Here's what you probably missed in the final issue of Watchmen

Originally published at: Here's what you probably missed in the final issue of Watchmen | Boing Boing

1 Like

Jeez, 2 hours. Can anyone tell us the most interesting stuff?


Their stuff is a journey, which is why I can’t take the time to watch a lot of it, but usually the interviews and commentary are very good.


Rorschach was a such a brave antifascist, standing firm against genocide, even when he knows it means Nixon’s pet will atomize him.

I’d say he was more on the “supply” side of fascism overall whether he supported Ozymandias’ actions or not.

Rorschach was very much in favor of using violence (including torture and murder) to impose his idea of social order as long as it was used against people he didn’t like. As a human being he was a violent bigoted psychopath.

Granted, the Comedian probably fit the classic definition of fascism even better.


The irony of the Watchmen comic is that none of the characters are actual ‘heroes’; special powers or not.

Even Dr. Manhattan, the only one with actual superpowers, was apathetic at best:


What genocide? Yes, it was mass murder on an unprecedented scale, but not genocide.

1 Like

It’s impossible to know who is serious and who is joking anymore … nothing is so absurd that someone won’t say it and mean it

However we resolve the inscrutable riddle “Is Rorschach anti-fascist?” we can be 100% certain that if he existed in the real world he would loudly denounce Antifa and blame them for America’s ills


It as literally not genocide, as it wasn’t directed against the people of of New York as an ethnic or otherwise group beyond them living in the target areas.

There were real genocides with fewer victims than in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

On a lighter note: While I looked for Moore’s words about Rorschach,
I found this:


Moore was trying to make Rorschach as loathsome as possible, but it wasn’t enough to stop people from thinking he was the good guy

or maybe the problem is, if we write a story with no good guys, the audience is going to pick somebody anyway, and then we’re stuck with him even if he’s a terrible terrible person


You may technically be correct but it sure sounds genocide-adjacent.

1 Like

Yes, I’ve seen that. And I see the point and why one would think that “mass murder” is an insufficient term. “Holocaust” would be applicable, but that one is understood to mean the specific genocide against Jewish people as done by my country.

But I see a clear danger of associating it just with mass murder or an industrial scale “Oh, we went in then and killed the last 1,000 XYZ people, wiped their language and stories from the face of the Earth, and put their children in catholic schools. That was very, very bad uf us, but genocide? Nah, but was just 1.000 people." /s

1 Like

Even if we generously give some the benefit of the doubt on that front (i.e. “they put their lives on the line and meant well) one of the themes running throughout the whole series is “many aspects of our society would be much worse if the world had more masked vigilantes.”

Nixon is still in office by the mid-eighties, the world on the brink of nuclear Holocaust, the US government is less accountable than ever and the crime rate doesn’t even appear any better.

Superheroes—who needs ‘em?


Reminds me of Breaking Bad in that regard…


The first The Incredibles movie made me feel bad for the superheroes when they were all forced into retirement, but some of the massive hubris displayed by the protagonists in the sequel convinced me that the antagonist in that film, Evelyn Deavor, had a valid point. (Even if she was clearly wrong in the way that she tried to remedy the situation)

When Elastigirl came out of retirement what’s the very first thing that she did? She jumped her unregistered motorcycle onto a freeway full of cars and sped off doing a wheelie while not wearing a helmet. She wasn’t even on her way to an emergency at the time! That kind of behavior is unacceptable for a police officer, let alone a self-appointed vigilante. Everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions, and that’s just not possible when identities are kept secret.

Rorshach was an objectivist. Moore based on Steve Ditko’s The Question, and to an extent, Mr. A.

Watchman really is one of those books everyone should read. It is a fantastic series/graphic novel. It is a deconstruction of the Super Hero genre. I am not sure if they were the first to really do this, it was certainly the most well done, IMO. It changed comics from escapist fantasy to a more realistic look at heroes as flawed humans (and what ever Dr. Manhattan became). It paved away for later series like Brat Pack and The Boys.

Though Moore and Gibbons were victims of their own success and DC’s greed, as the book has never left print, the rights were never reverted. :confused:

1 Like

Slightly off topic, but Peter Serafinowicz doing the famous Rorshach line in his Tick voice made my day. Starts @1:15


Is there any helmet in the planet that can protect her head? What about Superman? Should he wear a helmet?

Kayfabe also has this on his podcast. Much easier to listen to on mass transit or while driving than dealing with YouTube.

The first movie demonstrated that a concussive blast could knock her unconscious, so she’s definitely not invulnerable and a helmet couldn’t hurt. Also, does stretching ability prevent her from loosing control if she gets a bug in her eye?

And the same laws should apply to everyone, so yes, Superman should definitely wear a helmet if he’s choosing to ride on public roads. He should also have a driver’s license and insurance.

Elastigirl’s motorcycle didn’t have a license plate, turn signals, mirrors or brake light, so it must not have been insured either.

Edit to add: Adam West’s Batman is the best Batman. He’s a deputized officer of the law, his car is registered with a license plate, he makes a point of wearing a seatbelt, and he always uses the crosswalk.