# So we watched Watchmen this weekend and we hated it (open spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 15, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020 "2011-11-15T16:57:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/121 "2011-11-16T05:41:53Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Ok, that makes more sense to me, someone who’s only familiar with the movie. I got from the movie that they were trying to do some kind of “super beings are like everyone else” thing while still having super powers > > In restrospect I did kind of miss the point of the movie then. I wanted to see Nite Owl commanding a legion of owls, not a furry-suited pudgy middle-aged guy with no reason to dress like that Not only that, but they were all just variations on Batman: Fat Batman, Dark Batman, Slutty Batman, Rapey Batman, and Evil Gay Batman. ---
**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:** [November 16, 2011, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/122 "2011-11-16T07:56:55Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > The pretty, shiny boy? What were his motivations for detonating the nukes again? Killing 15 million people supposedly to ensure world peace? Why? We don’t know. We just know it works in the movie, and therefore, are supposed to accept it. > > Plus, I know he was not all he seemed from the get-go. And so he turns out to be not evil, quite, but…psychopathic. Cuz you can make whatever justifications you want, murdering 15 million people makes you a nut. I know I’m belaboring this point but the story seemed different in 1986. Reagan was President and the Cold War was very much alive. People expected a nuclear war. When the final issue came out, there were a lot of readers who were arguing that Ozymandius did the right thing. Yes, he killed millions of people but he averted what appeared to be a probable nuclear war that would have killed billions. Twenty years after the Cold War ended peacefully, it seems insane for somebody to have used a nuclear terrorist attack to end it. But at the time, when there was no apparent hope of a peaceful end to the war, it seemed like an extreme but not completely irrational possibility. You might not agree with the logic but you could comprehend it. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/123 "2011-11-16T08:05:49Z")
Just from watching the movie, it seems to me that Moore is the kind of guy who believes that the ends always justify the means. That seemed to be the main lesson of the story. ---
**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:** [November 16, 2011, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/124 "2011-11-16T08:06:35Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Not only that, but they were all just variations on Batman: Fat Batman, Dark Batman, Slutty Batman, Rapey Batman, and Evil Gay Batman. They were actually originally supposed to be established Charlton characters. DC had just bought [Charlton Comics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Comics) and acquired the rights to all its characters. But then DC decided they wanted to integrate the Charlton characters into the DC world so Moore had to invent “new” characters based on the Charlton characters. Captain Atom = Dr Manhattan Thunderbolt = Ozymandius Peacemaker = Comedian Nightshade = Silk Spectre Blue Beetle = Night Owl The Question = Rorschach ---
**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:** [November 16, 2011, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/125 "2011-11-16T08:09:43Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Just from watching the movie, it seems to me that Moore is the kind of guy who believes that the ends always justify the means. That seemed to be the main lesson of the story. I don’t think so. As I posted above, Moore had a parallel story running through the series about the ordinary people whose lives were effected by the superheroes. I think his point was that the Great and Mighty forget that the little people exist too. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/126 "2011-11-16T08:22:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > They were actually originally supposed to be established Charlton characters. DC had just bought [Charlton Comics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Comics) and acquired the rights to all its characters. > > But then DC decided they wanted to integrate the Charlton characters into the DC world so Moore had to invent “new” characters based on the Charlton characters. > > Captain Atom = Dr Manhattan > Thunderbolt = Ozymandius > Peacemaker = Comedian > Nightshade = Silk Spectre > Blue Beetle = Night Owl > The Question = Rorschach True, but isn’t the idea of having multiple superheros that each has his or her own unique talents? ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/127 "2011-11-16T08:53:24Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > True, but isn’t the idea of having multiple superheros that each has his or her own unique talents? Ugh. This is an attitude I positively hate. Reducing superhero stories to the powersets of the characters is annoying enough in a standard story, where the focus is on superheroic adventure - even there, the difference between Superman and Mon-El, or Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson, personality wise is important. With Watchmen, where the entire thrust of the story is psychological, not action, aside from a handful of powers/skills that are integral to that - Doc Manhattan’s detachment coming from his Amazing Cosmic Powers, Comedian’s amorality and psychopathy being reflected in his being a grade A assassin, Ozymandias’ obsessions being reflected in his perfecting his physical and mental abilities to the highest point a human possibly can - the skills of the characters should barely be noticed. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/128 "2011-11-16T09:07:15Z")
I’m not talking about their superpowers, I’m talking about their roles. Whenever you have a team of people working together, each one will have a different role to play - see the [Five Man Band](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand)concept from TV Tropes. The reason this cliche is so popular is that it _works_, as can be seen in just about every war movie, heist flick and fantasy tale ever produced. It would have been nice if the Watchmen had even hinted in this direction; instead, what we had was six or seven inferior Batman knockoffs, and God. Look, I know that the film was supposed to be a commentary on superhero stories rather than an actual superhero story. I’m just saying that it would have worked better if it had managed to be both. ---
**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:** [November 16, 2011, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/129 "2011-11-16T09:23:20Z")
But I think the direction Moore was going for was exploring the reasons why somebody would dress up in a costume and go out on crime patrol. So he was looking to explore different origins rather than different team roles. He wasn’t looking to create a functional team after all. So you had a man who became a hero for relatively good reasons (Nite Owl). You had a man who became a hero because of exposure to trauma (Rorschach). A woman who became a hero because somebody else pushed her into it (Silk Spectre). A man who became a hero so he could beat people up with impunity (Comedian). A man who became a hero to demonstrate his superiority over everyone else (Ozymandius). And a man who became a hero because he acquired superpowers by accident (Dr Manhattan). ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/130 "2011-11-16T09:36:28Z")
I understand that. Still, the fact that all of them (except for Doc Manhattan) essentially ended up as the essentially the same superhero smacks of laziness and/or contempt for the genre. In fact, the existence of Doc Manhattan is one of the major problems with the story. If superpowers exist in the story’s world, why does only he have them? It’s like Moore wanted to have superpowers in the world for plot purposes, but was unwilling to commit to the concept. He wanted to have it both ways - both gritty and realistic \*and \*fantastic - but IMHO, he failed to reconcile the two approaches. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/131 "2011-11-16T09:50:18Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Ok, I can sort of see that. But what about the other three? Why did they stop trying to kill him as soon as his plan succeeded? Even if they agreed with him, that doesn’t change what he did. > > Incidentally, that’s one thing I liked about the end of the latest X-Men film. > [@Marley23](#): > > Because they knew at that point that they couldn’t do it even if they tried. He’d previously fought off Nite Owl and Rorschach on his own and when Silk Spectre tried to shoot him, he caught the bullet. You can add to that the combination of horror at what he’d done and realizing that he’d outmaneuvered them- and that he was right when he pointed out they couldn’t expose him. If all of that wasn’t enough, Dr. Manhattan could have stopped them just as easily. Havent seen the movie (and not planning to) but if it played anything like in the comic book, this is not at all why they dont fight Ozymandias after he’s revealed his plan. They dont because there’s no point in fighting anymore, he’s won. And won in such a gigantic way, that it breaks even the adrenaline to do one more of those “Supers” fights. It has nothing to do with Ozymandias managing to beat them at first go. It’s your addendum that’s on target, not your main argument. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/132 "2011-11-16T09:56:25Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I understand that. Still, the fact that all of them (except for Doc Manhattan) essentially ended up as the essentially the same superhero smacks of laziness and/or contempt for the genre. > > In fact, the existence of Doc Manhattan is one of the major problems with the story. If superpowers exist in the story’s world, why does only he have them? It’s like Moore wanted to have superpowers in the world for plot purposes, but was unwilling to commit to the concept. He wanted to have it both ways - both gritty and realistic \*and \*fantastic - but IMHO, he failed to reconcile the two approaches. He did it that way because the universe he was adapting (the Charlton Universe) had only one Super hero (Captain Atom) and the rest were costumed adventurers (that was a pet peeve of Charlton’s editor back then, to focus on costumed adventurers without super powers). When Moore was told he had to do away with a strict adaptation of Charlton’s characters, he probably could have totally restarted his project and started to include more superpowers. I can only imagine that since this is what made the Charlton Universe kind of special, he decided to stick to it, even though he was now using an ersatz of it (dont think there’s any other Super universe where precisely the Supers are “ordinary” people). ---
**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:** [November 16, 2011, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/133 "2011-11-16T09:57:24Z")
The purpose of having Dr Manhattan arrive was to create conflict for the other characters. They had been heroes. Now with the arrival of a superhero, they were no longer important. Only one character was necessary for this purpose. And the fact that all of them had essentially been replaced by one person emphasized how outclassed they were. There was also the factor of showing how Dr Manhattan had destabilized the world by his existence. If there had been other superheroes, a balance of power could have been achieved by playing them off against each other. But with Dr Manhattan being unique that wasn’t a possibility. Dr Manhattan’s uniqueness also reinforced his isolation from humanity. He had no peers that he could relate to. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/134 "2011-11-16T11:06:39Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Doc: “He’s right. Exposing Adrian would only doom the world to nuclear destruction \*\*\*again.” \*\*\* > > Bolding mine. Doc seems to agree not just about how to preserve life going forward, but also about whether the world would’ve done blowed up real good otherwise. That’s not what I think that line means. In the movie, Ozymandias had just blowed up the world one time with nukes. Thus “again”. It has nothing to do with expectation that without Ozymandias’s actions the world might have been blown up. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > In the movie, and I don’t know about the comic, these people were basically like oddly dressed enhanced humans. There was no reason, then, for the Owl to dress and ride around in an Owl, he could have called himself the Armadillo and it would have made little difference. With a mask like Rorschach, he could have had the ability like a chameleon. Silk Spectre could have been able to fly around like a ghost and pass through walls. Basically, they acted and dressed like super powered characters but without some defining power and that bugs me that Moore couldn’t have thrown us a little eye candy while he was writing it. There was absolutely no reason Ozymandias named himself that or should dress like that. I spent half the movie trying to figure out of the Comedian said anything funny! At least give him a Joker-like tendency to kill people using clownish gags or something! That was part of Moore’s point. Nowhere are they actually described as “superheroes” in the book. They’re always “costumed vigilantes”. From the first costumed vigilante all the way up until Dr Manhattan shows up, none of them are supposed to have any _super_powers. Ozymandias comes closest with his cult of human perfection, where he trains his mind and body to heights of performance no one else can match. The GN has a scene where he puts on a gymnastics routine - yes, he’s a celebrity and performer now - that lasts like 4 minutes rather than the 30 seconds that olympic gymnasts do today. Or whatever. The premise is that people started dressing up as costumed vigilantes, and then taking on all the personas and tropes of superhero fare, but without any real powers. They just liked the idea of the costumes and fighting crime and stuff. So of course they all end up seeming a bit like Batman - he’s the most high-profile example we have of a superpowerless human who uses technology to accomplish his superhero activities. Nite Owl dresses as an owl, because the original Nite Owl was an ornithologist who had an interest in owls, so that inspired him to pick the owl as his identity. The second Nite Owl basically was inspired by the first Nite Owl, so took over the identity. He’s the one who brought the fortune to the role. Rorschach’s mask is simply to hide his face. Sure, he found a novelty shirt that had reactive properties, and thus it gives odd different patterns supposedly that mirror his attitude. But it’s not really a costume, it’s just a mask. His “superhero” is just a psychopath who has a very conservative outlook and despises what he sees as corruption and … er, what’s the word… society going to hell? The Comedian isn’t like a stand up comic, he sees the world itself and humanity as one big joke, so he purposely sets out to be the worst of it. It’s not by accident the people riot against the costumed vigilantes, and make it illegal. > [@Alessan](#): > > I’m not talking about their superpowers, I’m talking about their roles. Whenever you have a team of people working together, each one will have a different role to play - see the [Five Man Band](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand)concept from TV Tropes. The reason this cliche is so popular is that it _works_, as can be seen in just about every war movie, heist flick and fantasy tale ever produced. It would have been nice if the Watchmen had even hinted in this direction; instead, what we had was six or seven inferior Batman knockoffs, and God. They were never intended to be a group with complementary powers. They are a collection of freaks who each has a different, personal reason for becoming a costumed vigilante, and taking on a personal identity to cater to their own whims, but in a world where superpowers don’t exist. Sure, they form up “the Minutemen”, but it’s really more a publicity stunt than anything, and doesn’t really help them fight crime better. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/135 "2011-11-16T11:19:22Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > They were never intended to be a group with complementary powers. They are a collection of freaks who each has a different, personal reason for becoming a costumed vigilante, and taking on a personal identity to cater to their own whims, but in a world where superpowers don’t exist. Sure, they form up “the Minutemen”, but it’s really more a publicity stunt than anything, and doesn’t really help them fight crime better. In the book, all the teams were dysfunctional (with Captain Metropolis’s failed/disbanded-before-it-even-formed team -The Champions IIRC- as being the pinnacle of the debacle). BTW, rereading this thread, I am amazed at the number of people saying the Comedian was not supposed to inspire any empathy. Maybe it is so in the movie, but in the comic book it’s exactly the reverse. He starts out, and gets fleshed more and more, as what a real Captain America (or Tony Stark) would be. And we discover his hidden (and failed) humanity later on (especially when he meets Silk Spectre II and has a rather sad and touching conversation with her, or his rant to Moloch on his bed). He’s probably one of the most important characters of the book, even though he dies on panel 1. ---
**Author:** ![Bakhesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Bakhesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bakhesh)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/136 "2011-11-16T11:20:19Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Nite Owl dresses as an owl, because the original Nite Owl was an ornithologist who had an interest in owls, so that inspired him to pick the owl as his identity. The second Nite Owl basically was inspired by the first Nite Owl, so took over the identity. He’s the one who brought the fortune to the role. Slight Nitpick, but the original Nite Owl got his name because that was his nickname when he was a cop. The other cops called him that because after each shift, he was hitting the gym or out on patrol, so would seem tired the next day. The second Nite Owl was the one into ornithology ---
**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:** [November 16, 2011, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/137 "2011-11-16T12:33:29Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s not what I think that line means. In the movie, Ozymandias had just blowed up the world one time with nukes. Thus “again”. It has nothing to do with expectation that without Ozymandias’s actions the world might have been blown up. Well, consider Doc’s orignal line from the comic: _“Logically, I’m afraid he’s right. Exposing the plot, we destroy any chance of peace, dooming Earth to worse destruction. On Mars, you demonstrated life’s value. If we would preserve life here, we must remain silent.”_ In the next panel, Laurie replies: _“Jesus, he was right. All we did was fail to stop him saving Earth. Jesus.”_ Why does Doc think Earth is doomed to worse destruction if the plot is exposed? Why does Laurie think Veidt did save the Earth? What do Doc and Laurie think would’ve happened if the “killing millions to save billions” attack hadn’t been launched? (Why, at that, didn’t Blake blow the whistle upon discovered Veidt’s plan _ **ahead** _ of time? Veidt’s explanation: _“Though appalled, exposing my plan would precipitate greater horrors, preventing humanity’s salvation. Even Blake balked at that responsibility, telling only Moloch, who he knew wouldn’t understand … Blake understood, too. He knew my plan would succeed”._) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/138 "2011-11-16T13:00:37Z")
It reads to me that exposing the plot would ruin the attempt at peace, and lead to accusations that the other was responsible, and escalate to destruction. Or something. Not that he’s aware of an alternate existence without the plot that would have had the certainty of destruction. But maybe that was the feeling. According to the comic, the US dominated the Soviets because of the arrival of Dr Manhattan, and the government purposefully using him as the ultimate checkmate. Anytime he senses them trying to launch missiles, he can obliterate them. Which is great, except we see as Dr Manhattan slowly loses his humanity and his connection, he becomes less and less concerned with actually doing anything. Thus the incident with the Comedian in Viet Nam and the murder of the woman. Dr Manhattan _could_ have stopped it, but because he experiences time interwoven, to him it seemed to have already happened. I kept thinking what is to keep the same thing from happening with a nuclear attack? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/139 "2011-11-16T13:05:40Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > […]less evil in many ways than the ultimate villain. You mean the guy who saves the world from Armageddon (for however long…) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020/140 "2011-11-16T13:17:18Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > The other heroes? I couldn’t even name them or pick them out of a lineup. The pretty, shiny boy? What were his motivations for detonating the nukes again? Killing 15 million people supposedly to ensure world peace? Why? We don’t know. We just know it works in the movie, and therefore, are supposed to accept it. This never worked for me, in the movie. IMO, his method in the comic is sufficiently different enough to be meaningful, the movie bombs/terrorist thing just isn’t. > [@](#): > > Plus, I know he was not all he seemed from the get-go. Got to agree, the movie doesn’t do as good a job as the comic to make him _not_ suspicious. He was just not right. > [@](#): > > And so he turns out to be not evil, quite, but…psychopathic. Cuz you can make whatever justifications you want, murdering 15 million people makes you a nut. I think Moore’s point was that murdering just one person already does that. Note that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre in the comics are distinctly less of the break-bones kind of heroes compared to the movie, damaged as they are. I don’t _think_ either of them ever killed _anyone_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-watched-watchmen-this-weekend-and-we-hated-it-open-spoilers/603020.md?page=8)