WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:03 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The alternate 1985
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:03 pm 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 197
Curiosity Inc. wrote:
Some generic politicians/bureaucrats/lobbyists/whatever are talking with the Comedian about two journalists who were found in a parking garage -- Woodward and Bernstein. The implication is that they were killed before they could break Watergate. The Comedian himself may have killed them.


Spoiler for those who have not read the subsequent quasi-canon supplementals:

It is definately revealed that Blake offed Woodward and Bernstein. I hope this is not one of those minor points that gets lost in translation to the big screen. It adds depth. It is better to hint at it, than to make it explicit. I'm glad it was just hinted at in the graphic novel.

_________________
Image
Mannie Bothans is now the proud owner of a SAGER NP9262; w/quad Q6600 2.4GHz 8MB L2 Cache 1066MHz FSB; nVidia GeForce 8800GTX DX10; 4,096MB DDR2 800; & 160GB 7200RPM SATA II


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The alternate 1985
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:14 am 
Offline
Minuteman
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:40 am
Posts: 21
Hey man I like the alternate 1985 where Biff runs a casino.Martys mom has bigger boobs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ipodhats
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:27 am 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 197
Vynson wrote:
There must be other political pressures at work in this 1985 as it is difficult to imagine such open homosexuality after all those Nixon administrations. Perhaps there is an extremely liberal congress. It does seem that the U.S. electorate prefers to keep the legislative and executive branches at odds. I would imagine that Adrian Veidt's political and financial support helps this cause.
Fantastic idea. I always thought Senator Keene was this guy: http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/s ... /keene.asp


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ipodhats
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:54 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Mannie Bothans wrote:
I always thought Senator Keene was this guy: http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/s ... /keene.asp

Holy Shit. That can't be a coincidence, can it? If not, Alan Moore really did his homework.

Also, I never saw the U.S. under Nixon in the book as being a "liberal" country. Liberals are attacked by the right as bohemians who erode the morality of society allowing "non-democratic" ideals such as comunism and socialism to eat away at the "American way."

It could be that with Nixon so firmly seated in power and the U.S. under no external threat due to having Dr. Manhattan, that his administration just wouldn't bother to "fight" liberal concepts such as homosexuality because they wouldn't view it as a threat. The right would have no real political reason to attack the left and would simply ignore it.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ipodhats
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:27 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:36 pm
Posts: 1470
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Also, I never saw the U.S. under Nixon in the book as being a "liberal" country. Liberals are attacked by the right as bohemians who erode the morality of society allowing "non-democratic" ideals such as comunism and socialism to eat away at the "American way."

It could be that with Nixon so firmly seated in power and the U.S. under no external threat due to having Dr. Manhattan, that his administration just wouldn't bother to "fight" liberal concepts such as homosexuality because they wouldn't view it as a threat. The right would have no real political reason to attack the left and would simply ignore it.


Alternatively, with the conservative Republicans so firmly seated in power they may not have found it necessary to have sought the approval of the Moral Majority (if that organization even exists in alternate 1985) which is where a lot of the anti-hommasexshul attitudes the party espouses come from.

Says me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ipodhats
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:11 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Broken Finger wrote:
Alternatively, with the conservative Republicans so firmly seated in power they may not have found it necessary to have sought the approval of the Moral Majority (if that organization even exists in alternate 1985) which is where a lot of the anti-hommasexshul attitudes the party espouses come from.

I thought republicans and the moral majority were more or less one in the same? At least they feed from the same trough. If they didn't believe, or at least espouse, the values of the moral majority... woudn't they be democrats?

So what your implying is that without any fear of being elected out of office, they would just ignore the principals that are the foundations of their party, and the platforms that likely got them into office in the first place. Wouldn't that sort of "piss off" the folks who voted for them causing them to vote them out next term? I would assume if Tricky Dick bit the hand that fed him, they would vote his ass out. Dr. Manhattan or no Dr. Manhattan.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Meathead is gay
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:21 am 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 197
I do wonder what kind of effect Veidt's omnipresence would have had on Falwell, et al. Right before the Watchmen series came out, Falwell and his ilk began an agressive campaign to turn Christians into Republicans. Before that, there was no such thing as an organization called the "Moral Majority." In our world, between 1976 and 1984 20 million "Christians" changed from being Democrats to Republicans. Falwell said his Moral Majority organization never supported a candidate, but that was a lie. He also boasted that they won the 1980 election for Ronald Reagan (and they probably did, Moral Majority state leaders were given big bags of buttons that said "Christians for Reagan" and bumper stickers saying the same thing were distributed from the Moral Majority Capitol Hill office.

There is no doubt Nixon was as homophobic as they come. His tapes depict him having conversations about how wicked the "All in the Family" TV show is, because "That Meathead character is gay" (according to Nixon).

Oh, and another thing. What would a four-legged turkey look like when it walked?

_________________
Image
Mannie Bothans is now the proud owner of a SAGER NP9262; w/quad Q6600 2.4GHz 8MB L2 Cache 1066MHz FSB; nVidia GeForce 8800GTX DX10; 4,096MB DDR2 800; & 160GB 7200RPM SATA II


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Meathead is gay
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:42 pm 
Offline
Crimebuster

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:55 pm
Posts: 45
Mannie Bothans wrote:
Oh, and another thing. What would a four-legged turkey look like when it walked?


Are you sure they had four legged turkey's? Or does it just look like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The alternate 1985
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:25 pm 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:03 pm
Posts: 250
I.25.4.
Double 'em.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ipodhats
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:17 pm 
Offline
Vigilante
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:03 pm
Posts: 94
Location: Waiting patiently inside Moloch's fridge.
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Broken Finger wrote:
Alternatively, with the conservative Republicans so firmly seated in power they may not have found it necessary to have sought the approval of the Moral Majority (if that organization even exists in alternate 1985) which is where a lot of the anti-hommasexshul attitudes the party espouses come from.

I thought republicans and the moral majority were more or less one in the same? At least they feed from the same trough. If they didn't believe, or at least espouse, the values of the moral majority... woudn't they be democrats?


This is definitely true now, but it was far from the case in 1985. The movement of "Moral Majority" Christian Conservatives into the Republican party, and the organized effort to remake the Republican party in its image, began during the 1980s, and has really come to fruition in the last decade or so. The focus on "social" or "values" issues that seems to be so much the core of modern Republicanism was much less part of the debate back then.

In fact, before the "moral majority" days of the 1980s, Christian conservatives weren't all that organized politically, and a lot of them were, in fact, Democrats.

_________________
"Oh, how mortals blame the gods, saying that evils come from us! But it's their own arrogance that brings them pain beyond their share." -- Zeus, Odyssey I: 32-34


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ipodhats
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:04 am 
Offline
Crimebuster

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:55 pm
Posts: 45
As a indy dem I applaud your research! Nice job. This whole book reminds me of my favorite phillip roth book the plot against America.

I think there might be a lack of faith with a little american god doing the states bidding. I wonder if he had a cult. Now that would have been funny.

Cranston wrote:
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Broken Finger wrote:
Alternatively, with the conservative Republicans so firmly seated in power they may not have found it necessary to have sought the approval of the Moral Majority (if that organization even exists in alternate 1985) which is where a lot of the anti-hommasexshul attitudes the party espouses come from.

I thought republicans and the moral majority were more or less one in the same? At least they feed from the same trough. If they didn't believe, or at least espouse, the values of the moral majority... woudn't they be democrats?


This is definitely true now, but it was far from the case in 1985. The movement of "Moral Majority" Christian Conservatives into the Republican party, and the organized effort to remake the Republican party in its image, began during the 1980s, and has really come to fruition in the last decade or so. The focus on "social" or "values" issues that seems to be so much the core of modern Republicanism was much less part of the debate back then.

In fact, before the "moral majority" days of the 1980s, Christian conservatives weren't all that organized politically, and a lot of them were, in fact, Democrats.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.099s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]