You can find my glasses at GlassesUSA.com. Check them out here for a great offer & free shipping bit.ly/Quinton_GlassesUSA (Additional rules may apply, free shipping to US & CA) Get the Quinton Reviews plushie here: makeship.com/collections/featured/products/quinton-reviews
Dude, Homelander IS America! Without him, how would we ever hope to combat the super terrorists?! I will also have you know that the seven is highly inclusive! Did you know that three of them are female now? Plus Starlight is just pretty hot you know. My favorite was the Deep, the dude really inspired me, but I haven't seen him in any press recently. It's a shame, my little brother is a swimmer and really looked up to him. We got his autograph once. The little dude models his whole life after him. I caught him trying to talk to his goldfish just yesterday. God bless The Seven. God bless America. RIP Translucent. May you never truly vanish.
Having read The Boys when it was originally releasing was a guilty pleasure but also fascination for how it could only be more edgy and lack substance more and more the story went on. Perhaps one of the worst things I've had the pleasure of experiencing in the medium.
The problem is that it props Superman up further at the expense of completely destroying the point of Dr. Manhattan. They're reducing Watchmen to yet another fun lil comic.
@jack thursby It undermines and devalues Watchmen by totally forgetting the point of it. It can be interesting in regards to typical comic affairs, but it's far from what it was meant to be.
YEs I don’t believe it undermines it at all. If anything it’s the answer to the questions Watchmen leaves you with. The points Watchmen makes are unsustainable - as seen in the deterioration of its own world. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying; Watchmen is deep, philosophical, and I believe, Perfect. However, it can be frustrating when people take its word for the only objective truth. Its not. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that it’s far from it. Not to say it’s wrong, but more that it’s a piece of a larger picture. I believe the primary error with this video, and in how people view Doomsday Clock, is how people forget the values these heroes are supposed to represent. People tend to see the Watchmen characters as the only ones with any philosophical value, and that’s just plain wrong. Another issue I hold with this video, is that he seems to forget the lessons learned by some of the characters in Watchmen. A few of them didn’t remain static. They grew. I was forgetting two main points when I said Watchmen’s meanings were unsustainable. Those points: Dan and Laurie, and Dr.Manhattan. Dan and Laurie’s choice to hold on to the things that matter to them -primarily each other- in an uncertain world is quite meaningful. And Manhattan’s restored value in people and the world at large is even more so. So, to say they changed Manhattan to a “DC” hero is almost ridiculous to me. They took him from where he left off and expanded on it. Doomsday Clock is actually an amazing arc for both Dr. Manhattan and Superman. Manhattan acting as the representative for the ambiguity of Watchmen, while Superman represents the hope and meaning a hero should represent. With the world being full of deconstructions, and the horrible “gritty” perspective of the likes of Zack Snyder; I cant help but appreciate the “old fashioned” stance of Doomsday Clock in showing the value of what these characters should represent. I’m not saying it’s perfect. It’s not. But I do believe it’s pretty damn good. I understand if people aren’t too crazy about the point of Watchmen being sort of “corrected” or “answered” by Doomsday Clock. However, moral ambiguities and muddied waters only get you so far. And in the end, moral values and objective truths have to be strived for if we hope to achieve anything. THAT is the point of Doomsday Clock. That is what it offers society. That is Superman. Anyways. Sorry for the book, man. Lol you don’t like it, that’s cool. to each their own.
@@leysonmose To provide a satirical lens for the superhero genre of comics, taking its tropes and trends to their logical conclusions in order to critique the unintended consequences of these ideas. It's not nihilism, and I am not nihilistic; don't assume, it's rude. Why, what did you think it's about?
Rorschach at the end of the book is essentially “the worst person you know has made a good point” as a character. He’s not a good person by any means, but none of the characters are really. And in the end he doesn’t give in to Veidt’s plan and is killed for it. I think that’s ultimately why people like his character since he reacts the way most people reading the book react to the ending
From experience I get to know the other side of Rorschach fans, I met several guys who have this type of mentality that they are bad but they are trying to be good so they deserve some type of reward, despite the fact that they are not trying to be better, they think they are but they don't change their actions if you ask them nor try to think about themselves if is not victimisation, they have fantasies of fighting crime because criminals are suppossed to be the worst type of person, someone even lower than the insecure, petty and horrible person they are. Not every Rorschach fan is like that of course, I do know cool people that like him, also I don't really agree with the video that if you want Rorschach merch you're inherantly dumb about the subject, some people just like the iconographic of the character because he is kinda cool visual wise, same with people who have military miniatures, just because they have them doesn't mean they are ignorant or are pro-war or something.
Isn't the point of Manhattan's powers that he effectively exists in all times at once, not that he can see the future? He's simultaneously the most powerful being in existence but still powerless to change anything, his entire character is based around how he has no actual agency or free will because his path in life is already laid out from the moment he came into existence. How does the ending of Doomsday Clock make any sense in that regard?
I'm surprised this dude didn't like Zach Snyder's take on watchmen.. that movie was a visual masterpiece and it asks very complicated questions about what happens to superheroes when given the power how they lose thier humanity.. it was made too early
@@kevinslaye that’s the thing, what you described isn’t “Snyder’s take on watchmen”, it’s the entire point of watchmen period. Everything Snyder changed about watchmen when adapting it to the movie only server to water down that message, case in point the removal of aspect’s of Rorschach’s character to make him seem less evil and more of an “edgy badass”
@@kevinslaye The only thing Snyder did wrong in that movie was make Ozzymandias a bad guy with little gray nuance. Rorschach is alright. If they could’ve made him less likeable and more bean eating scum then the ending would’ve been more powerful than it already was. It’s powerful that the most insane one in the group tries to tell the people of what really happened to new York. It was better than the comic imo(the ending) has Nite-Owl present for Rorschach’s death and the acting is impeccable. One last thing: Manhattan leaving the lie of him causing the explosions in New York undiscovered makes him better too
@@kevinslayeas a fan of the movie the cool action music and the fight scene serve to skewer the message, these guys dont get to have badass action scenes because watchmen also raises the question if superheroes belong in our society, the comic spends a lot of the time world building giving side characters some spotlight showing us how they are just guys playing dress up with lives and how manhattan is a game changer, in the end he has to make the conscious decision to leave or to not, in snyders version he just has to dip cuz he is public enemy
I'm not sure I think people have trouble seeing heroes as always right, I think people have trouble with seeing protagonists as wrong. Protagonist centered morality is a big problem.
When the only thing we're taught in school related to literary analysis is being made to write a four page expository essay on To Kill A Mockingbird, it's not surprising a majority of people can't comprehend writing outside of the rigid formula that's been pounded into their heads.
Yeah, thinking on villain protagonist stories i very often see people fully straight faced defending the protagonists actions and their reasoning, ignoring any number of reprehensible actions, and i think this is especially easy when things escalate, the story is in first person and you see the protagonists reasoning, and reading a story all at once instead of reflecting on where the story is going, compounded by a seeming complete unwillingness to applya ny sort of critical thought into the protagonists actions and you have people nodding along when the protagonists is killing babies 600 pages in or something.
I think that idea is so annoying. I mean, I can't tell you how often I hear "Protagonist is unlikable/not a good person" as a criticism, ignoring so much about the meat of the story. Character arcs mean more than just "hero is bad, then becomes good." Some of the most interesting stories are about protagonists that aren't good people. The Godfather, Goodfellas, Drive, Snowpiercer, The Watchmen (duh), all these stories are about flawed people that either end up in a worse point than they started, or never really get better. At best, they're about atonement, at worst, they're about a decent into madness. Despite that, the idea that a protagonist, especially a "hero," like those in Watchmen, could be considered anything but a hero is inconceivable. It's part of the reason I think people *[SPOILERS FOR THE LAST OF US 2 AHEAD]* got so angry when Joel was killed. Ignoring all the value judgements about the quality of its writing, people were so angry over the idea that Joel was killed, despite the fact that basically the entire story of the first game was about how Joel was a shitty person who deserved death, or if not you don't believe he deserved it, then at the very least, it was the only logical conclusion to his story because he was a broken, bitter man that murdered countless people and ultimately lied to his adoptive daughter about the outcome of everyone she'd ever known because he couldn't bear the trauma. *[SPOILERS OVER]* Tl;dr The term "protagonist" doesn't necessarily mean "hero of the story," it just means the main character. However, so much of our media is inundated with stories of heroes that I think a lot of people forgot how to consider that a story doesn't have to tell us about a hero, it can tell us about a human. Edit: I should also make it clear that I don't blame audiences for this mentality, I blame the corporations for feeding us the "Ubermensch" ideal power fantasy, i.e. the logical conclusion to the "good guy with a gun" argument that's been trotted out a million times over. I don't even blame writers, necessarily, as those are just individual people who grew up in the same society that inundated them with the exact same mindset. I blame the people at the top who decide what we like and what we want to see, where every story told has to be one where they're the ultimate victors. You have a nice self-contained story about the rich elite using their power to do whatever it takes to make themselves even richer? Well, obviously the ending has to be about how those were just the evil capitalists whose power is ultimately usurped the good capitalist that will do the good thing. Its neoliberal garbage.
I love Rorschach as a character basically because I found him interesting. I used to cosplay him the way some folks cosplay villains. And then I met other Rorschach fans. I don’t cosplay him anymore.
I thought Rorschach was cool when I was a kid but now that I know and understand his character I hate him. Still looks cool though lol. He’s insane. Sees the world in black and white and if ur in the black u deserve to die. But he’s a hypocrite because he picks and chooses. He doesn’t even follow his own code.
When he said he had a special guest I was going 'please be Linkara, please be Linkara' because I was going to enjoy guessing whether Linkara had seen Quentin's video about his movie or not.
@@deadpool630 yeah I genuinely liked minutemen and think that it is a decent addition to the Watchmen story. Everything else on the other hand is not too good from what I remember.
And now we have The Boys which, original comic aside (since it's kind different and has its own issues), I think the show is an excellent followup to the spirit of Watchmen, commenting on a post 9/11 America instead of the Cold War era.
@@louisduarte8763 Corporations run everything, so that's unavoidable. It's ironic for sure, but what can you do? You can create art that's critical of corporations but that only way to get funding and a platform is through them. Even crowdfunding sites are owned by corporations that take a cut of the donations. It's basically in the same vein of critiquing the fossil fuel industry while owning a car.
I've always found it very significant that guys like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, dispite writing all these deconstructions of superhero comics and (in Moore's case in particular) have stated how much they dislike superheroes, still love Superman. I guess that he's just such a perfect embodiment of what superheroes and heroes in general are supposed to be that he's been given such love.
@@concept5631 Garth Ennis can't write sincere superheroes for shit, because he hates them - except Superman. He can write a really good Superman, because _somehow_ he likes and gets Superman. It's weird.
Ironically, the new Rorschach could've been an opportunity to explore this surface-deep exploration of these characters, and how someone follows and idolizes another's legacy, despite not really knowing what that legacy entailed. It could've been interesting if done correctly. Unfortunately, doing it correctly would shit on the piece of work it's actually being written in, so it had to be handled like how it was.
4:15 I don’t know if it was intentional but saying “is a representation of The Question” while panning up to Rorschach is top tier For those who might not know, the superheroes in watchmen are based off/parodies of I believe charlton comics. So, Captain Atom -> Doctor Manhattan, Blue Beetle -> Night Owl, and The Question -> Roarschach
Well DC had acquired those characters from Charlton and at the time DC had let a bunch of British writers go hog wild on do interpretations on some obscure characters, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's original pitch was going to use those characters, but... well most of them wouldn't be usuable so they had to make there own.
@@Sandra_aschenbach_doyle Yeah, some major DC characters were from rival companies that they later bought, like Shazam was once owned by a company named Fawcett or Plastic Man was originally owned by Quality.
@@jonathaneilbeck2263 Didn't know this but if fits really well given that most of Moores early career was just taking British characters in weird and subversive directions
According to Moore, prior to being given Superman, and subsequently writing the phenomenal "For the Man Who Has Everything," he wanted to write about Martian Manhunter, and his struggles as an alien, the last of his kind, a pyrophobic detective, etc. I wish he'd been given the chance.
I had no idea he wanted to do Martian Manhunter, if he had the chance, the character would probably be completely different. At least he could do another green character, Swamp Thing, and he changed it for the better, but I'm really curious at how he would have handled Martian Manhunter.
To me, owning merchandise of a character does not mean you look up to them, it just means that you like how the character is written or their design, for example, joker, at least in the golden age, joker was written well and his design is enticing therefor merchandise was made, same with Mr. Manhattan, he IS NOT someone you should look up to but his design and character are well made. Overall, a very good video quinton
his design is a naked blue man with a dot on his head, and the writting is "i dont care about anything, so i will only move a finger to comit atrocities, even thought i could fix a lot of the problems in the world at least for the people living in the moment" i like the story but manhatan is the last character i would have any merchandising
I like to think of it like this. Joker, Rorschach and Manhattan are interesting characters. But if someone says that any of them are their favourite character/s, you back away slowly.
I feel like so many "edgy" things end up being stuck between people who get them and people who don't. -Watchmen -Rick and Morty -FilthyFrank - Any peice of Satire Like there are people who know how to actually analyze media and use iconology and the history and contemporary events to a peice of media being published because they know it's being edgy to make a point . And then there are edgelords with worms for brains. Addendum: Also yes please to a watchmen HBO video.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
I’ve been coming to a conclusion that most people’s personalities are wired in a way where they don’t understand subtleties until it’s either explained to them or they’re just THAT dense and that’s been the reason why so many people often misinterpret media to the point where it’s had very negative consequences on culture or even the world. I mean yeah it’s an admittedly judgmental conclusion that is pretty generalizing. If not most people’s personalities that are like this it’s at least a certain amount of the world’s population whose personalities have them Stan fictional far righters without any self awareness of who said character was meant to be a metaphor for.
@@Raggedyfink nah, 90% of the population are morons that never question anything and aren't the slightest bit interested in understanding things on more than the most basic level. Anti-intellectualism is a real problem in America, and prob most of the world.
So I have a totally different take on the end of Doomsday Clock, I thinks it's the writers middle finger to Snyder's idea of Superman. They were just willing to sacrifice the watchman for that goal.
At least when the first two issues came out the way I heard people in the comic sphere talk about it was it was to continue with the DC Rebirth movement and bring back the Justice Society of America which does have a bit of a fanbase from bronze age comic fans as well as the writer of the Doomsday Clock who made a short but fairly popular comic series involving them in the 2000s.
@@Ultimataco That was part of why I said at first. I really wonder if things would have worked better if there was someone in charge to try and make sure Gary Frank and Geoff Johns stick to a schedule.
I remember when the movie came out a ton of fans were talking about how "cool" Rorschach was and how they wanted to be like him, and when I read the actual comic it made it clear that he was supposed to be a a borderline-psychotic satire of Libertarianism, ultra-nationalism, and Puritanism all rolled into one, and that's obvious from ONE PAGE, and the fact he was seen as "relatable" after the adaptations prove they missed the point.
Yep. And when the show came out and portrayed Rorschach as the lunatic he was: People got mad. If the movie never came out, the reception of the show would’ve been waaay better
I think the movie obfuscated the character with the actor. Loved the portrayal of the character Rorshach, the actor who played him did an amazing job. The flaw in the movie was to make the character likable. As if he sacrificed himself for the greater good of exposing the truth. The whole point of Rorschach's death wasn't one of martyrdom, it was to expose the truth regardless of the outcome. Even if it meant ending world peace. The ambiguous morality of that moment and the subsequent epilogue of sending his journal to the press is a satirical commentary on how history can rewrite a garbage person into a hero. The movie left that open for interpretation as well as the book and it was up to the reader/viewer to decide what is that morality. Alan Moore was quoted as saying that his book wasn't adaptable for film. The tv series proves that he was right in ways that even Alan couldn't forsee.
It's not that i don't get it. I get that alan moore made a character the audience was supposed to dislike and accidentally wrote a character that was super based and had an awesome visual design. I ain't gonna dislike the character just cause the author wants me to, lol.
I don't think that's a problem. I think a superhero property by people who hate superheroes is way more interesting than any actual unironic sueperhero property. The problem is getting a good writer who hates comics rather than Snyder who can't write for shit.
@@jasonjacksn I agreed with you that Snyder is a terrible writer in my comment. The man hasnever made a good film imo. Im saying a superhero film by a great writer disgusted by superheroes would be the only reason to have any excitement for one to me.
@@danielyoung6778 in fact the biggest issue withcomic movis during the 90s and video game movies today is the lack of respect for the medium. Resulting in adaptations that both alienate existing fans and fails to attract new ones.
4:49 fun fact: night owl and rorschach are not based of batman they are based of the the two Charlton heroes blue beetle (ted kord) and the question and even the other heroes in watchmen are based of the other Charlton heroes like peacemaker, nightshade, captain atom and thunderbolt
Holy shit. You absolutely NAILED this video. It drives me crazy when people completely mis interpret this story. I was horrified by the end of watchmen. This story is fully a cautionary tale that is wildly relivent today. Not a super hero worship piece
This is my first time actually hearing a quote of his. I never considered him any kind of genius, but i do/did enjoy some of his movies in a dumb, mindless kind of way. But damn. That quote just gave me a sad, new perspective. Suddenly everything makes a lot more sense now!
There is a difference between 'Dark' and 'Edgey'. 'Dark' is when you include mature or serious subject matter because you want to tell a story that people can learn something or at the very least make a statement about something. Examples of 'Dark' graphic novels are Alan Moore's Watchmen, Kentaro Miura's Berserk, Art Spiegelman's Maus. 'Edgey' is when you include mature or serious subject matter because you think it's cool and will make people stop and gawk like it's such a shocking twist of events. 'Edgey' examples are the DC Snyderverse, Sonic OCs, and Doomsday Clock.
I loved DC Fandome's trailers and interviews, but the moment Zack Snyder said Dr. Manhattan was his favorite superhero because he has "cool powers" kinda broke my heart. This video reminded me of that moment, but extended to several minutes, almost torture. Pretty good video, even though I don't agree with everything.
ryne green I guess then you’re getting mad at him for something you assumed he meant which is stupid. He very well could have meant how it affects him since the powers of a character almost always inform their character. Superman is a great example but doctor Manhattan being able to see everything and being able to do virtually everything is a cool power and it’s interesting to see how it’s used
I find it very amusing that you talked about comics media avoiding real world parallels over the title sequence of the Justice League intro, a cartoon with multiple, explicit parallels to second bush term America
Dude... this crystallizes the issues w/ the Watchman adaptation and the state of comic book movies and the general public's confused relationship w/ them to the same level I felt The Phantom Menace Review did for the Star Wars prequels. I really liked this. Thanks.
I disagree that if somebody buys merch of something, that they idolize it unquestionably, which is your point (or should I say your 'plush' avatar's) with Watchmen merch. Enthusiastic nerds buy merch of things so they can show it off, meet other people that know what it references, bring back good memories, all kinds of reasons. It shows a love of it the media, not necessarily an an unquestionable adoration that suggests they think that said character should be an aspiration or something. Obviously, there will be a high overlap, but to assume somebody didn't 'understand' something because they induldge in comic book merch (that is the norm in that hobby) is just being baselessly judgemental. Like don't get me wrong, I agree DC revisiting Watchmen cheapens or misses the point for that sweet merch dollar, but comic books revisiting brilliant ideas until they're brain dead is sadly the model in that medium.
Agreed. I don’t find Dr Manhattan a hero or someone to idolize but I would get a Manhattan plush. I also would of Hannibal too actually now that I think of it
Yeah, I own a glow in the dark Dr. Manhattan adult toy which I display on my night table, but that doesn't mean I support the ideals, or lack thereof, the character displays.
That's probably the norm for the average comic book fan, I think in this case Quinton is just referencing people where the nuance of the characters fly right over their head. i.e Unironic Joker worship via Joker merch, cosplay, and FB quotes
And furthermore, I completely disagree with what he said regarding "the fans don't get it" because he specifically stated the majority, which I think is just blatantly disingenuous. Granted he said "Most, not all" but that still implies that this is, in fact, the majority. Well think about it. He brought up Marvel/DC movies as an example so I think it's fair to apply it here. Do Marvel/DC fans misinterpret their respective franchises (for dc just count the nolan flicks + Shazam and Joker)? I would say absolutely not, because those movies stand on their own outside of the comics. A film should be able to do what it likes with the material as long as it UNDERSTANDS THE MATERIAL. The Dark Knight sure as hell isn't representative of the storyline it gets it from, but it's still a good movie. The fandom getting the point isn't the issue here, the issue is how the makers of the media interpret it, because that's going to A. Bring in new parts of the fandom And B. Give the impression of what that source material was like under the lense of a different medium. That's why Zach Snyder's movies sucked, not because "fandom dumb". Don't fault the way people think just because the media they got it from reinforces there ideas that the director had. Put quite simply, criticize the fandom for dumb shit they do, not because they enjoy a property and maaaaaybe don't want to think that much about it.
I found it disingenious as well, he likely talks about a small subsect of the fandom who unironically adores these characters as 'heroes', but the majority knows and understands they're crappy people. Watchmen became popular because people do like flawed heroes as much as they like idealistic heroes. A lot of people also love the Joker, but most people also know that he's a crappy person, and don't endorse his behaviour as something to look up to. I mean, Joker is one of my favourite DC characters, but in no way would I ever want him to exist in the real world. I don't look up to him, but I take delight in his nerfarious personality, because he is exactly a fictional character, and me liking the character is NOT a statement of my real world beliefs. Same with the Watchmen.
I was going to go on a long and passionate diatribe about how early-to-mid 20th century super hero comics can be seen as an aspect of Eastern European Jewish-American culture and how this is important this can be to understanding the genre, but I'm very tired so I'm just gonna tell you all to read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and get some rest.
I'm not sure that diatribe could have made you sound any more pretentious than your brief summary of it already did. Not sure if that's an achievement to be proud of, but hey.
I mean given that he is essentially evil Batman (and yes I know Rorschach is originally based on the Question, leave me alone), he could be used to reflect on Batman similar to villains like Owlman, Hush, Talon, or Thomas Wayne.
@@LuisMartinez-rw2lj Rorschach's objectivist nature was based on Question, but his morals (or lack thereof), insanity and "this city is afraid of me" is basically a parody of Batman
He's both. Alan Moore started off Question and Mr A, but he has said in interviews that he thought of Rorsach as "If Batman was a real person, he'd be a nutjob".
@GOOGLE ACOUNT It's all three. Most people don't even know Mr. A, but that's really the character Rorschach is based on. That character is all about objectivism and black/white morality. Batman doesn't have a black/white morality and if anyone believes so hasn't read enough Batman to know.
For the show: I think they did a pretty good job with it, it certainly does the “Dr Manhattan trying to learn how to be good” thing way better than doomsday clock, and what I think they did a well enough job at continuing the movie/comics too.
I've just always noticed how Dr. Manhattan is so much more overpowered than his teammates. Like on the movie when he was in Vietnam. Vaporize people to the soundtrack of Ride of the Valkyries.
And yet he is powerless. Manhattan suffers from the determinism problem; in a purely rational, predictable universe, a sufficiently advanced intellect could predict everything that would ever happen, even below a subatomic level. For such a mind, their own motivations and the results of their actions would be equally obvious; they would know themselves well enough to predict their own behavior in every situation. This effectively means that the omniscient mind is a mere observer, a passive prisoner who can merely observe a universe who's form is singular, eternal and unchanging. This is Dr. Manhattan, and it's one of the most horrific fates I've ever seen put to print.
There's just so many little things in Watchmen you can't really replicate. I'm sure it's not common, but the biggest example for me is that it took 3 readings to realize the end is near guy was Rorschach
I just finished my first read through of Watchmen a few days ago. I was shocked that people could miss the point. Every detail is written so deliberately to not be subtle, so the idea of people not getting it became a running joke whenever I talked about it. Please do another video on the HBO series!
Originally it was supposed to be a send off comic involving the Question and a few other Charlton Comics characters. You can see this when comparing Question, his worldview, and Steve Ditko’s perspective to Rorschach. DC wouldn’t let the writers use the characters, so the Watchmen were born.
Icba Luv What? It’s constantly getting special edition versions, definitive editions and so on. It got prequels and TWO sequels, and now it’s getting a spin-off and it’s elements have been added to the main comics canon. Fucking BATMAN AS DR. MANHATTAN is a thing now.
The fact this video has at least three ads and is hocking merch constantly on top of it hilarious considering its about the merchandising and dumbing down of watchmen. Don't forget to buy night owls glasses.
I really have to disagree on merchandising, I don't think merchandise is comparable to its media as an exercise of understanding, buying a manhattan statue like you say doesn't mean that you haven't taken in the themes, it means he's got a really cool design which looks quirky. Now if the media itself is explicitly anti merchandising then yeah, fair point. But the point of watchmen is that you shouldn't idolise these people, buying something for its aesthetics doesn't mean yiu idolise it.
Your argument is "What if i like it because it just looks cool" if you need something cool in your place just find something that is just cool and doesn't have the kind of meaning that you want to excuse yourself from.
Agreed. Maybe I have a statue of Marvel’s Carnage. Does that mean I condone hideous acts of violence? No. It just means I thought the character was cool and having a statue of it is a way of reminding me of the cool story arcs. Dr.M is a fascinating character and one of the most iconic characters in Watchmen and comics in general. Maybe you just want a cool statue of him since he was really well written and is synonymous with Watchmen. Doesn’t mean you agree with the fictional characters ideals. Just that you enjoyed his character and comic.
I feel buying a statute could be argued to be idolatry. Someone buying a Doctor Manhattan statute is Someone who knows a lot about them and wants an idol, another way of referring to a statute, of them.
The thing about watchmen's inclusion in the Doomsday clock event was because, during Dc's relaunch into the new 52, most creators wanted to go into a very dark and gritty direction similar to Watchmen and having Dr. Manhatan as the villain by manipulating the reality of DC was a metaphor for writers drastically changing characters to fit into that watchmen mold, it wasn't made as a commentary for society as a whole but instead a criticism of the state of Dc Comics.
This. Quinton missed so much of the subtext of DClock it's honestly upsetting. The story was always intended to be a meta-commnetary about the practices of tentpole superhero comics. But his talking points sound like they came from an article on AiPT or Newsarama or something. Just talking points that show me that he only bought the book, barely read it, and didn't bother ACTUALLY analyzing it.
@@deenydude7 Maybe but I could understand the point of view of going into Doomsday clock and expecting a Watchmen sequel as opposed to a Grant Morrison esc story. But it's super frustrating that he doesn't really go into depth or give context to why Doomsday clock was created
Well my reading is that Quinton isn't a comics guy, he just happened to like Watchmen. Reading that way makes it so that he can get Watchmen because he's seen Marvel movies but he won't get Doomsday Clock because he's not an avid DC comics reader.
TheRichandmighty I don’t even think you have to understand Dc continuity in order to get the message of Doomsday clock sure it helps and gives the story more nuance but you could still get it
Honestly, can we blame them? Imo the commentary was really poorly done, with even some other comics youtubers, such as Chris from Comic Tropes, not really liking the story.
If you were a part of the Comics community during rebirth/doomsday clock era Everyone was extremely confused and extremely excited, but also recognize that this is probably the last creative idea that they’ll have for the next decade.
The Watchmen TV show was in production before Doomsday Clock started (For Two Years), and ended before the final issue dropped, because major delays... And still was the best Watchmen sequel. AND ANOTHER THING, why was every major DC character okay with Dr. Manhattan dong?
I mean if you come face to face with an omnipotent god idk if you'd care about his clothes (or lack thereof). A younger or sidekick character may have quipped about it idk.
XoCustoms it really wasn’t bad. It’s amazing but they fumbled the ball HARD with how dr Manhattan looks. Just finished it again. It’s the best sequel possible
I like the TV show, but I hate that it is supposed to be a sequel to Watchman. I like the plots around Hooded Justice and Ozymandias, but that’s about it.
I loved the watchmen show! Anyone who says they hated it without a reason probably just watched a video on TH-cam about why it sucked without actually watching the show. I really liked that it didn’t just adapt the source material. It dared to do something different but with themes that were appropriate for watchmen, and it took some of the things we were already familiar with to interesting new places.
minor note about the watchmen characters: none of them, to my knowledge, are based on original dc charater, they were based on characters from Charlton Comics, a comic company DC bought up. owlman is based on the charater blue beetle (the comic even has owlman in a slimier air craft BB used called "the bug"), rorschach is the question, Manhattan is captin atom ect. ect.
@Iafiv Iv If you read the Watchmen 19 suplementary material, they've actually created a fake psychological way of classifying different types of masked vigilantes. It is, of course, called the Wertham Spectrum.
The DC universe keeps having its reality rewritten every few years in some catastrophic event. I like to imagine there was some guy born in 1978 who has been leading a completely normal life, not noticing or being effected by any of these crisises, except that every time they happen, he has a couple of minutes of intense nausea. It's technically a super human ability, but as far as he's concerned, it's a mysterious medical issue that barely effects his quality of life.
Great video, but I think you misunderstand Doomsday Clock. What Geoff Johns, as well as Grant Morrison and Mark Waid before him wanted to do was to criticize how, in their view, Watchmen had ruined superhero comics. Their point was that the industry was endlessely chasing Watchmen's success by trying to make every comic like it, and in doing so made comics too grim and too dark, disconnecting them from their roots of escapism. The ending of Doomsday Clock isn't Geoff Johns not understanding Watchmen, it's his deconstruction of it. In his mind, superhero comics are the realm of imagination and fantasy, where realism has no place. As Grant Morrison once put it : “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
@@abuamaanpal what I mean is that blaming Watchmen for tbe dark age of superhero comics in the 90's is just fucking childish and petty. And what Geoff Jones did was essentially made a superhero comic trying to deconstruct a graphic novel that served as a deconstruction of superhero comics. If you can't see what is wrong there then the problem is you.
I got to admit , out of all Zack Snyder's comic book films , Watchmen seemed like the closest one where he somewhat knew what he was doing ( that and 300) .
Well, that’s because he didn’t need to try very hard in terms of direction. He just used the comics as a storyboard. Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore did all the work for him.
I agree about Watchmen, at least, but in retrospect, it feels like he just achieved that by just straight-up copying so much wholesale that he managed to get at least some of the point across without realizing it. Still feels like an overly simplified, less nuanced take on it, though. I mean, Rorschach's almost not an asshole anymore, for instance. Also, he lucked out in that the stuff he cut out didn't completely ruin the point either, though the above-mentioned white-washing of Rorschach, despite him being well-enough acted, cut it close. Also there's still a lot of little misunderstandings that bother me, and HERE THERE BE SPOILERS! Again to bring up Rorschach, in the original comics, in the flashback to his investigation of the kidnapped child, it's murdering the dogs who the kidnapper had fed the child to that caused Walter to snap. My own interpretation of it was always that he knew that the dogs were just trained to do their master's bidding, but at the same time, had played a role in the death of an innocent child, so he had to become a harder, uncompromising person to justify his cutting them up, and doing this took a permanent toll on his mental health. This was reflected by his lengthy monologue in the present to his prison shrink about it. Compared to that, killing the actual murderer goes rather smoothly. In the movie, the killing of the dogs is more or less glossed over, and the monologue about the dogs in the comic is instead given about his killing the murderer instead. I always felt the monologue made more sense for the dogs, primarily because killing the child murderer, even as brutally as he did, is simply a much less morally gray action than the dogs. It makes more sense for butchering the dogs to be this defining moment for him, that made him go from "I fight crime and stop criminals" to "I punish evil, lethally if I can" But yeah, even if the movie hits the right notes broadly, and is nice enough to look at, and the actors did the best they could with what they were given, I feel like little inconsistencies such as the one I over-described in the paragraph above drag it down a little, and show how the director and others involved with the movie did not truly understand the source material, however high their affection for it was.
I definitely disagree about the purpose of merchandise from the perspective of fans and collectors--I have plushies of characters approximately as bad as Hannibal Lecter and I can assure you it's not for lack of seeing the bad. Sometimes emotional attachment and idealization are separate. Not always--I know plenty of fans miss the point of characters so as to not feel bad for liking them--but sometimes. That's all I want to say. Good video.
Doomsday Clock is a meta story about comics itself. It’s not literally a sequel to Watchmen, it serves as a reconstruction of superhero comics and stories after comics have tried to emulate the original Watchmen’s deconstruction for thirty years. Dr. Manhattan is proof that if you gave humans god-like powers that they would become apathetic. Superman by contrast is absolved from human moral failings because of his moral upbringing and that he is not human and lacks humanity’s “original sin” so to speak. Instead, god-like powers provide Superman the ability to affect change in the world for the better. Clark would rather save people and reach out to them rather than fight. Superman gives humanity an ideal to strive toward, and that philosophy is what changed Dr. Manhattan’s mind. This was supposed to signify a fundamental change in the ongoing DC comics series, turning away from cynicism and toward giving readers a fun, light hearted heroes who represents ideas to strive towards. This can also be enhanced in Tomasi’s Superman ongoing series that came out around the time of Rebirth and Doomsday clock, where the original Superman (think Christopher Reece) came back into the main DC universe where the New 52 Superman (think Cavill) died. This original Superman was married to Lois and had a son named Jonathan with her. His ongoing book became about this family, and Superman becomes a father figure again. Giving his son and the audience a moral ideal. Basically I said all that to say Doomsday Clock is less a sequel to Watchmen and more of a meta story about where comics should go now in the wake of 30 years of either responding to or copying Watchmen. Now that Geoff Johns is out at DC, this whole direction and outlook is basically moot anyway. Sorry to ramble on, but Doomsday Clock does work a lot better in the context of DC Rebirth in general.
Completely agree. I dont see it as a watchmen sequel but more of a love letter to superman. If they would've wanted to make a Watchmen sequel, then they wouldn't have put Johns as a writer (because it's not his writing style). It was an actually cash grab for doomsday clock to have all that watchmen iconography.
@@gregoriomassa8529 he stepped down of his position as a creative director? I can't remember which position was. He's working on Warner I think and writing for dc. You should Google some info to be properly informed, I can't remember correctly sorry hahaha
_"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... The solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If I only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."_ *~ Albert Einstein (Watchmen)*
With all the adaptations, sequels and comics "inspired by" in the 90s and the gritty trend, I don't even know if it's existence was worth it, even being probably the best comic I ever read.
I love Rorschach because he’s an incredibly interesting character. It truly scares me how some people thinks he’s actually someone to look up to and idolize,yes Rorschach does some good things but anyone who thinks a homophonic creep who never showers and breaks into freinds homes is cool needs therapy.
Idk, people here acknowledge that the characters in watchmen are complex, but also try to remove rorschach's complexity in order to "own" the rorschach fans. Yes, hes hateful. Yes, he enjoys killing criminals. Yes he doesnt shower. Yes, he breaks into peoples homes and eats their beans. But hes also one of the only characters in the story who wouldn't compromise. When superheroes were told to unmask and retire, he refused. When Veidts plan finished and everyone was prepared to let it all go to keep the lie, Rorschach refused. Even when a god like being was prepared to kill him, he refused. His black-and-white, objectivist view of the world (at least how Alan Moore interpreted it) also made for interesting comparisons with the other characters of the book, even when there are a few instances of him looking the other way for certain individuals. In a sea of grey morality, a black-and-white moralist can be refreshing, as is true for the reverse. There are also brief moments where we see that Rorschach is capable of empathy and care. He was the only character that seemed to care that the comedian died, and when he thought other masks might be in trouble, he tried to warn them. And then there was the whole landlady scene where he lets her go when he sees her crying children. Hes certainly vicious and ruthless, but its abundantly clear in the comic that the world in which he lives is equally vicious and ruthless. He wasnt a superhero for the fun of it like most of the other characters, we actually see he had a horrible childhood and was surrounded by horrible people who did shitty things, and therefore he genuinely wanted "justice" (that is, his own twisted form of justice) Theres plenty of things in his character that at the very least make him interesting with a few redeeming qualities so I dont really care if people find him cool.
Yes, you should totally do a video on the Watchmen show. As for Doomsday Clock, one small change could have saved the whole thing. I LOVE the idea that Dr Manhattan made the DC Universe an objectively worse place. That's such a good description of Watchmen's effect on mainstream superhero comics in the long run. I love the idea that at the end, Manhattan realizes he's actually a villain, and that he has made this universe worse, and he removes his influence (Watchmen's influence) from mainstream DC Comics. What a great catharisis! But that shouldn't mean he goes back to his world to be superman, because in his world, superheroes are fundamentally bad. They only ever make the world worse. He should have gone back and stopped himself from ever becoming Dr Manhattan. Erasing superheroes altogether from his history aside from a small surge in vigilantism following the publication of Action Comics #1 that petered out. And now, his world looks like ours mostly. And it's much better, and not on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The thesis then becomes: DC Superheroes were better without the influence of Watchmen. And Watchmen's world would have been better without superheroes at all. Bam. That's a message. Not really relevant to the big questions of the world, but a decent commentary on the genre of superhero comics as a whole.
Honestly, that’s already the thesis. The only difference is that it then has Manhattan create a new Superman/Clark for the Watchmen universe because of that lesson, which tbh probably didn’t need to happen.
I genuinely thought that was what was going to happen. I expected Dr. Manhattan to realize "Oh shit, I'm the villain, I'm physically incapable of thinking morally, and these powers in MY hands (as opposed to the "good" that he saw Superman as) is imperically bad" and decide to go back and prevent himself from ever becoming Dr. Manhattan. It would also be one of the only truly permanent moves he's ever made since it would ultimately erase himself from existence and it works in direct contrast with the ton of experimentation that he did on the DC timeline. Reasonable character growth. [Even though there is an argument that the point of Watchmen is to deny them character growth, DC was going to put some in there anyway]
If that's the point it feels really disingenious. Like they claim to be washing their hands and the DC universe of Watchmen influence, while at the same time exploiting it even more for money instead of giving it back to Moore and also adding the characters to that same universe at the same time. Not to mention that, especially after the New52, modern DC isn't really any less dark than 90's DC was, some of which Johns himself has contributed to; like Darkest Night and all the stuff around Infinite Crisis. Like they still can't stop stealing from Watchmen (if all the darkness can be blaimed on Watchmen, which I don't think it can, but that's the thesis so that's what I'm going with) while at the same time decrying and blaming it for it?
Painocus It’s not decrying Watchmen, it’s decrying the decades of poorly made initiations trying to cash in on it and other acclaimed comics of the time by trying to make everything ‘subversive’, especially in 90’s comics.
@@videobeetle8: Then why bring Watchmen into it? Bring in the Death of Superman, bring in Knightfall, bring in Superman at World's End or whatever. If they are bad and Johns is not decrying Watchmen, then the fault is on them for being bad, not for supposedly being inspired by Watchmen. (And I'd argue the general tone of 90's darkness was more derived from The Dark Knight Returns than Watchmen anyways.) Like the point of doing a Watchmen sequel is that some other comics were bad, and maybe those comics were inspired by Watchmen, becouse they are dark, but DC comics are still often just as dark as the 90's, if not more, and quite a few of them are still bad, so... what kind of point is that?
@@gregoriomassa8529 Lol I am pretty sure snyder haters are alot more toxic than his fans, there is even a snyder hate page in fb where people are making rape jokes about his dead daughter
I think, what Doomsday Clock was going for, was clearly like, a symbolism thing. DC is really into metafiction and exploring its own nature as a fictional continuum. In the case, the "bit" is that Doctor Manhattan ruined the DC Universe by making it gritty and edgy...As a parallel to how Watchmen caused the so-called "Dark Age" of comics, where writers saw Watchmen's success and took the wrong lessons away, namely that the solution to making comics good wasn't to make the writing better, but just to throw int ons of blood, nudity, cursing, and all the other trappings of maturity, focusing on the superficial elements of Watchmen as if THEY were the reason it was good. The problem in, in the process, it sorta turns Doctor Manhattan/Watchmen into a sort of sin-eater for all the poorly-thought out grim-and-grittiness of the era that the book helped birth, when, in reality, the original book wasn't anything like that. Indeed, one could argue the book sorta deconstructs that 90s Anti Hero type in itself with the Comedian, who comes across, in retrospect, as a pitch-black parody of Rob Liefeld characters before he was a thing: Big guns, big muscles, wisecracks, and just in general everything a teenage boy would find badass...As well as attempted rape, misogyny, murder of innocents, and moral nihilism. Watchmen is being used as a sin-eater for all the sins of the era it birthed.
That is my major issue for Doomsday Clock is from everything I have heard, its supposed to be about that, where Watchmen 'darkened' the universes and they need to defeat it to bring back hope but its not Watchmen's fault that a bunch of hack writers took the wrong messages from it and made comics dark and edgy. I think it was a Linkara video but I remember someone saying something along the lines of "Instead of doing all these meta stories about defeating darkness and bringing back hope, just stop making everything dark and edgy and write more hopeful stories". The fault is the writers, stop letting them write heroes murdering people and characters getting raped or going insane, its their fault, not Alan Moore just telling a successful story.
One of I think the most important lines that has stuck with me from the original watchmen is “Nothing ever ends,” and jesus fucking christ taking that and changing it to be “Everything ends,” is a goddamn travesty.
Pleeeeease do a video on the Watchmen show. I love it a lot but I don’t know if it’s necessarily faithful to the spirit of Watchmen, there’s a lot to unpack
It sucks cause the idea of Superman and Dr. Manhattan just... talking is a really cool one. A purely neutral omnipotent force and a purely good omnipotent force. You could make a lot of stuff about that. Like how we mentally reject the grey morality of our own world and make supermen who always find the right thing to do. Or how we reject absolute options in life and choose the morally grey option because the good option is so much harder. This could be an interesting conversation, an interesting series to see. But nah they had to mess it up.
My recommendation for Watchmen is to read the book, then watch the movie, then watch that Watchmen Saturday Morning Cartoon TH-cam video, then watch the HBO Watchmen. I've noticed that the movie is basically the conservative adaptation of Watchmen, and the HBO Watchmen almost acts as a rebuttal to the movie version. I think there even is an argument to be made that the Watchmen movie could be considered an in-universe movie that was released in the universe of HBO Watchmen (a film within a film). It would explain why the ending is not historically accurate (AKA different than what happens in the graphic novel), and it would help explain why Rorschach became the symbol for the 7th Cavalry (because the movie depicts him as the heroic main character). There is a small part in the first episode that implies that this is the case, but for now, it's my head canon.
but 7th Cavalry was created from people reading his diary. his diary was overconservative and posted in overconservative journal. that seems to be enough, especially since we know what he wrote there and there's a lot of bad shit in there
It honestly makes me smile when my favorite youtubers have their OWN ads in the video. It means they're getting paid directly. Get that money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The DC/Watchmen crossover was weirdly solid. It didn't act like they were the best people. In fact, it actively showed all the members to be borderline villains. It also mocked Rorschach fanboys. I'm not going to act like it was as good as the original, or that it was the most coherent, but it did say "listen, Watchmen was dark, but DC shouldn't always be, and it should be it's own thing, because injecting super dark shit into DC is what started The New 52, and that was iffy at best". It doesn't detract from the original and uses it contextually to make a statement about the state of modern comics that want to be Watchmen without understanding what it was about. So I really feel like Quentin used the right formula for the wrong answer here. I also think he entirely misread the ending. Manhattan didn't save the world, he decided that he wasn't fit for the task because he's an asshole and gave the powers to a baby, committing suicide in the process. The baby was going to be raised by a loving family, and the baby's name was Clark. Manhattan literally just aped the DC universe, just like the DC universe aped Watchmen. That was the point. He never became a hero because he was never anything like God, which he constantly said. He just came to the realization that he also shouldn't be. He came from a hot garbage world where heroes basically couldn't exist, and found one where they could, and he started fucking it up because he felt like there was something inherently wrong with that concept, and to me, that's a statement.
I thought it was a pretty good crossover honestly. Taking two universes with inherently different character morality, a gritty grey and the typical positive world of normal DC. I'm not sure it was meant to put too much into the superhero good trope.
I agree with you as well. I feel like if Zack Synder is a film maker misinterpreting a comic's point. Then, Quinton is a video maker misinterpreting a comic's point. I mean that in a respectful way. I feel like Quinton has a more causal knowledge of comics, I maybe wrong. I also did think he was going to talk about the watchmen property like how he talked about the back to the future property; all encompassing. The Thumbnail is titled, "watchmen sequels". Analyzing doomsday clock and Zack Synder's watchmen are easy picking. But analyzing Lindeloff's watchmen and Darwyn cooke's minutemen is harder because they are genuinely good story. Honestly, I feel like Darwyn cooke's minutemen is really slept-on because of the whole watchmen situation. It sucks because it's the last things he worked on before his passing. Both Lindeloff and Cooke give background characters more complexities and tragedies.
Yeah this. I just don't entirely agree w his take. Yeah some stuff was dumb but overall I feel like this is a valid entry in the DC canon. It seemed like the only realistic arc Manhattan could go through. He realizes his faults and the effect hes had and is like k ill make someone like superman because he is cool. Maybe it's me but having this kind of optimism isn't inherently bad.
@@g.a.2997 Cooke's minutemen is mostly slept on because of the bad rep of the rest of the Before Watchmen series, a shame honestly because it is really is a good entry.
Loved the vid! except for that part where you went on a rant about how dr. manhattan meeting garfield in his universe would be much more approproate and interesting because they are similarly morally ambigous, dont care about those that surround them and are omnipotent, that was kinda weird.
Because the boys's show doesn't follow its source material. The source material doesn’t seem to be as effective as the show at showing how evil corporate America could be using the superhero. Garth ennis tried so hard to make the readers hate superheroes but instead it was just constantly showing his hatred. The comic always came off as trying way too hard to be edgy and shocking, and it just had to shove down your throat so much shock value it got old really fast. The TV show is more layered, characters are more developed, the conflict is way more interest, and it actually has something similar to a narrative focus. The Seven are a surprisingly human bunch instead of being a bunch of one-dimensional awful people that are 100% awful with no redeeming qualities. I got honestly surprised at how the flipping Deep actually turned out to be a human with actual feelings. The Homelander doesn't act like an adult-sized baby and is actually someone who knows what the hell he's doing and is a threat outside of the realm of his flying brick-ness. Starlight and Hughie are both more well-rounded and active characters overall, and grow out just having everyone dump on their faces for I-don't-know-how-many-issues. Butcher too, is less of an asshole and more of a sympathetic jerk (in the good sense). Overall, just a much improved version of the story with good characters that actually capitalizes on its premise. and also Certain things like The Boys not having powers from the start, the elimination of the dog as Butcher's sidekick, Homelander being more stupid than a wet coast while in the show, he's been written way better, the changes to Homelander's character to make him more sympathetic (and to be honest there is a lot more ambiguity shown between the actions of Butcher & Homelander which if done well could be really great), changes to some characters (the deep is fucking hilarious), they did a hell of a lot right. One reason I think it works is that The Boys (comic) is a satire on Superhero comics while The Boys (TV) is a satire on Superhero movies/tvshows. The base premise is the same and there are enough similarities to the source that it still feels true to the comics without needing to be a pure conversion. thx god I don't need to see Terror fuck some old lady’s dog Not to mention a lot of unimportant dialogues, Queen maeve having sex with a small grown man, Hughie shitting on the floor, and a Superhero feeling the need to fuck everything including animals and inanimate objects... and of course children, & Teenage kix having sex and changing women which is done every night, etc. WTF? And also not to mention THE ENDING, The boys's comic's ending is so terrible, it probably makes into top 5 worst ending of all time. Doesn't even get to top 7 or 8 Ennis's work. Only pervert edgelords Ennis's diehard fans would say that the comic's better.
eh... The Boys is better than Watchmen sequels, but it still misses a lot. Watchmen is a genius deconstruction of the genre, The Boys is "what if superheroes=bad and superheroes=edgy?". I love The Boys, but Watchmen is a lot more
I was already listening when you are speaking, but i decided to just fold my clothes while listening. Then i hear batman impersonation and jesus you hit the right notes for that character God damn
You can find my glasses at GlassesUSA.com. Check them out here for a great offer & free shipping bit.ly/Quinton_GlassesUSA (Additional rules may apply, free shipping to US & CA)
Get the Quinton Reviews plushie here: makeship.com/collections/featured/products/quinton-reviews
Thnx
You need to get another sexxxxxxdoll sponsorship.
Secksdoll sponsorship??
Make a video on the watchmen tv show. I felt like the messaging was so muddled I need help unraveling it
nah
Next you’ll be telling me the superhero’s in “The Boys” aren’t good guys or Joker is someone I shouldn’t look up to.
Batman's "edginess" in Batman v Superman clearly went way over his head.
Dude, Homelander IS America! Without him, how would we ever hope to combat the super terrorists?! I will also have you know that the seven is highly inclusive! Did you know that three of them are female now? Plus Starlight is just pretty hot you know. My favorite was the Deep, the dude really inspired me, but I haven't seen him in any press recently. It's a shame, my little brother is a swimmer and really looked up to him. We got his autograph once. The little dude models his whole life after him. I caught him trying to talk to his goldfish just yesterday. God bless The Seven. God bless America.
RIP Translucent. May you never truly vanish.
Having read The Boys when it was originally releasing was a guilty pleasure but also fascination for how it could only be more edgy and lack substance more and more the story went on. Perhaps one of the worst things I've had the pleasure of experiencing in the medium.
The mixture of grounded realism with superhero elements is a lot more fascinating.
@@Unquestionable there’s actually a lot of substance in the boys. You just clearly misunderstood it
TBH, Superman being such a good dude he teaches Dr Manhattan morals is a better understanding of Superman than most Superman media in the last decade
The problem is that it props Superman up further at the expense of completely destroying the point of Dr. Manhattan. They're reducing Watchmen to yet another fun lil comic.
@jack thursby It undermines and devalues Watchmen by totally forgetting the point of it. It can be interesting in regards to typical comic affairs, but it's far from what it was meant to be.
YEs I don’t believe it undermines it at all. If anything it’s the answer to the questions Watchmen leaves you with. The points Watchmen makes are unsustainable - as seen in the deterioration of its own world. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying; Watchmen is deep, philosophical, and I believe, Perfect. However, it can be frustrating when people take its word for the only objective truth. Its not. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that it’s far from it. Not to say it’s wrong, but more that it’s a piece of a larger picture. I believe the primary error with this video, and in how people view Doomsday Clock, is how people forget the values these heroes are supposed to represent. People tend to see the Watchmen characters as the only ones with any philosophical value, and that’s just plain wrong. Another issue I hold with this video, is that he seems to forget the lessons learned by some of the characters in Watchmen. A few of them didn’t remain static. They grew. I was forgetting two main points when I said Watchmen’s meanings were unsustainable. Those points: Dan and Laurie, and Dr.Manhattan. Dan and Laurie’s choice to hold on to the things that matter to them -primarily each other- in an uncertain world is quite meaningful. And Manhattan’s restored value in people and the world at large is even more so. So, to say they changed Manhattan to a “DC” hero is almost ridiculous to me. They took him from where he left off and expanded on it. Doomsday Clock is actually an amazing arc for both Dr. Manhattan and Superman. Manhattan acting as the representative for the ambiguity of Watchmen, while Superman represents the hope and meaning a hero should represent. With the world being full of deconstructions, and the horrible “gritty” perspective of the likes of Zack Snyder; I cant help but appreciate the “old fashioned” stance of Doomsday Clock in showing the value of what these characters should represent. I’m not saying it’s perfect. It’s not. But I do believe it’s pretty damn good. I understand if people aren’t too crazy about the point of Watchmen being sort of “corrected” or “answered” by Doomsday Clock. However, moral ambiguities and muddied waters only get you so far. And in the end, moral values and objective truths have to be strived for if we hope to achieve anything. THAT is the point of Doomsday Clock. That is what it offers society. That is Superman.
Anyways. Sorry for the book, man. Lol you don’t like it, that’s cool. to each their own.
@@YEs69th420 Whats the point of it then? To feel superior in your imagined nihilism?
@@leysonmose To provide a satirical lens for the superhero genre of comics, taking its tropes and trends to their logical conclusions in order to critique the unintended consequences of these ideas. It's not nihilism, and I am not nihilistic; don't assume, it's rude.
Why, what did you think it's about?
Rorschach at the end of the book is essentially “the worst person you know has made a good point” as a character. He’s not a good person by any means, but none of the characters are really. And in the end he doesn’t give in to Veidt’s plan and is killed for it. I think that’s ultimately why people like his character since he reacts the way most people reading the book react to the ending
That.. Is the most accurate description of Rorschach ever!
No you are a retard if you like a fascist. You can say he is a good written character but he is not a good person you psycho 😂
From experience I get to know the other side of Rorschach fans, I met several guys who have this type of mentality that they are bad but they are trying to be good so they deserve some type of reward, despite the fact that they are not trying to be better, they think they are but they don't change their actions if you ask them nor try to think about themselves if is not victimisation, they have fantasies of fighting crime because criminals are suppossed to be the worst type of person, someone even lower than the insecure, petty and horrible person they are.
Not every Rorschach fan is like that of course, I do know cool people that like him, also I don't really agree with the video that if you want Rorschach merch you're inherantly dumb about the subject, some people just like the iconographic of the character because he is kinda cool visual wise, same with people who have military miniatures, just because they have them doesn't mean they are ignorant or are pro-war or something.
Eh I’d argue the movie tries to make him seem really cool and bad ass
@zabeerfarid7687 it does, cuz Snyder and the writers didnt understand the character. But he talkin bout the comic
Isn't the point of Manhattan's powers that he effectively exists in all times at once, not that he can see the future? He's simultaneously the most powerful being in existence but still powerless to change anything, his entire character is based around how he has no actual agency or free will because his path in life is already laid out from the moment he came into existence. How does the ending of Doomsday Clock make any sense in that regard?
I'm surprised this dude didn't like Zach Snyder's take on watchmen.. that movie was a visual masterpiece and it asks very complicated questions about what happens to superheroes when given the power how they lose thier humanity.. it was made too early
@@kevinslaye that’s the thing, what you described isn’t “Snyder’s take on watchmen”, it’s the entire point of watchmen period. Everything Snyder changed about watchmen when adapting it to the movie only server to water down that message, case in point the removal of aspect’s of Rorschach’s character to make him seem less evil and more of an “edgy badass”
@@kevinslaye The only thing Snyder did wrong in that movie was make Ozzymandias a bad guy with little gray nuance. Rorschach is alright. If they could’ve made him less likeable and more bean eating scum then the ending would’ve been more powerful than it already was. It’s powerful that the most insane one in the group tries to tell the people of what really happened to new York. It was better than the comic imo(the ending) has Nite-Owl present for Rorschach’s death and the acting is impeccable. One last thing: Manhattan leaving the lie of him causing the explosions in New York undiscovered makes him better too
@@hydrocritical2268 the squid is infinitely better
@@kevinslayeas a fan of the movie the cool action music and the fight scene serve to skewer the message, these guys dont get to have badass action scenes because watchmen also raises the question if superheroes belong in our society, the comic spends a lot of the time world building giving side characters some spotlight showing us how they are just guys playing dress up with lives and how manhattan is a game changer, in the end he has to make the conscious decision to leave or to not, in snyders version he just has to dip cuz he is public enemy
I like to imagine that Batman regularly throws people into Arkham for disagreeing with him about movies.
"Joker's back in Arkham, huh? What did he do this time?"
"Gave Avengers: Endgame a 6/10."
What you dont like the newest Barbie movie, no problem you can think it again on Arkham boy
Zack Snyder's Batman definitely does that.
@@bibbitibob I'd actually assume that he rated it too HIGH in that case, because...well, you know, DC v. Marvel.
Bibbitibob THAT IS 100% SOMETHING THE JOKER WOULD DO JUST TO PISS OFF BATMAN
I'm not sure I think people have trouble seeing heroes as always right, I think people have trouble with seeing protagonists as wrong. Protagonist centered morality is a big problem.
When the only thing we're taught in school related to literary analysis is being made to write a four page expository essay on To Kill A Mockingbird, it's not surprising a majority of people can't comprehend writing outside of the rigid formula that's been pounded into their heads.
Yeah, thinking on villain protagonist stories i very often see people fully straight faced defending the protagonists actions and their reasoning, ignoring any number of reprehensible actions, and i think this is especially easy when things escalate, the story is in first person and you see the protagonists reasoning, and reading a story all at once instead of reflecting on where the story is going, compounded by a seeming complete unwillingness to applya ny sort of critical thought into the protagonists actions and you have people nodding along when the protagonists is killing babies 600 pages in or something.
I agree entirely.
I think that idea is so annoying. I mean, I can't tell you how often I hear "Protagonist is unlikable/not a good person" as a criticism, ignoring so much about the meat of the story. Character arcs mean more than just "hero is bad, then becomes good." Some of the most interesting stories are about protagonists that aren't good people. The Godfather, Goodfellas, Drive, Snowpiercer, The Watchmen (duh), all these stories are about flawed people that either end up in a worse point than they started, or never really get better. At best, they're about atonement, at worst, they're about a decent into madness. Despite that, the idea that a protagonist, especially a "hero," like those in Watchmen, could be considered anything but a hero is inconceivable. It's part of the reason I think people *[SPOILERS FOR THE LAST OF US 2 AHEAD]* got so angry when Joel was killed. Ignoring all the value judgements about the quality of its writing, people were so angry over the idea that Joel was killed, despite the fact that basically the entire story of the first game was about how Joel was a shitty person who deserved death, or if not you don't believe he deserved it, then at the very least, it was the only logical conclusion to his story because he was a broken, bitter man that murdered countless people and ultimately lied to his adoptive daughter about the outcome of everyone she'd ever known because he couldn't bear the trauma. *[SPOILERS OVER]*
Tl;dr The term "protagonist" doesn't necessarily mean "hero of the story," it just means the main character. However, so much of our media is inundated with stories of heroes that I think a lot of people forgot how to consider that a story doesn't have to tell us about a hero, it can tell us about a human.
Edit: I should also make it clear that I don't blame audiences for this mentality, I blame the corporations for feeding us the "Ubermensch" ideal power fantasy, i.e. the logical conclusion to the "good guy with a gun" argument that's been trotted out a million times over. I don't even blame writers, necessarily, as those are just individual people who grew up in the same society that inundated them with the exact same mindset. I blame the people at the top who decide what we like and what we want to see, where every story told has to be one where they're the ultimate victors. You have a nice self-contained story about the rich elite using their power to do whatever it takes to make themselves even richer? Well, obviously the ending has to be about how those were just the evil capitalists whose power is ultimately usurped the good capitalist that will do the good thing. Its neoliberal garbage.
Walter White.
I love Rorschach as a character basically because I found him interesting. I used to cosplay him the way some folks cosplay villains. And then I met other Rorschach fans. I don’t cosplay him anymore.
What was it like meeting other fans?
oof
slayertakim1 probably stinky from all the canned beans they eat
Yeeeah i really wanna cosplay him cause it looks fun but I'm worried for the butthurt semi nazis 😬
I thought Rorschach was cool when I was a kid but now that I know and understand his character I hate him. Still looks cool though lol. He’s insane. Sees the world in black and white and if ur in the black u deserve to die. But he’s a hypocrite because he picks and chooses. He doesn’t even follow his own code.
There's only one true sequel.
*Saturday Morning Watchmen*
YESSSS
Rorschach: "I'm nutty!"
OMG...as a HUUUUGE fan of all things Watchmen, this was off my radar. EGADS! Thanks Plague for the heads up.
Fun fact: that's still the one adaptation of his work Alan Moore likes
@@IfIHadMyTimeAgain HA! even better!!
Quinton finally fulfilled his destiny and became Linkara
Being the Garf-Czar wasn't enough for him!
This is the day we've been waiting for boys. Proud of y'all 😢
When he said he had a special guest I was going 'please be Linkara, please be Linkara' because I was going to enjoy guessing whether Linkara had seen Quentin's video about his movie or not.
THE LIGHT BRINGER
It was bound to happen someday
I am so disappointed that you didn't bring up the "Before Watchmen" comics and the infamous line spoken by the Comedian: "It's Time to Shit!"
God that sounds like fun
He definitely should've talked about those comics instead of Doomsday Clock.
Only Minutemen had anything of value.
@@deadpool630 yeah I genuinely liked minutemen and think that it is a decent addition to the Watchmen story. Everything else on the other hand is not too good from what I remember.
@@gageansman295Dollar Bill was fun
"So that I know There's a general interest in (reviewing The Watchmen TV show)"
Yes. Yes there is.
"one of them is a centrist" is the single best line in the video
What’s the time on that
@@mcbrodz1663 31:36
"I moved the Lantern six inches out of Allan Scott's reach." is way funnier than it should be.
It's like a teenager holding a piece of candy above their kid sibling's head and laughing as the kid keep jumping trying to grab it.
Batman doesn't get shit
I bust out laughing when I watched it, it's genuinely such a funny line
"Die Bitchboy" - Dr. Manhattan
Ask any woman--six inches can mean a big difference!😊
And now we have The Boys which, original comic aside (since it's kind different and has its own issues), I think the show is an excellent followup to the spirit of Watchmen, commenting on a post 9/11 America instead of the Cold War era.
@@spiderjerusalem4009 So The Boys boils down to "Corporate-sponsored superheroes are EEEEEEEEVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLL!!!!! Brought to you by: Amazon."
@@louisduarte8763 yes that’s the show and the comic. mostly just ignore this verse and enjoy watchmen
Every now ant then I want to watch The Boys but then I remember that I've heard about the gill scene
@@louisduarte8763 Corporations run everything, so that's unavoidable. It's ironic for sure, but what can you do? You can create art that's critical of corporations but that only way to get funding and a platform is through them. Even crowdfunding sites are owned by corporations that take a cut of the donations. It's basically in the same vein of critiquing the fossil fuel industry while owning a car.
@@louisduarte8763 "You criticize society, yet you live in it? Most curious."
That's what you sound like.
I've always found it very significant that guys like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, dispite writing all these deconstructions of superhero comics and (in Moore's case in particular) have stated how much they dislike superheroes, still love Superman. I guess that he's just such a perfect embodiment of what superheroes and heroes in general are supposed to be that he's been given such love.
Dude Grant Morrison never said anything about disliking superheros like in all of his superhero stuff its very obvious he loves these characters.
Alan Moore loves superheroes, he just hates that he does
Man even a hypocritical hack like Garth Ennis likes Superman. That's when you know he's timeless.
@@concept5631 Garth Ennis can't write sincere superheroes for shit, because he hates them - except Superman. He can write a really good Superman, because _somehow_ he likes and gets Superman. It's weird.
@@KillahMate What stories has he done for Superman?
Ironically, the new Rorschach could've been an opportunity to explore this surface-deep exploration of these characters, and how someone follows and idolizes another's legacy, despite not really knowing what that legacy entailed. It could've been interesting if done correctly. Unfortunately, doing it correctly would shit on the piece of work it's actually being written in, so it had to be handled like how it was.
It's been a while since I've read the book but I think it does cover that stuff.
4:15 I don’t know if it was intentional but saying “is a representation of The Question” while panning up to Rorschach is top tier
For those who might not know, the superheroes in watchmen are based off/parodies of I believe charlton comics. So, Captain Atom -> Doctor Manhattan, Blue Beetle -> Night Owl, and The Question -> Roarschach
I thought nightowl was supposed to batman.
Well DC had acquired those characters from Charlton and at the time DC had let a bunch of British writers go hog wild on do interpretations on some obscure characters, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's original pitch was going to use those characters, but... well most of them wouldn't be usuable so they had to make there own.
@@jonathaneilbeck2263 ah. i was lead to believe that the mainstream dc characters were the original pitch. thx
@@Sandra_aschenbach_doyle Yeah, some major DC characters were from rival companies that they later bought, like Shazam was once owned by a company named Fawcett or Plastic Man was originally owned by Quality.
@@jonathaneilbeck2263 Didn't know this but if fits really well given that most of Moores early career was just taking British characters in weird and subversive directions
According to Moore, prior to being given Superman, and subsequently writing the phenomenal "For the Man Who Has Everything," he wanted to write about Martian Manhunter, and his struggles as an alien, the last of his kind, a pyrophobic detective, etc. I wish he'd been given the chance.
I had no idea he wanted to do Martian Manhunter, if he had the chance, the character would probably be completely different.
At least he could do another green character, Swamp Thing, and he changed it for the better, but I'm really curious at how he would have handled Martian Manhunter.
That Space Ghost bit is a piece of happy driftwood I'm clinging to in the wreckage of 2020.
Nice Black Freighter reference. ; )
To me, owning merchandise of a character does not mean you look up to them, it just means that you like how the character is written or their design, for example, joker, at least in the golden age, joker was written well and his design is enticing therefor merchandise was made, same with Mr. Manhattan, he IS NOT someone you should look up to but his design and character are well made.
Overall, a very good video quinton
his design is a naked blue man with a dot on his head, and the writting is "i dont care about anything, so i will only move a finger to comit atrocities, even thought i could fix a lot of the problems in the world at least for the people living in the moment"
i like the story but manhatan is the last character i would have any merchandising
I like to think of it like this.
Joker, Rorschach and Manhattan are interesting characters. But if someone says that any of them are their favourite character/s, you back away slowly.
I'm sorry, but DOCTOR Manhattan didn't go to medical school for six years just so you could call him Mr. Manhattan.
@@ROBERTJOHNSON020 That was a lot funnier than it should have been.
@@rileydavidson180 saying a morality bad character is your favourite isn’t concerning it’s when someone Denies that they are bad
I feel like so many "edgy" things end up being stuck between people who get them and people who don't.
-Watchmen
-Rick and Morty
-FilthyFrank
- Any peice of Satire
Like there are people who know how to actually analyze media and use iconology and the history and contemporary events to a peice of media being published because they know it's being edgy to make a point . And then there are edgelords with worms for brains.
Addendum: Also yes please to a watchmen HBO video.
i wonder if the writers understand this on some level and use it as a strategy to sell to both sides?
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
@@SuperOssumPossum I think this is my new favorite copypasta.
I’ve been coming to a conclusion that most people’s personalities are wired in a way where they don’t understand subtleties until it’s either explained to them or they’re just THAT dense and that’s been the reason why so many people often misinterpret media to the point where it’s had very negative consequences on culture or even the world.
I mean yeah it’s an admittedly judgmental conclusion that is pretty generalizing. If not most people’s personalities that are like this it’s at least a certain amount of the world’s population whose personalities have them Stan fictional far righters without any self awareness of who said character was meant to be a metaphor for.
@@Raggedyfink nah, 90% of the population are morons that never question anything and aren't the slightest bit interested in understanding things on more than the most basic level. Anti-intellectualism is a real problem in America, and prob most of the world.
"I watched _Batman Begins_ and was disappointed that I didn't get to see a beloved character get raped in prison. I am a mentally healthy adult."
@Kevineitor yes
Lol
I think he also said that if he was the writer of The Dark Knight Rises he would have put a scene of Bruce being raped in prison.
He really said that?
@@abuamaanpal Zack Snyder wishes he was Todd McFarlane.
So I have a totally different take on the end of Doomsday Clock, I thinks it's the writers middle finger to Snyder's idea of Superman. They were just willing to sacrifice the watchman for that goal.
Yeah. I'd say this about Doomsday Clock: its a pretty good Superman story. Its not a very good Watchman sequel.
At least when the first two issues came out the way I heard people in the comic sphere talk about it was it was to continue with the DC Rebirth movement and bring back the Justice Society of America which does have a bit of a fanbase from bronze age comic fans as well as the writer of the Doomsday Clock who made a short but fairly popular comic series involving them in the 2000s.
@@U1TR4F0RCE yeah but due to the amount of delays doomsday clock had they ended up coming back first in a random issue of justice league.
@@Ultimataco That was part of why I said at first. I really wonder if things would have worked better if there was someone in charge to try and make sure Gary Frank and Geoff Johns stick to a schedule.
It’s a pretty terrible watchmen sequel, sacrifices everything that made them interesting and was badly written
I remember when the movie came out a ton of fans were talking about how "cool" Rorschach was and how they wanted to be like him, and when I read the actual comic it made it clear that he was supposed to be a a borderline-psychotic satire of Libertarianism, ultra-nationalism, and Puritanism all rolled into one, and that's obvious from ONE PAGE, and the fact he was seen as "relatable" after the adaptations prove they missed the point.
Yep. And when the show came out and portrayed Rorschach as the lunatic he was: People got mad. If the movie never came out, the reception of the show would’ve been waaay better
I think the movie obfuscated the character with the actor. Loved the portrayal of the character Rorshach, the actor who played him did an amazing job. The flaw in the movie was to make the character likable. As if he sacrificed himself for the greater good of exposing the truth. The whole point of Rorschach's death wasn't one of martyrdom, it was to expose the truth regardless of the outcome. Even if it meant ending world peace. The ambiguous morality of that moment and the subsequent epilogue of sending his journal to the press is a satirical commentary on how history can rewrite a garbage person into a hero. The movie left that open for interpretation as well as the book and it was up to the reader/viewer to decide what is that morality. Alan Moore was quoted as saying that his book wasn't adaptable for film. The tv series proves that he was right in ways that even Alan couldn't forsee.
Not very big differences between the two, except comic Rorschach is even more of a degenerate
@@G-H-Productions11yeah I remember watching a review that was surprised they portrayed him that way in the show.
It's not that i don't get it. I get that alan moore made a character the audience was supposed to dislike and accidentally wrote a character that was super based and had an awesome visual design.
I ain't gonna dislike the character just cause the author wants me to, lol.
I still have nightmares of you ripping up a copy of watchmen to recreate the =3 wall.
Warner Brothers really thought it was a good idea to put someone who hates comic books in charge of their comic movie franchise
I don't think that's a problem. I think a superhero property by people who hate superheroes is way more interesting than any actual unironic sueperhero property. The problem is getting a good writer who hates comics rather than Snyder who can't write for shit.
@@danielyoung6778 that his movies were terrible and pften missed their chraters motivations and core valjues kinda proves you wrong
@@jasonjacksn I agreed with you that Snyder is a terrible writer in my comment. The man hasnever made a good film imo. Im saying a superhero film by a great writer disgusted by superheroes would be the only reason to have any excitement for one to me.
@@danielyoung6778 that would make for a good original story. In fact has created some good original stories. Not if you're doing an adaptation though.
@@danielyoung6778 in fact the biggest issue withcomic movis during the 90s and video game movies today is the lack of respect for the medium. Resulting in adaptations that both alienate existing fans and fails to attract new ones.
4:49 fun fact: night owl and rorschach are not based of batman they are based of the the two Charlton heroes blue beetle (ted kord) and the question and even the other heroes in watchmen are based of the other Charlton heroes like peacemaker, nightshade, captain atom and thunderbolt
Holy shit. You absolutely NAILED this video. It drives me crazy when people completely mis interpret this story. I was horrified by the end of watchmen. This story is fully a cautionary tale that is wildly relivent today. Not a super hero worship piece
Quinton with the cat on his lap looks like a villan trying to make us belive that we need to rebell agains our superheros ^^
Good to see some on the internet mention the tick, that show is seriously underated
I love it when I stumble over Zack Snyder quotes. Hearing him talk makes it so funny to think that people consider him a cinematic genius.
Yeah the quote from him in this is pretty horrible. Why do men like casually referencing other men getting raped, especially in prison?
I don't believe there's a respected critic alive who thinks he's any sort of genius.
This is my first time actually hearing a quote of his. I never considered him any kind of genius, but i do/did enjoy some of his movies in a dumb, mindless kind of way. But damn. That quote just gave me a sad, new perspective. Suddenly everything makes a lot more sense now!
Zack is so alike his fans it's truly amazing.
One of us! One of us!
Dude, you're not even a regular genius.
There is a difference between 'Dark' and 'Edgey'. 'Dark' is when you include mature or serious subject matter because you want to tell a story that people can learn something or at the very least make a statement about something. Examples of 'Dark' graphic novels are Alan Moore's Watchmen, Kentaro Miura's Berserk, Art Spiegelman's Maus. 'Edgey' is when you include mature or serious subject matter because you think it's cool and will make people stop and gawk like it's such a shocking twist of events. 'Edgey' examples are the DC Snyderverse, Sonic OCs, and Doomsday Clock.
Man Quinton really took quarantine seriously and moved to Mars according to the location tags.
He's hanging out with Dr. Manhattan on his glass superstructure out there.
Hes hanging out with Elon Musk in the internet historianverse
@@dildonius where do you think glasses.usa got their glass...es?
I loved DC Fandome's trailers and interviews, but the moment Zack Snyder said Dr. Manhattan was his favorite superhero because he has "cool powers" kinda broke my heart.
This video reminded me of that moment, but extended to several minutes, almost torture.
Pretty good video, even though I don't agree with everything.
A penny for your thoughts? This is a fertile ground for discussion.
Dr. Manhattan is my favorite cause he has cool powers too. I don't see the big deal with that.
ryne green isn’t the entire story of Dr Manhattan about how his power effects him?
ryne green I guess then you’re getting mad at him for something you assumed he meant which is stupid. He very well could have meant how it affects him since the powers of a character almost always inform their character. Superman is a great example but doctor Manhattan being able to see everything and being able to do virtually everything is a cool power and it’s interesting to see how it’s used
I mean I like Spider-Man cause he’s Cool. I love The Batman who Laughs cause he looks cool. No problem in liking something that’s Cool
I find it very amusing that you talked about comics media avoiding real world parallels over the title sequence of the Justice League intro, a cartoon with multiple, explicit parallels to second bush term America
Dude... this crystallizes the issues w/ the Watchman adaptation and the state of comic book movies and the general public's confused relationship w/ them to the same level I felt The Phantom Menace Review did for the Star Wars prequels. I really liked this. Thanks.
I don’t really see the purpose of them keeping continuing watchmen the story ended perfectly and no one was complaining wanting more.
Money
Plata
The executives are the ones complaining, for more money. More!!
Because the VAST majority of living humans haven't read the comic book... Myself included. TV show was dope though!
I disagree that if somebody buys merch of something, that they idolize it unquestionably, which is your point (or should I say your 'plush' avatar's) with Watchmen merch. Enthusiastic nerds buy merch of things so they can show it off, meet other people that know what it references, bring back good memories, all kinds of reasons. It shows a love of it the media, not necessarily an an unquestionable adoration that suggests they think that said character should be an aspiration or something. Obviously, there will be a high overlap, but to assume somebody didn't 'understand' something because they induldge in comic book merch (that is the norm in that hobby) is just being baselessly judgemental. Like don't get me wrong, I agree DC revisiting Watchmen cheapens or misses the point for that sweet merch dollar, but comic books revisiting brilliant ideas until they're brain dead is sadly the model in that medium.
Agreed. I don’t find Dr Manhattan a hero or someone to idolize but I would get a Manhattan plush. I also would of Hannibal too actually now that I think of it
Yeah, I own a glow in the dark Dr. Manhattan adult toy which I display on my night table, but that doesn't mean I support the ideals, or lack thereof, the character displays.
That's probably the norm for the average comic book fan, I think in this case Quinton is just referencing people where the nuance of the characters fly right over their head. i.e Unironic Joker worship via Joker merch, cosplay, and FB quotes
And furthermore, I completely disagree with what he said regarding "the fans don't get it" because he specifically stated the majority, which I think is just blatantly disingenuous. Granted he said "Most, not all" but that still implies that this is, in fact, the majority. Well think about it. He brought up Marvel/DC movies as an example so I think it's fair to apply it here. Do Marvel/DC fans misinterpret their respective franchises
(for dc just count the nolan flicks + Shazam and Joker)?
I would say absolutely not, because those movies stand on their own outside of the comics. A film should be able to do what it likes with the material as long as it UNDERSTANDS THE MATERIAL. The Dark Knight sure as hell isn't representative of the storyline it gets it from, but it's still a good movie. The fandom getting the point isn't the issue here, the issue is how the makers of the media interpret it, because that's going to A. Bring in new parts of the fandom
And B. Give the impression of what that source material was like under the lense of a different medium.
That's why Zach Snyder's movies sucked, not because "fandom dumb". Don't fault the way people think just because the media they got it from reinforces there ideas that the director had.
Put quite simply, criticize the fandom for dumb shit they do, not because they enjoy a property and maaaaaybe don't want to think that much about it.
I found it disingenious as well, he likely talks about a small subsect of the fandom who unironically adores these characters as 'heroes', but the majority knows and understands they're crappy people. Watchmen became popular because people do like flawed heroes as much as they like idealistic heroes.
A lot of people also love the Joker, but most people also know that he's a crappy person, and don't endorse his behaviour as something to look up to. I mean, Joker is one of my favourite DC characters, but in no way would I ever want him to exist in the real world. I don't look up to him, but I take delight in his nerfarious personality, because he is exactly a fictional character, and me liking the character is NOT a statement of my real world beliefs. Same with the Watchmen.
I was going to go on a long and passionate diatribe about how early-to-mid 20th century super hero comics can be seen as an aspect of Eastern European Jewish-American culture and how this is important this can be to understanding the genre, but I'm very tired so I'm just gonna tell you all to read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and get some rest.
*Looks at a framed picture of Jack Kirby*
I'm not sure that diatribe could have made you sound any more pretentious than your brief summary of it already did. Not sure if that's an achievement to be proud of, but hey.
@@captaincomic8678 honestly? that's fair
Batman "you robbed a bank"
"i was playing payday 2"
"you're too dangerous, time to stay in Arkham asylum forever"
The Saturday Morning Watchmen satire by Harry Partridge understands the comic more than Snyder’s film or Doomsday Clock ever did.
Thank you for reminding me that exists.
Okay, anyone else thinks Rosharch would actually make a really good Batman villain?
Yeah he really would
I mean given that he is essentially evil Batman (and yes I know Rorschach is originally based on the Question, leave me alone), he could be used to reflect on Batman similar to villains like Owlman, Hush, Talon, or Thomas Wayne.
@@BostonMBrand whilst he looks like the question Moore said Rorschach is Batman in real life so you are right !!
@@LuisMartinez-rw2lj Rorschach's objectivist nature was based on Question, but his morals (or lack thereof), insanity and "this city is afraid of me" is basically a parody of Batman
@@BostonMBrand Also, he'd be similar to a more cynical Anarky.
The best watchmen sequel is harry Partridge’s Saturday morning watchmen. Although Doomsday clock looks like an unironic version of that.
Alan Moore even loved it ,and that's saying something .
@@thecrimsonghostakathefiend7508 No unless your talking about the Saturday morning cartoon
@@Metalbloodlord that's what i was talking about lmao
Alan Moore and Vermin Supreme need to have a wrestling match to decide who gets to be called anarchist grandpa.
On the one hand, one will show me his literal magic cave. On the other hand, free pony. Who do I root for?
No, they should get married and both get to be our anarchist grandpa.
Nerdsplaining: Dr. Manhattan's precognician couldn't see past "the incident", his powers making him unable to relate to humans is the point.
“A Bat Branding-Iron?!” Classic bat credit card humor Quentin. So glad I caught that. Honestly made my day.
Rorschach isn’t a parody of Batman he’s a parody of Steve Ditko’s writing of his creations The Question and Mr. A.
@GOOGLE ACOUNT Nope.
He's both.
Alan Moore started off Question and Mr A, but he has said in interviews that he thought of Rorsach as "If Batman was a real person, he'd be a nutjob".
GOOGLE ACOUNT he’s a parody of a version of Batman that was just recently introduced at the time
@GOOGLE ACOUNT It's all three. Most people don't even know Mr. A, but that's really the character Rorschach is based on. That character is all about objectivism and black/white morality. Batman doesn't have a black/white morality and if anyone believes so hasn't read enough Batman to know.
I know why think he's a parody of Batman its obvious it's the Question.
For the show: I think they did a pretty good job with it, it certainly does the “Dr Manhattan trying to learn how to be good” thing way better than doomsday clock, and what I think they did a well enough job at continuing the movie/comics too.
I've just always noticed how Dr. Manhattan is so much more overpowered than his teammates. Like on the movie when he was in Vietnam. Vaporize people to the soundtrack of Ride of the Valkyries.
He's the only one with actual superpowers. The others are just costumed vigilantes who know how to fight.
@@LauraGrrrr5370 True
Just like Superman in the Justice League
And yet he is powerless. Manhattan suffers from the determinism problem; in a purely rational, predictable universe, a sufficiently advanced intellect could predict everything that would ever happen, even below a subatomic level. For such a mind, their own motivations and the results of their actions would be equally obvious; they would know themselves well enough to predict their own behavior in every situation.
This effectively means that the omniscient mind is a mere observer, a passive prisoner who can merely observe a universe who's form is singular, eternal and unchanging. This is Dr. Manhattan, and it's one of the most horrific fates I've ever seen put to print.
yeah thats the point
Holy shit the Ray William Johnson bit is amazing
Someone should tell Snyder that there's a whole genre of film that's literally just people having sex
Even some violence can be found there.
i like this comment but i wont like this comment because it has 69 likes
And you could always make it violent but only certain people will like it
and he even can use the slowmotion! \^^/
Dark and grim superheroes are awesome
DC rebirth is trash for being a superhero reconstruction
There's just so many little things in Watchmen you can't really replicate. I'm sure it's not common, but the biggest example for me is that it took 3 readings to realize the end is near guy was Rorschach
I just finished my first read through of Watchmen a few days ago. I was shocked that people could miss the point. Every detail is written so deliberately to not be subtle, so the idea of people not getting it became a running joke whenever I talked about it.
Please do another video on the HBO series!
How to ruin Watchmen? By milking the crap out of it, of course! 😃
The comic was clearly meant to be self-contained.
It’s like the least milked comic book series
Originally it was supposed to be a send off comic involving the Question and a few other Charlton Comics characters. You can see this when comparing Question, his worldview, and Steve Ditko’s perspective to Rorschach. DC wouldn’t let the writers use the characters, so the Watchmen were born.
Rorschach = The Question
Dr. Manhattan = Captain Atom
Nite Owl = Blue Beetle/Ted Kord
@@Dontbootit and it was STILL too much
Icba Luv What? It’s constantly getting special edition versions, definitive editions and so on. It got prequels and TWO sequels, and now it’s getting a spin-off and it’s elements have been added to the main comics canon. Fucking BATMAN AS DR. MANHATTAN is a thing now.
"If you want, I could make another standalone video about it"
Quinton, this is extortion. You are just using us for views!
The fact this video has at least three ads and is hocking merch constantly on top of it hilarious considering its about the merchandising and dumbing down of watchmen. Don't forget to buy night owls glasses.
Cannot believe it took you 20 minutes to mention Ray William Johnson. Very disappointed
LMAO I was waiting for it too!!
I really have to disagree on merchandising, I don't think merchandise is comparable to its media as an exercise of understanding, buying a manhattan statue like you say doesn't mean that you haven't taken in the themes, it means he's got a really cool design which looks quirky. Now if the media itself is explicitly anti merchandising then yeah, fair point. But the point of watchmen is that you shouldn't idolise these people, buying something for its aesthetics doesn't mean yiu idolise it.
Dunno about that, are statues not idolatrous?
Your argument is "What if i like it because it just looks cool" if you need something cool in your place just find something that is just cool and doesn't have the kind of meaning that you want to excuse yourself from.
@@clauhasavtuberaddiction3583 Ooh get em
Agreed. Maybe I have a statue of Marvel’s Carnage.
Does that mean I condone hideous acts of violence? No. It just means I thought the character was cool and having a statue of it is a way of reminding me of the cool story arcs.
Dr.M is a fascinating character and one of the most iconic characters in Watchmen and comics in general. Maybe you just want a cool statue of him since he was really well written and is synonymous with Watchmen. Doesn’t mean you agree with the fictional characters ideals. Just that you enjoyed his character and comic.
I feel buying a statute could be argued to be idolatry. Someone buying a Doctor Manhattan statute is Someone who knows a lot about them and wants an idol, another way of referring to a statute, of them.
The thing about watchmen's inclusion in the Doomsday clock event was because, during Dc's relaunch into the new 52, most creators wanted to go into a very dark and gritty direction similar to Watchmen and having Dr. Manhatan as the villain by manipulating the reality of DC was a metaphor for writers drastically changing characters to fit into that watchmen mold, it wasn't made as a commentary for society as a whole but instead a criticism of the state of Dc Comics.
This. Quinton missed so much of the subtext of DClock it's honestly upsetting. The story was always intended to be a meta-commnetary about the practices of tentpole superhero comics. But his talking points sound like they came from an article on AiPT or Newsarama or something. Just talking points that show me that he only bought the book, barely read it, and didn't bother ACTUALLY analyzing it.
@@deenydude7 Maybe but I could understand the point of view of going into Doomsday clock and expecting a Watchmen sequel as opposed to a Grant Morrison esc story. But it's super frustrating that he doesn't really go into depth or give context to why Doomsday clock was created
Well my reading is that Quinton isn't a comics guy, he just happened to like Watchmen. Reading that way makes it so that he can get Watchmen because he's seen Marvel movies but he won't get Doomsday Clock because he's not an avid DC comics reader.
TheRichandmighty I don’t even think you have to understand Dc continuity in order to get the message of Doomsday clock sure it helps and gives the story more nuance but you could still get it
Honestly, can we blame them? Imo the commentary was really poorly done, with even some other comics youtubers, such as Chris from Comic Tropes, not really liking the story.
If you were a part of the Comics community during rebirth/doomsday clock era Everyone was extremely confused and extremely excited, but also recognize that this is probably the last creative idea that they’ll have for the next decade.
The Watchmen TV show was in production before Doomsday Clock started (For Two Years), and ended before the final issue dropped, because major delays... And still was the best Watchmen sequel.
AND ANOTHER THING, why was every major DC character okay with Dr. Manhattan dong?
I mean if you come face to face with an omnipotent god idk if you'd care about his clothes (or lack thereof). A younger or sidekick character may have quipped about it idk.
Yeah I'm sorry the show was awful
XoCustoms it really wasn’t bad. It’s amazing but they fumbled the ball HARD with how dr Manhattan looks. Just finished it again. It’s the best sequel possible
I like the TV show, but I hate that it is supposed to be a sequel to Watchman. I like the plots around Hooded Justice and Ozymandias, but that’s about it.
I loved the watchmen show! Anyone who says they hated it without a reason probably just watched a video on TH-cam about why it sucked without actually watching the show. I really liked that it didn’t just adapt the source material. It dared to do something different but with themes that were appropriate for watchmen, and it took some of the things we were already familiar with to interesting new places.
minor note about the watchmen characters: none of them, to my knowledge, are based on original dc charater, they were based on characters from Charlton Comics, a comic company DC bought up. owlman is based on the charater blue beetle (the comic even has owlman in a slimier air craft BB used called "the bug"), rorschach is the question, Manhattan is captin atom ect. ect.
Iafiv Iv that’s literally how Cena described Peacemaker whom he was based off
@Iafiv Iv yeah but my point still stands tho. like Rorschach is just with paint on he's make and a worse attitude.
@Iafiv Iv Rorschack is somewhat based on Batman but moreso based on Steve Ditko's Mr. A.
@Iafiv Iv If you read the Watchmen 19 suplementary material, they've actually created a fake psychological way of classifying different types of masked vigilantes. It is, of course, called the Wertham Spectrum.
@Iafiv Iv i think the funniest part is when that time that guy got his face deed fried.
I can't believe snyder said that batman could possibly get raped in his movie lol
Wait, wasn't that the point of Batman vs. Superman, though? Because it, um, succeeded.
@@dinosaysrawr not really as much as Warner bros wouldve hoped and it turned everyone off of justice league
@@lingy69 , oh, I meant it was successful at raping Batman, Superman, and other beloved DC characters, if that was Snyder's objective. :D
Well... he didn't actually have Batman raped in prison, right? 🙂
Well at least It didn't happen in the movies right guys?
The DC universe keeps having its reality rewritten every few years in some catastrophic event. I like to imagine there was some guy born in 1978 who has been leading a completely normal life, not noticing or being effected by any of these crisises, except that every time they happen, he has a couple of minutes of intense nausea. It's technically a super human ability, but as far as he's concerned, it's a mysterious medical issue that barely effects his quality of life.
Great video, but I think you misunderstand Doomsday Clock. What Geoff Johns, as well as Grant Morrison and Mark Waid before him wanted to do was to criticize how, in their view, Watchmen had ruined superhero comics. Their point was that the industry was endlessely chasing Watchmen's success by trying to make every comic like it, and in doing so made comics too grim and too dark, disconnecting them from their roots of escapism.
The ending of Doomsday Clock isn't Geoff Johns not understanding Watchmen, it's his deconstruction of it. In his mind, superhero comics are the realm of imagination and fantasy, where realism has no place. As Grant Morrison once put it : “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
This
But how were those bad comics the fault of Watchmen? Watchmen didn't kill comics captitalism did.
This, but this message was better in Final Crisis
@@abuamaanpal bruh, it’s literally stated in comic, and Morrison’s hate to Watchmen is known thing
@@abuamaanpal what I mean is that blaming Watchmen for tbe dark age of superhero comics in the 90's is just fucking childish and petty. And what Geoff Jones did was essentially made a superhero comic trying to deconstruct a graphic novel that served as a deconstruction of superhero comics. If you can't see what is wrong there then the problem is you.
I got to admit , out of all Zack Snyder's comic book films , Watchmen seemed like the closest one where he somewhat knew what he was doing ( that and 300) .
Well, that’s because he didn’t need to try very hard in terms of direction.
He just used the comics as a storyboard. Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore did all the work for him.
I agree about Watchmen, at least, but in retrospect, it feels like he just achieved that by just straight-up copying so much wholesale that he managed to get at least some of the point across without realizing it. Still feels like an overly simplified, less nuanced take on it, though. I mean, Rorschach's almost not an asshole anymore, for instance. Also, he lucked out in that the stuff he cut out didn't completely ruin the point either, though the above-mentioned white-washing of Rorschach, despite him being well-enough acted, cut it close.
Also there's still a lot of little misunderstandings that bother me, and HERE THERE BE SPOILERS! Again to bring up Rorschach, in the original comics, in the flashback to his investigation of the kidnapped child, it's murdering the dogs who the kidnapper had fed the child to that caused Walter to snap. My own interpretation of it was always that he knew that the dogs were just trained to do their master's bidding, but at the same time, had played a role in the death of an innocent child, so he had to become a harder, uncompromising person to justify his cutting them up, and doing this took a permanent toll on his mental health. This was reflected by his lengthy monologue in the present to his prison shrink about it. Compared to that, killing the actual murderer goes rather smoothly. In the movie, the killing of the dogs is more or less glossed over, and the monologue about the dogs in the comic is instead given about his killing the murderer instead. I always felt the monologue made more sense for the dogs, primarily because killing the child murderer, even as brutally as he did, is simply a much less morally gray action than the dogs. It makes more sense for butchering the dogs to be this defining moment for him, that made him go from "I fight crime and stop criminals" to "I punish evil, lethally if I can"
But yeah, even if the movie hits the right notes broadly, and is nice enough to look at, and the actors did the best they could with what they were given, I feel like little inconsistencies such as the one I over-described in the paragraph above drag it down a little, and show how the director and others involved with the movie did not truly understand the source material, however high their affection for it was.
Dude 300 is so fucking homophobic (even with the insane homoeroticism), ableist, racist, and fascist, and all those things are presented as badass.
Clay Because Frank Miller is the worst and Zach Snyder is similarly the worst.
Quinton: All women are QUEENS
Rorschach: If she breathes, she’s a THOOOT!!
Isn't that just his relationship with nite owl lmao
Interesting is that in the all women are queens video, the if she breathes guy looks a lot like Quinton. To me anyway
低端辛吉德 I didnt know that phrase came from a video. Is it the Quartering? They look slightly similar
*duel of the fates begins*
I definitely disagree about the purpose of merchandise from the perspective of fans and collectors--I have plushies of characters approximately as bad as Hannibal Lecter and I can assure you it's not for lack of seeing the bad. Sometimes emotional attachment and idealization are separate. Not always--I know plenty of fans miss the point of characters so as to not feel bad for liking them--but sometimes.
That's all I want to say. Good video.
Sounds like you have a plushie of Dexter or Joker.
Doomsday Clock is a meta story about comics itself. It’s not literally a sequel to Watchmen, it serves as a reconstruction of superhero comics and stories after comics have tried to emulate the original Watchmen’s deconstruction for thirty years.
Dr. Manhattan is proof that if you gave humans god-like powers that they would become apathetic. Superman by contrast is absolved from human moral failings because of his moral upbringing and that he is not human and lacks humanity’s “original sin” so to speak.
Instead, god-like powers provide Superman the ability to affect change in the world for the better. Clark would rather save people and reach out to them rather than fight. Superman gives humanity an ideal to strive toward, and that philosophy is what changed Dr. Manhattan’s mind.
This was supposed to signify a fundamental change in the ongoing DC comics series, turning away from cynicism and toward giving readers a fun, light hearted heroes who represents ideas to strive towards.
This can also be enhanced in Tomasi’s Superman ongoing series that came out around the time of Rebirth and Doomsday clock, where the original Superman (think Christopher Reece) came back into the main DC universe where the New 52 Superman (think Cavill) died.
This original Superman was married to Lois and had a son named Jonathan with her. His ongoing book became about this family, and Superman becomes a father figure again. Giving his son and the audience a moral ideal.
Basically I said all that to say Doomsday Clock is less a sequel to Watchmen and more of a meta story about where comics should go now in the wake of 30 years of either responding to or copying Watchmen. Now that Geoff Johns is out at DC, this whole direction and outlook is basically moot anyway. Sorry to ramble on, but Doomsday Clock does work a lot better in the context of DC Rebirth in general.
Completely agree. I dont see it as a watchmen sequel but more of a love letter to superman. If they would've wanted to make a Watchmen sequel, then they wouldn't have put Johns as a writer (because it's not his writing style). It was an actually cash grab for doomsday clock to have all that watchmen iconography.
Jhons is out? What happpend?
@@gregoriomassa8529 he stepped down of his position as a creative director? I can't remember which position was. He's working on Warner I think and writing for dc. You should Google some info to be properly informed, I can't remember correctly sorry hahaha
@@alejotomasortega547 Doomsday clock is trash
@@gregoriomassa8529 Doomsday clock sucks
_"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... The solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If I only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."_
*~ Albert Einstein (Watchmen)*
With all the adaptations, sequels and comics "inspired by" in the 90s and the gritty trend, I don't even know if it's existence was worth it, even being probably the best comic I ever read.
It’s amazing. It’s legacy however, not the best.
I love Rorschach because he’s an incredibly interesting character. It truly scares me how some people thinks he’s actually someone to look up to and idolize,yes Rorschach does some good things but anyone who thinks a homophonic creep who never showers and breaks into freinds homes is cool needs therapy.
I think it's more bc they only know the movie
@@TextosyGraficos agreed
Some people, despite thousands of years of philosophical teachings, still really cannot comprehend the idea of separating fiction from reality.
Idk, people here acknowledge that the characters in watchmen are complex, but also try to remove rorschach's complexity in order to "own" the rorschach fans.
Yes, hes hateful. Yes, he enjoys killing criminals. Yes he doesnt shower. Yes, he breaks into peoples homes and eats their beans.
But hes also one of the only characters in the story who wouldn't compromise. When superheroes were told to unmask and retire, he refused. When Veidts plan finished and everyone was prepared to let it all go to keep the lie, Rorschach refused. Even when a god like being was prepared to kill him, he refused.
His black-and-white, objectivist view of the world (at least how Alan Moore interpreted it) also made for interesting comparisons with the other characters of the book, even when there are a few instances of him looking the other way for certain individuals. In a sea of grey morality, a black-and-white moralist can be refreshing, as is true for the reverse.
There are also brief moments where we see that Rorschach is capable of empathy and care. He was the only character that seemed to care that the comedian died, and when he thought other masks might be in trouble, he tried to warn them. And then there was the whole landlady scene where he lets her go when he sees her crying children.
Hes certainly vicious and ruthless, but its abundantly clear in the comic that the world in which he lives is equally vicious and ruthless. He wasnt a superhero for the fun of it like most of the other characters, we actually see he had a horrible childhood and was surrounded by horrible people who did shitty things, and therefore he genuinely wanted "justice" (that is, his own twisted form of justice)
Theres plenty of things in his character that at the very least make him interesting with a few redeeming qualities so I dont really care if people find him cool.
@@dannyboy5008 idk what to say but I agree that’s a good point
Yes, you should totally do a video on the Watchmen show.
As for Doomsday Clock, one small change could have saved the whole thing. I LOVE the idea that Dr Manhattan made the DC Universe an objectively worse place. That's such a good description of Watchmen's effect on mainstream superhero comics in the long run.
I love the idea that at the end, Manhattan realizes he's actually a villain, and that he has made this universe worse, and he removes his influence (Watchmen's influence) from mainstream DC Comics. What a great catharisis!
But that shouldn't mean he goes back to his world to be superman, because in his world, superheroes are fundamentally bad. They only ever make the world worse. He should have gone back and stopped himself from ever becoming Dr Manhattan. Erasing superheroes altogether from his history aside from a small surge in vigilantism following the publication of Action Comics #1 that petered out. And now, his world looks like ours mostly. And it's much better, and not on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
The thesis then becomes: DC Superheroes were better without the influence of Watchmen. And Watchmen's world would have been better without superheroes at all. Bam. That's a message. Not really relevant to the big questions of the world, but a decent commentary on the genre of superhero comics as a whole.
Honestly, that’s already the thesis. The only difference is that it then has Manhattan create a new Superman/Clark for the Watchmen universe because of that lesson, which tbh probably didn’t need to happen.
I genuinely thought that was what was going to happen. I expected Dr. Manhattan to realize "Oh shit, I'm the villain, I'm physically incapable of thinking morally, and these powers in MY hands (as opposed to the "good" that he saw Superman as) is imperically bad" and decide to go back and prevent himself from ever becoming Dr. Manhattan. It would also be one of the only truly permanent moves he's ever made since it would ultimately erase himself from existence and it works in direct contrast with the ton of experimentation that he did on the DC timeline. Reasonable character growth.
[Even though there is an argument that the point of Watchmen is to deny them character growth, DC was going to put some in there anyway]
If that's the point it feels really disingenious. Like they claim to be washing their hands and the DC universe of Watchmen influence, while at the same time exploiting it even more for money instead of giving it back to Moore and also adding the characters to that same universe at the same time.
Not to mention that, especially after the New52, modern DC isn't really any less dark than 90's DC was, some of which Johns himself has contributed to; like Darkest Night and all the stuff around Infinite Crisis.
Like they still can't stop stealing from Watchmen (if all the darkness can be blaimed on Watchmen, which I don't think it can, but that's the thesis so that's what I'm going with) while at the same time decrying and blaming it for it?
Painocus
It’s not decrying Watchmen, it’s decrying the decades of poorly made initiations trying to cash in on it and other acclaimed comics of the time by trying to make everything ‘subversive’, especially in 90’s comics.
@@videobeetle8: Then why bring Watchmen into it? Bring in the Death of Superman, bring in Knightfall, bring in Superman at World's End or whatever. If they are bad and Johns is not decrying Watchmen, then the fault is on them for being bad, not for supposedly being inspired by Watchmen. (And I'd argue the general tone of 90's darkness was more derived from The Dark Knight Returns than Watchmen anyways.)
Like the point of doing a Watchmen sequel is that some other comics were bad, and maybe those comics were inspired by Watchmen, becouse they are dark, but DC comics are still often just as dark as the 90's, if not more, and quite a few of them are still bad, so... what kind of point is that?
Zack Snyder sounds like a edgy kid who writes creepypastas.
The snyder fanbase men , they are worst than the belivers
He's just one of those that never moved on.
He's pretty cool, he clearly loves his work and he always tries to make the fans happy.
@@gregoriomassa8529 You mean the same fanbase that has raised a lot of money for mental health charities?
@@gregoriomassa8529 Lol I am pretty sure snyder haters are alot more toxic than his fans, there is even a snyder hate page in fb where people are making rape jokes about his dead daughter
I think, what Doomsday Clock was going for, was clearly like, a symbolism thing. DC is really into metafiction and exploring its own nature as a fictional continuum. In the case, the "bit" is that Doctor Manhattan ruined the DC Universe by making it gritty and edgy...As a parallel to how Watchmen caused the so-called "Dark Age" of comics, where writers saw Watchmen's success and took the wrong lessons away, namely that the solution to making comics good wasn't to make the writing better, but just to throw int ons of blood, nudity, cursing, and all the other trappings of maturity, focusing on the superficial elements of Watchmen as if THEY were the reason it was good. The problem in, in the process, it sorta turns Doctor Manhattan/Watchmen into a sort of sin-eater for all the poorly-thought out grim-and-grittiness of the era that the book helped birth, when, in reality, the original book wasn't anything like that. Indeed, one could argue the book sorta deconstructs that 90s Anti Hero type in itself with the Comedian, who comes across, in retrospect, as a pitch-black parody of Rob Liefeld characters before he was a thing: Big guns, big muscles, wisecracks, and just in general everything a teenage boy would find badass...As well as attempted rape, misogyny, murder of innocents, and moral nihilism. Watchmen is being used as a sin-eater for all the sins of the era it birthed.
That is my major issue for Doomsday Clock is from everything I have heard, its supposed to be about that, where Watchmen 'darkened' the universes and they need to defeat it to bring back hope but its not Watchmen's fault that a bunch of hack writers took the wrong messages from it and made comics dark and edgy. I think it was a Linkara video but I remember someone saying something along the lines of "Instead of doing all these meta stories about defeating darkness and bringing back hope, just stop making everything dark and edgy and write more hopeful stories". The fault is the writers, stop letting them write heroes murdering people and characters getting raped or going insane, its their fault, not Alan Moore just telling a successful story.
SO basically kingdom come, but it's shit.
One of I think the most important lines that has stuck with me from the original watchmen is “Nothing ever ends,” and jesus fucking christ taking that and changing it to be “Everything ends,” is a goddamn travesty.
Hey Quinton, I would love to see your take on HBO's Watchmen. I personally loved it and think it's a faithful adaptation.
So happy i got the notif on this one
What's a notif
Pleeeeease do a video on the Watchmen show. I love it a lot but I don’t know if it’s necessarily faithful to the spirit of Watchmen, there’s a lot to unpack
I need the "DO NOT DATE ME" tshirt more than I've ever needed anything.
Speaking of that when he said that I realized he had a figure of royshack behind him
Rorschach I couldn’t edit it
Holy shit, I didnt knew that Snyder is literally the guy from the "wow, cool ..." meme! Cant wait for JL lol
Can't wait for the Snyder Cut! Been waiting for it since 2016!
I haven't even seen the meme
meh, synder cut's probably gonna be shit
@@games_on_phone89 Sike!
@@BlackPrince24 it was a pretty "meh" movie, flash saved it
at least it wasn't shit
This video has incepted my brain with the idea that Jesse Eisenberg is playing the same character in BvS as he is in the Social Network.
th-cam.com/video/z0UiLRNPMCU/w-d-xo.html
That was the point of his casting.
Next Quinton should review " the Boys"
It sucks cause the idea of Superman and Dr. Manhattan just... talking is a really cool one. A purely neutral omnipotent force and a purely good omnipotent force. You could make a lot of stuff about that. Like how we mentally reject the grey morality of our own world and make supermen who always find the right thing to do. Or how we reject absolute options in life and choose the morally grey option because the good option is so much harder. This could be an interesting conversation, an interesting series to see. But nah they had to mess it up.
Dude went to the Mars just to make a review...I'm jelly.
Location: Mars.
*Laughs in Osterman*
My recommendation for Watchmen is to read the book, then watch the movie, then watch that Watchmen Saturday Morning Cartoon TH-cam video, then watch the HBO Watchmen.
I've noticed that the movie is basically the conservative adaptation of Watchmen, and the HBO Watchmen almost acts as a rebuttal to the movie version. I think there even is an argument to be made that the Watchmen movie could be considered an in-universe movie that was released in the universe of HBO Watchmen (a film within a film). It would explain why the ending is not historically accurate (AKA different than what happens in the graphic novel), and it would help explain why Rorschach became the symbol for the 7th Cavalry (because the movie depicts him as the heroic main character). There is a small part in the first episode that implies that this is the case, but for now, it's my head canon.
Yeah, Happy Harry Studios was always the best. I loved the Watchmen episode where Dr. Manhattan taught kids how to tie their shoes.
HBO Watchmen is booooooriiiiiing!
but 7th Cavalry was created from people reading his diary. his diary was overconservative and posted in overconservative journal. that seems to be enough, especially since we know what he wrote there and there's a lot of bad shit in there
It honestly makes me smile when my favorite youtubers have their OWN ads in the video. It means they're getting paid directly. Get that money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The DC/Watchmen crossover was weirdly solid. It didn't act like they were the best people. In fact, it actively showed all the members to be borderline villains.
It also mocked Rorschach fanboys.
I'm not going to act like it was as good as the original, or that it was the most coherent, but it did say "listen, Watchmen was dark, but DC shouldn't always be, and it should be it's own thing, because injecting super dark shit into DC is what started The New 52, and that was iffy at best".
It doesn't detract from the original and uses it contextually to make a statement about the state of modern comics that want to be Watchmen without understanding what it was about.
So I really feel like Quentin used the right formula for the wrong answer here. I also think he entirely misread the ending.
Manhattan didn't save the world, he decided that he wasn't fit for the task because he's an asshole and gave the powers to a baby, committing suicide in the process. The baby was going to be raised by a loving family, and the baby's name was Clark.
Manhattan literally just aped the DC universe, just like the DC universe aped Watchmen. That was the point. He never became a hero because he was never anything like God, which he constantly said. He just came to the realization that he also shouldn't be. He came from a hot garbage world where heroes basically couldn't exist, and found one where they could, and he started fucking it up because he felt like there was something inherently wrong with that concept, and to me, that's a statement.
I thought it was a pretty good crossover honestly. Taking two universes with inherently different character morality, a gritty grey and the typical positive world of normal DC. I'm not sure it was meant to put too much into the superhero good trope.
I agree with you as well. I feel like if Zack Synder is a film maker misinterpreting a comic's point. Then, Quinton is a video maker misinterpreting a comic's point. I mean that in a respectful way. I feel like Quinton has a more causal knowledge of comics, I maybe wrong. I also did think he was going to talk about the watchmen property like how he talked about the back to the future property; all encompassing. The Thumbnail is titled, "watchmen sequels". Analyzing doomsday clock and Zack Synder's watchmen are easy picking. But analyzing Lindeloff's watchmen and Darwyn cooke's minutemen is harder because they are genuinely good story. Honestly, I feel like Darwyn cooke's minutemen is really slept-on because of the whole watchmen situation. It sucks because it's the last things he worked on before his passing. Both Lindeloff and Cooke give background characters more complexities and tragedies.
Yeah this. I just don't entirely agree w his take. Yeah some stuff was dumb but overall I feel like this is a valid entry in the DC canon. It seemed like the only realistic arc Manhattan could go through. He realizes his faults and the effect hes had and is like k ill make someone like superman because he is cool. Maybe it's me but having this kind of optimism isn't inherently bad.
@@g.a.2997 Cooke's minutemen is mostly slept on because of the bad rep of the rest of the Before Watchmen series, a shame honestly because it is really is a good entry.
You. You get it. Mad props to you.
Loved the vid! except for that part where you went on a rant about how dr. manhattan meeting garfield in his universe would be much more approproate and interesting because they are similarly morally ambigous, dont care about those that surround them and are omnipotent, that was kinda weird.
This has mad Fantano energy
Fantano Vibes
Here is my sign of general interest, I'm very sad this isn't a 40 minute long review, please do the watchmen TV show too
I'd like to see a Watchmen film where Rorshach's violence is portrayed like it would be in real life: brutal, unhinged, and borderline disturbing.
Conclusion: The Boys is a better Watchmen sequel than most Watchmen sequels
The Boys is fucking awesome
Because the boys's show doesn't follow its source material.
The source material doesn’t seem to be as effective as the show at showing how evil corporate America could be using the superhero.
Garth ennis tried so hard to make the readers hate superheroes but instead it was just constantly showing his hatred.
The comic always came off as trying way too hard to be edgy and shocking, and it just had to shove down your throat so much shock value it got old really fast.
The TV show is more layered, characters are more developed, the conflict is way more interest, and it actually has something similar to a narrative focus. The Seven are a surprisingly human bunch instead of being a bunch of one-dimensional awful people that are 100% awful with no redeeming qualities. I got honestly surprised at how the flipping Deep actually turned out to be a human with actual feelings. The Homelander doesn't act like an adult-sized baby and is actually someone who knows what the hell he's doing and is a threat outside of the realm of his flying brick-ness. Starlight and Hughie are both more well-rounded and active characters overall, and grow out just having everyone dump on their faces for I-don't-know-how-many-issues. Butcher too, is less of an asshole and more of a sympathetic jerk (in the good sense). Overall, just a much improved version of the story with good characters that actually capitalizes on its premise.
and also Certain things like The Boys not having powers from the start, the elimination of the dog as Butcher's sidekick, Homelander being more stupid than a wet coast while in the show, he's been written way better, the changes to Homelander's character to make him more sympathetic (and to be honest there is a lot more ambiguity shown between the actions of Butcher & Homelander which if done well could be really great), changes to some characters (the deep is fucking hilarious), they did a hell of a lot right.
One reason I think it works is that The Boys (comic) is a satire on Superhero comics while The Boys (TV) is a satire on Superhero movies/tvshows. The base premise is the same and there are enough similarities to the source that it still feels true to the comics without needing to be a pure conversion.
thx god I don't need to see Terror fuck some old lady’s dog
Not to mention a lot of unimportant dialogues, Queen maeve having sex with a small grown man, Hughie shitting on the floor, and a Superhero feeling the need to fuck everything including animals and inanimate objects... and of course children, & Teenage kix having sex and changing women which is done every night, etc.
WTF? And also not to mention THE ENDING,
The boys's comic's ending is so terrible, it probably makes into top 5 worst ending of all time.
Doesn't even get to top 7 or 8 Ennis's work.
Only pervert edgelords Ennis's diehard fans would say that the comic's better.
eh... The Boys is better than Watchmen sequels, but it still misses a lot. Watchmen is a genius deconstruction of the genre, The Boys is "what if superheroes=bad and superheroes=edgy?". I love The Boys, but Watchmen is a lot more
God Almighty please oh god tell me this was sarcastic
Why does nobody who talks about The Boys talk about the comic? The comic is fucking fantastic, more people should read it.
"May 2030 - nothing."
Well, that tracks.
I was already listening when you are speaking, but i decided to just fold my clothes while listening.
Then i hear batman impersonation and jesus you hit the right notes for that character God damn
28:11 holy shit, that's actually one of the best Kevin Conroy impressions I've ever heard
I'd love to hear you talk about the show, it has a few odd moments, but it follows up on the comic in an interesting way.
The plush Quinton bit gave me an insane amount of nostalgia for early 2010s littlest pet shop videos
Can we have more please
I’d enjoy you talking about the watchmen show