He is a superhero who honed himself to perfection and outsmarted even the most powerful entity in the cosmos, he is the best right? He is listed here as number 3 next to Zod and Loki.
http://www.spectalist.com/best-comic-movie-supervillain/
Any reactions?
Even in the face of Armageddon, I will not compromise in this
totally missing the point.
also, he did not outsmart rohrschach.
Rorschach was somewhat insane, which is part of the reason he figured things out. Non-linear thinking. Plus he didn't figure it out alone he had the help of the detective, Daniel (Nightowl).
sharenevertheless, it still renders the OPs statement that ozzy outsmarted them all wrong. also the comedians figured it out as well.
also, ozzy is not a hero. eventually they are all flawed, human figures. i don't mean that in a negative way btw.
Yeah, although Rorschach started the investigation it was NightOwl that cracked the case with his computer hacking skills. Rorschach wouldn't have been able to get into Veidt Industries (I don't think his harpoon gun would go that high) or to Karnak without NO and Archie. Plus the Comedian didn't figure things out. He stumbled into it accidentally. It's why it shocked him so much. And That's why Adrian killed him.
Fun Fact: Watchmen was originally going to be called "Who Killed the Comedian?"
The other Watchmen all thought of Ozymandias as being the smartest. The Comedian even called him the world's smartest man at that meeting where the Comedian burnt the map. Ozymandias parents were rumored to have been Nazis and he some form of Arian "superman" possibly a product of genetic engineering.
shareactually the comedian poked fun of him and you have seen in the close up, how much that bothered ozy.
shareQuite right. At best Ozymandias is the Watchmen equivalent of Marvel's Captain America. Maybe a little smarter, but obviously not the smartest Watchman. Without a doubt Dr. Manhattan was the smartest. Clearly he is the most powerful, could easily defeat a hundred Kryptonians, but he was smart enough to be self-aware on an atomic level, enabling him to reassemble himself even back when he was still Osterman before he acquired his powers. Argumentatively it was his brilliance that enabled him to become Dr. Manhattan and essentially evolve spontaneously into a very advanced post-human virtually indestructible and immortal being who can see time itself, past, present and future at once. This level of intellect obviously far exceedes anything in the capabilities of any human, Ozymandias included. As Dr. Manhattan told Ozymandias he is but a termite by comparison. Even the world's smartest termite still poses no threat to a being like Dr. Manhattan. A being who has walked on the Sun, and witnessed events so fast and so small as to hardly say that they happened at all. Maybe not God, but a being able to create life itself like a god. How does anyone else anywhere compare to that?
share[deleted]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. Also, I never said Ozymandias was a hero, that was the person who originally posted this thread.
shareDr. Manhattan became Manhattan because of his knowledge + natural knack for reassembling things. It's pretty much a given. There's nothing that says nor implies it has to do with his intellect as a human. So I don't know what you're disagreeing with, there. you'd be disagreeing with core elements of the character.
Also, I never said Ozymandias was a hero
Both Captain American and Ozymandias are enhanced humans (Captain America by the formula made by Stark, Ozymandias by genetic engineering), I thought it was obvious that was the reason for the comparison. I guess some people need even very obvious things explained in detail. As to the first part I disagree with your assessment of why Osterman became Dr. Manhattan. If you have something from the author of the Watchmen comic book to dispute my assessment or back yours please link the resource and I'll stand corrected. Otherwise it's just your opinion versus mine.
shareAs to the first part I disagree with your assessment of why Osterman became Dr. Manhattan.
"Let me ask you this, where does it say or imply in the graphic novels that it was his supposed great intellect that made him become Manhattan?" Where does it say otherwise? Being able to put together a watch and being able to reassemble oneself on a an atomic level are about as similar as a firecracker and a nuclear bomb. It just showed Osterman was good at putting things together. Only by becoming a literary evolved being could he become Dr. Manhattan. As a Setian this is something we call "xeper" or becoming, Ascension. It is akin to how the Ancients became Ascended beings in the Stargate series. A form of spontaneous evolution directly related to intellectual and/or spiritual advancement. Not good puzzle skills. But like I said, if you find something from the author of Watchmen that clarifys otherwise please post it. Otherwise it a difference of options equally valid.
shareWhere does it say otherwise? Being able to put together a watch and being able to reassemble oneself on a an atomic level are about as similar as a firecracker and a nuclear bomb.
"You would think that an Einstein or a Feynman would be the one's to come back from the dead. Not a lowly, atomic physicist - just one of thousands." Maybe Osterman was a lot smarter on some hidden level than others recognized. Being an atomic physicist alone means he was likely of genius intelligent to work in that field. It's not like he was working at a gas station or flipping burgers for a living. My belief that he was the smartest doesn?t mean I believe he was a god or omniscient, Manhattan himself debunks that notion in the film. Even the smartest individual can be fooled by another smart individual (as Ozymandias did). However I somehow doubt that Ozymandias has the ability to truly understand time operating simultaneously as Manhattan does, or being able to have the knowledge to create life.
shareIf he really was the smartest or was a genius then Moore would've at least gave us hints of this. He did not. It's really that simple. Instead, it's strongly implied via his natural intuition /unique instinct of assembling crap back together which sparked his powers. I never took Jon Osterman as a 'Good Will Hunting' type of character, some hidden genius type. And I don't think we're supposed to take him that way for the sake of the juxtaposition between the banality of his human life vs the extraordinary nature of his post-human life.
). However I somehow doubt that Ozymandias has the ability to truly understand time operating simultaneously as Manhattan does, or being able to have the knowledge to create life.
You realize we both might be correct. Osterman may not have became Dr. Manhattan if it weren't for both his genius and his ability to reassemble intricate things. Either alone wouldn't have succeeded. Supposedly the Soviets tried to recreate the accident that created Manhattan but never succeeded. There were probably a lot of miniscule variables involved such that Manhattan's creation was a once in the history of the universe kind of event.
Manhattan post transformation is superior in intellect to Osterman and superior to Ozymandias in may ways. Irregardless of Manhattan being smarter after (and quite likely more so because of) the transformation he is the smartest. It is Dr. Manhattan not pre-transformation John Osterman I'm referring to after all.
Yeah, we both may be correct. but at least we do agree that human or not, Manhattan was and will remain a genius.
There were probably a lot of miniscule variables involved such that Manhattan's creation was a once in the history of the universe kind of event.
I think you are. It's two different kinds of intellect, the scientific mind and a devious schemer. An argument can be made for both.
shareA fair statement. Apparently there are many different types of Intelligence: ?Which of These 9 Types of Intelligence Do You Have?? @larrykim https://medium.com/marketing-and-entrepreneurship/which-of-these-9-types-of-intelligence-do-you-have-a6779ee66f6d
shareActually, if you want to talk Turkey with psychometrics, many psychologists don't really buy into the theory of multiple intelligence. It doesn't really have much of any good evidence behind it.
There's more positive correlations between different aspects of intelligence than there is with lower correlations - which Gardner's Multiple Int. Theory falsely predicts. Thus, supporting the General Intelligence theory. which will still be the big kid on the block for quite sometime.
-----
S = K Log W
The completely rounded intellect with equal aptitude for all things is very rare though. Ozzy has build an empire employing many scientists who can do things he can't. But he's the one with the grand plan, the one he even manages to keep hidden from the godlike Dr. M. He get's a team of scientists to build him his machine, then disposes of them like yesterdays trash. He predicts the actions of so many individuals, including one who is actually prescient!
The theory of multiple intelligences has many problems but the reasoning behind it, and the reason for trying to expand the definition of intelligence, is pretty clear. Intelligence, as measured by traditional I.Q. tests, doesn't always translate into an ability to achieve individual goals. The general intelligence theory has been around for much longer but is also heavily criticized. When it comes to the concept of creativity a broad consensus has never been reached. It might be impossible to define intelligence without bias. There may never be a completely clear definition.
IQ isn't supposed to even measure probability of goals or outcomes, it's supposed to measure potentiality to said goals and (or) outcomes.
If being 'completely rounded intellect' is a rarity then why are there such high correlations between all aspects of intelligence rather than the opposite? There's a reason psychometrics love to use the...wait for it..G Factor. If the General Intelligence theory is 'heavily criticized' [although i'd like some papers to show this] then Mr. Flynn and Sir Francis Galton and thousands of psychometrics peeps would like to have a big word with you...
-----
S = K Log W
One of the most famous, and also outspoken critics, was Stephen Jay Gould, but he is only one of many. The way g factor is calculated is rather arbitrary. It's based on classic I.Q. tests that may be fundamentally flawed. I'm not saying I'm certain that is the case but I do see a valid argument to that effect. It's not a perfect science and I believe we'll see further developments in this field.
Edit: I should also mention Louis Leon Thurstone's research on uncorrelated aspects of intelligence. He didn't believe in a singular general intelligence and was very influential in shaping modern psychometrics.
It might be most common that they are correlated, but if researchers had already come to the conclusion that they should be correlated, then common cognitive tests are designed with this bias. All in all there's a pretty good case for that both I.Q. and g factor should be viewed more as statistical indicators of intelligence, and really a broader test with multiple scores in different categories is needed to measure it more accurately.
good point.
-----
S = K Log W