Just finished watching the movie. I have yet to read the novel. Just a point about your criticism. two world wars didn't prevent more killing. Though more people died int those wars, they were not killed by god - and certainly not by a god who used to be on our side. So humanity behaves itself lest it be once again smotified by a god that isn't even paying attention. God, as always is all that can keep humanity behaving itself, whether he exists or not.

William, you must not have read my post.

I was talking about the movie. The movie was jam packed. If you don't have a good general knowledge, you won't get it.

I've never read the book. I can only imagine that the book explains everything so that if you don't have a good general knowledge, it will fill in the gaps for you.

I stumbled across this post because I was searching the net for any other insights or references in the movie I may have missed or to confirm the things I did pick up with a like mind.

Sol

Your critique is simplistic and I don't think you understood the movie at all.

The value and messages in the movie (I'm now keen on reading the book) are steeped in reference, allegory, parody, and sliding doors. Without a decent general knowledge you're probably missing most of the movie. The movie (as I expect the book to be) are absolutely jam packed.

Examples of pop-cultural references you need to watch/read:
- Movie: Dr Strangelove (war-room scene and dialogue with russians from) and general theme of a "doomsday" device that forces the russians at bay (adapted in Watchmen as Dr Manhattan).
- Movie: Apocolypse Now (helicopter scene with Dr Manhattan in vietnam) brutality of war.
- Movie: Mad Max (aka The Roadwarrior) - post nuclear apocolypse movie made during the time the Watchmen was penned.
- Song: Times Are A Changing, during the prologue which re-writes history in a new alternate reality
- Song: Mozart's Reqium, a "death mask" piece, appears in Adrian's final scene and cements him as a self-fashioned lord of the underworld
- Book: 1984 (by Orwell), an artficially generated perpetual war and terror "us vs them" is used to create a sense of common enemy to align states.
- Book: The Blind Watchmaker. A book by athiest and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, writing about the occurence of life, evolution, and its unbiased nature (no god involved). The Watchmaker theme is explicit in the movie with a) title of the movie, and b) Dr Manhatten's dad is a watchmaker who teaches him this trade - resulting in the clockwork machine on mars and Dr Manhattans general philosophy (which is NOT bound by the dichotomy that either humans "are or aren't worth saving".. it's simply neither).

Some of the of historical references you need to read:
- The Manhatten Project = the projects by the US that resulted in the first atomic bombs, and the reason for Dr Manhattan's name and result of his nature and how he is used.
- Egyptian Mythology: the statues in Adrian's palace are of Anubis, lord of the underworld
- Egyptian Mythology & Macedonian History: Adrian's pet is a tiger with the ears of of Anubis in jackal form (Alexander the Great introduced tigers to the western world and had as pet)
- Two periods in history where WWIII appeared imminent were in the 50s/60's (Khrushchev, Castro, Bay of Pigs with "duck and cover"), and in the 80's during the era of Regan and Thatcher. The movie/story is a juxtaposition of these two periods.

Some of the parody you should be aware of:
- The loss of innocence in the notion of the "American Dream", "the American Way", a point made very clear in the dialogue between the Night Owl and Comedian.
- The loss of innocence of the 50's superheroes, who in that era where idealised as saints, and bringing them back down to earth.
- Nixon and Kissinger as babbling idiots and the military leaders.
- Nixon is not challenged or criticised in the movie that the lost of the eastern seaboard due to nuclear strike is an acceptable loss if all of Russia is wiped out - whilst the wiping out of major cities by Adrian is challenged.

Some of the philosophical issues debated:
- "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few"
- Absolute power corrupts absolutely
- Ruling elites/classes (the heros become this even though they are supposed to protect from this).
- Dichotomy of good vs evil (where Dr Manhatten (continuously referred to as a god, is mostly devoid of attachment for human life) and his counterpoint of Adrian who sets himself as lord of the underworld and saviour of humanity through dirty deeds.). Both of these are very non-judeochristian views, but tie into ancient versions of dieties who have their own agendas.
- The line between madness and genius
- The ends justify the means
- Game Theory: My enemy's enemy is my friend (that mankind only ever unite in the face of a greater adversity)
- History is written by conquerors
- The Effect of Context on perception of actions: (Killing in war is war or murder? Pushing the button to kill is ok if you're a president but not if you're a superhero? A police uniform gives rights to uphold the law but other uniforms do not?)

Maybe you'll get more out of this movie if you see it during a reasonable hour. 12am session! no wonder people were falling asleep, and no wonder you're brain wasn't switched on.

When i first watched this movie i was similarly appalled at the quality of such a movie and how i couldn't seem to immerse myself due to inaccuracies. Supposedly regular people punching through brick walls, throwing people through plate glass windows and catching bullets? My friend sitting next to me however was a comic enthusiast and completely understood all the various questions and contextual influences outlined in G-Mans post.

It was not until i had spent analyzing both the movie and the comic version of the text however that i began to understand how these features were irrelevant to the questions posed by watchmen. It is a text of its time and reflects this just as many science fiction texts do. It makes comment on society and simply uses the form of flawed superheroes to do this.

Also the superheroes are really just people who for whatever personal reason decide to put on costumes and fight crime. There's nothing special about them besides a good physique and for most a good amount of intelligence. Dr. Manhattan is more or less a god due to his capacity to change and create things. Manhattan thinks the way he does because he is no longer human and the world he experiences is facts and science. He's naked because he doesn't have human self consciousness. Also your comment on not caring about fanboys or whatever, trying to fit all the novel had to offer in a movie is not possible. You being the lazy presumptuous person you are chose the cheapened version of an interesting story. You should think about retiring from blogging or whatever it is you do, hiding behind the internet to make unfounded and not very well thought claims will only make you dumber than you seem to be already. Don't have kids either, I'm assuming you're straight and that woman don't find you repulsive, the world needs less retards.

I loved they way they bridged different generations throughout Watchmen, both with props (like the floppy discs) and with music

Watchmen was designed for philosophical debate, but you seemed to have missed the big questions it asks. For instance, you state: Even an elementary philosophy student should understand that either

a. Human Life has intrinsic value

b. Human life does not have intrinsic value

If human life has intrinsic value it would be worth saving by definition.

The question Watchmen asks is not if humanity is worth saving, but if it can be saved at all. In Watchmen, humanity is on the cusp of annihilation and will destroy itself. Even after humanity has been "saved" the moviepals_comments on human nature imply that nothing has really been accomplished apart from buying time for the human race. Eventually humanity will destroy itself, even if it hasn't done so this time. If humanity authors its own destruction, does it deserve to be destroyed?

But this is only a side argument, the real big questions being proposed regard abuses of power and utilitarian objectives. Is it okay to kill 20 million people if I save 5 billion? That's the premise from which the "villain" Adrien Veidt is working. He says yes it's okay, and Roshach says no. Beyond that, the story wants you to make a mental leap and realize that there are governments, corporations, and individuals who make these decisions in real life, and you and I are potential casualties of those decisions. Alan Moore's other book "V for Vendetta" expands on this idea a bit more fully.

You also stated: These are the type of people who I believe will love this move

Individuals that honestly believe we’re all doomed and that hate “human nature”
People that only watch the pretty colors and visual effects and take no time to think about the themes and philosophy behind the scenes.

I really think you might benefit from a rereading of the original story, or a bit more thought into what you saw. Like all philosophical and moral debates, Watchmen is intended as an affront to your own or the generally accepted notions of human nature and morality. It is intended to be introspective, and you should be asking yourself what is human nature, and what is moral. But beyond this, you should be challenged to justify your conclusions.

Historically, the cold war struck every one with fear of nuclear holocaust (the setting of the movie). What prevented war was an idea referred to as M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction). When Watchmen ends, the world is "saved" by fear. Fear is what prevented war in the 80's, and if the U.S.S.R. had not collapsed, would fear have been enough to keep us alive up to now? Those are the big questions Watchmen asks, and which you seem to miss in your review.

I liked your article but it had a lot of grammatical mistakes that made it difficult to read. Give it a quick proofread for edits (use some commas).