its just a movie.

Must be cause you're a faggot.

faggot.

hah neat. I suppose all the more reason to idolize Rorschach. Lesbian WHORE

>>2996343
>>2996340
>>2996339
TROLLED! TROLLED! AHAHA U GOT TROLED U FAGTS

If you believe in science, you know there IS something wrong with gay people. They can't reproduce, so in the eyes of evolution, they are worthless.

>>2996332
it's a movie. get over it. or die. whatever.

The movie has political undertones, In fact the way I see it, it comes down to conservatives versus liberals. Rorschach is conservative, Night Owl is a moderate, and the rest are liberals. As a conservative it's easy to see why he'd refer to her death in a disapproving way.

It's not a theme in the movie, it's a theme in one character's dialogue. You're not supposed to agree with Rorschach. You're supposed to be disgusted by him.

Alan Moore is actually one of the most liberal guys out there. He actively supports gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgender rights.

Adrian is gay. Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice were gay. In the comic there is a whole subplot with a lesbian taxi driver that of course couldn't be included in the movie. Alan Moore supports gay rights.

You just can't accept that the protagonist (Rorschach) is not necessarily someone you should agree with. In fact quite the opposite. The fact that the killing of lesbians is depicted does not in the slightest suggest support or agreement. It would be like saying The Godfather glorifies and supports the mafia and suggests you should become a mafioso.

>>2996350
In the early 1970's homosexuals bullied the American psychiatrist board and the medical community at large to remove homosexuality from their list of illnesses, even though doctors did have a biological reason (a species' natural need to reproduce to propagate and save itself) to have it classified as such.

>>2996350
No. They're perfectly capable of the reproductive act. They just choose not to do it.

Rorschach is judgemental, no doubt about that. But answer these for me:

Would Rorschach ever kill someone just for being gay?

If Rorschach discovered the person that murdered the dykes, what do you think he would do to them? I don't think it would be congratulatory.

the scene during the opening montage where the super chick kissed the other chick celebrating the end of world war 2 was hot.

>>2996366
Adrian Veidt is not gay

>>2996408
Sorry bro, Veidt loves the cock.

>>2996408

>>2996384
Rorschach is supposed to be the diry low-life conservative among a party of liberal heroes, which is why he's treated the way he is by the others, and his "wild conspiracy plot" is dismissed so easily by the others.

Moore is a liberal, and Rorschach is supposed to be the guy in the group YOU the reader/viewer hate, but anon likes a bad-ass, so he ends up owning.

>>2996415
Acronym. Also, it's only an easter egg that was never meant to be definitive proof of anything.

>>2996384

>Would Rorschach ever kill someone just for being gay?

Actually, I start to wonder if he might. I mean that's sort of the point... at the point where we see him at the start of the movie he's getting very close to just going completely over the edge and murdering everyone who disgusts him (which is most of humanity). There's just not a lot holding him back anymore.

>>2996416
>Moore is a liberal, and Rorschach is supposed to be the guy in the group YOU the reader/viewer hate, but anon likes a bad-ass, so he ends up owning.

A lot of people have read Watchmen. Do you think "I fucking hate Rorschach" is a popular opinion among them?

>>2996415
Ballistic Operations Yearly Schedule?

>>2996433
A lot of people saw Star Wars. How many of them hated Darth Vader (not counting the emo faggot in the new trilogy), Darth Maul, and Boba Fett? Almost no one.

>>2996427
You're so hard in denial. Acronym? For what? Bootylicious Oregon Yummy Men? I suspect you're a latent homosexual.

>>2996427
plus he's bringing the movie as evidence for the comic

>>2996416

Close, but not quite. Moore says in interviews that Rorschach is pretty much the hero of the story. You're not exactly supposed to like him, but you still cheer for him. Moore is a liberal, but he's the kind of smart liberal who understands that dividing the world into "Liberals GOOD, Conservatives BAD" is idiotic, so he deliberately wrote an awesome and bad-ass hero whose political views we are meant to find utterly reprehensible. Rorschach is a complex character; he's scary, disturbing, pretty close to uhinged, and at the same time we ifnd ourselves wanting to yell "FUCK YEAH!" at half the stuff he does.

I mean who didn't want to cheer at "I'm not locked in here with you..."?

>>2996384
no he wouldnt kill them just for being gays.

But i dont understand you are offended at THAT?.
He is supposed to be judgmental, thats the all point.

The "indecent life style" is not just about the sexuality choice but being promiscuity in general which is something that Rorschach despises.

>>2996464
He's an anarchist. And Rorschach leans that way.

>>2996449
Think about it. Would a guy like Veidt REALLY put his porn on the same disk as his work folders? Really?

Obviously we all know what it as meant to imply, as a joke, but that doesn't mean there isn't another more reasonable explanation for it.

>>2996332
You are retarded if you think Rorschach is anything close to hero or a good guy.

>>2996350
You are never going to reproduce, so are you worthless?

OP is a moron who never read the book. There are gay-lib themes in the book. Particularly the parts about the lesbian couples relationship around the newstand. Rorschach is just kind of a hardcore republican who hates what he deems unclean lifestyles. Yet, he is a dirty hobo who eats cold beans.

Rorschach is somewhere inbetween an anti-hero and a tragic villian because of the way he was brought up. He's compelling but he is not a good guy. He's not as bad as the Comedian though.

>>2996496
Plus Nixon, the most hated Republican President in history (up until Bush, who wasn't President in 1984), as still being President. It was fear-mongering intended to convince people that a totalitarian state would come from conservatives

>>2996415

>>2996510
The comedian wasn't a bad guy. He was just a good guy who was an asshole.

>>2996416
Isnt he treated like that because he is weird and crazy?.

I mean given how all the superheroes have some kind of fascist overtones most of them are leaning toward the right.

He didnt have much choice concerning the sympathetic character given the background.
Pretty much is just him and nite owl.

>>2996524
He beat up a crowd of people.

He was a badass asshole.

>>2996332

You're a fucking idiot.

The first thing anybody learns in a freshman lit class is that protagonist/narrator =/= author. The author CREATES characters that have certain view points and that doesn't imply anything about the author.

Rorschach actually comes across as badass. In the movie. Not in the comic.

>>2996576
That would have been fixed if they had given a little more time in his backstory to show just how fucking insane/pathetic he really is. I'm hoping the director's cut will do that.

Rorschach's personality iss just that, ultra right wing. He's adverse to deviation from what he perceives is the norm, and as a result, is viewed as insane by most of the characters in book and film.

I wish they included Hollisgetting killed, that would have been great.

>>2996594
The cut running in theatres is apparently just a glorified trailer for the real 4-hour cut.

It might get a limited release this June before heading to DVD/Blu-Ray.

>>2996609
It's filmed and will be in the director's cut.

>>2996569
Meow, you are a little catty. Is it a good thing that the first thing you do with your degree in lit (good luck with that) is correct 4chan posters?

lulz

You are not supposed to hate him. You can find him interesting and you can feel some sympathy for him. You are just not supposed to agree with his ideas and look up to them.

Man, I said this once before: Rorschach was a crude effigy of justice; hence why Manhattan got rid of him. Think of it as an illustration of "the fall of ideals," in order to make way for a new society.

>>2996616

Apparently it was the nastiest thing they filmed, and Snyder was really sad that he had to cut it.

>>2996625

lol uneducated fuck. Obviously you've never been to college. It's called GenEd. Everyone takes freshman english.

Didn't Alan Moore once criticize people for being fans of Rorschach?

>>2996429
He doesn't go around killing whores..

>>2996332 there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality

:)

>>2996332

>If you believe in science, you know there IS something wrong with gay people. They can't reproduce, so in the eyes of evolution, they are worthless.

>No. They're perfectly capable of the reproductive act. They just choose not to do it.
>They just choose not to do it
>choose not to
>choose
>Thinking homosexuality is a chosen trait.

Just accept it, men cannot reproduce by having sex with one another. It goes against the very concept of evolution and existence. Choice or not, you're a genetic fuck up. You're about as useful as a jellyfish baby, only you'll last roughly 80 years longer.

ITT: Everyone thinks that Alan Moore wrote simple, one-dimensional characters and that there is only one correct way to feel about them.

>>2996651
ITP we think comic books are deep

Dear God,

I read Watchmen a long time ago. It was good. Then they made a movie. The movie was not great, but not bad either. I thought, maybe I should check out what people are saying about it. But all I saw were idiots talking about Doc Manhattan's penis, and other bigger idiots that don't know what they are talking about. They say things like "Rorschach's the hero," and "Was anyone else bothered by _____ themes?"

They don't seem to understand that the main characters of the story are flawed, conflicted, and internally inconsistant (much like real people). They don't seem to understand that the purpose of the Watchmen was to completely turn the whole idea of a "hero" on its head. They don't seem to understand that Rorschach's hero was his father, whom he never met but imagined that he worked for Harry Truman, who was a Democrat. They don't seem to realize that this is a period piece, and that many of our social mores have changed dramatically in the last half of the twentieth century (and that the story takes place in a hypothetical world, which may be different than our own.)

I hate these people, God. I hate them so much.

Sincerely, Anonymous.

(P.S. You don't exist.)

RORSCHACH WAS RIGHT

>>2996647
You need to learn a bit more about evolutionary theory, dude.

>>2996647
A gay person can choose to have sex with a woman and produce a child. For gay people heterosexuality is a chosen trait.

I'm living proof of that. My grandfather is a flaming faggot.

>>2996660

>understand that the purpose of the Watchmen was to completely turn the whole idea of a "hero" on its head

Any progress towards this was completely undone by the stereotypically superhero ending.

>>2996647
Jesus Christ, you are almost as big a faggot as the OP. Who cares if a small group of people are not having kids? Its not like the human race is running out of people. Evolution does not have a point or a goal, it just happens. Go back to Worldnetdaily, you shit.

>>2996633
>Man, I said this once before: Rorschach was a crude effigy of justice; hence why Manhattan got rid of him. Think of it as an illustration of "the fall of ideals," in order to make way for a new society.
Yeah, except Dr. Manhattan was a douchebag and anybody who had the balls to face vaporization would tell him so to his face.

Manhattan and Veidt being the "good guys" doesn't make sense because they're huge faggots, and I'm not even talking in the sexual orientation sense of the word.

ITT: Thirty grown men, possibly with degrees in academic fields, who would defend the term "Graphic Novel," shamelessly, even though they know it's just a fucking comic and if the author/authors (what a joke) really wanted to make more than a one dimensional impact than they should have written a fucking novel because the storyline isn't all too bad and they probably could've squeezed about 300 pages out of the fucker.

Seriously, though, it's a comic.

>>2996672
Saving the world through terrorism doesn't turn the idea of a superhero on its head?

>>2996672
>stereotypically superhero ending.
lolwut? Villain wins, heroes die or accept it or fuck off into space? Yeah, totally stereotypical, dude.

>>2996675
Evolution does have a goal: to allow a species to adapt and live in the environment it's in. It just doesn't have any final master goal.

And biology does have a goal with reproductive organs. They're there for a reason.

>>2996684
When's the last time you've read a comic? or a book for that matter? Please leave this thread, educate yourself and be a douche somewhere else.

>>2996684
So it's not possible to tell a good story in a comic book? or are you just to narrow minded to be able to read a good story in a comic book?

>>2996684
They can tell good stories, just in different ways to a novel.
There are more good novels than comics though, yeah.

>>2996687

Yah the villain winning is something completely original that no one had ever thought of! No, the idea of a last boss fight and a mastermind behind the whole plot is what i'm talking about.

>>2996332
Rorschach is a far right anti-liberal a-hole, and we love him, and he doesn't speak for the whole movie/comic. and the Silhouette (lesbian hero) in the comic was kicked out of the group and forced to retire. for being an open lesbian in the 30's-40's, the movie just changed it.

>>2996695
Evolution does not have a goal. Organisms better at surviving and reproducing, survive and reproduce better.

There is clear evidence that homosexual behavior can aid survival of the organism and its close relatives in the wild. But this whole discussion is stupid. If people want to be gay (choice or not, it doesn't fucking matter) let them be gay.

>Graphic novel is just a comic and inherently inferior to a novel.
No more than a sonnet is inherently inferior to a haiku. It's a goddamn medium. Some media are inherently better than others at certain things, but nothing makes a novel "better" than a comic just because its a novel.

The Watchmen movie hasn't even come out yet. Stop trolling

Oh, look, the character the author intended everyone to hate is the most popular. Brilliant writing.

>>2996734
>>2996689
>villain
>villain
>villain

Fuck you. There's no such thing as heroes and villains. That's the fucking point of the story.

>>2996778
I can't tell if you're attempting to troll or being clever about the director's cut being the real film.

>>2996766 There is clear evidence that homosexual behavior can aid survival of the organism and its close relatives in the wild

Sure, there is.

>nothing makes a novel "better" than a comic just because its a novel
Which no one has said. They've only implied that comics are inherently inferior at developing deep and dynamic characters since most authors that can do so write novels.

>>2996766
>There is clear evidence that homosexual behavior can aid survival of the organism and its close relatives in the wild.

What evidence? Saying so doesn't make it so.

>>2996681
Rorschach seemed like an elaborate illustration of 50's American mentality, while Veidt depicted a more "liberal" sensibility. I mean, think about the scene involving the Kent State massacre: the scene was there to exaggerate just how the sociolinguistics of the times were in a definite upswing.

>>2996792
The real villains were the people the Watchmen swore to protect. Duh.

>>2996845
Lesbian bears raise cubs together. Male beetles mount other male beetles, leaving their sperm, and if the second beetle tries to mate with a female, there is a chance she will reproduce with the first male's sperm. In many social mammals, sex is used as a social glue and recreation (including homosexual). Small male cuttlefish make themselves look female to slip past larger males and mate with females with a higher success rate than the bigger males (though that's crossdressing and not homosexuality). Still doesn't matter, though. If people want to be gay, let them be gay. Who the hell cares?

>>2996889
*snip*-*snap*

A person doesn't have to reproduce to be of use to his species.
In fact, it's pretty handy to not have absolutely everyone creating little babies everywhere they go.
Remember: healthy heterosexuals create homosexual people.

>>2996697
>>2996699
>>2996721

I'm not trolling here, but the term graphic novel should not be used. I don't read comics, but I know that any true comic fan would know that the term "Graphic Novel" is one of if not the most controversial terms when speaking about comics and their rite to be considered and welcomed into majority of the world literature cannon.

Novel defines something specific. Comic defines something specific although it's not necessarily tapped within the confines of a "book." You can have a comic "pamphlet," if you wish. Now, to add on "novel," here, there is a problem. A novel is much more complex than the terms pamphlet and book denote.

The only argument GN fans have is that Graphic Novels will typically have a beginning, middle and end. That's it. There is no other actual, literal similairty between the Graphic Novel and the Novel. The term is difused in its own obscurity because it tries to deny what it really is -- and that is a comic.

>>2996845
Google gay dolphins.

>>2996960

But the Graphic Novel has parts that lack graphics. Its part novel, part comic.

>>2996960

>I'm not trolling here, but the term graphic novel should not be used
But it is, so shut the fuck up.
Who are you to go against general consensus? What credentials or accolades in your meaningless existence have you attained for you to service as a voice of dissent?
None?
Oh, okay.
Shut up, you insipid shit shark.

I wonder if scientists will ever isolate the gay gene from the human genome. Know what would be a twist? If there were no gay genes.

A graphic novel is basically just a TPB that was only ever published as one, never as separate issues. Watchmen isn't a GN.

>>2997019
>Watchmen isn't a GN.
http://www.dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1462
Are we going to dispute DC now, too?

>>2996960
see
>No more than a sonnet is inherently inferior to a haiku. It's a goddamn medium. Some media are inherently better than others at certain things, but nothing makes a novel "better" than a comic just because its a novel.

Try reading one instead of going off what you "guess" a comic book is. I assume you haven't read on within the last 20 or so years and assume its childish adventures that last 25 pages. Wiki Greg Cox, He's an author that makes novelizations out of comics, His most recent book is 52, a DC comic event that lasted a year. The resulting book was over 300 pages however the novel only had to remove over half the content removed to make an average length book, i want you to read the Comic and then the novel and then you can make all the ass-hat'ed assumptions you want.

>>2997043
The term is used incorrectly all the time. That doesn't make it right. It's nothing worth raging over though.

Sonnets are better than haikus, end of discussion.

>>2996996
A novel isn't defined as "lacking graphics." The original term is "comic book." Book is ambiguous. So, if the reader/author wishes to enhance the title of their medium they can use "Graphic Book," or "Graphic Pamphlet." The reason the entire world (except for the comic fans, not even necessarily most comic authors) hates this term is because of the shallowness and inaccuracy of its meaning -- which results in people calling their comics "Grpahic Novels" JUST to sound intellectual, and shunning the comic novelty aspect of their work.

>>2997011
Umm, the general consensus, in the literary world, is that the term "Graphic Novel" is a fucking joke. There's been dissertations written on the subject and it's also a popular theme in cultural studies criticism.

>>2997058

And I want you to read some Neil Gaimen comics and then you can talk to me about how comics are inferior

>>2997018

those skinny pants on boys are pretty fucking gay

>>2996960
>>2996960
>The only argument GN fans have is that Graphic Novels will typically have a beginning, middle and end.
DURR HURR.

And that is a characteristic of the novels somehow?

Itt people that have no idea what the fuck they are talking about and pretend they do.

>>2997058
You're missing the point of my argument. You're upset because you think I'm saying that the "Graphic Novel," or comics in general, aren't as good as a novel. That is not the case, and your post is wrong about how I feel about comics.

I don't like the term. The term is inaccurate. Read my post: >>2997078

Comics are fine and yes they are their own, orginal medium. I'm not arguing that. Never once.

>>2997101
YES YOU IDIOT. THAT IS THE MAIN CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NOVEL. IT WAS A DEPARTURE FROM THE FRENCH/EUROPEAN ROMANCE. IT WAS THE FIRST FORM OF LITERATURE, OR WRITTEN EXPRESSION, THAT CONTAINED A CLEAR BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END. OMG, HAVE ANY OF YOU TAKEN AT LEAST A LEVEL 100 LIT COURSE???

>>2997078
the literary world is full of academics who debate meaningless minutiae to keep themselves employed. they add nothing to our understanding of culture. the are parasites upon the artist actually creating reflective works

>>2996370
>>2996350

So wanting to use birth control must be an illness too, right?

>>2997109
Most literary critics embarce the comic book culture and consider it to be a vital part of the literature cannon. This is a fact. By making your statement you just shat all over what you were trying to defend by alligning comics and it's entire contained culture with >parasites upon the artist actually creating reflective works.

Critcs, however, do no tend to side with the use of the term "Graphic Novel."

>>2997107
CAPS LOCK MEANS I"M RIGHT!!1!

Are you an English professor or just some conceited English Student that takes pretentiousness (on /tv/) to a new level?

>>2997146
>Most literary critics

Stopped reading there.

>>2997109
So an author is not an artist? An artist can only be someone who paints cartoons next to their dialogue and narration captions? What the fuck is an author, or are you confused about the word "literary" means?

>>2997164
Which proves that you don't know how to argue with another human being and nobody should take what you say seriously because you don't take what others say seriously. Fuck this is a troll thread anyway.

0/10

>Taking comic books seriously.

laughingelfman.jpeg

>>2997165

I think YOU'RE the one who's getting confused.

His post clearly defends the author against those who would tarnish his work with their halfassed mental meanderings and pseudo-insight.

>>2997159
Neither. I just figured he was trolling me because by the tone of his post it sounds like he reads. Most people who read know what a novel is. For people who both read and read novels it is common to know that the novel's main characteristic is just that.

So I figured I'd caps it to get him to respond to me again. Then, he responded by calling me a concieted English student and here I am again responding once more to that same, dumb prick.

Probably the same one who things that graphic novel artists have an edge on the world's literary cannon.

>>2997165

I was clearly attacking the academics who produce nothing, not the ones who are authors. a little reading comprehension may help you in life

This is all I got out of the movie...

They were called graphic novels because they are usually more complex and longer than a regular comic.

Novels=lenghty work of fiction written in prose.

Asshats use "graphic novel" to sound grown-up. That is why you see the term criticized.

It's like calling a "video game" an "End-User Interactive Film"

>>2997195
Just so you know I'm the guy you've been arguing with, not that asshole you referenced. But I still have a problem with you calling critics/philosophers parasites. I mean, c'mon. Are you serious? The artist is important, so is the concept, so is the critique and so is the acutal art. End of story.

>>2997184

>>2997205
This.

>>2997225
Exaclty, someone gets my fucking point. I didn't want to say this, to enrage, but Graphic Novel acts as a euphemism -- it enhances the orignal meaning for the sake of enhancing. I do not consider comics to be a negative thing to begin however, as euphemism implies. The term is just wrong. They shouldn't use "Novel."

Let's call them "Graphic Books," or "Comic x's"...