MovieChat Forums > Watchmen (2019) Discussion > Holy Sh*t!

Holy Sh*t!

posted 4 years ago by Jeepster (1025)
9 replies | jump to latest

OMG! What did Adrian Veidt do! I'm surprised that there aaren't 100 posts about this by now. Seriously what did that psycho DO? Did you see the carnage that was left behind in the castle?

Man! He's got to go! Said it before even though I was told I was wrong I'll say it again. Manhattan is going to uber dissatisfied with the goings on at this little niche he created for Veidt.

He already fired a warning shot at Adrian's way, now he's tempting fate. Who do you think that lone huntsman was? It was either Dr. Manhattan in a disguised form, or an avatar representing him or a clone of his own acting on his behalf.

He entertains himself by having his staff slaughter each other? Umm.um.um. let's hope this guy NEVER gets to escape & come here, can you imagine? Where exactly does he think he's going? He'll be hunted in every corner of the earth if he ever showed his face back here. Dudes got to be stopped for real.

[–] NorrinRad (5008) 4 years ago

OMG! What did Adrian Veidt do! I'm surprised that there aaren't 100 posts about this by now. Seriously what did that psycho DO? Did you see the carnage that was left behind in the castle?

That carnage probably reflects the parallel Black Freighter storyline and the clones are sacrificed for Veidt to make way for Veidt's return. I don't think that Dr. Manhattan created the paradise/prison. Ozymandias created such a place for himself in Antartica and I just think he is the architect of his own demise with the assistance (at that time) of Lady Trieu who purchased his company. She has a life-sized age appropriate statue in her vivaquarium.

The name Lady Trieu is a Vietnam version of Joan of Arc and it appears that revenge is at work.

Man! He's got to go! Said it before even though I was told I was wrong I'll say it again. Manhattan is going to uber dissatisfied with the goings on at this little niche he created for Veidt.

Dr. Manhattan is a rather impotent all-seeing god who can't or won't do anything as he lacks any real connection to humanity.

He already fired a warning shot at Adrian's way, now he's tempting fate. Who do you think that lone huntsman was? It was either Dr. Manhattan in a disguised form, or an avatar representing him or a clone of his own acting on his behalf.

I believe Lady Trieu dropped the car for Angela and not Laurie. Will is spoon-feeding Angela with Laurie interjecting herself into the conspiracy.

In a fit of ego driven narcissism I think Ozymandias killed all of his current clones because they possessed some flaw that he is exploiting or some form of humanity that he thinks doesn't exist within the clones. They lack any legacy or past, with legacy being the thread that binds this particular episode and the characters together.

[–] Jeepster (1025) 4 years ago

Very informative. Thank you NorrinRad.

[–] NorrinRad (5008) 4 years ago

Jeepster your thanks might be pre-mature but I'll accept them any way.

Everything that I have typed are just my impressions of the series and Lindelöf has a way of subverting expectations and using misdirection gloriously to keep the audience continuously in a cloud of smoke. We will know what is real and what is actually happening when he is ready to tell us. Otherwise why keep watching if it was that easy to piece everything together. 😎

[–] Goliard (1413) 4 years ago

"Dr. Manhattan is a rather impotent all-seeing god who can't or won't do anything as he lacks any real connection to humanity."

This is a common misconception, and is actually exactly the Opposite of what Moore was trying to say, in the GN.

Jon has a *different* world view. This is both because of his abilities, and because of his experiences. Each builds on the other, in fascinating ways.

Briefly: it's helpful to consider the speech he gives Laurie, after she breaks down in tears. His discussion of how rare and incredible each life is (each of us is a thermodynamic miracle), is one of my favorite parts of the whole story. It also perfectly encapsulates how he feels about humanity.

So: To say he has "no connection" is demonstrably false. To say he can't/won't do anything is equally incorrect. . .he does a LOT at the end of the novel. Returning Laurie to Earth, drying her tears, fighting Veidt, killing Rorschach, staying silent, etc, etc, etc. . .

Great story. *So* much to unpack.

[–] NorrinRad (5008) 4 years ago

Interesting "twist" on what Moore was trying to say in the comic graphic novel and how Dr. Manhattan was presented in the same series. I make the distinction between Dr. Manhattan's and Jon Osterman's reflections and actions demonstrating their individual grasp of humanity and immersion into and with humanity. Dr. Manhattan's growing awareness and burgeoning superintelligence created an unfortunate detachment from:

Each of us being a thermodynamic miracle

due to the fact that he himself is a singularity divorced from that very thermodynamic miracle which he is NOT a byproduct of. Jon is but Dr. Manhattan isn't.

His discussion of how rare and incredible each life is (each of us is a thermodynamic miracle), is one of my favorite parts of the whole story. It also perfectly encapsulates how he feels about humanity.

Jon/Manhattan's speech represents him/them at a point in time when Jon maintained an emotional connection with Laurie. Moore thoughtfully represents Dr. Manhattan as a non-savior for Humanity and Dr. Manhattan is willing to divorce himself from the current metaphysical state of humanity in search of creating a new form of humanity. Dr. Manhattan is not an evolution of Jon, mankind or humanity. As Dr. Manhattan continued to search for answers he sees time as ever present (for him) and constant (for him) and is aware that he can not change what he sees. Is Dr. Manhattan willfully dispassionate, knowingly uncaring and accepting apathy as a necessary condition of Super-Intelligence?

In as much as Dr. Manhattan sees time and events on one continuum, what Dr. Manhattan neither sees nor any longer experiences is a life-emotion connection to time as Dr. Manhattan is unburdened (unfortunate term as it suggests that life is a burden) with the finality of individual life versus collective humanity.

Dr. Manhattan only experiences life, emotion and humanity through others and the less contact he has with "others" the more detached his actions.

[–] Goliard (1413) 4 years ago

Hm.

Not sure how/why you're deciding to differentiate between Jon/Dr Manhattan, but I'll restrict myself as best I can to the thrust of what (I think) you're saying.

Fundamentally, as soon as Jon becomes Manhattan, he begins to change. The progression of how/why he changes is absolutely fascinating, and says a lot about emotion, quantum physics, philosophy, and the experiential underpinnings of it all. All of which is to say:
Your essential error is in insisting that Jon is divorced from emotion/caring. I've already cited examples that show that's Absolutely Not True (there are more), but it's worth pointing out that they occur as part of his "evolution," towards the end of the book.

Here's where it gets tricky.

Moore is one of the few writers that deals with the concept of space/time intelligently. This goes beyond "time's not an arrow." He actually explores the idea of time/space as a lattice; and Jon as someone that sees the different positions within it, and how that perception progressively changes him. Dunno what your background is, but it's a wonderfully subtle exploration of some very well trod concepts in quantum physics. For the most part, Moore gets it spot on. SO: given this concept, Jon ABSOLUTELY progresses (in the linear sense) towards someone with empathy, caring, and action. The way/reason he does this is one of the central tenets of the story, and this is really the only reason I replied to your post.

FWIW, the sentence "Dr. Manhattan only experiences life, emotion and humanity through others" ignores the fact that this is true for All Of Us.

[–] NorrinRad (5008) 4 years ago

[–] Goliard (297) 4 hours ago

Not sure how/why you're deciding to differentiate between Jon/Dr Manhattan, but I'll restrict myself as best I can to the thrust of what (I think) you're saying.

My responses and my take are only from the comic series and I guess they are considered the "Source" material?

"“A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?”

“Janey accuses me of chasing jailbait. She bursts into angry tears, asking if it's because she's getting older. It's true. She's aging more noticeably every day—while I am standing still. I prefer the stillness here. I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.”

“I am a being of inaction. On a collision course with a man of action. To this universe of hope… I have become the villain.”

Jon Osterman was, for all intent and purposes reborn but he is by no stretch of the imagination or science, human. He says so himself which is why he is detached from humanity. I never said that Jon is detached from emotions I expressly stated that it is Doctor Manhattan who is detached from emotions that he can no longer relate to as they are now meaningless to him due to his ability (or curse) of seeing time, as well as through time, as a single continuum. Living beings and dead beings are all the same to him and because Doctor Manhattan exists as a singularity or even a quantum singularity, for which there is no metaphysical companion or construct, he is left detached from a higher form of man-made-defined Godhood or completeness. Which is why he seeks answers and seeks to create a new form of flawed humanity. It is a verbal debate with Dr. Manhattan and Laurie that brings him back to Earth to "Save" humanity from something that he has already seen and not an emotional attachment. I'll leave Dr. Manhattan's internal struggle with "Free Will" to himself. Does he act because he chooses to act or is it because he saw it happen in the future/past/now and can do nothing about it?

Your essential error is in insisting that Jon is divorced from emotion/caring. I've already cited examples that show that's Absolutely Not True (there are more), but it's worth pointing out that they occur as part of his "evolution," towards the end of the book.

Jon Osterman became Dr. Manhattan but Dr. Manhattan is NOT Jon Osterman.

Dr. Manhattan: On Mars, you taught me the value of life. If we hope to preserve it here, we must remain silent.

Why would Jon Osterman need to be taught the value of life?

Rorschach: Outside, in the snow, Rorschach comes across a copy of Dr. Manhattan standing in the snow] Out of my way. People have to be told.
Dr. Manhattan: You know I can't let you do that.
Rorschach: Suddenly you discover humanity. Convenient.
[Takes off his mask]
Rorschach: If you'd cared from the start, none of this would've happened.
Dr. Manhattan: I can change almost anything... but I can't change human nature.

Limited power or limited imagination?

Dr. Manhattan: In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon.
Laurie Juspeczyk: Everyone will die!
Dr. Manhattan: And the universe will not even notice.

As Alan Moore himself stated, "It's a comic book".

[–] NorrinRad (5008) 4 years ago

FWIW, the sentence "Dr. Manhattan only experiences life, emotion and humanity through others" ignores the fact that this is true for All Of Us.

Curious statement there by you. I experience life through my own thoughts, feelings, sensations and emotions. None of my emotions nor my emotional state of being is dependent on others. They may be totally dependent on the combination of my personal thermodynamic miracle and whatever you define as a soul but they are not defined, created or generated by others.

Empathy refers to the ability to relate to another person’s pain vicariously, as if one has experienced that pain themselves: For instance, people who are highly egoistic and presumably lacking in empathy keep their own welfare paramount in making moral decisions like how or whether to help the poor.

[–] Goliard (1413) 4 years ago

"I experience life through my own thoughts, feelings, sensations and emotions. None of my emotions nor my emotional state of being is dependent on others."

I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I'll leave the rest at what I said, which is sufficiently clear. But this is worth responding to, because it's Exactly Wrong: it's helpful to consider that None of your emotions/states of being exist in a vacuum. So, YES: they are dependent on others.

These are fairly well-trod concepts in both physics And philosophy, and one of the reasons the topic fascinates me is that this is where the two disciplines begin to dovetail.

If it helps, consider that the definition You provided of "empathy" necessarily includes the perspective of Another Person. This is just where it Begins; the concepts proceed from there.