# A Watchmen HBO TV Series... \[Open spoilers\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 21, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546 "2017-06-21T16:21:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FlyingRat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/59ef9b/32.png) [@FlyingRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingRat)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2017, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/21 "2017-06-23T13:12:22Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > I would guess this is what they are doing. I’m not sure about a sequel, since some of the characters that would be most marketable would… uh… not so much be around for a sequel. But you’ve got decades of history that is only vaguely sketched in the original work - everybody’s origins, in particular - that would make good serialized TV. A few years back DC came out with a comic series called “Before Watchmen” addressing the backstories of the different characters, both Crimebusters and Minutemen. Those could conceivably be rolled into a new series. As I remember, there were different subseries, with mixed results. The Minutemen and Silk Spectre ones were fantastic; Dr. Manhattan and Nite Owl were very good; Ozymandias, Rorschach and the Comedian were awful, Ozymandias because the ham-handed storytelling couldn’t offset the pretty art, and Rorschach/Comedian because they presented both characters as awesome dark antiheroes while completely mischaracterizing them and missing Moore’s point that they are awful, broken people. [Some panel examples: Comedian saying “IT’S TIME TO SHIT” (prompted by an earlier use of “Shit or get off the pot”) has been used to sum up most of the series.](http://wondygirl.tumblr.com/post/29559703853/stars-collected-slipstreamborne-its) I’d be excited if they went this route. I also wouldn’t object to a miniseries of the original GN, with 12 episodes corresponding to the chapters - that would address a lot of the great little touches that got left out of the movie, and provide an alternative to Snyder’s rah-rah superhero glorification and unapologetic ultraviolence. (I did greatly enjoy the movie, though.) I worry about Lindelof as I see what he did with the movie Prometheus. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2017, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/22 "2017-06-23T13:18:43Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > No. I read Watchmen and V for Vendetta when they were published. I thought both movies were great and that Moore’s being an unshaven old fuddy-duddy. If anything, I thought the ending of the movie made more sense than the ending of the book. I’ll give this show a shot for sure, but recognize it could go either way. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Flare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/76d3ee/32.png) [@Lance\_Flare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Flare)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/23 "2017-06-23T15:50:08Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This is what I would prefer. The movie has been made. Let’s see the characters get outside of the “Watchmen” plot. Could be a prequel or a sequel. Along the lines of Gotham, perhaps. Do you mean like an adaption of Before the Watchmen? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/24 "2017-06-23T15:50:46Z")
> [@FlyingRat](#): > > I worry about Lindelof as I see what he did with the movie Prometheus. I’m more worried by what he did on _Lost_. I haven’t been watching _The Leftovers_ but _Lost_, to me, showed Lindelof is somebody who makes big promises without knowing how to deliver on them. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/25 "2017-06-23T16:10:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > - subtlety\* that is Moore’s? subtlety? He’s about a subtle as a wrecking ball. True 😉 I guess I am restating complexity there. Some of the emotions his writing and (in Watchmen’s case) Dave Gibbons’ art evoke are subtle, but no, Moore is direct and specific in what he does. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/26 "2017-06-24T00:30:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The movie got the surface of the book right. And missed what the book was about. You said the same thing [a few months ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20101744#post20101744), but I don’t see it. Doctor Manhattan is clearly increasingly alienated and disconnected from his humanity. The Comedian is a corrupt nihilist. Rorschach is _literally_ the personification of arbitrary moral relativism. Night Owl is the adrenaline junkie, so numb to the world he can’t get it up until he kicks some bad-guys asses (yeah, I think the gratuitous sex scene totally works in the movie). The characters are all broken anti-heroes. That theme is so deeply embedded in the story that it _exudes_ from the surface. What’s missing? Can you point to some specific choices that should have been made differently? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2017, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/27 "2017-06-24T03:32:02Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Rorschach is _literally_ the personification of arbitrary moral relativism. What? Rorschach was the complete antithesis of moral relativism. But moving beyond that (Seriously? Moral relativism?) I stand by what I wrote in March. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/28 "2017-06-25T03:49:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What? Rorschach was the complete antithesis of moral relativism. Well, there’s his story about realizing that the rudderless world isn’t shaped by vague metaphysical forces: _“Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose … Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/29 "2017-06-25T03:51:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, there’s his story about realizing that the rudderless world isn’t shaped by vague metaphysical forces: _“Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose … Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.”_ That’s nihilism not moral relativism. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/30 "2017-06-25T04:08:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s nihilism not moral relativism. How do you figure? Upon concluding that there’s no objective standard of right and wrong, he acts according to a strict moral code – that an ‘evildoer’, who robs or rapes or murders innocents, is to be punished – while granting that it’s merely subjective, even though he champions it _as if_ it were objectively true. I kind of thought _that_ could well be the position of a relativist – even while a nihilist could be a guy who concludes that there’s no objective standard of right and wrong, and so refrains from deeming anything as ‘evil’ instead of vigorously championing various moral principles as if they were objectively true. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/31 "2017-06-25T04:45:19Z")
> [@FlyingRat](#): > > A few years back DC came out with a comic series called “Before Watchmen” addressing the backstories of the different characters, both Crimebusters and Minutemen. Those could conceivably be rolled into a new series. > > As I remember, there were different subseries, with mixed results. The Minutemen and Silk Spectre ones were fantastic; Dr. Manhattan and Nite Owl were very good; Ozymandias, Rorschach and the Comedian were awful, Ozymandias because the ham-handed storytelling couldn’t offset the pretty art, and Rorschach/Comedian because they presented both characters as awesome dark antiheroes while completely mischaracterizing them and missing Moore’s point that they are awful, broken people… I read 'em all, and mostly agree with you. They also (esp. in the case of the Comedian) broke with _Watchmen_ canon pretty starkly. I thought the Dr. Manhattan issue was far and away the best - some very interesting stuff about destiny, free will, causality and even Schrodinger’s cat in there. I’m a huge _Watchmen_ fan and will likely watch this new series unless the reviews are absolutely horrible, but I have to say that Lindelof’s involvement in _Lost_ and _Prometheus_ make me very wary of what he might do with _Watchmen_. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/32 "2017-06-25T04:56:03Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How do you figure? Upon concluding that there’s no objective standard of right and wrong, he acts according to a strict moral code – that an ‘evildoer’, who robs or rapes or murders innocents, is to be punished – while granting that it’s merely subjective, even though he champions it _as if_ it were objectively true. > > I kind of thought _that_ could well be the position of a relativist – even while a nihilist could be a guy who concludes that there’s no objective standard of right and wrong, and so refrains from deeming anything as ‘evil’ instead of vigorously championing various moral principles as if they were objectively true. A nihilist essentially believes that there’s no external force that applies a moral standard. Rorschach didn’t believe in any higher power. He didn’t think God or karma or the law was going to judge people, so he took it upon himself to do so. _“You see, Doctor, God didn’t kill that little girl. Fate didn’t butcher her and destiny didn’t feed her to those dogs. If God saw what any of us did that night he didn’t seem to mind. From then on I knew… God doesn’t make the world this way. We do.”_ A moral relativist believes that there is no universal moral code. He feels that what’s moral for him may be different than what’s moral for other people. Other people live in different situations so they have different moral codes, which are just as valid in their situation as your moral code is in your situation. I’m not seeing any of that with Rohrschach. He had no problem judging other people by his moral code and applying it to them. He certainly did not feel that other people’s moral codes were as valid as his own. _“Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”_ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/33 "2017-06-25T05:25:16Z")
But that’s just it: Rorschach judges them _by his own moral code,_ which he’d freely admit _is_ just his own moral code being imposed on a morally-blank world. And if other folks operate according to a different code, well, what is that to him? By _his_ moral code, they’re wrong – and, if they think _he’s_ wrong, they’re more than welcome to fight him over it; he’s certainly glad to fight them, if they do what he sees as wrong; he champions what he sees as morally right: acting like there’s an objective standard of rightness, even while granting that it’s merely subjective. Compare him to a guy who (a) would agree that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, and who (b) _doesn’t_ then propound a moral code of his own; rather, he just gives a cynical shrug and maybe goes in for sexual assault but never goes in for right-and-wrong talk as an objective matter or as a subjective one. He doesn’t uncompromisingly champion what he sees as morally right; he doesn’t really see _anything_ as morally right; he merely acts like he’s amoral, is all. I’d say the second guy could be a nihilist. What would you call him? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/34 "2017-06-25T07:03:23Z")
Oh, _Damon Lindelof_! Hard pass. Even if I liked his work, this is way outside of his style. If someone actually green lights this, I’ll laugh like a ghoul. It’ll last three episodes before they decide they can use the same time slot for something better. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/35 "2017-06-25T14:59:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m more worried by what he did on _Lost_. I haven’t been watching _The Leftovers_ but _Lost_, to me, showed Lindelof is somebody who makes big promises without knowing how to deliver on them. I think the problem with Lost was that the audience expected answers to the mystery and Lindelof thought that solving mystery was less important than exploring how the characters reacted to the mystery. This is much more explicit in the Leftovers, as it explores god and the afterlife in a more realistic world where these questions don’t have answers. The Leftovers is one of my favorite TV series of all time, and I would recommend watching it even if you had reservations about Lost. I’m excited to see what Lindelof will do with the Watchmen. At the very least it give him a group of psychologically fucked up characters to explore, and he’s very good at doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/36 "2017-06-25T18:24:59Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But that’s just it: Rorschach judges them _by his own moral code,_ which he’d freely admit _is_ just his own moral code being imposed on a morally-blank world. And if other folks operate according to a different code, well, what is that to him? By _his_ moral code, they’re wrong – and, if they think _he’s_ wrong, they’re more than welcome to fight him over it; he’s certainly glad to fight them, if they do what he sees as wrong; he champions what he sees as morally right: acting like there’s an objective standard of rightness, even while granting that it’s merely subjective. > > Compare him to a guy who (a) would agree that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, and who (b) _doesn’t_ then propound a moral code of his own; rather, he just gives a cynical shrug and maybe goes in for sexual assault but never goes in for right-and-wrong talk as an objective matter or as a subjective one. He doesn’t uncompromisingly champion what he sees as morally right; he doesn’t really see _anything_ as morally right; he merely acts like he’s amoral, is all. > > I’d say the second guy could be a nihilist. What would you call him? The Comedian. Seriously, I think the contrast between the Comedian and Rorschach demonstrates my point. The Comedian didn’t have a moral code; he just did what he wanted without regard for right or wrong. Rorschach did have a moral code (albeit an extreme and violent one) and he followed it. What made Rorschach a nihilist was that it was _his_ moral code. He didn’t believe that he was doing God’s work. He didn’t see himself as a agent of anything outside himself. He didn’t care that the legal system thought he was wrong. He wasn’t answering to anyone else. That refusal to accept anyone else’s views on what is moral is nihilism. And Rorschach was willing to apply his beliefs. He believed his moral code was superior to everyone else’s and he would impose it on everyone else if he could. Believing you’re right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is not moral relativism. It’s the exact opposite of moral relativism. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/37 "2017-06-25T18:29:21Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > I think the problem with Lost was that the audience expected answers to the mystery and Lindelof thought that solving mystery was less important than exploring how the characters reacted to the mystery. That’s an interesting interpretation I hadn’t considered. Maybe I thought _Lost_ was a failure because I misread what it was trying to do. I’m not quite ready to go back and rewatch _Lost_ but I will keep this in mind when I get around to watching _The Leftovers_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/38 "2017-06-25T18:44:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The Comedian. > > Seriously, I think the contrast between the Comedian and Rorschach demonstrates my point. The Comedian didn’t have a moral code; he just did what he wanted without regard for right or wrong. Rorschach did have a moral code (albeit an extreme and violent one) and he followed it. > > What made Rorschach a nihilist was that it was _his_ moral code. He didn’t believe that he was doing God’s work. He didn’t see himself as a agent of anything outside himself. He didn’t care that the legal system thought he was wrong. He wasn’t answering to anyone else. That refusal to accept anyone else’s views on what is moral is nihilism. > > And Rorschach was willing to apply his beliefs. He believed his moral code was superior to everyone else’s and he would impose it on everyone else if he could. Believing you’re right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is not moral relativism. It’s the exact opposite of moral relativism. Well, look, you get where _I’m_ coming from, even if you disagree: I could call the Comedian a nihilist for not having a moral code, and call Rorschach a relativist for having a moral code that he admits isn’t actually true in some objective sense. And I think I get where you’re coming from: you see them both as nihilists. But my question is: _in that context,_ what do you think a moral relativist _would_ look like? According to you, he (a) wouldn’t be the guy who lacks a moral code, with no regard for right and wrong; and he (b) wouldn’t be the guy who has a moral code that he freely grants isn’t a matter of objective fact. So – what does that leave? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/39 "2017-06-25T19:23:30Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, look, you get where _I’m_ coming from, even if you disagree: I could call the Comedian a nihilist for not having a moral code, and call Rorschach a relativist for having a moral code that he admits isn’t actually true in some objective sense. > > And I think I get where you’re coming from: you see them both as nihilists. Nihilists don’t believe that there’s any higher power that creates a moral code. Some people, like the Comedian, then figure that if there’s no higher power than they’re free to live their life without a moral code. Other people, like Rorschach, create a moral code to live by. But I think it would be wrong to say that Rorschach didn’t believe his moral code was true just because he created it. And I think it’s wrong to call him a moral relativist because he feels the moral code he created is the only right one. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But my question is: _in that context,_ what do you think a moral relativist _would_ look like? According to you, he (a) wouldn’t be the guy who lacks a moral code, with no regard for right and wrong; and he (b) wouldn’t be the guy who has a moral code that he freely grants isn’t a matter of objective fact. So – what does that leave? Hard to say. I can’t imagine somebody wanted to go out and fight for a particular moral code when he believes other moral codes are equally valid. I agree with the first thing you said. Moral relativists can have moral codes. They just don’t believe that there is a universal moral code. But I don’t agree with the second thing you said. Moral relativists feel moral codes are subjective not objective. So a moral relativist would be the guy who freely grants that his personal moral code isn’t a matter of objective fact. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546/40 "2017-06-25T19:37:36Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree with the first thing you said. Moral relativists can have moral codes. They just don’t believe that there is a universal moral code. > > But I don’t agree with the second thing you said. Moral relativists feel moral codes are subjective not objective. So a moral relativist would be the guy who freely grants that his personal moral code isn’t a matter of objective fact. But that’s what I think Rorschach is: a guy who _doesn’t_ believe there’s a universal moral code – and who _does_ freely grant that his personal moral code isn’t a matter of objective fact. Isn’t that exactly what he spells out for the psychiatrist? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-watchmen-hbo-tv-series-open-spoilers/789546.md?page=3)