“I wanted to kind of make this like, ‘Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world...

>“I wanted to kind of make this like, ‘Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world.’ But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic. So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?’”

Why are Rorschach fans such incels?

Attached: 03B679A6-72EF-4AED-93E6-6BB9F9831EBA.jpg (798x407, 56K)

Other urls found in this thread:

twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html
stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/
nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-punisher-logo-st-louis-police-plain-view-project-20190712-dcskdnuefvaw5kpvn63wbxf4r4-story.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because "muh stonch conservative"

Attached: 1563760670423.jpg (583x627, 47K)

For such a well-read writer, Alan Moore completely neglected to remember readers love an anti-hero. They love it when an asshole does evil things to even bigger assholes.

People feel sympathy if they have a sad backstory, and Blair Roche is a pretty sad one.

>fans like the one character who never falters in his convictions, and still wants to bring justice to the man who nuked New York and killed millions of people
>WTF, fans are disgusting, this character smells and is mentally ill, how dare they like him

I don't believe alan moore actually said that

Literally that's what Rorschach is. But in the narrative he's one of the only people trying to save the world from a madman. He knows there's a conspiracy to kill masks and is willing to stop it at all costs.
Yes he's a short smelly hobo, but he's also a huge underdog who was totally right.

Rorschach never does anything wrong though, there are heroic characters that have eschewed creature comforts and lived lives of stoicism and humility before. In fact, Rorschach was instrumental in bringing the Watchmen together to confront Veidt, potentially saving millions of lives.

I know he's 'fucked up', like as a person, but he still tries to do the right thing, even when everyone else has given up people they are publicly maligned. What *exactly* is this supposed BIG problem with Rorschach?

He’s really not as smart as he thinks he is, he can tell a good story but more often than not whenever I read in depth interviews on his views on his own work he has downright retarded ideas about stuff

Also, who the hell is the Moore approved character that fans are allowed to have be their favourite character in Watchmen if not Rorschach? They’re all either pathetic, evil or bareley human. Why is liking rorschach more than Ozymandias or Dan or Manhattan supposedly a horrible thing Alan? You contrarian piece of shit

I don't think Moore's opinion of Rorscach is quite so cut and dry, I think he had a certain romantic appreciation of him.

>Rorschach definitely fucking cared about saving them
Reread the opening page. Psychosis working for the right cause is still psychosis.

Is he right wing? He just seems to hate everyone, mildly unsurprising in his condition.

Cool, i'll probably pick up vol 1 then.

This Rorschach might have cared about some people (he valued his friendship with Dan and that little girl's death was what fucked his mind up), but he was still crazy.

He’s based on Ditko’s Mr A and Question, so yeah, he’s hard right wing,

>As with the rest of the main characters of Watchmen, Alan Moore based Rorschach I on Charlton Comics characters, using them as a "starting point".[4] The characters Rorschach was specifically based on were the Question and Mr. A, two comic book characters created by Steve Ditko.[4][5]

>Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology. Regarding Rand's philosophy, Moore said he personally found it "laughable". In spite of this, Moore had a healthy respect for Ditko despite having different views politically. Moore recalled that Ditko's very right-wing agenda was quite interesting to him at the time, and that "probably led to me portraying Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character".

liking a character its not the same as idolizing it
look at how many retards go around pretending to be nihilistic and cool like the joker or rick?
you can tell the difference right?

No, he did not care much about saving them. He says so when he is daydreaming about a day society comes crumbling down: "The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No.""

By the time Rorschach could do anything, the damage was already done. He could only undo Ozymandias' plot for world peace out of principle "Fiat justitia ruat caelum".

Ozymandias cared about the people he killed more than Rorschach cared about the people he saved (I can't even recall him saving someone).

>is he right wing

Read the first page of the comic lol. Literally complains about communists and liberals

In the opening page he talks about saying no when people ask him to save them. But his actions go against what he writes.

I suppose it depends whether you believe words or actions are more important in showing what a character actually believes.

Ozymandias for example, talks about how he feels the guilt from killing millions of people, I guess that means he’s a good guy? Lol, I don’t believe for a second he felt any guilt for their deaths.

Rorschach lies to himself, he cuts himself off from society and talks about hating it, while also doing everything he can to protect the people in it from what he sees as evil

Attached: 17DA14AA-0C14-4569-9FC5-901B2169749A.jpg (1021x1600, 695K)

>No, he did not care much about saving them. He says so when he is daydreaming about a day society comes crumbling down: "The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No.""

I guess you also believed Ozymandias when he said he felt guilty for the deaths of the millions he killed, right? Lmao

Ozymandias cries by himself and thanks and apologizes to corpses of his helpers. Who is he doing that for? Ozymandias isn't pretending by the time he is found out.

And while I probably would side with Rorschach on the moral problem of building peace upon a lie, it is clear that Ozymandias doesn't enjoy killing and hurting people. Rorschach absolutely does.

there's no reason to disbelieve either of them. Rorschach was writing in his own personal journal and it's clear that Ozy was shaken by what he did and desprate for Manhattan to reassure him that he was in the right

But someone who's crazy, has mental issues and is otherwise undesireable but still tries his very best to fight for people, help where he can and do the right thing is pretty heroic, isn't it? Trying to emulate him one to one like suggested is just people missing the point, isn't it? I can see someone idolizing that even if they're smelly, hated and unloved, they still fight as hard as they can to make things better for everyone, and even if others can't stand him and he can't stand other people, when the time came for him to fight for them, even die for them, he still gave his everything.

I dunno, I kind of admire that Moore wanted to imply that a real batman would be a piece of shit but accidentally showed a character more heroic than Bruce is written by most writers. A Batman with nothing and loved by nobody, who has legit mental issues that makes it near impossible to function like most people, but in the end still just wants things to be better and is willing to stare down a freaking god in pursuit of that is kind of admirable. The worlds shitty to him, he's a smelly ass hobo screaming conspiracy theories to them, but in the end he's not an evil person, despite his flaws.

So this is probably why the new show is going to fuck it all up.

But Moore is two of those things too.

And on top of that, Rorschach is a 5’6 manlet who weighs 140 pounds

Attached: F5A4AC68-CADD-4A85-A261-C3D83B3C5D6F.png (540x360, 285K)

Take note that your comments have already been addressed and answered in this thread, in all the previous threads, and in the comic itself, yet you will continue to pester these threads with the same shit.

>But his actions go against what he writes.

I don't think they do. Well, to be more precise, I don't think that Ror at the START doesn' go against that. He seems pretty damn willing to let people die at the start, but as he reconnects with his old friends and learns about all that was going on with Ozymandis, his view of people reshapes subtly. I kind of see him as a bitter teen at the start, daydreaming about everyone who hated him begging him to save them and he just turns them away because that would be so cool, but by the time he's actually at the final battle he's moved past that long enough to realize that people are worth saving, its after the prison escape that he seems to just outright stop fantasizing about being in a situation of power over all those people he mocked in his head during the first half.

Rorschach died because he believed Adrian was right but was too autistic to let the principle of the matter go. It had nothing to do with saving people.

>So this is probably why the new show is going to fuck it all up.

I have some level of faith in Lindelof to do it justice desu

The Leftovers adapted the book brilliantly, and the following seasons that passed the book were even better

I think the Rorschach gang is gonna he portrayed as bad guys, but with sympathetic reasons (likely that the government has gone some level of authoritarian and fascist)

In addition. The main character, the vigilante black lady, seems to share Rorschach’s black and white mindset too based on the trailer, just likely to different aims Than the rorschach gang

Rorschach died because he refused to compromise, and he wasn’t dumb enough to think trying to punch a god was worth trying. He knew he was a dead man, so he accepted it. IMO largely because he knew his journal would mean the issue wouldn’t go away entirely

>But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic
What? No they aren't. Well maybe the not having a girlfriend thing is now, sort of, but it really wasn't at the time. The problem isn't that people think smelling or being a kissless virgin are heroic traits, it's that Rorschach comes across as an idealistic crusader who "never compromises." And the story never actually shows the downsides of this in a way that the readers care about. Did Rorschach ever attack drag queens in the streets or something? Petty criminals trying to food or money to scrape by? No. Everything we hear about him is him bringing the thunder to evil, despicable people or assholes who "deserve it." It's the Punisher problem, essentially, except of course Punisher's best stories are written by people who want you to like Frank, so it's a bit of a different thing.

Moore simply failed to show why a character like Rorschach is ultimately terrible for the people around him by never actually showing how that happens. Just from what's in Watchmen, Rorschach simply seems like a tragic figure who is willing to go through terrible shit to try and futilely fix a broken world. If Moore wanted people to get something else out of the character, he should've written the story differently.

Attached: 1421441153193.jpg (1080x2563, 780K)

Also, "smells" is a dumb thing to think people will care about in a fucking comic book. We don't have smellovision comics yet, Moore. He's pretty ugly, but people don't particularly care about male character's being ugly. Maybe if he was morbidly obese people would have a visceral reaction to his appearance or something. Maybe a terribly skin condition?

If he wanted to he could have just left at any time and lied to Manhattan. That journal really doesn't matter as it comes from someone who is notably mentally deranged and a conspiracy crackpot. Doomsday clock doesn't factor into this because it's been a fucking shitshow on every level.

Moore seems to think that readers should base whether they like a character on how satisfied that character is with their personal life rather than things like comvictioms, determination and heroism

>Did Rorschach ever attack drag queens in the streets or something? Petty criminals trying to food or money to scrape by?
uh, kinda? Rorschach doesn't differentiate between criminals and views them all as irredeemable scum. He breaks a guys fingers for making a snide joke about him and threatens to kill a cancer patient who had already quit being a criminal. his crusade against crime is meant to be viewed as delusional, fanatical, and ultimately accomplishes nothing

>If he wanted to he could have just left at any time and lied to Manhattan

1) Manhattan would know he’s lying, both because he already knows what will happen, and because he knows rorschach would never let this go

2) Rorschach wouldn’t lie, because he isn’t a liar, Veidt is a liar, Dan and Laurie are happy to be complicit in a lie. Manhattan is beyond caring. But for Rorschach it’s just another point of conviction that cannot be broken.

Tragic/flawed heroes who lose or fail and have all too human flaws (ego, hate, some Achilles heel). If Moore doesn’t want an audience to sympathize his character why did he write Rorschach that way?

Christ what a petty man

>Is he right wing? He just seems to hate everyone, mildly unsurprising in his condition.
>I don't believe alan moore actually said that
I have no idea how you two could read Watchmen and not understand how ridiculous your comments are:
twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html
>Steve Ditko did have a very right-wing agenda (which of course, he's completely entitled to), but at the time, it was quite interesting, and that probably led to me portraying [Watchmen character] Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character.
stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/
>In an interview he gave to LeJorne Pindling of Street Law Productions in 2008, Moore said the following:
>You could put a superhero in the real world for a dramatic effect, because they are kind of stupid.
>So, I thought, ‘Alright, if there was a Batman in the real world, he probably would be a bit mental.’ He wouldn’t have time for a girlfriend, friends, a social life, because he’d just be driven by getting revenge against criminals… dressed up as a bat for some reason. He probably wouldn’t be very careful about his personal hygiene. He’d probably smell. He’d probably eat baked beans out of a tin. He probably wouldn’t talk to many people. His voice probably would have become weird with misuse, his phraseology would be strange.
>I wanted to kind of make this like, ‘Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world.’ But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic. So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?

Attached: helper.jpg (498x573, 49K)

Insular losers need some form of validation because they don't get it from real life. They don't want to face the fact that their life is a complete failure, so they build up a worldview with their comic book internal monologue in which they are tragic heroes in a decadent sheep-minded society. By putting everyone else down and being cynical, they get to feel like an enlightened snowflake. And they didn't have to do any real work to achieve that status. All they had to do was delude themselves and tend to contrarian views.
As for other fans of rorschach,

The only difference between your description and Alan Moore is that Moore has had some success writing comics (albeit he kept failing when it came to understanding basic contracts)

Is this a motherfucking watchmen refference? (Not because the kid, that's how hollis mason book starts)

He saved some whore in an alley

There wasn't a conspiracy to kill masks, though
Ozymandias killed the Comedian because he needed to silence the guy, and also because he just didn't like the guy. It's not like he was planning on continuing with every other cape after that.

Imagine being this guy lmao

And yet among all those fucked up characters Rorschach ends up being the most heroic of them all, because people can relate more and understand about the possibility of killing a fucking pedophile than killing thousands of people in New York to achieve an utopia.
The moment everyone decided to keep Veidt's secret, they became villains in the eyes of so many people.

>If Moore doesn’t want an audience to sympathize his character why did he write Rorschach that way?

Rorschach was not just a tragic hero with an achilles heel though. He was clearly made to represent a degenerate weirdo with aggressive political views and a heart full of hatred.

I think Alan Moore nailed it perfectly if he meant Watchmen to be a nuanced look at objective and subjective morality delivered through compelling and believable characters facing a tumultuous era of politics. If he meant it as “subjective morality good, objective morality bad,” as many people say he meant it as, I think he failed, and Watchmen just so happened to be good despite of it.

lmao based

>They love it when an asshole does evil things to even bigger assholes.
I remember seeing an interview with some of the guys who created Judge Dredd talking about how he was supposed to be a parody of American action heroes and their tendency to shoot first and ask questions later ( the Cowboy mentality ) which had gotten really dark with anti-heroes in movies like like Deathwish and Dirty Harry.

And the kids LOVED HIM.

So they doubled down and made him even more of an over the top fascist ... AND THEY LOVED HIM EVEN MORE!

Turns out that a significant portion of the population really enjoys watching someone going on a powertrip as long as they can self identify as the tripper rather than the tripee.

[cries in anarcho-communist]

Honestly, it's pretty pathetic that people can't grasp a fucking comic book, and even worse that they proceed to call the author an idiot.

The problem is that there are only 2 active characters in Watchmen, a far-right hobo who is wrong about everything, and a guy who kills 2 million people. There are very few people would want to identify with, much less relate to, Ozymandias.

>Rorschach never does anything wrong though
He went into a seedy bar and just started beating up random strangers when he had no leads and the action ended up being completely pointless. I doubt that was the first time for him either. Rorschach has some admirable traits but he's still a violent nut with a chip on his shoulder using crimefighting as a way to cope with his almost broken mind.

and then the same thing happened again with the authority, and the punisher, and robocop, and a clockwork orange, and fight club....

Rorschach is the only character aside from Comedian and Dr.Manhattan who are likeable in the comic because they have nuance.

I guess that people like Rorschach because he only tortured villains and apologize when shown wrong, or stops when he's wrong.

Veidt is hard to like because he killed innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war in order to stop a nuclear bomb.

No he didn't. The narrative obviously paints Rorschach as, if not a heroic figure, at lest a sympathetic one. Dude's just doing what these keyfabe motherfuckers do and changing his tune.

It's the former, people think Moore intended the latter are brianlets that never really understood what Watchmen actually meant.

>and the punisher
I don't think the Punisher was supposed to be a parody, user.

Punisher is just a 1:1 adaptation of 'street justice' a la Deathwish ( which, if you've never seen them, is about a guy who's wife and daughter are raped and murdered by gangbangers so he buys a gun and goes out looking to get some payback ).

Marble tended to to that a lot:
Shang Chi = Bruce Lee
S.H.I.E.L.D. = Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Iron Fist = Kwai Chang Kane from the tv show Kung-Fu ( with a touch of Lost Horizon's Shangri-la )
Luke Cage = 70's Blackxploitation like Shaft

But you're DEAD ON with the Droogs from Clockwork Orange and Robocop.

And speaking of The Punisher you also you get amazingly tone-deaf shit like this:
nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-punisher-logo-st-louis-police-plain-view-project-20190712-dcskdnuefvaw5kpvn63wbxf4r4-story.html

Sympathetic tragic anti-hero != role model. Of course you were supposed to feel bad for him otherwise why he wouldn't have been killed off. But feeling bad for an insane person and bragging about being one are two different things.

>I don't think the Punisher was supposed to be a parody, user.
i didn't mean he was a parody i meant that he's someone that isn't supposed to be admired but ended up becoming viewed as a stereotypical "badass" by certain people who missed the part where Frank is portrayed as guilt ridden and addicted to violence. The police story you posted is a good example of people missing the point and idolizing him for the wrong reasons

It kind of doesn't help that a lot of media especially comics is based round fantastic spectacle rather than making a point. So you say that he's supposed to be addicted to violence and guilt ridden but there are also obvious scenes that are just obvious power fantasy of "Wouldn't it be great if these bastards got their fucking commupance." and just dumb action. And that's even if the people who missed the point are actually fans rather than just knowing Punisher through osmosis as the badass with a lot of guns and a really cool logo.
And they're fictional, people actually idolize real fucking criminals because they think they're cool.

He only beat up a dude who came at him with a bottle

Fight Club had a slightly different ending, and epilogue, in the book; the changes in the film's ending kinda undercut it.

The Droogs aren't really admired, they're just memorable and stylish. The Punisher has issues with tone deafness from his writers in that Frank is largely just another superhero and what differences he had have slowly been stripped from superheroes in general since his debut. In what way is Frank condemnable that wouldn't apply to modern Iron Man, for example?

He is a unironic anarchist.

You can always relate to the owl and the silk spectre...

Look at your life. How can you say that you're supposed to identify with "active people."

>so they build up a worldview with their comic book internal monologue
Projecting.

All you fags cant appreciate Alans dry wit.

Frank's first appearance was as a Spider-Man villain, he wasn't depicted as particularly heroic. He didn't get his solo books until the tough-on-crime 80s.

Can someone just go up to him and explain why we loved his writing? The more I hear about this guy, the more I see that he really never got the essence of his own writing.

Attached: dissapointment.png (279x243, 81K)

>Finds objectivism laughable
>Presents utilitarianism as moral
kek

The impotent fanboy or the passive, unfulfilled woman who lurched from one domineering relationship to another?

I have a job and a house, I'm putting away savings and working on my credit score, and I've recently taken up baking as a hobby.

Frank is a case of Marvel trying to have their cake and eat it too in regards the popularity of Mack Bolan and the urban vigilante genre of the 70s.

Conway himself is conflicted.
>The Punisher was originally conceived as a villain and was not intended to be an anti-hero. But in the course of writing the first story, I realized that's what he was -- an anti-hero. He had a moral code I could use to resolve story points.
>To me, it's disturbing whenever I see authority figures embracing Punisher iconography because the Punisher represents a failure of the Justice system. He's supposed to indict the collapse of social moral authority and the reality some people can't depend on institutions like the police or the military to act in a just and capable way.

>The vigilante anti-hero is fundamentally a critique of the justice sysytem, an eample of social failure, so when cops put Punisher skulls on their cars or members of the military wear Punisher skull patches, they're basically sides with an enemy of the system. They are embracing an outlaw mentality. Whether you think the Punisher is justified or not, whether you admire his code of ethics, he is an outlaw. He is a criminal. Police should not be embracing a criminal as their symbol.

>It goes without saying. In a way, it's as offensive as putting a Confederate flag on a government building. My point of view is, the Punisher is an anti-hero, someone we might root for while remembering he's also an outlaw and criminal. If an officer of the law, representing the justice system puts a criminal's symbol on his police car, or shares challenge coins honoring a criminal he or she is making a very ill-advised statement about their understanding of the law.

Adrian claimed that Walter and the rest of the Watchmen would figure out his conspiracy, which would lead to him sparing them because they're friends of his that he cares about, but I never bought that kind of logic, let alone the truth of his claim that he would totally spare his friends. He just seems too detached and egoistical to let his plans go. That he would feel too bitter about it for it to fail.

He killed any loose strings in conspiracy, even scientists who probably knew him for years. He killed his genetically modified cat, for God's sake. I just don't believe at all that Adrian really cares about the other heroes. And if they were in part of the city where his alien-mind control attacking was happening, I wager he wouldn't lift a finger to help them if it blew his cover.

The problem is that:

"represents a failure of the Justice system. He's supposed to indict the collapse of social moral authority and the reality some people can't depend on institutions like the police or the military to act in a just and capable way."

is also a pretty apt descriptor of superheroes in general.

He broke a guy's fingers for making a snide comment about him smelling bad or something. The guy wasn't even noted as being a criminal, just scummy-looking.

Bad hygiene

Attached: 1560356312418.png (636x468, 52K)

>Says “what if comic book characters were in a real world setting” but then gets pissed at people sympathising for characters who act more like human beings
>Tragic/flawed heroes who lose or fail and have all too human flaws (ego, hate, some Achilles heel).
You guys are missing a major nuance to what "realistic" in this context means.
It's not "realism" in the way the Dark Knight trilogy was made cutting out the comic book fantasy stuff and presenting something you could take a more seriously e.g. Bruce is a rich guy with no child ward who uses his money to fund paramilitary equipment so he can fight against characters more like terrorists than the gimmicky supervillains they were based on.
The *Alan Moore* sort of "realism" on the other hand has the EXACT opposite agenda. He wasn't trying to make that setting or its characters more respectable or less silly. He was trying to EMPHASIZE just how silly the superhero lore was by juxtaposing it against reality. Note his interview quote here:
stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/
>“You could put a superhero in the real world for a dramatic effect, because they are kind of stupid. They got these tight costumes, stupid names; they’re kind of unbelievable, so if you actually put them in the real world and have people reacting to them the way that people would, you’d laugh at them, you’d be scared of them. It would be a different way of looking at them, so that’s what went mostly into Watchmen.
Also note he based Rorschach's diary on the Son of Sam serial killer letters. You were NOT supposed to relate to him or ANYONE in Watchmen. His goal was the same as with pic related. To show how absurd the idea (superheroes in this case) is by humoring it as real and watching the ensuing train wreck.

Attached: 5693_original.jpg (1000x1525, 545K)

He started breaking a random guy's fingers to find a lead despite how illogical it would be to find one there. And everyone there were mouth agape and horrified meaning this was probably a regular thing for Rorschach.

This strikes me as a strange critique because the Punisher isn't "anti-justice," he stands for an alternative system of justice. Vigilantism, blood-feud, that sort of old-style, pre-police justice, isn't the same things as utter anarchy, there-are-no-rules-there-is-no-law. It's a question about what the fine points of the law are (death or prison as punishment, judgement by jury of peers or judgement by a superior, etc.).

I'd imagine a cop that uses the Punisher skull (if he isn't merely thinking "this looks tough and cool"), is making a statement about his idea of justice: that punishing the guilty is a more important principle than obeying convention and working within the system. Now, that's obviously a rather serious position, since generally we believe that the conventional system is needed to figure out who is actually guilty and how to punish them, but it's by no means impossible that such a system could break down and begin to obstruct justice, or that people might start to *believe* the system is failing them, whether it is or not.

Here is where I think the problem of characters like Rorschach and Punisher come in. Now, I'll admit I haven't read many Punisher comics, but from what I remember of these characters
>They exist in cities where the conventional system has absolutely broken down and is no longer useful at bringing criminals to justice, if not actually preventing criminals from getting their just deserts.
>The enemies of these characters are pretty unquestionably malicious if not evil, and the characters are doing nothing but delivering just deserts to such men.

If these authors really wanted to write stories about the perils of the old system, they need to start breaking the above conventions. Write stories in which
>The public is angry that "a guilty man got off scott free," and he anti-hero stalks and kills him, but whether the accused really was guilty is either left uncomfortably ambiguous or made clear that he wasn't and the crowd/hero just hated him for whatever reason and that clouded their judgement.
>The anti-hero produces regular collateral damage, hurting or killing innocents. Show the results of what he does.
>The police/courts are not ineffective, and the anti-hero is either representing an alternative method of enacting justice and we can compare the effectiveness of the two.
>The criminals being hunted are fleshed-out and sympathetic (I don't mean they are good guys, just that we can understand why they are breaking the law), so we can judge whether the anti-hero's sentence of death is really an appropriate punishment.
>Show the anti-hero as having real and bad qualities. If the guy is just a "mean, smelly loner," most people won't care. He shows up to punch baddies and otherwise stays out of everyone else's way. Show how he has hurt his family by neglecting them to fight crime. Show him as an abusive and manipulative partner, or a loner hurting himself by pushing away everyone that wants to help because they are "distracting" his crusade -- so much that he starts to get sloppy, or is clearly making himself miserable.

Write stuff like that.

I'm fairly certain Foolkiller did that. I know Vigilante did to some extent.

Probably

The Vigilante story that Moore wrote is quite interesting actually, worth checking out

>What *exactly* is this supposed BIG problem with Rorschach?
You're stuck in the wrong perspective and trying to choose between "Rorschach was right" vs "Rorschach was wrong."
It's neither of those because you weren't even supposed to take him seriously enough to where you could ask that question.
Rorschach was horribly dysfunctional. Not right and not wrong. Just a case study in how superheroes are a ridiculous concept when taken to their logical conclusion.
He smelled bad. He couldn't navigate basic social situations like knowing how long was appropriate to shake someone's hand. He preferred eating beans out of a can without heating them. He spoke like Herbie Popnecker in flat affect disconnected one-liners from being such a schizo loner that he allowed basic human behaviors like speech to deteriorate from lack of use. He wrote diary entries literally modeled off of the Son of Sam serial killer's written correspondences. He broke into people's homes and terrorized an old cancer patient, nearly reporting him to law enforcement for having a single container of cancer meds without the prescription paperwork. He admired his abusive father and the President most famous for using atomic bombs on massive populations of non-combatant civilians. He dismissed the Comedian being a rapist as a "moral lapse" of a "man who served his country." He was incapable of sexual / romantic intimacy and could only see women as either whores (like his mother) or saints (like Kitty Genovese). More generally he espoused that (literally) black and white Ditko / Ayn Rand view that everyone and everything was always either good or evil with no grey areas, and unlike in the Ditko comics where such a thing is heroic, the real world interpretation of that sort of thinking is that it's a form of mental illness:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

Attached: Swamp_Thing_Vol_2_75.jpg (400x603, 91K)

It's a decent read but the Superman issue where he pretends to kill some Authority expies just to prove that he could feels like such a fundamental misreading of them to me

In my post i said i acknowledged he was horribly dysfunctional. I don't think anyone wants to BE Rorschach, i mean he's just a guy, it's just that his covictions are pretty much the impetus for the whle plot and he's pretty much the only person still trying to do what the Watchmen were supposed to do in the first place.

Making it a question of his character on such a superficial level is stupid, of COURSE he's a total trainwreck but this isn't a story about him trying and failing to lead a normal life and being unable to because of this. It's a story about how he's the only who unravels a conspiracy because he ISN'T normal. If Moore genuinely wanted to paint the character negatively, he should have had the conspiracy amount to nothing.

I dont get it Rorschach did try to save the world. He's a good character. Bad guys have fans, it means that they enjoy the character, so stop throwing buzzwords around.

>It's a story about how he's the only who unravels a conspiracy because he ISN'T normal.
I mean he doesn't, Nite Owl does, and only after he shoots down Rorschach and his confirmation bias towards his 'cape killer' theory and actually investigates the mystery through basic detective work. Rorschach got the ball rolling but his actual investigation basically lead him around in circles and would've left him dead along with the rest of New York if his friends (who he dismissed as a whore and flabby failure earlier in the story, mind you) hadn't sprung him.

That sort of just makes Moore’s inability to understand why people are drawn to Rorschach even more confusing. The appeal behind super heroes is that when the system is either unwilling or unable to confront villains. The ending of Watchmen had Veidt kill millions of people in pursuit of world peace, and Nightowl, Silk Spectre, and Doctor Manhattan were unwilling to do anything about it. Except Rorschach. Sure, he knew he couldn’t really do anything about it with Manhattan and Veidt willing to stop him, and I imagine the tears could maybe mean a part of him in that moment believed that Veidt’s plan was actually gonna work. But that doesn’t change the fact that Moore had a disgusting, smelly hobo with mental issues embody why people love superheroes when he was willing to die in that moment to oppose them both. Between that and his interview about The Killing Joke, I really think Moore bumbled his way into writing phenomenal comics.

Not really. A good majority of them either work with the police/government or merely take down villains nobody but they can handle. They're not psychopathic murderers killing whoever they please like Punisher is.

My point was Nite Owl would have been sitting on his fat ass when NYC got Alien'd if it weren't for Rorschach. Everyone knows Rorschach is an autistic sperg.

I don't think it's that his fans don't understand Rorschach, I think Alan Moore doesn't understand his fans. I'm almost certain Alan Moore has some kind of self-hating complex. His penchant for confronting fans over supposedly misinterpreting his work is his entire X factor that elevates him to a godly status. Half the fans are like "i'm not like that guy who Moore is talking about, i 'get it'". Like everyone 'gets' the Killing Joke, it's pretty goddamn simple desu

>Like everyone 'gets' the Killing Joke, it's pretty goddamn simple desu
Which is why DC absolutely butchered it in the animated adaptation, right? Just like how the Watchmen movie was a near shot to shot adaptation of the comic yet still completely missed the entire point, right? A huge chunk of people who have read these books don't actually understand the themes and moral nuances of them, that's Moore's entire issue here.

Attached: 1563948790328.png (615x690, 469K)

>I think Alan Moore doesn't understand his fans
I think that's the point. He doesn't want to. Because (a) his most adamant fans dive headfirst into an ideology towards something that he was trying to present with subtle cynicism and (b) it makes him realize that the people who really understood what he was trying to do with Watchmen are far less passionate about it. Because, frankly, it's good, but it's still big fish in a small pond tier.

Because Snyder's a brianlet and he removed just enough (like Rorschach's 'moral lapse' line) to prove he didn't really get the source material.

You're not wrong, maybe i just have too high of an opinion of people. I always assume a silent, competent majority. Like I don't rush up to Moore at cons or run my mouth off like I know better than anyone else. Of course loudmouths are going to be more visible. Idk i just don't think comprehending Moore's work is such rarified air. Corporate adaptations are usually always schlock anyways(particularly DC's latest output), especially if someone punches or kicks a single time in the source material.

I guess I just disagree with singling out the part of the audience that didn't 'get it'. It's very condescending and in my opinion not constructive. Instead just carry on assuming good company and people who don't understand will naturally be left behind. Lot of good his hemming and hawing has done anyways, his library is one of the most thoroughly violated of anyone's. People are numb to it now. Lindelof, who's writing the new Watchmen HBO series, literally just said 'fuck you' to Alan Moore.

Attached: 203ACDFA-2F63-4E08-8251-4F3424FAEF02.jpg (840x888, 92K)

user, That's more suited for a Western. Superhero Comics don't have the balls to outgrow their good and evil morality.

>He breaks a guys fingers for making a snide joke
Which one was this again?
>threatens to kill a cancer patient who had already quit being a criminal
And yet didn't do anything beyond this. As far as story consequences go, it's pretty low on the totem pole.

I'm not saying that, objectively, Rorschach isn't a total dick and not very much in a heroic or even laudable mold when considered rationally. But from the reader's perspective in the story, Rorschach as some sort of critique of the dedicated, violent, uncompromising crime fighter archetype is not a very good one. Rorschach would need to do something truly heinous, something that makes the reader really sit back and realize he's totally a nut off his rocker and a danger to people around him. Just being "kind of gross" and "a bit of a dick" and "a virgin" isn't going to cut it when this is all considered in the paradigm of "but he's fighting the good fight." Obvious, his good fight doesn't actually accomplish much, even outside of the book's main plot. But again, this ties into the Punisher appeal. People kind of don't care if he's actually make a large scale difference, as long as he's beating up bad dudes who seem to deserve it.

Attached: 1540559500647.jpg (600x800, 129K)

I had a cutout of Rorscach on my dorm wall and even I knew he was a flawed fucked up character. You should be able to enjoy characters you don't agree with and who aren't heroes. That's rather a point of Watchmen. No heroes or villains. Just messed up people in a messed up world. Anyone that thinks Rorschach is the hero of the book is a fucking moron. I don't blame Moore for being upset how they failed to understand a basic point of his work.

Attached: watchmen wall DSCN2170 - Copy 1564085595590.jpg (450x600, 82K)

And too bad he still can't shoot free throws for shit.

Attached: rorshaq 387141.jpg (200x251, 10K)

I don’t see how you could get any of that out of the statement in the OP. He’s just shitting on comic fans for not “getting it”. The person he’s using as an example could be attracted to the romantic idea of man with a lot wrong with him standing against a de facto god and not yielding his morals. Lasting impressions mean a lot and Moore left a good one of Rorschach to a lot of people. But he seems unwilling or too dumb to understand that. Maybe he’s made a statement proving me wrong somewhere, but that doesn’t change how much of a dickhead he sounds like here.

IT'S TIME TO SHIT

Attached: before watchmen time to shit 1346230829693.jpg (219x348, 39K)

I don't get what Conway was trying to do with the Punisher. All the social and moral decay of the 70s happened in urban cities. The suburbs and small towns were still safe.

I didn't get it from some random overblown quote he gave when put on the spot at a cocktail party, I got it from his writing. Rorschach being anything other than a sad story about a hopeless soul is antagonistic to the message he was trying to convey. I know that because I read his writing. I read his message. It's not found on the social media page of someone who is decades removed from what he once wrote, it's found on the page.

The 'fuck you" was literally just a clickbait headline from a joke out of context.

No, read the entire article. I know he said 'it's clickbait!' but you don't just tell someone you're flying in the face of their wishes and straight up say '8 was just joking lol'. He still said 'fuck you', and is raping Alan Moore's work EXACTLY like Moore asked for him not to.

Yes but that's exactly the issue here. There are countless people out there just like Snyder that never bothered to analyze the story past the surface level.

That's understandable, and I respect your optimism, but the mere fact that the 90s Dark Age of comics not only existed, but we can still see the effects of it to this day is more than enough to prove Moore's point. If the people that DID "get it" were the ones making adaptations of his work/being inspired by it or the ones meeting him at cons then he wouldn't be having an issue in the first place. It's just been proven time and time again that is nowhere near the case.

*I was just joking

Attached: reginald well said sarcastic.jpg (329x353, 43K)

See, I never saw Rorschach's death as a defiant moment from a man sticking to his morals. No, I saw a man broken by the world who finally gave up and essentially committed suicide. Rorschach had a shitty life and seeing the closest person he could call a friend and his peers decide to become complicit in one of the most brutal attacks in history was too much for him. He finally took off the mask that protected him all these years to face Manhattan as a sad, defeated man. His last act is to angrily shout and weep at the state of the world, all Manhattan did was put down a rabid dog.

>the mere fact that the 90s Dark Age of comics not only existed, but we can still see the effects of it to this day is more than enough to prove Moore's point.

First off I just want to say that that was almost 30 years ago, and 'people who don't read comics temporarily buying comics and then stopping' does not excuse Marvel(and to an arguably lesser extent DC)'s scumbag attitudes and practices towards their audience, as well as their outright stupidity for not being able to adjust and adapt after THIRTY YEARS. But that's comics for you I guess.

Back on subject somewhat, and this is something that always miffed me about guys like Alan Moore; surely people like him and Morrisson have millions of dollars and are more than capable of fostering a new generation of talent by themselves, or at least trying intead of just bitching at other people for sucking. He should have seeked out people to support rather than reacting to idiots desperately seeking his approval.

Rorschach is one of my favorite characters, period

And I 100% agree with Moore, if you come up to me saying "Rorschach is SO ME!" I'm calling the police.

Yeah, I don't get why people equate liking a character with agreeing with them.

But both of those are correct

Promethea is extraordinariiy boring and ironically for the same reason that Rorschasch is a great character.
Rorschach has a raw power and vitality to him and Promethea is extremely dry and lifeless.
The first thing about superhero comics is that they have to be super.

Attached: gangway-for-captain-marvel.jpg (250x355, 47K)

And? Frank's family were killed in Central Park. He mainly goes after New York crime families.

The fuck are you talking about? For the majority of Watchmen all Rorschach did was slunk around and grunt HRM.

He was shouting at Manhattan to kill him because if he didn’t he was gonna do everything in his power to expose Veidt for killing millions of people. He’s sticking by his morals, even if it kills him. That fact doesn’t contradict the other fact that he’s a sad, broken, and defeated man.

I get the impression Rorschach was meant to come across as similar to Grant's The Beard Hunter more successfully came across.
Except while the idea of mockery in the character of the Beard Hunter came across obviously it was also obviously a garbage story.

Attached: the-beard-hunter.jpg (818x1280, 398K)

>Moore simply failed to show why a character like Rorschach is ultimately terrible for the people around him.
While I agree that Moore failed to show how Rorschach's belief system/behaviours would negatively impact INDIVIDUALS, it's crazy to claim he never demonstrated any downsides full stop. I mean, shit, the fact that Rorschach wanted to expose Veidt after everything that'd happened is fucking bonkers. He'd literally be responsible for millions of deaths meaning nothing if his journal is read.

Rorschach broke some random dude's fingers while he and Dan were investigating in the bar he likes to frequent after Rorschach's jailbreak

The deaths already meant nothing because they were built on a lie

It’d be like saying we shouldn’t investigate any police shootings of black people because the blacks might riot if they found out one of them was unlawful and the cop was racist

If you don't understand why so many people are full of rage and just want to see random violence then you should self-reflect on how little compassion you have allowed yourself to have in life until now.

If Rorschach truly wanted expose the conspiracy he would have held his tongue then do it once he got back to America. The way his death played out it felt like Rorschach just couldn't take living in the world anymore.

The more this guy talks, the more I'm convinced he has a ghost writer

Attached: frankface chicktract 1358430589141.gif (158x156, 12K)

You realise OP isn’t actually Alan Moore right?

I never considered Rorschach a "role model", but I did think he was one of the very few sympathetic characters in the comic.

Not Manhattan, who's big revelation at the end is so insipid and elementary, it's something most functional people figure out after they graduate high-school.

Not Ozymandias, and his stupid plan that was just as likely to trigger WWIII as stop it, and the necessity of which I never bought into to.

Not Night Owl or Silk Spectre, who seemed so wrapped up in their own problems that it bordered on narcissism, and whose "happy ending" made me nauseous.

Only Rorschach.

The question is, does Alan Moore realize this, or, like George Lucas, does he completely fail to understand his own creation?

In a related note, do you think Alan Moore himself smells particularly good? He certainly LOOKS smelly.

That makes no sense.

This reads like you are fucked in the head. You definitely did not understand Watchmen, but you really think you did.

>readers should base whether they like a character on how satisfied that character is with their personal life

If that's the case then he must love villains, because only the corrupt and rotten are satisfied with their lives. You cannot achieve satisfaction in this world if you are a good person.

You are the kind of person who would cover up a genocide to preserve the status quo, and I despise you for it.

>It’d be like saying we shouldn’t investigate any police shootings of black people because the blacks might riot if they found out one of them was unlawful and the cop was racist

This guy gets it.

Insults are not arguments.

Yeah. If Moore, in his personal opinions, thinks that Veidt was anything but a villain, then Moore has NO RIGHT to judge others for admiring Rorschach.

Your post is made up of insults.

Rorschach may be a degenerate weirdo but his two big moments which most people are going to remember are 1) killing the child molestor and 2) choosing to die rather than be complicit in Adrian's lie and mass murder.

Obviously 1) is going to have the support of lots of people just inherently. And 2) lots of people are going to agree with him. Even from a utilitarian perspective, the lie is very likely to unravel and probably sooner rather than later despite Adrian's brilliance. Indeed, the final page of the book confirms the truth will likely come out anyway and the idea you could sustain a lie of this magnitude and effect is ridiculous.

I agree he's supposed to be an unlikeable character (the over the top right-wing monologues make this very clear along with his hypocrisy re : breaking the law) but in the two key moments I've mentioned I have to agree with his actions.

The problem is the difference between "Favorite character" and "I am this character!" Yeah Rorschach is interesting, but he's also pitiable and sad. It's not that great if you see yourself as him. It's fine if you find him an interesting presence in the story.

His big hero Moorcock is a lot like this. Very full of himself. Edgy characters huffing their self importance. Really bad readings of other peoples works.

The more you shitpost, the more I'm convinced you're not pretending to be retarded.

T- Alan Moore

Don’t you have some more contracts to sign and then complain about?

This page and at the very end where we see he's been crying have always cemented him to me as tragic and profoundly sad.

Attached: rorsad.jpg (1024x1600, 684K)

>final draft of journal

Never caught that before, he must have always planned om sending it to the new fontiersman at some point then. Why else would you have drafts for a private journal?

Exactly, this is what I love about Roschach. Not that he's some edgy anti-hero that kills but past all the dirt and grime he's just a profoundly sad man trying to do what he thinks is the right thing in a world that has practically broken him. It's like Moore tried to make him as surface level unlikable as possible without sacrificing sympathy.

>I am Rorschach! That is my story!

Attached: 1564088122372.jpg (640x640, 54K)

>you're going to spend several hours listening to me assert what the real world is like and you're going to like it

Well in a way Rorschach is a power fantasy. Walter Kovacs is an ugly, slightly effeminate looking loser with nothing seemingly going for him, but once he puts on a mask he becomes macho and powerful, and people fear him.

What Moore failed to realize is that he never made Rorschach look pathetic and uncool while in costume. That's the issue. It doesn't matter how much Rorschach seems like a sad incel when he looks like a filthy hobo without the mask, people will just automatically think that his civilian life is simply a disguise while the "true" character is Rorschach who is violent with immovable morality. Most people never bother to analyze characters deeply, and thus fall into the trap of thinking Rorschach must be cool because he appears that way on the surface, when you ignore his misogyny, his worship of authoritarian leaders and thinking nuking Japan was okay because the president said it was okay, his inflexible morality of everything being either black or white, clearly being a bit of a psychopath after he snaps with the kid killer, etc.

Yes, but that's you as a kid, when you have a very limited understanding of the world and you grow up thinking that might makes it right and good guys always triumph evil (thanks to a lot of media perpetuating these ideas), so it's okay when they do questionable things because they're the hero and obviously the heroes are always right.

It's as adults that you're supposed to realize that Dredd is meant to be satire and these things the judges do, such as the blatant fascism, aren't actually good. That's the thing with Dirty Harry movies. In the first one, the idea is that both Harry and the killer are both maniacs, but nobody really got it. They just cheered at a renegade cop punishing bad guys. So in the sequels Harry is twisted into a worshiped hero, as the franchise took all the wrong lessons from the idea of a cop like Harry walking the city beat, going unpunished.

>and he still chose to die for them rather than sell them out after the fact.

No he fucking didn't.
Veidt showed him what the ultimate form of supherheroism would look like, and being faced with cognitive dissonance for the first time in his life, faced with the GIANT RAGING CONTRADICTION that has been his life for the last however long he wore the mask, he chose suicide by cop instead of learning and moving on.
Rorschach was a coward who hid his morals behind a mask, and only told himself he "did what he had to do" so he could morally justify breaking some random hobo's fingers.

People don't like these characters because they do bad things, they like them because they show emotion and have empathy for them.

Attached: spider-man-incel.jpg (1024x768, 282K)

ACO is a coming of age story (fuck the burger version for cutting the last chapter) and RoboCop is satire with a very human, positive message between all the gore and one-liners (fuck the sequels though).

>they like them because they show emotion and have empathy for them.

Where the fuck does a character like Dredd show emotion? And Harry Callahan is just an arrogant asshole mad at criminals. If you simply latch into "yeaaah, fuck bad guys! The Punisher is so fucking cool, I wish I was like him!" you're a brainlet. I can enjoy Death Wish movies without having to worship the guy, because it's just action entertainment and it's clear that someone playing vigilante is just wish fulfillment and in real life the guy would be a total fucking loon who gets off on killing people.

>thinking nuking Japan was okay because the president said it was okay
Okay this is going to make the thread off-topic but the reason why it was okay was because the alternative would have been much more devastating for both sides.

The alternative was having to kill everyone and their grandmother who was ready to die for japan.

You can argue that, sure, but that's besides the point. Rorschach doesn't think it further than just looking at the president, who is clearly working as a distant father figure for him, and just ingesting what the president says as the absolute truth, because an authority figure said it so it must be so. That plays right into his future moral absolutism and suicide by cop actions, because by the end of the comic he can't adjust to a world where everything isn't just black and white, so he has to kill himself. Just like how Javert has to kill himself at the end of Les Mis after his entire idea of morality, which is based on strict reading and adheres to the word of law and around which he has built his entire life around, no longer makes sense after being saved by Jean Valjean.

>gets cucked by a lesbian
>your wife leaves you with her and takes away the kdis

embarissing...just fucking embarissing.

>the reason why it was okay was because the alternative would have been much more devastating for both sides.
I really hope you realize this is Viedt logic

Except Russian invasion of Manchuria played larger part in Japanese surrender than nukes did, they calculated that it would be better to surrender to Ameircans than to soviet. Nukes were almost entirely irrelevant and you show your clear lack of understanding of history by sputing those ancient long since rebuked memes.

thats what a lil pussyboy like you would do. roCHAD was a true baller, you couldnt possibly understand

>you grow up thinking that might makes it right
That's how the whole of the world operates. A bunch of people get together, make a law and say it's right. Then they use might to back it up. If you want to change the definition of right, you need to have the backing of might behind it, in return.
Do know that "might" in this case doesn't necessarily mean killing someone. It could mean just isolating them from the rest of the population by force, or even ostracizing them, but assault and murder are included as a matter of course.

I fucking hate Rorshach. He's everything I despise about myself. All the self-hatred, all the faux intellectualism, all the deep-seated pride and superiority complex.
Which really explains why I hate Batman too. e's been turned into this 'woe is me' pure and incorruptible character when he's really not. He's a fucking selfish brooding asshole whose main personality credit is being an obsessed mega-rich man with all the free time in the world to work out and obsess over punching criminals in the teeth.

Serious question, what was the last relevant thing that Moore wrote, comics or otherwise? ABC was decent, right? LOEXG is only self-indulgent drivel and the only redeeming part is O'Neill's art.Neonomicon and Providence were self-indulgent trash.

Was Jersualem any good?

Because he looked cool in he movie and the vast majority of Comic Book fans have never actually read the source material, or a lot of comics to begin with.

>bringing the Watchmen together

And this is how I know you've just seen the movie.

Alan Moore is a terminally bitter narcissist with zero convictions. He's observant and skilled enough to effectively depict the ideas he was trying to criticize with Rorsach, but too deluded by his own biases to notice their obvious strengths also shining through at the same time. It's actually pretty fascinating. He produces good stuff, but anytime you hear him talk about anything, including the intent of his own work, it's like his muse is a girlfriend that's way out of his league.

Attached: autisAM.png (960x720, 381K)

>it's like his muse is a girlfriend that's way out of his league
Makes sense, DESU. If he spent time fucking her he wouldn't be able to channel his self-hatred into art.

Really gotta respect Rorschach for actually winning in the end. A poor lunatic checkmated the rich imbecile.

But that is straight up Ozymandias’ logic. If anything it showed the degeneration of Rorschach before he became a superhero and after.

Yea, no. The vulgar display of power Americans showed is much more convicing reason to surrender.

you've got it backwards, America saw the Soviets moving closer to Japan and realized that if they didn't end the war now Japan might turn communist.

Ozymandias was right, though, so his logic was good logic.

VEIDT DID NOTHING WRONG.

For me, I've always seen those characters as going overboard but getting the job done. Batman won't killer Joker and I respect and understand his reasons for it, but the world would be much safer place when you just shoot people like Joker in the head. The good people can live better off because there's a angel with a gun protecting them.

I'm not going to care about opinion of mental who worships snake's schlong. Rorschach is a bro.

>The good people can live better off because there's a angel with a gun protecting them.

Except in this case the "angel" is a lunatic who only kills bad guys and never fucks up because he's a fictional being who the writers will not allow to err.

I always interpreted it as that he knew exposing the conspiracy would do great harm, wasn't willing to compromise his morals, and chose death as the only way to resolve the two.

>the reason why it was okay was because the alternative would have been much more devastating for both sides
That's certainly the official USA line and there's no reason anyone would be trying to justify it to themselves or others if it weren't 100% true.

>and the punisher
I mean who doesn't want to murder criminals without consequences?

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Rorschach dropped some innocent pervert down an elevator shaft.

Good thing there's not a character that can see the future

Attached: 1563846310276.gif (496x498, 1.99M)

>Where the fuck does a character like Dredd show emotion?
read some fucking dredd

Doubt this quote is real considering Rorschach is based on The Question not Batman.

Google it you retard, this is easy as shit to verify

I have a lot more respect for Eric Powell for exactly that reason.

How about reading the thread?

Dr. Manhattan was my favorite character if only for issue 4.

>He's supposed to indict the collapse of social moral authority and the reality some people can't depend on institutions like the police or the military to act in a just and capable way.

Clearly, if anyone should be adopting Punisher skulls, its BLM.

>all these angry autists that completely misinterpret Moore
What is with Yea Forums and Alan Moore? I swear, there's like a handful of obsessed anons that go in every thread just to shit on him.

What if moore writes too shitty (i mean regarding what complex things he want to say) to express what he wants?

Okay. Go ahead. Tell me what the rest of the Heroes were going to do about the imminent nuclear war. Tell me about how their hand-wringing was going to stop the death of billions and the collapse of civilization.

I thought this too. Like he cried that he cant break his morality and knows that he has to die. Thats why he screams that Manhatten should kill him.

Not that user, but veidt planed to kill people for his crazy plan, which we doesnt know will work. Than he is still a killer, who killed innocent, not soldier in an army camp or politicians.

He can't see the future. He merely exists in all points simultaneously. He has no idea of something happening somewhere where he isn't, and he leaves earth before Rorschach would get to civilization. It's why he didn't destroy Rorschach's journal with his near godlike powers; he didn't know about it.

But I bet this guy is smelly too. I mean look at him. He's a fucking caveman.

Except for years now we've has actual news stories of police officers adopting the punisher skull to their police cruisers, etc. Couple of weeks ago the goddamn police union in one city told all its members to share the blue line punisher skull to support couple of members who got trouble sharing it in social media. It's already happening in real life, dumbass.

Finally someone said it. I always get funny reactions. Manhatten is not omnipotent or allknowing.

>Rorshach is protrayed as a sympathetic anti-hero through the entire series.

Why is Alan Moore so full of shit?

By spewing shit that goes in direct contradiction with what he wrote, he can get people to 'debate the meaning' of his work.

>Clearly, if anyone should be adopting Punisher skulls, its BLM.
You really have no idea of what is going on do you? Hell even BLM doesn't want to take over police work and military,

Attached: 1555263215166.png (196x300, 126K)

No people just like to see "how far can this guy go?". That's why people like characters like Eric Cartman, Dio Brando, Patrick Bateman, Hannibal etc. Psychopaths are interesting. No one likes the generic bland nice guy.

Rorschach was closeted gay for Night Owl. Reread it, user.

I refuse to believe that writer as skilled as Moore wasn't aware that he was sculpting Rorschach into the most likable character in the story. He's a downtrodden underdog, who's characterized mainly by his unshakable devotion to his sense of morality and justice. In a world where everybody else gave up, and gives up again in the end, he's the one who never sold out, and even in the face of death doesn't. He is a true hero, of course the readers would love him, and Moore cannot possibly have been so blind as to not see that while he was writing him into being.

desu I liked the Owl the most

Owl is the intended self-insert character, a middle-aged has-been trying to recapture his glory days, and he's relatable certainly, but nobody wishes he was the Owl.

>but nobody wishes he was the Owl.
Yea but I guess Moore is trying to say that wishing to be any of those heroes, especially Rorschach is cringe as fuck.

People can't help what they want, except through years of self reflection and so on. There's a difference between a desire and a thing you actually act on or let control your life. Of course, I probably wouldn't say "I want to be Rorscach" to Moore's face even if I did, because that's not really information people need to know. You go on Yea Forums if you need to air stuff like that.

What's extremely ironic is he probably thinks V(V for Vendetta) did nothing wrong.

He's an anarchist. A smooth popular rebelion against a corrupt and arrogant elite is his political fantasy. Meanwhile anarchists in history are known for being spoiled middle class kids who use unrest as an excuse to go around raping nuns, doing gay orgies and burning buildings. Not even communists like them, they just tolerated them.

The point of my post was V and Rorschach are essentially two sides of the same coin. Moore just likely ignores that because "Muh Anarchist".

>A smooth popular rebelion against a corrupt and arrogant elite is his political fantasy

we only saw it start in V for Vendetta though

Alan Moore is a very food example of why you should never meet your heroes

>The point of my post was V and Rorschach are essentially two sides of the same coin.
Were they? In a way, I guess you're right, they were both, deep down, reactionary characters that were fighting against their own percieved oppressive realities. But he made Rorschach more human and flawed, while he made V superhuman and perfectly moral.

I guess in his hubris he's made the character that was more ideologically distant from himself more interesting and humane than his anarchist ubermensch.

>percieved oppressive realities

uhhh V's Britain was pretty bad actually

I know Cinema Purgatorio finished recently, and some issues were really cool, especially the ones that were commentaries on movies as an art form, and not some Hollywood biographies.

V is portrayed as someone who is morally right but still had to get his hands dirty to do the right thing. He was sympathetic but still had plenty of flaws
>they were both, deep down, reactionary characters that were fighting against their own percieved oppressive realities
the difference is that V was actually fighting against an oppressive government while Rorschach just beat up pickpockets

And so was Rorschach's America. I say percieved because I'm sure even some people living in fiction cartoony dystopia thought things were going just fine.

meant for as well

Both realities were pretty bad desu. It would be hard to perceive either of them as good. V wasn't perfectly moral. Did you forget the torturing of Evey?

V orchestrated an anarchistic total fall of government in the guise of a freedom fighter due to a petty personal vendetta, and wasn't even interested in seeing it through because he only cared about revenge, so he indoctrinated another person to fill his boots.

I'd hardly call him perfectly moral, even though his motivation felt justfied.

>pickpockets
That's really downplaying it. He was brutally murdering child rapists. He had right in saying it was a sick, dying society.

>He was sympathetic but still had plenty of flaws
It's the same thing with Rorschach

He literally walks into a dive bar and starts breaking fingers of the patrons, i.e tortures people to get information.

V's seems a lot worse. compare civilians there with the civilians we see in Watchmen

and I don't think Nixon had concentration camps so that's a plus for America

Rorschach died because he wanted to die but couldn't commit suicide.

the whole point of deathwish was that vigilantes generally sucked.

>I don't think Nixon had concentration camps
Makes it so much funnier that the current one is running concentration camps

your doctor is more than likely a psychopath but you don't question whether he means well do you

Oh, come on. He was the perfect gentleman, even when he treated someone badly it was implyed it was a sacrifice for the "greater good" He even apologises for his behavior. I'm not calling him a mary sue, but he comes close. moore obviously self-inserted to an extent. He made an avatar for his perfect anarchist superhero.

V's not driven by near blind hatred towards criminals because of childhood trauma like Rorschach. Rorschach was portrayed as an ugly, short man with mommy issues whose experiences lead him towards his puritanical borderline woman-hating right-wingness.

Moore's frustration with his character is actually similar to Scorsese's frustration with Trevor from Taxi Driver. The movie was intended to have a "femminist message" and portray Travis as a radicalized nut because he insisted in looming in the darkness and eventually became a paranoid vigilante who almost killed a politician. In the end he murdered a pimp and 2 other scumbags to save a girl more or less "against her will". The movie ended up having a highly reactionary appeal and many people identified with Trevis in a much more positive way relative to the movie's intended message.

Attached: trevor.jpg (236x324, 13K)

>and a clockwork orange
I've never met anyone who likes the droogs, apart from some girls who posted demotivational posters that happened to have Alex.

>Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology
I really never understood this. Ayn Rand's objectivism puts self-interest and selfishness above everything else. Objectivism doesn't believe in heroes, people who selflessly risk their own lives to help others and fight crime with no expectation of reward.

Pro writing tip #1:
If you want people to dislike someone don't make him the only likable character in the entire story

In the first one, sure. But like Dirty Harry the franchise then took a turn to idolize the protagonist's actions rather than condemn them. That's why in the first movie Paul never gets his revenge, he just does random acts of violence against criminals he baits to attsck him, and he is even shown to get off on his own notoriety and fame, and it ends with the implication that he's not going to stop even after he's run out of town.

Then the sequels just degenerate into vapid revenge porn and highly bombastic vigilante hero worship. It's entertaining but completely rapes the message of the first movie.

V's hate and past is what inspires him to overthrow the government in the first place.

Well one interpretation is that the vigilantism is about self indulgent, ego stroking macho egotism for the Question. That's why O'Neill has Vic basically die at the beginning of his run due to being an arrogant asshole.

I thought both Nite Owls were pretty likable

>V's hate and past
pfffft his past is "evil government did evil experiments on him that made him super strong but also deformed and now he is a revolutionary of the good". It's x-man tier character development. And he doesn't become this dirty, fucked up schizo Like Rorschach. V becomes this sophisticated intellectual with a great posture and refined taste for literature and music.

I do. 100%. 2 million people in exchange for humanity uniting against an outside foe? I'd be all over that.

>if Batman was in the real world he would be a be extremely right wing and disapprove of gays
based!

Watchmen America had its flaws but it good things like solving the energy crisis thanks to Manhattan's tech. V's Britain was an authoritarian nightmare and V only got his powers because he was experimented on in a concentration camp.

Then why has his fan interactions almost always been positive? Hell, dude gave a preview on a comic he was working on to a kid after they wrote to him and used his praise as a quote on one of his books.

This thread made me lose the little trust I had for this board. It is very clear now that Moore detractors either extremely butthurt or literal retards.
>Fishrape! He worships a snake god! No, you're smelly! I understand Watchmen, but Moore doesn't because he's retarded, I'm smarter than him!
How old are you little bitches?

What if that 2 million people were you and your family? Also, what is the guarantee that this will work or last long, the fact that people keep saying Ozymandias is a 300 IQ supergenius? If he's that fucking smart, why couldn't he just have focused his money, tech and intellect into dominating the world and ruling it as a phiosopher king?

In fact, now that I think about it the whole plot is retarded. The US had nukes, both Doctor Manhattan and Ozymandias while the commies only had nukes. Was it really that hard to conquer the world at that point?

We don't know that it won't work.

Please stop using that word, it is untrue.

I just entered this thread, but it’s pretty obvious Veidt’s plan didn’t solve anything at all. We already know how the cold war ended, despite everyone thinking otherwise no missiles were exchanged. That was the whole point of the Black Freighter storyline: Veidt killed innocent people to “protect them” from an evil force that wasn’t even going to attack them in the first place (the pirates)

That's why it feels so cartoony. Most of the common people weren't altogether miserable in fascist italy or nazi germany or communist russia or whatever else you want to classify as an authoritarian regime. Moore created a cartoony strawman of a society just to strike it down with his anarchist ubermench. By saying "percieved oppressive realities" I'm actually trying to give moore some credit and making it plausible that a good portion of the british society wasn't that upset with the government but that was simply not shown.

The Objectivist definition of selfishness is very broad, and basically encompasses anything that you freely and knowingly do for your own sake. Doing good for others to satisfy your personal moral code is absolutely a selfish act under the Objectivist standard. And Rand's fiction is full of larger-than-life hero characters, John Galt and Howard Roarke most famously.

Whatever you say bootlicker

You'd probably love to lick boots all day long as long as the boot owner told you that by doing this you would be contributing to the end of his opression.

>yfw Flash Thompson was amusing himself and Sally with meta-ironic humor and was a natural in the Midtown HS labs and went on to bump Parker in competition for the coveted science scholarship

Attached: 1543318337555.jpg (2536x3104, 629K)

>Doing good for others to satisfy your personal moral code is absolutely a selfish act under the Objectivist standard
Except that Ayn Rand did not believe in self-sacrifice, she actually believed it was immoral to risk your own life to save a stranger, as superheroes frequently do:

>"If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only if the risk to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it; only a lack of self esteem could permit one to value one's life no higher than that of any random stranger."

>And Rand's fiction is full of larger-than-life hero characters, John Galt and Howard Roarke most famously.
But Rand goes out of her way to show that they're doing it for selfish reasons: they want to overthrow the current system because it's bad for them, and under their new society they will profit.

nerds identify with smelly misogynist, film at 11

The Japanese deserve everything they got for not only Pearl harbor but for the Rape of Nanking. But I guess it's not "dishonorable" to murder and rape your way across china if you don't see your victims as human.

Exactly, we dont know if it works or not. Thats really a high bodycount for a 50/50 chance.
And he doesnt bat an eye, because its for a greater good.
If you now factor Manhatten in, its doomed to fail!

I take it you were rooting for the amoral, narcissistic, sociopath who wipes out Manhattan.

The problem is Moore affirming that only a hobo crazy could possible do this, while a rich clean handsome man couldn't, it's like he's ignoring that Batman is also somewhat crazy and that he had another sort of trauma but still keeps everlasting good relationships (especially Alfred as a father figure), was well educated and grown up in a healthy environment. The Bruce Wayne persona is always going to be the anchor for the Batman and even on situations were you could argue that the Batman is sick and completely take over, he still needs to keep up a clean Bruce persona to keep the Batmachine working.

Rich or influent man going vigilante is not less realistic

Rorschach didn't risk his life to save people he valued more than himself. The vast majority of people Adrian killed were people Rorschach despised and considered trash.
He risked his life and ultimately sacrificed his life because he freely decided he wanted to. He valued truth and the principle of never compromising, and felt good using his life in that way.
Part of your problem here is you sound biased against Objectivism and read "selfish" as "do petty things for my own short term pleasure."
"Selfish" for Rand was rational egotism, which she considered a virtue because the alternative was, in her view, the sort of manipulative, whiny, leeching, resource mismanaging, starvation causing communist evil she saw the worst of while living through the rise of the Bolsheviks / Lenin.
Same with her view on money.
It wasn't: "HAHAHA I'm evil and only care about screwing everyone out of their cash so I can hoard a fortune and make everyonr else poor!"
Her view was that money was man's greatest invention, the physical embodiment of Value allowing a free and prosperous civilization to make self-directed trades and business ventures, and to reap the benefits of one's own talent and effort.

Except we already know what happened in a Veidt-free cold war. Everyone thought they were going to die... and nothing happened! No missiles were ever fired.

That was the whole message of the black freighter and the street fight before squid o clock. Veidt, like the sailor, ended up killing the people he was “saving” from pirates who were never going to hurt them in the first place (Russia).

Veidt based his decisions off of “humanity’s savage nature”, thinking that meant Russia/USA would absolutely go to war. The street fight was meant to show that Blake, Walter and Adrian were all wrong about that. Humanity isn’t savage at heart, and the nuclear powers wouldn’t do something as barbaric as WW3 because in the end all the supers, world leaders and vigilantes are just scared, confused men trying to do what’s best for everyone.

WW3 was never a possibility, all the main characters were too dissilusioned with the human condition to realise that.

PS: What Rorscach was REALLY doing at the end was saying "no, fuck you, you don't own me and I refuse to play into your big lie."
He hated the dishonesty and weasel-like compromise. Completely different from wanting to save everyone from the bad guy.

I dont think we really can translate our cold war with the book. Russia was afraid of Manhatten is not equal to both sides have the ultimate weapon that time.

The fact is that the whole reason Veidt came to the conclusion that nuclear war was inevitable to begin with, was simply because the comedian made fun of him and burned his presentation.

Veidt May be a genius, but that doesn’t stop him being a self centred dumbass

You misuderstand, I wasn't talking about Rorschach, but about the Question and Mr. A. They just don't seem to me like actual objectvists because, again, risking their lives to save strangers with no real reward. Same with Ditko's Spider-Man and Blue Beetle.

Mr. A liked punishing evil and fighting for what he believed in.
He hated grey area equivocating weasels and found a purpose in life championing the objective facts of good and evil.

Also part of objectivism is taking power and responsibility for yourself rather than letting the state control such things for you. That fits in perfectly with Mr. A's vigilantism.
HE freely and clearly sees and decides what is good or evil and HE spares or punishes based on his own rational judgement of the objective facts. HIM, not the state.

Good point. But freighter was an analogy that covered till the squid.
What happens next is merely an open book. The only hint we get is from manhatten, so we can guess that it didnt matter in the end. The deaths were pointless.

Can agree with you.

Rorschach is Mr. A. Even Ditko admitted Rorschach was essentially just Mr. A but with mental illness when asked if he knew about him.

Or have a bad perception of things he doesnt completly know.
You could point out that he thought he could kill manhatten in his base. But he was wrong.
So he could even be wrong thinking that any power would like to nuke the other side. Thats more likely to happen if a really lunatic would trigger the bombs.

It’s even dumber when you think about how Rorschach is depicted in the comic

1) He clearly influences his psychiatrist who basically seems to come around to Rorschach’s viewpoint by the end

2) he’s shown as being more competent than the police in the very first issue when he finds the hidden panel in the comedians apartment

>The only hint we get is from manhatten, so we can guess that it didnt matter in the end. The deaths were pointless.
Dr. M is the one who immediately proceeded to murder his old crime fighting buddy just to make sure he wouldn't expose Adrian's genocide plot.
Why would he do this if the deaths were pointless?

Same reason he had the conversations with Laurie even though he knew what the conversations would be about and how they’d end

Manhattan can’t control his actions really, he has to follow his predetermined path, he said it himself. He’s just a puppet who can see his strings

>make a character more likeable than most of the cast
>wow fucking comic book incels why do you like him better than Night Owl and Silkie?

I have an otaku friend that sometimes reads comics on my recommendation. I got her to read Watchmen and her favorite was Rorschach.

People also like Hyde in LoeG despite him being a serial killer and a rapist. Alan just has a knack of writing very good anti-heroes.

Both your examples are because Rorscach is a true believer. Its not that he' admirable, it's that he clearly believes 100% in his own crazy world view and that has a hypnotic effect on people e.g. The guy who did the Heaven's Gate suicide cult. Same with him vs. the police. He wasn't more competent so much as actually interested in finding the truth. The police weren't failing at finding the truth. They weren't even really looking for it and their real motive was damage control.

He hated Rorschach.
Good point, but my guess would be to prolonge the short timezone of peace.
But you are correct, i forgot that in this act he shortly got back from mars because laurie could convince him, by accident, to believe in humans to be important or better.
So the killing makes only sense if he knew that there stil is a chance it is profitable to humanity.

But that user has a point, if he only act as he knows he will act, why does he is determind to kill rorschach. If he knows it doesnt matters, he will act like in saigon with comedian and by not acting follow his destiny.

Doesnt Moore like him too? Thats why he sacrifice himself and wrote him getting cloned in the end? Now with a better mind?

What's effeminate about Rorschach?

Because he’d lost his ability to see the future by that point because of the tachyon generators. Hence how Adrian managed to zap him. Without the ability to tell for certain what would happen, he simply did what he believed would be best for the world, whether he was correct or not. His talk of it’s eventual pointlessness was probably Moore finally acknowledging the utter irony of Veidt calling himself Ozymandias.

fuck that was a sick burn, unironically

>or, like George Lucas, does he completely fail to understand his own creation?
stopped reading there
You watched the RLM video about Star Wars 9 and are parroting someone who himself doesn't understand star wars.

Did it rapture his 4th dimension or only created a wall for his perception?
I mean, it doesnt erase his powers or his memories. It seems that it only disconnect his perception.
Like before the tachyon generator, he percieved it simultanously and only behind this as foggy possibilities. After this is his full perception of his being minus what lies behind the generator? Thats at this point suddenly everything before the tachyon is for him only accessible as memory?

How is being a true believer in your idea of justice not admirable? Rorschach never lied, he was always straight forward

He’s a white male

I haven’t read Watchmen in a while, but didn’t the tachyons only stop him seeing the future past the initial explosion, and that’s why he assumed it was from nuclear war? And then once the explosion happened he could see normally again?

>Why are Rorschach fans such incels?
I mean the problem really is that Rorshach is the only character with real principles and every other main character pussies out at the end. Anything else about him is unimportant.

>I mean the problem really is that Rorshach is the only character with real principles and every other main character pussies out at the end.

He can't even hold on to his principles consistently though, it was already brought up that Veidt's reasoning to kill people to potentially save people directly mirrored Rorschach's apparently long held belief that nuking Japan potentially saved more lives than if they didn't use the nukes. He experienced a severe case of cognitive dissonance and had no idea to process that aside from self-termination.

There was also that time he blew off Comedian's attempted rape of Silk Specter as a "moral lapse", yet he nut-hugged Comedian despite everyone else seeing him as the scumbag he was.

>He can't even hold on to his principles consistently though, it was already brought up that Veidt's reasoning to kill people to potentially save people directly mirrored Rorschach's apparently long held belief that nuking Japan potentially saved more lives than if they didn't use the nukes. He experienced a severe case of cognitive dissonance and had no idea to process that aside from self-termination.
>
>There was also that time he blew off Comedian's attempted rape of Silk Specter as a "moral lapse", yet he nut-hugged Comedian despite everyone else seeing him as the scumbag he was.
You're right to an extent but for the most part we already know Rorschach is a misogynist because of his mother so its not out of left field that the comedian's crimes against a woman who goes out dressed in that costume doesn't register to him, as for the bomb bit he's at least got a little bit of patriotism in him so he sees it as fine if the US does it because its a country but veidt is human and therefore not exempt from consequences.

It doesn't make him a good person or the right one to identify with but hes the most clear in the narrative because everyone else is shades of grey.
If Moore didn't want people to see Rorshach as better than everyone else in his narrative he should've chosen to define them better.

>You're right to an extent but for the most part we already know Rorschach is a misogynist because of his mother so its not out of left field that the comedian's crimes against a woman who goes out dressed in that costume doesn't register to him

Yet he's perfectly content to beat and kill rapists, I mean, those women are clearly asking for it, right? What's the actual crime to get beat or killed for?

>as for the bomb bit he's at least got a little bit of patriotism in him so he sees it as fine if the US does it because its a country but veidt is human and therefore not exempt from consequences.

He explicitly named Truman as some kind of hero for deciding to use the bombs, he attributed the decision to use the nukes to a single person, someone who allegedly did it to potentially save more lives by lives by sacrificing a potentially smaller amount.

Don't repeat the lie that he's principled, he breaks them when convenient.

fuck something's wrong with the captchas

It's really telling of Rorschach that the only two people whose misdeeds he excuses are men who he projects his ideal image of a father figure onto

Are you guys finally realizing he's a loony hack?

Attached: Alan_Moore.jpg (605x598, 75K)

>Insular losers need some form of validation because they don't get it from real life. They don't want to face the fact that their life is a complete failure, so they build up a worldview with their comic book internal monologue in which they are tragic heroes in a decadent sheep-minded society.

you have just perfectly described SJW trannies and fagdykes

I'm realizing all his haters are retarded.

>Of course, I probably wouldn't say "I want to be Rorscach" to Moore's face even if I did
Yea but Moore doesn't want anybody to be any of the characters in the story. That's literally the whole point.

To him, just as long as you say you're a patriot or give off that idea that you are, he can pooh pooh murder and rape.

He was a skinny guy working in the garment business, had dislike of women and there were homosexual undertones with his friendship with Nightowl.

>not liking robocop 2
Everything after 2 is horrendous dog shit, but 2 stands toe to toe with the first one

I would definitely say ABC was the last good moore title. After that he just dedicated himself to destroying everything he'd made upto that point that he had any say in. He ran any chances of new 1963 shit into the ground, ended supreme on a bitter shitty note, and jerked himself off with league.

>I never saw Rorschach's death as a defiant moment from a man sticking to his morals
>I saw a man broken by the world who finally gave up and essentially committed suicide
It makes perfect sense for it to be both.
His convictions wouldn't let him live in a world that would let Adrian walk anyways.

I'm not sure he believes what he's saying here. A lot of Rorschach's more disgusting traits are played for laughs or made to seem endearing, specially when it comes to interacting with Night Owl.
There's also little bits, like the toy company presenting an accurate figure of Rorschach to Veidt only for him to shoot it down as if he were some big grumpy gus.

Yes

the bolsheviks bogarted and took over after others had opened the door for them. communism is a stateless society. it wasn't communist, by definition, and ayn rand collected social security

different user here. i guess the punisher is an objectivist?

also keep in mind the state is controlled by capitalists

i read it years ago. like 2010 or something. i liked it.

>that nuking Japan potentially saved more lives than if they didn't use the nukes.
The problem with this comparisment is that america was already in a war with several war casualties.
While the squid, the cold war wasnt a war with armies but with 2 factions calling another names and muscle play. The only deaths were spies and the vietnam was long over with less casualties than in our history.
There is a difference in a war were thousands die and kill thousands to prevent a war.

>keep away from me

Moore probably gets told that a lot. He always looks like a creep.

He is ambivalent. He is a loony, but not a hack. A little bit bitter because he got fucked over.
But sure he likes to rant about other writers but should take it a notion down because he tends that way too.

>homosexual undertones with his friendship with Nightowl.
Was there? Cant remember any. Besides its his only thing you could call a family or friends who still talk to him even he was roughless or took it to the extreme.

I wouldnt call it suicide, more willingly to die. Some sort of defeated will. Because in the end he accepts getting killed but let Manhatten decide.
Really hard. Does he threaten manhatten to get killed or does he wish more that manhatten, who is seen as knowing alot of future, to decide what is better and not wishing to live in that world.
Its a threat to kill him, its technical a planned suicide by other hands, but somehow suicide looks different than here to me.

I am ion your side. Its more like Moore wrote it and later ondecided different or felt ha wanted him to be different.
Sometimes you write something and over time the written story takes a live on its own. And you wonder what your subconcious made you write.

BTW, If Moore despise the concept of Superhero, What does he think about Superman, The Ultimete Superhero?

>Petty criminals trying to food or money to scrape by? No. Everything we hear about him is him bringing the thunder to evil, despicable people or assholes who "deserve it."
He's beaten up random bums in pub on assumptions that everyone there is a criminal by default.

He only beat up people that threatened him or tried to attack him

Nite Owl on the other hand, beat the shit out of someone in a bar because he looked like he was wearing similar clothes to a gang that killed Hollis Mason

Because out of every fucker there he was the one most determined to preserve life and punish evil.
>Dr.Manhattan fucks off to mars not giving a shit about anyone or anything
>Comedian is a rapist and murderer of innocents
>Ozymandias mass murderer
>Nite Owl wants to get laid
>Silk Spectre doesn't want to be alone and seduces Dr. Manhattan from his wife
>Rorschach murders a murderer and refuses to let Ozymandias get away with mass murder. But he's also a conservative and hates faggots even though it's hinted that he's a faggot too.
Seriously who the fuck would you root for? Someone who doesn't want mass murder to be committed or someone who wants to get laid.

Read Supreme and find out.

Guess a boys fantasy of an omnipotent alien crimesolver that got turned into merch maskulin fantasy trope.
Its funny how V for Yvendetta is Batman in england type and Manhatten is the atom proxy, but he never covered a superman type.
If you consider that he shares a deep friendship with Rick Veitch, their shared universe featured a supes proxy.
Maximortal features Superman, alien dogooder
V for Vendetta covers Batman, Zorroesque vigilantes
Bratpack covers Robin, sidekicks
Watchmen covers Captain Atom, golden age heroes and science omnipotence like green lantern
And reading Veitch stuff, i am not sure sometimes that Alan Moore had Veitch coming up with stories.

>sad backstory
>actually the underdog in terms of abilities
>not even close to perfect, he is deeply flawed and thus humanized
>only one who is staunchly against the utilitarian mass murder of millions of innocents
Oh gee I wouldn't know why people would think like this.
Plus, Hairyman hasn't ever lived in the third world so I bet he doesn't understand how insane people can become under constant stress and suffering, and how understandable utter hatred of criminals can be when the justice system is broken down enough that only 1/10 homicides actually go punished and you have people being quartered and dragged by motorbikes like it's Mad Max.

Oh you are right, forgot he wrote supreme here

>Ultimate heroism
>sacrificing other people for your cause
Well okay then.

He understands it perfectly, he wouldn’t have written it all by accident.

People tend to forget that despite how dark his works can be, Moore’s really sensitive about what people think about him. He attempted to claim Killing Joke was non-canon when he received backlash for it, even though he literally contacted the writer of Batgirl to make her retire for his story to make sense in continuity. When he continued to receive backlash he then claimed Joker never raped her despite his previous statements contradicting this. Heck, he even wrote Supreme as being very optimistic and hopeful as “an apology” for how dark his stuff like Swamp Thing was.

Moore’s possibly the greatest comic writer we’ve ever had, he knew he was making Rorschach an incredibly sympathetic character. But naturally given all the shit he has to constantly put up with from media, it’s no wonder he tries so hard to save face and pretend he hates Rorschach.

>Veidt killed innocent people to “protect them” from an evil force that wasn’t even going to attack them in the first place
I guess the same could be said about Rorschach and the Comedian as well.
Not sure if that makes sense in context with other characters as well.

>Moore’s possibly the greatest comic writer we’ve ever had, he knew he was making Rorschach an incredibly sympathetic character. But naturally given all the shit he has to constantly put up with from media, it’s no wonder he tries so hard to save face and pretend he hates Rorschach.
Hadn't looked at it that way.
It would make sense to make a character sympathetic because you're not a hack, but distance yourself from it since it doesn't represent your views and you don't want anyone making assumptions.

Moore wrote Superman once iirc, whatever happened to the man of tomorrow

you write like a retard

Yeah he's totally ignoring that fictional character, why couldn't he just accept that Batman is real? The fuck is this argument?

>It would make sense to make a character sympathetic because you're not a hack, but distance yourself from it since it doesn't represent your views and you don't want anyone making assumptions.
I feel like this all the time. Except that I'm a hack that tries not to be a hack.

>Seriously who the fuck would you root for?
You're not supposed to "root" for anybody. It's a story about fucked up people doing fucked up things in a fucked up world, no one is inherently "right" and you're wrong for thinking so.

To be honest, I don't think you ca teach kids the danger of schizophrenia or the tyranny of force just by depicting an independent superspy or a cop who pulls out the biggest gun, and why would you? Satire is important and all, but kids are literally looking for action role models, not skeptical character studies of the guy with the coolest tools

> It's a story about fucked up people doing fucked up things in a fucked up world,
And Rorschach was the least fucked up by virtue of not trying to cover up a genocide.

You know what I think? Pulp authors love writing futuristic madmen agents and their high octane twisted world's, but they have to contextualize it as a parody to seem dignified. We all love drawing crazy dystopian hand cannons and schizoid reactionaries on deep subversive solo missions, but at the end of thr fay you have to turn around and advise kids not to drink toxic ooze or shoot up a prison just because it makes for beautiful thrilling grunge illustrations

Attached: rorschach.jpg (1243x733, 134K)

Really? I have so much more respect for this board considering this thread actually has coherent and interesting conversation

Do you have a point or are you just gonna whine about people's fine? What about Moore's statement here is beyond reproach?

People's tone*
I swear to god I am going to smash this fucking android phone and its abysmal autocorrect which literally changes perfectly spelled words into entirely different ones based on its bunk sentence complete which simply does not trust the user to use words that dont commonly follow others

>He’s really not as smart as he thinks he is
Massive understatement, the man is clinically retarded. I know elementary schoolers smarter than him.

"Least fucked up comparatively" doesn't make Rorschach a moral paragon.

Turn off Autocorrect like an adult, you fucking phoneposter.

If Alan Moore's criticizes mental illness so well, how come he spent decades creating and curating the world's most famous rebel violence and distrust symbols and painstakingly creating glory scenes for them? I understand satire, but maybe Moore and anybody else in the world aren't actually flawless experts on their own morality and decision making, and simply form interests and writing habits that they must recontextualize when accused of factually creating role models for school shooters in an interview?

Tried, buttons too small on phone to type without help. Bought the cheapest phone I could to avoid a payment plan and this is what I get

what is this fucking piece of shit even suppose to be

yet he still manages to stand miles higher than his peers

>I have a job and a house, I'm putting away savings and working on my credit score, and I've recently taken up baking as a hobby.
Would it shock you to know that Dan Dreiberg ALSO had a job, and a NY apartment (not as nice as Laurie's family home, but nicer than Rawshark's) and probably a savings account too, and if his waistline was any indication, he probably got into baking too.

Yeah, if you ignore everything else about him and only fixate to the fact he chose suicide by cop rather than complicit, also ignoring that he didn't do it because he was virtuous but because his psyche couldn't handle the moral complexities of the dilemma.

He was a closeted faggot who hated himself, other faggots, and killed criminals. I'm not ignoring that.
>chose suicide by cop
He didn't choose suicide by cop, Manhattan murdered his ass.
>moral complexities of the dilemma.
There was no moral complexity, Veldts plan was retarded he killed those people for no reason at all justify to satisfy his messiah complex. He was going to build a world built on death and on the backs of innocents.
Rorschach didn't want to be part in that world, he coulda had a cushy job if he followed Veldt but he chose to risk death so that the truth can come out instead.

"least wrong" isn't exactly a good reason for hero worship.

FISH
RAPE

The author of the original novel that inspirses the movie said the same thing

minus the faggot and crime hating, He was basically Diogenes, and till this day people hero worshiped him

Modern Moon Knight kind of does this

Thanks, we got it.

Attached: 11.png (608x112, 18K)

What?

One of the greatest, not the greatest.

Rorschach broke the fingers of a man who made a comment on his unpleasant smell

The humanity in Rorschach's face here convinced me he's a good man.

I can't think of anyone that produced as many masterpieces as he did.

Sometimes you need to show red lines!

Morrison, alex ross, stan lee (+ ditko), Kirby, don rosa, carl barks

Oh, forgot, herge, franquin, morris

>Morrison, alex ross, stan lee (+ ditko), Kirby, don rosa, carl barks
Morrison hasn't produced anything at the level of Moore's peak, but he has some great stuff, Alex Ross isn't a writer, Lee/Ditko/Kirby have great stuff but no masterpieces, and I haven't read a duck comic that was more than very good (I have read Life and Times).
>herge, franquin, morris
Tintin had some great books. Franquin and Morris aren't writers, though I love their art.
If you're going to give me names, it's going to have to be lesser known writers

>Morrison
He did, invisible, animal man, doom patrol
>alex ross
He is co author, just like with alan moore which projects were collabs and only 50% his
>stan lee (+ ditko), Kirby
They had
>don rosa, carl barks
Don Rosa might not have that many works in length but he has. As well Barks who made many signature stories
>franquin
He was always co-author
>morris
Ok, not that many but than change him with Goscinny

Well, I mean, he isn't. It's OK to treat someone bad with empathy.

Or try to treat a bad person better than he deserve.