Watchmen

[Peng]

See Regina King playing superhero, I'm in.

[Irish]

How long until the alt-right nazis on 4chan co-opt "tick tock tick tock"?

[Ezee E]

Westworld, His Dark Materials, Watchmen... One of these needs to work out.

[Dukefrukem]

Westworld, His Dark Materials, Watchmen... One of these needs to work out.

My interest fades rapidly when it takes 2 years to pump out 8 episodes.

[Skitch]

My interest fades rapidly when it takes 2 years to pump out 8 episodes.

And if you are going to take that long you damn well better not have any coffee cups lying around ya lazy fucks

[MadMan]

How long until the alt-right nazis on 4chan co-opt "tick tock tick tock"?

Probably after the first episode hits. Nevermind their precious dear leader is going to have to lawyer up after he leaves office.

[MadMan]

See Regina King playing superhero, I'm in.

Yeah she rocks.

[Dukefrukem]

So it's a sequel

[Skitch]

Didn't we already know it was a sequel?

[Irish]

A try-hard, grittier version of "Heroes."

But then I see Don Johnson and Regina King and think, well, maybe I'll watch.

[Ezee E]

Didn't we already know it was a sequel?

That's how I thought it was too. I should watch the movie again.

[Peng]

Here for Regina King having what looks to be a very fun role.

[MadMan]

So it's a sequel

Yes. Also this looks really cool.

[Irish]

TIL: Never argue with people on the internet about Rorschach because holy shit.

I mean, I shoulda know better, right? Fuck me.

[Dukefrukem]

Haha What happened? Link??

[Irish]

Thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/justneckbea...lans_backfire/

Extra context (and Moore's full quote): http://www.stevensurman.com/rorschac...a-bad-example/

So post-Snyder, a lotta people latched onto the "but you see Rorscach is actually a BAD person" interpretation. This is true but it's also terribly obvious.

My mistake was saying, yeah, but you can see why somebody might walk away with the wrong impression, right? It's not the reader's fault. It's Moore's.

[megladon8]

Alan Moore should just write and stop talking about his own works and how much smarter he is than everyone else.

Man, that guy is a brilliant writer, but what an insufferable douche.

[Skitch]

Alan Moore should just write and stop talking about his own works and how much smarter he is than everyone else.

Man, that guy is a brilliant writer, but what an insufferable douche.

YEP.

[Ezee E]

You could've told me he was dead, and I would've believed you.

[Grouchy]

Wow, so much anti-Moore rubbish. How is he an insufferable douche? He is and has always been an opinionated man, that's we all like about his works, right? That they convey a strong message about the world we live in? His beef with DC, which is the reason why he went independent and all angry about big conglomerate superhero franchises, is completely legitimate and he's speaking on behalf of all hired writers in a way.

You could've told me he was dead, and I would've believed you.

This is just mean, man. I mean, he's not prolific, but every once and then he publishes something. We also have to take into account that he's almost self-published at this point, having renounced all royalties from film projects based on his works. Every time Watchmen or V for Vendetta appear on TV or streaming media, Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd get an update on their bank accounts but not Moore because he gave them up in protest.

I find Irish's original point far more interesting, though. There is of course some identification with Roscharch while reading Watchmen but I think this is completely valid and works for the benefit of the book. I feel this debate corelates somehow with all the outrage around Joker. Like, of course, an artistic portrayal of a man descending into madness should try and make you understand him at some point. It's a dramatic prerogative.

[Skitch]

Is that true? He hasnt made a dime off the movie adaptations?

[Grouchy]

Is that true? He hasnt made a dime off the movie adaptations?

His name is not even on the credits per his specific request.

[Skitch]

But at some stage he has to sign off on them, doesnt he? Or did he give the creative rights away to publishers?

[Irish]

I've read that Moore donates his DC-related royalties and residuals to his collaborators, not that he renounced what he's legitimately owed. I mean, that would be cutting DC a huge break and saving them money.

Meanwhile, Dave Gibbons has no problem taking the cash and having his name in the credits, which is weird and shitty.

Never thought Moore was a douche, still don't, but it's in bad taste to bag on your own readers (as he did in the quote above).

[Irish]

I find Irish's original point far more interesting, though. There is of course some identification with Roscharch while reading Watchmen but I think this is completely valid and works for the benefit of the book. I feel this debate corelates somehow with all the outrage around Joker. Like, of course, an artistic portrayal of a man descending into madness should try and make you understand him at some point. It's a dramatic prerogative.

What makes the comic so good is that everybody has a slightly different interpretation of it. Even that reddit thread had a couple of fresh insights here and there. It amazes & delights me that people are still able to do that after 30 years of talking about it.

Rorschach is a slippery because he's more layered than, say, Lori or Nite Owl. But if Moore intended the character as a critique of Batman, as he claims in the quote linked above, then I think he failed completely.