Rafael Guerra wrote: Ozymandias was right. There would have been a Nuclear War where millions would die and he successfully prevented it.

It's unclear that Ozymandias is right about the nuclear threat.  That's the point of the story Black Freighter.  The event in the comic that has the largest increase on the chance of the nuclear war is Dr. Manhattan leaving for Mars.  However, that event was precipitated by Ozymandias.  I know that there is some concern that Manhattan might not be able to handle all the nuclear missiles when they stop flying, but remember that he teleported an entire mob of people back to their correct homes.  I'm guessing that Manhattan does indeed have the power to single-handedly prevent any nuclear war.

Wrong.

Ozymandias was right. There would have been a Nuclear War where millions would die and he successfully prevented it.

Whether he was right or not to do it is one of the many tought-provoking things that make Watchmen the finest superhero story ever.

Well that's your way of looking at it. But in the end he killed millions of people because he thought he was right. He killed millions of innocent people without a mandiate from the people or the authority of anything. He is a vigalante, a terrorist and a mad man. And the fact that Moore paints it so people would question this outcome really only proves what is wrong with Watchmen. When the worst possible thing might be considered an ok choice...Housotn we have a problem

Monte, I think that's a really good point, but, for me,  if Moore, through Ozymandias, argues or suggests no alternative, which he seems to do, then I'll buy that there isn't one. However, you could make the case that you don't see Veidt looking for an alternative, so it's a really good point.

And I'll agree that not all books should aspire to be Watchmen. Watchmen aspired to be Watchmen (and it succeeded). Batman should aspire to be Batman and The Amazing Spider-Man should aspire to be The Amazing Spider-Man.

I still don't understand the logic here form blaming Watchmen for the "darkness" of of these modern books.

It featured no established characters. In essence, it did what we'd all like Marvel and DC to do-- keep regular, established heroes safe and take your unusual projects to all new characters. Like JB did with Next Men or Mike Mignola did with Hellboy. If the JMS and Mark Millars of the world did that, and the editorial at the big two made that the official policy, we'd still have Spider-Man and Batman in their classic forms. DKR and Year One are more "responsible" as they take these story methods to a classic hero.

But I still don't fold them responsible. I hold the people that actually wrote the stories that ruined these characters possible! Neither Alan Moore nor Frank Miller would likely write a Hal Jordan goes nuts or a Peter Parker has a spider-totem past or whatever. Editorial and the respective writers are the responsible ones!

To make an extreme analogy, if I watch a Hannibal Lector movie and then decide to go out and become a serial killer cannibal, who's to blame? The filmmakers, or me as an individual person? I'd say me. Neither Moore nor Miller are trolling the bullpens of Marvel and DC with assault rifles, forcing Identity Crisis or the Ultimates on the poor inncoent writers and editors of those companies.

To go back to JB's point, if Winnie the Pooh should be deconstructed-- in the pages of Pooh, no way. In a seperate book with a different character, even a satircal one, aimed at adults? Sure. Now, if the creators in charge of Pooh bring it over to Pooh--blame them.

I would like nothing better for Spider-Man to follow the Romita/Lee model or Batman to follow the O'Neil/Adams model. Those are children/teen characters that don't need to be deconstructed within the pages of their own books. But if a guy decides to create The Cowl of whoever and deconstruct Batman there--go nuts.

To make an extreme analogy, if I watch a Hannibal Lector movie and then decide to go out and become a serial killer cannibal, who's to blame? The filmmakers, or me as an individual person? I'd say me. Neither Moore nor Miller are trolling the bullpens of Marvel and DC with assault rifles, forcing Identity Crisis or the Ultimates on the poor inncoent writers and editors of those companies.

Not really the same thing James. We aren't saying the stories MADE other people make dark stories. We are saying the damage that was done when stories like this get made started a trend, a destructive trend towards comics. No one is saying Watchmen is going to cause people to kill. But it did cause comics in general to darken.

-------------------

James, I'm really enjoying this debate, too, thank you. I remember the press and many other people referring to Veidt as the world's smartest man, I know that this is not just his opinion, but reflected by numerous other characterse, so much so that I think that you are supposed to believe them. You don't think that he was right to make that choice for anyone else? Neither do I, which is why I consider him to be a villain. However, one of the traditional characteristics of "heroes" which Moore focuses on--an angle which Ellis focused on with The Authority, Millar studied and The Ultimates, and Bendis runs with in The Illuminati--is that being a superhero, to some degree, involves imposing your beliefs and judgment on people. I don't think that you can argue that, at least to some degree, being a superhero means imposing your morality or your judgment on people, Moore just focuses on this to an extreme and uncomfortable degree. Again, however, I agree with you: Veidt does this unwisely.

You write that Veidt killed millions without a mandate. Again, isn't it stated (I don't remember but believe it was so) that Nixon had the Comedian kill Kennedy so he could assume power? Does he have the people's authority. He has his finger on the button and, for all we knew, has illegally maintained and perpetuated his presidency for decades, how is he more qualified than Veidt?

Finally, you take an ethical stance against Watchmen seemingly based on the fact that it doesn't present things in black and white. I don't think it has an obligation to do so. I don't agree with everything in it, in fact, I think that Moore doesn't even agree with Ozymandias' decision, but I appreciate him at least making the reader have to decide instead of having the author decide for the reader. I don't think that's a problem, I think that's what good literature (which I would qualify Watchmen as) does.

it fails IMO as a examination of the morality of ozymanidiases actions becasue it was based on a flawed assumption that was quite popular at the time, namely that a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR was inevitable.

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

But Mark, don't forget that Watchmen was set in a fictional world, not our own. In this setting, tensions between the US and USSR were far more strained than they ever were in the real world. Heck, Richard Nixon was still president in The Watchmen!

So in the context of the setting, Ozmandias' solution makes more sense. Not saying it's justifiable, but it does make sense within that fictional world.

Well sure the press says he is...becuase his press agents told them to say it. If this was done in Marvel and people had powers and he said intelligence was his that is one thing. There is no evidence anywhere that anyone has paranormal powers. So his intelligence is no more or no less than anyone else who thinks they are a genius.

Sure maybe in that world Nixon wasn't eleceted on the up and up (like he was in this world) but that still doesn't give HIM the right to do this. He has nothing more than the desire to kill people to fix the problem. There are other ways to prevent a nuclear war. The one with the telepathic alien that kills most of New York, is simply the one he can pull off. World's smartest my ass.

And there is nothing wrong with black and white in a mythological morality tale. They are superheroes. Not guys who are just normal people with powers and do what ever they want. The word hero is pretty important in that word. And it seems to be forgotten more and more lately.