While Rorschach maintains strict moral absolutism there are good men; there are bad men , it remains unclear what his criteria for this might entail.
Manhattan's powers grew exponentially and he was able to surpass his limits by being able to use reality-bending powers, having free will and being able to intervene. So, the character evolved and with that evolution, his powers grew to a practically unfathomable level. Manhattan wins in this regard, since his powers are directly tied to him and his DNA. While Thanos is still incredibly powerful even without the Infinity Gauntlet, he is nowhere near as strong as Dr.
Because of this, Dr. Manhattan is easily the more inherently powerful between the two characters. Perhaps the biggest twist of the "Watchmen" finale is that it was really Lady Trieu who was behind the plot to capture and kill Dr. Manhattan — not the Seventh Kavalry, as previously suggested. Adrian Veidt , or better known as Ozymandias and The Smartest Man in the World is one of the main antagonists of DC Comics He is the main antagonist of both the comic book miniseries Watchmen and its sequel Doomsday Clock, as well as the main antagonist of the film adaptation by Zack Snyder, and the Due to his omniscience, Dr.
Manhattan is certainly smarter and more knowledgeable than Ozymandias, but since Manhattan is focused on thousands of things at once, Ozymandias, being the smartest human, has a better practical application of his knowledge. Do you seriously think I would explain my master stroke to you if there were even the slightest possibility you could affect the outcome?
I triggered it 35 minutes ago. Given the fact that the Eternals are significantly stronger than the Avengers, would their involvement in Infinity War have resulted in the Eternals' defeat of Thanos? Not necessarily. Manhattan, he couldn't do a thing about, even if he weren't sure the good doctor was onboard with this plans. But those two, he almost had to dirtnap them. I think he just actually trusted Dan and Laurie to keep their word - and I think we're supposed to think that.
You can argue one way or another, but really I think if Moore didn't reference Ozymandias being worried about Dan and Laurie, we the audience aren't supposed to think that he is or would be either.
Especially in a story as meticulous as Watchmen, if it's not there, it's not there on purpose, I figure. Originally Posted by Adekis.
Hey man! Veidt seems pretty pragmatic - I think he was just tying up all his loose ends. I don't think he'd have killed Blake just because he doesn't like him. But I think he probably did kind of hate Comedian, or at least his ideas.
After all, Comedian making Captain Metropolis look like a joke at the aborted "Crimebusters" meeting was what set Ozymandias down the path toward trying to "save the world" in the first place, right? There's that panel where Ozymandias looks at Captain Metropolis' burning map and he's thinking about it, I think he says or thinks in a caption that was when he decided he had to save the world from itself - no matter what cost.
If Comedian's ideology was what piqued Ozymandias so much that he was willing to commit atrocities to prove him wrong, then I bet you're right about him hating Comedian, even though I don't think that's why he killed him. By displaying the future as immutable, along with the endlessly violent and gloomy backdrop in which the story takes place, Moore emphasizes the single variable: the distinct morals of the unique characters. Despite this, Manhattan decides to base his morals on preserving human life, which always seems to find a way to reset itself after great tragedy or a period of peace.
Since he also sees that time is fixed and enduring, he determines that the laws society enacts to protect life are both necessary in the short term and useless in the long term.
Similarly, Adrian Veidt, or Ozymandias, holds a consequentialist view of morality, basing his actions solely on their final results, choosing to ignore short-term harm in service of long-term benefit.
Albeit he has taken it to the extreme in his decision to kill millions of New Yorkers and blame it on aliens in order to bring about world peace. Moore thus seems to provide three distinct views of morality to show the extremes of all variations. Ozymandias represents the epitome of long-term, consequentialist thought, Rorschach, the simple self-righteous mentality, while Manhattan displays deontological ethics, basing his judgment on what is better, worse, or insignificant for humanity.
However, despite how it may seem like his morality is based on the good of others, it is ultimately derived from a selfish need for fulfillment, a need to feel like he is making a difference. Her exploration provides an interesting insight into the mind of Ozymandias. Though they built great kingdoms, their impressive empires were no exception to the ravages of time. Additionally, Moore seems to use Ozymandias as a foil for Rorschach, a point of comparison to highlight the distinguishing features of both characters.
While Ozymandias is wealthy, powerful, and handsome, Rorschach is filthy, despised, and unattractive. Ozymandias struggles to justify his actions, even to himself, and is left wondering how long his newly created peace will last, with Dr. No matter what the circumstances are, they can always change, hopefully for the better.
More importantly, Watchmen exhibits the best part of being human: our ability to choose our own ideas for right and wrong and act upon them.
Despite being deemed superheroes, the characters in Watchmen , including Dr. Manhattan, are all fundamentally human. Perhaps the point is not that superheroes can be human, but that humans can be superheroes.
Dietrich, Bryan D. Academic OneFile. Kreider, S. Evan, and Margaret Weis. Joseph J. Foy and Timothy M. All that he has believed in is going to change and there is a high probability that he will not be a part of it. If one considers Rorschach - The Comedian is almost his double except that the Comedian is on the side of 'Good' and Rorschach is on the side of 'Bad'. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.
Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. What is the in-film explanation for Comedian's crying? Ask Question.
Asked 5 years, 1 month ago. Active 4 years, 7 months ago. Viewed 7k times. This plan makes the Comedian realise that "it's all a joke". We know he is aware of it, because of said scene and the fact that the Comedian is assassinated by Veidt, but how does the film explain the way Comedian became aware of said plot?
Improve this question. Gallifreyan Gallifreyan 20k 6 6 gold badges 98 98 silver badges bronze badges. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Movie In the film version , the method of his discovery isn't explained in any great detail. Graphic Novel In the comic-book, this is rather more explicitly explained in Watchmen 11; Look upon my works, ye Mighty
0コメント