^Rorschach.

If Rorschach was raised by a zealot preacher rather than a broke whore, he'd be this guy.

>> ^Sylvester_Ink:
I thought the movie was pretty decent and all, but one thing I object to is that Rorschach was never this sadistically brutal in the GN. In the GN he uses the cooking fat as a quick way to defend himself, but here he uses it as a coup-de-grace that's really unnecessary.
The same goes for the flashback scene of the child rapist. He does not outright murder the guy, as he does in the film, but provides him with a more fitting punishment.
And finally, there's his killing of Big Figure. In the GN he drowns the guy because that's the quickest and most efficient method he has on hand. In the movie . . . well, although we didn't see it, it was certainly unnecessary.
That's what made Rorschach a likable character in the comic. He was dispensing justice in his own way, but here it seems to be a slaughter he savors, and that makes him less likable a character.
Ah well, enough from me.


Weird, I'll have to reread the GN to say for sure, its been a few months, but I remember the whole thing with Big Figure going down about the same way. I at least remember laughing at the blood leaking out from under the bathroom door. I thought this scene and the one with the pedophile murderer being fairly close. Maybe I read into it a bit differently.

All and all I was impressed by the movie, it seemed to stay fairly true to the GN aside from obvious time issues(no guy floating around on dead bodies in a GN series for starters), and the complete lack of tentacled beast at the end.

>> ^Sylvester_Ink:
I thought the movie was pretty decent and all, but one thing I object to is that Rorschach was never this sadistically brutal in the GN. In the GN he uses the cooking fat as a quick way to defend himself, but here he uses it as a coup-de-grace that's really unnecessary.
The same goes for the flashback scene of the child rapist. He does not outright murder the guy, as he does in the film, but provides him with a more fitting punishment.
And finally, there's his killing of Big Figure. In the GN he drowns the guy because that's the quickest and most efficient method he has on hand. In the movie . . . well, although we didn't see it, it was certainly unnecessary.
That's what made Rorschach a likable character in the comic. He was dispensing justice in his own way, but here it seems to be a slaughter he savors, and that makes him less likable a character.
Ah well, enough from me.


I thought that the whole point of Rorschach wasn't to be a "likeable" character, but then again, I experienced watchmen in the wrong order. I watched the movie first, then went and read the gn over the course of the next few days.

Anyway, I thought that one of the main dramatic thrusts of Watchmen was the moral ambiguity of vigilante-ism. Here's Rorschach, the most principled super-hero in the series, treated like an anti-social murderer. And, well... isn't he?

I actually really didn't like how he dispensed with the child molester in the movie, nor the graphic novel. The movie was too grindhouse, whereas in the GN he's basically laying down some plot points for the movie Saw, 20 years earlier.

OH, I should mention, I HATE the movie Saw, so that is a bad thing.

I thought the movie was pretty decent and all, but one thing I object to is that Rorschach was never this sadistically brutal in the GN. In the GN he uses the cooking fat as a quick way to defend himself, but here he uses it as a coup-de-grace that's really unnecessary.

The same goes for the flashback scene of the child rapist. He does not outright murder the guy, as he does in the film, but provides him with a more fitting punishment.

And finally, there's his killing of Big Figure. In the GN he drowns the guy because that's the quickest and most efficient method he has on hand. In the movie . . . well, although we didn't see it, it was certainly unnecessary.

That's what made Rorschach a likable character in the comic. He was dispensing justice in his own way, but here it seems to be a slaughter he savors, and that makes him less likable a character.

Ah well, enough from me.

I'm quite bothered by your avatar. I can't seem to decide if Nite Owl and Rorschach are in a sweet embrace or if Nite Owl is gouging Rorschach's eyes out.

Hehe, I did it with a crappy paint.net. No wrap help there. Any suggestions for a better prog?

I saw it today. It was brilliant!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Good one. I want to try that tomorrow. It's gotta wrap, though. They put a lot of effort into mapping that inkblot in the movie. Seen it?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Serious Rorschach Cat looks down and whispers, "no".

Good one. I want to try that tomorrow. It's gotta wrap, though. They put a lot of effort into mapping that inkblot in the movie. Seen it?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Serious Rorschach Cat looks down and whispers, "no".

Serious Rorschach Cat looks down and whispers, "no".

I kinda like Rush. He's like Rorschach from the Watchmen. He shoots from the hip! I mean, if the whole of the GOP talked like him, then they would probably explode, as if a naked blue man blew 'em up. But at least they would blow up being true to themselves.

Being a big fan of the the graphic novel (aka. comic book) it was a good movie, but I couldn't help notice it was a bit confusing to people who had no prior knowledge of it. Either way; Rorschach kicks ass.

The four principles of conservatism he outlines are:

1. Respect for the constitution
2. Respect for life
3. Less government
4. Personal responsibility

It seems to me that most people would agree that those principles are good ones, regardless of political party. But like a Rorschach inkblot test, these principles elicit different ideas in different people.

For example, take the second principle "Respect for life". One person might think that means that birth control or abortion is wrong, but preemtively going to war is okay. Another person might think that going to war and invading another country is wrong, but think birth control and some forms of abortion are okay. In today's political climate one person is labeled as "conservative" while the other isn't. And yet, from both individual's point of view, they are adhering to the principles.

These principles are like a daily horoscope. Read any one of the twelve horoscopes and it will feel like it applies to you because the message is so generic. Read those four principles and perhaps only #3 will alienate a few. There is no substance in these principles, but the republican party adds its own definitions that gives those principles their real meaning, and it is those definitions that I don't agree with 50% of the time.

You might as well say your core principle is "do no evil". Who could disagree with that? No one of course. Only deranged people actually knowingly do stuff that they consider evil, everyone else is doing what they think is right given the circumstances. But "evil" is committed anyways because people have different definitions on what "evil" is. To some, birth control is "evil", to others, war is "evil".

Wrapping this up. This core he speaks of is trash. Who cares about these principles that make up your core. They are meaningless without a set of definitions that give the core meaning.

Only 14 and already a master of saying a lot without saying anything.

First GTA4 and now Watchmen rape the soundtrack to Koyaanisqasti making both weaker.

Nice to see Rorschach's face warp still in place, but why make them so bloody obvious, since it was cool finding them changing frame to frame in the original graphical novel.

>> ^NetRunner:
I suppose if you want to split hairs, I mischaracterized it slightly; she doesn't say people keeping their money creates a stagnant economy, instead she says people keeping their money won't help correct a stagnant economy (or "stimulate" the economy). That seems like a semantic quibble though.

Are we watching the same video? I don't see anything even closely like that.

0:00 - "So you believe that tax cuts are stimulus?"
0:10 - "And how do tax cuts; and Congressman, how do tax cuts create jobs?
0:45 - "Really!? I'd have thought you'd have to hire someone to put the new sod down on the nation mall. I mean, just to play Devils Advocate doing alot of those projects you have to... [interupted]"
1:00 - "On no I thought you said you want the small business to spend that money to hire more people I thought thats what you just said. That is not keeping it in their pocket. You're not trying to pad the pockets of small business are you?"
1:17 - *Obnoxious Laugh* "Why that doesn't make any sense to me but anyways."

So perhaps you can see how I am confused.

I find the video funny not because she questions of the idea of tax cuts stimulating the economy, because I question that myself. I find the video funny because I see a lady who can't even follow the guy's point. I don't see a woman who is disagreeing with a point so much as a woman who confuses the metaphor of tax cuts giving people more money with a metaphor for people not spending money. After her statement at around the 1:00 mark, the guy tries to clarify but she just laughs and says that she doesn't get it.

Perhaps it is a political Rorschach test, because all I see is a lady who comes off as an obnoxious, clueless, twit while the guy was trying to politely explain the theory behind the idea of tax cuts as economic stimulus.

>> ^Flood:
The guys trying to describe how a tax cut gives people more spending power.

I understand that, Flood.

But the news lady is clearly confused. She says "I thought you said you wanted people to spend that money ... that's not keeping it in their pocket."

[snip]

No where in the vid does the lady make the point that people keeping their money is what creates a stagnant economy.

I'm thinking you're confused. Maybe the use of metaphor in your own quotation of her is the issue. I thought its meaning was obvious. Maybe it wasn't.

I suppose if you want to split hairs, I mischaracterized it slightly; she doesn't say people keeping their money creates a stagnant economy, instead she says people keeping their money won't help correct a stagnant economy (or "stimulate" the economy). That seems like a semantic quibble though.

This video seems to be a political Rorschach test; people like me find it funny because the conservative looks like a fool as Nora ties him in knots and condescendingly acts confused, you think it's funny because Nora questions the proposition of taxcuts as stimulus, and seems to not understand the very idea, as if it's ludicrous.