If you thought the last Batman movie, The Dark Knight, was dark and cynical, wait until you see Watchmen, arriving in theaters on March 6, 2009. Brooding Bruce Wayne will have nothing on a "hero" that rapes his sidekick, another one that has no interest in mankind at all, one that is a megalomaniac, one that is psychotic, and one that is overweight and sexually impotent all set against a backdrop of a United States that is many shades of despair and evil. It makes Batman, The Dark Knight, seem like a festival of sweetness and light. This is the Watchmen, soon to be released by Warner Brothers. If this new flick at all follows that anti-American, nihilism of the original comic books we are in for some dark stuff, indeed.
Why do contemporary artists all seem to think the end of the world is nigh? Why has art become a thing of ugliness, instead of light? With all the beautiful things we see every day, the delicacy of a flower, the turn of a woman's arm, the grace of a bird in flight, we are treated only to the bizarre and horrid by our artists. These days we see sculptures that look like molecular mistakes writ large. We live in architecture with the image of a jumble of blocks thrown to the ground in the midst of a temper tantrum by a gigantic, petulant child. We view paintings that appear more accidental than planned. We have movies full of violence and anti-social behavior. On the radio we hear music that celebrates all the worst in man. We even have comic books that belittle heroism, that deconstruct the good and exceptional turning their heroes as cartoonishly flawed as the most obscene head case on the Jerry Springer Show.
When did entertainment turn so dark?
In the field of comic books, a 12 part series called Watchmen, created by writer Alan Moore (original author of the story that the 2005 movie “V for Vendetta” was based upon) as a political commentary on its time, was a comic book series hailed as having "transcended its origins," and so becoming a watershed in comics entertainment. This series, published in 1986, was at the front edge of a wave of comics in the early and mid 1980s that attempted to demolish the heroes of the past and replace them with a post-hero world of darkness and pessimism.
So why talk about a comic book from 1986 now? With a motion picture under development and Time Magazine placing the series on its top 100 novels Watchmen is being brought back into prominence, and now seems like a good time to re-visit the series. Since it is claimed that it had so changed the comic book industry, let’s give it a look with fresh, more critical eyes.
Watchmenwas a reflection of the contemporary political positions held by an influential minority, sure enough. But in the final analysis, it is so imbued with the over wrought and ill-conceived notions of the political left that it fails to wholly represent a true understanding of what was really going on in the world or what, in retrospect, we really had to worry about. Further, it is just the type of stuff being peddled to our kids (as it originally was in comic book stores) to which we should pay attention.
Graphically, it isn’t very well drafted. It does have the benefit of being created in the semi-realist style that began to be popular in the 1980s though. which instantly makes it better than today’s comics drawn in that horrible Japanese Anime/Manga style that has so pervaded the comic book industry of late. Thankfully, Watchmen’s was not yet an era infected by this regrettable, current trend in US comic art.
As to subject matter, it wasn't "just a comic book." It hit all the 80's hot-button issues. Homosexuality, rape, war with Russia and "the bomb," crooked US politicians, corruption, murder, sexual impotency, welfare mammas, and homicidal maniacs were all aspects of the story line. It even indulges in demonization of Nixon directly, and Ronald Reagan by inference. But it's philosophy of nihilism and anarchy was its underlying message.
Obviously, the series is a commentary on the human condition as much as it is on the politics contemporary to the publishing of the work as intended by writer, Alan Moore. Moore is from a long line of political leftists and has repeatedly said in interviews that his comic series was intended to be a left-leaning commentary on political ideaology. Man is the greatest evil of all, despair is the only possible reality, and peace is but fleeting seem to be the core messages in Watchmen. And in all of this, the western world makes it even worse. Watchmen is all told on the backdrop of a fallen and corrupt western society.
But, this idea, that man will ruin everything eventually, could certainly have been told sans the ill informed and badly thought out political commentary running underneath. The basic tenets of leftist thought that forms the basic point of view in this series are proven failures and this detracts from what could have been a better story. The fact that the Left’s ideas are failures was even realizable during the era in which the book was written and not just in hindsight as we re-read it today. From the hatred of American politics, to doubt of American character, and the equalization of all ideologies to the lowest common denominator, this series fails in its political philosophy.
Further, the cynical commentary that “justice,” or “right,” and “good” themselves are so subjective as to be impossible to define runs throughout. There is a basic assumption here that there's no such thing as heroism and that those who claim to believe in the concept or even try to put it into play eventually make a mockery of their claims of defending the innocent and punishing the guilty. That they, sooner or later, confuse the search for justice with their own selfish desires or that said search is so intertwined with their personality flaws in the first place that they only succeed in deluding themselves into imagining that justice really is being served at all by their actions.
This all reflects the author's ideology of anarchy and nihilism. A case is being made that everything is relative and that nothing can be “known” because things are different in all situations, there is no universal “right,” no natural law. We know this battle has been fought between philosophers since man first began to wonder about his condition. It was hotly contested during the Enlightenment period of the 1700s, and once again in the 1800s, and still again in the 1900s and today. So, the lamentations in Watchmen certainly are not new.
Like I said, it's all pretty dark and cynical.
To create his universe, Moore's super-heroes were created specially for Watchmen and are case studies of a series of mental troubles that would make that old fraud, Freud, run for his couch.
The Comedian represents the most cynical example of anarchy in the series. His only desire is to continue to sate his need for violence, a need he cloaks in service to his country thereby making a mockery of patriotism as well as heroism. He sees no value in anything unless it fulfills his desires. One political undercurrent for this character is to display the evil of the US government, as well as the character’s degradation. This evinces itself in a US government that apparently sees nothing wrong with employing such a homicidal maniac as an undercover agent.
Unfortunately for the author’s touch with reality, he seems not to understand that such a personality is not one a government would be able to control or trust in the long run. The reality is that a certain fealty or belief in the ideals of the government in question usually makes for the better operative.
Dr. Manhattan is the only truly "super" being in the series. Whereas the others are just normal people who have certain abilities of physical strength or mental acuity, Dr. Manhattan was a man altered by a radiation experiment into a being that can manipulate molecules. But, as a result, his problem is utter disconnection with his fellows. With all his power he still lacks any real understanding of his fellow man. He is so fascinated by the workings of things, so blinded by the mechanics of the universe, he fails utterly to ask “why.” In fact, everything is so relative to him that he can see no difference between a blade of grass, a lone molecule, or a human being for most of the series. His world is unsatisfying, though. He continues to look for that “something” that even he, with all his great powers, is unable to define.
Manhattan's politics seem to represent the ultra egalitarian "we are all the same" variety. His equalizes all of human endeavor to the same level. But, if we were to buy into this simplistic view it becomes inescapable that there really is no difference between a Gandhi figure and a Hitler. They are both "just humans," so how can their actions be so "different"? Thus such a philosophy ends up denying any "truth" for man. This, of course, goes to the heart of undermining justice and law.
The Nite Owl, an aging tech expert, represents impotency in nearly all things. He cannot stop a crime, he cannot save New York, and he cannot even subdue a friend. He can't even have sexual relations without some out of the ordinary stimulus. Futility seems his only ability in the end. His character screams that we are all helpless.
The main female character, Silk Spectre really has little meat to her role. She seems not to represent much of anything, seeming to act only as a foil or enabler for other characters. In fact, Moore is quoted as saying she is only in there so that they had a requisite female character. She seems treated that way, too. This makes her Mother's rape by The Comedian seem gratuitous and all about The Comedian's character development instead of either of the Spectres’ (the daughter takes up Mother's superhero character). We are left with feeling that this rape story line was only added to make the story seem “adult” oriented. Of course, it could be a commentary on the supposed ill treatment of women in western society, too, but looking at the rest of this story, I doubt it was meant so by the author of the series.
Ozymandias represents megalomania at its worst, most messianic form. So sure is he that he knows better that he takes away the very thing that makes man a sentient human being an individual: choice. The ability to choose our fate, choose our reactions, and direct our own lives is overridden by Ozymandias' "better" future.
Lastly is the character of Rorschach. As a child, this character’s prostitute mother told him that she should have aborted him. He was repeatedly abused and eventually snapped, turning violent. Once he snapped, he found that his wild violence fixed things for him and made people fear him. As an adult in his superhero life, he uses unbridled violence to elicit information from underworld figures and thinks nothing of casually breaking fingers to insure cooperation. He attacks a caner riddled old man to get info and basically roams about the city intimidating and causing harm to people. His main part in the comic is to act as an unbalanced mockery of justice.
Unfortunately, the series ends up being just another way to tear down standards, another way to complain about the old ways while offering nothing with which to replace them. That being the case, nothing new has been learned in Watchmen. The only thing “new” is the forum in which the questions are being raised: a comic book.
One wishes that writer, Moore, could have used his considerable talents to produce uplift as opposed to depression, to reach for the sublime instead of the prosaic, to inspire by taking the high road instead of the low. But, unfortunately, with the influence of the political view from the left upon him all he could do was take the low road. If all one can do is see the worst in man, claim nothing is ever worth the effort, and that western ideas have destroyed any vestige of light in man then you are doomed to stay on that low road. So, we end up with despair and darkness in our art, too many artists having taken the low road.
Just as sadly, we see that the political Left hasn't learned much since 1986. They still see the west as causing all of the world’s problems, still see capitulation to our enemies as the right course of action, and still feel that Patriotism and right and wrong are words with meaningless distinctions or, worse, even dangerous concepts.
Moore has lamented that his work with Watchmen had “started a whole genre of pretentious comics or miserable comics,” but since he insisted on taking that low road, but what could he expect? His politics, if emulated, ends up at this very place.
But, laments aside, Moore's epic comic book does do one thing very successfully. It reveals the empty moralizing and faulty logic of his flavor of political thinking. Nearly every leftist political point that Moore tries to sell coupled with his philosophical premises all have been tried by successive generations of humanity and with the all the same results. Utter failure has been that result. Yet, here is Watchmen subtly trying to sell the same failed concepts that have proven so dangerous to mankind -- and often murderously so. In the end, we cannot help but realize that the Left, so sure that they are the ones qualified to "watch the watchers," fail to see that it is they, rather than others, who need the watching.
--The Watchmen series is 12 issues in length and is so full of political undercurrents and topical content that this short Op Ed doesn’t do it justice. For a full review, book by book, visit our review website at - http://www.publiusforum.com/watchmen/watchmen_index.html
(image credit: DC Comics/lib.udel.edu)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's the Stuart Smalley
February 17, 2009 - 07:02 ET by HockeyKidIt's the Stuart Smalley Syndrome again. The lefties even create psychotic superheroes so they can compare themselves and claim they're OK. Truth is stranger than fiction.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Guys, freedom of speech, really.
February 19, 2009 - 15:04 ET by someloudthunderNot actually quoting you, so this isn't directed towards you.
So it's alright for the Dark Knight to be dark and grim when you can interpret it in such a light that it's pro-American? God forbid there are IMPERFECT superheroes that have REAL problems like normal people. "Hurr durr it's liberal" So what? This is America! Freedom for all for the love of God! If someone wants to write a comic book about these subjects then they should be allowed to. I mean it was written in the 80s dude, where were you then to complain about it?
Not everyone wants a silly Mary Sue for a superhero like Superman who magically gains powers every issue.
Warner, I, for on, am
February 17, 2009 - 07:06 ET by motherbeltWarner, I, for on, am stunned.
I would have thought that now, with the messiah reigning, there would be a New Dawn of Hope in Hollywood. That the liberals there would be churning out stories that would embody the new sense of optimism that has suddenly resurfaced in our country, and excitement in and for America...
A sense of.... dare I say it?.....Yes! We! Can!
Then again, what do I know???
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
LOL
February 17, 2009 - 07:15 ET by Warner Todd HustonI guess they are happier in "we suck" mode.
Back in my heyday when I was collecting comics
February 17, 2009 - 07:27 ET by HeavyChevyI admit I did have an "anti-hero" or two. MARVEL Comic's "Frank Castle; The Punisher" and X-Men's Wolverine but at that time being an anti-hero only meant you were a hero against your will but soon grew to accept it. These Characters understood no matter how much you hated being called a hero deep down inside you understood the world or in the Punisher's case a neighborhood still needed you so they still done what was right.
I stopped reading and collecting comics a long time ago when they started getting too "edgy" for my taste (and besides the fact they were getting to darn expensive)
At my last count I think I have 2000+ sitting in the garage collecting dust.
I was a big collector
February 17, 2009 - 07:29 ET by Warner Todd HustonI was a big collector between the 1970s and about 1990 when I gave them up (about for the same reason you did.)
I had about 5,000 books at one time.
You got one up on me WTH ;-)
February 17, 2009 - 07:47 ET by HeavyChevyHeck I thought I was doing something with my 2000 books!
If ya still have 'em, your
February 17, 2009 - 07:51 ET by Warner Todd HustonIf ya still have 'em, your up on me. I got rid of mine a long time ago.
I even had ever issue of Heavy Metal and Vampirella from the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Heck, I even had a pile of issues of Metal Hurlant which was the magazine from France that gave birth to Heavy Metal!
Sold them all.
Now I am lucky if I have half a dozen comics and a hundred or so graphic novels.
I collected comics a little back in the 80s
February 17, 2009 - 09:06 ET by kirch66I had always gotten into Spiderman, The Fantastic Four and Batman and Superman when I was a little kid, but my introduction into graphic novels was with a short-lived periodical called Epic Illustrated. I now have all of them in PDF format on my website. It was a lot like Heavy Metal in it's style. It was interesting at the time. Personally I get tired of the left's constant drive to deconstruct everything simply for the sake of trying to make everything seem as screwed up and psycotic as many of them are. It's easy to disrespect things when you can bring them down to your level. Which is what the left do. Ridicule everything that is good and normal until it becomes just as abnormal as they are. Then they can claim there is no moral high ground. This is all in an attempt to shut up any discussion on the subject of their perversions and foibles. This is also why the left embrass any and all subjects and peoples that are in diametric opposition to any conservative subject, regardless of how abhorrant and twisted. Hence, support for abortion, but opposed to the death penalty. Support for homosexuality but out-right hatred toward the Catholic church male pedophelia scandals. That leftist attack (which is still going on) wasn't about the gay pedophelia, it was about dragging down and discrediting the biggest opponant to homosexuality, the catholic church. The percentage of scandals compared to the over-all size of the caholic church was miniscule yet that moral organization has been tainted in the press. All to tear down yet another moral and social institution that helps to hold together western society from anarchy. It all ties in.
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
I remember
February 17, 2009 - 09:19 ET by Warner Todd HustonI remember Epic comics magazine. It had a whole bunch of Corben art with women with breasts so large its a wonder they could stand up straight. I had all of those too. It didn't last long, if I remember. I don't even think it made a whole year of issues, did it?
Oh yes, it lasted 6 years
February 17, 2009 - 10:44 ET by kirch66There were 34 issues which came out every other month. I actually liked it more than Heavy Metal because it seemed to have more of a Twilight Zone feel to many of the stories than HM had. But they were pretty similar in the boobage area I guess. lol.
I recently ran across an electronic collection with all of the issues, so I downloaded it for nastaligia's sake. I've posted them on my website because it was a pretty good try at blending the medium at the time. It brought back a lot of memories of Junior High. :P
<link>
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Great link! Yep, looking at
February 17, 2009 - 11:00 ET by Warner Todd HustonGreat link! Yep, looking at those covers, I had every one of them. I didn't remember it was bi monthly, but I did remember not a whole lot of them got published.
I had just had my first child when that magazine went out of publication... well, OK, my wife had the kid. But, I got the bills!
yep still got them!
February 17, 2009 - 09:37 ET by HeavyChevyAnd I think it's time to sell them now. The nostalgia is gone and it's time to make some money.
I actively collected them
February 17, 2009 - 07:58 ET by NewsbusterbrownI actively collected them from 1976 to 1981 (mostly DC), Warner, so I didn't have as many as you did. I still have them all, though.
BTW, I loved The Dark Knight, FWIW.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
I will try sir.
February 17, 2009 - 08:01 ET by JWFWhen did entertainment turn so dark?
June 11th 1979
(google that exactly, you will see)
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
It was even before that my friends...
February 17, 2009 - 08:52 ET by kirch66Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
...excerpt...
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Graphically, it isn’t very well drafted.
February 17, 2009 - 08:11 ET by sithkhanGraphically, it isn’t very well drafted.
Would you cite a comic work that you feel is well-drafted?
There are several comic
February 17, 2009 - 08:42 ET by Warner Todd HustonThere are several comic artists that are excellent. Moebius is one of the best of all time. Berni Wrightston is good. Anyway, there are some excellent artists that have done comics. But, I agree to the point that the good ones truly are far and few between.
Contemporary comics
February 17, 2009 - 08:40 ET by GalvanicComic books and so-called graphic novels merely reflect the larger literary/entertainment culture. Their market today is the 16-60 age group, because these people have money to buy a lot of products.
Contemporary comic books are rarely suitable for young children. Their violence is extremely graphic and gratuitous; they are sexually explicit; and their themes delve into all sorts of psychoses and social deviance. The old-fashioned super-hero is largely treated as an anachronism -- often mocked by their own authors as naive and obsolete.
The Watchmen is a dark story and a milestone in the comic book histgory, but considering that it was published in 1986, it's actually amazing that it took this long to reach the silver screen.
It's a antihero
February 17, 2009 - 09:09 ET by hillbillyhatfieldThat is what Moore wanted when he wrote it. He wanted these guys to be antihero. Everything but a hero. He was in his "mad at modern comics" phase. This was a mature comic for mature audience.
As he explains, why does a hero keep fighting and arresting the villans, just so they can hurt and kill again. When a normal person would kill for the common good. And a common person would be mentially scared from seeing all the death, destruction, and stress.
These are what actual hero's would be like if they were real. Compare it to a Tom clancy, or mickey spillane, but in comic form. It showcases the human spirit. And that spirit is usually nasty.
But to compare it just because it's a comic is wrong. If it was in novel form it wouldn't be see as harsh. Just read the above examples, watchmen don't compare to some of the stuff in them, and there targeted at the same audience. Just because it's dark and gritty it's shouldn't be in comic form is wrong. I've been a fan of this story since it came out in 1986, and I'm glad it has the R rating. It's for mature readers and moviegoers
I respectfully disagree
February 17, 2009 - 14:19 ET by UndercoverConservativeThe constant barrage trying to claim that all "heroes" will eventually turn evil, that it's "human nature" is at best a psychological projection of the author, and at worst, an enabling "excuse" to allow corruption later.
Many, if not the majority, of true heroes, pillars of community, and leaders maintain their goodness and ideals thru a combination of faith, life experience, self confidence, and like-minded cameraderie. The ones that do "fall" were often put into place by someone else with an agenda, or got lucky, or sought a position of power for their own ends and were never "good" to begin with.
the "anti-hero" cynicism thing started well enough, showing heroes as humans who could fail and maybe had a few flaws, but they'd work to become better than their "human nature" and their flaws were things to be dealt with instead of their defining characteristic.
But, most "artists" are selfish people, who beleive their "creativity" is some sort of "super power" that, since they get paid for what they dream, makes them "better" than others. They know they are often unable to handle power, unable to help others without taking advantage of it, and this knowledge carries over into their works, whether it's movies or comics. The same type who fights gun ownership saying gun owners would commit random acts of violence or escalate angry situations into deadly duels, is the type who would do exactly that. But they won't admit that it's their own personal weakness, they project it upon others who have proven *not* to have that weakness.
The "human spirit" failing also gets used as an excuse, like in Chicago politics, to justify corruption. To not take a stand, to not do the right thing and actually fight to change for the better...just claim "human nature is nasty" and it becomes something you know you cannot win against. Tough fights need a winning spirit, not an attitude of failure at the beginning. Accepting evil as the "human condition" is a fallacy and a weakness of spirit. Faith, in whatever form one chooses to find it, is the countermeasure.
Which, is why some of the same groups that love to spread this ideal of "nasty" as a human norm, are also the same that attack Faith. And coincidentally, are against guns too. Funny how that works sometimes...:)
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is like calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same&quo
Actually, Alan Moore wasn't
February 17, 2009 - 14:35 ET by BosTarusActually, Alan Moore wasn't railing against human nature... in fact, the Watchmen was, in a way, a celebration Of human nature. The book is a counter point to comic book culture of the day-his argument, as he's said himself, is that our world is actually better off without these hero figures which so much of comicdom celebrates. Basically, he's saying that we don't need these heroes, we do better on our own, without relying on the saving graces of a select few.
Yes, these are anti-heroes... but only because he believes the world would be a worse place if superheroes actually existed.
I have to Agree
February 17, 2009 - 16:57 ET by UtherpendMoore wrote these books to counter all the larger than life, unrealistic super heroes that everyone had grown up with most of their lives. This was an experiment to see how the comic culture would react to super heroes that had many of the problems and in some cases extreme problems that many today suffer from. It was a look at how we long for a utopia while ignoring the dirt and filth in our own street and staring us in the face every day.
I myself have been an avid collector of comics since I was 8 years old and my collection today totals more than 5000 issues of magazines and comics. Though my tastes have refined down to just a handful of titles every month and I have stopped collecting magazines all together I still keep my hand in the mix. I have seen the industry go from the likes of Tony Stark in a grey iron suit to the red and gold icon we know today.
What I have discovered and that many nonreaders have no clue is that the comic book has grown up. In the 60's and 70's the heroes never had to worry about the consequences of thier actions. Nor did they ever seem to be actual people you would find walking down your local streets so over time they became a parady of themselves. From the 80's to the present the "super hero" has grown up and has in my opinion become better. Most of the stories show the reader that every problem or situation has many different solutions and not all of them are perfect. But the main characters adapt and try to do what is right and to try and perserve their own sense of right and wrong. These moral battles are played out in the stories in varying degrees regardless of the titles. Without them the current movies such as TDK and Watchmen would still be as campy as the Batman movies of the late 60's.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that Feeds you."
I myself can't wait for this movie
February 17, 2009 - 09:10 ET by SQL_SamI have heard about this graphic Novel, I still need to pick it up an give it a read before the movie comes out. From what I've read of the story line, it sounds very interesting - and is going to be hard to bring to the silver screen. For the people that are whining that it is not superman - well DUH! I'm not going to let you guys spoil my excitement for this movie. It is supposed to be dark, it is supposed to the anti-superhero in a sense, so get over yourself that it doesn't follow superman's motto of truth, justice and the american way - sometimes you guys really are grasping at straws here - ITS A MOVIE. Lets be honest the best part of the new batman movie was the Kieth Ledger's role of the joker - the most true to life super-villan we've seen in a while - you couldn't get enoough of him on screen. I'm just hoping the watchmen can close to that.
Moore is Dark in general, anyway
February 17, 2009 - 09:13 ET by ScoopPC11You know you have a reputation when you get featured on The Simpsons reading a Little Lulu comics because another character tells you to "lighten up." :-)
I haven't read a comic in awhile (not since my brother stopped collecting them), but I think most comics were on the "dark" side when you read further into them. It's not necessarily always a bad thing, but you are right that it can get depressing if that's all you see.
"I did it 30 minutes ago"
February 17, 2009 - 09:21 ET by RiharI remember reading this not too long after it came out. Yup, it's pretty depressing. I liked the story though. It took a petty shot here and there but otherwise it was just a bunch of superheroes that wanted to matter but didn't... really.
I'm just waiting for the reviews about the end of the movie and the comparisons to 9/11. Get your BDS boots out because although it was written LONG before the Bush administration. There will be comparisons, oh yes. There will.
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Why do contemporary artists
February 17, 2009 - 09:36 ET by danebramageWhy do contemporary artists all seem to think the end of the world is
nigh? Why has art become a thing of ugliness, instead of light?...When did entertainment turn so dark?
I'm amazed anyone needs to ask this. The answer is obvious: entertainment has turned dark as the "entertainers" themselves have rejected the light and embraced the darkness.
We are in a pagan era now unlike the pagan era that came before. Ancient pagans operated from a position of ignorance. They lived before Christ and did not know Him. They were therefore of a completely different quality from the pagans today, who have knowingly, definitively, and with malice aforethought rejected Him. "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)
It really is that simple. One's political views follow from one's religious views, or lack thereof. All of the sickness and perversity of modern leftism is easily understood once one grasps that leftism is fundamentally a negative creed: it is what results from the conscious rejection of and hatred for the objectively true, good, and beautiful (i.e. Christ). Those who hate the truth embrace falsehood and call it truth. Those who hate the good embrace evil and call it good. And those who hate the beautiful embrace the grotesque, the homely, and the repulsive, and call it beautiful. Is there anyone here who does not recognize the whole of the leftist creed in those three short lines? Understand them, absorb them, make them your own, and you will be able to predict every move the leftist makes with pinpoint accuracy.
Very well said.
February 17, 2009 - 10:02 ET by ckbennetttnYou may also read Romans 1 to gain an understanding of this.
Obama: 'I screwed up'--We're going to be seeing this a lot.
because they didn't know him?
February 17, 2009 - 11:03 ET by SQL_SamSince he "the One" died ages ago, it's fair to say you didn't know him either.... Here's a shocker, if Jesus was Jewish, how come that religion isn't good enough for you? Why not follow the religion Jesus was? And Don't bag on the Pagan's remember all that stuff about tolerance with other people's religions or beliefs, well you seem not to be showing it, and sound very elitist. Then again it's just my opinion. I know this is going to drive you crazy, but please don't respond, I don't care to hear your religious take of how you know "him", and how non-christians will burn in hell blah, blah, blah. I am not Republican because of the religous right, I'm not Democrat, because I'm not a socialist. So for all of us who are in this middle ground, I just want to say it gets annoying to hear about religion on a political site - again just my opinion, no need to respond.
Um...
February 17, 2009 - 11:06 ET by Warner Todd HustonBecause, in the end, Jesus was not "Jewish." He formed a new covenant that replaced Judaism and that was the early church.
So, Jesus was not religiously Jewish.
Why did you respond?
February 17, 2009 - 13:12 ET by SQL_SamDo you think I care about your beliefs? Can you read english? Or is it that when it comes to religion you guys can't drop it even if asked to - I mean I thought I was clear. Maybe you should think about that, when someone spouts an opinion (wrong or right) and you HAVE to make a comment. Maybe this is why people are getting annoyed at "you people" - hmmmm.
I can read. And clearly you
February 17, 2009 - 22:33 ET by Warner Todd HustonI can read. And clearly you are an idiot.
You sure seem to hate
February 17, 2009 - 23:12 ET by BO STINKSSQL - You sure seem to hate a group of people who will NOT cut off your head just because you disagree with them. Of course, I am sure you feel the same hatred, fear and loathing for those fundamentalists, correct? Because that fear and loathing of Islamic Radicals would at least make some sort of sense!
"If your cause is just, if your principles are pure & if your conduct is prudent you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts." John Witherspoon
I am actually a huge fan
February 17, 2009 - 09:47 ET by NeoCon JediI am actually a huge fan of the Watchmen. It was a revolutionary vision for its time. The one character you failed to mention was Rorschach. A man who turns to fight crime after bearing witness to a horrible rape and murder, followed by the brutal killing of child. He may be psychotic, but his ideas of justice for the innocent and silent majority is well placed. He is the true anti-hero, like Wolverine and Punisher, doing whatever it takes to stop evil where it stands. To me, that what we need in today's "PC" world ... you don't back down from evil, you stare it in the face while you beat it down.
"So this is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause." -- Padmé Amidala
Hey, you're right. I have to
February 17, 2009 - 09:53 ET by Warner Todd HustonHey, you're right. I have to add him. Thanks for noticing.
I always liked these comics
February 17, 2009 - 10:10 ET by ckbennetttnObama: 'I screwed up'--We're going to be seeing this a lot.
Wanna-be superheroes.
February 17, 2009 - 11:31 ET by mizflame98After doing a bit of comic research, I decided not to see this movie because it seems more like a spoof or actual comic book heroes than being substantial characters that can stand on their own. There is no imagination or creativity about them. Example:
Rorschach: Based on Question
Dr._Manhattan: Based on Captain_Atom
Nite_Owl: Based on Blue_Beetle and Batman. (I think an appropriate comparison to Nite Owl would be Die_Fledermaus due to his incompetence, but I digress)
The_Comedian: Based on Peacemaker, Nick_Fury, and G. Gordon Liddy. (Again, the more appropriate comparison in my opinion would be Big_Shot, but again I digress)
Ozymandias: based on Thunderbolt.
Silk_Spectre: based on Black_Canary and Phantom_Lady.
In short, the characters are corny spoofs of good comic book heroes. Probably the reason why the Watchmen only ran for 12 issues. I don't see this movie really being all that great; except to the Watchmen die-hard fans. I don't see this enticing new fans to the Watchmen franchise. I predict a weak box office grossing and it probably won't be as daring as Spawn; which in my opinion is the pinacle of disturbing comics.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Oi... here's why...
February 17, 2009 - 11:48 ET by BosTarussee, if you had read a little further when doing your "research" you'd realize that the characters bear a resemblence to those characters because DC originally wanted Moore to right a series for their newly acquired Charlton properties (captain atom, the question, blue beetle, phantom lady, etc)... but when Moore proposed the story, DC decided they didn't want to completely brutalize their future properties... so instead they told Moore to continue writing the story, but using characters based on those. The similarites aren't accidental. And it wasn't a short lived series, it was a 12 issue mini series... never meant to go beyond those 12 issues. And if you're comparing Spawn to the Watchmen, well... i dunno what to say. Next time, finish reading the wikipedia page.
Did I say it was accidental?
February 17, 2009 - 11:55 ET by mizflame98No, I just pointed out that there is no imagination involved in it. But, why should my opinion stop you from enjoying substandard comics? Go forth with yo bad self and boogie down with the Watchmen.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Ha, "substandard"... i
February 17, 2009 - 12:05 ET by BosTarusHa, "substandard"... i think its silly to think that just because the characters are based on existing archetypes, doesn't mean they lack creativity. That's like saying Shakespeare wasn't creative when he wrote Julius Caesar or Henry the VIII because he didn't invent the characters. I don't think we judge all artistic merit on novelty of concept. If anything, then no one's been creative since 1939 when Batman first hit the stands... you've got Superman and Batman... every character after that is just some sort of derivative of the two...
Anyway, the books great, certainly don't let the fact that Moore didn't create brand spanking new heroes stop you.
You forgot...
February 17, 2009 - 14:45 ET by mizflame98Wonder Woman. She is the mother of all female superheroes. But, thats Ok. No one is stopping you from enjoying Watchmen. I just think that it's a substandard comic. You don't have to agree with me, but I find it funny that you take so much offense over what I say. You're starting to remind me of this_guy.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
That's fine if you've read
February 17, 2009 - 16:50 ET by BosTarusThat's fine if you've read it and you don't like it-but from your post, it sounded like you hadn't read it yet... so saying you think its substandard without even cracking the book seems a bit pre-emptive, don't you think? I mean, if its not your cup of tea, then say that...but don't say its substandard...especially since i get the idea that you might not even appreciate the standard... i dunno.
And yes, i did forget Wonder Woman, though arguably she's mostly just a female superman... but extremely important in comic history-so you're right about that.
As I said,
February 17, 2009 - 17:06 ET by mizflame98This movie will attract the Watchmen fans and not recruit new fans.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Charleston Characters
February 17, 2009 - 18:41 ET by sithkhanActually, Moore approced DC with the story and wanted to use The Charleston comic characters for the story. The Charleston imprint was not in current publication, and Moore felt that the archetypes he used in the story were well represented. DC declined the use of the characters, so Moore and Gibbons created analogues of the characters. Moore used "spoofs" because he was not allowed to use teh real things he desired.
Watchmen ran for twelve issues because that was all that Moore wrote; his story was conceived to be a twelve-issue arc, and was published as such.
As for the imagination, can you remember what comics were like in the 15 years prior to publication of Watchmen? For one of the Big Two to publish this type of story was HUGE - it marked a maturing of the mainstream comic form.
Is it dark? Yes. Is it preachy? Yes. Is it the finest graphic novel to date? Yes.
No man lives on Archie Comics alone.
Not to be a jerk...
February 17, 2009 - 11:43 ET by BosTarusbut your analysis betrays only a very cursory understanding of the material. It's like you only read the first 3 issues and stopped there. You also seem to misunderstand nearly all of Moore's goals and meanings-if anything, the book is best informed by the context of the comic book industry at the time. It's absolutely foolish to think that just because a character is anarchic-the author is therefore espousing anarchy.
And to claim that "Graphically, it isn’t very well drafted" shows a terrible understanding of comic book art-both historically and modern. Dave Gibbons revolutionized some of the ways we visualize comics-and his 9 panel layout created some of the most brilliant and still talked about visual dichotomies in comic history. It'd be like complaining about shot placement in an early Hitchcock movie. Also, your description of modern day comic art bears no resemblance to what you'd actually find if you walked into a comic book store.
I understand you acknowledge that there's alot more to talk about because the source material is so dense-and I'm sure you get alot more accurate in your longer breakdown, but your summation seems so off point that I worry how it could be. I think you guys should stick to what you know-writing about liberal media bias and all that. Leave the comics to us nerds please.
Like most who love this
February 17, 2009 - 11:48 ET by Warner Todd HustonLike most who love this dreary comic book, you refuse to take the word of the ACTUAL author of the work, preferring to only accept things that continue to make your favorite book a "good" one. HE said it was a commentary on how evil America is, HE is an avowed anarchist from a socialist English family, and HE said it was all about politics.
Why do you comic fans insist on IGNORING what the person who wrote the thing says about his own work?
And, for your knowledge, I went to college for Art, read every magazine as they originally came out in the 1980s and had been a comic collector since the 1970s before that. So, contrary to your uninformed assumptions, I know comics (up until the time of Watchmen, anyway. I quit after that and am not informed on the industry much since that time).
Ha, I'm definitely not
February 17, 2009 - 12:00 ET by BosTarusHa, I'm definitely not disregarding what Moore has said about the book-I've read a ton of what he and Gibbons have both said about it-I've even heard Gibbons talk about it a few times-unfortunately Moore pretty much refuses to come state side to talk anymore after a bad experience at San Diego Comicon a few years back-so i haven't been lucky enough to hear him speak.
He's talked about this damn book so many times that he's said practically everything imaginable at this point. In fact, he's become so annoyed with the process that it seems his answers have been getting more and more glib as time has gone on-so you could probably attribute any quote you want. He's said "its all about sex", "its all about history", "its all about vietnam"... basically he's probably claimed "its all about" anything at this point.
Yes, it is extremely politically motivated. But the fact is, the Watchmen was mostly informed by the comic books of the era-Moore's unhappiness with the industry at the time, and a sense of concern over growing political paranoias... If anything, politically, its a cautionary tale about not letting cold war era paranoia's define our existence. In fact, the comic within a comic, "Tales of the Black Freighter" (which Moore has also claimed "it was all about") deals with the undercurrent of fear and paranoia-and what that does to one's psyche-and in the end, one's loved ones... anyway... its an historic work-and can be interpretted many ways... and Moore doesn't help too much as far as giving us guideposts to understand it with. I just felt your reading of it was very narrowly focused-as a result, i think you missed alot of the material.
Also, i still can't forgive you for the bad drafting comment. Heh.
its only a movie for crying
February 17, 2009 - 12:31 ET by patmac49its only a movie for crying out loud......don t go to see it if it would upset you,and don t review unless you have seen..i do not think these thing are trying to say america is evil...just that we have evil people here like any other place..
Actually...
February 17, 2009 - 16:23 ET by digdog1I think you're a tad too harsh on the book version, which actually has a lot to recommend it. For example:
-Dr. Manhattan is a fascinating creation -- the most "super" hero of all, whose power only serves to isolate him from the rest of humanity.
-I've always looked at Ozymandias as a representative of the elitist intelligensia who seize control of the levers of history because they know what's better for us that we do -- a timely lesson in the current age of Obama Nation.
-Rorschach is flawed, broken, and a tad psychotic, but he's an unapologetic dispenser of justice who only hurts the bad guys -- which makes him the Jack Bauer of the mid-80s.
-And I really must come to the defense of Dave Gibbons -- who may not have the visual flash of more boisterous comics stylists like Jack Kirby, but whose style is perfectly suited to the work at hand.
Watchmen is a significant piece of work that shouldn't be dismissed simply because of its dark tone. It and Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" are the two most significant comics series of the mid-80s period. That they spawned countless inferior imitators (including the two most recent Batman films, IMAO) doesn't detract from their achievement.
Making movies, TV shows,
February 17, 2009 - 22:15 ET by balboaMaking movies, TV shows, books, about "the darker side" of humanity has been around forever.
I enjoyed The Watchmen. I like Sandman better, but Watchmen is good.
Warner, Have you
February 17, 2009 - 22:25 ET by compmanWarner,
Have you noticed that Zack Snyder is directing this movie? Zack also directed "300". Hardly a liberal movie. Hopefully he'll be consistent. He has also gone on record saying that he "loves" Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Here is the link (sry for the MTV link):
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1553677/20070301/story.jhtml
ps, sry for the late post, i just got here...
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill
Hopefully he'll stay
February 17, 2009 - 23:13 ET by balboaHopefully he'll stay faithful to the original.
I Think It Has More To Do With The Persecution Of Cartoonists...
February 17, 2009 - 23:31 ET by The7SticksThere's an excellent book I've mentioned before called The Ten-Cent Plague by David Hadju, which takes an in-depth look at the great comic book scare of the 1940s-to-50s. It describes the origins of how the comic book industry was being pulled into congressional hearings because the government had responded to a report about the so-called "corrupting nature" of comics by Dr. Frederic Wertham (a report that Dr. Wertham, himself, largely discredited by 1970.) Back in the late 1940s, there were all kinds of comic books that depicted romance, horror stories, crime stories, all kinds of stuff that were drafted on whatever the cartoonists were able to draw on. There was some speculation that these hearings may have had more to do with high-class societal prejudices against the cartoonists, who were mostly poor European immigrants (many of them Jewish), but the main reason was that the comics industry was allegedly corrupting the culture and the children. The hearings pretty much forced upon the industry the Comics-Code Authority, which censored even the least objectionable material (like horror stories, in which old hags that looked like, well, old hags had to be re-drawn to look more like Mary Worth. You can find the side-by-side comparison in the book's photo section in the middle.) It pretty much all but destroyed the industry as it was then, with labels like EC Comics being forced into closing down. From then until the 1980s, comics became rather bland (save, of course, for most of the Marvel superheroes, which somehow managed to be creative while abiding by the Comics-Code.)
I think the overall point here is that cartoonists deeply resented the government for overreaching their authority and causing them to flee into exile over what seemed to be a trivial issue. Dr. Wertham explained that not all comics were bad and that the government shouldn't have such a foreboding presence over creators and artists. However, it seems to me that this was the feeling that cartoonists had gone through, making them go underground to create their works and make such radical transitions in the comics. I have a feeling Watchmen wouldn't exist as it is, if at all, if it weren't for that brief period in the 1950s where a comic book maker's freedom of speech was being threatened by government censorship.
No longer a comic fan
February 18, 2009 - 04:05 ET by steelermikeI began buying comics in the early sixties whenever I could scrounge 12 cents (or 25 for the "80pg Giants") and started seriously collecting in the late 70's thru 2000. I still have almost all of them- over 10,000. When the Watchmen books were released, I recall enjoying them for the novel approach to the superhero, the great art, and the high quality paper. At the time I had yet to formulate a worldview or political philosophy and as a result did not read the books through a lens.
In my opinion, comics took a bad turn in the mid nineties when the industry began to lose sales volume due to paper costs (thus driving the price up dramatically) and the aging out of its audience. Books that once had enjoyed production runs of 150K were called a success if they sold 30K. Comics became edgier (mirroring popular culture) and the line between good guys and bad grew thinner. The villans no longer committed crimes for the usual reasons (money, power, revenge, or chicks-not necessarily in that order) and their motivations became more twisted- torture for the sake of torture made to look like fun. It got worse after that. Iconic heroes from the 40's summarily wiped out by some two-bit bad guy in order to boost sales for the umpteenth "Crisis on ..." epic (I'm thinking Seven Soldiers of Victory or Uncle Sam, The Ray, or Phantom Lady here). The writers' political and social views creeping into storylines. Yes, we knew where Denny O'neill and Neal Adams were coming from with GL/GA in the seventies, but at least they were straightforward about it.
The last straw for me was when they rewrote backstories trying to convince us that indeed Hourman was a drug addict and enjoyed the head-rush he got from Miraclo.
It's my hope that The Watchmen does well in the theaters as I have 12 backer-boarded-mylar-wrapped books waiting to hit Ebay! Rest assured that the film will be much darker than the books ever were in order to satisfy an audience that craves more twisted behavior with each passing year.
Readers were clamoring for
February 18, 2009 - 10:31 ET by balboaReaders were clamoring for something more complicated, something edgier. Why is Wolverine so popular? Because he's a mystery, he can lose it, and sometimes he doesn't do the right thing.
Edgier characters
February 18, 2009 - 14:43 ET by steelermikeBalboa, No argument there. I was a big fan of Wolverine (have 2 copies of his first appearance in Hulk), and the New X-Men. While he was always a conflicted character, there was no question as to whether he was a "good guy"and noble.The stuff I'm referring to came a good 20 yrs. later and went well beyond "edgy". Roy Thomas adapted Wagner's "Ring of the Nibelung" for Thor in the late 70's- plenty complicated, very thought provoking and intelligent and not written for the Archie and Jughead fans.
To the comics industry's credit, the books have lightened up a little over the last few years but not enough to make me a paying customer.