Since the thread title says “spoilers”, I figure we can discuss this openly.
Yes, the Comedian was SS2’s father. Yes, the depicted rape was not completed. From the information given (SS2, at 16, attends a Watchmen meeting in 1970), Comedian and SS1 had sex around 1953, 13 years after the rape attempt. The very unlikeliness of this is what caused Dr. Manhattan to decide that SS2’s life resembles the quantum miracle he’d longed to see and (briefly) rekindled his interest in the human race.
It doesn’t strike me as utterly impossible that SS1 would have a love/hate thing with the Comedian, coupled (possibly) with her starting to lose her looks as she ages.
What bugged me more is that the Mars conversation was supposed to “end in tears” and SS2 remained dry-eyed throughout.
I haven’t seen The Incredibles but from what I do know about it I’m sure the creation of Watchmen was part of what made something like The Incredibles possible–probably to the chagrin of many fans of Watchmen!
She burst into tears after Jon showed her time as he sees it, and she realized The Comedian is her father. She then ran from him, and pounded on the crystalline structure, causing it to fall around them.
You’re not supposed to like them. They’re a collection of sad, warped or broken people. And, yes, that would have been clearer if the director hadn’t shoved so much into one movie. There was so much going on that it left little time for the characters to breathe.
I just saw it today, and I feel…confused about it. It wasn’t a bad movie, and I had no trouble following the plot (aside from the people who got cancer; Ozy’s explanation and the resulting flashback made it seem like he was there when Jon got caught in the lab, which doesn’t seem possible to me), but…it didn’t really leave an impact on me other than that it was dark, depressing, and complicated. I never read the GN, although I think I might, but I knew going in that it wasn’t going to be a standard superhero flick. Even so, I don’t think I was really prepared for the sheer darkness of it. Even The Dark Knight is more or less a family-friendly movie, as gritty as it is, but Watchmen happily walked past the line. I’m pretty sure my dad was expecting a traditional superhero movie, and he left the theater utterly baffled. I felt sorry for the kids who I saw entering the theater before the movie started. That had to be unpleasant. (“Dammit, people, it’s rated R for a reason!”)
That said, Rorschach’s stint in prison, though violent, was sheer awesome. I’ve known guys just like him in high school, though without the psychopathy; small, non-threatening-looking, and mean. I was simultaneously cackling at the badassness and wincing at the horrific violence, especially when Dan and Laurie enter the prison to spring him; there was comedy in them acting like Rorschach was literally just going to the bathroom, and a certain level of horror in seeing him approach the midget with intent to kill (and the blood afterward). The whole movie was a big tangle of emotions like that, leaving me unsure how to feel about it, which I suppose was the point.
I understand Manhattan’s schlong has significance in the original story, but given that the reason he dispenses with clothes most of the time is that he feels detached from humanity, I would’ve thought it more appropriate for him to shape himself like a Ken doll. He has no need for human modesty, but he’d also have no need for human equipment, wouldn’t he? Sure, it’d be written off as sanitizing the character, but I think it would make more sense.
My fanwank is that when he reassembled he was still thinking of himself as part human, and so thought he needed his Cosmic Smurf. He only became more naked and remote as time went on. Could some science whiz tell me what his symbol was?
Well, he’s not completely detached. There’s a line in the comic, which I’m going to attempt to paraphrase, when someone tells Laurie that the difference between Dr. Manhattan and the atom bomb is that the government didn’t have to make sure the A-bomb got laid. I think her mother says it.
In the graphic novel, the government initially gives him a lame costume, and a helmet with the stereotypical “three rings” depiction of an atom. He says “it’s meaningless. A hydrogen atom would be more appropriate. […] If I’m to have a symbol, it shall be one I respect” And then he draws the hydrogen atom symbol on his forehead.
I’ve never read the comic and have no exposure to the franchise whatsoever prior to seeing the film, but I loved it. Excellent story, great cinematography, and generally enjoyable to watch.
The only real criticisms I had were that, for a movie set in 1985, it didn’t feel very “80s” (no Big Hair, Walkmans, Shoulder Pads etc) and the Ozymandias character seemed to have been portrayed by a Second Choice actor (ie, there was Someone Well-Known lined up for the part but there was a scheduling conflict and they had to get someone else on short notice), but overall I really, really liked the film and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Mrs. Magill laughed out loud when he reminded the prisoners who was trapped with whom.
In the comic, they didn’t know what he we up to in the john. Even in the movie, I wasn’t sure if Big Figure was visible from their perspective. I did miss Dan telling Laurie that he had lost a collar one time because he had to go to the bath room.
Dayum - in some ways Rorschach was the best thing about the film. He was effing SCARY.
What was with Veidt’s accent? Mostly American - but every now and then a word came out almost British. Were they trying to suggest he was Dutch or South African? or was that just something slipping through from the actor? (he’s originally from the UK). If so, he had a bad accent coach.
FWIW, the blood pouring out from under the door of the bathroom is visible in the comic, it’s just not colored in such a way as to make it obvious that it’s blood.
He was the most 80s thing about the movie though, I agree.