OK, I can concede it's not a superhero story. It's still a good story, IMHO.

Wasn't Moore's whole point that you had to be a maniac to put a costume on in the first place and fight crime?

I felt the point of the story was that in superheroes, you have a person enforcing their moral beliefs on the world. In most cases, like Batman or Spider-Man, it's justified as they catch people int he act and leave them for the cops.

Moore took various types of moral and belief codes--nihlism, absolutism, determinism, relativism, etc. and see how they'd apply in a the trappings of the superhero genre. To see these people in power, with their own moral codes affecting the world around them, was at least part of the point.

JB, I don't think making somreone neurotic automatically creates depth, but it also doesn't take depth away; and if all Moore did was create standard neutrotic characters, I wouldn't like it. He did a bit more, IMHO.

I don't see the point in making Superhero's avergae...wouldn't they just be heroes ? Or just people at that point ? I think it is one of the problems comics have today...are they modern day mythology with morals and lessons to be learned or are they a genre of science fiction where people have amazing powers and how the world deals with them ? I think they are called heroes for a reason, and that means they don't get to be normal people. I think if you want them to be normal people you should go read some fiction about normal people. If you want to read about people with amazing powers that are normal, read WIld Cards. But superheroes should be about something, should be the best in all of us. And no I don't think they should be perfect without flaws...I think they should be better than us.

And that's fine. However, at the time, that was every other superhero comic out there. I see no problem with one book, with different, nonestablished characters, doing something different.

Please understand--I'm against making Batman into Rorscach or Superman into Nite Owl; I hate these modern versions of characters and dislike the effect Watchmen has had on most superhero comics. That said, as a work that stands alone, I enjoy Watchmen tremendously.

Ah, but should all the characters in that book be "different, nonestablishment characters"? Stan Lee didn't cast the Fantastic Four as a team of monsters, or the X-Men as juvenile delinquents.

Wasn't Moore's whole point that you had to be a maniac to put a costume on in the first place and fight crime? The story seemed more social/political commentary than anything else.... Moore's take on the United States and his take on our ideals where superheroes are concerned. I think he really was trying to show how silly the whole thing was and how horrific it would be if "superheroes" did in fact exist. The story seemed to me to say.... There is no heroic ideal and people given powers and costumes would not do the right thing at all but the same shallow, evil things that people do given power....

***************

God, what a sad world a person must live in to actually believe that. I ,for one, think there are a great many heroes in this world. I don't think suddenly being given super powers would turn them evil. It would just give them a greater means to do good.

**************

Rorschach is not a hero. He's a maniac in a costume. Compare him to the Question, in his original form, and you'll see what I mean.

***************

I didn't post that to support the idea that Rorschach is a hero, but merely to correct the comment that nobody did anything about Veidt.  Rorschach did.  So did Dan and Laurie.

To be technical, some definitions of hero (not from Wikipedia!):

1.	a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

2.	a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.

I guess if you break Watchmen down, it's about characters that USED to be heroes?  Now they are old and neurotic (most of them).

Also, since we're talking all AROUND this - what is the definition of a SUPERHERO story?  What is a superhero?

There is no heroic ideal and people given powers and costumes would not do the right thing at all but the same shallow, evil things that people do given power....

This is why I hate the watchmen, civil war, kingdom come, wanted and any number of these types of stories.

If you don't believe in superheroes, or at least get it, then don't write them.

And like I said, if we must have these kinds of stories, Astro City, New Frontier, Generations, and even Squadren Supreme do them without having everyone be an asshole.

Make that 100% and I will agree with you.

That 10 percent included yours. I actually loved the concept of an adult Franklin in Days of Future Past.