|
Post by Kroot bringing Justice on Dec 19, 2009 16:49:44 GMT -5
Watchmen would have been alot more interesting if it was about Nite Owl slowly trying to bring back some spark of humanity in Rorschach after the incident with the Girl. Honestly, I think the greatest anti-hero of all time in comics is Iron Man. The reason being that they've done such a good job of portraying him as a hero since his inception that most people are jaded enough to not even notice what a huge asshole he is. Tony Stark is selfish, arrogant, and will throw anyone under the bus if he thinks it serves a purpose that he deems worthy. Except he never was that at all before Civil War were everyone involved was massivel out of character.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Dec 19, 2009 16:57:04 GMT -5
That's why it isn't fair of him to get upset that people liked Rorschach. I understand what he wanted to show, but a story in which there isn't a single character for the reader/viewer to attach to doesn't work. People related to Rorschach because they had to settle on someone, otherwise there's no point to reading. I chalk that more up to the conventions of (traditional) story-telling: there's a character the audience (in this case, the reader) we identify with because we either see the story through his/her/its point-of-view or the qualities/experiences of the main character are general, generalizable enough that anyone could latch on to, that reacts against something/someone (the three tenets of classical story-telling seem to be, and please excuse the gendered language, man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. himself). I think, however, Moore was aiming for something more Brechtian, by attempting to distance the reader by presenting the characters as incredibly unsavoury, monstrous even. However, he does not distance the reader through the FORM of the comic book, the way the comic book is constructed, the associations of text and image, the size of the image, how different images relate (or contrast), by reminding the reader "hey, you're reading a comic book." All these kinds of things Bertolt Brecht did with his plays. The closest that Moore comes to this would be the Black Freighter story within Watchmen (the comic book and the world). The real-world reader is reading a comic book within a comic-book. But that's about it really. Maybe he didn't want to push the distanciation too far? Maybe he didn't know how? Maybe he met some resistance while writing Watchmen. I'm not sure. I think it is possible that you can have your expectations frustrated, even your enjoyment of reading/watching something frustrated (or outright refused) and that you can obtain some kind of gratification from it (because something IS so challenging, so denying, so frustrating), but it only doesn't work because there is no money to be had from it, not because of the "inherent" quality of the work as somehow failing. People have become conditioned to pay to be pleasured, more or less. People do things now because it's "entertaining." That's not really the (entire) fault of the creator when someone isn't willing to engage with something created. Some onus has to be place on the person receiving the work as well. I think Moore is partly right in his criticisms, but he bears some responsibility as well, for restricting himself within the confines and conventions of genre and storytelling when it came to his writing of the Watchmen manuscript.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 19, 2009 17:12:57 GMT -5
That's why it isn't fair of him to get upset that people liked Rorschach. I understand what he wanted to show, but a story in which there isn't a single character for the reader/viewer to attach to doesn't work. People related to Rorschach because they had to settle on someone, otherwise there's no point to reading. I've been following this little debate, and I agree with everything you've said, TC84. Apparently I'm just not smart enough to read the book the way that Moore says you're supposed to, because (and this is especially true for the comics medium), even in a story where everyone is meant to be dislikable, eventually I WILL pick out the character that I deem to be the least slimeball out of the bunch. And in Watchmen it's Rorschach by a mile. And just like you said - on many of our deepest, darkest levels, a lot of people think that a guy going around killing murderers and other criminals is cool, even if Rorschach is a psychopath.
|
|
Lupin the Third
Patti Mayonnaise
I'm sorry.....I love you. *boot to the head*--3rd most culpable in the jixing of NXT, D'oh!
Join the Dark Order....
Posts: 36,332
|
Post by Lupin the Third on Dec 19, 2009 17:19:06 GMT -5
That's why it isn't fair of him to get upset that people liked Rorschach. I understand what he wanted to show, but a story in which there isn't a single character for the reader/viewer to attach to doesn't work. People related to Rorschach because they had to settle on someone, otherwise there's no point to reading. I've been following this little debate, and I agree with everything you've said, TC84. Apparently I'm just not smart enough to read the book the way that Moore says you're supposed to, because (and this is especially true for the comics medium), even in a story where everyone is meant to be dislikable, eventually I WILL pick out the character that I deem to be the least slimeball out of the bunch. And in Watchmen it's Rorschach by a mile. And just like you said - on many of our deepest, darkest levels, a lot of people think that a guy going around killing murderers and other criminals is cool, even if Rorschach is a psychopath. I think Rorschach's greatest "quality" is probably the fact that he won't compromise his principles, not even when it could save the world. "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never Compromise."
|
|
jobber2thestars
Hank Scorpio
Buy the Simon System. You'll thank yourself.
Posts: 7,097
|
Post by jobber2thestars on Dec 19, 2009 17:27:18 GMT -5
Who did he want readers to get behind if not Rorschach? No one. You're not really supposed to identify with someone because there are no purely "good" alternatives. That's the point. If you identify with Ozymandias, you implicitly support genocide. If you identify with Rorschach, murder. The Comedian, rape. Nite Owl, resignation. Dr. Manhattan, detachment. Silk Spectre... hmm. Well, her place within the narrative isn't a strong one anyway, but there's probably some negative, alienating attribute there. What Moore's point with Watchmen seems to be is "We shouldn't be supporting any of these people. At all. And I will show you the ugly underside to everything that is heroic found in Superman, Batman, etc." There are no absolutes in that universe. Not even any kind of moral relativism either. And that so many superheroes have turned dark, deep, and psychological, to the point that they border on socio/psychopathy (if they aren't already), as a result of Watchmen kind of proves Moore to be right, in a way. My take anyway. I always thought Alan Moore wanted us to be able to identify with Hollis Mason aka Nite-Owl I. He' really the only character in the book who could be seen as normal.
|
|
|
Post by taylorandborland on Dec 19, 2009 18:11:12 GMT -5
Guy Gardner circa JL international
|
|
|
Post by PaperStreetBrigade on Dec 19, 2009 18:27:15 GMT -5
Surprised with all the mentioning of Alan Moore and no one brought up V. At least the Comic V, not the bastardization that was the movie V.
|
|
|
Post by Kroot bringing Justice on Dec 19, 2009 18:28:17 GMT -5
I've been following this little debate, and I agree with everything you've said, TC84. Apparently I'm just not smart enough to read the book the way that Moore says you're supposed to, because (and this is especially true for the comics medium), even in a story where everyone is meant to be dislikable, eventually I WILL pick out the character that I deem to be the least slimeball out of the bunch. And in Watchmen it's Rorschach by a mile. And just like you said - on many of our deepest, darkest levels, a lot of people think that a guy going around killing murderers and other criminals is cool, even if Rorschach is a psychopath. I think Rorschach's greatest "quality" is probably the fact that he won't compromise his principles, not even when it could save the world. "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never Compromise." I might be the only one but that's why I found him unlikable. Dan was the most likable person in the whole story to me personally.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Dec 19, 2009 18:40:44 GMT -5
/\ ditto. anyone who thinks Rorschach is easier to identify with than Dan is on drugs.
I vote for The Authority. being so morally absolute is a terrible thing, but you can't help but hope they win anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Kroot bringing Justice on Dec 19, 2009 19:03:50 GMT -5
/\ ditto. anyone who thinks Rorschach is easier to identify with than Dan is on drugs. I vote for The Authority. being so morally absolute is a terrible thing, but you can't help but hope they win anyway. Well when the choice is deal with those douchebags or something worse I'll take the douchebags. And forshame it's taken this long for him to be mentioned, Tommy "Hitman" Monahaghn. A personal favorite of mine. Helps he's a Superman fanboy.
|
|
|
Post by delurked on Dec 19, 2009 20:00:59 GMT -5
Who did he want readers to get behind if not Rorschach? No one. You're not really supposed to identify with someone because there are no purely "good" alternatives. That's the point. If you identify with Ozymandias, you implicitly support genocide. If you identify with Rorschach, murder. The Comedian, rape. Nite Owl, resignation. Dr. Manhattan, detachment. Silk Spectre... hmm. Well, her place within the narrative isn't a strong one anyway, but there's probably some negative, alienating attribute there. What Moore's point with Watchmen seems to be is "We shouldn't be supporting any of these people. At all. And I will show you the ugly underside to everything that is heroic found in Superman, Batman, etc." There are no absolutes in that universe. Not even any kind of moral relativism either. And that so many superheroes have turned dark, deep, and psychological, to the point that they border on socio/psychopathy (if they aren't already), as a result of Watchmen kind of proves Moore to be right, in a way. My take anyway. I agree. All the "heroes" in Watchmen had feet of clay. You weren't supposed to root for any of them.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Dec 19, 2009 20:05:45 GMT -5
The Goon and Frankie from "The Goon" are pretty nasty pieces of work. They do seem to have a soft spot for some folks, but it seems like most of their heroism comes from a benefit to themselves, rather than pure altruism.
Their heroism is also violent. "Knife to the eye!"
|
|
|
Post by RatedRKoffee on Dec 20, 2009 3:47:34 GMT -5
Ok that's it, I have 5 days off for Christmas, I'm going to read my copy of watchmen.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 20, 2009 5:40:13 GMT -5
Except he never was that at all before Civil War were everyone involved was massivel out of character. Actually...he kinda was. Like during Armor Wars, or the end of Operation: Galactic Storm, or how he drove a mentally unstable woman to shoot him, or went on drunken rampages...
|
|
|
Post by Kroot bringing Justice on Dec 20, 2009 6:37:32 GMT -5
Except he never was that at all before Civil War were everyone involved was massivel out of character. Actually...he kinda was. Like during Armor Wars, or the end of Operation: Galactic Storm, or how he drove a mentally unstable woman to shoot him, or went on drunken rampages... Yeah back in the day when he was a drunk before he got over it. I'm not saying Tony is a duck *He is, Invincible Iron Man proved that wonderfully* but the mustache twirling "I'm gonna throw my friends in the negative zone" *Which was Reed & Skrull Pym* and "Make a Evil Clone of my friend" *once again mainly Skrull Pym, notice a pattern* douche in Civil War was just a straw man so Cap could look good.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 20, 2009 6:40:02 GMT -5
Actually...he kinda was. Like during Armor Wars, or the end of Operation: Galactic Storm, or how he drove a mentally unstable woman to shoot him, or went on drunken rampages... Yeah back in the day when he was a drunk before he got over it. I'm not saying Tony is a duck *He is, Invincible Iron Man proved that wonderfully* but the mustache twirling "I'm gonna throw my friends in the negative zone" *Which was Reed & Skrull Pym* and "Make a Evil Clone of my friend" *once again mainly Skrull Pym, notice a pattern* douche in Civil War was just a straw man so Cap could look good. Actually, the first three examples all came years after he got sober.
|
|
default
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Blames Everything On Snitsky. Yes, Even THAT.
Posts: 17,056
|
Post by default on Dec 20, 2009 6:43:33 GMT -5
Aunt Mae.
At least she was in all my friend and my Spider-Man Cartoon Maker creations. She should shoot straight through J. Jonah Jameson just to kill Venom with her giant laser rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 20, 2009 6:50:08 GMT -5
Aunt Mae. At least she was in all my friend and my Spider-Man Cartoon Maker creations. She should shoot straight through J. Jonah Jameson just to kill Venom with her giant laser rifle. And this is why Marvel currently has a restraining order forcing OTG to remain more than 500 feet from their offices.
|
|
default
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Blames Everything On Snitsky. Yes, Even THAT.
Posts: 17,056
|
Post by default on Dec 20, 2009 6:59:33 GMT -5
Aunt Mae. At least she was in all my friend and my Spider-Man Cartoon Maker creations. She should shoot straight through J. Jonah Jameson just to kill Venom with her giant laser rifle. And this is why Marvel currently has a restraining order forcing OTG to remain more than 500 feet from their offices. You should've seen the one where Mae walked in on Venom who did the tongue thing. So then Mae did it. Then their tongues awkwardly wiggled closer and ended up tied in a knot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 7:57:01 GMT -5
And this is why Marvel currently has a restraining order forcing OTG to remain more than 500 feet from their offices. You should've seen the one where Mae walked in on Venom who did the tongue thing. So then Mae did it. Then their tongues awkwardly wiggled closer and ended up tied in a knot. Crazy thing is, that wouldn't be the first spidey villain she'd be getting frisky with, either. And the first had eight arms.
|
|