If you didn't understand he is the hero it is because you are a smelly commie spiteful mutant
If you didn't understand he is the hero it is because you are a smelly commie spiteful mutant
If you didn't understand he is the hero it is because you are a smelly commie spiteful mutant
The whole point of this character is that he's a moron with a narrow and unrealistic view of the world. The reason he was designed with a black and white mask is because he literally sees the world in black and white. He has his redeeming qualities but all his monologues were supposed to be schizo ramblings (and they are), he is not a role model.
If your moral standards is "flexible" then you have no real moral standards. This is how leftoids justify the atrocities that they support
Moral standards are meant to be flexible moron. A person stealing bread to eat is different from Black folk looting stores.
>Moral standards are meant to be flexible
Absolutely not. Standards aren't reliable if they are flexible
>Leftoids justify their atrocities by being completely uncompromising and absolutist in their moral dogma
Incorrect. "If leftists didn't have double standards then they would have no standards at all" anything that forwards their ideas is good and anything that hinders it is bad. They don't care about colonialism either except when it can be used as a criticism against a western nation
Moral Standards are less meant to be flexible and probably more in service of something. A reason as to WHY you hold those values and views, and holding people to a standard rather than giving them free pass because somewhere in your morals it says you should dick ride them. Rorscach's morality is literally created to compromise his desire to help others and right wrongs but his frustration, anger, and sadness at everything he confronts going on from Childhood. Not to mention his massive blindspot for all his biases, Rorschach is a heavily biased man claiming a moral view free from bias.
Rorscach a hero, probably the closest thing you can call the hero of Watchmen since the book opens on his point of view and the duration of the story is focused on his arc. But it's clear his positive qualities are mostly in spite of his views.
He's just disappointed at autists totally whitewashing all the nuance off a character her put a lot of effort into building.
Wasn't expecting a based poster in this thread
Finally, someone with sense. Rorschach WANTS to be this morally uncompromising crusader but he is just human. He has a lot of inherent biases due to his fricked up upbringing.
When he meets Manhattan, he tries to sidestep the Comedians rape because he idolized him. Where were his unflinching morals then? In the edgy quote OP posted, he seemingly thinks the city is beyond saving but when it's nuked, he is reduced to tears.
People claiming Alan Moore is moronic are basing it off his recent quotes but he put more thought into this character than people realise. Really, the biggest mistake was in assuming wingcucks are capable of nuance. I say wingcucks instead of /misc/tards because leftards always go "UMMM, ACKTHUALLY SWEATY RORSCHACH IS WRITTEN TO BE PSYCOPATH WHO SHOULD BE HATED" when the event that caused him to become an extremist was the rape and murder of an innocent child.
this. he's a complicated character that a lot of people havent understood at all.
She wanted it, so it wasn't rape.
It was complicated. All the more so because she went back to him afterwards and Laurie is his daughter but he wasn’t allowed any part in her life or upbringing. Not to say he would have been any sort of suitable father, but a part of him wanted to connect with his daughter, whom he could see some of his better qualities in. Moore’s character writing is great because the characters are all pretty messy, trying to make excuses for their problems instead of addressing them. Just like real people.
I'm surprised there are still a few sane anons left on Cinemaphile who haven't had their brain rotted by political console wars.
Leftoids justify their atrocities by being completely uncompromising and absolutist in their moral dogma.
>colonialism is always bad and a forever wrong, so it's okay for us to destroy the cultures and communities of colonizers
The whole appeal of being right wing is that you're a chad Nietzschean who picks ethics that are empowering and let you live a heroic and masculine life, instead of being a weak homosexual worm because you were born with some imaginary privilege
You are exactly the kind of person Rorschach is a commentary on. Not every left winger is the same.
>Not every left winger is the same
lol
lmao
You laugh but he's right. Go ahead and list the views you think someone of left wing mindset would believe
Completely backwards. Leftism is the epitome of rules for thee, not for me. They operate on "no wrong tactics, only wrong targets" and other similar excuses. Anything they do is justified because it's supposedly for le heckin greater good and if you oppose them you oppose the greater good and are therefore evil so any atrocity is justified against you.
Did you miss the part where Rorschach himself has flexible moral standards and is willing to make excuses for people he idolizes like the Comedian?
>t,
>he is not a role model.
kek get frickd moore, a lot of people do want good in the world and don't care about your shitty gray lines lol
seethe more mooregay
Frick off SOIGPT. He had the most realist and pragmatic world view.
He was supposed to outright be the character The Question to dunk on The Question's Ayn Randian ideology. They had to make him an original character so they could kill him.
No. They just couldn't get the rights.
That's why they couldn't get the rights. They backed out when they learned he'd be killed.
The only one with the narrow unrealistic view of the world is his creator that was too drunk in the filth of all his sex and murder.
My homie. He's 100% right
>Implying
He was right. The world is very black and white, I don't know why the left has such a hard time figuring out. They can always ask me. Morality is simple as frick.
You have autism
Based. No matter how long threads stay up and how many posts chuds make in it, these are the only type of posts that matter and I read.
>"heh, having unbending ideals is...LE UNREALISTIC! Now brb gotta go to the blacked raw convention."
Yeah, and he’s compelling because he’s rather die than compromise on his values. He fully intended to tell the people the truth: that millions had died at the hands of a billionaire genius who wanted to create an imaginary enemy for humans to fight. An enemy that doesn’t actually exist. It doesn’t solve the problems that are inherent to society, it just creates a bigger problem (that doesn’t exist) that takes attention away from the problems that need addressing.
Indeed, “if you don’t believe in something you’ll fall for anything” taken to its most extreme.
>"Men get arrested, dogs.. get put down."
Absolutely Mega-Giga-TetraBased
He's the best character. I have no idea if the movie is good but I like the comic.
The movie is really faithful but it also misses the point a lot. It has style but a cheesy, kind of moronic style.
if you liked the comic you'll like the movie
*if you like Batman V Superman
He's also the best character in the movie as well.
Its takes some liberties to change certain set pieces but for the most part it's a faithful adaptation.
People b***h about not getting the exploding squid but it's a small miracle it was as close to the source material as it is.
It's shit. Watchmen should have been a miniseries, not a movie
yeah the miniseries was much better, fellow crack smoker
I'm saying the original comic should have been adapted into a miniseries like Taboo for instance, so the full story could be given justice and sideplots could be covered fully. The fact there's some gay, pozzed up US tv show that used the Watchmen name is of zero relevance.
Possibly but you wouldn't have gotten the budget or cast you got with the movie nor a director like Synder just autistic enough to try to keep the look faithful to the book.
Nowadays and as shown by the watchman series multiple characters would have to be various races, Rorschach has to be cartoonishly evil and the only white man, you'd be working with a budget enough to only hire canadians and film it in Canada.
ligma
>make a human character with no real superpowers
>make him obsessed with cleaning up the scum and corruption in the world
>pit him against a genocidal megalomaniac and an autistic inhuman god-man
>give him an unshakeable moral code that he lays down his life for
>shocked when readers/audiences like him
is Alan Moore moronic?
He was never supposed to be objectively evil and 100% in the wrong. He was a deeply flawed hero with a very questionable worldview, but he was still a hero. You're missing the point if you think you were supposed to hate Rorschach, the characters in Watchmen were supposed to be realistic and complicated human beings instead of simple charictatures who were all good or all bad.
that's a cute theory but the person who made it disagrees
No that is how he wrote the character in the 80s but decades of interacting with creepy, smelly nerds turned him against his own work.
he is the creepy smelly nerd
Also pedophile and all around weirdo.
>is Alan Moore moronic?
Pretty much.
Wonder if anyone has ever asked him to sign their copy of the movie before
He’s a cantankerous, narcissistic, communist so yeah. Pretty miserably moronic man.
He's a leftist who didn't grow out of it as he got older, so yeah, he's terminally moronic and spiteful old frick.
They're all supposed to be extremes, even Owl. You're not supposed to root for any particular one, you're supposed to weigh the pros and cons of their respective viewpoints. I don't think Alan meant for Rorschach to be unlikable (his sense of justice is played pretty nobley till the end), but you have to understand that looking at the world in black and white is just coping, and not conducive to getting actual good work done.
>is Alan Moore moronic?
Yes
>smelly
I see this word too much now for it to be organic.
Ozymandias looks at people as numbers and thinks he has the right to decide people’s fates for them therefore he can’t be seen as the hero do they expect you to see Ozymandias as the hero or in the right?
You obviously weren't, though you miss that Ozy tries to put an emotional element to his genocide to play at that he's not as callous as his actions prove. He's the opposite of Rorscach who preached indifference yet his breakdown is purely because he actually knew all the faces in New York that Adrian says he envisioned and mourned.
I personally see Ozy as a hero.
Ozy is great
>Ozymandias looks at people as numbers and thinks he has the right to decide people’s fates for them
Its a great comparison to Dr. Manhattan, who starts the story without humanity and ends it understanding the value of a human life, and ends up leaving to avoid doing any real harm. Meanwhile Ozy comes across as the most human, most personable, most empathetic, but he's the one who commits mass murder (somewhat pointlessly). It was Ozy who was godless and disconnected from humanity, and his only character arc is being shown this by Dr. M.
The Comedian was right anyone else in the Watchmen are coping you cant save human nature
But he died trying to save them
He died because he couldn't live with the lie and having his world view and morals destroyed.
>moore makes ozymandias his mouthpiece
>everybody identifies with rorschach instead
didn't work out so well did it alan
For me it's the comedian, but I understand why a seething, manlet incel would appeal to anons here.
Vigilanteism just means community-based punishment
The state demonises this to maintain the monopoly on legitimacy of force
But the state does not care about you or your community except as it threatens them
Communities can and should take action to look out for their own interests, to include responsibility for their own safety
>Vigilanteism just means community-based punishment
no it's explicitly an individual thing
Is a posse not made up of vigilantes?
Is it? I'm not sure that's true
When communities in the american south lynched suspected rapists, it wasn't one guy it was many working together, for example
that's not vigilantism that's mob rule
Fine, do you agree that vigilanteism can be a collective activity?
I define it as something like "application of justice outwith the state's prescribed justice system"
imagine basing your entire life's philosophy on principles you arbitrarily make up. not only are you stupid, you're a narcissist.
Biggest proof of death of the author in public media
>Moore makes conservative hero
>Miller makes liberal hero
Turns out comics was the perfect word.
Watchmen is the ultimate example of something aging poorly.
>Reagan is going to a cause a nuclear war between the two mighty superpowers!
>billions must die (to save millions)
Meanwhile in reality the Soviet Union collapsed and they were never as strong as America to begin with.
It's a product of Cold War paranoia.
>Watchmen is the ultimate example of something aging poorly.
Not really. It's set in an alternate timeline where Nixon is still president on his fourth consecutive term, the US won in Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghanistan war has escalated to the point where the US is about to get involved. Ozymandias is portrayed as having superhuman levels of prescience and intelligent and has determined a nuclear war is inevitable. I don't think the intention to comment on the actual cold war situation was as strong as people retroactively think it was.
Think that poster unironically has autism tbdesu.
Are you being ironic?
Obviously not. But go ahead and explain your rationale for why you think what I just described relates to the actual doomsday clock scenario in the 80's, and why the subsequent trailing off of the cold war means Watchmen has aged badly.
Are you asking me to explain why the Cold War getting hotter is related to an eventual nuclear war?
No, I'm obviously not asking that. Why don't you read what I actually said? Are you ESL or moronic?
You should write clearly before calling anyone ESL.
What exactly do you find unclear?
Your point
Not my fault you're stupid. I said it quite plainly. Watchmen is inspired by the 80's cold war climate (amongst other things) but it isn't allegorical by any means - and to think that it "aged badly" because the cold war fizzled out is bizarre. It's a fictional timeline with an entirely separate sequence of events that led to the setting in the comic.
This clears up why I was confused. You're so wrong it was unbelievable.
Yeah, you said that already and I responded:
>ahead and explain your rationale for why you think what I just described relates to the actual doomsday clock scenario in the 80's, and why the subsequent trailing off of the cold war means Watchmen has aged badly.
Why not answer instead of feigning that you don't understand (or worse yet, being an actual moron)?
You want me to explain how a story about trying to prevent the cold war going hot has nothing to do with the cold war?
No, I'm not. Why are you just repeating your post from here
? When I said explicitly what I want you to explain. Namely:
>explain your rationale for why you think what I just described relates to the actual doomsday clock scenario in the 80's, and why the subsequent trailing off of the cold war means Watchmen has aged badly.
Your refusal to do it again will be considered a concession of your defeat and admission that you are a brainlet.
He's completely ineffective at solving the world's problems and spends his time beating up thugs and degenerates at the bottom of societies dredges. Hes basically a janny, and all he does is seethe about how bad things are. His entire plot in uncovering the watchman conspiracy was the most he ever did to improve society at large, and even then his biggest contribution would have been exposing it.
Its what happens when society's problems are complex and all you have is a hammer, you turn problems into nails. In this case though, Ror never realized how impotent he actually is, and the truth of his character is that often times the ones who can see the world's problems are the ones least capable of changing it for the good. It turns out society is structured this way to insulate itself from external change. Ror's story ends up being heartbreaking and pointless, much like our struggles.
Isn't Alan Moore a literal satanist that does rituals and stuff like that?
I have only read the comic and saw one clip of the movie and his voice in it is fricking hilarious.
Watched that part of the monologue again and it's pretty clear he's not supposed to be likable just from that. Also is the voice supposed to be cool or something it's like Batman if he had asthma. Makes it kinda weird having a cringy monologue with a supposedly cool voice.
If you like Watchmen's rorschach you should pick up a bible. This quote is basically taken from Jeremiah.