Support NeoGAF

[WanderingWind]

No, he asks the Doc because he doubts his actions and wants to know if it pans out. He knows what he's done would be considered monstrous by any normal person (he's not quite as detached as the Doc) that is why he dreams of the Black Frieghter (and why that comic book has particular significance to him).

He is the very definition of a Well-Intentioned Extremist. In the interview with Nova Express (I think) he specifically states that he wants and believes that everyone could be "superhuman".

He does have a huge fucking ego though. XD

Sure, I agree that in his mind he was well intentioned. A lot of bad has been done by the well-intentioned. Him asking Manhattan is all about wanting to know that he's right. He has to know, because of his ego. That arrogance drove - and thus tainted - every action he took. So again, we're at the point where we have to ask if we believe that his still very human outlook on the future was the correct one before we begin asking if his solution to that future was defensible or not.

Either way, gotta run. Good chatting!

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Mayhem, no. Self-gratification, absolutely. Setting himself up as the hero, begging Manhattan to tell him he was right and profiteering off the resulting misery are clear cut examples of how the plan was ultimately about his own ego. He murdered millions because he thought he was right.



Semantics on the first few points aside, I think it's open to interpretation on the rest. If you believe in Veidt, then perhaps his actions are less horrific. I tend to view it as flawed perspective of a single individual, who called himself "the smartest man in the world." Again, smart doesn't mean correct in all things.

I think it depends on if you think it's self gratifying to do things that are very distasteful when you could just take an easier path.

It's common in military history that people who are experts in their field with as much information as they could have do thing that end up killing a lot of their own men or civilians. Then you get all sorts of regular people or artists afterwards saying that they were stupid or mentally unbalanced. But even after the fact specialists might look at what they did and say that what they did saved lives in the long run.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Semantics on the first few points aside, I think it's open to interpretation on the rest. If you believe in Veidt, then perhaps his actions are less horrific. I tend to view it as flawed perspective of a single individual, who called himself "the smartest man in the world." Again, smart doesn't mean correct in all things.

Well, he never actually called himself "The Smartest Man in The World". The media did. As I recall, he was quite uncomfortable with it in the Nova Express interview (I could be wrong about that though). But you're right, smart doesn't mean right. That's the beauty of the ending, it's so ambiguous.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say it is open to interpretation whether Manhattan said Adrian was wrong or not. He literally says that he understands why he did it but can neither condemn or condone his actions. Look at the third panel:

He doesn't judge him, as much as Adrian wants to be vindicated. There is no wiggle room there, I think.

Interesting that the Doc disappears in a mushroom cloud though.

Sure, I agree that in his mind he was well intentioned. A lot of bad has been done by the well-intentioned. Him asking Manhattan is all about wanting to know that he's right. He has to know, because of his ego. That arrogance drove - and thus tainted - every action he took. So again, we're at the point where we have to ask if we believe that his still very human outlook on the future was the correct one before we begin asking if his solution to that future was defensible or not.

Either way, gotta run. Good chatting!

Can't argue with that. I'm just saying he isn't a simple 'Black Hat' Bad Guy like you mentioned earlier. he's much more complex (as are all the characters).

Yeah, good chat, man!

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

The beauty of Watchmen is none of the big characters are heroes, they're case studies on how far you can push the concept of a comic book hero in various directions. They're meant to be grotesque and extremist in order to bring out the underlying ridiculousness behind the idea of a superhero.

 

[Coconut]

Chaotic good, they are the worst.

 

[Raiden]

Peace based on a lie is no true peace. It's a fantasy. A delusion. Rorschach saw this for what it was and knew the only way for humanity to survive was to look itself in the face and make its own choice.

Ozymandias put a band aid on a deep wound. It wouldn't last.

But its peace nonetheless.

I thought the ending was great and made good sense. If an worldwide alien attack would happen you can bet your ass the worlds superpowers would have to compromise with each other and work together to overcome their mutual enemy.

 

[Azih]

The problem with the comics fake alien squid ending is that it requires too big a conspiracy to keep things quiet believably for me anyway. Manhattan as boogeyman is much much neater.

 

[Screaming Meat]

The problem with the comics fake alien squid ending is that it requires too big a conspiracy to keep things quiet believably for me anyway. Manhattan as boogeyman is much much neater.

To be fair, Adrian only missed one person out of his 'Pyramid Scheme of Murder and Subversion'.

The movie ending completely missed the point. The movie completely missed the point. It makes me angry just thinking about it. XD

 

[ElFly]

Wasn't Allan More shocked that most of the Watchmen Readers liked Rorschach and his ideals?

It'd be weird, since it is obvious Moore wrote an arc for Rorschach that was supposed to make you feel sympathy for him, specifically the whole part about rekindling his friendship with Nite Owl 2.

So you go through the whole book going deeper and deeper into the character of Rorschach and you see him as a sociopath, but then Moore gives you a spark of hope there is still some humanity left in him, but in the end, nope.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

The entire ending of Watchmen doesn't really make much sense, considering the great plan for world peace is "fake an alien attack"... and that's it. How long was that going to actually work, especially since Ozy killed off everyone who could presumably make another one?

Because it showed everyone on Earth that there were bigger things to deal with and made them unite instead of turning further against each other. At least for the moment. They needed a global threat that couldn't be tied to anything on Earth so that Humanity didn't have anyone to turn the blame on and attack.

The problem with the comics fake alien squid ending is that it requires too big a conspiracy to keep things quiet believably for me anyway. Manhattan as boogeyman is much much neater.

It doesn't make any sense and completely defeats the purpose of the ending. Manhattan was hailed as the first super powered human from America. Had he gone haywire and started destroying cities everyone would immediately point the finger at the US for not keeping their shit in order. It needed to be an outside threat that couldn't be tied to Earth.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

But its peace nonetheless.

I thought the ending was great and made good sense. If an worldwide alien attack would happen you can bet your ass the worlds superpowers would have to compromise with each other and work together to overcome their mutual enemy.

I think it's intentionally written so that each of the characters' approaches to the threat to humanity is flawed. The peace created by Ozymandias isn't equivalent to the true peace most of us seek in the sense that global compassion, widespread education and prosperity in the arts and sciences are far from guaranteed.

What's guaranteed is no global threat to humanity by humanity. Fear, prejudice, intolerance, lack of individual freedom etc will still remain. Whether or not humanity is capable of embracing the new global conditions created by Ozymandias in order to gradually move in the direction of enlightenment at the end of the story is just as much an open question as whether or not nuclear war will break out at the beginning.

 

[Azih]

To be fair, Adrian only missed one person out of his 'Pyramid Scheme of Murder and Subversion'.

The movie ending completely missed the point. The movie completely missed the point. It makes me angry just thinking about it. XD

I don't see much of a difference in the main plot if Manhattan is portrayed as the threat to humanity as opposed to a fake alien. And as a bonus doesn't require an entire island full of artists and other experts being kept quiet and then executed.

 

[kswiston]

I don't see much of a difference in the main plot if Manhattan is portrayed as the threat to humanity as opposed to a fake alien. And as a bonus doesn't require an entire island full of artists and other experts being kept quiet and then executed.

The main plot of the movie and book were the same, but the movie stripped out most of the human elements which was the entire point of the book. All of the side characters and prose pieces at the end of each chapter really delved into the characters in a way that we didn't get in the film. They just focused on the murder mystery and over the top action scenes. The action in the comic book was very subdued.

 

[Kai Dracon]

If nothing else it would be far easier for Veidt to fake reports of Manhattan as a looming threat than fake an entire alien race. Veidt had the technology to replicate Manhattan's unique form of energy. And target it so it would appear anywhere.

He could just fire off a bubble of energy in the orbit of Saturn from time to time, an event other scientists would be able to independently verify. Thus reinforcing that Manhattan was out there, watching, waiting.

But since Veidt desires utopia, not just forced cooperation, this is probably where his plan would fall apart in the long run. As he could not so easily manipulate the fundamental human condition, as he could the attention of top-level world government officials.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I don't see much of a difference in the main plot if Manhattan is portrayed as the threat to humanity as opposed to a fake alien. And as a bonus doesn't require an entire island full of artists and other experts being kept quiet and then executed.

The Alien is an outside threat that draws humanity together regardless of ideological differences. It is after all the human race under threat, not just political affiliations. It acts similar to the nuclear threat in the sense that they could be attacked at any time, but without the actual problem of that threat becoming a promise, so to speak. It's a lateral master-stroke.

Manhattan was an "American" Superhero which causes more post-narrative problems than it solves. Rather than Russia sympathising with America as they did in the book (effectively ending the Cold War), it is far more likely that they would use Manhattan's rogue status as a way of scoring further points in the Cold War and drawing more countries to their side. So if Adrian's plan was to help Russia win the Cold War, then the Manhattan plan was brilliant.

This is complete supposition on my part, but it (perhaps strangely) makes way less sense than the unbelievable, Gordian Knot solution that Comic Veidt comes up with.

 

[akira28]

Wouldn't Rorschach be more Lawful Good than Chaotic Good?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

The Alien is an outside threat that draws humanity together regardless of ideological differences. It is after all the human race under threat, not just political affiliations. It acts similar to the nuclear threat in the sense that they could be attacked at any time, but without the actual problem of that threat becoming a promise, so to speak. It's a lateral master-stroke.

Manhattan was an "American" Superhero which causes more post-narrative problems than it solves. Rather than Russia sympathising with America as they did in the book (effectively ending the Cold War), it is far more likely that they would use Manhattan's rogue status as a way of scoring further points in the Cold War and drawing more countries to their side. So if Adrian's plan was to help Russia win the Cold War, then the Manhattan plan was brilliant.

This is complete supposition on my part, but it (perhaps strangely) makes way less sense than the unbelievable, Gordian Knot solution that Comic Veidt comes up with.

The film probably should have put more emphasis on breaking the connection between Manhattan and the US established earlier ("god exists and he is american"), but filling in the gaps between him attacking New York city and the rest of the world interpreting him as an enemy of all humanity doesn't require that big a leap.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Wouldn't Rorschach be more Lawful Good than Chaotic Good?

Perhaps he started out as Lawful Good then became chaotic once he rationalized the law didn't go far enough. (Letting criminals live.)

But in his mind, I'd say he sees himself as the lawful good type. Except it is his own laws being enforced.

 

[Screaming Meat]

The film probably should have put more emphasis on breaking the connection between Manhattan and the US established earlier ("god exists and he is american"), but filling in the gaps between him attacking New York city and the rest of the world interpreting him as an enemy of all humanity doesn't require that big a leap.

Since America absolutely hammers him as their trump card in their Cold War propaganda, you can't expect everyone to suddenly cut that connection. I'm sure everyone would deem it a threat to the World anyway, but America would still be blamed and stigmatised for it, which isn't in line with the Utopia that Adrian is striving for.

In that way, the Alien Invasion seems much cleaner and well set up to me. The only post-narrative questions that spring to mind are the ones the author actually wants us to ask and that are in line with the book's concerns.

 

[Timeaisis]

He is unfaltering in his moral position. I love him for that.

Also, I don't think of him as a parody at all. Each character in Watchman signifies a specific outlook on the world one must take on in order to be a "hero" (Rorschach = unflinching moral resolution, Nite Owl = pragmatism, Comedian = nihlism, Ozy = ego? I guess, Manhattan = knowledge). That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Since America absolutely hammers him as their trump card in their Cold War propaganda, you can't expect everyone to suddenly cut that connection. I'm sure everyone would deem it a threat to the World anyway, but America would still be blamed and stigmatised for it, which isn't in line with the Utopia that Adrian is striving for.

In that way, the Alien Invasion seems much cleaner and well set up to me. The only post-narrative questions that spring to mind are the ones the author actually wants us to ask and that are in line with the book's concerns.

I hear you about stigmatising America for creating Dr Manhattan, even if it was unintentional.

Regarding Adrian's utopia, I don't remember the comics as well as the movie since I read it years ago, but did he give a more satisfying explanation for how a utopia would necessarily come out of global fear? Why would economic equality for instance be guaranteed in a world under the constant threat of alien invasion? Couldn't military and defense R&D just as easily be given priority, causing spending to skyrocket?

 

[Aylinato]

Ozy's plan stunts the growth of humans. Everytime a "peace" (because it's not even guarenteed) is built off a lie and humanity doesn't get a chance to grow itself, the human race gets stopped in its progress towards unification.

Whenever people set up a reality with lies they do not create a lasting society. Eventually all lies get exposed. Ozy plan is only sustainable if he keeps murdering people. He isn't doing it for the good of humanity but got his own selfish ego.

Take for example when Kyle Raynor became Ion and was able to stop all crimes, and all bad things happening. Superman has a chat with him about how Kyle needs to let humans decide their own fate because otherwise he is hindering humanity's ability to grow and strive to better themselves.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Ozy's plan stunts the growth of humans. Everytime a "peace" (because it's not even guarenteed) is built off a lie and humanity doesn't get a chance to grow itself, the human race gets stopped in its progress towards unification.

Whenever people set up a reality with lies they do not create a lasting society. Eventually all lies get exposed. Ozy plan is only sustainable if he keeps murdering people. He isn't doing it for the good of humanity but got his own selfish ego.

Take for example when Kyle Raynor became Ion and was able to stop all crimes, and all bad things happening. Superman has a chat with him about how Kyle needs to let humans decide their own fate because otherwise he is hindering humanity's ability to grow and strive to better themselves.

That's actually not true, and history can prove it. Sometimes a lie buys us the time we need to grow on our own, allowing us to reach the point where we can revisit and discard it at an acceptable price.

Survival and truth are always in a constant struggle with each other. That's life.

 

[Japanmanx3]

Peace based on a lie is no true peace. It's a fantasy. A delusion. Rorschach saw this for what it was and knew the only way for humanity to survive was to look itself in the face and make its own choice.

Ozymandias put a band aid on a deep wound. It wouldn't last.

This.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

This.

The US declaration of independence is an inconsistent document that contains lies, and the country itself was built on the dead bodies of Natives by forced slaves brought from other countries.

So were Rome, the British Empire, Ancient Egypt and countless others.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

That's actually not true, and history can prove it. Sometimes a lie buys us the time we need to grow on our own, allowing us to reach the point where we can revisit and discard it at an acceptable price.

Survival and truth are always in a constant struggle with each other. That's life.

I'm curious what examples from history you are specifically alluding to, and whether they also involve the killing of innocents to achieve some greater good.

The problem with that line of thinking is that victims never get a say in whether their lives are an "acceptable price" to pay. It's easy to rationalize killing as necessary when it's happening to someone else.

 

[akira28]

This.

Ozy wasn't a Nietzschean superman wannabe like Schach. . He was the actual superman, and was willing to make a bargain in order to get a real and maybe lasting peace in the face of possible destruction. Rorschach, on the other hand, aspired and suffered and struggled, and would have the world suffer and change and struggle along with him. If it died, it died, but if it lived it would be stronger, uncompromising, more pure, like he thought himself to be.

 

[SpyGuy239]

I never read the book but I really loved the movie.

I also love Rorschach as a character despite his quirks. He had a set of values that he never wavered from and that is respectable.

 

[Mengy]

he was my favorite character in the comic

still need to see movie.

I loved the book back in the day and I also love the movie too. HOWEVER, if you watch the movie make absolute sure it is the directors cut version of the film. The theatrical film left me wanting, but the later Watchmen DC was a much better adaptation. It's a big difference.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I'm curious what examples from history you are specifically alluding to, and whether they also involve the killing of innocents to achieve some greater good.

The problem with that line of thinking is that victims never get a say in whether their lives are an "acceptable price" to pay. It's easy to rationalize killing as necessary when it's happening to someone else.

I'm not trying to justify killing, only making an observation about civilizations based on actual historical facts. If there was an alternate world where humanity could evolve differently from scratch , then we could test the hypothesis that it is possible to create a civilization without undergoing periods of violence.

 

[Riposte]

Let us not forget where Ozy gets his name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias#Comparison_of_the_two_poems

One interpretation could be that human society will "rise up" and become great as per his ideals following the end of the story, but will eventually fall to ruin (long after he dies, even), because time won't stop for a neat and happy ending, as has it been the case with all civilizations as their peak and perhaps humanity as a whole (what Manhattan was saying).

Wouldn't Rorschach be more Lawful Good than Chaotic Good?

The two-axis alignment system is deeply flawed and cannot place Rorschach. He wouldn't be "Good" though. He's more closely aligned with the ridiculous take of "Lawful Neutral".

Rorschach isn't a "parody", he's a character with (inherited) flaws that Moore wanted you to feel for.

If you are going around calling characters evil, you are ill-equipped to be talking about morality in this kind of story. It's like some people think and say they can understand "grey morality", but actually don't. Meanwhile, if you think Batman should be like Rorschach, because that's more "realistic", then there's a lack of understanding there also.

 

[Azih]

That it was NYC that was obliterated completely and neatly severs the connection between Dr Manhattan and the US in my view especially since Ozy had been very effectively driving a wedge between him and humanity anyway to get him out of the way. Why wouldn't Russia be terrified of a crazed Dr Manhattan (who turned against his own) coming after them next?

Really in this score movie trumps comic handily.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

That it was NYC that was obliterated completely and neatly severs the connection between Dr Manhattan and the US in my view especially since Ozy had been very effectively driving a wedge between him and humanity anyway to get him out of the way. Why wouldn't Russia be terrified of a crazed Dr Manhattan (who turned against his own) coming after them next?

Really in this score movie trumps comic handily.

There are other problems with using Dr Manhattan for the Deus Ex Machina in the end. For one, the fact that humanity believes he is capable of causing such damage, and the fact that they believe there is a chance he may return one day go against the most important aspect of his character, in my opinion. And that aspect is his (eventual) utter indifference towards humanity.

Rorschach isn't a "parody", he's a character with (inherited) flaws that Moore wanted you to feel for.
...
...
...
Meanwhile, if you think Batman should be like Rorschach, because that's more "realistic", then there's a lack of understanding there also.

Was wondering if these comments were in relation to anything I've posted.

 

[CorvoSol]

The US declaration of independence is an inconsistent document that contains lies, and the country itself was built on the dead bodies of Natives by forced slaves brought from other countries.

So were Rome, the British Empire, Ancient Egypt and countless others.

I don't get what you're arguing at, though? Rome fell. Egypt fell. Britain diminished and the US' position at the top is a matter of nearly constant debate. Going by what the person you responded to was looking at, they'd be right.

 

[Mariah Carey]

(I haven't read all the thread, apologies if this has been discussed already).

I've never been 100% sure what stance the movie (and I've only seen the movie; maybe reading the comic would be clearer) takes on the world-peace-by-killing-millions action. My first reaction after seeing it was that the movie was against it, since the guy who sets the plan in motion is The Bad Guy and the heroes still hate his guts at the end. I had a friend who found the ending (and by extension the movie itself) abhorent because he felt it advocated such an action, because the heroes stopped trying to put the villain to justice after he accomplished his goal.

I still say the movie sides against the action and that the heroes are simply demoralized and give up after their failiure to stop him. But I thought it was interesting someone could come to the opposite conclusion so definitively.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I don't get what you're arguing at, though? Rome fell. Egypt fell. Britain diminished and the US' position at the top is a matter of nearly constant debate. Going by what the person you responded to was looking at, they'd be right.

People like Dr Manhattan and Ozymandias are more concerned with the grand scale of things than most of us are. On that scale, nothing is meant to last forever. Every construct is built on a set of assumptions that sooner or later cease to be relevant. The important thing is the process itself, and allowing it to continue and gradually self-correct. The fact that those empires are gone takes nothing away from the fact that their existence enabled other ideas to come into being, on which we rely today.

 

[kswiston]

I don't get what you're arguing at, though? Rome fell. Egypt fell. Britain diminished and the US' position at the top is a matter of nearly constant debate. Going by what the person you responded to was looking at, they'd be right.

There was still a constant march of societal and technological progression during all of that. If we measure the state of humanity by progress, than those empires all pushed humanity forward.

 

[Zaptruder]

(I haven't read all the thread, apologies if this has been discussed already).

I've never been 100% sure what stance the movie (and I've only seen the movie; maybe reading the comic would be clearer) takes on the world-peace-by-killing-millions action. My first reaction after seeing it was that the movie was against it, since the guy who sets the plan in motion is The Bad Guy and the heroes still hate his guts at the end. I had a friend who found the ending (and by extension the movie itself) abhorent because he felt it advocated such an action, because the heroes stopped trying to put the villain to justice after he accomplished his goal.

I still say the movie sides against the action and that the heroes are simply demoralized and give up after their failiure to stop him. But I thought it was interesting someone could come to the opposite conclusion so definitively.

The heroes disagree with the plan... but realize that it has been executed so perfectly that the only utilitarian action is to let it carry its course, lest they destroy the unwitting sacrifice made by millions, and even help to trigger a nuclear war.

 

[Azih]

There are other problems with using Dr Manhattan for the Deus Ex Machina in the end. For one, the fact that humanity believes he is capable of causing such damage, and the fact that they believe there is a chance he may return one day go against the most important aspect of his character, in my opinion. And that aspect is his (eventual) utter indifference towards humanity.

Well what the world thinks Manhattan might do has no bearing on Manhattan himself. The character is unchanged.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Well what the world thinks Manhattan might do has no bearing on Manhattan himself. The character is unchanged.

I agree, it becomes part of Adrian's lie, instead of the lie in the comic book.

edit: There are pros and cons to both endings in my opinion. The film's version is definitely more neat, but I also find it compelling to explore Dr Manhattan's indifference in relation to the ideal of a superman. And in order to fully explore that concept, I think it's important the people of earth be aware of his indifference.

 

[HK-47]

The heroes disagree with the plan... but realize that it has been executed so perfectly that the only utilitarian action is to let it carry its course, lest they destroy the unwitting sacrifice made by millions, and even help to trigger a nuclear war.

Act Utilitarianism is a flawed moral perspective

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Act Utilitarianism is a flawed moral perspective

what alternative did they have?
try to think about the level of certainty each alternative brings with it too.

 

[bonercop]

Wasn't Allan More shocked that most of the Watchmen Readers liked Rorschach and his ideals?

“I wanted to … make [Rorschach] as like, ‘this is what Batman would be in the real world’. But I have forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans, ‘smelling’, ‘not having a girlfriend’, these are actually kind of heroic! So Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I made him to be a bad example. But I have people come up to me in the street and saying: ‘I AM Rorschach. That is MY story’. And I’d be thinking: ‘Yeah, great. Could you just, like, keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live?’”

 

[freethoughtbubble]

I'm not trying to justify killing, only making an observation about civilizations based on actual historical facts. If there was an alternate world where humanity could evolve differently from scratch , then we could test the hypothesis that it is possible to create a civilization without undergoing periods of violence.

Point taken. I guess what I am reacting to is this notion that the problem with Veidt's plan is that it won't work. I actually take his and Manhattan's word for it that it will succeed in creating a lasting peace. The problem with the plan is all the killing involved.

While it is true that human civilization has been built on a foundation of war and genocide, it does not mean that the ends justify the means in a moral sense, then or now. The most we can say is that these things happened, accept that fact, and move on with the conviction that they should not happen again, that there must be other ways of achieving the same thing.

That's what's tragic about Ozzy: he is the only person smart enough to see that his world has reached a point where there truly is no other way to proceed. Ozzy and Rorschach represent two extremes in responding to this knowledge: the former pulls the trigger in order to save the world; the latter chooses to check out from the whole terrible affair. People gravitate to these two characters because they choose to take heroic, yet horrifying, stands on the same terrible problem.

Dan and Laurie represent the rest of us. Paralyzed by the knowledge that they have no real control over their lives, yet choosing to go on in a morally compromised world.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I hear you about stigmatising America for creating Dr Manhattan, even if it was unintentional.

Regarding Adrian's utopia, I don't remember the comics as well as the movie since I read it years ago, but did he give a more satisfying explanation for how a utopia would necessarily come out of global fear? Why would economic equality for instance be guaranteed in a world under the constant threat of alien invasion? Couldn't military and defense R&D just as easily be given priority, causing spending to skyrocket?

The comic doesn't go in to detail. After avoiding nuclear war, Veidt plans to "help [the world] towards Utopia." With his resources that seems like a real possibility (even if the word Utopia is actually a pun).

What we do see is the East & West unite under a new Accord (via posters and the Russian Burger Joint).

That it was NYC that was obliterated completely and neatly severs the connection between Dr Manhattan and the US in my view especially since Ozy had been very effectively driving a wedge between him and humanity anyway to get him out of the way. Why wouldn't Russia be terrified of a crazed Dr Manhattan (who turned against his own) coming after them next?

Really in this score movie trumps comic handily.

No, it doesn't satisfactorily sever the connection at all. The film ending is extremely problematic in that regard. Manhattan is still an explicitly American Super Weapon, the back bone of their Nuclear deterrent scheme. Just because it goes off on their doorstep doesn't mean that the rest of the world will suddenly forgive them. America, in the view of the rest of the world, brought that monster onto the table, it would only serve them right if the very weapon they used to bully the world during the Cold War backfired on them. It would be a VERY frosty united World Accord following the film plan.

An enemy that has no connection to either party and is near unreachable, on the other hand...

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Point taken. I guess what I am reacting to is this notion that the problem with Veidt's plan is that it won't work. I actually take his and Manhattan's word for it that it will succeed in creating a lasting peace. The problem with the plan is all the killing involved.

I don't think that was the point Moore was trying to make. Nobody in the Watchmen universe can tell what will happen in the future, and that's kind of the initial premise of the story, with the "doomsday clock" and all.

On a purely technical level, if anybody was able to know for sure that killing a certain amount of innocent people would guarantee long lasting peace and prosperity, which would otherwise take many years and more victims to manifest, they could decide with simple math which course of action was more moral.

 

[HK-47]

I don't think that was the point Moore was trying to make. Nobody in the Watchmen universe can tell what will happen in the future, and that's kind of the initial premise of the story, with the "doomsday clock" and all.

On a purely technical level, if anybody was able to know for sure that killing a certain amount of innocent people would guarantee long lasting peace and prosperity, which would otherwise take many years and countless more victims to manifest, they could decide with simple math which course of action was more moral.

Math has shit to say about morality, so no it wouldn't be that simple

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Math has shit to say about morality, so no it wouldn't be that simple

what better way do you propose judging what is moral and what is not?

 

[Aylinato]

I'm not trying to justify killing, only making an observation about civilizations based on actual historical facts. If there was an alternate world where humanity could evolve differently from scratch , then we could test the hypothesis that it is possible to create a civilization without undergoing periods of violence.

pray tell what civilizations in history killed a mass amount of people to create a better world for their own government in the history of the world. (it has to be the country that actually decided to kill their own people to make a peaceful world, go on, name one instance)

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

it has to be the country that actually decided to kill their own people to make a peaceful world

why?


edit: even if I adhere to your strange criteria, what would you say happened in the american civil war? or the french revolution?