History ComicBook / Watchmen

16th Jul '17 8:02:48 PM CassandraLeo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AnAesop: If the comic book has one, it can likely be summarised along the following lines: "An ethics that considers ''only'' utilitarianism[[note]]the stance that ethical actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which can vary depending upon context[[/note]] or ''only'' the categorical imperative[[note]]the stance that actions are ethically wrong regardless of context[[/note]] has fatal flaws that make it indifferent to actually existing human suffering." [[spoiler:Ozymandias can be considered to represent a particularly dark take on utilitarianism; he kills millions of people because he thinks it will save the planet from nuclear war. It's not even clear that he's actually wrong to believe this; the ending ambiguously suggests it's possible that TheExtremistWasRight, and he seems to think of himself as NecessarilyEvil. However, it's also nearly impossible to sympathise with him, occasional cases of DracoInLeatherPants aside. Rorschach, by contrast, represents the categorical imperative: "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." While he, too, has a MisaimedFandom, it's pretty clear we're not supposed to sympathise with him on this. His belief that Ozymandias should be punished for his actions is suggested to be understandable; his belief that Ozymandias' actions should be ''exposed'' is not. The reason the ending is ambiguous is because he sent his journal to the ''New Frontiersman'' before his death, and it's unclear whether it will be dismissed as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist published in a fringe magazine or whether it will be taken seriously. (Interestingly, Rorschach is also depicted as a {{hypocrite}} over this; for example, he defends Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on utilitarian grounds.) Moore's own take seems to be that we're not supposed to ''like'' either of these characters; they are {{antihero}}es or {{antivillain}}s at best. Both of them take their respective ethical philosophies to unjustifiable extremes that are shown to be callous to the actual human suffering depicted in the comic. A balanced ethical perspective, ''Watchmen'' suggests, needs to consider ''both'' the categorical imperative and utilitarianism, and since they're intrinsically contradictory stances, it can't take either of them to extremes. Incidentally, the comic isn't remotely {{anvilicious}} about any of this; while the ethical and philosophical conflict between the characters is clearly demonstrated by their actions, they're shown by an omniscient narrator and presented without any narrative editorialising.]]

to:

* AnAesop: If the comic book has one, it can likely be summarised along the following lines: "An ethics that considers ''only'' utilitarianism[[note]]the {{UsefulNotes/utilitarianism}}[[note]]the stance that ethical actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which can vary depending upon context[[/note]] or ''only'' the categorical imperative[[note]]the stance that actions are ethically wrong regardless of context[[/note]] context; strongly associated with Immanuel Kant, as it is the central concept in his deontological ethics[[/note]] has fatal flaws that make it indifferent to actually existing human suffering." [[spoiler:Ozymandias can be considered to represent a particularly dark take on utilitarianism; he kills millions of people because he thinks it will save the planet from nuclear war. It's not even clear that he's actually wrong to believe this; the ending ambiguously suggests it's possible that TheExtremistWasRight, and he seems to think of himself as NecessarilyEvil. However, it's also nearly impossible to sympathise with him, occasional cases of DracoInLeatherPants aside. Rorschach, by contrast, represents the categorical imperative: "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." While he, too, has a MisaimedFandom, it's pretty clear we're not supposed to sympathise with him on this. His belief that Ozymandias should be punished for his actions is suggested to be understandable; his belief that Ozymandias' actions should be ''exposed'' is not. The reason the ending is ambiguous is because he sent his journal to the ''New Frontiersman'' before his death, and it's unclear whether it will be dismissed as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist published in a fringe magazine or whether it will be taken seriously. (Interestingly, Rorschach is also depicted as a {{hypocrite}} over this; for example, he defends Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on utilitarian grounds.) Moore's own take seems to be that we're not supposed to ''like'' either of these characters; they are {{antihero}}es or {{antivillain}}s at best. Both of them take their respective ethical philosophies to unjustifiable extremes that are shown to be callous to the actual human suffering depicted in the comic. A balanced ethical perspective, ''Watchmen'' suggests, needs to consider ''both'' the categorical imperative and utilitarianism, and since they're intrinsically contradictory stances, it can't take either of them to extremes. Incidentally, the comic isn't remotely {{anvilicious}} about any of this; while the ethical and philosophical conflict between the characters is clearly demonstrated by their actions, they're shown by an omniscient narrator and presented without any narrative editorialising.]]
16th Jul '17 7:54:39 PM CassandraLeo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AnAesop: If the comic book has one, it can likely be summarised along the following lines: "An ethics that considers ''only'' utilitarianism[[note]]the stance that ethical actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which can vary depending upon context[[/note]] or ''only'' the categorical imperative[[note]]the stance that actions are ethically wrong regardless of context[[/note]] has fatal flaws that are indifferent to actual existing human suffering." [[spoiler:Ozymandias can be considered to represent a particularly dark take on utilitarianism; he kills millions of people because he thinks it will save the planet from nuclear war. It's not even clear that he's actually wrong to believe this; the ending ambiguously suggests it's possible that TheExtremistWasRight, and he seems to think of himself as NecessarilyEvil. However, it's also nearly impossible to sympathise with him, occasional cases of DracoInLeatherPants aside. Rorschach, by contrast, represents the categorical imperative: "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." While he, too, has a MisaimedFandom, it's pretty clear we're not supposed to sympathise with him on this. His belief that Ozymandias should be punished for his actions is suggested to be understandable; his belief that Ozymandias' actions should be ''exposed'' is not. The reason the ending is ambiguous is because he sent his journal to the ''New Frontiersman'' before his death, and it's unclear whether it will be dismissed as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist published in a fringe magazine or whether it will be taken seriously. (Interestingly, Rorschach is also depicted as a {{hypocrite}} over this; for example, he defends Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on utilitarian grounds.) Moore's own take seems to be that we're not supposed to ''like'' either of these characters; they are {{antihero}}es or {{antivillain}}s at best. Both of them take their respective ethical philosophies to unjustifiable extremes that are shown to be callous to the actual human suffering depicted in the comic. A balanced ethical perspective, ''Watchmen'' suggests, needs to consider ''both'' the categorical imperative and utilitarianism, and since they're intrinsically contradictory stances, it can't take either of them to extremes. Incidentally, the comic isn't remotely {{anvilicious}} about any of this; while the ethical and philosophical conflict between the characters is clearly demonstrated by their actions, they're shown by an omniscient narrator and presented without any narrative editorialising.]]

to:

* AnAesop: If the comic book has one, it can likely be summarised along the following lines: "An ethics that considers ''only'' utilitarianism[[note]]the stance that ethical actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which can vary depending upon context[[/note]] or ''only'' the categorical imperative[[note]]the stance that actions are ethically wrong regardless of context[[/note]] has fatal flaws that are make it indifferent to actual actually existing human suffering." [[spoiler:Ozymandias can be considered to represent a particularly dark take on utilitarianism; he kills millions of people because he thinks it will save the planet from nuclear war. It's not even clear that he's actually wrong to believe this; the ending ambiguously suggests it's possible that TheExtremistWasRight, and he seems to think of himself as NecessarilyEvil. However, it's also nearly impossible to sympathise with him, occasional cases of DracoInLeatherPants aside. Rorschach, by contrast, represents the categorical imperative: "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." While he, too, has a MisaimedFandom, it's pretty clear we're not supposed to sympathise with him on this. His belief that Ozymandias should be punished for his actions is suggested to be understandable; his belief that Ozymandias' actions should be ''exposed'' is not. The reason the ending is ambiguous is because he sent his journal to the ''New Frontiersman'' before his death, and it's unclear whether it will be dismissed as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist published in a fringe magazine or whether it will be taken seriously. (Interestingly, Rorschach is also depicted as a {{hypocrite}} over this; for example, he defends Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on utilitarian grounds.) Moore's own take seems to be that we're not supposed to ''like'' either of these characters; they are {{antihero}}es or {{antivillain}}s at best. Both of them take their respective ethical philosophies to unjustifiable extremes that are shown to be callous to the actual human suffering depicted in the comic. A balanced ethical perspective, ''Watchmen'' suggests, needs to consider ''both'' the categorical imperative and utilitarianism, and since they're intrinsically contradictory stances, it can't take either of them to extremes. Incidentally, the comic isn't remotely {{anvilicious}} about any of this; while the ethical and philosophical conflict between the characters is clearly demonstrated by their actions, they're shown by an omniscient narrator and presented without any narrative editorialising.]]
16th Jul '17 7:53:38 PM CassandraLeo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AnAesop: If the comic book has one, it can likely be summarised along the following lines: "An ethics that considers ''only'' utilitarianism[[note]]the stance that ethical actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which can vary depending upon context[[/note]] or ''only'' the categorical imperative[[note]]the stance that actions are ethically wrong regardless of context[[/note]] has fatal flaws that are indifferent to actual existing human suffering." [[spoiler:Ozymandias can be considered to represent a particularly dark take on utilitarianism; he kills millions of people because he thinks it will save the planet from nuclear war. It's not even clear that he's actually wrong to believe this; the ending ambiguously suggests it's possible that TheExtremistWasRight, and he seems to think of himself as NecessarilyEvil. However, it's also nearly impossible to sympathise with him, occasional cases of DracoInLeatherPants aside. Rorschach, by contrast, represents the categorical imperative: "No compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." While he, too, has a MisaimedFandom, it's pretty clear we're not supposed to sympathise with him on this. His belief that Ozymandias should be punished for his actions is suggested to be understandable; his belief that Ozymandias' actions should be ''exposed'' is not. The reason the ending is ambiguous is because he sent his journal to the ''New Frontiersman'' before his death, and it's unclear whether it will be dismissed as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist published in a fringe magazine or whether it will be taken seriously. (Interestingly, Rorschach is also depicted as a {{hypocrite}} over this; for example, he defends Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on utilitarian grounds.) Moore's own take seems to be that we're not supposed to ''like'' either of these characters; they are {{antihero}}es or {{antivillain}}s at best. Both of them take their respective ethical philosophies to unjustifiable extremes that are shown to be callous to the actual human suffering depicted in the comic. A balanced ethical perspective, ''Watchmen'' suggests, needs to consider ''both'' the categorical imperative and utilitarianism, and since they're intrinsically contradictory stances, it can't take either of them to extremes. Incidentally, the comic isn't remotely {{anvilicious}} about any of this; while the ethical and philosophical conflict between the characters is clearly demonstrated by their actions, they're shown by an omniscient narrator and presented without any narrative editorialising.]]

to:

* AnAesop: If the comic book has one, it can likely be summarised along the following lines: "An ethics that considers ''only'' utilitarianism[[note]]the stance that ethical actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which can vary depending upon context[[/note]] or ''only'' the categorical imperative[[note]]the stance that actions are ethically wrong regardless of context[[/note]] has fatal flaws that are indifferent to actual existing human suffering." [[spoiler:Ozymandias can be considered to represent a particularly dark take on utilitarianism; he kills millions of people because he thinks it will save the planet from nuclear war. It's not even clear that he's actually wrong to believe this; the ending ambiguously suggests it's possible that TheExtremistWasRight, and he seems to think of himself as NecessarilyEvil. However, it's also nearly impossible to sympathise with him, occasional cases of DracoInLeatherPants aside. Rorschach, by contrast, represents the categorical imperative: "No compromise."No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." While he, too, has a MisaimedFandom, it's pretty clear we're not supposed to sympathise with him on this. His belief that Ozymandias should be punished for his actions is suggested to be understandable; his belief that Ozymandias' actions should be ''exposed'' is not. The reason the ending is ambiguous is because he sent his journal to the ''New Frontiersman'' before his death, and it's unclear whether it will be dismissed as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist published in a fringe magazine or whether it will be taken seriously. (Interestingly, Rorschach is also depicted as a {{hypocrite}} over this; for example, he defends Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on utilitarian grounds.) Moore's own take seems to be that we're not supposed to ''like'' either of these characters; they are {{antihero}}es or {{antivillain}}s at best. Both of them take their respective ethical philosophies to unjustifiable extremes that are shown to be callous to the actual human suffering depicted in the comic. A balanced ethical perspective, ''Watchmen'' suggests, needs to consider ''both'' the categorical imperative and utilitarianism, and since they're intrinsically contradictory stances, it can't take either of them to extremes. Incidentally, the comic isn't remotely {{anvilicious}} about any of this; while the ethical and philosophical conflict between the characters is clearly demonstrated by their actions, they're shown by an omniscient narrator and presented without any narrative editorialising.]]
16th Jul '17 7:51:06 PM CassandraLeo
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* AnAesop: If the comic book has one, it can likely be summarised along the following lines: "An ethics that considers ''only'' utilitarianism[[note]]the stance that ethical actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which can vary depending upon context[[/note]] or ''only'' the categorical imperative[[note]]the stance that actions are ethically wrong regardless of context[[/note]] has fatal flaws that are indifferent to actual existing human suffering." [[spoiler:Ozymandias can be considered to represent a particularly dark take on utilitarianism; he kills millions of people because he thinks it will save the planet from nuclear war. It's not even clear that he's actually wrong to believe this; the ending ambiguously suggests it's possible that TheExtremistWasRight, and he seems to think of himself as NecessarilyEvil. However, it's also nearly impossible to sympathise with him, occasional cases of DracoInLeatherPants aside. Rorschach, by contrast, represents the categorical imperative: "No compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." While he, too, has a MisaimedFandom, it's pretty clear we're not supposed to sympathise with him on this. His belief that Ozymandias should be punished for his actions is suggested to be understandable; his belief that Ozymandias' actions should be ''exposed'' is not. The reason the ending is ambiguous is because he sent his journal to the ''New Frontiersman'' before his death, and it's unclear whether it will be dismissed as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist published in a fringe magazine or whether it will be taken seriously. (Interestingly, Rorschach is also depicted as a {{hypocrite}} over this; for example, he defends Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on utilitarian grounds.) Moore's own take seems to be that we're not supposed to ''like'' either of these characters; they are {{antihero}}es or {{antivillain}}s at best. Both of them take their respective ethical philosophies to unjustifiable extremes that are shown to be callous to the actual human suffering depicted in the comic. A balanced ethical perspective, ''Watchmen'' suggests, needs to consider ''both'' the categorical imperative and utilitarianism, and since they're intrinsically contradictory stances, it can't take either of them to extremes. Incidentally, the comic isn't remotely {{anvilicious}} about any of this; while the ethical and philosophical conflict between the characters is clearly demonstrated by their actions, they're shown by an omniscient narrator and presented without any narrative editorialising.]]
14th Jul '17 6:06:51 PM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* BondageIsBad: You can't shake the feeling of this trope with this [[http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Before-Watchmen-Comedian-Cover.jpg image]] which is odd as the original book it was just a mask.
14th Jul '17 6:02:37 PM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ArmorPiercingQuestion
-->'''Comedian''': (to Hooded Justice) Is this what you like, huh? Is this what gets you hot?
9th Jul '17 10:50:05 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ThereAreNoTherapists: Deconstructed. Psychotherapy was new in the post-WorldWarTwo world but lack of understanding of psychological care causes Mothman's breakdown. Dr. Long (Rorschach's shrink) shows how impossible it is to understand the mind of a "hero".

to:

* ThereAreNoTherapists: Deconstructed. Psychotherapy was new in the post-WorldWarTwo post-UsefulNotes/WorldWarII world but lack of understanding of psychological care causes Mothman's breakdown. Dr. Long (Rorschach's shrink) shows how impossible it is to understand the mind of a "hero".
5th Jul '17 1:51:51 PM JBK405
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ArtisticLicenseLaw: The Keene Act, a federal law in the US that forbids costumed adventuring in the country, is pure nonsense. A federal law may only forbids it when it involves federal territories or properties. This act can only work as a state law, and the superheroes may simply leave to some other state. For costumed adventuring being forbidden in all the country, it should be forbidden by state laws at every state, but then it wouldn't be a single law that can get a fancy name.
23rd Jun '17 1:41:27 PM CynicalBastardo
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Dr. Manhatten's physical appearance is basically a naked ''ComicBook/RogueTrooper''. Dave Gibbons was one of Rogue's co-creators in addition to ''Watchmen''.
20th Jun '17 7:55:41 AM neander7hal
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* ArtisticLicenseMilitary: The flag at Comedian's funeral is folded into a rectangle shape instead of the proper triangle.
This list shows the last 10 events of 520. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=ComicBook.Watchmen