# Who watches the Watchmen? (Discussion, Open Spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 24, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945 "2006-06-24T02:27:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/21 "2006-06-25T03:33:50Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > Hmm, I didn’t think that Veidt was going to take a swing at becoming the next Doc (if nothing else, he would realise that that must have been tried, lots of times\*). And really, if anyone can do it, Veidt could, I think. I know it’s a comic book, but I don’t buy the “watchmaker’s mind” explanation. Could a trained anatomist or biochemist do the same? I submit that they could. Veidt is the smartest man on Earth–with enough study, I can think of no reason why he could not accomplish this. Which raises the question of what kind of Dr. Manhattan II: Electric Boogaloo he would be. Would his interest in mankind decline? Or, would he play the god role with the zeal that Dr. Manhattan never would? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/22 "2006-06-25T03:36:38Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > For the life of me, I am not sure who the hell could play Dr. Manhattan. It requires being in top shape and also the ability to spout science jargon and assume a somewhat flat affect in such a way that I believe them. I do not think that Hollywood has an actor up to the task. The problem as I see it is that you can’t really have anyone young as they’ll sound wrong, and you can’t really have anyone old as the doctor needs to be perfect in appearance - not a wrinkle. Maybe - am I ever going to despise myself for suggesting this - CGI? ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/23 "2006-06-25T03:38:05Z")
> [@Askia](#): > > Sure, there’s some structural elements that can’t be precisely replicated, but there are certainly some narrative sequences that can surely be approximated. If ever a narrative begged for a “split screen” on-screen it would be Fearful Symmetry. Sorry for the third post in a row, but I’ve always sort of dreamed of a movie that is directed in segments by several directors and then edited together in as seamless a way as possible–this seems as good a candidate as any for that kind of approach. I want David Fincher on “The Abyss Gazes Also.” ---
**Author:** ![Askia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@Askia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askia)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/24 "2006-06-25T04:15:24Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > The problem as I see it is that you can’t really have anyone young as they’ll sound wrong, and you can’t really have anyone old as the doctor needs to be perfect in appearance - not a wrinkle. Maybe - am I ever going to despise myself for suggesting this - CGI? Someone theatrically trained in decent shape in their forties wearing a modified body suit and facial make up, using minimal CGI effects. I’d vote for going outside Hollywood altogether to cast Doc Manhattan. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/25 "2006-06-25T08:28:44Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > 1. Come to think of it, why does nobody off Ozymandias at the end for the sake of revenge? Truly, the Watchmen can tell noone of the true source of the alien monster, but why not bring him down? Dr. Manhattan certainly could have, though Rorschach tried and failed. Minor nitpick: there is no organization or team in the series called “the Watchmen.” Nite Owl, Rorshach, and Silk Spectre have an alliance based on convenience and affection, but they’re even less of a team than the Defenders ever were. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/26 "2006-06-25T11:00:30Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > Excellent point. Is it possible that this elucidates the existence of some factor of chance that Dr. Manhattan cannot forsee? Or indeed is Rorschach’s last attempt at revealing the truth doomed to fail (due to the crank nature of the newspaper)? I lean towards the former, as if Dr. Manhattan knew that Rorschach’s tale was doomed to fail (that rhymes!) he might not kill Rorschach. Unless Rorschach could convince the world in person but not _ex vivo_–which seems possible but unlikely. Well, yes, as far as we know, there is some factor that Doc. Manhattan cannot forsee: the tachyons are still screwing up his future-vision. I don’t think that he can see the future perfectly, so he kills Kojacks to try and salvage the future, but still leaves Veidt in uncertainty as to whether or not his plan has suceeded. It might be helpful to think of Doc Manhattan’s vision as seeing what the reader sees: he can flip ahead a few pages to see his actions, but not necessarily know their context until he gets there. And, like us, he can see the journal- but not know what that means because he, like us, has departed the narrative forever. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/27 "2006-06-25T12:37:01Z")
> [@Skald the Rhymer](#): > > Minor nitpick: there is no organization or team in the series called “the Watchmen.” Sure, but it’s a convenient way of referring to all of the superheroes in the book. ---
**Author:** ![bubastis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d07c76/32.png) [@bubastis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bubastis)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/28 "2006-06-25T22:13:05Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > For the life of me, I am not sure who the hell could play Dr. Manhattan. It requires being in top shape and also the ability to spout science jargon and assume a somewhat flat affect in such a way that I believe them. I do not think that Hollywood has an actor up to the task. Shave Aaron Eckhart. Paint him blue. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/29 "2006-06-25T22:20:53Z")
I’ll admit to not knowing much about rotoscoping- as I understand it, it is a process of drawing over footage of real actors to create “photo-realistic” animation, right? If this is the case, couldn’t you just have Doc played by the nearest male model, and have his voice dubbed in by some excellent voice actor (not sure I agree about him being “emotionless”, btw- that’s Rorschach’s schtik- just detached)? ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/30 "2006-06-25T23:24:03Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > I’ll admit to not knowing much about rotoscoping- as I understand it, it is a process of drawing over footage of real actors to create “photo-realistic” animation, right? > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Rotoscoping is a technique where animators trace live action movement, frame by frame, for use in animated cartoons. Originally, pre-recorded live-film images were projected onto a matte windowpane and redrawn by an animator. This projection equipment is called a Rotoscope. So yes, yes it is. Apparently, it’s now mostly digital (surprise surprise). > [@](#): > > If this is the case, couldn’t you just have Doc played by the nearest male model, and have his voice dubbed in by some excellent voice actor (not sure I agree about him being “emotionless”, btw- that’s Rorschach’s schtik- just detached)? I think rotoscoping looks really good when done well, and I think that’s a terrific idea. Up with rotoscoping! And detached is a better word. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2006, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/31 "2006-06-26T15:23:25Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > Well, yes, as far as we know, there is some factor that Doc. Manhattan cannot forsee: the tachyons are still screwing up his future-vision. I don’t think that he can see the future perfectly, so he kills Kojacks to try and salvage the future, but still leaves Veidt in uncertainty as to whether or not his plan has suceeded. It might be helpful to think of Doc Manhattan’s vision as seeing what the reader sees: he can flip ahead a few pages to see his actions, but not necessarily know their context until he gets there. And, like us, he can see the journal- but not know what that means because he, like us, has departed the narrative forever. I understood the tachyons to be like static in Manhattan’s vision. Manhattan gets snatches of the future, but not the full picture. Veidt does not want Manhattan’s interference in his plans, not trusting in the pre-ordained future Manhattan sees. I also hope a movie doesn’t come to pass, after _V for Vendetta_, but wouldn’t mind a prequel comic. ---
**Author:** ![ululate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/59ef9b/32.png) [@ululate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ululate)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2006, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945/32 "2006-06-26T15:40:29Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > It might be helpful to think of Doc Manhattan’s vision as seeing what the reader sees: he can flip ahead a few pages to see his actions, but not necessarily know their context until he gets there. And, like us, he can see the journal- but not know what that means because he, like us, has departed the narrative forever. Actually, if he meant what he said during that last chat, he _ **can’t** _ flip ahead a few pages and see the journal. He left some two months before those events, and so they aren’t part of his experience; he’s only precognitive about his own life. (Same reason he never figures out the identity of that guy he saw at Blake’s funeral; it doesn’t come up again, and so he only ever knows as much as he did when he couldn’t place the man’s face.) He can tell you in 1965 who’ll win the 1966 World Series – because he’s going to read about it in the paper. But he _ **can’t** _ tell you who’ll win it in 1986 if he’d by then left for the stars, never to return. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-watches-the-watchmen-discussion-open-spoilers/361945.md?page=1)