Marvel Cinematic Universe

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Dang Woodchucks! said:
I always get a chuckle that this turbofaggot never noticed how badly he owned himself in the single-minded desire to shit on a guy infinitely better than him.
Click to expand...
wtfNeedSignUp said:
I think the Comedian is more of an opposite to Rorschach - an eternal shitlord with no morals that gets broken by his actions in the end. Or even Owlman - a massive cuck that will throw away his morals for his safety when it most matters.

Veidt is basically the epitome of "We must allow the government to infringe (y)our rights for OUR democracy" - he tries to show himself as a humanitarian but it's clear he thinks humans are too dumb to make the correct choices.
Click to expand...
wtfNeedSignUp said:
It's really weird that Moore was good enough writer to follow up with the characterisation of Rorschach, but terrible enough as a human being to miss why people will naturally gravitate towards people who will sacrifice their lives for the concept of justice, rather than bugman esque decimation for the greater good.
Click to expand...

Honestly this is the part about Moore/Watchmen that I personally find to be a little bit sus. I actually have trouble believing that Moore genuinely does not understand why people like Rorschach, yet at the same time managed to craft such an intruiging story around him.

My pocket conspiracy theory is that he only pretends to hate Rorscach so he doesn't get cancelled for writing the most based/redpilled hero of all time and in fact, secretly wrote him that way on purpose. Yeah sure its far fatched, but is it really more far fetched than the alternatives?

Option 1:​

Moore was actually writing "blind" the entire time.

He was just randomly tossing shit at paper as it was coming to his head and it randomly kept working, and by the time it came out he barely understood what he had writen, so when people liked Rors he was shocked because he didn't realize he accidentally made Rors one of the greatest superheroes of the entire industry even by today's standard.

Basically the entirety of watchment literally happened by sheer cosmic accident (or thermodynamic miracle, as Manhattan might say.)


Option 2:​

Moore's moral compass is so unbelievably fucked that he genuinely believes mass decimation in the name of "our democracy" based on flimsy predictions is the morally admirable option. But this doesn't work because Moore is a fucking ANARCHIST.

You're telling me an ANARCHIST wrote a story where one character wants to secretly kill millions for "the greater good", and another character believes "people have a right to know", and he was actually intending for the "right to know" guy to be the bad one? I call bullshit, I'm not buying it, especially coming from anarchist, from a bugman? Maybe, but an anarchist? An 80s anarchist? Absolutely no.

The only other explenation is that moore is literally retarded and wrote watchmen by accident which takes us back to option one.



tl;dr

The only explenation is that alan moore is secretly based and redpilled and has been lying for 40 years because the alternatives are even more retarded.
 
Oilspill Battery said:
Honestly this is the part about Moore/Watchmen that I personally find to be a little bit sus. I actually have trouble believing that Moore genuinely does not understand why people like Rorschach, yet at the same time managed to craft such an intruiging story around him.

My pocket conspiracy theory is that he only pretends to hate Rorscach so he doesn't get cancelled for writing the most based/redpilled hero of all time and in fact, secretly wrote him that way on purpose. Yeah sure its far fatched, but is it really more far fetched than the alternatives?

Option 1:​

Moore was actually writing "blind" the entire time.

He was just randomly tossing shit at paper as it was coming to his head and it randomly kept working, and by the time it came out he barely understood what he had writen, so when people liked Rors he was shocked because he didn't realize he accidentally made Rors one of the greatest superheroes of the entire industry even by today's standard.

Basically the entirety of watchment literally happened by sheer cosmic accident (or thermodynamic miracle, as Manhattan might say.)


Option 2:​

Moore's moral compass is so unbelievably fucked that he genuinely believes mass decimation in the name of "our democracy" based on flimsy predictions is the morally admirable option. But this doesn't work because Moore is a fucking ANARCHIST.

You're telling me an ANARCHIST wrote a story where one character wants to secretly kill millions for "the greater good", and another character believes "people have a right to know", and he was actually intending for the "right to know" guy to be the bad one? I call bullshit, I'm not buying it, especially coming from anarchist, from a bugman? Maybe, but an anarchist? An 80s anarchist? Absolutely no.

The only other explenation is that moore is literally retarded and wrote watchmen by accident which takes us back to option one.



tl;dr

The only explenation is that alan moore is secretly based and redpilled and has been lying for 40 years because the alternatives are even more retarded.
Click to expand...
I've said this pretty much before in another thread so apologies if this is a double-sperg for some, but anyway...

I think you're wrong. I think Alan Moore sincerely didn't understand why people saw Rorschach as a hero. And for my argument I will present a famous precedent. John Milton's Paradise Lost. Milton was a deeply religious man who set out to create an epic work which praised God and showed how foolish Satan was to oppose the Almighty. In doing so he almost single-handedly created the anti-hero / noble version of Satan that has persisted to this day. Whether it's Rolling Stone's Sympathy of the Devil, Netflix's Lucifer or any other ennobling or positive take on the myth of Satan - blame Milton. His religious convictions ran so deep that he simply could not see how people could admire a figure who faced utterly overwhelming odds, literally an omnipotent being, and decided to stand and oppose him anyway. "What thought the field be lost, all is not lost."

Which brings us to Rorschach. Who faces the near omnipotent Dr. Manhattan - literally, physically - and utters his last words of no compromise. "Not even in the face of Armageddon". There's no greater underdog in Watchmen than Rorschach - born in destitution to a whore, bullied, spurned and yet chooses not to become like his oppressors but to fight. He has no big inheritance like Owl Man. No staggering gifts like Ozymandias. And certainly no random endowment of power like John. The only one like him is The Comedian who chooses to serve the government, the war - who compromises almost day 1.

Of COURSE people admire Rorschach. How wedded to your beliefs would you have to be to think everyone else would see Rorschach the way you did - to write all those admirable qualities of the character, just as Milton did with Satan, and think that all you were doing was making your villain more tragic and impactful rather than redeeming them into a hero?

I'll tell you how wedded to your beliefs you have to be - Alan Moore levels of wedded to your beliefs.
 
Oilspill Battery said:
You're telling me an ANARCHIST wrote a story where one character wants to secretly kill millions for "the greater good", and another character believes "people have a right to know", and he was actually intending for the "right to know" guy to be the bad one? I call bullshit, I'm not buying it, especially coming from anarchist, from a bugman? Maybe, but an anarchist? An 80s anarchist? Absolutely no.
Click to expand...
Anarchists, especially green anarchists, are all about how "humans are the real cancer" and that mass killings of people for the greater good is alright (as long as they are not the ones targeted). Ditto, anarchists and libertanians will betray the idea of freedom of information the moment it is about facts they don't like. 80's anarchists are even worse because they were far more convinced of their morality.
 
1EFD51D2-60B4-49CD-9D9D-ABD6235A1F9C.jpeg

Guess who?
 
Overly Serious said:
I think you're wrong. I think Alan Moore sincerely didn't understand why people saw Rorschach as a hero. And for my argument I will present a famous precedent. John Milton's Paradise Lost. Milton was a deeply religious man who set out to create an epic work which praised God and showed how foolish Satan was to oppose the Almighty. In doing so he almost single-handedly created the anti-hero / noble version of Satan that has persisted to this day.
Click to expand...
At first I thought there's no way Moore could be this blind, but after reading your comment on the fact that is the second time this exact same thing happens (Dogmatic person writes most influential story of its genre/creates a new genre, in their dogmatism they don't understand why people like antagonist more than protagonist), it appears that alan moore actually is this blind since there is literal precedent for this exact same thing thing happening.

Its really weird how rorschach literally fights god in the form of jon and moore didn't notice the parallels between paradise lost and watchmen.

Rorsach is literally the devil (in an anarchists/liberal's eyes at least), being a rightwinger, homophobic, conspiracy theorist that hates liberals and intellectuals, which apparently moore thought would be enough to make us hate him right off the gate. Alan tells us that he is deplorable, but doesn't actually show him doing anything deplorable.

Because, appart from those things, what does rorschach actually do that a regular person would find unacceptable? Beat up rapists and refuse to obey an authority he finds unfair for entirely selfless reasons?
 
SteelPlatedHeart said:
View attachment 3828261

Guess who?
Click to expand...
I can't tell what's the funniest part here, the fact that she's a Medabots rip-off, or the fact that her suit has built-in cornrows. Also, her figurine is leaked & the full suit looks even worse. I'd post a picture, but I can't use the normal site probably due to Null's mentioned ISP issues, & TOR version being a slow, near-unusable, piece of shit doesn't help. Hope it gets fixed soon.

The whole thing looks like they took Flame Toys Furai Model Windblade, & made a soulless rip-off that took everything that made it awesome, or even beautiful.
 
Lol so Valentina is Ross's ex and she has a few different scenes in Wakanda Forever thank god. She is the only good part of the film by far.

stuff happens oh Angela Bassett dies btw. Okoye is essentially kicked out of the Dora Milaje. She saves Ross later on. End credits scene reveal Nakia has a kid she named T''Challa.......uhhh.....
 
Overly Serious said:
I've said this pretty much before in another thread so apologies if this is a double-sperg for some, but anyway...

I think you're wrong. I think Alan Moore sincerely didn't understand why people saw Rorschach as a hero. And for my argument I will present a famous precedent. John Milton's Paradise Lost. Milton was a deeply religious man who set out to create an epic work which praised God and showed how foolish Satan was to oppose the Almighty. In doing so he almost single-handedly created the anti-hero / noble version of Satan that has persisted to this day. Whether it's Rolling Stone's Sympathy of the Devil, Netflix's Lucifer or any other ennobling or positive take on the myth of Satan - blame Milton. His religious convictions ran so deep that he simply could not see how people could admire a figure who faced utterly overwhelming odds, literally an omnipotent being, and decided to stand and oppose him anyway. "What thought the field be lost, all is not lost."

Which brings us to Rorschach. Who faces the near omnipotent Dr. Manhattan - literally, physically - and utters his last words of no compromise. "Not even in the face of Armageddon". There's no greater underdog in Watchmen than Rorschach - born in destitution to a whore, bullied, spurned and yet chooses not to become like his oppressors but to fight. He has no big inheritance like Owl Man. No staggering gifts like Ozymandias. And certainly no random endowment of power like John. The only one like him is The Comedian who chooses to serve the government, the war - who compromises almost day 1.

Of COURSE people admire Rorschach. How wedded to your beliefs would you have to be to think everyone else would see Rorschach the way you did - to write all those admirable qualities of the character, just as Milton did with Satan, and think that all you were doing was making your villain more tragic and impactful rather than redeeming them into a hero?

I'll tell you how wedded to your beliefs you have to be - Alan Moore levels of wedded to your beliefs.
Click to expand...
I disagree on this due to reading Satan as a heroic (rather than just sympathetic) character is a low iq idea - he is never shown doing anything that can be said to be "good", or having good attributes, the only thing people like is the idea of rebelling against ultimate authority, that ignores that fact he was in heaven and never needed for anything.

Meanwhile Rorschach does unequivocally good things and is living in a world where the only two actions are fighting back and becoming a criminal, or being a cuck and waiting to be a prey animal.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if Disney went full Buckle Your Pants mode on Boseman's death. It's been their basic MO for handling serious themes for a while now.

Drag-on Knight 91873 said:
Seeing as how the corpse has fully decomposed at this point, I'm just going to say it; Chadwick Boseman was just an actor. He was a hard-working man, but to say he is as mythological as Marlon Brando or Orson Welles or Humphrey Bogart is overselling what his legacy actually was.
Click to expand...
His death was the only genuinely surprising twist. You already knew basically everyone was coming back from Infinity War before the movie was even over, but their recently instated flagship character got hit by permadeath and threw all of that into uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
That Chris Guy said:
Wouldn't be surprised if Disney went full Buckle Your Pants mode on Boseman's death. It's been their basic MO for handling serious themes for a while now.


His death was the only genuinely surprising twist. You already knew basically everyone was coming back from Infinity War before the movie was even over, but their recently instated flagship character got hit by permadeath and threw all of that into uncertainty.
Click to expand...
Your not wrong. It would be like if Robert Downey Jr. Sadly died after Avengers Age of Ultron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom