I like them both equally, ST had that fast paced, cheesy feel, which is fun in a theater. Watchmen was more drama, had decent action and the plot kept you going.
Really, I've only read parts of the GN, but I don't see why all you **** cry about it "not being like the graphic novel", it's pretty close, they couldn't fit every single aspect of it onto film, given the allotted time.
he obliterated multiple major, executing millions of people. including entire families. the only difference between his plan and hitlers was that his sounded nicer.
but that doesnt change the fact that they both share the "justificiation", which was that they what they did was a way to bring peace. i was only addressing that, not their actions as a result of that justification.
Originally posted by Robtard
I like them both equally, ST had that fast paced, cheesy feel, which is fun in a theater. Watchmen was more drama, had decent action and the plot kept you going.Really, I've only read parts of the GN, but I don't see why all you **** cry about it "not being like the graphic novel", it's pretty close, they couldn't fit every single aspect of it onto film, given the allotted time.
The voice of reason.
You're conveniently ignoring that Veit's cause was to save all of humanity from pending extinction. So while his actions killed millions, he saved billions and secured peace for all nations. His other option was to do nothing and let armageddon come.
Would you choose to let billions die, because it's "not okay" to kill millions?
how do we know that plan worked? we saw them sign a cease fire or whatever, but how long do we know that lasted? maybe it did last forever or maybe it lasted a few years and then the two leaders had words and they killed every living being on Earth. So how do you know he saved billions? maybe momentarily. would you kill millions to prolong the worlds destruction for... a decade? the movie goes out of their way to show how violent we, humans, are. but then it goes on to ignore that theme by stating that giving us all one common enemy will untie us all and save us all. that's a lie. there will always be the religious extremists who want the world to end, or want everyone to die, there will always the politicians with their own agendas. i can assure you that dr.manhatten raping the world will act as a way for a dicatotr-esque leader to come into power, and then we'll be right back where we started and those millions whos lives were destroyed will be for nothing.
so to answer your question? would I? yes.. i would, because ai one person like everyone else and i dont have the authority to choose who dies and who doesnt. especially if there was no guenrentee that the peace would actually last.
now, if i asked every one of those millions of people if theyd be willing to do die to save billions and they all said yes then sure. thats a chocie and a sacrifice theyre willing to make.
if itd help establish my views, i think the christian god is a dick.
We don't know it worked indefinitely, but it's better than the pending doom for all that was going to happen. Anyone of reason would choose to have another chance, than certain death.
Now that's a really poor choice, those millions you're unwilling to sacrifice would be dead anyways, along with everyone else.
I doubt the Christian God cares, going on the grounds it's all true, but okay.
Originally posted by WO Polaskiyes there is seeing as people view morality differently. me and plenty others think that its actual a good reason. Just because you dont doesnt mean that there is no debate about whather its right or wrong
the concept of "kill millioons to save billions" is wrong. there is no debate about it there is no question of morality. it is just incorrect and stupid. thus its a bad justification.
Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Turning this thread into a morality debate?Isaiah would be proud. 😄
Killing millions (who would be dead anyways) to save billions (ie humanity) isn't really a question of morality, it's common sense.
It's like refusing to put down the diseased dying dog to save the rest of the pack. Just idiocy, letting them all die.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
the concept of "kill millioons to save billions" is wrong. there is no debate about it there is no question of morality. it is just incorrect and stupid. thus its a bad justification.
yeah, but i really dont think that killing millions to save billions was his ambition. I believe the point was to stop the cycle of war and inspire peace and enlightenment. War is mans greatest hinderance. Even with Dr Manhattan (a god) watching over the world, man was still warring. In fact, man was on the brink of destroying the world. What Dr Manhattan (a god) couldn't accomplish. White accomplished by doing what Dr Manhattan neglected to do...,making a decision that a watchmen should make. Whether it was right or wrong doesnt matter it is the one thing that Manhattan could never do. He was unable to make a human choice, or just a choice in general. War and Nuclear Holocaust was going to happen either way. The only way it was ever going to be averted was by the hand of Manhattan. White new Manhattan was never going to make that choice. So, instead of a world wide nuclear holocaust that would have sent humanity into history, white sacrificed innocent people to bring humanity out of the cycle of war. White gave humanity a chance.
Even though Manhattan did ultimately choose to help. It wasn't until Whites' revelation that he realized his presence would not end the cycle of war but, instead, only strengthen the gap between nations. This is at least what i took away from it. It was bitter sweet for me. Yeah, everyone wanted Manhattan to wave his hand and end everything but unlike Manhattan, we're not faced with a decision that holds the entire human race in our hands. Each one of the Watchmen served as a different voice. Rorschach obviously served as the voice of the common man...,wrong is wrong. Nite Owl, although he agreed with Rorschach he was torn with his faith to believe in something bigger...,Manhattan (god).
I'm not trying to say you're wrong or argue your point. So don't take me the wrong way because my first reaction was to side with Rorschach and even now, i can see the logic of both sides. My human morales and values tilt me towards agreeing with...,justice is justice but then i start looking at the decision without moral investment and rather with a sense of indifference and i see only one thing...,preservation.
Originally posted by Robtard
Killing millions (who would be dead anyways) to save billions (ie humanity) isn't really a question of morality, it's common sense.It's like refusing to put down the diseased dying dog to save the rest of the pack. Just idiocy, letting them all die.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The voice of reason.
👆