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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.