Is Rorschach really the protagonist in this?

Is Rorschach really the protagonist in this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZRniSgIkHZA
youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
twitter.com/AnonBabble

He's the only one who wants the people to determine their own fates

the comedian is

How could the protagonist of the film not be in it for 3/4ths of the time.

Nite Owl is very clearly the protagonist. Most of the movie (that doesn't take place in flashbacks) is from his perspective.

Daniel is.

>How could the protagonist of the film not be in it for 3/4ths of the time.
tell that to No Country for Old Men

There's no definitive protagonist in this movie, it's supposed to be up to you to determine who actually did the right thing in this scenario.

>rapist as the protagonist
No thanks

Yes

The protagonist isn't the character who does the right thing. The protagonist is the character whose perspective frames the story. Nite Owl II frames the story.

Are you trying to tell me that the narrator is the protagonist?

rorschach
>man without compromise
>autistic af
>trench coat and fedora
>white Knight twisted fucking psychopath
literally me

No, I'm trying to tell you that the story is framed from the protagonist. Whose experience is the majority of the film "Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope" seen from?

Hooded justice is

These guys know what's up

...

I feel the Owl was. Though I'm not sure if it's because he had any more screentime centered on him, or if it were just because he was morally the most correct so you align with him as the hero

Don't forget
>with a wicked sense of humour

Ozy is the protag, despite possible homosexuality

Daniel is because most of this stuff either revolves around him or is seen through his eyes.

Read the comic, tiz better than the sexed up nonsense Snyder shite

I don't think he ever displays a sense of humor, at all

>Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis were lovers

>my feet hurt
>how long will they make us stand here for the photo?
>I wish I was home tying more nooses
>I hope nite owl can still give me a ride home

He does, when he gives Nite Owl the Comedian's smiley face button Nite Owl asks what's the stain, bean juice and he laughs saying "yeah human bean juice"

was pretty funny when he killed that pregnant vietnamese lady

oh yea, I actually own the book, just haven't read it in a while

you're right

>I wish I was sodomizing people

>criminal yanks rope
>Hooded Justice chokes to death
Why did he ever think this was a good costume design?

that was the comedian

we are talking about the 'schachner

This was funny
youtube.com/watch?v=ZRniSgIkHZA

he wasn't a rapist
he was just gay, a power bottom

>forgetting the prison cell scenes

he was a gay nazi who became a minutemen because spanking criminals made his dick hard
if someone tried to choke him he would probably cum

it's comfy and easy to wear

I want a spin off series of rorscach and danial doing more crime investigations.

Would Dr.Manhatten of killed rorschach had rorschach not told him to kill him?
Thats kind of been how Manhatten lived always taking orders and never deciding to do things on his own.

He did it because that's what Alan Moore wrote him to do :^)

But he actually does something instead of sitting on the computer and comparing himself to superheroes on the worst board on Sup Forums desu baka senpai

Daniel/Nite Owl is probably the one the average viewer could mostly identify with.
He wants to do the right thing but he's unsure of what the right thing is, he did not like to beat up to death people but wants justice, etc.
This happened to me with the comic book at least, and that's why I was a little bit scared by the ending, accepting the mass murder of millions of civilians as "best case scenario"

>would of

>Whose experience is the majority of the film "Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope" seen from?

R2-D2

I just realized that Watchmen would have worked even better as an HBO mini-series

it's not forgetting, it's called giving a different example, just like you did

Nite Owl and Rorschach and Silk Spectre 2 all have decent claims on being the protagonist. The audience don't really know much more than they do (except near the end) and their motivations / actions aren't really hidden from the audience.

so why were people pissed about the ending change again? wasn't the original ending just a snarky jab at the absurdity of superhero comics?

>wasn't the original ending just a snarky jab at the absurdity of superhero comics?

I've never heard that, but people argue that Manhattan was viewed as being AMERICA'S superweapon that regardless of the nuclear attacks on US soil that Ozy framed him for, the other nations that got nuked would still see it as an attack by the US.

Of course they forget the other part of the story where Ozy turns the entire US public against him, to the point that they no longer even consider him "human"

I don't recall there being any penetration

He literally gets Sally pregnant.

they have a consensual affair after the rape attempt

youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

You mean this?

In the book. In the movie he rapes her and that's it.

watch it again, you dumb shit.

THE PROTAGONISTS ARE THE WATCHMEN

>Heard joke once
>Man goes to doctor.
>Says he's depressed.
>Says life seems harsh and cruel.
>Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain.
>Doctor says: Treatment is simple.
>Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight.
>Go and see him.
>That should pick you up.
>Man bursts into tears
>Says: "But doctor...I AM Pagliacci.”

You couldn't pay me to watch this rubbish one more time. I rather your dumb ass winning this petty argument.

The movie is from Daniel's point of view but the story is about the comedian.

>"Your mother loves a man, a man she has every reason to hate, Edward Blake. The Comedian."

Yeah sure he rapes her and that's it.

...

No, the homeless redheaded manlet that smells like shit isn't the protagonist of a superhero movie.

>this video is 8 years old now
jesus christ

>Is Rorschach really the protagonist in this?
He's A protagonist. It's an ensemble meta-story told from multiple perspectives. There's no singular protagonist, and characters switch position depending on who's perspective the story is coming from.

kek

also, you just don't want to bee in melee with Hooded Justice.

Finally... is partially the point, see Dollar Bill.

why quentin avatarfag as ozy anyone knows?

dude look at him, sharp suit, Aryan features, he could tell you citizen Kane was garbage and you'd believe him.

Using Ozymandias as an avatar gives him clout.

I actually thought the movie ending worked a bit better as it unites humanity against a common enemy that they already know has the powers of a god.

Yes. In the movie is evident - you see the change in the perspective point based on the funeral scene - every flashback is based there.

just go read those garbage prequels that DC put out. you're both plebs btw.

No you idiot, it doesn't work because in Moore's original ending the world unites against a foreign threat, in Snyder's crapfest the world wouldn't unite with the USA to battle one of their own.mIt's idiotic.

But sure, Snyder kino and all that meme.

Not only that - I love both versions, but to be nitpicky, even the single monster striking only NYC in the comic has some problem.

The USSR would have not given a shit, or worse taken advantage of it.

In the movie there is too the implication about human nature - need of god, need of be scared of him to well behave. Subverted because is a god-enemy.

Hi Alan. I think that even if the book is better, the film has some point. You should not be butthurt, is the only one that tried to respect your work.

Jesus Christ. The prequels are horrible. I just save the visual style of minutemen.

>in Moore's original ending the world unites against foreign threat,

Stop that meme. The threat was made by america just as much as manhattan was.

Who set it all up? Fucking Oz.

Moore's book was a reaction to people blaming creative people like musicians and other artists for bad shit happening in the world.

At least Snyder had the sense to make it about man vs god. Something everyone can relate to.

But the US public turned against Manhattan throughout the movie after seeing him give (supposedly) cancer to his colleagues and seeing him as unstable on television.
The bombing of New York solidified this as it showed Manhattan to be considered more like an alien by both the US and the Soviets (who already feared him).

Nice quads.

>this argument again
How many times do you need to be proven wrong?
Manhattan is as much a foreign threat as the squid monster, this is established very clearly, the only thing that disagrees is your faggot headcannon

What does that have to do with my post saying the book would probably be adapted better as a mini-series rather than one movie?
Fucking idiot.

Reminder that Ozy set up the whole thing.
The only reason people thought nuclear war was certain was because The Blue Man Group couldn't see past a certain point in time.

This is revealed in the story to be the doing of Ozy to try and trick ol' blue wrinkle dick so that he doesn't stop the plans before he's too alienated from humankind.

There was never going to be nuclear war, the result would have been the same as real life - the Soviets going bust, Gorbachev turning the lights out, etc.

Did Ozy take over the world after this?

>Uses a late career Cohen Bros. movie in a conversation about traditional film tropes

>well as long as they're mad at him, I guess we can't be too upset that they created and harbored this unstable weapon of mass destruction and held the world hostage against force of threat.

Did you see who got the rebuilding contracts for literally everything?

One of the main reasons Watchmen doesn't work well in a post 1991 world.

Regardless of the past I'm pretty sure both sides would want to fight back against a greater evil in their eyes since both of them knew how destructive Manhattan was compared to their nukes.

>The only reason people thought nuclear war was certain was because The Blue Man Group couldn't see past a certain point in time.
user, it was the cold war. People thought nuclear war was certain because it damn near was.

I like the movie but this is a valid point.

Bane

>tfw people actually criticized the Cold War setting in the movie despite being completely necessary to the story

TDKR Bane would've actually worked well in this setting

did people seriously do this? like professional reviewers or people you knew irl?

>user, it was the cold war. People thought nuclear war was certain because it damn near was.
They believed it was inevitable in the comic and the movie because Dr M couldn't see past a certain point in time, and that was entirely 100% only because of the tachyon fuckery from Alexander the Great wannabe boylover Adrian veidt

Professional reviewers unfortunately

>The negative reviews generally disliked the film's Cold War-period setting, using various adjectives to describe it such as "stuffy",[106] "stiff",[107] "bor[ing]",[108] "oddly hollow",[107] "embalmed",[109] "truncated",[110] and "psychic suffocation".[111] They cited the film's much-advertised reverence of the source material as a fault, referring to the story as "trapped"[106] in a faithful representation of Alan Moore's graphic novel.

>criticized the Cold War setting in the movie
Snyder did everything he could to bury the period setting.

Doctor Manhattan himself is the one who suggests that it's probably a nuclear war that's clouding his vision.

Bane works well in any setting. But yes it would have been real interesting to watchmen with a big guy among them

Yes, and then Veidt explains later after executing his plans, that it was in fact just a ruse and the tachyons and the reason why he couldn't see further forward in time, was his doing.

Some of those are actually fair reviews though. Whoever wrote the wiki article purposely framed it to dismiss the negative reviewers, when most of them aren't criticizing the fact that it's set in the Cold War era so much as Snyder's direction.

The point is, you millennial piece of shit, is that you have zero frame of reference for what life was like during the cold war. International thermonuclear war wasn't just a meme, it was a very real and daily concern of people. You didn't need magical blue dick back then to read the writing on the wall. So yes, veidt was being a rusemaster, but the setting and time period of the story is absolutely CRITICAL to understanding what the fuck is going on.

That wasn't the only reason though. People really did think that nuclear armageddon was a question "when" rather than "if". It's hard to put yourself in that mindset now.

Wasn't that scene an implication that Rorschach might secretly want the owl dick? It mirrors an earlier scene between Dan and Laurie in which he holds her hand for too long after a handshake in the exact same way, and we know that was because he wanted to bone her.

My point is that Veidt either: believed that was going to be a nuclear war and could avert it, in which case he was wrong
Or that there wasn't going to be a nuclear war but he could exploit the fear of it, destroy some cities, and making himself a master of the world with well place rebuilding efforts.

There was no nuclear war, and there wasn't going to be one either.