDK more than just a few) but Watchmen edges out the Bat in terms of character, depth & story.
TDK: 7/10
Watchmen: 7.5/10

[blankpage]

The Dark Knight, by far.

[Bourne101]

The Dark Knight is definitely better, though I loved Watchmen as well.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I'm going for The Dark Knight, though I was more excited for Watchmen when it came out.:D

[ilovemovies]

I haven't seen Watchmen yet and if I'm wrong I'd be more than willing to eat my words up but I just can't see Watchmen being a better movie than The Dark Knight for one simple reason: Zack Snyder is no Chris Nolan. Snyder doesn't even have half the talent of Nolan.

[sbunn10]

The Dark Knight is much better. I loved Watchmen, 8/10, but TDK is in my top ten of all time. It may not be perfect, but I love it, and it's as close to perfect as any comic book film I've ever seen.

[PSUDelVec]

The Dark Knight. Although I did like Watchmen as well. The Dark Knight was everything I wanted it to be. And I can't overstate the brilliance of Heath Ledger's Joker, which in terms of the chaos he creates and the tension he builds, even when not on screen, the Joker was the second coming of the shark in Jaws.

[jbar1026]

TDK 9/10 a great movie that could have been perfect if had it not so long feeling.

Watchmen 7/10 a good movie that could have been great if it didnt feel like chunks of footage were missing and the long slow section in the middle.

if i had to chose a superhero movie to be the best it would be unbreakable or spiderman 2.

[QUENTIN]

I don't get this. How can a movie be incompetently made and still be occasionally fantastic?

incompetently made is a strong phrase for The Dark Knight. If it's incompetently made, what does that make 98% of other high budget action films?


I can see how someone can say TDK is incompetent with splashes of brilliance here and there. When a movie relies so heavily on one character to save it from being simply an average action film I can't say the film has much quality.


The Dark Knight is incompetently made because the filmmakers eschew (I would say don't understand, but they also made Memento) the fundamentals of filmmaking: story, character, composition and framing, editing - the movie gets all of these basic and central things woefully wrong.

The screenplay is perhaps the most incompetent element and would have been rejected by most studios if not for the writer's resumes and the success of Begins. It is totally lacking in structure: it has no beginning and no end, scenes do not build on themselves and progress, there is no logical transition and flow between sequences (most of the second act could be rearranged at random without much difference), and most of the important dialogue is incredibly heavy-handed, on the nose, and laughable. Alfred the longtime Butler of the Wayne family worked for the Burmese government? How convenient, topical, and completely out of character and ridiculous. But they needed a big speech about anarchy and chose him to deliver it. This is because the characters uniformly are not people, but SYMBOLS of whatever aspect of humanity as a whole the filmmakers want them to represent, who act at the requirements of the thin plot, with no attempt made to accomplish this subtly or with care. Most of them actually say something along the lines of "I represent chaos", "I represent vengeance", "I represent order", etc. It's really, really poorly written. Look at the screenplay sometime. Lots of action verbs, lots of strong and obvious themes, no real story to speak of. The third act in particular is a jumbled mess. It suffers from Spider-Man 3 and X3 syndrome, trying to cover way too much and deal with too many villains and characters and events for one film. What occurs in the film is best summarized as "Lots of stuff happens, some of it is very exciting, some of it less so."

The framing and composition is often amateurish and belies a sense of screen space, location, blocking, and motion. Nolan seems unsure how to show us his story. The film's visuals are often captivating and beautiful, the cinematography pretty superb, but what we see is so inconsistent as to be frustrating. Even more damning from a direction standpoint, Nolan never establishes a consistent tone for his film, it's all over the place.

The acting is spotty. Ledger's fantastic, Gyllenhaal, Oldman, Freeman, and Caine are very good, but Bale is flat and his Batman voice the subject of well-deserved mockery while Eckhart can't hit a single authentic note throughout.

The editing gets worse than it was in Batman Begins. In that film, the hand-to-hand fight scenes were miserably arranged and edited, generating the primary of few complaints that film received. In The Dark Knight, that's only worsened and I dare anyone to tell me what happens in a single fight scene in the film. Bale and all the extras spend months training to learn fighting techniques and then Nolan robs us of seeing what they do. I'm not necessarily asking for Oldboy here or Ong Bak (though those are stunning), but in an action movie I want to see the action. In any movie, I want to comprehend what is on the screen and The Dark Knight consistently cheats of us this in all of its fight and many of its action scenes. Even in quieter scenes, Nolan impatiently insists on cutting away to other characters and events, lacking confidence in the power of the scene at hand. This is coupled with a score that constantly booms dramatically even when absolutely nothing dramatic or of consequence is happening. So much of the film is essentially assembled to distract us, keep us from thinking about what we're seeing and hearing and what's happening, before we have a moment to let anything sink in, BAM, we're off to The Next Big Event. The movie is a series of set pieces without a coherent string between them and it relies on audio-visual incoherence and an non-stop assault on our senses to hide that. A con man who convinces us of his talent and seems clever because his hands keep moving before we can realize how easily we've been duped.

Now, those are the main criticisms and why I feel that the film is very technically, aesthetically, narratively, and in general cinematically incompetent. So why the 7/10?

Because in spite of all these valid complaints, which are simply there on the screen for all to see, the film overall works for me enough that on the whole I enjoy it. Its flaws are numerous and elemental, but what it does right it does superbly. First and foremost there is Heath Ledger. With a handful of minor exceptions, when he is onscreen the film comes alive. I notice the flaws much less, because I am captivated by this brilliantly realized character. Ledger's performance was one of the best of the year and he created one of the best villains of all-time. His is the only character that, however poorly motivated, seems real and human. His dialogue is considerably better than everyone else's. His actions are manic, surprising, and ingenious no matter how unbelievable and wildly unrealistic they are. The Joker was the most memorable character of 2008 and The Dark Knight will be long remembered for burning him into our collective consciousness. He has many scenes and they're collectively strong enough to save the film from its makers.

While much of the dialogue is trite and heavy, a lot of it is also clever, funny, poetic, some of it even moving. This is especially true of The Joker's lines, but also describes a lot of the dialogue between Rachel and anyone and to a lesser extent Alfred and Lucius.

Also, despite their numerous flaws that surround them, I find the opening bank robbery, big truck chase, and prison escape very thrilling and viscerally exciting. Again the film's technical problems are barely noticeable because the film is "working" and has me caught up in its spell. The hospital explosion and The Joker's face, lapping at the air from a window, are also two incredibly well-executed moments that will stay with me and illustrate Nolan is a talented filmmaker capable of great work.

I also have to give the film a modicum of credit for tricking me too the first time I saw it. Nolan and his team do a deft job of effectively distracting us from their own laziness and hiding their incompetence to a large degree on the first viewing. Much of that credit is still due to Ledger, since he's the primary reason we're so captivated, but it's no small feat to inundate an audience with constant sleight-of-hand and a barrage of events to the point that they always feel engaged in the moment. To its credit, at least for the first 2/3rd I do find it engaging on this moment by moment level. I just don't respect it much.

For a more thorough and individualized analysis of the film's flaws from a more eloquent fellow, see Jim Emerson's many articles on the picture at his scanners blog on Ebert's site:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/the_dark_knight/

Although he dislikes the film overall more than I do, I agree with most of his sentiments and criticisms.

Anyway, that's why I think the film is very incompetent and yet contains moments of brilliance and overall do think it's pretty good, despite so many reservations, objections, and complaints.

[Frosty_86]

The Dark Knight, while I did really like Watchmen I just didnt get in to it as much as I did TDK

[poopontheshoes7]

Both are brilliant imo, but The Dark Knight wins by a hair. Nolan is by far a better director then Snyder. While Snyder pretty much nailed Watchmen when other directors couldnt, he still had a graphic novel to work from. While Nolan simply borrowed elements form certain stories and made the film his own 100%.

[Powerslave]

The Dark Knight because it was good and didn't make me throw up in my mouth a little when the credits rolled.

[Jig Saw 123]

Better Movie: The Dark Knight 9/10

Better Superhero Movie: The Dark Knight

Better Adaptation: Watchmen 7.5/10

I felt that Watchmen had no true emotion to it. I relied to much on the element of looking like its novel counterpart. The Dark Knight story wraps you in a dark mist with unsuspecting twist and turns awaiting you at every corner. The music was better and the overall moral can be established and seen in The Dark Knight, which Watchmen was meant to have more so, but failed in its delivery because of its pacing and several emotional cuts which were cut from the theatrical release.

[CosmicPuppet]

Richard Donner's original Superman is still the best superhero movie ever made and the best adaptation of a comic book/graphic novel.


I'm not saying this to slight your choice, but I do think it's funny that while you poke holes at the Dark Knight for its faulty logic in the writing, Superman takes the biggest leap of logic I've ever seen in a superhero movie.

The ending is a complete farce. Superman flies backwards around the planet, makes it revolve backwards and thus "rewinds" time so that he could save Lois? Really? That doesn't even make any sense in context to Superman's powers. I call that one of the laziest choices in I've seen in a script. Not even the comics have ever used that.

I also agree the Dark Knight has its faults, but like you said, the good parts outweigh the faulty logic to make up for it. I can also agree with that notion to a point with Superman, but that ending always bothered the hell out of me. It's a complete deus ex machina.

I've asked people to explain how it makes sense, but I usually get, "He's Superman. He can do anything."

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

The Dark Knight didn't have source material. It borrowed its story-lines from various comic books. So i find that a little unfair...plus we're talking about the films not the original sources.
The Dark Knight didn't have specific source material, but it had clear story inspirations ranging across the Batman mythos. The Killing Joke immediately springs to mind. I feel that adaptations need to be judged at least partially with the source material in mind, at least for me. For me personally, even if a film based on a book is great, if its greatness lies solely from faithfully adapting a great book, then it loses a distinct angle that makes it its own unique work of art. The Dark Knight not only paid respect to Batman mythology, but it is a truly original work that chose not to borrow from any specific story line. Watchmen's only good scenes were those that were exact emulations of scenes in the book; there was nothing that made a new impression on me having already read the book. Additionally, the slick action-movie feel I felt was adverse to the tone of the book, creating large tonal inconsistencies between scenes meant to be deep and those that were eye-candy. Not only does it not approach the material from a unique angle, but it only delivers on a small portion of what the book had to offer. In my estimation, that renders the film pointless, as it contributes absolutely nothing artistically to anything besides some good special effects. There is no Batman story I can turn to that will have the same feel of The Dark Knight. I can simply go to the Watchmen graphic novel and get everything the film offered and much more.

[Terror Australis]

I absolutely love both films but I'm gonna give the edge to The Dark Knight.

[LordSimen]

The Dark Knight bastardizes it's source material far more than Watchmen does.

[poopontheshoes7]

The Dark Knight bastardizes it's source material far more than Watchmen does.

I in no way saw anything about the mythos of Batman bastardized.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

The Dark Knight bastardizes it's source material far more than Watchmen does.
In what sense? I have studied the Batman mythos my entire life and I felt that no disservice was done.

[LordSimen]

I in no way saw anything about the mythos of Batman bastardized.

I did. A joker with a painted face? A Harvey Dent with no family?

Bleh. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are far more liberties taken in Nolan's Batman than Snyder's Watchmen.

It's not to say Nolan's Dark Knight wasn't a great movie, but to hate Watchmen for bastardizing Watchmen (Which it didn't) and then praising Batman for not (Which it did) makes absolutely no sense if you ask me.

[CosmicPuppet]

A lot of things don't make sense to you.

Bastardize doesn't mean change. Changing the Joker to having face paint doesn't bastardize the character since his character is just as cruel and crazy as he is in the books. It's a superficial thing to pick on.

Two-Face's story has been done a few times. I never recall him ever having a family in the books. He's either married with no kids or engaged but is tragically scarred and becomes Two-Face. The only difference is that Two-Face in the film becomes scarred on account of Joker and the mafia, not just the mafia. And there's no acid.

The only bastardization is that they didn't delve into his psychotic personality enough. It's definitely hinted at when he has the thug tied to a chair, but not nearly enough to my liking.

Then again, you're going off on the idea that your opinion is 100% right and everyone else is wrong, which is nothing new. I wouldn't say Snyder bastardized the book, he's simply not a capable director of handling heavy drama and themes. The pivotal scenes come off really flat which bugged me. There's no punch to the gut when Laurie finds out the Comedian is her father or the ending, which is much more devastating in the book. Nolan has Snyder beat in that department... he knows how to work with actors much better and he knows drama. Snyder still is superior in his visuals and attention to detail, but that's it I'd say.

[sarah1980]

Richard Donner's original Superman is still the best superhero movie ever made and the best adaptation of a comic book/graphic novel.

thank you

[LordSimen]

A lot of things don't make sense to you.


Things that don't make sense don't make sense to me.


Bastardize doesn't mean change. Changing the Joker to having face paint doesn't bastardize the character since his character is just as cruel and crazy as he is in the books. It's a superficial thing to pick on.


Tell that to everyone who feels Watchmen bastardized the graphic novel cause one character doesn't smoke and the like.




Then again, you're going off on the idea that your opinion is 100% right and everyone else is wrong, which is nothing new. I wouldn't say Snyder bastardized the book, he's simply not a capable director of handling heavy drama and themes. The pivotal scenes come off really flat which bugged me. There's no punch to the gut when Laurie finds out the Comedian is her father or the ending, which is much more devastating in the book. Nolan has Snyder beat in that department... he knows how to work with actors much better and he knows drama. Snyder still is superior in his visuals and attention to detail, but that's it I'd say.

Disagree completely. Snyder is infinitely better on every level at everything in the film making medium than Nolan if you ask me.

[CosmicPuppet]

I know people have a minor issue with Laurie not smoking, but I think people's issues weren't simply for things that small.

As for the rest, it all boils down to what kinds of films you like and what you look for in a performance. You won't find me disagreeing there. But you honestly felt choked up when Laurie found out the Comedian was her father? I thought it rushed by and left out one of the Comedian's only sympathetic scenes... "Only once." I was shocked at how quick it was.

[LordSimen]

That scene had quite the emotional impact on me, actually. I did feel a little choked up. Not full on tears, but certainly had more impact than anything in The Dark Knight did.

Dark Knight rushes through Rachel's death far quicker than that scene goes by in Watchmen.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I'm not talking about taking liberties with facts so much as distorting tone and message. The painted face in no way makes the Joker less of a disturbing figure and Dent's lack of a family in no way makes his story less tragic. Details are changed, but the effect remains.

Since I've beaten the violence thing to death, I'll just say that the lack of any supporting characters in Watchmen who died in NY's destruction made that scene devoid of emotional resonance, and that is heightened by the fact that the emotional reaction by the characters hardly reflects its impact. Ozymandias was portrayed as a caricature; Matthew Goode played the character like a sneering cocky villain, and it was easy to guess that he was the villain from the beginning (it was more difficult in the book). This one-sided caricatured portrayal made the moral ambiguity much harder to accept. Additionally, and this isn't a comment on the violence, but the action scenes were over-the-top and looked like they came out of a martial arts flick. The effortlessness of grand acts of combat delved into the cartoonish and lacked the realism of the fight scenes in the book.

[LordSimen]

I'm not talking about taking liberties with facts so much as distorting tone and message. The painted face in no way makes the Joker less of a disturbing figure and Dent's lack of a family in no way makes his story less tragic. Details are changed, but the effect remains.

Since I've beaten the violence thing to death, I'll just say that the lack of any supporting characters in Watchmen who died in NY's destruction made that scene devoid of emotional resonance, and that is heightened by the fact that the emotional reaction by the characters hardly reflects its impact. Ozymandias was portrayed as a caricature; Matthew Goode played the character like a sneering cocky villain, and it was easy to guess that he was the villain from the beginning (it was more difficult in the book). This one-sided caricatured portrayal made the moral ambiguity much harder to accept. Additionally, and this isn't a comment on the violence, but the action scenes were over-the-top and looked like they came out of a martial arts flick. The effortlessness of grand acts of combat delved into the cartoonish and lacked the realism of the fight scenes in the book.

A character catches a bullet and another character blows people up with his mind. The comic book had no realism in terms of it's fight scenes.

There were no tones or messages distorted in the Watchmen movie. There were elements left out, due to length, but every theme in the movie is taken directly from the comic book. Ozy is portrayed pretty much exactly how he read off the page if you ask me.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

The character catches a bullet due to intense training to perfect himself to the peak of human excellence. Considering that it's not as if the bullet-catching was major defiance of reality. Dr. Manhattan is the only character in the book to defy reality, and even so his state is at least somewhat scientifically founded in terms of quantum mechanics. Claiming the book had no realism in its fight scenes is absurd. Its human characters generally operated within the laws of physics, and not a single action committed, save a few by Ozymandias, who we must accept as the peak of human excellence, was the least bit unbelievable in a realistic context. Over-the-top karate fight scenes with people getting tossed around to the point that they would most likely die from the impact certainly defies that realism.

I know several people who took issue with the way that Ozy was portrayed. I can't imagine anyone reading the book envisioning him as a super-villain caricature.

[sbunn10]

Christopher Nolan has made some damn excellent films, and Snyder has made a couple of pretty good, stylish flicks with stories that weren't told as well as they could have been. I loved Watchmen.. it's my favorite of Snyder's by far, but Nolan has made at least four films that I think are better than Watchmen.. The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, the Prestige, and Memento.

Simen, don't get me wrong.. Watchmen was great, but you lost me when you said that Snyder is a much better filmmaker than Nolan. That, IMO, is preposterous.

[LordSimen]

I know several people who took issue with the way that Ozy was portrayed. I can't imagine anyone reading the book envisioning him as a super-villain caricature.


I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by a super-villain caricature, as that's not how I saw him in the movie nor how I read him off the page.

In both the movie and in the graphic novel, he's a soft-spoken idealist with a dream for a bright future that he knows will have to be paved with the blood of innocents that he desperately wishes he could spare but also knows that all the great idealists since the dawn of mankind had to sacrifice some of their known morals in order to achieve their ultimate goals.

I don't see a super-villain caricature at all. I see a character whose story is more akin to Paradise Lost than a Lex Luthor rip off.

[Canto]

The Dark Knight - 10/10

Watchmen - 9/10

[Potzer! 37]

I gave it to Watchmen...Spider-man too is the best "straight" comic book movie, but Watchmen is a whole other level of genre filmmaking.

[bigred760]

I enjoyed TDK a lot more than Watchmen. Watchmen was good, but I thought TDK was deeper, better executed, and delivered its message more clearly.

[fooknasty]

Watchmen was too much of a mess for the story to have any emotional weight. It was more style over substance, which is weird considering the source material. The Dark Knight was an emotional, character driven film.

And I completely disagree with anyone who states that Snyder is a better director than Nolan. Snyder has directed three very similarily sylized films, each one more over the top then the next.

Nolan could direct a Coke commercial and it would have more substance than Snyder's last two movies! (But I do love his Dawn of the Dead remake).

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Ihe's a soft-spoken idealist with a dream for a bright future that he knows will have to be paved with the blood of innocents that he desperately wishes he could spare but also knows that all the great idealists since the dawn of mankind had to sacrifice some of their known morals in order to achieve their ultimate goals.
I agree with this. But in the film, he has a condescending voice, half-opened eyes who gives off an air of patronization, and he never seems as if he cares for humanity so much as he fuels his own god complex. In the book, there was genuine concern for humanity and when he says that he is punishing himself for the actions he is forced to commit, there is genuine sympathy. In the film, it is played cold and without feeling.

[LordSimen]

I agree with this. But in the film, he has a condescending voice, half-opened eyes who gives off an air of patronization,

That's exactly how I read him in the graphic novel. That's how he came off every time his words appeared on the page.

he never seems as if he cares for humanity so much as he fuels his own god complex.

I disagree with this. In the movie, he very much so cares about humanity just as much as the character in the graphic novel did. Really, both of them were fueling their god complex but that god complex never changed the fact that they both cared for humanity.

In the book, there was genuine concern for humanity and when he says that he is punishing himself for the actions he is forced to commit, there is genuine sympathy. In the film, it is played cold and without feeling.

In both the movie and the film he says that very same fact and in both versions he comes off as cold and without feeling as he says them, because in both the movie and the book he's numb to emotions as he's transcended that of being a simple man in his own mind and become that of a god. But really, in both versions, that's just a facade he puts on to try and hide the fact that he's destroyed in inside.

I felt genuine sympathy for him in both the movie and the graphic novel because the movie pretty much portrayed him exactly as he read off the page every time I picked up the graphic novel, which is running on about 20 times by this point.

You mean to tell me the moment they look back at him and he's standing all alone in ruins of his own palace and the movie pretty much shows him as being trapped in his own guilt, you didn't feel sympathy? I'll never understand that. The dude nearly put tears in my eyes.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

That scene was powerful in the book. Ozymandias had so much backstory, and cared for humanity. He was illustrated with a face that exhibited genuine feeling. In the film, you can say he cared for humanity, but his patronization, cold expression, and flat voice did not convey this; instead he came across as a supervillain. Is it not telling that several movie goers who have not read the book label him the villain, as if there was no ambiguity behind his actions? Everyone in my group who had not read the book knew he was going to be the villain, and had no sympathy for him whatsoever. The entire conclusion was a big turn-off from their desire to read the book. It's of no surprise to me that one of the few important lines carried over from the book was of his inability to connect with humanity. That's practically all that the film focused on. In the book, his asking Manhattan if he did the right thing was the true moment that cut through his facade and revealed a sense of extreme guilt for his actions. This infinitely important scene was inexplicably cut from the film, and so, since all we see of Ozymandias is his cold condescension, it is impossible to sympathize with him as he stands alone in the ruins of his arctic lair.

[zombievictim]

The Dark Knight anyday. Watchmen was absolutely terrible. I haven't hated a movie so much since Juno. And I even enjoyed that more (bet you never thought you'd hear me say that before) than the utter travesty known as Watchmen. I just cringe at the thought...

[LordSimen]

That scene was powerful in the book. Ozymandias had so much backstory, and cared for humanity. He was illustrated with a face that exhibited genuine feeling. In the film, you can say he cared for humanity, but his patronization, cold expression, and flat voice did not convey this; instead he came across as a supervillain.

The cold expression, his patronization and flat voice are exactly what I felt the book itself conveyed every time I read it. I pegged him as the villain the moment he first said something in the graphic novel, and it turned out I was right.

The movie really didn't do anything that the book itself didn't do as far as Ozy goes.

Is it not telling that several movie goers who have not read the book label him the villain, as if there was no ambiguity behind his actions?

He was the villain of the book just as much as he was in the movie. It's telling because it's exactly how it's portrayed in both version.

Yes, there is ambiguity, but that never stopped the fact that Ozy was the villain of the Watchmen graphic novel and he just so happened to be right.

Everyone in my group who had not read the book knew he was going to be the villain, and had no sympathy for him whatsoever.

I don't know how anyone could not feel sympathy for him in both versions, but it's not surprising to me that people found him to be the villain right away- That's exactly how he read in the comic book.

In the book, his asking Manhattan if he did the right thing was the true moment that cut through his facade and revealed a sense of extreme guilt for his actions. This infinitely important scene was inexplicably cut from the film, and so, since all we see of Ozymandias is his cold condescension, it is impossible to sympathize with him as he stands alone in the ruins of his arctic lair.

I miss that scene, it's true. But they didn't need it. His face when they cut to him alone in the ruins of his palace said all that need to be said about Ozy. It visually spoke more than words and is a true testament to Snyder's brillaint directing. The scene was like poetry.

I think it's impossible to NOT sympathize with him.

[ilovemovies]

I finally saw Watchmen and I can say without hesitation that The Dark Knight is most definitely the superior movie.

Watchmen is actually a VERY good movie for the first two hours but I thought the last 30 minutes were a disaster. Who the killer turned out to be was actually extremely predictable and incredibly underwhelming but even worse was the motivations behind his actions and what happens during the ending was jaw droppingly silly and stupid and I especially HATED the fate of a certain character and how the characters all react. Good, god the more I think about the ending the more I LOATHE it! It damn near ruins what was otherwise a very good movie.

Although the first two hours had it's fair share of flaws too. Namely, the story goes from point A to point B without much forward momentum. I also really didn't care for the prison riot/prison break scene.

Still, the first two hours are damn near great and despite how much I hated the ending, it's still worth seeing because it's a visually arresting movie with interesting characters and compelling performances. But it could have been so much better. With a little bit of trimming and a much more satisfying ending.


The Dark Knight's main fault is that the pacing is kind of uneven with some slow patches here and there. But it's a powerful and gripping movie from start to finish with an awesome, first-rate ensemble cast (Maggie Gyllenhaal being the exception and the weak link). I absolutely loved. Whereas Watchmen I just liked.


The Dark Knight - 8/10
Watchmen - 7/10

[Tagia_Romero]

Not Another One Of These Threads.

[DaMovieMan]

The cold expression, his patronization and flat voice are exactly what I felt the book itself conveyed every time I read it. I pegged him as the villain the moment he first said something in the graphic novel, and it turned out I was right.

The movie really didn't do anything that the book itself didn't do as far as Ozy goes.



He was the villain of the book just as much as he was in the movie. It's telling because it's exactly how it's portrayed in both version.

Yes, there is ambiguity, but that never stopped the fact that Ozy was the villain of the Watchmen graphic novel and he just so happened to be right.



I don't know how anyone could not feel sympathy for him in both versions, but it's not surprising to me that people found him to be the villain right away- That's exactly how he read in the comic book.



I miss that scene, it's true. But they didn't need it. His face when they cut to him alone in the ruins of his palace said all that need to be said about Ozy. It visually spoke more than words and is a true testament to Snyder's brillaint directing. The scene was like poetry.

I think it's impossible to NOT sympathize with him.

So after all that you mean to say that Ozymandias is just as deep, morally ambiguous and sympathetic & portrayed just as intelligently and at the peak of athletic fitness the exact same way in the novel and in the film?

If the answer is yes you're surely blinded by Snyder-love. I agree that he was good in the film, Matthew Goode surprised me and really delivered a good performance, sounded like a man who believed in what he was doing and had the air of an arrogant billionaire about him. Without including that guilt scene the film paints him more as a villain than the novel but that last image of him shows how alone he really is in this idea and that he probably fucked up (but what's more effective in order for the reader/viewer to sympathize with the character: a shot of him looking confused/guilty or an engaging conversation? If they add the scene into the DVD and I hope they do I'm sure you won't complain)
With so many scenes that include him being cut from the film, chunks of dialogue missing to the small details like no explanation of Bubastis and no appearance on television while Dan and Laurie try to have sex, it is impossible for the reader (who hasn't seen the film) and the viewer (who hasn't read the novel) to understand, sympathize and get a better picture of what Adrian Veidt was really about the same way. There's just way less of him in the film and that's undeniable and one of the film's minor flaws in my opinion, something that can be corrected with the DVD.

.............

Not Another One Of These Threads.

Another one of what kind of threads? General comparison or specifically these two films, coz i looked and i saw there was no threads comparing these two films...

The Dark Knight and Watchmen are ripe for comparison because the comic-book film seems to be the blockbuster movie of this decade. The Dark Knight is obviously the most successful comic book film to date but it's interesting for me to see so much love for TDK still, people even putting in their top ten lists of all time, when only after the second viewing I saw the film had major issues with pacing, length, character use and development, cliche's and so on. I am still convinced that after the hype dies down, maybe after a year or so people will look back and see how overrated it really is. Watchmen on the other hand has some issues with length, song use and Malin Akerman's flatline performance but because most of its story and dialogue are adapted from this graphic novel, that deserves every praise it gets, it's immediately deeper and evokes more emotion than anything in TDK. Rorschach's story about the girl was more powerful than anything in TDK. The action is handled much better in The Dark Knight, way more gritty and realistic (except the sonar cell phone was a bit of a joke really) than in Watchmen which had its MTV-influenced slo-mo for dramatic effect, but when i compare the quality of films action comes second to emotion. Then there's emotional action (pretty much all of Rorschach's actions because of Hailey's brilliant performance) and like Rachel's death in TDK (which failed to have an effect on me so much because Gyllenhaal was pretty bad in the role and the character herself was extremely two dimensional and boring). Mainstream thinking is obviously the opposite since TDK made much more than Watchmen.

Anyway I'd love to get my hands on the Watchmen script and break it down, same thing for TDK. Neither film is a masterpiece, but barring Heath Ledger's performance for the ages, The Dark Knight doesn't make nearly enough impact as Watchmen and its themes.


ilovemovies: i'll ask you about your problem with Watchmen's ending in its thread, otherwise it'll be too much Watchmen talk here...i'm very curious..

[LordSimen]

So after all that you mean to say that Ozymandias is just as deep, morally ambiguous and sympathetic & portrayed just as intelligently and at the peak of athletic fitness the exact same way in the novel and in the film?


Yeah. That's exactly what I've been saying.




If the answer is yes you're surely blinded by Snyder-love.


No, I'm just not blinded by Snyder-hate like everyone else.

. I agree that he was good in the film, Matthew Goode surprised me and really delivered a good performance, sounded like a man who believed in what he was doing and had the air of an arrogant billionaire about him.


I agree, but I also feel that's exactly how he was in the book.


Without including that guilt scene the film paints him more as a villain than the novel but that last image of him shows how alone he really is in this idea and that he probably fucked up


There IS guilt scenes in the film, they're just visual rather than relying exclusively on dialogue. When Night Owl is beating the crap out of him after Manhatten leaves, you can clearly see the guilt in his face. He CLEARLY read as a man broken up by what he had to done. Not to mention the powerful, visual poetry of the scene when they look back at him, and you see him all alone in the ruins of his palace with the visuals of all the destruction he caused on the television screens behind him and he can barely even turn to look at it for the pain is too great.

That's ten times more powerful than any dialogue scene could ever hope to accomplish. That's DEPTH. Something people for some reason like to forget Snyder is capable of.


(but what's more effective in order for the reader/viewer to sympathize with the character: a shot of him looking confused/guilty or an engaging conversation? If they add the scene into the DVD and I hope they do I'm sure you won't complain)


A shot of him looking confused and/or guilty. It's a visual medium, after all. If you can convey emotion, or a person's guilt with merely the person's face there's no need for them to blurt out "I FEEL GUILTY AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M SAYING THIS IS BECAUSE THE AUDIENCE IS TOO SLOW TO CATCH ON TO ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE A 2 HOUR EXPLAINATION ATTACHED."


With so many scenes that include him being cut from the film, chunks of dialogue missing to the small details like no explanation of Bubastis and no appearance on television while Dan and Laurie try to have sex, it is impossible for the reader (who hasn't seen the film) and the viewer (who hasn't read the novel) to understand, sympathize and get a better picture of what Adrian Veidt was really about the same way. There's just way less of him in the film and that's undeniable and one of the film's minor flaws in my opinion, something that can be corrected with the DVD.


I have no doubt the DVD will have more of him, but I completely disagree that any more is needed in order to feel sympathy for him. The guy nearly had ME in tears during the final scenes of the film and I think that alone attests to how powerful Snyder's direction the performance from the whole cast around at the end was as a whole. I felt sympathy.

I do agree that no explaination for Bubastis is something I hope a fuller cut remedies. He is one thing I can understand the audience needing a explanation for.

[DarthWade]

I knew this was coming. :)

I'll take Watchmen over The Dark Knight easily. TDK wasn't a bad movie but Watchmen was so much more (for me at least).

I left TDK feeling so-so about it, but here I am a week after seeing Watchmen still thinking about it and feeling blown away.

Watchmen was magic. I cannot wait for the extended cut or the DVDs. I kill to see them do a Lord of The Rings type of DVD for Watchmen.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I think that you're underestimating the power of great dialogue. Have you ever seen Apocalypse Now? Do you recall the way that the true power of the final act lay in the words spoken, Kurtz's haunting tales and his explanation of his demented philosophy? I don't think you can say that visuals indefinitely convey more power than words do. See, I know that you personally felt a powerful emotional high at that moment, but you're part of a very small minority. Even the people I know who liked it only liked it because they thought it was cool and fun, not because it was a riveting complex work of art. I think that Ozymandias only really has an emotional effect on people who read the book, because there is a subconscious filling in of the details. I feel that the conversation with Manhattan still shows more guilt. It is not a 'point out the obvious' kind of dialogue scene, but it is an understated way of showing how he really feels, probably more subtle than him standing alone in his arctic lair. Manhattan's response only adds to the ambiguity of his actions. Additionally, when I say villain, I admit that he was a villain in the sense that he was the antagonist, but not in a moral sense by any stretch of the imagination. Moviegoers I've talked to saw him a villain in both senses. Visual cues alone cannot counteract multiple scenes of cold condescension and supervillain behavior.

[LordSimen]

I'm pretty sure most movie goers would find him a villain in both senses even in the graphic novel.

[LordSimen]

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/watchmen/images/6/6c/Watchmen-12-27.jpg

The only part of this entire scene that I personally think is needed is that of Dr. Manhatten getting to be the one to say his line about nothing ever ending. Other than that, the rest of the scene was already mentioned in the movie and/or shown visually. The dialogue is not necessary. It would simply be stating the obvious, that he feels bad for it. But you already see he does, you don't need to hear it.

counteract multiple scenes of cold condescension and supervillain behavior.

And one scene with one question counteracts an entire graphic novel of cold condescension and supervillain behavior? I don't get how one can and the other can't.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

That's to say that most of them would condemn Ozy's decision, which I don't think is the case. Typically Watchmen discussion is split over who to side with. It's only after the film has come out that I've heard all this Ozymandias is the villain talk. I personally find it impossible to separate him from any of the other characters. I saw him as another detached individual with his own personal life philosophy, no better or worse than Rorschach, Manhattan, or Nite Owl. I never read him as 'the villain'. My good friend who loves the book, as soon as the movie was over, expressed his disgust at what the film did with the character. He thought that Ozymandias was the best character and he felt that he was made the villain in the film to pander to the general audience who can't handle ambiguity. In the book, I had no idea who killed Comedian until the end. Everyone who saw the movie seems to have guessed it very early on in the film. There was most definitely lest subtlety in his portrayal.

[LordSimen]

Typically Watchmen discussion is split over who to side with. It's only after the film has come out that I've heard all this Ozymandias is the villain talk.

That has more to do with the fact that there's only a select type of people who'd actually sit down and read the graphic novel before and most of those people would be apt to an intellectual conversation about the material. But now that graphic novel has gone main stream, and you're hearing people who'd probably never sit down and read the novel in the first place until the movie was announced chiming in.

I don't know how anyone who read the book could have a problem with his the way he was portrayed in the movie. That's exactly how I read him.

In the book, I knew exactly who killed the Comedian. Not because of someone telling me, or hearing about it before, but because Veidt is so obviously the villain the moment he shows up to anyone who's experienced enough comic books. He comes off directly from the page as the only one really capable of doing it and the way he speaks and conducts himself is definitely more like that of a villain than a hero.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Well maybe you and Snyder read him the exact same way somehow. I certainly didn't, and I'm most definitely not alone.

[LordSimen]

I also personally feel that Ozy being the bad guy was not the real twist of Watchmen because that to me was way too obvious in the graphic novel to be considered a twist.The twist, for me, has always been what his plan was- Not that he was the one who planned it.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I agree, but in the novel I still didn't see it coming the first time (since I was 13 or so), but regardless I still think it's best left relatively in the dark. I think part of the effect of the book was being just as much in the dark as Rorschach was as he attempted to figure out what was going on.

[LordSimen]

I don't think they were. If they were indeed, then Moore and co failed miserably as the scenes when Night Owl first visit Veidt it becomes dreadfully obvious he's the man Rorschrch is looking for.

[CosmicPuppet]

You mean when Rorschach visits him? Nite Owl never does. I somehow doubt you knew from the first issue Ozy was the culprit.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I think you may be blurring the movie and the book a little bit.

[LordSimen]

You mean when Rorschach visits him? Nite Owl never does.

You are correct it was Rorschach.

I somehow doubt you knew from the first issue Ozy was the culprit.

Yeah, well, I did.

[outsyder]

Oh this thread.

[Crazy Dud]

I'm sorry people, but this thread is ridiculous. These films are so vastly different that, to me, it seems pointless worthless to debate which is superior because they aim to be excellent in entirely different ways.

The Dark Knight, while containing artistic elements, was definitely a film designed primarily to entertain. Watchmen, on the other hand, is an art film with some entertaining elements. The Dark Knight is definitely the more ENTERTAINING film because it was supposed to be. Watchmen, however, was superior as a work of art because it was SUPPOSED to be. The films serve very different purposes.

It could be said that Watchmen is better because it is deeper and more complex, but that very same argument could be used against the movie, so, really . . . what's the point?

[DaMovieMan]

How is Watchmen not entertaining?

Both films wanted to serve both purposes, be entertaining and be great works of art. I find Watchmen to have a better balance while TDK relies heavily on the entertainment and action.

And why shouldn't they be compared? Both are comic-book films with many regarding either the best in its genre.

It all depends on what you value most from a comic-book film: action or substance and to what degree each...

And LordSimen: as per the Ozymandias. You might read him exactly as he's portrayed in the film, and you'd be in the minority there, but you simply can not argue that he is as complex in the film as he is in the novel because there's just so much more information about him in the novel. Undeniable fact that cannot be conveyed by a couple of visual shots...they might to you since you've read the novel before seeing the film but try to put yourself in a person's shoes who hasn't read the novel and think about it objectively in that sense.

When did you read the novel? Earlier or when you heard the film was being made? Just curious...

oh and that last scene with Manhattan from the novel is the absolute perfect way for Ozymandias' finale in the story. The meditation, the connection to the Black Freighter parallel, the shadow being bigger than the man himself, the guilt and second-guessing shown to the one entity that is perhaps smarter than him...all of that cannot be conveyed in one shot of Ozy looking alone and guilty, no way.

[LordSimen]

And LordSimen: as per the Ozymandias. You might read him exactly as he's portrayed in the film, and you'd be in the minority there, but you simply can not argue that he is as complex in the film as he is in the novel because there's just so much more information about him in the novel. Undeniable fact that cannot be conveyed by a couple of visual shots...they might to you since you've read the novel before seeing the film but try to put yourself in a person's shoes who hasn't read the novel and think about it objectively in that sense.

How complex the character is portrayed and how sympathetic he is are not necessarily synonomous in my own personal beliefs. They may not have fit EVERYTHING from the graphic novel into the movie (they fit a whole lot, regardless and they still have a longer cut to fit even more still), but what they fit was just enough for everything to work and flow perfectly, with each beat of the story having just as much impact as it does in the graphic novel.


When did you read the novel? Earlier or when you heard the film was being made? Just curious...


2003 was my first reading of it. Took many more later to fully understand it.


oh and that last scene with Manhattan from the novel is the absolute perfect way for Ozymandias' finale in the story. The meditation, the connection to the Black Freighter parallel, the shadow being bigger than the man himself, the guilt and second-guessing shown to the one entity that is perhaps smarter than him...all of that cannot be conveyed in one shot of Ozy looking alone and guilty, no way.


Considering the Black Freighter was no longer attached to this cut of the movie, the Black Freigher parallel is non-existent. The guilt and the second guessing could be perfectly conveyed in the one shot. As far as showing all of this to a character smarter than him? Well, I don't really find vital myself.

[DaMovieMan]

Yeah we'll see if they include his dialogue that's directly connected with the Black Freighter once the novel-within-the-novel is spliced in. I doubt it unfortunately.

His grief over the lives lost and how he felt the pain of each person dying is just good dialogue from the novel that had no reason being cut out from the film. I hope they include that in the extended. For such a vital part of the story-line and vital aspect of one of the most important characters, one shot is not enough. Still didn't make people who haven't read the novel second guess him as the clear villain when it's clear that he's no villain but just as outcasted as the rest of them (that was a good post btw Mxyzptlk)

[LordSimen]

I have no problem if they did include it, if only because I wish Dr. Manhatten still got to say his line to him rather than the way the line is used in the movie, but like I mentioned earlier I don't necessarily think it was vital or necessary for one to feel sympathy for Ozy.

I'm pretty sure even if that scene was in the movie people would still label him as the villain. I personally don't see what's so wrong with calling him the villain. He is. He's the one who does all the evil deeds regardless of how good his intentions were.

[DaMovieMan]

I would have no problem calling him the villain either...if i only saw the film and didn't read the novel.

It seems like you've begun to replace the film and the way it represented the story's characters with how the true source material presented them. Ozymandias is much more layered in the book, there's much more to him, and part of the reason it wasn't as predictable to tag him for the evil deeds in the novel as it was in the film (for you maybe it was, but you do know that you're in a very small minority consisting so far of only one person) is because he was such a humanitarian, the smartest man on the planet, etc. etc. What he does is one of the biggest debates within the story and calling him a 'villain' does injustice to the complexity Moore created.

Straight-up villains are the Joker and Two-Face who'se ends only serve their purpose and who seem to have no regrets about the means to get to those ends. Joker is the classic villain, evil for the sake evil just so he can screw with everyone. Ozymandias is way more complex than that.

[the_deacon]

TANK GIRL!

[LordSimen]

It seems like you've begun to replace the film and the way it represented the story's characters with how the true source material presented them. Ozymandias is much more layered in the book, there's much more to him, and part of the reason it wasn't as predictable to tag him for the evil deeds in the novel as it was in the film (for you maybe it was, but you do know that you're in a very small minority consisting so far of only one person) is because he was such a humanitarian, the smartest man on the planet, etc. etc. What he does is one of the biggest debates within the story and calling him a 'villain' does injustice to the complexity Moore created.


I haven't replaced anything because the film version is pretty much exactly how he was portrayed in the graphic novel in the first place. Replacing him with either version would basically be replacing him with an exact copy, thus taking you back to square one.

Ozy is layered, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the dude's a villain. Hundreds of villains have good intentions and actually care about people, that doesn't stop him from being a villain. That just makes him a great villain because the best villains are the kind that actually make sense.

I personally don't care about the debates of the story. If there was anyone I'd say was in the wrong in terms of his actions and who was essentially the villain of the story, it was and will always be Ozy.

I've never been one to feel that just because he was a humanitarian at heart, or because he gave to charity, he's somehow redeemed for slaughtering of thousands of people just to essentially feed his own hubris.

[DaMovieMan]

That's exactly it: was he feeding his own hubris or actually doing what needed to be done? After all, everyone started collaborating after that, the world seemed to be at peace where newspapers like the New Frontiersman had nothing to write about. That's the whole debate. And Manhattan, the smartest being, agreed.

Ozy is no villain, he's a lost soul trying to do something right and getting ahead of himself. That's my theory but if i try to defend my argument i'd need the novel and not the film because the latter pretty much paints him as nothing more than a villain with a conscience.

The debates of the story, by the way, is a big part of the reason why the graphic novel is so popular and critically acclaimed.

With vital details missing from the film regarding Ozy, it's idealistic of you to believe he's an exact copy of the novel. I admire your unbending belief but just ask anyone who'se seen the film and not read the novel how they feel about Ozymandias.

[LordSimen]

That's exactly it: was he feeding his own hubris or actually doing what needed to be done?

In his mind he was doing what needed to be done, but in actuality he was feeding his own hubris. So both.

People did start collaborating and working together after that, but at the expense of thousands of lives. To use a cliche but effective example, Hitler ultimately had a goal of uniting Germany and in the end did succeed for a while, but at what price?

The man is way too much of an idealist and his ego is essentially his downfall. The man sets out to pretty much trick the world to conform to his vision of it and after he does so he literally looks toward the one man he sees as his equal and that man happens to be one that is more often than not looked upon as a god by the rest of the world as the one person he believes could truly understand what he was trying to do.

He may not be a mustache twirling villain who "wishes to watch the world burn," but not all villains are like that. The villain who wishes to save humanity from himself has been done millions of times over, but that goal alone does not change that they're still the villains.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I think that you love the movie so much because it sides with you on the issue of Ozy's culpability. You read the book and concluded that Ozy was in the wrong, even though the author takes no stance, and therefore the movie fulfills that completely by portraying him as a villain. Even though you say thou read it several times to get it, you still claim that the debates of the story mean little to you. I fail to see how you can 'get' the story and neglect what makes it such a masterpiece. You say that the film portrayed him exactly as he was in the book, but I think it only portrays him according to your personal interpretation. Ask many people who read the book and had a different, more ambiguous interpretation of the character, and they would say otherwise. Therefore, it's simply erroneous to say that the two are portrayed the same, because you are clearly speaking from a biased perspective. So much of your post is that you personally felt this about him and that about him and therefore felt his actions were wrong. But at the same time, Moore clearly wrote the book with several scenes and passages and elements that put his actions in a more questionable, and less morally absolute light. Moore wrote him as a humanitarian and an idealist, and portrayed his ideological opponent with his own flaws and issues. Hell, in both versions the smartest being in existence sides with the man's actions. Moore leaves it up to the reader to decide whether Ozymandias is right or wrong, and that is why so many people are split on the issue. And yet you say that this utmost important debate is of little interest to you, that most people probably read the character as a villain anyway, and that it doesn't matter that the film didn't add in his more positive elements because they do little to change the fact that he's a villain? There is little doubt to me that you are setting your personal opinion about the character and his actions as the standard for the character, and even if Snyder portrayed the character contrary to several readers' interpretations, it matters little since that portrayal conformed to yours.

Those are the conclusions I'm drawing anyways.

[LordSimen]

I think that you love the movie so much because it sides with you on the issue of Ozy's culpability.

Incorrect. I love the movie so much because it perfectly adapts the graphic novel with the little changes it makes actually working for it, rather than against it. Aside from one or two that I think were unnecessary changes, but those don't bug me that much.

You read the book and concluded that Ozy was in the wrong, even though the author takes no stance, and therefore the movie fulfills that completely by portraying him as a villain. Even though you say thou read it several times to get it, you still claim that the debates of the story mean little to you. I fail to see how you can 'get' the story and neglect what makes it such a masterpiece. You say that the film portrayed him exactly as he was in the book, but I think it only portrays him according to your personal interpretation. Ask many people who read the book and had a different, more ambiguous interpretation of the character, and they would say otherwise. Therefore, it's simply erroneous to say that the two are portrayed the same, because you are clearly speaking from a biased perspective. So much of your post is that you personally felt this about him and that about him and therefore felt his actions were wrong. But at the same time, Moore clearly wrote the book with several scenes and passages and elements that put his actions in a more questionable, and less morally absolute light. Moore wrote him as a humanitarian and an idealist, and portrayed his ideological opponent with his own flaws and issues. Hell, in both versions the smartest being in existence sides with the man's actions. Moore leaves it up to the reader to decide whether Ozymandias is right or wrong, and that is why so many people are split on the issue. And yet you say that this utmost important debate is of little interest to you, that most people probably read the character as a villain anyway, and that it doesn't matter that the film didn't add in his more positive elements because they do little to change the fact that he's a villain? There is little doubt to me that you are setting your personal opinion about the character and his actions as the standard for the character, and even if Snyder portrayed the character contrary to several readers' interpretations, it matters little since that portrayal conformed to yours.


Half-correct. I do agree that the movie does portray Ozy exactly as how I read him in the graphic novel, but I disagree that directly means the movie took my stance on the character as you seem to think he has. If they did find him to be in the wrong, and to be a villain, most likly they wouldn't have let him ultimately "win" in the end like they did. They left it just as open ended and up to debate as the graphic novel did and in my personal opinion, in both versions, Ozy was wrong and his actions were despicable.

[DaMovieMan]

By portraying him as nothing more than a cliche villain (most people are unhappy with the ending and who the villain turned out to be by calling it a cliche, remember) in the film, it's no where near as open ended as the graphic novel where no one who reads it can call Ozymandias a cliche, some can't even call him a villain. It's obvious Snyder personally thought he was completely in the wrong and decided to portray him that way through-out, not giving him nearly enough substance as he's given in the novel. I really don't get how you can believe so much that Ozy is the perfect replica from the novel when there's so much left out about him. You're saying that all of the stuff about him in the novel that wasn't in the film, all those scenes and dialogue are pointless? Or does one shot of him in the end convey everything that's been left out?

[LordSimen]

Every character had tons of things left out on them and the only things that remained in the movie are the essential parts that keep the story moving perfectly but each of them is pretty much portrayed exactly as their comic book counter part was, Ozy's no different. He's just as snarky and condescending as he was in the graphic novel and really, no matter how many humanitarian things you show in the movie, it doesn't take away from what he does at the end of the movie. It still remains regardless of how much stuff you show of him before his action.


I think the fact that you automatically see him as a villain the moment you take away a moment of him giving to charity says a lot more about what he actually is, to tell you the truth.

Besides, the rest off the stuff about sympathy is already conveyed in the movie by other methods. If it's in the longer cut of the movie, great, but this cut? Didn't necessarily needed it. You got that conveyed so much better with just a visual.

[DaMovieMan]

Every character had tons of things left out on them and the only things that remained in the movie are the essential parts that keep the story moving perfectly but each of them is pretty much portrayed exactly as their comic book counter part was, Ozy's no different. He's just as snarky and condescending as he was in the graphic novel and really, no matter how many humanitarian things you show in the movie, it doesn't take away from what he does at the end of the movie. It still remains regardless of how much stuff you show of him before his action.


I think the fact that you automatically see him as a villain the moment you take away a moment of him giving to charity says a lot more about what he actually is, to tell you the truth.

Besides, the rest off the stuff about sympathy is already conveyed in the movie by other methods. If it's in the longer cut of the movie, great, but this cut? Didn't necessarily needed it. You got that conveyed so much better with just a visual.

Your lines in bold are proof to me that you don't understand the complexity of Ozymandias as Alan Moore wrote him. If you read the novel and all you saw from the character is 'snarky' and 'condescending' and completely ignore everything about him because of what he did at the end which immediately labels him a villain in your view, you could do perhaps with another reading and pay special focus to Ozy. If you do, you'll also realize that out of all the major important characters he suffers the most in how he's represented in the film: Rorschach, Night Owl II, Manhattan and The Comedian are pretty perfect adaptations. Laurie could of done with more complexity but she's not nearly as important as Ozymandias.
Also you seem to be putting everything that's left out from Ozy in generalized terms like 'charity' and 'sympathy' when what i'm talking about includes those things but goes way beyond to include everything about him that's left out, dialogue, more scenes, extended sequences etc.
If scenes that are left out seem to be completely fine with you, wouldn't you not want them included in the extended cut since it will make a long movie even longer, if the scenes according to you are not necessary? Why call it great when it's not needed?
Seems like you've taken up this mission to defend Snyder and his theatrical interpretation of the novel by all costs, dismissing things like the great debates from the novel as meaningless to you and ignoring the objective point of view of a complex character because he's been interpreted the exact way you read him, while for other fans of the novel and through Moore's own writing it's clear that he's more complex and layered than a 'snark, condescending villain'.

[FilmJunkie1114]

I'd definitely go with Dark Knight over Watchmen, but Watchmen certainly wouldn't be too far behind.

[LordSimen]

Your lines in bold are proof to me that you don't understand the complexity of Ozymandias as Alan Moore wrote him. If you read the novel and all you saw from the character is 'snarky' and 'condescending' and completely ignore everything about him because of what he did at the end which immediately labels him a villain in your view, you could do perhaps with another reading and pay special focus to Ozy. If you do, you'll also realize that out of all the major important characters he suffers the most in how he's represented in the film: Rorschach, Night Owl II, Manhattan and The Comedian are pretty perfect adaptations. Laurie could of done with more complexity but she's not nearly as important as Ozymandias.
Also you seem to be putting everything that's left out from Ozy in generalized terms like 'charity' and 'sympathy' when what i'm talking about includes those things but goes way beyond to include everything about him that's left out, dialogue, more scenes, extended sequences etc.
If scenes that are left out seem to be completely fine with you, wouldn't you not want them included in the extended cut since it will make a long movie even longer, if the scenes according to you are not necessary? Why call it great when it's not needed?
Seems like you've taken up this mission to defend Snyder and his theatrical interpretation of the novel by all costs, dismissing things like the great debates from the novel as meaningless to you and ignoring the objective point of view of a complex character because he's been interpreted the exact way you read him, while for other fans of the novel and through Moore's own writing it's clear that he's more complex and layered than a 'snark, condescending villain'.


I think YOU need to reread the graphic novel because it's quite clear to me you didn't understand Ozy. He's snarky and condescending the entire time. He has a holier than thou complex to the extreme and looks down at people from the pedestal that is his tower.

I don't ignore everything about him, I just disagree that somehow giving things to charity somehow exempts him from his terrible actions at the end of the graphic novel. Great intentions does not excuse slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children just to force the world into his own view of how it should be and essentially just feed his own hubris.

He feels bad for it in BOTH versions of the story and the fact that people see him as a villain regardless of that just goes to show you how much of a villain he actually is. The dude's a bad guy, through and through. A sympathetic villain is still a villain.

He's represented exactly as he is in the graphic novel, just like everyone else and if they chose to include more scenes from the graphic novel into the longer cut, I would have no problem with it. I could watch 4 more hours of the movie because it's just so fuckin' perfect that 4 more hours of perfection would be amazing.

Ozy is complex and layered, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a snarky and condescending villain.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I think YOU need to reread the graphic novel because it's quite clear to me you didn't understand Ozy.

I don't ignore everything about him, I just disagree that somehow giving things to charity somehow exempts him from his terrible actions at the end of the graphic novel. Great intentions does not excuse slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children just to force the world into his own view of how it should be and essentially just feed his own hubris.

The dude's a bad guy, through and through. A sympathetic villain is still a villain.

Ozy is complex and layered, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a snarky and condescending villain.
The problem with this post is you claim that we don't understand the character, but then every single thing you say is your personal opinion. I felt he was a villain, I felt his actions were wrong, etc. as if that's exactly the judgment the book made on him. It's not. You act as if his humanitarianism wasn't important because it doesn't change his actions, but if so, why is it in the book? Moore clearly thought it was important. The book portrays him from a morally objective point of view. YOU see him as a villain, but not everyone else does. I know you've said that your condemnation of his actions has little to do with the debate at hand, but you keep bringing it up when, by both your judgment and mine, it should be irrelevant. Some people read the book and felt that those humanitarian qualities that were given so much time in the book WERE important, so I don't see why you are the end-all interpreter of what is and is not important in regards to a morally complex character who is not only far more complex in the book, but whom you keep judging from your own personal perspective when it is irrelevant to the argument. For the record, I've read the book three times, and I never ever read him as a villain or as snarky and condescending. You may disagree with me, but if you claim that I'm misinterpreting a characterization that Moore was clearly pushing, then I would have to take issue with that.

[LordSimen]

He was snarky and condescending in the book, yet you claim the movie portraying him that way goes against the book. It doesn't, as that's exactly how he acted within the book.

Those elements weren't needed in this cut of the movie because there was already enough to get the character as it was. An extended cut that further explores each character would be wonderful, but to act as if he's somehow not the character Moore wrote would be outright wrong if you ask me. The dude's exactly how he was in the graphic novel. He's a perfect adaptation.

The fact that he was viewed upon as a villain by the viewing public has less to do with the way Zack portrayed him as much as it has to do with the way Moore wrote him. He wrote him condescending, he wrote him snarky, he gave him the evil act to do at the end of the graphic novel and no matter how you slice it those elements will make him come off as a villain to anybody and those are Moore's elements. Charity, good intentions and sympathy (Which were all present in the movie in some way, shape, or form) do very little to change that.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

You can't say that Moore gave him 'the evil act' because that's YOUR judgment. Moore never condemns that action. Nite Owl and Rorschach do, but Moore doesn't write as if their opinions are the most valuable. They are simply different points of view. Ozy's grand action, for all intents and purposes, did save the world from nuclear holocaust and Dr. Manhattan, the smartest being, agreed. If that is a condemnation of his actions, then I don't know what could be done to make him morally ambiguous. Those elements you mention will not make him come off as a villain to anybody because a grand amount of the people who read the book didn't read him as a villain. That's just a factually incorrect statement plain and simple. Of course his humanitarianism and good intentions don't change his god complex or the basic immorality of his actions, but to even talk like that would to be to pretend that the two contradict each other somehow. Those qualities do not change his actions, but they are still part of the character, Moore still placed emphasis on them, and at the end of the day they are important for making the character morally complex and for adding questionability to what he did. Moore didn't write him 95% villain with a little bit of goodness on the side; he was split down the middle.

Can you please give an explanation as to why so many readers did not consider him a villain? Are you really making the patronizing claim that all of us who viewed him from a morally ambiguous perspective, neither hero nor villain, are incorrect and missed Moore's intention? If so, then I would have to say you are most assuredly wrong.

[LordSimen]

You can't say that Moore gave him 'the evil act' because that's YOUR judgment. Moore never condemns that action. Nite Owl and Rorschach do, but Moore doesn't write as if their opinions are the most valuable. They are simply different points of view. Ozy's grand action, for all intents and purposes, did save the world from nuclear holocaust and Dr. Manhattan, the smartest being, agreed. If that is a condemnation of his actions, then I don't know what could be done to make him morally ambiguous. Those elements you mention will not make him come off as a villain to anybody because a grand amount of the people who read the book didn't read him as a villain. That's just a factually incorrect statement plain and simple. Of course his humanitarianism and good intentions don't change his god complex or the basic immorality of his actions, but to even talk like that would to be to pretend that the two contradict each other somehow. Those qualities do not change his actions, but they are still part of the character, Moore still placed emphasis on them, and at the end of the day they are important for making the character morally complex and for adding questionability to what he did. Moore didn't write him 95% villain with a little bit of goodness on the side; he was split down the middle.


More did give him the evil act because it was an evil act. There's nothing you can say that's going to change that. He kill thousands of innocent people intentionally- That's evil, regardless of the end results.

Moore does write Rorsarch and Night Owl's opinions as being the most valuable. He did that when he made them the protagonists of the graphic novel. You pretty much follow them when you're not going into other character's backstories (subplots). But of the main plot, they're the protagonists. Their views are the most vital. Ozy is the antagonist. He's the bad guy, he's the villain. It's how the damn story was written.

Just because Moore himself doesn't take any personal stances on the characters doesn't change the way he structured the story and the actions he gave the characters to do. Of all of them, aside from The Comedian, Ozy's the only one given an evil act.

There were elements left out of EVERY character. They were ALL more complex in the LENGTHY graphic novel than they were in the two and half hour movie adaptation. Ozy's no exception, but that doesn't change the fact that the way he acts is exactly how he acts in the graphic novel, random little facts about him aside. He WAS Ozy. The fact people saw him as villain comes from the graphic novel itself. He was a villain. Through and through.

Dr. Manhatten agreed that he did momentarily save the world from nuclear holocaust, but he also said that nothing ever ends. It will turn back to the way it was eventually and that makes Ozy's actions pointless. He killed people for no reason.


Can you please give an explanation as to why so many readers did not consider him a villain?

Because they obviously didn't read the graphic novel thoroughly enough. .

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

More did give him the evil act because it was an evil act. There's nothing you can say that's going to change that. He kill thousands of innocent people intentionally- That's evil, regardless of the end results.

Moore does write Rorsarch and Night Owl's opinions as being the most valuable. He did that when he made them the protagonists of the graphic novel. You pretty much follow them when you're not going into other character's backstories (subplots). But of the main plot, they're the protagonists. Their views are the most vital. Ozy is the antagonist. He's the bad guy, he's the villain. It's how the damn story was written.
An evil act that accomplished good. The debate is over whether the act's inherent evilness is worthy of condemnation when it achieved something good. Rorschach was the protagonist, but please, Moore clearly did not write him as if his opinions were most valuable. The man was perturbed, detached, uncompromising, and psychologically messed up. Just because we see things from his point of view does not mean Moore was writing him as the person we're supposed to side with. Nite Owl is clearly smarter, but even he recognized the accomplishment of Ozy's actions.
Just because Moore himself doesn't take any personal stances on the characters doesn't change the way he structured the story and the actions he gave the characters to do. Of all of them, aside from The Comedian, Ozy's the only one given an evil act.
Um...Rorschach? I would personally consider much of what he did evil. He murdered and assaulted people without any proper trial, and unlike Ozy, I think it would be harder to argue the moral accomplishment of his actions. Again, I feel you are simplifying. Ozy isn't a villain because he commits an evil act. The dictionary states villain not in terms of being an antagonist but as someone willfully devoted to evil or maliciousness. That is not Ozy, but the grossest simplification of Ozy imaginable.
There were elements left out of EVERY character. They were ALL more complex in the LENGTHY graphic novel than they were in the two and half hour movie adaptation. Ozy's no exception, but that doesn't change the fact that the way he acts is exactly how he acts in the graphic novel, random little facts about him aside. He WAS Ozy. The fact people saw him as villain comes from the graphic novel itself. He was a villain. Through and through.
Exactly, which is why I also take issue with the portrayal of Rorschach and Silk Spectre. That's why I question the necessity of making an adaptation of a book that always will be more layered and complex. What was left out about Ozy, however, generates negativity because his action is the action that is supposed to be the most ambiguous and debatable, and extra attention should have been paid to making it less one-sided than it was.
Dr. Manhatten agreed that he did momentarily save the world from nuclear holocaust, but he also said that nothing ever ends. It will turn back to the way it was eventually and that makes Ozy's actions pointless. He killed people for no reason.
I don't think that Manhattan is directly saying that the world will indefinitely revert back to the brink of nuclear holocaust, but only that it is very possible. The world may learn or they may not; Ozy's actions may have momentarily saved the world but who's to say for certain they have ensured the security of the planet for years to come? That is morally ambiguous, and to say that he killed people for no reason is completely wrong. Saving the world momentarily is better than indefinite nuclear holocaust. To act with the utmost certainty that nothing can be done to change nuclear holocaust is to question the importance of any measure taken to prevent it, being Ozy's immoral act or the moral acts of others.
Because they obviously didn't read the graphic novel thoroughly enough. .
I would say that you didn't read it thoroughly enough if you felt that the debate over Ozy's action was irrelevant when it is, above all else, what has made Watchmen go down as a great literary work. I read the novel three times and my fourth is coming up, to be read with online annotations. To claim that just because I didn't view the character the way you did, just like SEVERAL people, didn't read thoroughly enough is condescending of the utmost kind. The questionability of the character isn't just personal interpretation either; it's well documented in several books that provide articles about Watchmen, histories of DC Comics, philosophical essays on superheroes, etc.

[LordSimen]

An evil act that accomplished good. The debate is over whether the act's inherent evilness is worthy of condemnation when it achieved something good. Rorschach was the protagonist, but please, Moore clearly did not write him as if his opinions were most valuable. The man was perturbed, detached, uncompromising, and psychologically messed up. Just because we see things from his point of view does not mean Moore was writing him as the person we're supposed to side with. Nite Owl is clearly smarter, but even he recognized the accomplishment of Ozy's actions.


There's no debate there. He accomplished the temporary illusion of good, not actual good. Dr. Manhatten practically states that before he leaves. He essentially killed people on a gamble that he was lucky he won but it's merely a temporary solution to an insolvable problem. The world will go back to the way it was, and all those deaths would be completely in vain. He has NO moral ground to stand on here. The dude fucked up.



Um...Rorschach? I would personally consider much of what he did evil. He murdered and assaulted people without any proper trial, and unlike Ozy, I think it would be harder to argue the moral accomplishment of his actions. Again, I feel you are simplifying. Ozy isn't a villain because he commits an evil act. The dictionary states villain not in terms of being an antagonist but as someone willfully devoted to evil or maliciousness. That is not Ozy, but the grossest simplification of Ozy imaginable.


What the hell? How is Rorschach evil? He killed murdererss and stopped them before they murdered again. He should be commended for his actions. There's nothing evil about him.

Ozy would sit up on his ivory tower proclaiming himself better and smarter with everyone, giving money to charity while secretly planning the mass murder of thousands of innocent people. There's nothing that can redeem that. That's evil.


Exactly, which is why I also take issue with the portrayal of Rorschach and Silk Spectre. That's why I question the necessity of making an adaptation of a book that always will be more layered and complex. What was left out about Ozy, however, generates negativity because his action is the action that is supposed to be the most ambiguous and debatable, and extra attention should have been paid to making it less one-sided than it was.

Because some of us love the graphic novel and want to see a perfect adaptation like Snyder's put to screen. That's the necessity.


I don't think that Manhattan is directly saying that the world will indefinitely revert back to the brink of nuclear holocaust, but only that it is very possible. The world may learn or they may not; Ozy's actions may have momentarily saved the world but who's to say for certain they have ensured the security of the planet for years to come? That is morally ambiguous, and to say that he killed people for no reason is completely wrong. Saving the world momentarily is better than indefinite nuclear holocaust. To act with the utmost certainty that nothing can be done to change nuclear holocaust is to question the importance of any measure taken to prevent it, being Ozy's immoral act or the moral acts of others.



Oh, that's exactly what he's saying. He wouldn't have said it when he did if he didn't mean that. In fact the entire conversation was over whether or not Ozy's actions worked or not. Manhatten leaves the conversation with that quote. Which essentially means it will revert back in some way and his actions would be completely in vain.


I would say that you didn't read it thoroughly enough if you felt that the debate over Ozy's action was irrelevant when it is, above all else, what has made Watchmen go down as a great literary work. I read the novel three times and my fourth is coming up, to be read with online annotations. To claim that just because I didn't view the character the way you did, just like SEVERAL people, didn't read thoroughly enough is condescending of the utmost kind. The questionability of the character isn't just personal interpretation either; it's well documented in several books that provide articles about Watchmen, histories of DC Comics, philosophical essays on superheroes, etc.

I read it very thoroughly and multiple times. I don't see any debate there over Ozy's actions. The dude was a bad guy. A complex, layered and fascinating bad guy, but a bad guy none the less. His actions have no moral justification, because Dr. Manhatten pretty much explains that it was pointless.

[CosmicPuppet]

Moore does write Rorsarch and Night Owl's opinions as being the most valuable. He did that when he made them the protagonists of the graphic novel. You pretty much follow them when you're not going into other character's backstories (subplots). But of the main plot, they're the protagonists. Their views are the most vital. Ozy is the antagonist. He's the bad guy, he's the villain. It's how the damn story was written.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Just because Rorschach is the most prominent character doesn't mean Moore is saying, "Hey, this guy's right! And I believe in everything he says!" You could use this immensely flawed logic to Taxi Driver and say Scorsese truly believed in everything Travis Bickle said and did. Why? Because he's the main character!

I'm sorry Simen, but you're grasping at straws here. I think it's funny you're saying other people didn't understand the book but you're still siding with the most mentally ill character in the book.

Nite Owl obviously was a protagonist not because Moore thought he was voice of Watchmen, but because he was the embodiment of the everyman type of hero. The guy who got into it because he thought it was cool to be a hero. It's easier to side with him because he's the most generic of the characters, like Laurie. That's why they fit together because they are the "every person" of the book.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Wait so Rorschach is a grand hero for murdering and torturing people, criminals they may be, and Ozy is an evil villain for doing something evil and achieving peace, no matter how temporary? You really are simplifying the debates at hand. There is a reason that every philosophical essay written about the book completely rejects what you keep saying.

You may personally respect Rorschac's actions, but again, your interpretation is not the only one that matters. Again, Rorschach was shown to be psychologically perturbed and possessed a cruel uncompromising morality that very few people would side with. I guess you take delight in human beings being burned alive with no chance for redemption of their actions, but not everyone is like you. You are stating the heroism or evil of the characters as if you were making factual statements and as if Moore agreed with you. I am providing my own interpretation and yet you still claim I'm wrong.

Additionally, if Manhattan really did say that Ozy achieved nothing, then why did Manhattan kill Rorschach? Is Manhattan a murderer for killing someone to achieve 'the illusion of good'? Manhattan clearly backed Ozy's actions more than you are insinuating.

Read some of the essays that have been written by people who have analyzed the book more than you have. I think you are very much overestimating the extent to which you fully understand the book.

[LordSimen]

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Just because Rorschach is the most prominent character doesn't mean Moore is saying, "Hey, this guy's right! And I believe in everything he says!" You could use this immensely flawed logic to Taxi Driver and say Scorsese truly believed in everything Travis Bickle said and did. Why? Because he's the main character!

I never said he said they were right, but he did make their stances more important than others.


I'm sorry Simen, but you're grasping at straws here. I think it's funny you're saying other people didn't understand the book but you're still siding with the most mentally ill character in the book.

Rorschach's mental illness aside, the guy had a better moral balance than Ozy that's for sure. Rorschach would never kill a thousand innocents regardless of the outcome, the blood on his hands are merely of those who had blood on their own hands. I don't consider that evil, at all.


Nite Owl obviously was a protagonist not because Moore thought he was voice of Watchmen, but because he was the embodiment of the everyman type of hero. The guy who got into it because he thought it was cool to be a hero. It's easier to side with him because he's the most generic of the characters, like Laurie. That's why they fit together because they are the "every person" of the book.

I agree, Nite Owl is the MAIN protagonist of the story. But he isn't the sole one. I'd say Rorschach and to a lesser extend Silk Spectre also fit under the label.




EDIT:

Wait so Rorschach is a grand hero for murdering and torturing people, criminals they may be, and Ozy is an evil villain for doing something evil and achieving peace, no matter how temporary? You really are simplifying the debates at hand. There is a reason that every philosophical essay written about the book completely rejects what you keep saying.

Uh... Yeah. Ozy killed thousands of INNOCENT people on a gamble that he wasn't even sure he was going to win and once he did he found out that victory would be short lived. Rorschach killed thousands of murderers and rapists so they would never live a day to hurt another human being again.

I don't even know how this is even up for debate. I don't care about the philosophical essays.



You may personally respect Rorschac's actions, but again, your interpretation is not the only one that matters. Again, Rorschach was shown to be psychologically perturbed and possessed a cruel uncompromising morality that very few people would side with. I guess you take delight in human beings being burned alive with no chance for redemption of their actions, but not everyone is like you. You are stating the heroism or evil of the characters as if you were making factual statements and as if Moore agreed with you. I am providing my own interpretation and yet you still claim I'm wrong.


Every character in the graphic novel has their undeniable flaws, it's one of the best aspects of the graphic novel. Yes, Rorschach was mentally ill and unstable. But that just goes to show you how fucked up Ozy was when Rorschach has higher ground to stand on than Ozy, who sunk to the lowest low imaginable.

I love how you for some reason are siding with a man who killed thousands of innocent people who never killed, hurt, or raped another human being in their entire lies and children who weren't even given the chance to decide what life they wanted to live and then are condemning the person who killed those who had already made the choice in their life and those choices were that of murder and rape.

I don't believe Moore agreed with me, because I believe Moore wrote the graphic novel from an objective point of view. But the facts of what they characters did are facts. One's evil, one's a hero.




Additionally, if Manhattan really did say that Ozy achieved nothing, then why did Manhattan kill Rorschach? Is Manhattan a murderer for killing someone to achieve 'the illusion of good'? Manhattan clearly backed Ozy's actions more than you are insinuating.


Because I'm sure Manhatten felt that a short time of peace is better than none, perhaps long enough for Silk Spectre to live her life in peace. He did love her, after all.

Yes, Manhatten is a murderer and I do personally condemn his actions.


Read some of the essays that have been written by people who have analyzed the book more than you have. I think you are very much overestimating the extent to which you fully understand the book.


I have no interest in reading other people's misinterpretations of this graphic novel, especially if anyone of them try to make a case that Ozy was in the right. Ozy was in the wrong and there's nothing that can really change that as long as his actions stand.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I think you are both right and you are both wrong.

You won't convince one another.

Try fucking the wind. You'd have a better chance.

[Gilpesh]

What the hell? How is Rorschach evil? He killed murdererss and stopped them before they murdered again. He should be commended for his actions. There's nothing evil about him.
Kovacs half blinds a kid that just made fun of him. Rorschach breaks a man's fingers just because he made fun him. Rorschach will condemn the world to nuclear holocaust all because of a hurt ego.

That's more villain-like than trying to save the world.

Dr. Manhatten pretty much explains that it was pointless.
You read too much into a simple statement of fact which Doctor Manhattan has been doing the entire comic, for example his statement on death. "Nothing ends," if expanded to lose all the punch it gave Veidt would be, "There is no conceivable end point to measure anything against because nothing ends," or "The way I perceive time means that everything is happening at once and so there is no end to actually measure the weight of your actions against so I cannot answer your question because nothing ends."

[LordSimen]

Kovacs half blinds a kid that just made fun of him. Rorschach breaks a man's fingers just because he made fun him. Rorschach will condemn the world to nuclear holocaust all because of a hurt ego.

Fair enough. He has done some questionable and evil acts, but that last statement is just incorrect. He was going to save the world from Ozy's mistake, not condemn it to nuclear holocaust.

Rorschach was flawed, no doubt. But a villain he was not. An angry, bitter hero. Ozy's a villain. Ozy killed innocent people just to boost his own hubris.


You read too much into a simple statement of fact which Doctor Manhattan has been doing the entire comic, for example his statement on death. "Nothing ends," if expanded to lose all the punch it gave Veidt would be, "There is no conceivable end point to measure anything against because nothing ends," or "The way I perceive time means that everything is happening at once and so there is no end to actually measure the weight of your actions against so I cannot answer your question because nothing ends."

I think you're completely misinterpreting that statement. The entire conversation before he says that is exclusively about the justification of Ozy's actions.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Fair enough. He has done some questionable and evil acts, but that last statement is just incorrect. He was going to save the world from Ozy's mistake, not condemn it to nuclear holocaust.
Then why did Manhattan kill him?

[LordSimen]

Then why did Manhattan kill him?

Because Manhatten wanted the temporary solution because there was a chance it would be long enough for Spectre to live her life in peace. His choice was entirely a selfish one.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Now I really think you're grasping at straws. I don't recall that ever being insinuated.

[LordSimen]

You've been grasping at straws this entire debate trying to find some way to justify the unjustifiable.

There was no insinuation because it was pretty much obvious if you connect the dots. Considering there's a whole chapter on those two discussing life and the value of human race and Dr. Manhattan coming around to reconnecting with the human race just barely through Silk Spectre herself.

Meaning he loved her. Meaning she's the one thing about the human race he cares about.

Meaning that if there was a temporary peace, then it can be deduced that she'd be alive albeit just a little bit longer.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

If I'm grasping at straws then half the people who read the book are grasping at straws and every single literary critic and philosopher who has written any piece about the book is grasping at straws. You do not possess the ultimate interpretation of the book and not everyone shares your morality, please get over it.

Dr. Manhattan learns to care for the human race as a whole. He loves Silk Spectre, obviously, but their discussion made him value ALL human life, not just hers. He learned the miracle of genetics and human uniqueness. Before that discussion she was the one thing about the human race he cared about. After that discussion, he regained a value for ALL human life. I thought that was made extremely clear. In a book with so much prose and narration and explanation, you would think that there would be the slightest hint that his action to kill Rorschach was done out of love for Silk Spectre. But there wasn't. Instead, all you have to argue the point is a four-step series of deductions that are hardly sound.

[Gilpesh]

Fair enough. He has done some questionable and evil acts, but that last statement is just incorrect. He was going to save the world from Ozy's mistake, not condemn it to nuclear holocaust.
He wasn't saving anyone by planning to tell on Veidt. Once Rorschach told, two things would happen: the US would try to punish Ozy.... and the USSR would attack the US because they were weaker and from their viewpoint tried to trick them into peace.

Those are guaranteed to happen once Rorschach tells on Veidt. And yes, me making it sound like Rorschach is a five year old on the playground running to the adults to tattle on what Veidt did is on purpose.

Rorschach was flawed, no doubt. But a villain he was not. An angry, bitter hero. Ozy's a villain. Ozy killed innocent people just to boost his own hubris.
And Rorschach killed two innocent animals just to complete some sick revenge against a man that killed a little girl. If anything they were victims of having a crappy owner that corrupted them and probably should have had them taken away from him.

I think you're completely misinterpreting that statement. The entire conversation before he says that is exclusively about the justification of Ozy's actions.
How can I be misinterpreting that statement? I am merely saying that the statement is just a fact used in such a way to make Veidt feel bad. "Nothing ends. Nothing ever ends." He's neither condoning nor condemning his actions. Like you said, they were talking about that before he said the line. And it makes sense when you read over Manhattan's chapter again and get that feel for how he experiences the past, present, and future, all at once. There is no end to it.

[LordSimen]

He wasn't saving anyone by planning to tell on Veidt. Once Rorschach told, two things would happen: the US would try to punish Ozy.... and the USSR would attack the US because they were weaker and from their viewpoint tried to trick them into peace.


Where the hell did you get that viewpoint of trying to trick them into peace?

There's nothing about that ever in the graphic novel. If anything, the new villain for the world to rally against would be Ozy himself.


Those are guaranteed to happen once Rorschach tells on Veidt. And yes, me making it sound like Rorschach is a five year old on the playground running to the adults to tattle on what Veidt did is on purpose.



That's not guaranteed, just like it was not guaranteed Veidt's plan would work in the first place. If anything, what Rorschach would do is tell the world the truth, which the world deserves to know.

Veidt is a five year old who thinks he's god.



And Rorschach killed two innocent animals just to complete some sick revenge against a man that killed a little girl. If anything they were victims of having a crappy owner that corrupted them and probably should have had them taken away from him.


Two violent animals who had tasted blood and if they were sent to any animal shelter would most likely have been put down due to their violent nature, not their fault, no doubt. But if Rorshach's evil then so is every Animal shelter in th world.



How can I be misinterpreting that statement? I am merely saying that the statement is just a fact used in such a way to make Veidt feel bad. "Nothing ends. Nothing ever ends." He's neither condoning nor condemning his actions. Like you said, they were talking about that before he said the line. And it makes sense when you read over Manhattan's chapter again and get that feel for how he experiences the past, present, and future, all at once. There is no end to it.

He isn't condoning nor condemning Veidt's actions. But what he is stating is that nothing ends. Nothing ever ends. That means that no matter how much Veidt tries, the world will always be the way it is. You may temporarily stop it, but it will never completely end. Veidt's plan is pointless.

[LordSimen]

If I'm grasping at straws then half the people who read the book are grasping at straws and every single literary critic and philosopher who has written any piece about the book is grasping at straws. You do not possess the ultimate interpretation of the book and not everyone shares your morality, please get over it.


You need to get over MY interpretation, buddy.


Yes, if those people think Ozy's in the right then they are grasping at straws because there is not one thing in the world that could justify Ozy's actions. The man made an evil choice and a wrong one at that.


Dr. Manhattan learns to care for the human race as a whole. He loves Silk Spectre, obviously, but their discussion made him value ALL human life, not just hers. He learned the miracle of genetics and human uniqueness. Before that discussion she was the one thing about the human race he cared about. After that discussion, he regained a value for ALL human life. I thought that was made extremely clear. In a book with so much prose and narration and explanation, you would think that there would be the slightest hint that his action to kill Rorschach was done out of love for Silk Spectre. But there wasn't. Instead, all you have to argue the point is a four-step series of deductions that are hardly sound.

If he truly cared about the human race, he would have condemned Ozy for his actions and killed him. Instead, he killed the hero to save his love.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. Your interpretation is that there is no room for interpretation and that you alone are correct when it comes to the issues of the graphic novel. I, on the other hand, don't feel that I have the 'right' interpretation, because I don't feel there is one. I don't care that you think that Ozy was wrong or that Rorschach is a hero, but I do care that you're acting as if everyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect, as it there is an absolute way to gauge morality.

Your interpretation is that the characters fit some black-and-white moral judgment and that there is a definite way to judge them. I feel that it is, and according to several things I've written intended to be, ambiguous. I don't even think Ozy was right (but not entirely wrong either), I simply think that there is room to judge him either way. I just feel that you're being really closed minded and acting as if you have a perfect interpretation of the graphic novel, and in the process being incredibly patronizing and condescending to anyone who thinks differently.

And also, the book made it clear as day that if Rorschach exposed Ozy, then the nuclear holocaust would indefinitely happen. I don't think meaningless vengeance has anything to do with caring about the human race. Additionally, I find it strange that you are dishing out negative judgment on the two most intelligent beings in the entire story. Also, if Manhattan didn't care about the human race, then that entire chapter with Silk Spectre is meaningless and that beautiful passage about the uniqueness of life is meaningless.

[LordSimen]

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. Your interpretation is that there is no room for interpretation. Your interpretation is that the characters fit some black-and-white moral judgment and that there is a definite way to judge them. I feel that it is, and according to several things I've written intended to be, ambiguous. I don't even think Ozy was right (but not entirely wrong either), I simply think that there is room to judge him either way. I just feel that you're being really closed minded and acting as if you have a perfect interpretation of the graphic novel, and in the process being incredibly patronizing and condescending to anyone who thinks differently.


My interpretation is my interprepation alone and I have no desire to debate it. It is the way it is. Debates are annoying and pointless.

In fact if anything came from this particular debate, you've made me hate Veidt even more than did before now knowing there's hundreds of people out there who actually believe his bullshit. That's just terrible.


And also, the book made it clear as day that if Rorschach exposed Ozy, then the nuclear holocaust would indefinitely happen. I don't think meaningless vengeance has anything to do with caring about the human race. Additionally, I find it strange that you are dishing out negative judgment on the two most intelligent beings in the entire story. Also, if Manhattan didn't care about the human race, then that entire chapter with Silk Spectre is meaningless and that beautiful passage about the uniqueness of life is meaningless.

Not it didn't. It made it clear as day of the POSSIBILITY of that happening. Not that it would definitely happen.

No, that entire chapter was about Manhattan's love for Silk Spectre herself. The beautiful passage of the uniqueness of life was his exclamation of love for her. It's not pointless, it's beautiful. It's just too bad he used that to make the wrong decision.


Yeah, I'm done with this debate. I have no desire to discuss this further.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

And I could say the same that you feel a sociopathic killer should be given a medal. If you didn't wish to debate I have no idea what you've been doing for the past three pages.

But yeah, I'm done too.

[Gilpesh]

Debates are annoying and pointless.
Not really. This one showed how many different ways someone can read Watchmen. One of them being as a completely black and white superhero story where the hero gets blown up and the villain wins.

In fact if anything came from this particular debate, you've made me hate Veidt even more than did before now knowing there's hundreds of people out there who actually believe his bullshit. That's just terrible.
Same goes for people who buy into Rorschach's bullshit. Maybe even double cause he's supposed to be the hero and not some psycho freak that walks into random bars and beats people for no reason except his paranoid ideas about someone hunting down masks.

[outsyder]

The book is morally ambigious. There is no "right" and "wrong." That's pretty much the entire point of the thing. That should be the first thing that pops up when attempting to read the political text of the book.

[DaMovieMan]

Hehe, wow, i'm a little dissapointed I missed out on the last section of the debate there but Mxyzptlk pretty much kept hitting the nail on the head.

It's clear the way the book is written is morally ambigious, with no clear labels like "hero" "villain", but everyone is always welcome to interpret it the way (s)he wants of course. I'm just glad the film didn't portray Rorschach as a hero the way it portrayed Ozy as a clear cut villain because i think it's clear what kind of line of thinking Snyder has. A perfect adaptation would of been to have it as morally ambigious as the novel, which it is not...

Anyway, i think the lesson to be learned from this debate is never have one with a person who disqualifies all school of thought apart from his own with the personal arguement: "i don't care about [so and so]" and then, finally, declaring he doesn't like debates to begin with (that's a good line).
Oh Simen, i will remember you on these boards...

[poopontheshoes7]

Damn, what a debate.


Both of you guys made good points but I will have to side on LordSimen with this one. Having read the GN twice before seeing the movie, I can safely say I always knew and saw Ozy as the villain. Yes, it is morally ambiguous and maybe Moore took an objective stance on all of his characters motivations and viewpoints. But the mans writing isnt so damn genius its above such labels as "hero" and "villain".

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

But the mans writing isnt so damn genious its above such labels as "hero" and "villain".
Which is exactly what I've been trying to say the entire time.

[DaMovieMan]

That it is or that it isn't? I think poop is saying Moore isn't as genius as people make him out to be and his writing is not above labels like "hero" and "villain", which i think it is and, more than that, i think that's his intention.
I know for a fact that he never wanted to give the impression to anyone reading the novel that Rorschach was any kind of hero.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Oh didn't notice that he said 'isn't'. My bad.

But given that being able to craft a morally ambiguous story is hardly a genius-level feat, I would say Moore is quite capable.

[poopontheshoes7]

Let me elaborate. I never said Moore isnt as genius as he's made out to be. I just dont think Moore is so amazing at writing that you cant apply any sort of label to his characters. I personally dont think any sort of literature or film can be so above anything else that it cant possibly fit into some type of label or role. Watchmen STILL is a superhero story no matter how much it disects the genre and Ozy STILL is the villain. It doesnt matter how well written and deep he is, his actions make him the villain of the story. Just as Dan and Laurie are the heroes.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I would prefer the terms protagonist and antagonist. You are right that all art must conform to some labels, be it in terms of genre or character roles, but I feel that the terms hero and villain are far too simplistic and archetypal for Watchmen.

[drc5145]

Is it wrong of me to think just maybe Snyder did a good job with the movie after all, considering how it just raised the debate brought on by LordSimen and Mxyzptlk ?

Considering how it's divided people thus far, I think it's actually a better telling of Watchmen's story and nature. It's not the most approachable piece of work and I think if it was THAT Universally praised, something must've gone wrong. The fact that we still had the debate about the "hero" and "villain" of the film means he did something right.

Hell, look how many people have bashed the movie simply because of Manhattan's blue dong. It almost becomes a psych exam of sorts (Or a Rorschach Exam to be a little more clever :rolleyes: )

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, but I think our debate over the ambiguity and hero/villain issue was mainly centered around the book itself. Still, I guess the fact that any debate was raised is a fair point.

[DaMovieMan]

That's it. The debate was in the story and the story is in the novel but you could still see it as different perceptions of characters as they are in the film.

I'd like to see such an interesting debate started involving The Dark Knight. Heh, not gonna happen.

[drc5145]

Something else to chew on...

Anyone else find it funny that in seemingly different mediums, Batman and Watchmen have been intrinsically linked for 20-someodd years now?

The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller came out between February and June 1986. Watchmen, from September 1986 to October 1987. Both are seen as comic masterpieces and are still highly regarded and compared to each other, even after 20 in circulation.

Fast-forward to July 2008 as Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight releases to unanimous praise and is a monster ($) hit. March 2009, Zack Snyder's Watchmen is released to mixed opinions and a decent B.O. take. Watchmen and The Dark Knight seemingly find a way to become compared to yet again.

Anyone find it funny that in both Paper and Film, A Batman Story called "The Dark Knight" is getting compared to A Paper and Film called Watchmen, with a +20 years difference?

[CosmicPuppet]

Is it wrong of me to think just maybe Snyder did a good job with the movie after all, considering how it just raised the debate brought on by LordSimen and Mxyzptlk ?

Well, you forget that this happens on a regular basis with LordSimen. It's not surprising that it happened again since he gave it a 10/10 and most people who read it didn't think of it so highly.