/co/ - Comics & Cartoons

Why are super hero comics with overpowered heroes with no real personality besides "I'm good." so interesting to you? If you don't have gritty realism to some extent it just turns into media made for kids.There is a sweet spot between gritty realism and babified bullshit. It is a scale after all. You're asking the wrong question though. You should be asking "what artistic value does it have?"

Also what do you have against deep themes and ideas? Any piece of art aimed at adults needs to have themes and ideas. What are the themes and ideas of watchmen? That ideologues are dangerous? That violence begets violence? That sadness and loneliness are inherent in all of us regardless of status and that we need each other to solve that issue? And then there's the ending as well, which could be interpreted in a lot of different ways depending on if you believe that what Ozymandias accomplished worked or not.

Sure there was a lot of stupid violence in it, but a lot of people like it because the multiple different ways you can interpret each character and the way you can interpret the themes each character represents and the general journey each one goes through.

>>1049394

It has good art, interesting and memorable characters, and a great mystery. You're a pleb though, so you don't get it.

It's an attack on (((american propaganda))). Like, it's not even subtle. The article about comics said comics "had the blessing of uncle sam". Veidt false flagging an alien invasion(in reference to all the hollywood bullshit alien movies abd the reagan administration of which there is a joke in the last page of the comic), and his line of toys where he says they should "use soldiers instead and having them fight terrorists". Thirty years later and americans are none the wiser. Truly a despicable country of retards

>>1049412

>this is what pretentious retards actually believe

>>1049421

>This is what a person who has given into apathy and is incapable of joy actually believes.

Pretentious would assume I'm talking out of my ass. How people enjoy media and relate to characters is well documented and it's not exactly hard to figure out. If you genuinely need to ask why Watchmen is well liked you're either a legitimate autist or a jackass trying to start shit.

Rorschach did nothing wrong and is the reason anybody cares about this trash comic.

>>1049394

Because it's full of flamboyant characters who have a dramatic adventure?

I thought the same thing, but I just assumed I wasn't getting it. Or I wasn't getting what themes and philosophies they were referring to when I read it. But now I'm not so sure.

>>1049415

>Veidt false flagging an alien invasion(in reference to all the hollywood bullshit alien movies abd the reagan administration of which there is a joke in the last page of the comic),

I never realized that that conspiracy theory came from this comic book.

It was shilled by DC like hell as a marketing tactic, as far as writing goes, Watchmen doesn't even deserve to be in the top 10 comics spot.

>>1049435

I think Moore actually got pretty pissed that every "serious" comic that came after Watchmen was just trying to be Watchmen 2.0, to the point that he tried creating a more optimistic and happy superhero series… which I can't remember the name of (and I'm paraphrasing an article I read about 15 years ago).

Much like in that video The Banishment of Beauty, these days to be truly "rebellious" and "transgressive" you need to do what the "establishment" was doing in the Golden and Silver ages.

>>1049437

No you misunderstand my point, I was not defending comics before Moore, I was stating Moore failed in doing anything to differentiate Watchmen as being better. No wonder Moore got mad, he probably saw his own work fully unveiled to him afterwords. It's probably why he became stereotyped as being a self hating overly critical hermit by pop culture ever since.

>>1049435

>Once again you have no fucking idea what art means.

What is art then. I always hear this from artist but then they never define art and just say “I know it when I see it” which just seems like bullshit mystification to me.

Because it's "mature" and not for kids!

>>1049484

art is money laundering

>you will never LARP as Alexander so fucking hard and by some miracle gain vast knowledge by visiting specific places and trick everyone that killing people is okay as long you have an array of screens to show the fruits of your labor

watchman has good art bu the story is so fucking gay

>>1049488

>Art is money laundering.

Hey now, that's only 40% of it and it's a good thing, the only people worse than failed artists are people who pay artists, therefore all artists accomplish something even when they fail.

>>1049435

>The sheer fact you believe this shows both you and Moore have no idea what art is.

What a great way to say nothing.

>Focus on ideas reverts art to political manifesto.

Nope. All artwork has its politics. It's only "bad" when the reader disagrees with them. OR are you seriously going to tell me crime fighting isn't political at all? It entirely depends on how it's presented and how the problems are being presented and how the characters react to them. Calling watchmen a "manifesto" just tells me you're digging to talk politics rather than the themes.

>In the end Watchmen's characters ironically no longer became one dimensional heroes but one dimensional political strawmen.

Except they very clearly aren't one dimensional? Every major character shows multiple emotions, have fleshed out backstories, change over the course of the story and are forced to face a problem they have. Calling them one dimensional is an absurd exaggeration.

>Once again you have no fucking idea what art means. Focus on themes isn't what art is about and reducing all things under narrative to philosophy, other wise philosophical non fiction books will always beat philosophical allegories.

What another great way to say nothing. If you don't define art then you're just blowing hot air out of your ass. Literary art is defined by the books themes and issues. Like Frankenstein, Dracula, Watership Down, Beowulf, the Catcher in the Rye, 1984, all of these books have overt societal or political themes. Shakespeare's plays often had themes of romance between differing classes and the results of bad decision making.

Saying that literary art doesn't have themes is fucking retarded. It makes me wonder if you're just playing a shitty devil's advocate at this point.

>It's painfully clear it didn't work. All of the themes brought up never make it far enough to make any deep impact on readers,

So now we're talking on behalf of other people?

>at least ones who have experienced actual art with actual impact.

Now this, this is pretentious. This is pretentious as fuck.

>There was no violence in it at all, 90% of Watchmen is plot rapidly moving. Come to think of it Watchmen embodies everything wrong with comics even though it tried going against everything wrong with comics. Moore in his deconstruction and reconstruction of comics only ended up making the same mistakes, if it hadn't been for it's reputation in the media Watchmen would have been considered another graphic novel. The same as any other.

It honestly sounds like you just hate comic books and also didn't read watchmen at this point.

Watchmen is good because it shows how capeshit is based on a retarded understanding of the world and instead of being a force for good, it's just used by the ruling system for its interests. The characters are all archetypes for how the popular mythology sees people. The point is to portray these things without the sanitation done to make people accept the bullshit. It's not just about comics as art but comics as propaganda.

>Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are the pressures put on people according to gender roles, as indicated by their romance plot and the inherited titles.

>The Comedian is the soldier/military fantasy sold to people by Hollywood and shit like Captain America.

>Dr. Manhattan is the idea of God, specifically that God's "on our side" and heroes like Superman.

>Ozymandias is muh job creator tech savior business tycoon like Elon Musk who is delusional about being a mastermind and lies to uphold this delusion while hatching stupid plans.

>Rorschach is the downtrodden, poor, and driven crazy guy who has to be in the story so someone can be scapegoated and disposed of.

>>1049533

>Rorschach is the downtrodden, poor, and driven crazy guy who has to be in the story so someone can be scapegoated and disposed of.

Rorschach was the character who showed the reader that society doesn't give a shit about honesty or truth. That they would rather believe any lie that justified their fears.

>>1049554

the second is clearly about the importance of the british navy and by extension the empire in the building of infrastructure and the modernization of the world. See how as the ships of the line advance they lay behind them even in their absence a great bridge connecting the future and the past. The first is about how little girls should always follow their dreams, and by which I of course mean they should be dicked.

>>1049442

no shit its not an american, what even is your post

>>1049533

>Nite Owl and Silk Spectre

I thought they were more like commentary on legacy characters and living up to their predecessors. That and their complacency at the end.

>Comedian

The dude is nihilistic and sees life as a joke. Doesn't seem to have that much in common with Captain America. I mean if you want to be some commentary on the military you could have some patriotic guy commits war crimes for his countries but remains chipper due to his patriotism and sociopathy.

>>1049555

Honestly, it seems like your just seeing what you want to see.

I'm a bit skeptical of modern people doing analysis on works of art. They don't analyze it for what it is. They just project their own views onto it.

>Calling watchmen a "manifesto" just tells me you're digging to talk politics rather than the themes.

Fantastic way to resort to assumption accusations when you brought up the importance of themes initially, I said themes ruin art not specific themes I disagree with do.

>Every major character shows multiple emotions, have fleshed out backstories, change over the course of the story and are forced to face a problem they have. Calling them one dimensional is an absurd exaggeration.

>If a character has more than one emotion and backstories along with development that's all they need to be good characters

Your standards are very low for what good characters are.

>Literary art is defined by the books themes and issues.

>Going by books for art

>When comics are a visual medium

>So now we're talking on behalf of other people

Yes, multiple people I've met with who have casually studied better prospects specifically non fiction works all agreed Watchmen was very mediocre because when comparing it to movies, paintings, music, and more. It does no justice what so ever to the word art.

>It honestly sounds like you just hate comic books

I hate every medium because it's mostly tract with very few good pieces sunken deep into the river of kike shit modern society vomits out.

That aside:

>So what is art then?

I wrote out two different paragraphs about this but eventually deleted both, I'm going to make this easier for the both of us, why don't you tell me what you think art is? And I'll try showing you why Watchmen doesn't fit into your own definition.

>>1049533

>>1049536

Rosarch was a mockery of The Question and Mr. A.

>>1049554

>No it doesn't. What are the politics of these pictures?

>Talking about literary art

>Brings up portrait and conventional static art.

Good going on that point, but it still holds true.

The paintings are intended to inspire whimsy and fantasy in the viewer. A feeling of wonder and joy and longing for impossible things. It's probably the safest kind of art you could make, but even then, the image on the left is overtly political in the west where lolicon art is more controversial, and the decision to show the little girl's panties could cause controversy over the decision. Sure many people might see it as tame and harmless (because it is) but some would feel the opposite. Also the anime inspired art is often hated in the western art world.

Then the image on the right delves into surrealism which has it's own period of hatred from certain art critics.

When you take things at face value they're almost always simple, the issue the more overt or current the politics are the more likely people are going to be vocal about it.

Take watchmen for example, at the time of its release it was almost universally praised, during the time the comic portrayed an exaggerated mock-real world scenario that didn't wholly ring true with the reality around us. But it was before its time, now in the current year the violence and depiction of ideology is more apparent and extremes are viewed more as normal so of course it would be more controversial, because Watchmen is actively criticizing those extremes.

>>1049585

>Fantastic way to resort to assumption accusations when you brought up the importance of themes initially

The fact that you can interpret Watchmen in so many different ways disqualifies it as a manifesto.

> I said themes ruin art not specific themes I disagree with do.

All art has themes. If you don't like themes in art, it's because you're a retard and can't actively see the themes in the art piece. Thus the "themes" you don't like are ones you recognize because the ones you tolerate you're desensitized to.

>If a character has more than one emotion and backstories along with development that's all they need to be good characters

I was arguing over the term "one dimensional". The one you used. Nice goalpost shifting there.

>When comics are a visual medium

So now you're trying to say Comics don't tell stories?

>Yes, multiple people I've met

Oh man, that anecdotal evidence.

>I hate every medium

Nice, we got the ultimate hipster here.

>I wrote out two different paragraphs about this but eventually deleted both, I'm going to make this easier for the both of us, why don't you tell me what you think art is? And I'll try showing you why Watchmen doesn't fit into your own definition.

>I was going to say, but I'm not going to say, why don't you say it instead so I don't look like a dumbass trying to define art and artistic merit.

How about you stop dodging the fucking question?

>>1049635

>The fact that you can interpret Watchmen in so many different ways disqualifies it as a manifesto.

No you fucking moron audience interpretation isn't author intention. Did people like Warhol and Duchamp teach you nothing?

You're calling me a hipster while resorting to ambiguity and abstraction to try and hold up a failing point.

>All art has themes. If you don't like themes in art, it's because you're a retard and can't actively see the themes in the art piece. Thus the "themes" you don't like are ones you recognize because the ones you tolerate you're desensitized to.

The art I've seen has no themes because it is beyond themes and focuses itself on underlying meaning that can't be dissected with 5th grade storytelling structure.

>I was arguing over the use of one dimensional

Fair enough but only because I made the point above of abstraction being a bad argument. Maybe they are 3 dimensional characters but to me 3 dimensional characters are no different in impact at the end from one dimensional ones for being average story telling popularized by average media.

>So now you're saying comics don't tell stories?

So now you're saying music, film, paintings, video games, animation, sculpture, all can't?

If you want to read books go back to /r/books or whatever place you read at because it sure as hell ain't 8/lit/.

And I want to make something very clear

Comics are not books.

Both you and Moore, or at least you might think they are and you're both wrong.

>How about you stop dodging the question.

No nigger.

No.

See I've realized that if I say that you'll resort to calling me pretentious, being too restrictive of art, a no fun faggot, or some other bullshit I know your types. The only way to beat you is to get you to have the upper hand, limit my argument and beat you at your own rules or else this whole conversation will end with us both still disagreeing neither having won and as a waste of time so let's make things easier for the two of us in a fashion that can't be denied as reaching a conclusion.

Give me your definition of art and I'll show you why Watchmen fails at meeting even that. Build it to make me fail if you want but I either have to prove it or admit you win.

>>1049648

>So now you're saying music, film, paintings, video games, animation, sculpture, all can't?

When did he say that?

>Comics are not books.

>Both you and Moore, or at least you might think they are and you're both wrong.

What thas that to do with the conversation?

You say that watchmen is not art, so you have to explain what is art and why Watchmen is not art.

Otherwise you are just not having any argument at all.

>>1049649

I said that comics were visual art, he put words in my mouth, I refuted them with more examples.

>>1049648

>No you fucking moron audience interpretation isn't author intention.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that Moore's intentions were just to satirize super hero comics by taking the mindset of certain heroes and taking them to the logical extreme.

>You're calling me a hipster while resorting to ambiguity and abstraction to try and hold up a failing point.

I'm calling you a hipster because you're literally only shitting on it because its popular. You're not trying to deconstruct it, explain why it's bad, you're avoiding any concrete arguments because I can only assume you don't know what you're talking about, you're vapid and wishy washy. That makes you a hipster.

>The art I've seen has no themes because it is beyond themes

So you're saying it's too deep for us pleb non hipsters who haven't ascended to your glorious enlightened hatred. Now THIS sounds like a manifesto.

>Maybe they are 3 dimensional characters but to me 3 dimensional characters are no different in impact at the end from one dimensional ones for being average story telling popularized by average media.

Well now you're just getting into how the characters are utilized. Which entirely depends on how you interpret the story. If you assert that the characters didn't accomplish a significant goal in the story or came to unsatisfactory conclusions in their character development, that would make them "bad characters" but the problem is this one is entirely open to interpretation, because like I said earlier, a vast majority of the Watchmen's plot is open to interpretation. Moore hasn't talked in depth about its themes at all. Some artists think it's better that way because it generates interest in the work and discussion about the themes.

>So now you're saying music, film, paintings, video games, animation, sculpture, all can't?

Nope.

>If you want to read books go back to /r/books

I'm fine thank you.

>Comics are not books.

"Comic books are not books."

lol

>See I've realized that if I say that you'll resort to calling me pretentious

You're a hipster, pretentious is a given.

>being too restrictive of art, a no fun faggot, or some other bullshit

Okay.

>I know your types

And I know your types.

>The only way to beat you is to get you to have the upper hand, limit my argument and beat you at your own rules or else this whole conversation will end with us both still disagreeing neither having won and as a waste of time so let's make things easier for the two of us in a fashion that can't be denied as reaching a conclusion.

There isn't a way to beat me because I'm right. Art isn't this subjective "Whatever suits me" classification. Objectively speaking art is WHATEVER. Whatever superfluous creation that accurately represents an idea, or a product of culture, or the embodiment of a culture. Things created in our lives aren't art. Things remembered in 1,000 years as being creations from this period are true art. While things we create in this period can be considered tentatively as art, we won't know for certain about their lasting appeal until after a majority of us are long dead. It may be a very anthropological way of viewing it, but I feel it's the most objective way to define art. It's everything that has that represents, defined, molded, and formed us as a people, as a culture, and a society. This definition however disregards works that don't hit mainstream success, which is a failing in the definition as several works greatly deserve the status as art that are more or less forgotten by time. So I guess you could say, Art is a society's potential. Creations that represent the heart, voice, and soul, which in itself is an incredibly vague definition as well. But art means different things to different schools of thought.

Qualifying something as art isn't hard in the least, because Watchmen falls under so many differing definition of it. It's the "Value" part that you seem to be hung up on. If you're OP, then you don't seem to value Watchmen's contributions to the industry or to society. It might be easier to address your problems if you actually bothered to go into detail about why Watchmen is bad.

This may require a story time.

>>1049654

>I'm calling you a hipster because you're literally only shitting on it because its popular. You're not trying to deconstruct it, explain why it's bad, you're avoiding any concrete arguments because I can only assume you don't know what you're talking about, you're vapid and wishy washy. That makes you a hipster.

No I shit on it for being overrated. Not for being popular.

>2deep4u

No the purpose is to have no meaningless depth at all that weighs it down.

>now this sounds like a manifesto

Yes.

>comic books are not books

>music uses words therefore it is a book

>paintings might contain words so they are books

>films contain dialogue

>they are books

Okay buddy.

>There isn't a way to beat me because I'm right.

Arrogance will get tou nowhere.

>Art isn't this subjective

Literally contradicted your point on how Watchmen wasn't a manifesto.

>Objectively speaking art is WHATEVER.

> Art isn't this subjective "Whatever suits me" classification. Objectively speaking art is WHATEVER. Whatever superfluous creation that accurately represents an idea, or a product of culture, or the embodiment of a culture. Things created in our lives aren't art. Things remembered in 1,000 years as being creations from this period are true art. While things we create in this period can be considered tentatively as art, we won't know for certain about their lasting appeal until after a majority of us are long dead.

Perfect. I will dedicate myself in the remaining years of my life to cuck Alan Moore and reduce Watchmen from "Top 100 novels of all time" to being forgotten by the time I die.

>Qualifying something as art isn't hard in the least, because Watchmen falls under so many differing definition of it. It's the "Value" part that you seem to be hung up on. If you're OP, then you don't seem to value Watchmen's contributions to the industry or to society. It might be easier to address your problems if you actually bothered to go into detail about why Watchmen is bad.

I'm deliberately trying to make things short here but ignoring it as a comic as a story it's easy to poke holes until it collapses wouldn't you agree? Then the same problem follows.

>This may require a story time.

Don't let that backfire on you by having Doomsday Clock or worse Before Watchmen get spammed too.

>>1049658

>No I shit on it for being overrated. Not for being popular.

Same difference. Almost everything popular is inherently over rated. It's unavoidable.

>No the purpose is to have no meaningless depth at all that weighs it down.

Which again falls into "I don't like it so it sucks!" category of whining. You don't like it so it sucks.

>Okay buddy.

Music is also used to tell stories. It's used to convey themes of emotion through voice and sound. You do know that a comic book can be completely wordless and still tell a story? I'm reminded of Gon, which still has themes about society, moral stories without a single bit of dialogue.

Also you're doing nothing but putting words in my mouth here.

>Arrogance will get tou nowhere.

Take your own advice. Yeesh.

>Literally contradicted your point on how Watchmen wasn't a manifesto.

Man, I'm starting to think you just don't know what a manifesto is. Also you did nothing to address my point.

>Perfect. I will dedicate myself in the remaining years of my life to cuck Alan Moore and reduce Watchmen from "Top 100 novels of all time" to being forgotten by the time I die.

Good luck.

>I'm deliberately trying to make things short

No, you're dodging again.

>>1049671

>Same difference. Almost everything popular is inherently over rated. It's unavoidable.

So DaVinci and Mozart are both hacks?

>You don't like it so it sucks

If that applies equally to all themes then sure.

>Man I'm starting to think you don't know what a manifesto is.

A dictation of belief.

>no you're dodging again.

You didn't even address the reason why which you initially brought up.

>>1049672

>So DaVinci and Mozart are both hacks?

Who said that?

>If that applies equally to all themes then sure.

If that's the case then it applies equally to ALL ART as well.

>A dictation of belief.

A specific declaration of personal belief and politics, usually an outline of philosophy. Watchmen isn't a declaration of anything. Multiple ideas and political positions are presented equally, the entire thing is left open to interpretation as well. Also I like how you think Comics don't count as literary work but at the same time are fine with calling them manifestos.

>You didn't even address the reason why which you initially brought up.

I didn't address your nonspecific nonanswer, yes.

>>1049561

Go get raped by Achmed, Europoor/Canaderp. Or hop a fence Beaner.

>>1049678

>Who said that?

No one did, I was asking if you did.

>it applies equally to ALL ART

You need to get your nose out of books and into film, paintings, and other mediums. Not all art has themes.

>Watchmen isn't a declaration of anything.

Yes, it is, even if the conflict is left up to interpretation Moore gives definitive answers in the story to philosophical questions, that is a manifesto.

>Also I like how you think Comics don't count as literary work but at the same time are fine with calling them manifestos.

Manifestos as I take it don't need to be literary

>I didn't address your nonspecific non answer yes

Then why should I address your nonspecific non question.

>>1049731

>No one did, I was asking if you did.

That's some mainstream media tier line of questioning right fuckin there

>You need to get your nose out of books and into film, paintings, and other mediums. Not all art has themes.

We're rehashing this argument after I destroyed you on it?

>Yes, it is, even if the conflict is left up to interpretation Moore gives definitive answers in the story to philosophical questions, that is a manifesto.

The philosophical questions are the conflict though. The question is "Who was right to do what they did?" There's multiple different ways to interpret each character's motivations, and each character walks away with a completely different take away at the end. The book never definitively states what is the right course of action, it just poses a moral question and then takes it to the logical conclusion while never resolving which character is definitively or morally right.

>Then why should I address your nonspecific non question.

My question was very specific. I asked you to clarify what parts of watchmen was bad. You didn't answer. You said and I quote: "I'm deliberately trying to make things short here" and then followed it up with a "it's easy to poke holes until it collapses wouldn't you agree?" but given your previous evasions to defining what you would call art, and all your pomp and pageantry, I'm more inclined to believe my earlier assertion that you're just a hipster and can't actually make a critique of the book.

>>1049731

>>1049849

>>1049678

>>1049672

What I want to know is, which one of you is pol ?

>>1049394

You are retarded. I bet you even skipped the black freighter parts because they didnt have enough pictures.

>>1049394

And if it weren't "literally just a joyless and edgy attack at superheroes and politics by self important losers"?

>>1049851

me

>>1049437

>to the point that he tried creating a more optimistic and happy superhero series… which I can't remember the name of

Tom Strong. You're welcome.

I think it's an important comic but there is one very flawed storytelling device that I still hate everything I read it again. Those 9 panel pages with the kid reading the comic and something in real life happening. I know they are suppose to be related but that seems obvious that you didn't need to do that several times. It always looks so hamfisted whenever I get to those parts. Was relating something to something that doesn't seem like it's relates to it but does some kind of new writing technique for comics because that seems like it should have been done before Watchmen?

>>1049412

>Why are super hero comics with overpowered heroes with no real personality besides "I'm good." so interesting to you? If you don't have gritty realism to some extent it just turns into media made for kids.There is a sweet spot between gritty realism and babified bullshit.

Pretty much this.

I've found the best stories at least attempt to make an honest attempt to answer the question "If we change this variable, what would be the implications and logical conclusions?"

Most comics don't even attempt that in favor of just being "The hero is the one who agrees with all of the author's views, and everyone else is an I AM SILLY MSPaint comic."

>>1049849

>That's some mainstream media tier line of questioning right fuckin there

It's not because the main stream never uses such tactics.

>We're rehashing this argument after I destroyed you on it?

You didn't destroy shit you took it all over the place until it dropped off.

>The philosophical questions are the conflict though. The question is "Who was right to do what they did?"

But by the end of the book it's confirmed Adrian gets cucked. Both Manhattan tells him that he'll eventually fail and that his plot will get leaked.

>There's multiple different ways to interpret each character's motivations, and each character walks away with a completely different take away at the end.

There are multiple ways to put it but at the end most things stay the same.

Adrian hasn't changed his view.

Laurie and Dan both are still the average humans who don't know how to take anything in.

Rosarch dies for his beliefs.

Nothing of change in most of them besides Manhattan .

>The book never definitively states what is the right course of action, it just poses a moral question and then takes it to the logical conclusion while never resolving which character is definitively or morally right.

Adrian still fails at the end of the book even if we don't see what happens next. Manhattans last words to him straight up tell him in the long run his work will fail. The pay off is just never shown until Doomsday Clock where they literally have to travel universes because the old one became even more asshurt after finding out about Adrian and nuked themselves. Pretty strong answer to a question to me.

>My question was very specific. I asked you to clarify what parts of watchmen was bad. You didn't answer. You said and I quote: "I'm deliberately trying to make things short here" and then followed it up with a "it's easy to poke holes until it collapses wouldn't you agree?" but given your previous evasions to defining what you would call art, and all your pomp and pageantry, I'm more inclined to believe my earlier assertion that you're just a hipster and can't actually make a critique of the book.

Yeah no my point is I can dismantle the plot of Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more with all the constant bullshit pulled out of their asses but that wouldn't make you stop enjoying them.

>>1049851

You.

>>1049883

Doomsday Clock isn't canon.

>>1049883

>It's not because the main stream never uses such tactics.

The tactic of asking inflammatory, off topic question that paint the person you're questioning as a terrible extremist? They use it all the fuckin time. The only time you've asked me a question outside of these stupid, pointless questions is when I asked YOU to clarify your points, to expand upon them, and to actually list your grievances.

>You didn't destroy shit you took it all over the place until it dropped off.

No, I pretty much destroyed it. It's not my fault you refuse to actually discuss the comic or even stay on topic. You keep latching onto tangential points of mine. It's a pretty dumb tactic. You say something, I say something to refute it, you latch onto the most retarded detail and then I refute that and it's an endless cycle because you can't debate worth a shit.

>but at the end most things stay the same.

Objectively, they don't.

>Nothing of change in most of them besides Manhattan.

Except their entire relationship, their worldview, and the implications of how they exist after the event. You're one of those people that want the Watchmen to wrap up in this nice little unambiguous bow, but you want it to AGREE with you. You want all the character to shift over to your viewpoint or the character you identify most, and the fact that everyone has a completely different way of justifying what happened pisses you off.

>Manhattans last words to him straight up tell him in the long run his work will fail.

Which is a common interpretation, but not a wholly canon one. Manhattan's statement is ambiguous. "Nothing never ends" is a general statement. How you take it entirely depends on your world view.

>The pay off is just never shown until Doomsday Clock where they literally have to travel universes because the old one became even more asshurt after finding out about Adrian and nuked themselves. Pretty strong answer to a question to me.

If Moore didn't write it, it's not canon.

>Yeah no my point is I can dismantle the plot of Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more with all the constant bullshit pulled out of their asses but that wouldn't make you stop enjoying them.

"Why didn't gandalf just get the birds to fly them to mordor inthe first place, hurr durr!!"

I think this is more you being nitpicky than anything. But feel free, prove me wrong.

>>1049935

>The tactic of asking inflammatory, off topic question that paint the person you're questioning as a terrible extremist?

Where have they? Even then you could just say "No."

>No, I pretty much destroyed it. It's not my fault you refuse to actually discuss the comic or even stay on topic. You keep latching onto tangential points of mine. It's a pretty dumb tactic. You say something, I say something to refute it, you latch onto the most retarded detail and then I refute that and it's an endless cycle because you can't debate worth a shit.

>No u

>Tells me I can't debate for shit when I told him 5 posts ago.

I know you have low standards for everything but come on buddy.

>Objectively they don't.

>Doesn't refute my listed points.

Okay buddy. Master debate artist here clearly.

But I'm the one deflecting. Okay.

>Except their entire relationship, their worldview, and the implications of how they exist after the event.

Not from what I can tell. The philosophic characters never changed and Dan and Jew Woman never have concrete enough beliefs to change.

>You're one of those people that want the Watchmen to wrap up in this nice little unambiguous bow, but you want it to AGREE with you.

Fantastic assumption but Moore did tie it up in a unambiguous bow.

>You want all the character to shift over to your viewpoint or the character you identify most,

Do you honestly fucking think that if I were that invested in Watchmen I'd be shitting on it this entire thread? You're entering Freud and Jung tier levels of Psychoanalysis bullshit now. You best stop before you make yourself look like an even bigger baboon.

>And the fact that everyone has a completely different way of justifying what happened pisses you off.

Anon's can you tell me how your views on Watchmen differ from the one's I listed >>1049883

here?

>Which is a common interpretation, but not a wholly canon one. Manhattan's statement is ambiguous. "Nothing never ends" is a general statement. How you take it entirely depends on your world view.

No Adrian straight up yells that he was victorious in stopping war, Manhattan tells him he didn't and eventually people will do it again. There's no other way to interpret that. You can't just say

>different options exist

Without listing them.

>If Moore didn't write it, it's not canon.

It uses the elements from the book to their logical end. Moore never implied an open ending just an open continuation in which Ozy fails.

>"Why didn't gandalf just get the birds to fly them to mordor inthe first place, hurr durr!!" I think this is more you being nitpicky than anything. But feel free, prove me wrong.

You can eventually nitpick something until it falls apart without a core. That's my point. It wouldn't satisfy you because you'd still be in denial.

>>1049555

the author of the second painting was actually experimenting with visual and perspectives, but of course you had to project your own bullshit into it just to gave it meaning

As an unrelated person:

Technically everything has politics and themes. As products of political environments or other themes. However, focusing on this stuff all the time is the pathway of madness. Its sort of like pattern dysphoria. Where if you look for patterns you will find them and then suddenly you start seeing 23 everywhere.

As for Watchmen its a very hollow story:

"Superheroes are dumb! And Il prove that by showing how if you had a bunch of dysfunctional people they would be dysfunctional!"

I honestly find that a recurring element of bad deconstructions. Just have all the characters be assholes and that proves that…They were always assholes?

As a standalone story is also pretty blegh. Like if you didn't know this was famous you would find yourself asking "What was the point of that? What the fuck is the point of this whole story anyway?". It's long-winded, rambly, and doesn't amount to anything.

>>1049935

>>1049951

>"Nothing never ends" is a general statement. How you take it entirely depends on your world view.

<Manhattan tells him he didn't and eventually people will do it again. There's no other way to interpret that.

You're both fucking idiots. If you paid any attention to Doctor Manhattan in the rest of the story, you'd know there's only one thing he actually meant by that. Every moment in time is simultaneous to him. The past is still happening. The future is already happening. Ozymandias' crime will never end. Those three million people he killed will always be dying, always be about to die, and always be dead. That's how Doc Manhattan sees the world.

Ozymandias doesn't have the reader's knowledge of this, so he's troubled by what sounds like a foreboding statement.

>>1049394

Are you a manchild or something?

>>1049394

Dave Gibbons always struck me as “dis comics fing, it’s jussa lark, innit?” Not self-important in the slightest. They both have way too much money to be considered losers.

>>1049394

Because it's edgy and joyless.

Bump

>>1049394

What's the most bothersome about Watchmen is that is wholesale rips off bunch of media, but people just ignore it.

>Fake alien invasion is stolen from Outer Limits episode Archtects of Fear.

>Half of Dr Manhattan's arc is partially stolen from that episode too

>Rorschach is 'what if Travis Bickle was written by a retard'

>Scene where Rorsach cuffs the murdered in a burning building is stolen from Mad Max

>Opening murder scene is stolen from The Stuff

>Winston Niles Rumfoord in Sirens is the basis for Veidt and second half of Dr Manhattan's arc

>Pancho's Happy Bottom Riding Club is ripped off from The Right Stuff

There is surely more that was taken from other works.

>>1058680

>Dave Gibbons always struck me as “dis comics fing, it’s jussa lark, innit?” Not self-important in the slightest.

a fair assessment undone only by the fact that Moore was more than self-important enough for the both of them

>They both have way too much money to be considered losers

again, can't speak re: Gibbons, but Moore went on to spend the rest of his career decrying immaturity in readers and creative bankruptcy in creatives while LARPing as Aleister Crowley and writing increasingly-autistic Victorian literature fanfiction- being loaded just meant that people laughed behind his back instead of in his face

Yeah, Moore is so loaded that he had to do Neonomicon and Crossed to pay the bills.