History Comicbook / Watchmen

20th Sep '17 7:09:14 PM pepsimax
Is there an issue? Send a Message


For the first 25 years of its publication history, ''Watchmen'' was a standalone work, albeit one that has become highly influential on the storytelling of the main DC Comics continuities. In 2012, DC Comics announced and published a prequel series titled ''ComicBook/BeforeWatchmen'' that [[LooseCanon did not involve Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons]]. In 2016, ComicBook/DCRebirth announced and hinted that some aspects of the story may actually be incorporated into the normal DC universe. Both Moore and Gibbons maintain that the original graphic novel is the canon of the story, which they conceived to stand on its own.

The graphic novel was adapted (after several attempts that all spiraled into DevelopmentHell) in 2009 into the film [[Film/{{Watchmen}} Watchmen]], which also spawned a tie-in prequel game, ''Watchmen: The End is Nigh'', that focuses on Nite Owl II and Rorschach. Two longer cuts of the film (the "Director's Cut" and the ''three-and-a-half hour'' "Ultimate Cut") made for home video adapt even more of the book. While Dave Gibbons served as a creative consultant on the film, Moore (as he has done with the film adaptations of his work) had no involvement and remains uncredited.

to:

For the first 25 years of its publication history, ''Watchmen'' was a standalone work, albeit one that has become highly influential on the storytelling of the main DC Comics continuities. In 2012, DC Comics announced and published a prequel series titled ''ComicBook/BeforeWatchmen'' that [[LooseCanon did not involve Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons]]. In 2016, ComicBook/DCRebirth announced and hinted that some aspects of the story may actually be incorporated into the normal DC universe. Both Despite both Moore and Gibbons maintain maintaining that the their original graphic novel is the ''the'' canon of the story, which as they conceived it to stand on its own.own, ''Watchmen'' has since creeped into other works.

In 2012, DC Comics published a prequel series titled ''ComicBook/BeforeWatchmen'', [[LooseCanon which did not involve Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons]], while the 2016 ComicBook/DCRebirth one-shot revealed that some aspects of ''Watchmen'' may actually be incorporated into the mainstream DC universe. Surely enough, the ''ComicBook/{{Batman}}'' / ''[[ComicBook/TheFlash Flash]]'' crossover ''ComicBook/TheButton'' teased further developments for their prospects in the DCU, while the twelve-issue 2017 event series ''ComicBook/DoomsdayClock'' will explicitly feature Dr. Manhattan (and possibly others) in the story.

The graphic novel was adapted (after ([[DevelopmentHell after several attempts that all spiraled into DevelopmentHell) in 2009 attempts]]) into the 2009 film [[Film/{{Watchmen}} Watchmen]], ''[[Film/{{Watchmen}} Watchmen]]'', which also spawned a tie-in prequel game, ''Watchmen: game --''Watchmen: The End is Nigh'', that Nigh''-- which focuses on Nite Owl II and Rorschach. Two longer cuts of the film (the "Director's Cut" and the ''three-and-a-half hour'' "Ultimate Cut") made for released on home video adapt even more of the book. While Dave Gibbons served as a creative consultant on the film, Moore (as he has done with the film adaptations of his work) had no involvement and remains uncredited.
uncredited.

A television series based on ''Watchmen'' has similarly faced a long development process. Originally announced for Creator/{{HBO}} in 2014, plans were halted due to creative difficulties. In July 2017, the network announced they'd brought the project back into development, with Damon Lindelof (''Series/{{Lost}}'', ''Series/TheLeftovers'') onboard as showrunner and Gibbons serving as a creative consultant. HBO's ''Watchmen'' officially received a pilot order (with additional scripts) in September 2017, and it will likely premiere sometime during the 2018 -- 2019 season.
20th Sep '17 2:34:16 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
10th Sep '17 10:58:40 PM BeastC
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The Comedian was a {{Jerkass}} who sought to actively personify his nihilistic perception of the world as one big cruel joke. Nothing mattered and he didn't care what anyone else thought of him. Near the end of his life, he discovered something that horrified even him, briefly had a genuine romance with someone he hurt, and fathered a daughter that he was sincerely saddened to learn hated him and wished to spend time with her.
** Ozymandias was cold and calculating, behaving as innocently as possible to avoid suspicion and did not hesitate to initiate his plan to kill thousands of New Yorkers. However, in his final scenes, he expresses both regret and uncertainty as to whether or not he did the right thing.
** Rorschach began the novel refusing to give any aid to humanity when the bombs start dropping. He dies refusing to agree to allow the loss of many lives to be blamed on a lie when a similar, metaphorical bomb falls on New York.
** Nite Owl II grows a pair and starts standing up to his fears, like Rorschach.
** Doctor Manhattan saw no real value in human life, more interested in astronomical, atomic and geological events. He eventually sees that humanity has something of value when he realizes that the simple fact that Laurie was born at all, especially when her biological parents have a toxic history, was in itself a miracle.
** Silk Spectre II accepts her calling as a superhero after spending the majority of the book lamenting her loss of a normal life, and even implies that she will take after her father by adopting more firearm-related articles.
9th Sep '17 9:37:12 PM bfunc
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There's a very clever one in ''Fearful Symmetry''. The pirate-themed Rum Runner sign has two [[TheBackwardsR Rs back to back]] so they resemble a skull. It fits the symmetry theme, but there's another thing you might not have noticed unless you can read Cyrillic: the sign says [[TalkLikeAPirate Yar]]!

to:

** There's a very clever one in ''Fearful Symmetry''. The pirate-themed Rum Runner sign has two [[TheBackwardsR Rs back to back]] so they resemble a skull. It fits the symmetry theme, but there's another thing you might not have noticed unless you can read know Cyrillic: the sign says [[TalkLikeAPirate Yar]]!Yar]]![[note]]Actually, you have to know the Cyrillic ''and'' Roman lettering systems to get that; in English it's "Backwards R - "R" and in Cyrilic it's "Ya" - "Backwards Ya", since the Roman R character does not exist in Cyrillic and the character for the same sound looks like a Roman P.[[/note]]
9th Sep '17 8:41:19 PM bfunc
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Doctor Manhattan is inconvenienced for approximately one minute by being ''disintegrated''. On reforming himself, he doesn't even bother to spank Ozymandias; he just calmly informs the world's smartest man that he is a contemptibly insignificant lifeform.

to:

** Doctor Manhattan is inconvenienced for approximately one minute by being ''disintegrated''. [[note]]It didn't kill ''Osterman'', did you think it would kill '''me'''?[[/note]] On reforming himself, he doesn't even bother to spank Ozymandias; he just calmly informs the world's smartest man that he is a contemptibly insignificant lifeform.
27th Aug '17 11:23:51 AM timotaka
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The [[CuttingTheKnot Gordian Knot]] lock company. Fittingly for the name, nobody ever seems to pick one of their locks, but apparently they are rather easy to break open.
19th Aug '17 8:09:49 AM TheAmazingBlachman
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* GreedyJew: InUniverse. The New Frontiersman's representation of "Big Business" in one of their editorial cartoons is a not-so-subtle Jewish caricature. He even says "Oy vey!"

to:

* GreedyJew: InUniverse. The New Frontiersman's representation of "Big Business" in one of their editorial cartoons is a not-so-subtle Jewish caricature.banker stereotype. He even says "Oy vey!"
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.]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 527. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Comicbook.Watchmen