Originally posted by Kovacs86It is true that why Veidt did what he did can both be argued for and against. I wouldn't say that aprt is completely objective though.
Precisely. Watchmen is one of the few comics I can name which is almost completely objective.
It makes pretty clear that even Veidt himself isn't sure what he did was the right thing, and with out DM telling him so you can tell he feels terrible about what he has done without knowing if it actually helped or not.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriNo you clearly see him asl DM if he changed everything, and when DM does not answer him you clearly see Ozymandis begin to become unnerved about not knowing if what he did actually helped or not.
No...no you pretty much see him celebrate and never doubt himself.He isn't racked with self-doubt. He asks Dr. Manhattan for self-affirmation more than anything.
-AC
Originally posted by Newjak
No you clearly see him asl DM if he changed everything, and when DM does not answer him you clearly see Ozymandis begin to become unnerved about not knowing if what he did actually helped or not.
Considering everyone is in agreement that it solved the problem, and helped, including him, I think you better go back and re-read the book.
The debate isn't; did it achieve anything? The debate is; was it right to achieve it how he did?
It did obviously achieve something good, but did it happen in the right was, was the question.
He never really doubts himself truly.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriObviously you need to go re-read the comic.
Considering everyone is in agreement that it solved the problem, and helped, including him, I think you better go back and re-read the book.The debate isn't; did it achieve anything? The debate is; was it right to achieve it how he did?
It did obviously achieve something good, but did it happen in the right was, was the question.
He never really doubts himself truly.
-AC
Ozymandis asking DM doesn't seem so sure of himself. The point of the story is while Ozymandis never doubts about his ways if it works, he obviously doesn't know whether it did or didn't. thus he doesn't know if it was truly worth it.
Hence why he was begging and crying for DM to tell if it did.
If you think that part of the story was purely means justify the end argument you had better go re-read it and focus a little more.
He seemed, to me, to be a mix of worried over a) whether the level of devastation and tragedy was necessary to bring about this change, and b) over the fact that he had to be the one to enact it.
Veidt saw himself as a hero, and everybody else saw him as a villain, so it would have been unsettling to say the least.
Dr. M is both all knowing and completely indifferent and unbiased, so it seems fair that he be the only one to correctly address Veidt.
And I really don't think that someone could push themselves, without any outside support, to go through with that kind of destruction, and then ask if it helped. One, IMO, would have to have already convinced themselves completely...
Originally posted by Newjak
Obviously you need to go re-read the comic.Ozymandis asking DM doesn't seem so sure of himself. The point of the story is while Ozymandis never doubts about his ways if it works, he obviously doesn't know whether it did or didn't. thus he doesn't know if it was truly worth it.
Hence why he was begging and crying for DM to tell if it did.
If you think that part of the story was purely means justify the end argument you had better go re-read it and focus a little more.
Begging and crying? How idiotic.
He expresses nothing but assuredness in his acts. Then he says to Manhattan; "It will all work out in the end, won't it?". So if you want to argue that he had a split second of human second thought, then perhaps. I see no begging and crying, even in speaking to Manhattan, he assures him that he is right;
"I hoped you'd understand (The act), unlike Rorschach.".
He is clearly sure what he did was right. The only ones who aren't would be the others, all of whom eventually agree it was the correct thing to do.
Veidt's split second of "Did I do the right thing?" Vs his entire plan, executing said plan and then expressing joy and having everyone in agreement upon its success, shows that he was clearly assured.
Perhaps you should go read Superman or something.
One of the core points is; do the ends justify the means. That's the whole argument; Was what Veidt did worth it, if only for the result? Did the ends (Result) justify the means (Act)?
You obviously don't get it, but it's ok, lot's of people don't.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Considering everyone is in agreement that it solved the problem, and helped, including him, I think you better go back and re-read the book.The debate isn't; did it achieve anything? The debate is; was it right to achieve it how he did?
It did obviously achieve something good, but did it happen in the right was, was the question.
He never really doubts himself truly.
-AC
See what I mean about the book being written objectively? It's open to interpretation...
Anyway, I think there's no doubt that, temporarily at least, nuclear war was avoided. However, whether that peace would last is another matter entirely. Moore certainly doesn't state that such peace would remain.
I think there's debate to be had over both points. Hell, Veidt didn't know for sure that there would be nuclear war. I'm not saying there wouldn't; it's just open to interpretation.
Don't waste your time. Put it into more interesting things.
Here is a video of the production. Enjoy!
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Don't waste your time. Put it into more interesting things.Here is a video of the production. Enjoy!
Thanks. It looks pretty awesome, actually. I love the look of New York- it's just like the graphic novel. Somewhat guilitily, I'm really looking forward to this film now...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's funny, because everyone's gonna say it's great, just to spite those who don't think it should be made, no matter how much it bastardises or butchers the book.-AC
Ah, yes, I'm saying that I'm looking forward to this film in an attempt to piss you off. What a cunning plan.
It can't be as bad as V for Vendetta was, anyway...
I wasn't saying you, Jez.
Just in general, that will factually happen. Not saying people won't genuinely like it, but it's factually gonna happen on this forum for one.
It could easily be as bad as V for Vendetta, considering that didn't even have shit directors, really. I'm just going by track record of Moore adaptations:
From Hell, V for Vendetta, League.
-AC