What's Happening

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

The Kings Raven: could someone please explain this to me?
  • Motifs (Everywhere. There are some motifs that appear throughout the story (like the bloodstained smiley or the doomsday clock counting towards midnight), and some that appear primarily in one chapter (like two riders in chapter 10).)
      • This troper had to read the above a few times before making the connection. Holy crap, that quickly changed an otherwise harmless seeming advertisement into Nightmare Fuel.

YYZ: I'm sure someone else can do a better job of describing the series itself; I just felt it was an obvious gap in our information to not have an article about The Original Dark Age series.

Ununnilium: I decided to spoiler-tag all the direct information about the ending, despite the big warning, because it's just such a good Twist Ending.

Annwyd: Removed this:

  • It's the Only Way (The entire ending's strength more or less relies upon the acceptance on the parts of the characters and the reader's assuming that the world is on the brink of universal destruction. Otherwise, Ozymandias' plan is monstrous and unnecessarily destructive.

Not because I have anything against criticizing the comic (I have some issues with it myself), but because it's just plain wrong. It's the Only Way describes stupid or pointless acts that are presented as heroic or necessary in the text. Veidt's plan is arguably pointless and definitely monstrous, but it's presented as deeply ambiguous within the source text itself.
Dalantia: Pulled

  • Screwed by the Network: Fox has launched a crusade to prevent WB from releasing the movie. One of the rare instances of a completely different Network screwing over a good thing.

Fox has legal ground to stand on, like it or not - and a lawsuit is not a crusade, unfortunately.
Bob!: I cut the following from Misaimed Fandom because it's an Alternate Character Interpretation. With everyone in the fandom having a different Alternate Character Interpretation, we shouldn't suggest that someone is the "only true hero in the book" in the article. Personally, I think that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are the only ones who could be called "heroes" in the entire book. Saving those people from the burning apartment building is the only unambiguously good act in a Crapsack World.

  • I agree. Rorschach is heroic in that he will never compramise in his crusade to bring justice to wrong doers. Not the government, not the other heroes who will let the Well-Intentioned Extremist go free, nobody. Of course he still is a monster who tourtures and executes those who he deems as a wrong doer.

    • It's not just that. Rorschach is a monster. He is a murderer and a lunatic. He is also the only true hero in the whole book. Right at the end, after Ozymandias kills New York and the other "heroes" decide to let it slide because he actually succeeded in scaring everyone into world peace, Rorschach is the only one to refuse the compromise - even though he knows that doing so would make the death of all these people meaningless. And because he knows he won't be able to just keep silent, he allows Dr. Manhattan to kill him. Personally, I think Rorschach is so compelling because he shows that you can't be a hero and human at the same time - the fundamental and unheroic weakness of the other characters demonstrates that. Just as much as Superman couldn't be anything but an alien, Rorschach had to be a madman.

    • One thing I always wondered, why not keep the secret but quietly bring Ozymandias to justice and make him look like just one more victim of the squid, or just bury him in his fortress, whatever works.

    • Two reasons, I think: "Quietly bringing Ozzie to justice" may be beyond Rorschach's capabilities, and that probably conflicts with the morality- Rorschach wouldn't want Ozzie to be remembered as a hero for the other stuff he's done.

Here's my take, addressing both Rorschach's heroism and his decision to die with his mask off: what is his earliest, most primal memory of right and wrong? His father, and his father's patriotism - specifically, his support for Truman's actions in WWII. (Which is tied, naturally, to his issues with women - virtuous, upstanding men and weak, compromising, unpatriotic women.) What did Truman do? Ended the war by authorising the bombing of cities. Rorschach usually justifies his brutality by his victims being criminals - subhuman, not worthy of rights or of mercy. Did the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit this qualifier? Of course not. We see hints of this fault in Rorschach's worldview - the 'Hiroshima lovers' graffiti, for instance, deeply disturbs him.

But then, what does Veidt do? Prevents a war by bombing a city. But this time, it's Rorschach's city, and he sees it happening, and it's not a fatherly figure of just authority authorising it - it's someone he hates. He sees the very thing which formed his idea of morality, and sees either it to be monstrous, or himself. Either way, his entire life has been, well... a joke? He knew he couldn't continue - and really, so did everyone else. He dared Manhattan to kill him, and he died as Kovacs because Rorschach was already dead. - SirFrederick

Bring The Noise: Cut the following - Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, and just missing the point of the speech entirely.

  • This troper cringed. Even though the chance of getting a single sperm to meet an egg is enormously low, in order for a child to be born, one of them had to do so. The chance of a specific sperm meeting the egg might be astronomically improbable, but since one of them HAS to, it is practically guaranteed. This is similar to how even though the chance of dealing 5 specific cards from a playing card deck in that specific order is also enormously tiny, since you are dealing 5 cards, it HAS to happen. Le sigh. This is the same fallacy that Bible Code nuts use.

Guildenstern: I put it back. Did not sound like complaining to me, more like a good example of Fridge Logic and valid criticism. If you decide to cut it one more time, Bring The Noise, be so nice to explain to me, what's the true point of the speech and how exatxly does this passage "miss it entirely".

<random troper>: Anyone else think Veidt's plan would qualify as a Shoot the Dog? It's heavily implied that a nuclear holocaust is imminent and his primary motivation was 'kill a few million to save a billion'.

Zeke: The important thing about Shoot the Dog is — wait, no. I was thinking of Kick the Dog. Rereading the description of Shoot the Dog, I suppose you could make a case; I think the proper trope is Moral Event Horizon, though.

Doctor Worm: I'd call that a Shoot the Dog, since that trope seems to be about doing an act that the character knows to be evil or amoral, but considers necessary for the greater good anyway. It's not the Moral Event Horizon because he feels bad about it afterward.

I removed all comments linking Rorschach to a Heroic BSOD, as nothing like that ever happens to him. Heroic BSOD, I quote, makes the hero "flummoxed or shocked to the point of mentally shutting down for a while" and "in all cases, the result is a form of non-consensual Ten Minute Retirement" which may need a "heaping helping of Epiphany Therapy" to return from. Rorschach never experiences anything even remotely similar. He doesn't go catatonic, doesn't mentally shut down, doesn't retire or disappear. What he goes through is a moment of Dark Epiphany that makes him realize that the world is a horrible, morally blank place, there is no God, men have no hope, and you might as well make your own absolute rules on good and evil and forcefully enforce them on everyone around you. (And if this makes you an outlaw and public enemy, too bad.)

I'm not sure what the right trope is for that, but it definitely isn't Heroic BSOD.

Bryndon asks: So, I've just seen the movie. Did they shift a lot of lines around when people were variously condemning and understanding Veidt? I think the movie lost a lot of the ambiguity that made the novel so powerful for me. There's gotta be a trope name for this, apart from They Changed It Now It Sucks. Anyone else share this nagging feeling?
  • That would be plain ol' Adaptation Decay, although I'd disagree with your assessment of the scene.

32_Footsteps: It's not just you, Bryndon. I think the citation for Adaptation Distillation was extremely premature; I know plenty of people already on both sides of the fence about it. I think a more neutral cite for both that and Adaptation Decay, with a cite towards Broken Base, is in order.
Amitai: So what is it exactly that makes it Golden Age, Silver Age, and Dark Age at the same time?
alliterator: So I created a page just for the movie. Should we just move all the movie-specific tropes over there? I already included a bunch.
  • I second the motion. —Jonn
  • Meta Four: Yeah, movie-specific stuff should definitely be moved there.

Anon: Woodward and Bernstein. Holy shit I only just got that. I love this comic.