I have zero difficulty believing that Moocher grew up to be Rorschach. Especially if it turned out that Nancy got knocked up by someone else and tricked him into marrying her..
Nah. It is implied strongly that the Comedian let himself be killed by his attacker (you get the sense that maybe, however bloody was Veidt’s plan, the Comedian kind of understood it, and maybe realized that even in the above-morals business, he was seriously outclassed).
I dont really see where Ozy is supposed to be holding himself in such high esteem that he would lose any energy carrying grudges.
P.S:btw, when Veidt says “He won. In the short term.”, are we absolutely sure that the Comedian did indeed win that fight? It could also sound like Ozy letting himself be dominated, just to check what the Comedian has in store ("“Skillful feint, devastating uppercut, and little else,” sounds like someone spending more time studying the style of is opponent than countering it. IMO, it fits Veidt’s persona better. Ozy spent a longer time fighting against his own limits than he spent fighting others).
And maybe, either winning at the end, or learning enough to beat the Comedian at a future time. Hence the “in he short term” thing, which doesnt make much sense if it’s not that (or if Veidt is not an utterly arrogant prick that’d find any excuse to justify his shortcomings).
I think that’s another interpretation, and it’s not without merit. Since you’re obviously consulting the book, is it stated if he let Ozy into the apartment or not? I think it’s supposed to look like a break-in.
We only hear one side of it, and that’s from someone who chooses his words very carefully. I think Ozy was definitely evaluating his fighting style for future reference and would be careful about letting his opponent see too much, but that doesn’t mean he took a dive.
He has very few shortcomings and doesn’t fail at much of anything, so it’s hard to say how he would handle that stuff. But he has to be an exceptionally prideful man to do the things he does - although he leaves little room for self-delusion.
I’m not the guy you’re replying to, but (a) comic-book Veidt kicks in the door like movie Veidt, but (b) the flashback of Blake not fighting back at all is interspersed with trained detectives investigating the crime scene and deducing that Blake would have fought back – which is, presumably, in there to serve as a blinking neon sign that something else is going on: But He Didn’t Fight Back! Why Didn’t He Fight Back? This Means Something!
(In the movie, of course, Blake fights back like crazy: going for his gun and getting off multiple shots, throwing a blade that’s practically a meat cleaver, swinging for his opponent with punches that take a solid chunk out of the drywall; he’s outclassed, but he’s trying.)
Right, thanks.
Interesting point. I don’t remember exactly what the fight sequence looks like, but I think it’s reasonable to say that The Comedian’s heart isn’t in the fight.
The graphic novel is a bit ambiguous. I just looked at the sequence, and it doesn’t have any unambigous scenes of Blake fighting back. There are no panels of him even attempting to throw a punch. It could be taken that Blake is physically so thoroughly outclassed that he simply gets his ass kicked–or that he’s not fighting back.
I’ll admit that there’s no smoking gun on the “Ozymandias killed Comedian” idea. It’s a theory. But there were clues that added up to it. Unfortunately I don’t have the book handy so I can’t cite them. And I’ll admit there’s a lot of interpretation in it.
Next we can argue if it really is Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice in the restaurant.
Because of this thread (and seeing the movie Saturday night) I went ahead and purchased the graphic novel, the first one I ever owned.
It’s the first one I ever read, myself. I don’t think you will be disappointed.
then our work here is done? No, wait - we need for Annamika to read it & tell us what she thinks.
Keep an eye out for the “arrowhead” blood smear on the Comedian’s badge. That shape recurs a lot. Heck, I’ve read the comic dozens of times and I’m not sure I’ve spotted them all.
Watchmen wasn’t the first graphic novel I ever read, but it was the first one I closed after reading and immediately opened again and re-read.
The Comedian IS a bloodstained smiley-face!
And the cycle continues. I first heard of the thing on the SDMB and got my copy on a recommendation from Czarcasm.
I think Lemur 866 hit it with the first option. As I recall the sequence, we see Adrian’s foot kicking open the door, then Blake takes a punch that drives him into the wall, then we see hands picking up a battered Blake, and then we see the Comedian thrown out the window. I don’t think it was his nature to throw a fight even if he was horrifed by Adrian’s plans; I think he got his ass kicked by a younger man.
Anyway, people who didn’t like the movie version might enjoy the Saturday morning cartoon version that came out in the 80s:
We also see him get kicked while he’s down – to sync up, as per the running gag, with the same-panel commentary about taking the wind out of his sails.
No, I haven’t reread the book in more than a year (and must have read it only a handful of times anyway). And I’ll take the occasion to thank Aanamika for making me realize how vividly the story got stuck to my mind witout me realizing it.
I’ll get to the basement and retrieve my treasured copy, though it’s the French translation I’ve got. Not that it matters here because I’m pretty convinced that it is said rather blankly by Veidt when he recalls the whole story at the very end. I think there’s a panel or two where we see the Comedian’s murder and Veidt comments on Blake not really fighting back, letting himself get killed.
The “Jon can give you cancer part,” was funny on so many different levels. Dr. Manhattan dramatically pointing at a gun toting thug, who then instantly dies of cancer, complete with intentional directed cancer giving sound effect just works so well. You have to wonder how one decides what noise best signifies intentionally giving a bad guy instantly deadly cancer.
That only works if you assume that a nuclear confrontation was a high likelihood. Which may be the case, given that the existence of Dr Manhattan seems to have increased tensions rather than relieving them. Sure, he’s America’s ace in the hole to keep the Soviets in check, but they ramp up production to try to outmatch him, and Nixon et al then proceed to act more agressively in the world, thinking they are safe because of him. Ergo, tensions increase. Hmmm.
If someone actually had superpowers, then maybe it would make sense for them to use them in some super way - some attempt to take on violence and corruption and crime, to do something to make the world safer and a better place. In a world without superpowers, the tools available to “costumed vigilantes” aren’t any better than the tools available to any other vigilante, so while there is some sense of appreciation for a person that would step into a violent situation to protect the victims, there’s also an awareness that the tools to invervene largely consist of more violence. And one of the big risks of vigilantism is the loss of due process, the ability for one person’s decisions and feelings and possibly flawed perceptions to be the deciding factor. In the real world, mistakes happen. Part of the essence of due process is the attempt to prevent or mitigate mistakes.
Not to dispute any of your point, but the comparison of Dr Manhattan to Superman is really not very valid. Superman may have some amazing abilities that us normals can’t match, but ultimately Superman still experiences the world as a human. Mostly. Whereas Dr Manhattan’s abilities put him outside of our understanding of time. It’s the simultaneity of reality that puts him in a tizzy and makes him further and further removed from humanity. We get a much better feel for that in the comics with the Dr Manhattan segment, where he is reflecting on all the things happening and can’t keep time straight, it’s all simultaneous to him. So much that he doesn’t stop the Comedian from murdering the woman in Viet Nam because to him it has already happened. So Dr Manhattan’s experiences are vastly different from Superman’s in that respect. That’s why Superman can have a cover identity and spend time flirting with Lois and think about having a life, whereas Dr Manhattan just becomes dissociated from everything human.
Yes, good observation.
“Enjoy” may not be the best word. I read the GN a few months before the movie, primarily because the movie was coming, it was re-released, and someone in my book group brought it. I didn’t have background for it, am not really a comic reader. I didn’t know what to expect, just that it was supposed to be great. So I was put off by the first thing out of the gate, the narrator is going on with dark conservative bitching about how corrupt the world is - Rorschach going off on a rant. I was thrown by the tone, by the interruptions by the pirate story, and everything. It was only after reading a bit that I grasped what it was about, and in reflection and discussion it grows on me.
Yes, Oxymandias doesn’t come off right in the film, so that is too much clueing he’s the villain. The comic is much better at making his role come out of left field. He’s a very popular celebrity, both from being the best (in behavior as much as skill) of the costumed vigilantes who gave it up willingly before the riots, and being the self-made industrialist, and athlete. There are Viedt action figures, and he puts on a public gymnastics performance. He’s the epitome of a good guy right up until the shoe drops. You don’t get that in the movie.
Excellent point I had not observed.