r/Watchmen

I've just finished rewatching the HBO miniseries for the first time since it had originally aired and wanted to share some thoughts on it.

It's been about a decade if not longer since I've read the original graphic novel or seen the Snyder film, so my recollection of some of the events was a bit fuzzy while watching the show. That said, my personal takeaway from Moore's graphic novel was that having a DSMV-listed disorder was a prerequisite for being a masked vigilante. In that regard the show absolutely excelled and "got" the source material. Laurie Blake's characterization of a broken person who sees vigilantes for the losers they are - is brilliant. Jeremy Irons' performance as Veidt is equally good, hammering home that although a certified genius, he was also a pompous buffoon with his huge ego being his biggest weakness. The supporting cast in form of Lady Trieu, Looking Glass, Will Reeves all helped elevate the show - each of the episodes that focused on their respective backstories were among the best.

I enjoyed the social commentary and the setting of America as a "liberal utopia", where descendants of racial injustice victims actually get reparations, homosexuality is accepted, cops require prior authorization to handle firearms, while USA and Russia are best of buds and communism is seen as not that big of a deal. The more important details to me are that America still ended up as an authoritarian regime - it's never been explicitly said, but Redford's been in power for 28 years by the time the present day events of the show start. Law enforcement officers are now more legally protected than before. Also all of that hangs on the dumbest hoax staying a secret - no thanks to Veidt's ego.

My biggest gripe though is with Angela Abar and Cal/Manhattan and how that arguably most important, most human part of the story was executed and the directing choices that were made. To get it out of the way - I enjoyed their plot and I enjoyed the actors. I can't say for certain if it was the dialogue writing or the performances, but seeing those 2 onscreen together made me feel like I'm watching a show made by an entirely different creative team. And I get that Angela/Sister Night is supposed to be the "straight" guy audience conduit in a show full of weirdos. I get that Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is packing a magnum dong - there's no reason not to show it if he's playing Manhattan. And I get that it's possible the production budget was close to exhausted when it came time to do Manhattan's makeup and VFX.

I just don't think writing him as an autistic alien in the final episode was the way to go. Not only is it bad writing using the character for a final exposition dump, but it just doesn't fit with how the character was introduced in the "A God Walks into Abar" episode, where it's established that Manhattan was still very much a human who got fed up with his utopia on Europa and came down to Earth to flirt with and pick up a random baddie in Vietnam.

Just my 2 cents on it.

I always assumed he was somewhat left leaning, but was more of a moderate or libertarian.

I don't mean to be a thorn in the side. But I recently made a ranking of every comicbook I own and that was about 3days ago. Then yesterday someone made response towards my opinion on watchmen saying that (because I said I loved watchmen because ozymandias is a top 5 villain for me and I found Dr Manhattan's nihilistic world view fascinating" They told me that "Ozymandias isn't a villain nor does Dr Manhattan represent nihilist views." I responded with "How is Dr Manhattan not a nihilist he literally thinks that human morals, politics and survival are utterly meaningless and that the life everyone lives is a written out path. Also sure you can say that Ozymandias is more of an anti villain that a villain. but ultimately he's a villain even if his plan was to save the world. He killed millions of innocent people to reach that goal and didn't have any regret in doing so. No good person would willingly plan out the annihilation of millions of people to "save the world"

Then they replied with this "have you even read watchmen #9, it feels like you didn't even understand one of the most panels the comic had to offer. you don't understand the conclusion of jon's where laurie quite literally *shatters his worldview* both figuratively and literally. as for ozymandias, the entire point is he isn't a black and white character, that's why for contrast he is often compared or in frame alongside rorschach, what ozymandias has done is abhorrent, this is true, and truly he did not actually want to do it, but that was what he hoped would be the end of all wars, he had hoped to end suffering since the world was rapidly developing into an all-out nuclear war, yet when jon confronted adrian he was left unsure regarding his plans and the future; "I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end"; "In the end?"; "Adrian, nothing ever ends." Followed by "simply dismissing Ozymandias as a villain is a bold take that even Moore himself disagrees on you with, you should read it again when you're older or have read more books." I replied with "He finds value in life on Mars, but he's still a very detached nihilistic character who literally leaves the galaxy at the end. and that's my interpretation. Also recognizing that Ozymandias is complex doesn't mean he isn't a villain. His whole plan is a massively flawed utilitarian experiment and Jon’s "nothing ever ends" line literally shows how fragile his 'solution' actually is. I think I have a valid take on it considering Alan moore wanted people to get more than one world view. Your view on the comic is that Dr Manhattan is not entirely nihilistic and that Adrian is not a traditional villain. My opinion is the opposite of that. We can disagree but you don't need to have that kind of attitude. We're not meant to see eye to eye on everything and I respect your opinion and I understand where you're coming from. I still believe that from what I read, my perspective makes more sense to me each reread. But I do appreciate knowing your view on the comic. it did feel like an attack on me when you told me "When you get older you probably understand it better." I'm 19 years old. I feel like that's old enough. This is an opinion based story. I hope you're not older than me with that mindset." Then they responded to that with this "19 is not old and it's not a thing I'm holding over you to have superiority, it's just the Watchmen is a comic that is very complex emotionally and one of the most misunderstood stories ever since it released, so I implore you explore it's subtext more. it's also not really an opinion that Dr Manhattan doesn't represent nihilism, reducting Dr Manhattan to a nihilist ultimately just completely disregards his character arc and only viewing him through the lens of issue #4, if life had no inherent meaning and cosmic relevance then Laurie's mere existence as a human being completely destroyed his world-view, he left earth becude he felt like there is nothint else for him to achieve there; he came to understand the beauty of human existence, the cycle of life and death, unfiltered intense love, and tragedy in that order before talking to Adrian. the There's nothing much more to say, as with Ozymandias you're kind of just repeating what I said. I'd rather us have a productive discussion rather than you feeling attacked for your opinions." This is the response I gave and that was the last response between us both "I'm not copying you, I just disagree with you. You think his speech on Mars fixes everything, but I think he’s still a nihilist because he literally believes the future is already written and no one actually has a choice. We're looking at the exact same comic and seeing two different things. And 19 is plenty old enough to read between the lines, so let's leave age out of it." So is this person being overly elitist or am I in the wrong. I think it's really dumb for me to even come up here and ask cause I know there's going to be people siding with the other user. But I need to know what everyone thinks and how stupid this argument even is considering watchmen isn't supposed to be viewed in a single lense. The story was obviously meant to strike debate and differences within the story. I think that was Alan Moore's intention.

...Just how many superheroes WERE there in the Watchmen universe? Was there like a lot more than what we were seeing in the comic?

Because unless I'm mistaken, did they just make the Keene Act to screw over four people specifically and leave it at that? If police were going on strike nationwide over six superheroes only, would they have even needed that kind of law to begin with?