Mark, I agree that no one can conceive what a supergenius would make of a situation, but I think that writer's shouldn't avoid certain things because no one knows how they'd act (JB has, I believe, cited how difficult it was for him to write Reed Richards because of how brilliant he is). Rather, I think writers should write them as best they can and attempt to make it convincing, which I would argue Watchmen is. Nobody knows what aliens would look like or what contact would be like between the United States and an intergalactic situation, but you guess the best you can and how that your presentation of such a story is convincing. Does that make sense?

James, I agree that comic books darkened after Watchmen, but should Watchmen not have been published because of that? I don't know what you're saying. Should Moore have either not published his comic or should DC not have published it? Moore didn't, after all, make other writers poorly imitate his style but rather lamented that some did.   

I dont think Watchmen should have been printed.

I dont think any book should not be allowed to be printed.

I think the story could have been told without it looking like a superhero story.

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

"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."

**********

...Okay...I can see where you're coming from, but you never actually see press agents telling the newspapers what to print. You're filling in these gaps on your own. It's a fictional story with all the constraints of one, James. Moore has people who aren't Veidt call him the smartest man in the world. You, the reader, see him making money off of being smart and doing smart things (such as knowing exactly what will happen and when it will happen). You don't see him taking IQ tests, but I would argue that the other character's estimations and his actions are deliberately done so that we can see that he is the smartest man in the world. Nothing that is shown contradicts that he's the smartest person in the world, rather, everything, such as him outthinking Dr. Manhattan who is omniscent, seems included so as to confirm it.

++++++++++

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.

**********

Name one instance in which Veidt has a desire to kill people. Cite one panel in which the character WANTS to kill people to solve the problem. If he's the smartest man and his conclusion is that there is NO other way, then there probably was no other way. You can say that there were other ways, but since those aren't presented by Moore or provided by Veidt than it would seem that, in this scenario, there really weren't any. I would, however, like to hear, since you say there are other methods, what would have stopped the impending nuclear armageddon. World's smartest your ass? Maybe that was the point, but since we have different outlooks on the matter it seems to prove that the intent was deliberate ambiguity.

I agree with Rafael, too, everything that Moore presents and hints at indicates that a nuclear war is inevitable. It's hard to make the case that it wasn't the author's intent to show that it was looming larger than in the real world and unavoidable in the world of Watchmen.

I have to disagree with you here.  You can say Watchmen is an adult story, but saying it’s just "dressed up” as a superhero story isn’t really accurate.  Seems that you’re implying that Moore had a story to tell and decided to use superheroes to tell it.  Watchmen is an in-depth look AT SUPERHEROES (or former ones).  There is no way to tell Watchmen without superheroes.

It isn't about superheros, it is about how a madman kills a huge chunk of New York because he thinks he is right AND he gets away with it.

That’s like saying Citizen Kane is about a sled called Rosebud.  I think I see why you didn’t like it.

Seriously if you think this is a superhero story then the bad guys must not win enough for you.

It’s about former superheroes (although technically, only one of them was “super”).  I admit it’s not a typical good guys vs. bad guys superhero story.  That was one of the reasons I liked it so much.

I can’t wrap my mind around the idea of people wanting Watchmen or KJ or DK to not exist simply because of what other creators did afterwards.  That’s like saying – I wish Neal Adams never came along because of all those crappy Adams clones that followed.

 No I dont Watchmen not to exsist because of what IT did not what others did.

So you wish it didn’t exist because you didn’t like it?  I don’t have a problem with that (but I am glad that you are not a comic book editor).

You clipped your own quote here:

It is the slippery slope of "pushing" the boundries and upping the bar for the next idiot who wants to shock us.

So I assume you were against the whole death of Phoenix saga?

No I was buying red sweaters in bulk at the time so had no time to protest a meaningful, emotion ridden death of an established character who was killed off by an editoral demand.

So this type of stuff is okay, as long as you like it?

I don’t see how Watchmen makes it okay to turn Superboy into a mass murderer.

 I don't think it went around and granted murder passes but it is part of the line of realistic comics that made it ok for Superboy to be considered a murderer and no one objecting to it

As has been pointed out previously, you shouldn’t be placing the blame on Moore.  Blame the morons who followed and felt those stories were appropriate.

Emery, but didn't the conspiracy picketed by Rorschach actually exist? Furthermore, I would argue that it becomes more meaningful, even inspiring, that it is Rorschach who dies heroically. He a.) rises above his madness to do the right thing and b.) illustrates that heroic acts aren't exclusive to a certain type of person. Rorschach illustrates that anyone could be a hero.

No. Rorshach pickets all kinds of kooky stuff. And he was a nut. The book goes out of its way to make sure that reader understands that he is a nut who lost his already shaken soul in the distant past after seeing a pedofile feeding a kid's bones to his dogs. After THAT Rorshach is nuts.

Doing the right thing ONCE doesn't make a you a superhero. Doign the right thign because you are crazy doesn't make you a superhero.  And he doesn't even rise above his madness! The argument of Watchmen is that he does the tright thing as a direct consequence of his madness!

Rorshach is intended as a "take" on Ditko's Mr. A and Question characters. He is supposed to show how such characters are unheroic and instead obssessed, insane, bloodthirtsy, cruel and vindictive rather than truly just or decent.

Rorshach along with the rest of the Watchmen cast illustrates that there ARE no heroes. Instead there are only psychos, bastards, ambitious sociopaths with "benevolent outlooks," atomic monsters, and hopelessly muddled heads all dressing up in silly costumes and masquerading as such.

At the end of the day, while a talented writer can imagine and approximate the consequences and effects of being able to fly, or shoot laser from your eyes, and how such a power could be used, no writer can accurately predict the consequences of haveing a "super intellect" or the results such a mind would produce. More to the point most attempts to do so will end up simply being embarrasing.

These are all good points in debating the merits of the story by itself, but doesn't really apply to whether or not a story should be done. Stan Lee's not a genius but he wrote a great Reed Richards.

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.

Not really the point. The analogy was to imply that people are responsible for their own actions, not the people who may have "inspired" their actions.

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.

Despite my love for the work, his solution was pretty ridiculous and any effect it would have would likely be negated once the superpowers of the world realized that it was either a fake or that no second alien attack was coming.

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.

You're right. There isn't anything wrong with a black and white morality tale. I love seeing a hero stand up for what's right. I hate the modern Superman because he's waffling and insecure. I hate the modern Batman because he's a anal retentive facist. Give me back the pure hero of the seventies and eighties with these guys.

There also isn't anything wrong with a shades of grey morality tale either. I like to read more than one type of story. I share your frustrations that only one type of story seems to be told in the mainstream Marvel U, and it's the wrong story for those characters. But I don't think the rules of one character or characters must be the rule for every character that follows.

I think the story could have been told without it looking like a superhero story.

I disagree and echo the sentiment of a previous poster. Watchmen was a look at superhero specifically and a look at the morality of the superhero using various moral philosophies. Since, in essence, a superhero enforces morality on the public he/she protects, this is a look at what it would be like if the morality heroes enforced wasn't picture perfect and a bit more extreme. And interesting experiment in my eyes. One that should be confined to the walls of it's own little universe, but still one I've enjoyed as a consumer.

David Kingsley Kingsley wrote: I agree with Rafael, too, everything that Moore presents and hints at indicates that a nuclear war is inevitable. It's hard to make the case that it wasn't the author's intent to show that it was looming larger than in the real world and unavoidable in the world of Watchmen.

Larger than in the real world does not mean inevitable in the world of Watchmen.  The story of the Black Freighter is the story of a person who imagines that a horrible fate will befall his hometown and rushes off to stop it.  In reality, there is no threat to his hometown, and he is the only monster in the story.  Toward the end of Watchmen, Veidt mentions dreaming of swimming to a large black ship, a clear indication to me that we are meant to question the inevitability of the nuclear war. 

Furthermore, it is clear from the story that Veidt is a megalomaniac and anything he says about his own actions have to be taken with quit a bit of salt.  Veidt's actions are abominable because we never see him try any method other than killing millions.  Veidt could have run for president and tried diplomatic means to bring the situation to order.

I disagree with this assumption.  WM and DK were “dark”, and people ate it up.  So somehow, when the industry followed, it got “too dark”?  People suddenly stopped liking dark?


Badly done "dark". What Davie Gibbons has dubbed "glum".

That’s my point – it wasn’t bad because it was dark or that it was trying to copy WM and DK, it was bad because it was BAD!  Neal Adams drew like Stan Drake – and that was a GOOD thing.

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

It sounds like you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Superhero genre should not be treated in an adult manner.

That's exactly what I am saying. Plenty of other genres for which such treatment is perfect. Why worry about superheroes sex lives? How empty does you life have to be for that to even be an issue?

The emptiness of my life has no bearing on what I like in my comics. ;)  But seriously, I want to have my cake and eat it too.  I like superheroes being treated seriously as in WM and DK.  I also like the “standard” superhero stuff too (your Fantastic Four run as an example).  They can peacefully coexist (although this thread is making me wonder...).

I'll agree that Rorschach subscribes to numerous kooky theories and only stumbles on a correct one because he's already paranoid and insane. I'll agree, Emery, that my point was initially poorly phrased, researched, and presented.

But I disagree with a lot of your rebuttal.

"Doing the right thing ONCE doesn't make a you a superhero. Doign the right thign because you are crazy doesn't make you a superhero.  And he doesn't even rise above his madness! The argument of Watchmen is that he does the tright thing as a direct consequence of his madness! "

***********

Why doesn't doing the right thing ONCE make you a superhero (guided by the assumption that Rorschach has never done the right thing before)? superheroism and heroism are both subjective. I don't agree that he does the right thing as a consequence of his madness or that, even if this were the case, it makes it less heroic. I think you can argue your intepretation but I don't think you can state that this is conclusively that the insanity is motivating Rorschach, here.

++++++++++

"Rorshach is intended as a "take" on Ditko's Mr. A and Question characters. He is supposed to show how such characters are unheroic and instead obssessed, insane, bloodthirtsy, cruel and vindictive rather than truly just or decent."

***********

Really? Next time you're talking to Alan Moore can you ask him if Veidt was really supposed to be the smartest man in the world? Apparently he tells you what his intent is so maybe you can have him settle this debate James and I having going.