The Snyder Cut

[GloatingSwine]

Having been in a room with several smart-mouthed people who are generally not terribly interested in cooperating with each other, i can confirm that is actually about what it would sound like.

Trouble is, only one of the actual characters present should have been written like that.

What I'm saying is that if you remove all the visuals of a movie and only rely on dialogue you're not going to know what is happening. That's not a uniquely Avengers 1 thing.

In most movies you're going to have a lot better idea than you would with Avengers. In most movies you will have characters talk to each other about events which are currently affecting them. In Avengers hardly any characters actually talk to each other. They're talking in the presence of each other, but they're very rarely actually having a conversation about a subject, they're making Whedonisms.

The point of the dialogue isn't to establish disparate characters, everyone's a snarky quipper, it isn't to advance the plot because hardly any of it does that, it's to generate quotable lines.

[Keltest]

Trouble is, only one of the actual characters present should have been written like that.



In most movies you're going to have a lot better idea than you would with Avengers. In most movies you will have characters talk to each other about events which are currently affecting them. In Avengers hardly any characters actually talk to each other. They're talking in the presence of each other, but they're very rarely actually having a conversation about a subject, they're making Whedonisms.

The point of the dialogue isn't to establish disparate characters, everyone's a snarky quipper, it isn't to advance the plot because hardly any of it does that, it's to generate quotable lines.

I think youre overstating things here. The most chaotic and difficult to follow dialogues are the ones where the soon-to-be Avengers are actively fighting and arguing with each other. They arent trying to have a conversation, they are in character trying to score points and one-up each other, so having a lot of snappy one liners with very little being communicated is exactly the point.

[Fyraltari]

Ah, that makes more sense, but I also disagree with that. Most movies require dialogue for the vast majority of the plot and to explain what would happen, and the visuals are just quick and dirty exposition.

Do you want to be murdered by cinephiles? Because that's how you get murdered by cinephiles.

Cinema is first and foremost a visual medium, ignoring the fact that physical acting is very different from voice acting, camerawork, framing, lighting, the choice of cuts are the vocabulary of cinema and knowing how to use them is the core of the seventh art. A dutch angle creates unease, a long single shot following a character means confidence, a shot from below makes a chatacter seem poweful and threatening while being filmed by afar (and therefore occupying little of the frame) makes them seem powerless, dull colours show sadness and so on..

Hell Blues Brothers is a very strange example given how much of the humour is visual.

[Tyndmyr]

Using just the movie, you can make a very clear case that Rorschach is mentally unhinged and should not be considered a hero. A somewhat effective vigilante who gives some criminals what they deserve? Maybe, I guess. Delivering what the audience feels is satisfying justice to murderers (and worse)? Sure. A hero? Not even close. That the audience sees him that way is on the audience. They shouldn't leave that movie feeling like anyone was a hero. I feel like Snyder left more than enough in the movie to make that point clear.

Rorschach absolutely is a hero. Sacrificing for the benefit of others is the core of what heroism is, and he has that in spades. Yeah, he's a flawed, broken man, but one that is still a truer image of a hero than, say, Batman ever could be.

Watchman is almost a reconstruction in this light...showing us what a hero would actually look like.

I'm not sure that Snyder wholly got the comics, but some of the things are justifiable. Never showing any of the action is already unusual for a graphic novel, but for a movie? Show, don't tell is a thing. That's be a really hard thing to justify. Likewise, I can totally understand why they stuck with the more thematically consistent ending rather than giant alien telepathic squid.

The latter's more *interesting* and works better as an external threat, but without setup, it would feel jarring in a film. I'm not sure that Watchmen could be made into a significantly better film. The TV show attempt at an adaptation/sequel was certainly just awful.

I do think that Justice League was an attempt to copy Avengers, but I don't think Suicide Squad was. Suicide Squad was an attempt to copy Guardians of the Galaxy. Everything down to the colors and music choices reflect that. Neither actually managed to be good clones, of course, but I see what they were after.

[Peelee]

Context is everything though, and Avengers 1 exists in the context of it being less a "movie" and more of a two hour long celebration that the whole Marvel Experiment was working.

That might be why it failed spectacularly for me. I just wanted a movie.

[Tyrant]

Rorschach absolutely is a hero. Sacrificing for the benefit of others is the core of what heroism is, and he has that in spades. Yeah, he's a flawed, broken man, but one that is still a truer image of a hero than, say, Batman ever could be.

Watchman is almost a reconstruction in this light...showing us what a hero would actually look like.

I probably should have qualified that with comic book hero or something similar. Based on expectations from the genre, I think it's hard to call Rorschach a hero. Primarily because he kills people (even if it could be argued a number of them have earned it), but also some of his outlook. Conversely, the fact he feels how feels about basically everyone and he still tries to fight crime is heroic in a sense. I do agree that he is closer to what we would ever see in real life if someone were to take the plunge and try to be like these people. I think part of the issue is that unlike Batman, we have no indication (that I can recall) that the criminals are getting off easy and being put into an easily escapable asylum or prison. And there was at least one guy from Dan's anecdote that probably didn't justify being thrown down an elevator shaft. Also, I think his final moment was as much about putting him out of his misery as it was him standing up for his principals. He was confronted with something that was so far beyond his ability to even try to fix and he knew he couldn't do anything about it, while being betrayed by basically the only people he even kind of respected. He wanted to die at that point. I can see the argument for people viewing him heroically. The core of my argument is that that is not unique to the movie and trying to say the movie created that view isn't really fair to the movie. You can only control so much of the audience reaction. For example, there are people who seem to genuinely believe The Empire (of Star Wars fame) did nothing wrong. I am quite sure that was not Lucas' intent.

I'm not sure that Snyder wholly got the comics, but some of the things are justifiable. Never showing any of the action is already unusual for a graphic novel, but for a movie? Show, don't tell is a thing. That's be a really hard thing to justify. Likewise, I can totally understand why they stuck with the more thematically consistent ending rather than giant alien telepathic squid.

The latter's more *interesting* and works better as an external threat, but without setup, it would feel jarring in a film. I'm not sure that Watchmen could be made into a significantly better film. The TV show attempt at an adaptation/sequel was certainly just awful.

The squid line was mostly a joke. Would I have preferred the squid, absolutely. However, I realize it would require more movie to set up. Possibly 15-20 minutes of more movie, attached to an already fairly long movie. I understand why they didn't go with it. What I don't understand is the change they made. With the squid, there was the chance everything would still go to hell and kickstart the nuclear apocalypse. With this change, having Manhattan, who to the best everyone understands is a US asset, vaporize several cities and not start with New York, should have lead to a Soviet attack almost immediately. If they were going to change it, hit New York first to show everyone else that Manhattan had gone rogue. Then go down the list to make everyone else realize they are in this together.

I was also not a huge fan of the HBO series. I thought it was okay at it's best. I felt a lot of it was non-sensical. It really felt like someone wanted to take a current issue and shoehorn it into a series that wasn't about that making me wonder why they didn't just make a new series. As far as sequels go, I thought Doomsday Clock was better. I will give the show credit for using the squid though. Although, the fact it was meant as a sequel to the book and not the movie is bizarre.

[Peelee]

Do you want to be murdered by cinephiles? Because that's how you get murdered by cinephiles.

Cinema is first and foremost a visual medium, ignoring the fact that physical acting is very different from voice acting, camerawork, framing, lighting, the choice of cuts are the vocabulary of cinema and knowing how to use them is the core of the seventh art. A dutch angle creates unease, a long single shot following a character means confidence, a shot from below makes a chatacter seem poweful and threatening while being filmed by afar (and therefore occupying little of the frame) makes them seem powerless, dull colours show sadness and so on..

Hell Blues Brothers is a very strange example given how much of the humour is visual.

I can't help but notice a definite lack of the word "plot" in there, which is the only aspect of filmmaking I was talking about in reference to dialogue. I agree with you on all that, but it's not relevant to the point I was making.

[Gallowglass]

Rorschach absolutely is a hero....

I'm not sure that Snyder wholly got the comics,

I'm not sure YOU wholly got the comics.

Coming straight from Alan Moore's mouth, his intent was NOT to portray Rorscharch as a hero, but as a fascistic madman who thinks he is a hero but absolutely isn't.

While there is a large quorum of fans and readers who missed the point (myself included, when I read it as a teenager and emphasized with Rorsharch who I saw as an isolated loner who isn't understood by anyone and has strong convictions, which defined me at that age), that was the point of the author in the work.


edit: and before the inevitable "citation needed" from people who can't be bothered to google for themselves

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/100...like-yeah-this

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not sure YOU wholly got the comics.

Coming straight from Alan Moore's mouth, his intent was NOT to portray Rorscharch as a hero, but as a fascistic madman who thinks he is a hero but absolutely isn't.

Eh, my ethics vary slightly from Moore's, I'm sure. Dude's a little focused on the whole anarchy thing. He probably did intend for V to be heroic in V for Vendetta, but the guy's probably no less broken than Rorschach.

There is a great difference between understanding and agreement.

[Dragonus45]

Yea, that pretty much. I appreciate that Watchmen is a work of pure unadulterated genius and art beyond anything I’ll ever even pretend to make, a true piece of balanced beauty that actually makes me get genuinely upset every time I hear someone wants to muck about and touch its plot in pretty much any way. But. That doesn’t mean I have to actually agree with the core premise of super heroism as inherently authoritarian and wrong headed. Nor do I have to agree with his idea that Rorschach should be considered to have zero redeeming quality just because he personally viewed him that way. I don’t particularly disagree with him myself but I do see why some people look at him and see a degree of nobility in his desperate attempts to fix the world and make it a better place despite his deep personal brokenness.

[Fyraltari]

I can't help but notice a definite lack of the word "plot" in there, which is the only aspect of filmmaking I was talking about in reference to dialogue. I agree with you on all that, but it's not relevant to the point I was making.

Silent films have plots too.

[Friv]

The whole thing about Rorschach is that all of his heroic moments come when he repudiates his own philosophy and does something humane instead. Backing down from attacking his landlady because her children are present. His horror at Ozymandius's plan, a plan that actually supports his claimed motivations. Sparing Moloch.

Rorshach is a broken monster, and occasionally the traumatized human underneath is able to shine through.


Anyway, on topic: Zak Snyder is a really great cinematographer and an absolutely terrible director. I'm vaguely curious about this Justice League four-hour trainwreck, but I'm not watching it unless someone with a subscription is really invested and also the pandemic is over so I can be at their house. The chances of it being good are somewhere between slim and none.

The biggest worry for the "worst thing that could happen", incidentally, is that it will be pretty bad, but just good enough for the hordes of fans already calling to Release The Ayer Cut try to drag the DCEU back into the Snyder Swamp it just escaped from, cancelling every movie that might be fun in favour of more dour pronouncements.

[Gallowglass]

Hey I have no problem with you* having your own viewpoint of a piece of art and deriving your own message from it that differs from authorial intent. I'd go so far as to say that's a powerful and necessary function of art.

I do have a problem when someone else differs from your personal viewpoint and you say "I don't think -they- understand [the true meaning of] the piece of art" implying that you do or your viewpoint is the "correct" viewpoint.

*you in the indirect narrative sense, not you personally


My personal viewpoint of Rorsharch has evolved as I've grown older and changed. Currently, I don't see anything "noble" about him at all. He doesn't go out and fight crime and beat up criminals because he wants to help others or save humanity or protect people. Those are his excuses, but in reality, he does it because of mommy issues and a sense of satisfaction and power it gives him. The only way he feels any power over life, by hurting others. He wants to bully as he was bullied. This is why beating a jaywalker to death is the same to him as beating a rapist to death. Just an excuse so he doesn't have to recognize his behavior.

I know your viewpoint of him is different than that. But I would argue that my viewpoint, while not more VALID than yours, is closer to the message the author was trying to convey than yours.

[Peelee]

Silent films have plots too.

True. Not very in-depth plots, and many still used dialogue via text shown on-screen, and I never said it was impossible for a movie to be completely absent dialogue and still have a plot. But true.

[Mordar]

Coming straight from Alan Moore's mouth, his intent was NOT to portray Rorscharch as a hero, but as a fascistic madman who thinks he is a hero but absolutely isn't.

While there is a large quorum of fans and readers who missed the point (myself included, when I read it as a teenager and emphasized with Rorsharch who I saw as an isolated loner who isn't understood by anyone and has strong convictions, which defined me at that age), that was the point of the author in the work.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/100...like-yeah-this

I think that snippet reveals more about Moore's character than it does about his characters.

Of course, I think Watchmen gets too much credit.

- M

[Tvtyrant]

Hey I have no problem with you* having your own viewpoint of a piece of art and deriving your own message from it that differs from authorial intent. I'd go so far as to say that's a powerful and necessary function of art.

I do have a problem when someone else differs from your personal viewpoint and you say "I don't think -they- understand [the true meaning of] the piece of art" implying that you do or your viewpoint is the "correct" viewpoint.

*you in the indirect narrative sense, not you personally


My personal viewpoint of Rorsharch has evolved as I've grown older and changed. Currently, I don't see anything "noble" about him at all. He doesn't go out and fight crime and beat up criminals because he wants to help others or save humanity or protect people. Those are his excuses, but in reality, he does it because of mommy issues and a sense of satisfaction and power it gives him. The only way he feels any power over life, by hurting others. He wants to bully as he was bullied. This is why beating a jaywalker to death is the same to him as beating a rapist to death. Just an excuse so he doesn't have to recognize his behavior.

I know your viewpoint of him is different than that. But I would argue that my viewpoint, while not more VALID than yours, is closer to the message the author was trying to convey than yours.

That is the innate issue with every character in Watchmen: Is why you do things the defining nature or what you do?

Rorschach is aware of the issue, he calls his therapist out for it. So is Owlman and everyone else, whether it serves a kink or because of an overbearing Mom everyone is doing things for bad reasons. Veidt does the bad thing for supposedly good reasons, and then the reader is asked whether he or Rorschach is right. The book is an open question in my reading of it, suggesting no one does anything for pure motives.

[Tyndmyr]

The whole thing about Rorschach is that all of his heroic moments come when he repudiates his own philosophy and does something humane instead. Backing down from attacking his landlady because her children are present. His horror at Ozymandius's plan, a plan that actually supports his claimed motivations. Sparing Moloch.

Rorshach is a broken monster, and occasionally the traumatized human underneath is able to shine through.

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

In a world where everyone is flawed, it's the person who fights to overcome their flaws and help others who is heroic. Ultimately, that's what he's doing. Fighting against the evils in the world that hurt him, to stop them from hurting others. This motivation is literally identical to Batman's. He just doesn't have infinite money, a company, insane tech, or any of the other advantages Batman does.

If you prefer, you can contrast him against the Comedian, whose philosophy is more in line with his deeds...but both are generally pretty cold and harsh. I don't think many would consider the Comedian a hero.

The biggest worry for the "worst thing that could happen", incidentally, is that it will be pretty bad, but just good enough for the hordes of fans already calling to Release The Ayer Cut try to drag the DCEU back into the Snyder Swamp it just escaped from, cancelling every movie that might be fun in favour of more dour pronouncements.

That does sound truly awful, and it might happen. After all, those people who like that style might well like more of it.

If it happens, though, the DC films will likely continue to struggle to be loved by a broader audience. Say what you will about the MCU, it has managed to be enjoyed by an immense amount of people, even with its imperfections. DC hasn't ever entirely gotten there, even if occasional films do show promise(the original WW was a fun watch, for instance).

[Dragonus45]

I think that snippet reveals more about Moore's character than it does about his characters.

Of course, I think Watchmen gets too much credit.

- M

Yeaaaaaaaa, I disagree there cus I think watchmen gets the credit it deserves, but oh boy do I get more and more unhappy with with Alan Moore as a person the more I learn about him.

[Rodin]

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

And what if Veidt was right? What if nuclear war truly was inevitable in the alternate history of Watchmen? If Veidt killed millions to save billions, is he still a villain? Is what he did "evil" if it saves the world from nuclear annihilation? If Veidt sees a monstrous way to save the world and doesn't do anything, how does that play into the "with great power comes great responsibility" mantra that so many superheroes live their lives by? Do the ends justify means?

That's what Dr. Manhattan addresses at the end. There was no right answer, and there is no happily ever after. Veidt's motives were good, but whether he got good results we will never know. Maybe it was unnecessary and the world would have stepped back from the nuclear brink like in our world. Maybe Veidt saved humanity, only to doom it by creating an even worse situation when the truth inevitably came out.

That's what I like most about Watchmen. Everybody believes they are doing the right thing, and it's not at all clear that they are. Maybe the villain was right, maybe he wasn't. It's all up to the reader. That's why the book has had such lasting power. It's thought provoking in a way that popcorn superhero movies rarely are.

I enjoyed the movie when I saw it, but I think it's telling that I've never watched it since while I have re-read the comic at least twice since the movie came out. I'm glad it exists, and I think Snyder did relatively well by it given that it was one of the legendary "unfilmables". But nothing can beat the original.

[Tyndmyr]

Dunno, I think that the question of "does the end justify the evil" is pretty conclusively answered by "nothing ever ends."

Without an end, you just have evil.

[Fyraltari]

Dunno, I think that the question of "does the end justify the evil" is pretty conclusively answered by "nothing ever ends."

I would say that the proverbial five and one people tied to a train's tracks are of the opinion that something really important is about to end.

[Dienekes]

Ah, that makes more sense, but I also disagree with that. Most movies require dialogue for the vast majority of the plot and to explain what would happen, and the visuals are just quick and dirty exposition. Off the top of my head you could play The Blues Brothers with the monitor turned off and understand the vast majority of the plot and what is happening. Even with Jaws, the dialogue and the visuals pull equal weight. I don't remember much of Avengers 1 so I can't soak to how accurate the statement was, but expository and plot-advancing dialogue to other characters is a pretty major and vital part of filmmaking. So much so that it's very noticeable and commented on when it is absent.

Eh. I’m pretty sure if you remove the visuals Mad Max Fury Road becomes incomprehensible at several points. And that was the best action movie I’d seen in awhile. Blew the SWTFA out of the water and that movie basically just had people spouting their emotions and motivations all over the place.

Rorschach absolutely is a hero. Sacrificing for the benefit of others is the core of what heroism is, and he has that in spades. Yeah, he's a flawed, broken man, but one that is still a truer image of a hero than, say, Batman ever could be.

Out of curiosity who do you think Rorschach is sacrificing for?

Because I remember a man that held the idea that someone was gay as a reason to have doubt about him. I remember a guy whose opening monologue he states his desire to condemn not just the murderers but those who live in the gutter (poor people), prostitutes, and politicians.

I can’t think of a time he actually helps anyone in the whole comic. He’s just raging and murdering. That was kind of the point. Even the heroes who do unequivocally help people (Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II rescue people in a fire) do it so Nite Owl can feel like a man and have sex.

The only characters who do help people or try to save people at personal risk for seemingly no alternative motives all get killed when Veidt’s plan hits NY.

[Tvtyrant]

Eh. I’m pretty sure if you remove the visuals Mad Max Fury Road becomes incomprehensible at several points. And that was the best action movie I’d seen in awhile. Blew the SWTFA out of the water and that movie basically just had people spouting their emotions and motivations all over the place.

Also the New Bladerunner has some long moments of people staring into the distance and thinking, which I thought was nice.

I will admit that Star Trek at its best is a radio play though.

Dunno, I think that the question of "does the end justify the evil" is pretty conclusively answered by "nothing ever ends."

Without an end, you just have evil.

The End is coming though, for everyone. Life is just a giant series of efforts to hit continue, Veidt's plan might not work in the long run but neither does eating permanently put off starvation.

[Gallowglass]

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

You, as a reader, are making a fairly large assumption. You assume that Ozymandius is wrong. Or at least has a large chance of being wrong. That the world isn't 5 minutes from midnight and about to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust that will kill everyone and that his plan isn't the only thing that can stop it, at a cost of a few million instead.

Everything in the actual narrative contradicts your assumption. Every single character, every single clue signifies that Ozymandius is right. That included the omnipotent voice of Dr. Manhattan who *knows* the truth of it.

If you accept that without Ozymandius' action, there is a 100% chance everyone dies. that Ozymandius' action is the ONLY thing that prevents it, that Ozymandius used his incredible brain to try and find other solutions before having to go with the only one that would work despite the abhorrent cost, and that, by Dr. Manhattan's omiscient word, he was right and it did, then Ozymandius is the ONLY hero in that story. He literally sacrificed his own SOUL in order to save as many as he could.

By your own definition of hero, he is the hero, not the monster.

But you cling to the belief that he was wrong, that the world was not going to end, that his action was not the only action that could prevent it and that every voice, every clue, and even the omniscient voice of the man who literally knew how it was going to go were wrong.

You call his words and choice "some high minded philosophy" when the narrative makes abundantly clear, his enormous brain had psychohistoried out the future and he worked to change the inevitable.

What he did was monstrous.It was a monstrous choice, but he literally thought through every other possibility first, looking for any other thing he could to to save everyone. This was it. The narrative is clear that his choice was the only way to stop the holocaust. And the narrative goes to the effort of introducing a voice in Dr. Manhattan who is stated to be a RELIABLE narrator of the truth and he confirms it.

I mean, would you consider it to be heroic if you had the ability to save as much of the world as you could, the skills and resources to do it, but chose not to?

Adrian is living the actual Trolley problem in real life here. He has a lever. he pulls it and a million people die. He doesn't pull it, seven billion people die. You think he doesn't wish he didn't have the lever?

But what you are missing is that you think he has a different choice. Pull the leverl and a million people die. Or don't pull the lever and MAYBE seven billion people die.

The Maybe isn't there in the narrative. It's removed through great effort by the author in multiple ways.



as far as Rorscharch goes, if you actually believe he is "endlessly trying to to the right thing" then your understanding of the narrative is so far outside mine, i don't see a way for us to communicate about it.

Rorscharch doesn't try to do the right thing. Ever. He tells himself he is, sure. But he's not doing it to help others, to save others, to fix anything. He's just causing pain because pain was done to him.

Which is why, again, he's as happy to beat a jaywalker to death as he is a rapist or murderer.

[GloatingSwine]

Everything in the actual narrative contradicts your assumption. Every single character, every single clue signifies that Ozymandius is right. That included the omnipotent voice of Dr. Manhattan who *knows* the truth of it.

Read the Tales of the Black Freighter again, and apply it to the plot...

[Peelee]

Eh. I’m pretty sure if you remove the visuals Mad Max Fury Road becomes incomprehensible at several points. And that was the best action movie I’d seen in awhile. Blew the SWTFA out of the water and that movie basically just had people spouting their emotions and motivations all over the place.

I agree, Fury Road was very light on plot.

And regardless, I never said dialogue is the only way to help deliver, further, and expose the plot. Nor did I ever say that all dialogue heavy movies will be better than non-dialogue heavy movies. You can pull out example after example but you're not going to have a "gotcha!" moment here, anymore than a scientific study that concludes "blue is the most popular color" will have a "gotcha!" moment when Fred says "well I like brown!"

[Dienekes]

You, as a reader, are making a fairly large assumption. You assume that Ozymandius is wrong. Or at least has a large chance of being wrong. That the world isn't 5 minutes from midnight and about to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust that will kill everyone and that his plan isn't the only thing that can stop it, at a cost of a few million instead.

Everything in the actual narrative contradicts your assumption. Every single character, every single clue signifies that Ozymandius is right. That included the omnipotent voice of Dr. Manhattan who *knows* the truth of it.

Read the Tales of the Black Freighter again, and apply it to the plot...

Yeah just gonna reiterate what GloatingSwine is saying here. Watchman was written and released in a very specific time. Where a lot of things were happening that cannot get into on this board. But importantly, the Doomsday Clock was rolling back. The situation that was happening at the time that the clock was marking was winding down. While the situation the clock was marking hadn’t disappeared yet, it was getting pretty clear that nuclear Holocaust wasn’t likely to happen. And readers would know this. It doesn’t seem to be ending in the doom of the world.

That should color everyone’s reading of the story. That the analysis of the Soviets given within the story is wrong. It’s just wrong and people would know it was wrong. But because Moore is a pretty talented guy who realizes that some might not get that meta text, he added the Black Freighter. A story about a man who damns himself to stop a tragedy that... wasn’t happening.

And the story starts with a few soft parallels what Rorschach is going through on a smaller beat by beat basis. But at the end, so the reader knows who the story is referring to. Veidt starts to say in his dreams he sees the black frei-

Ugh, the writing is just so good.

But yes. We the reader are most certainly supposed to have doubts about Veidt and his plan.

[Friv]

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

I think we're not as far apart as it might appear, but I do think that this is backwards. (Not the Ozy part, I agree with you there.) Rorschach isn't endlessly attempting to do the right thing. He's endlessly attempting to do the wrong thing, and to convince himself that it is actually right.

That's what I mean when I say that all of his good moments are backsliding. Rorschach does good when he fails to adhere to his attempted morality. When he holds to it, he is not. The irony of Rorschach is that there is a good person buried under the pain and the hate, but it's the pain and the hate that he strives for, not the forgiveness or compassion, in the mistaken belief that pain and rigid determination is what is needed for good to triumph.

If you prefer, you can contrast him against the Comedian, whose philosophy is more in line with his deeds...but both are generally pretty cold and harsh. I don't think many would consider the Comedian a hero.

I definitely agree with you that Rorschach is a better person than the Comedian; for all that every part of his approach is horrifically wrong, he at least wants to make the world better.

[GloatingSwine]

Rorschach doesn't care if good prospers, he just wants to see evil punished.

[Sapphire Guard]

The thing about Watchmen is, large parts of it are deliberately ambiguous.
We're left not knowing if Veidt's plan would have worked, or if Rorchach's journal would be published, or if Dr. Manhattan was correct. We don't know what Rorschach was thinking when he took off his mask that time.

Ultimately, in the real world, there was no nuclear annihilation, but that thing about that is, at the time of writing, Alan Moore didn't know that either, because he was writing in a time before the Soviets fell.

Is Veidt wrong, or was Alan Moore wrong about the future?

As far as I understand, nobody is completely right, nobody is completely wrong, and the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. That's why it's such a classic.

Rorshach did honestly try to bring Blaire Roche home safe. He also interrupts an attempted rape at one point.

I'm not sure what Snyder's big misunderstanding is either. What did he do that was so unfitting?