WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

In response to crime, or Big Figure for instance, it doesn't seem to matter to Rorschach what happens to them, maybe I said it in the wrong way, what I meant was how, ever since the kidnapping, he doesn't hold any kind of... relativity over lives of the criminals, and acts emotionless even to people closest to him.

I guess lack of any sort of morals on any level was the wrong thing to say.

But he is still the best character.

_________________
But Doctor, I am Pagliacci.

I think what you mean Jackal (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that Rorschach is so morally rigid he can use his "morals" to justify being a violent fascist. Which itself, isn't very moral.

That's right, I just wasn't sure how I should put it, but that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for putting it into words for me!

_________________
But Doctor, I am Pagliacci.

Rorschach. I love his dry sense of humor, his completely black and white view of the world, and he gets some of the best lines in the book.

_________________
Mr. Moore, will you sign my copy of Watchmen Babies in V for Vacation?

Dr. Manhattan. Not someone I would want to have lunch with, but he's a really interesting character. He's so unpredictable, and yet nothing he does surprises me. The way he experiences time, and how he acts surprised about things even though he knows they're going to happen...so weird but interesting.

(first post)

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

Hi.


He is? You might want to make your (second post) here.

Ahh, thanks for that. A better way of putting it would indeed be that he's "impossible to understand." He has a robotic kind of personality, and yet I can't tell what his next move is going to be. I find that interesting.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

"Hello, Rorschach. How are you today?"
"In prison. Yourself?"

Amen. Dry humour is fantastic, especially when employed by a very bitter, hate-filled character. I chose Rorschach because he is the most complex, and, an absolute dream to analyse psychosexually. No pun intended there! Also, I love intense characters, people who have an interest in subjects like literature and philosophy, people who have minds capable of being blunt and yet profound at the same time


....and, well, I have always had an odd fetish for red hair.

_________________
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes!
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

After my second reading, I think my new character character is Nite Owl (Dan). I like his arc. Through the whole book you know he aches to return to adventuring, but just can't bring himself to do it until the end. Love his immediate resolve after he has that dream.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

The Comedian/Edward Blake for all the reasons previously given and also he sort of reminds me Sir Brian Bois-Guilbert in Ivanhoe, and George Clooney's character Bob Barnes in 'Syriana'.....the loyal government operative who has seen, participated in, and covertly influenced so much, and for so many years, on behalf of his government....the government that changed it's policies with every new president....that in it's self has to be a royal mindf**k....and to some extent he does exhibit the typical qualities of the warrior/mercenary/hero in his own mind attitudes...he is a very complex, enigmatic and compelling character who walked the fine line between criminal and crime-fighter (but weren't most of the Watchmen guilty of this...dirty deeds sanctioned by...somebody....The ends justify the means so to speak, and keep quiet about the bad stuff?) I was intrigued by The Comedian from my very first read....and I still don't have him figured out. But I also have a strange admiration for the very twisted & cunningly demented Richard III.....

Rorschach! Duh! ^_^ He's the most interesting character!

_________________

Yeah, same here, but I especially like it when Bernard (news guy) holds Bernard because they know they're going to die and they can't do anything about it.

_________________
"It would be a stronger world, a stronger loving world, to die in."

-John Cale

This changes for me with every reading, but right now it's Adrian. I don't like the guy, but he's an incredible character; the detached, egomaniacal self made god-king dealing out death and judgment under no authority but his own. Just what a "Superhero" is.

_________________
"Here's one about flouride turning people into homos..."

Dr. Malc, you might as well say you like all characters.

_________________

for me, strangely enough it´s a tie between rorschach and dan. strange, because they are polar opposites. dan is everything that rorschach isn´t - compassionate, understanding, moderate, balanced, able to love. rorschach is completely borderline, a sociopath who nevertheless fights evil. those two have a great dynamic and i would love to read more stories about the time they were partners. could make for some great adventures.
eventually i chose rorschach, because ass-kicking is just cool. and i love his outfit.

Rorschach, definitely! He was always the character I found to be the most intriguing. And the 'do it!' scene is one of my favorite parts of Watchmen. And of course I like that dry humor bit, just as some others were saying earlier.

By the way, this is my first post here! I've read Watchmen two times now, and will get around to re-reading it yet again (once I get the time, ha) soon enough. The Watchmen trailer rebooted my interest, and that's when I found this forum by the way. Nice forum, too! Good, thoughtful conversations, as it should be. Anyway, so yep, I'm new here and...hello! Haha

_________________
--
"That's what they're saying about me now? That I'm paranoid?" -Rorschach

Veidt is definitely my favorite character. He orchestrated everything so perfectly up until the very end and had some of my favorite lines in the novel. Also, the man caught a bullet and we share the same first name, that breaks a tie with Dr.Manhattan any day.

_________________
That night, I slept badly beneath cold, distant stars, pondering upon the cold, distant God in whose hands the fate of Davidstown rested. Was he really there? Had he been there once, but now departed?

I don't know why it didn't dawn on me before but that's the same story line Macross (Robotech) has for uniting the earth after a prolong global conflict.



I think what's highlighted is exactly what made him more like Rorschach than anyone else. They just went about it in different ways. Rorschach wouldn't have killed/hurt so many "innocents" in order to obtain the greater good - he only mangled/killed the "bad people." Other changed their morals/ideals over time, or simply just got rid of them all together.



This was already explained by other posts but I disagreed too. Like I said in another post, morals can really be better described by virtue.
*Both Vedit and Rorschach were virtuous - they wanted to make the world a better place any way they could.
*Both of them understood the need to hurt/kill/mangle people in order for that to happen.
*Neither would compromise their set of "morals" once they realized what their roles in life were.
*Both took on another persona not as a name, but a life style. Vedit took on the figures of ancient worlds because of what they stood for. He not only called himself one but tried to be like them as much as possible. Walter Kovacs became Rorschach because he had to, Walter couldn't accomplish what Rorschach had to do.

But me personally, I voted for Rorschach. I associate the most with him because you need to have uncompromising "morals" when trying to do what he does. You also can't be your normal/usual self. As a person who trains in MMA, I know that at least for me, learning to hit another person and learning moves that can really hurt people isn't something you (should) step into lightly. You need to learn many things, to be honest. But Walter learned that he, even with his messed up childhood/life couldn't hurt/kill/mangle people up. Rorschach solved that problem. Also he keeps it simple, wears clothes you can get anywhere, except for his choice of mask. This is what I think a real vigilante (adventurer) would wear if they were doing this out in real life. He wasn't a super genius, didn't have a lot of money to get cool toys, no super human powers, no great looks - just average looking, unremarkable.

But what he has going for him is that he's a practical person. Has clothes that work for him, not against him. Can easily stash them anywhere and not worry about them being discovered/stolen/lost because of low inherent value of items (except mask). Can replace them easily/quickly. Has 1 piece of equipment (that we know of) that would actually work in the real word: a grappling hook.

Everyone else has great attributes too, but are unrealistic although not impossible. Look at Donald Trump and his multiple fortunes. But Rorschach could almost be the common person (although he's a lot dirtier and a little messed up in the head) on the street. And one last thing, I love how he was written and drawn, i guess "created" would a better term simply because his walking around town carrying his sign, no one looks at him twice and he can be seen anywhere around town without raising suspicion. Yep, Rorschach is who I like.

I am surprised though that so many people like him, i'd figure Jon, Dan or even Vedit would have beat him out. But go Rors!

_________________
You can never say never and never say always.

here i disagree. it´s interesting to compare veidt and rorschach, but i always understood that veidt was the one with a vision, a hope for humanity - rorschach has given up on it. he walks through the bottomless pit, and punishes evil, because "evil must be punished" - not to make the world a better place, not because he believes in human goodness.

I think they both still wish to accomplish the same thing in the end, but they go about it differently. One kills only those who are "guilty" of whatever, the other kills half of NYC (innocents) to try to stop "Armageddon."

Rors might have given up on people, but only Vedit kills innocents.

_________________
You can never say never and never say always.