# The Watchmen Questions (movie version-open spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 12, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588 "2010-01-12T01:26:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [January 12, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/41 "2010-01-12T22:55:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, yeah, but two thoughts occur to me: one, that Moore also includes that lengthy academic paper by Milton Glass (who assuredly isn’t a guy who dresses up in bright spandex to fight crime) that reaches the same conclusion as Blake about how all-out nuclear destruction is inevitable otherwise; and two, that Moore doesn’t really include anything to the contrary. From those converging lines of the nuclear hazard escalation index hitting right when Blake called it, and those headlines about the doomsday clock before Veidt moves against Doc, Moore repeatedly emphasizes the situation but doesn’t go out of his way to indicate against the “or all die” scenario. (Rather the opposite; when the blood hits during Veidt’s attack, it pretty well leaves OR ALL DIE as the writing on the wall.) > > I mean, imagine Moore intended to write a story where this actually was the lesser of two evils. What more would he add to make it clear? > > Which, coming back around, strikes me as part and parcel of the superhero deconstruction: yes, he wants to show this or that superhero as trying but failing to quit smoking, or as a closeted homosexual who gets a bit paunchy and dies in a car accident, or as a problem drinker or a guy who gets shot dead when his cape gets caught in a bank’s revolving door – and he also wants to show them as affecting the real world, which we also weren’t really seeing in comics up to that point: winning the war in Vietnam, electric cars all over the place, Nixon still in office due to Woodward and Bernstein’s murder, and dozens of other effects besides. > > And he also wanted to give us Rorschach’s brutal killings and backstory, plus Hooded Justice’s outright sadism, along with the Comedian gunning down a pregnant woman and et cetera. And he wanted to delve into everything from Dan’s sexual hang-ups to Adrian’s experimentation with drugs. But for all that, I think he also wanted to do something else we hadn’t really gotten to see in regular comics: to work a really thoroughgoing deconstruction, he can put them in a situation where they’d genuinely face a lesser-of-two-evils situation involving the deaths of innocents. This is one of the two reasons that I thought The Watchmen would never make a good movie. It was set during the Cold War and that war’s over. Back in 1986, you could make a reasonable argument that the world was on the brink of nuclear destruction and killing a million people might be acceptable if it was the only way to bring the United States and the Soviet Union together. But how do you make this argument in 2009? We all now know that the Cold War did in fact end with a nuclear war. So the millions of eople that Veidt killed died unnecessarily. Instead of creating a mock alien attack, he should have been clandestinely starting glasnost and perestroika. The apparent lesser-of-two-evils situation fell apart when we found out there was a viable non-evil alternative. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/42 "2010-01-12T23:24:26Z")
True, but I think a lot of the movie was left-wing wish fulfillment, a reaction against the rejection of the '60s political movements. “Sure, we made a right royal hash of things, but here’s a caricature of what’d happen if our right-wing opponents won, and see how much worse everything is!” Thus we get the idea that military successes are irrelevant, containment can never work, a rudimentary moral equivalence between trigger-happy Communist and a trigger-happy West, and no mention of the effects of the inherent economic inferiority of Communism. (Plus a extra-martyred JFK, Nixon as a caricature of Reaganite hawkishness, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/43 "2010-01-12T23:35:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is one of the two reasons that I thought The Watchmen would never make a good movie. It was set during the Cold War and that war’s over. > > Back in 1986, you could make a reasonable argument that the world was on the brink of nuclear destruction and killing a million people might be acceptable if it was the only way to bring the United States and the Soviet Union together. > > But how do you make this argument in 2009? We all now know that the Cold War did in fact end with a nuclear war. So the millions of eople that Veidt killed died unnecessarily. Instead of creating a mock alien attack, he should have been clandestinely starting glasnost and perestroika. > > The apparent lesser-of-two-evils situation fell apart when we found out there was a viable non-evil alternative. One could argue that, while obviously Moore couldn’t know the future at the time of writing, this state of affairs actually works itself into the superhero deconstruction theme - namely, that superheroes tend to apply drastic, immediate and ultimately simplistic solutions to problems and rarely think things through or give non-capes time to adress issues the “right” way. Which, of course, is part and parcel of the decision to put on a costume and fight crime rather than, say, join the police or become a lawyer. There’s a criminal. The superhero punches him in the face, when society would have given him a fair trial, maybe examined the reasons \*why \*he became a criminal and tried to adress them etc… There’s the World War 3 looming. Rather than letting everyone work through their differences, cautiously open dialogue, etc… Veidt does something horrible and rash that he believes will get an immediate result. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/44 "2010-01-13T01:24:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But how do you make this argument in 2009? We all now know that the Cold War did in fact end with a nuclear war. So the millions of eople that Veidt killed died unnecessarily. Instead of creating a mock alien attack, he should have been clandestinely starting glasnost and perestroika. In real life we didn’t have a giant blue penis on our side in 1986. At the beginning of the movie, and in the comic too I think, one person on Crossfire posits that the existence of Dr. Manhattan is driving the Soviets to keep up their own aggression and nuclear program. In real life I don’t think any of us in the United States thought that Afghanistan would trigger open hostilities between us and the Ruskies. Conditions in the _Watchman_ are different. Viet-Nam was a communist lost. I don’t doubt the USSR feels as though their backs are to the wall. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/45 "2010-01-13T01:56:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The apparent lesser-of-two-evils situation fell apart when we found out there was a viable non-evil alternative. I’m not sure there was a viable non-evil alternative in the alternate timeline of this story. Nixon had already ordered DefCon 1, and appeared to be willing to order an all out nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. It’s not clear to me that Veidt actually knew that, but going to DefCon 1 is going to produce certain observable events that would be a pretty good indication to a knowledgeable person. The B-52s would have been fueled, armed and ready to launch from their bases, other bases recalling all personnel, heightened alerts, etc. ---
**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:** [January 13, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/46 "2010-01-13T02:32:03Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > In real life we didn’t have a giant blue penis on our side in 1986. At the beginning of the movie, and in the comic too I think, one person on Crossfire posits that the existence of Dr. Manhattan is driving the Soviets to keep up their own aggression and nuclear program. In real life I don’t think any of us in the United States thought that Afghanistan would trigger open hostilities between us and the Ruskies. Conditions in the _Watchman_ are different. Viet-Nam was a communist lost. I don’t doubt the USSR feels as though their backs are to the wall. The comic also expands on that point at length in the SUPER-POWERS AND THE SUPERPOWERS academic piece I’d mentioned above: Milton Glass goes on and on and on about how “there have been numerous occasions when the USSR has had to step down over some issue rather than risk escalation into a war it certainly could not win … this has perhaps fostered the illusion that the Soviets will suffer such indignities endlessly. This is a misconception … Our current administration believes otherwise. They continually push their unearned advantage until American influence comes uncomfortably close to key areas of Soviet interest. It is as if – with a real live Deity on their side – our leaders have become intoxicated with a heady draught of Omnipotence-by-Association … One single being has been allowed to change the entire world, pushing it closer to its eventual destruction”. Of course, Glass can’t make that point explicitly; he can’t actually know how the world of WATCHMEN differs from our own. _ **Moore,** _ though, can, and does so in the notes that accompany the recent reprint: [QUOTE=Alan Moore] Of course, Russia would still hold the final last-ditch option of All-Out Mutually Assured Destruction as a sort of feeble check upon any unwarranted American advances, but the balance of power would be significantly different and many historical events would have worked out differently … Russia would be growing increasingly frightened and restless as they watched the Western alliance growing in strength. The international situation, as an indirect result of this, would be very tense indeed … If the doomsday clock in our own world stands at five minutes to twelve, then in the world we’re talking about, the big hand is just a fraction of a second away from midnight, a fact that I’ll be referring to in a later part of the outline, and which is essential to the story I want to tell … that brings us to the questions of just exactly what the most intelligent and most perfectly evolved organism on the planet actually does want, which is mostly what our story is about … smart enough to see things coming a mile off … he saw that a backlash against super-heroes was inevitable. At the same time, he saw that one other thing was inevitable: a World War, complete and final in its devastation … it struck the most intelligent being on the planet that there wasn’t much point being the most intelligent being on the planet if there wasn’t any planet. Thus, he began to plan accordingly… [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/47 "2010-01-13T19:07:33Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > It was the bullet catching that makes me lean towards the super human side for Veidt. I don’t know. Did [Doc Savage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_savage)ever catch a bullet? In the comic it seems to be obvious that Veidt was a human optimized by extreme training. Comic book optimized, of course, which may not exactly match reality. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/48 "2010-01-13T20:43:01Z")
Imho, the point of that ending was that what humans would do to themselves would be far worse than what Veidt did. Dr. M pushed the balance of power too much towards the US’ side, and thus left the world on the edge of mutally assured destruction. Killing 150k saved 6 billion, essentially. In essense, Veidt was the good guy, and actually Rorsarch was the bad guy. Rorsarch would prefer the world be doomed to death rather than sacrifice his personal ideals. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/49 "2010-01-13T20:43:53Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > I don’t know. Did [Doc Savage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_savage)ever catch a bullet? In the comic it seems to be obvious that Veidt was a human optimized by extreme training. Comic book optimized, of course, which may not exactly match reality. No, but he killed a polar bear with only his 2 hands and tore steaks out of it’s hide with the same. That’s gotta be worth something. ---
**Author:** ![It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/it_s_not_rocket_surgery/32/312_2.png) [@It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/It_s_Not_Rocket_Surgery)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/50 "2010-01-13T20:52:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But how do you make this argument in 2009? **We all now know that the Cold War did in fact end with a nuclear war.** This is a pretty major typo. Or my memory is VERY faulty. ---
**Author:** ![capeo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@capeo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capeo)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/51 "2010-01-13T21:02:54Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > It was the bullet catching that makes me lean towards the super human side for Veidt. He does do that in the comic but he leaps backwards and catches it with both hands, kind of slapped, together. It also leaves his hands bleeding quite a bit (he’s barehanded in the comics). Again, far-fetched indeed, but supposedly in keeping with his extreme peak human conditioning. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/52 "2010-01-13T22:53:49Z")
> [@capeo](#): > > He does do that in the comic but he leaps backwards and catches it with both hands, kind of slapped, together. It also leaves his hands bleeding quite a bit (he’s barehanded in the comics). Again, far-fetched indeed, but supposedly in keeping with his extreme peak human conditioning. I know, my superhuman interpretation came from reading the comic. I understand a lot of folks don’t agree with me. That’s okay. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/53 "2010-01-13T23:23:46Z")
How many times did he catch a bullet? He may have just gotten lucky 🙂 ---
**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:** [January 14, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/54 "2010-01-14T00:05:39Z")
Once. And he ‘wasn’t sure it would work’. (Actually, he probably was…he wouldn’t have put himself in the way of the bullet if he wasn’t.) ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/55 "2010-01-14T00:15:26Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > I don’t know. Did [Doc Savage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_savage)ever catch a bullet? In the comic it seems to be obvious that Veidt was a human optimized by extreme training. Comic book optimized, of course, which may not exactly match reality. I don’t know about Doc Savage doing it, but Remo Williams did it as part of his ongoing training. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/56 "2010-01-14T00:33:47Z")
The first bullet catching (from the “assassin” was staged). The second bullet catching (in Antarctica) was real. It’s true that the Watchmen characters were inspired by the Charleton characters that DC had recently acquired. Alan Moore thought it would be cool to use them, but DC decided they’d rather fold the characters into the main DC continuity, so he just filed off the serial numbers. Yes, Rorschach was originally The Question, Dr. Manhattan was Captain Atom, the Comedian was Peacemaker, Nite Owl was Blue Beetle, and so on. But Rorschach (and all the characters really) are commentaries on how various superheroes would really be, if they really existed. Batman, a guy who beats up criminals all night, would have to be something of a psychopath. Either that, or a dilettante like Nite Owl. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/57 "2010-01-14T00:40:02Z")
I never thought he caught the bullet, more like he blocked it with his hands. As far as i remember he didn’t drop the bullet afterward meaning it was probably embedded in his hand. That’s not catching, he just got shot in the hand rather than the chest. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/58 "2010-01-14T00:48:27Z")
In the movie, they showed the bullet in his hand, barely breaking through his glove/skin, with some blood. I’d call it more of a catch than a block. Dunno how they handled it in the comics. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/59 "2010-01-14T00:51:57Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Imho, the point of that ending was that what humans would do to themselves would be far worse than what Veidt did. Dr. M pushed the balance of power too much towards the US’ side, and thus left the world on the edge of mutally assured destruction. Killing 150k saved 6 billion, essentially. > > In essense, Veidt was the good guy, and actually Rorsarch was the bad guy. Rorsarch would prefer the world be doomed to death rather than sacrifice his personal ideals. I’m not so sure of that at all, and in the movie at least, it’s left open too. What the protagonists agree on in the end is that it’s better to leave the secret secret because the alternative is worse. Nightowl for one doesn’t seem to agree with Veidt’s solution one bit. Rorsarch is killed just because he wants to expose the secret. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588/60 "2010-01-14T01:17:28Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > In the movie, they showed the bullet in his hand, barely breaking through his glove/skin, with some blood. I’d call it more of a catch than a block. Dunno how they handled it in the comics. Actually now that i checked my comic they do show the bullet in his hand there also, but there is a LOT of blood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-watchmen-questions-movie-version-open-spoilers/524588.md?page=4)