Why do people not like watchmen

Although it may not hold any significance at the moment, as with all reappearing imagery in the revolutionary comic book, it is there for a reason. The blood splatter on the face bears a striking resemblance to an arrow, one that appears on the cover page of Chapter 1 pointing to 12 minutes before midnight. However, as the clock strikes midnight and humanity is seemingly saved from the nuclear apocalypse, the smiley face reappears in the last panels of the comic, once again stained with an arrow pointing to 12 until midnight, counting down to the next catastrophic disaster.

Moore displays the future as relentless and recursive. What is destined to happen will happen: the only variable is when. By displaying the future as immutable, along with the endlessly violent and gloomy backdrop in which the story takes place, Moore emphasizes the single variable: the distinct morals of the unique characters.

Despite this, Manhattan decides to base his morals on preserving human life, which always seems to find a way to reset itself after great tragedy or a period of peace. Since he also sees that time is fixed and enduring, he determines that the laws society enacts to protect life are both necessary in the short term and useless in the long term. Similarly, Adrian Veidt, or Ozymandias, holds a consequentialist view of morality, basing his actions solely on their final results, choosing to ignore short-term harm in service of long-term benefit.

Albeit he has taken it to the extreme in his decision to kill millions of New Yorkers and blame it on aliens in order to bring about world peace. Moore thus seems to provide three distinct views of morality to show the extremes of all variations. Ozymandias represents the epitome of long-term, consequentialist thought, Rorschach, the simple self-righteous mentality, while Manhattan displays deontological ethics, basing his judgment on what is better, worse, or insignificant for humanity.

However, despite how it may seem like his morality is based on the good of others, it is ultimately derived from a selfish need for fulfillment, a need to feel like he is making a difference. Her exploration provides an interesting insight into the mind of Ozymandias.

Though they built great kingdoms, their impressive empires were no exception to the ravages of time. Additionally, Moore seems to use Ozymandias as a foil for Rorschach, a point of comparison to highlight the distinguishing features of both characters. While Ozymandias is wealthy, powerful, and handsome, Rorschach is filthy, despised, and unattractive. Ozymandias struggles to justify his actions, even to himself, and is left wondering how long his newly created peace will last, with Dr.

No matter what the circumstances are, they can always change, hopefully for the better. More importantly, Watchmen exhibits the best part of being human: our ability to choose our own ideas for right and wrong and act upon them.

Despite being deemed superheroes, the characters in Watchmen , including Dr. Manhattan, are all fundamentally human. Perhaps the point is not that superheroes can be human, but that humans can be superheroes. Dietrich, Bryan D. Manhattan Billy Crudup is not viewed as a villain at the end of the comic book; in the movie, he is.

That's a significant departure. Making Dr. So, the question at that point becomes what will the lives of the main characters in the story look like going forward? Probably not good, but there's no way to know. What's more, this ending paints the governments involved as innocent bystanders rather than the ones truly at fault for a world in chaos.

This is a pretty big sticking point. In the comic, Dr. Manhattan is the only character with powers. While there's no suggestion that the other characters in the movie version have actual powers, so to speak, they're simply too capable as heroes and crimefighters.

On the page, Nite Owl II Patrick Wilson is a clumsy brawler, almost too inept at fighting to really justify being a vigilante.

Similarly, Rorschach Jackie Earle Haley kicks a ton of butt. The fighting is too slick, the fighters too gifted. These people are not superheroes - that's kind of the whole point - yet Snyder too often depicts them as such.

Adrian Veidt felt he only had one way to save humanity, and that was to drop a giant squid on New York, wiping out thousands to save more. It wasn't something he relished; it was an extremely painful choice he struggled to make, and it haunted him.

In the movie, Veidt delivers an eminently recognizable bad guy speech at the end and actually says his nuclear strike on millions of people is "the world's punishment" for getting so close to WWIII. Conversely, in the comic, he insists: "I'm not a republic serial villain. Do you really think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? The Comedian Jeffrey Dean Morgan and the original Silk Spectre Carla Gugino have a very problematic relationship, but not all of it was non-consensual.

When Laurie confronts him in the comic book, rightfully angry that he assaulted her mother, the Comedian is at a loss for words, unable to respond, unable to tell her the truth.

This moment in the book is complex; it's an opportunity for the Comedian to find some level of redemption at which he fails , but it's also a moment in which Laurie comes close to discovering her existence wasn't as ugly as she believed. It seems fairly plausible to me. Forget putting on a costume; vigilante justice is by definition antisocial. Though Dan and Laurie and Hollis seem like good folks overall.

I find these attempts to distance Watchmen from other superhero comics You know, the PLAUSIBLE ones about manly men who fight never ending battles against criminals who break out of jail each week pretty ridiculous.

The only critique that makes any sense to me is the critique of the art. I mean…the pirate comic? That heroes are bad for us, I mean. That nobody in real life could live up to such a role and that hero worship makes us all apathetic and weak. The whole point of Watchmen, it seems to me, is that heroes are bullshit, utterly impossible not just scientifically but also sociologically and psychologically, and people ought to be ashamed about yearning for them.

Because look what results when someone tries to become such a hero in reality. Mass destruction and murderous alienation a la Oyzmandias and Rorshach and the collapse of society via V in V for Vendetta, all while regular people sit on their asses, waiting for a savior instead of affecting change for themselves. Heroes are bad medicine, says Moore.

Which is okay by me. Basically, I hate when critics come at art from the perspective of scolds. Anyways, Moore seems like a smart socially conscious kind of guy…and he also seems incredibly pretentious and something of a bitter pill who enjoys finding flaws in even the most frivolous of things IE, super hero comics.

He may be something else entirely in real life. Art is like ice cream and not everyone enjoys every flavor, but I hope we can all agree that both exist to bring us pleasure and little else. Nothing in art should ever upset you. All we can ask is that it be entertaining and well-crafted IMO.

Entertainment is communicated in the same way, and along the same channels, as education, politics, morality, love, and hate. I went in wanting to like it a great deal because of the cult status. And I did love it for about the first quarter. Compelling characters! Lots of historical back story! Having to read all the pirate side story was a chore. The whole impetus for all the mystery and subterfuge?

To me: so, so. Wait… SO lame. I never saw the movie because of how disappointed I was by the book. As much as I can indeed see the genius in it, I see as much of the puerile. I was sexually assaulted as a kid and my bf showed me his favorite movie, watchmen. I started crying when the raping scene started, since then, I hate hate hate it. I am a very open-minded person, and when I opened this article I was hoping to see some well-argued opinion and some bad points of one of my favorite novels.

I have to admit, though. I hate you because you induced me to read this, and it pissed off so much that now I have to write it off and waste more time. It wants you to tell a story, and it wants to stay true to real life.

If you read comics to fulfill your superhero fantasy and dive away from the real life, I understand why you hate it since it is down-to-earth. No flashy colors and black-white morality. That makes the veteran TV writer very different from his comic-book idol. That moral ambiguity applies to both the fictional world of the show, and the decision to make it in the first place.

By providing your email, you agree to the Quartz Privacy Policy. Skip to navigation Skip to content. Discover Membership. Editions Quartz. More from Quartz About Quartz. Follow Quartz. These are some of our most ambitious editorial projects. From our Obsession.