Talk:Watchmen/Archive 1

Ongoing discussions [[1]]

Themes Section

This is pure conjecture, and I've slapped an NPOV tag on the article.

No doubt everyone will come away with thoughts as what the themes are, but unless Alan Moore (or an article discussing the actual themes) Alan Moore put forth, the 'themes' section is just one readers point of view.

Aside from that, the entire article needs a rewrite. --Joel 01:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• No argument, Joel, but what would be the best way to do that? Should we start by removing the theme section? That would be my suggestion. I agree with what's been said many times...a lot of this reads like a term paper.--RYard 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes, I think we should remove the themes section. Even the composition section can be worked into the summary, breaking it down into sections, making it more cleaner.--Joel 01:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I think we should probably leave a one or two sentence summary of the section somewhere, though. Verbose as it is, I think it is on the right track for the most part. --InShaneee 16:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

False document setting

Should critical analysis be a part of entries about pieces of art? The false document section of this article comes from the talk section of that entry and was posted there as a quick justification for why Watchmen might be included as a false doc text. In that context, it was written without NPOV in mind because it was expressly made as an opinioned argument. But now that it is on an entry page, it raises some questions for me about what should be included in our "synthetic knowledge" of a piece of art. While I am flattered that someone liked the little riff enough to put it on this page, it is not a wholly formed piece of analysis in the first place... but even if it were, should it be here? And if such kinds of texts were included on these entries, where would they go and how would they be contextualized within NPOV? I'm probably making too much out of something small. -trimalchio

Well, I am not sure what to do. (insert moment of intense navel gazing). The text need not be returned anywhere. A copy yet exists in the false doc talk section, so for what it is worth, the original will stand. And the issue really isn't about improving it as analysis... your addition might work, my improvment might work... the issue is whether analysis belongs in an entry at all. (more navel gazing). anyway, I think there is such a things as "true analysis". But is that NPOV? This is a very different issue then determining if a fact is true, like the date of someone's birth. Can literary analysis, even rudimentary stuff like this, be NPOV? Or should there be a place like wikipedia commentary, but under a different title, for wannabe critics and college analytical papers? --trimalchio

I think it's an excellent piece, but it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia entry. PhilHibbs 17:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spectre related to Nightshade?

Which Silk Spectre was related to Nightshade -- I, II or both? Also wondering about Mothman, Dollar Bill and Captain Metropolis. --RjLesch

Watchmen characters' and their Charlton equivalents

I've always been a little dubious about the comments both here and elsewhere about the close identity between the Watchmen characters and the Charlton comics heroes. I forget whether the idea has its origin in comments by Alan Moore or not, but if so, it seems to have been taken well out of hand. Many of them seem to resemble better known DC and Marvel characters far more than the Charlton lot. Nite Owl II is a dead ringer for the more gadget-heavy depictions of Batman. Nite Owl I has at least as much a resemblance to the Golden Age Atom as he does to Blue Beetle I. Perhaps most significantly, The Comedian has very little to do with The Peacemaker, but bears an extremely strong resemblance to Marvel's Nick Fury (both were WWII heroes, both later became Government agents, both got that greying temples look, both smoke cigars, both have a facial disfigurement - The Comedian his scar, Fury his missing eye...). Rorschach's backstory is somewhat like The Question's, but his operating style, even before he lost is, is much more like early pulp heroes, especially The Shadow, not to mention more recent vigilante characters such as the Punisher.

While I'm not suggesting the Charlton comics link is non-existant, I do think that saying that each of the characters is directly (and, by implication, solely) inspired by a Charlton is very misleading. Any thoughts? --MockTurtle 01:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True that some of the watchmen do not exactly match the charlton predecessors, also that some of the watchmen closely resemble other mainstream comic characters.Maybe this is worth a mention in the individual character entries? I do think that it is an important point that the entire stable of watchmen languished (mostly) unpublished for a long while, was purchased wholesale by DC, and then revamped by Alan Moore in amazing fashion into a v. important comicbook. I have seen Alan Moore comment about developing the characters, and I also read an article about it in one of the comic monthly review mags. http://www.toonopedia.com/watchmen.htm has it quite right.

I do think this article needs a lot of work, maybe moving the false documentation section would help? Scottbeck 04:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Charlton -> Watchmen connection is EXCPLICITLY the case, as is clear from the Graphitti edition of Watchmen, which includes the original proposal. The additional material which will be present in the upcoming Absolute edition is going to be the same as what's in that Graphitti edition. To whit, the original proposal took place in DC Continuity, and featured the (at the time, recently acquired) Charlton heroes Captain Atom, The Question, The Blue Beetle, Nightshade, Peter Cannon, and Peacemaker.

Upon review, it was decided that, while the proposal was accepted, using these characters in this way would 'ruin' them, in a sense, for future use. So Moore came up with new characters -- clearly inspired by the Charlton heroes -- and that's what we eventually got.

This isn't speculation. This is how it worked. 24.163.220.56 21:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Alan is quoted as saying he redid characters he grew up with. Having read Watchmen before ever seeing DC's Question, the similarity was immediately obvious--to me, anyhow. squdfifteen

• Problem is, it's not entirely accurate to say it was inspired by the Charlton characters, because it was inspired by the Archie line of superheroes (The Crusaders) and adapted to the Charlton heroes then converted to the Watchmen (Hooded Justice is CERTAINLY the Hangman). See http://www.mightycrusaders.net/alanmoore.html. I'd like to add that to the article, but figured I'd throw it out here first. --RYard 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Alan is also quoted as saying that the original idea is nothing like how Watchmen ended up. I still maintain that a lot of them ended up being a lot closer to other comics characters than the Charlton ones they're ostensibly based on. For instance, as I said before, given that The Comedian looks like Nick Fury, acts like Nick Fury (at least, a darker, Moore-ised version), has a backstory like Nick Fury, and quacks like Nick Fury, I still find it odd how everyone keeps insisting he's based on the Charlton Peacemaker, who he bears very little resemblance to.--MockTurtle 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate "arms race" idea

I take issue with the idea of progression of a superhero "arms race" in the story. Namely Dr. Manhattan, supposedly the end result of this idea, is active years before Nite-Owl, Rorscarch and Silk Spectre are. Given that fact, the whole assertion is thrown out of whack. User:kchishol1970

Merging 'Chronology of the Watchmen'

I am placing the bulk of the text of the article Chronology of the Watchmen here as it's marked as a document that requires merging into Watchmen. However, I'm not too sure what it is that the author of the article was trying to point out with this chronology and thought that someone may be able to shed light on whether this should be included as a subcategory in the main article or not. (The deleted portion was a one line introduction to the Watchmen.) Hulleye 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chronology of Events

October 14, 1938, Hooded Justice stops a supermarket robbery, and inspires Hollis Mason to become the first Nite-Owl.

Autumn, 1939, Superhero group, the Minutemen, formed.

1940, The Comedian attempts rape against the Silk Spectre I.

1947 Silk Spectre I retires from crimefight to marry her agent.

1949, Superhero group, the Minutemen, disbanded.

October 12, 1985 Death of The Comedian.

"In this world, there were superhero comics in the late 1930s, including Superman." Where is that mentioned at all?

Is "right-wing" quite the correct term for Rorshach?

The article describes Rorshach as "A right-wing extremist vigilante". I thing "right-wing" here is rather misleading, although I confess I can't think of an adequate replacement. While he's undoubtedly vastly illiberal and certainly doesn't worry himself about the social causes of crime (so he's certainly no left-winger) he also doesn't really meet either the proper or the popular definition of a violent right-winger either. He's not part of the system (unlike Batman, he doesn't take orders from the police, for example) and he's not part of any kind of group. Also, he's entirely apolitical, and our calling him a "right-wing extremist" might give readers the idea that he's some kind of nazi or blackshirt; but he doesn't beat up black people, communists, trades unionists, gay people, immigrants or peace activists. In the proper meaning of the term he's a fascist (like Judge Dredd or Marshall Law) but the term has become so conflated with nazism (etc.) that a reader would get the wrong idea if we called him that too. Don't get me wrong: he's certainly extreme, certainly a vigilante, and certainly not a bleeding heart liberal. So I think we should replace "right-wing" with something more accurate, but I don't know quite the word. "Nut-job" really isn't encyclopedic language :) - John Fader

In this case, I suggest that 'right-wing extremeist' be replaced with 'staunch/uncomprimising authoritarian'.

The notion of 'right-wing' in the political sphere is one that suggests that a person following this ideal believes not only in 'conservative' views to things such as law (in America, I believe this is also extended to the morals one uses to govern everyday life, moreso than it is here in Britian. However, I do not suggest that I am a commentator on the American way of life, so I may be wrong), but also to the practice of a more 'free-market' economy: Pinochet may represent the 'Authoritarian right-wing' stance effectivly, as he privitised many Chilean industires whilst also causing many Communist opponents to 'disappear'. Thatcher would be another example of someone inclined to the privitisation of industry, a right-wing economical view.

Rorschach shows no verdict on economy; he simply enforces his own moral codes. In this way, he is very much a 'moral absolutist', as is suggested. However, the ways in which his moral stance is enforced is considered by many to be extremely harsh. This lends itself more to the idea of him as a strict/staunch/unwavering Authoritaian than strictly (so simply) 'right-wing'. Thus, this statement is something of a platfrom to my edits on Rorschach. allthesestars 21/09/2005 17:22 BST

but he thinks that the comedian serving his country was a posertive action and to a degree at least excuse his moral lapses.Geni 16:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"Uncompromising" is the perfect word. Alan uses it in the script to describe him, and his actions define it: he bends not at all. He's also been described as "Batman without the excuses", an ideal phrase.

         --squadfifteen

Rorschach and Nihilism

Rorschach is definitely not a nihilist. Although his values are dubious in many peoples eyes, he harbors strong values and actually believes in them so strongly that he will not compromise even if it means nuclear armageddon. He is more like an illustration of Kants categorical imperative from a critical point of view. Although nihilism is a part of Rorschachs tale its more a response to it than a succumbing. - Johan Bressendorff

Keene Act

I see no mention of the Keene Act in this article. It seems to be an important part of the story and should be explained as best as possible some where.--The_stuart 19:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unhappy with Critical Concerns Section

The Critical Concerns section of this article has got to go. I started to perform my first ever Wikipedia edit on it, but the whole thing is so inane that it does a great disservice to the Watchmen.

It starts with "The main theme of the story are conspiracy theories" and goes downhill from there. The main theme of the story "are not" conspiracy theories. The Watchen confronts some extraordinary issues, like the existence of God, what it means to be truly "super," what is justified for the greater good, and the contrast between pure principle, (Rorschach) unprincipled net results (Ozymandias), and beyond principle omnipotence (Dr. Manhattan).

Somebody with more wikigravitas needs to gut "Critical Concerns" like a fish and write something that will convey to the uninitiated the moral and philosophical tone of the Watchmen.

Blue Beetle and others

Some of these don't exactly correspond. I'll find more on this, but I do know that the artist, Gibbons, created Nite Owl far in advance of Watchmen, and wasn't consciously based on either Blue Beetle.

It's seems you're correct, according to this Alan Moore fan site Nite-Owl was based on a character Dave Gibbons had created as a child and was later given Blue Beetle-like traits.--Boomstick 06:28, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Mysteries"

In contradistinction to what the articl states, I remember the plot to kill the superheroes as being fully explained as Ozymandias covering up his plot by killing those who, for whatever reasons, became aware of any part of it-- Thus, Comedian is killed because he has seen the island where the "alien" is being created (if I remember correctly).

Cleanup needed

Serious cleanup needed here- I love the watchmen and all it stands for- Alan Moore knows the score! but we have a convoluted, clumsy and unencylopedic article at present. Lets turn t into something to be proud of quercus robur 4 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to how we should proceed? The edits I made involved moving some things around and removing a few bits of irrelevant info (at least in the first sections of the article) and fannish stuff. The ideal I was trying to move towards is something that reads well for someone coming to the article with little or no knowledge of the comics... or comics in general. Motor July 4, 2005 22:21 (UTC)

I suggest editing the Plot Summary into a Synopsis by Chapter. As it stands, it focuses almost entirely on the action plot. I agree with User:kchishol1970 about the inaccuracy of the 'arms race' idea. I'm not happy either with the whole thread about Humanism and "what it is to be human": although they are caricatured into almost undiluted form, none of the philosophical/emotional stances of the characters are outside the human range. (I say "almost undiluted" because they're not 100% consistent: Rorschach, for instance, shows compassion in the scenes about Jacobi's laetrile and with Mrs Shairp). Oh, and I'd bin the Mysteries and Conspiracies section as unencyclopedic. Tearlach 9 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

I agree, the Mysteries and Conspiracies section is nonsense. --Ryano 9 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)

Would it be worth nominating this page for Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight? Are we "close" enough to FA status for that? Lord Bodak 00:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Comic Book

I find it rather irritating that this article has no references to the comic book that the kid is reading at the news stand, because it is definitely very important to the story, although not clearly apparent at first. It contributes greatly to the dark nature of the comic. Plus it shows greatly the theme presented that good is not black and white and that good people can do bad things when driven to, or when they think they are doing good things. In addition the connection between the writer of the comic and what he is doing now. I think its important, but when attempting to add it somewhere, I couldn't figure out where to put it.

Rumours

Is it appropriate to use passive tense to report on rumours in an article in an encyclopedia? Following up on the rumour of Simon Pegg playing Rorshach - it's a long jump from him saying he'd like to play the role to actually be considered for the part. see [this note] from Total Film. - WCFrancis 16:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to report on rumours at all when writing for an encyclopedia? - Motor (talk) 16:40:12, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Comedian & "End Justifies the Means"

I don't think the Comedian is a good example of this philosophy. In general, the Comedian doesn't seem concerned about the morality of his actions, and will often commit heinous crimes, such as raping the first Silk Spectre and killing the Vietnamese woman he impregnated, without any remorse. A better example of this is Veidt, who only committed his crimes for what he saw as the greater good.

---

My perception is that the Comedian adopts utilitarianism or whatever more as a way to justify his actions or anything else. What somebody says and what somebody does are different things. When he discovers Veidt's plan, though, he doesn't react with his usual cynicism. --Edward Wakelin 21:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup - what remain to be done

There have been quite a few changes made since the clean up tag was added... so I figured it was worth asking the question and making some suggestions to get discussion going again and finally reach the point where the tag can be satisfactorily removed. So... what remains to be done? The basic need was to make it more of an encyclopedia article and less fannish. Here is my judgement based on a quick read-through... the "Background" section has, unfortunately, had this re-added:

"The latter, and many other cultural differences, stem from the existence of Dr. Manhattan, an American superhero with vast powers over matter and energy." -- I'm sorry to whoever wrote that but, "vast powers over matter and energy" strays badly into fan territory. So that needs to be changed, IMO.

Plot summary

"Comedian had told an old adversary, Moloch, of a plot—one which shattered the Comedian's philosophical armor and brought him to a nervous breakdown." -- shattering "philosophical armor"? Again, apologies to whoever wrote it but, definitely fannish. Actually, I'm tempted to remove the plot summary altogether. It veers between tiny details about "Silk Spectre II" being in long term relationship but spending time with someone else, to skipping over big plot points. IMO, it should just describe the big plot points and be nice and short, as you'd expect from a summary.

Artistic and narrative themes in Watchmen

"Watchmen operates on an unusually rich number of dramatic levels, with the artwork, characterization, cultural details, historical references, and supporting fictional documents fully integrated into the narrative events of the story, which itself is both an exciting adventure tale and exploration of deep intellectual issues."

This section should go. Not only is it extremely biased and fannish... it doesn't really add much beyond what should be in an introduction section.

"Good, Evil, and Humanism", "Authenticity and reality", "Prejudice and social norms", "Visual symbolism"

Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of these.

Related products

"In 1988 British Acid House music act Bomb the Bass used the blood stained smiley badge on the cover of the "Beat Dis" single release. This influenced the adoption of the Smiley Badge as a feature of rave culture."

How is this a related product? The Watchman had a blood stained smiley badge... and so did the single cover for a band. Is there any connection beyond simple coincidence? No? Then this needs removing.

Straight after that is an entry about the hardcover edition -- not a related product really. That belongs in a section documenting the different editions.

Would anyone object to adding an "Editions" section to the article, containing ISBNs and details of each edition (the TPB, the old hardcover from Graphitti, the new Absolute edition, and any others that may exist)? Lord Bodak 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Film version

"There are also rumors about Hilary Swank, Ron Perlman and Simon Pegg, respectively, taking the roles of Laurie, The Comedian and Rorschach."

I mentioned this before, but is rumour reporting an appropriate function of Wikipedia? - Motor (talk) 19:19:33, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I've deleted the rumour bit, it was getting ridiculous. --Ryano 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"Mysteries and conspiracies"

A lot of the so called "Mysteries and conspiracies" were clearly explained in the book, one including the catalyst for The Keene Act of 1977- it was a massive nationwide police strike. That red-haired child of the land-lady, by the way, was just a device Moore used- Rorschach sees his childhood in that kid.

Hate to break it to you, but that red-haired child IS Rorschach as a child.--squadfifteen.

A Substantial Edit

I have submitted quite a substantial edit to this page, my intent being to rid the page of the 'cleanup' tag. I have attempted to deal with the problems raised above as best I can, as well as performing some minor edits -- mainly those that would assist the reading of the article as a whole. Some of the most substantial edits, and my reasons for their implication, are listed below:

• I have added quite a lot to Rorschach's character overviw (see below), with aims to rid the character of the 'right wing extremist' view. I think I have elaborated on the subject enough to help people to understand his motives. However, I fear I have written a bit too much; Rorschach's section now far outweighs the other characters'. Although, I don't think much of what I have written is superfluous...perhaps it is more that there isn't much written on the other characters. I would ask that people add to each of the characters as they see fit; I'm not sure if I have a great enough knowledge of each character to add bits to each ones description.

• I have completely restructured most of the sections mentioned above by Motor. I have removed the "Artistic and narrative themes in Watchmen" section as I also felt it wasn't NPOV. "Good, Evil, and Humanism" has been renamed 'Character Overviews', for obvious reasons. This section is still quite biased toward the philosophical, but I do not think I can expand it enough to warrant a seperate section for the philosophy inclinations of each character. I have tagged it, as you can see. "Authenticity and reality" has been incorporated into a new section, which I have entitled "Watchmen's Composition", as has "Visual symbolism". "Prejudice and social norms" has been incorporated into a new section which I have entitled "Author's Influences: Implementation and Relevence thereof". "Unresolved Plot Points" has been made into a new section.

• I have also added a re-write tag to the Summary. I thought it sounded a little too 'fannish'.

I am still relatively new when it comes to editing Wikipedia, so I leave up to others to decide whether the changes I have made are pertinent, or whether I have simply become drunk with editing power. It happens. --Allthesestars 21/09/05 19:28 (BST)

I think it was a good attempt and thanks for sticking your neck out to try it, but something more radical is needed. See "Radical surgery" section below. - Motor (talk) 16:48:12, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Does the assertion that Hooded Justice was homosexual come from the RPG?Geni 18:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hooded Justice being gay, as I recall, is in the original.--squadfifteen.

Yeah I found the mention in silk specter's letters.Geni 13:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Radical surgery required?

It seems to me that the main problems with this article lie in the following sections:

6 Watchmen's Composition

6.1 Visual symbolism

7 Author's Influences: Implementation and Relevence thereof

7.1 Prejudice and Perceived Social 'Norms'

8 Unresolved Plot Points

They make the article read more like a teenager's essay for English class and less like an entry in an encyclopedia. Personally I would favour removing them completely, but I would concede that they should be replaced by something to cover the aesthetic and thematic aspects of the book. Any suggestions? --Ryano 16:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say "teenager's essay", but lots of it is unencyopledic in my opinion. I'd like to make a suggestion: we move the sections listed above onto the talk page... in fact, we move anything that's not solid fact onto the talk page (I don't want to lose them or upset anyone who spent time writing it, there may be useful nuggests in there, just allow them to be altered outside the article), then polish the article up as a completely factual document relating to its creation/sales/reprinting etc... and *then* we can, perhaps, start introducing some interpretation (but not much, and only if it's properly sourced) into the article. What do you think? - Motor (talk) 16:40:35, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

I think only section 6 should be moved to the talk page, and anything from section 7 that can be considered relevent to plot of "Watchmen"; information about the author should be limited to his own page. Section 8 could easily be deleted...it really doesn't offer much. Allthesestars 17:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Another Attempt

Okay, I have just completed another edit; some of the sections would really benefit from expansion. I think the Character Overviews section has the potential to be quite comprehensive. I have point 7. altogether. Point 6 and 6.1 have been re-structred and absorbed into Watchmen's Structure. I think this may be a better section, as it allows for sub-titles on specfic parts of the story. 'Composition' and 'Themes' are the only two currently, but I think things like 'Symbolism' could be brought in.

I also re-wrote some areas, and I would appreciate somebody reading over them for spelling errors, because I am aure there will be some. Okay... This is getting better, right?...

Where should we go from here? I am going to have to find my copy of Watchmen and re-read it, methinks. Allthesestars 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Symbolism (maybe)

This is just my own reading of the Watchmen symbolism, but it's always seemed to me that there's a kind of internal structure involving the kinds of "Super Men" involved with the story.

It seems to me that there is a distinct clash of worldviews between the characters of The Comedian, Doctor Manhattan, Rorschach, and Ozymandius.

Doctor Manhattan is a scientific idea of a Super Man. He sees no free will and no morality. He can do anything, but he has no choices because it's all logical and despite his involvement with quantum mechanics he is himself an argument for the 'clockwork universe'.

The Comedian is a Nietzschian Super Man, who sees free will, but no morality. He can do anything, and sees the lack of external morality as freeing people to do what they like. So he does.

Rorschach is the other side of the coin, who sees free will, no morality, and the fact that there is no external morality motivates him to provide one -- to impose his own view of morality onto the blank slate of the world.

Ozymandius, finally, is another kind of scientific Super Man, but one who applies Mind over Matter -- what he thinks is what the world should, and can, be. While Rorschach and The Comedian are of the world, and simply see that it is rudderless, Ozymandius sees himself as superior to the world, and at the rudder. He's all about ego and force of will. Look at the last few chapters, in particular. He's constantly surprised that things are working. "I didn't know if I could do that." "I didn't know if that would work." He wants things to work, but he doesn't know if they will. And he doesn't care.

So the whole story -- the whole world -- revolves around these four world views coming into conflict, and at the end, it's Night Owl and Silk Spectre, the two most human of the 'Heroes' who get to 'choose' the path the world will take. And then we see that, really, it's not just them. It's Semour. And anybody who might read the story, and that it's entirely possible that all the posturing and schemes of the Great And Powerful Super Man might well be made as nothing through the actions of normal, ordinary people.

I'm sticking this here, because it's just my own personal reading of the story, and it's not that well formed -- and I'm not really that knowledgable about what looks to me like the philosophy underlying this idea.

Anyway. Dana 21:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me the "superman" is overblown. For all their powers, even Dr. Manhattan's, they are all just flawed people, just like the rest of us.--squadfifteen

Fictional Publications Synopsis

Under the Hood, Dr. Milton Glass, Dr. Manhattan: Super-Powers and the Superpowers, Nova Express, Sally Jupiter, interview in Probe. All this Fictional Publications are not in the artcle

Derivative Material

The animated cartoons Pinky and the Brain contained a parody of a Watchmen frame. The original consisted of a drawing of a bottle of cologne, labeled "N", having been thrown, flying through the air and spilling. The pastiche or parody changed the label to "S" (as if North had changed to South), the bottle containing the Smallerizer, a substance designed to cause shrinkage.

The promotional Watchmen shirt displaying the ketchup-stained smiley face from the original was worn prominently by a character in the movie Titanic.

The ABC television series (and accompanying promotional material and DVDs) Lost alludes slyly to Watchmen in theme, structure, and word play, including at least one character name's punning on one in Watchmen, just as the character names in Watchmen were derived, and just as the short story The Martian Shop and derivative Outer Limits episode had provided thematic material for Watchmen.

There should be a nice way of incorporating a section like this in the article.

Plot Summary

{{spoiler}}

Rorschach's investigation into the murder of Edward Blake reveals that the Comedian had uncovered a plot which stunned Blake. (We may compare it to Watergate.) Rorschach confronts Doc tor Manhattan with his theory of a conspiracy to murder former superheroes. This meeting ends abruptly and Silk Spectre II, who has been in a long term relationship with Doctor Manhattan, decides to get out for a bit to clear the air by spending some time with Nite Owl II.

Rorschach also approaches Ozymandias, the genius head of a global business empire who, in earlier times, used the costumed identity of Ozymandias, before retiring and devoting himself to his business concerns. Ozymandias shows only moderate interest in Rorschach's concerns. Later Ozymandias thwarts an assassination attempt on himself. (It is later learned that Ozymandias himself hired the assassin.)

This meeting indicates there is attraction between her and Nite Owl. Silk Spectre II has grown increasingly detached from "Jon"—that is, Jon Osterman, alias Doctor Manhattan. The reader learns superheroes have been banned for the last decade apart from those working for the government: Doctor Manhattan, who is regarded as a national defense asset, and the Comedian, who is a covert operative for the government. We learn this dates to the Vietnam era, when Doctor Manhattan and The Comedian aided U.S. amd South Vietnamese forces to victory, which helped Nixon get re-elected (despite Watergate?).

When Doctor Manhattan learns a number of his former close associates have died of cancer, he reflects on his origin (the nuclear accident that led to his transformation to Dr. Manhattan) and teleports himself to Mars, sending the U.S. government into a panic. Has Manhattan had qualms about his actions? The allusion to the watchmaker is a clear reference to Einstein, a pacifist who said he wished he had never prodded FDR to build the Bomb. Abandoned, Silk Spectre II seeks out Nite Owl II and they become lovers. They decide to leave retirement to break Rorschach, who had been captured by the police and examined by a criminal psychologist, out of jail.

After a successful jailbreak, Doctor Manhattan arrives and teleports Silk Spectre II to Mars with him. Through flashbacks, it is revealed that the Comedian was Silk Spectre II's father. Silk Spectre breaks down because she'd always hated the Comedian who had beaten and nearly raped her mother, the original Silk Spectre. During their debate, it becomes clear Doctor Manhattan has little concern for humanity. His abilities and intimate relationship with larger universal forces have distanced him from his humanity.

However, the details of Silk Spectre's birth shows him that the probability of any particular person being born are extremely low and constitutes a statistical miracle. This convinces him humanity is worth saving and to return to Earth to intervene.

Rorschach and Nite Owl II interrogate minor criminals and piece together clues to implicate Ozymandias as the only person capable of organizing the plot to kill off the masked adventurers. They track him to his Antarctic base while Doctor Manhattan and the Silk Spectre II go there directly.

When confronted, Ozymandias reveals he killed the Comedian to hide a much larger global conspiracy. By pure luck, while on an unrelated covert mission, the Comedian had found an island where Ozymandias was conducting a genetic experiment. The genetic experiment was the construction of a giant squid-like mutant with great telepathic abilities. The mutant would be teleported into New York City to send a psychic shockwave which would kill millions of innocent people. His logic was that the apparent threat of an alien invasion will convince the world powers to unite. This is his solution to stop global warfare.

Knowing Rorschach and others would investigate the murder of the Comedian, Ozymandias started the smaller falsehood of a serial killer or plot murdering masked heroes in order to hide the true reason for the Comedian's death. Ozymandias also orchestrated the media rumour and false evidence of cancer victims that forced the exile of Doctor Manhattan, the only figure he felt he could not completely control and counter.

The heroes ask him to stop his plot but Ozymandias tells them they are too late; he'd teleported the creature to New York City before they arrived. After a confrontation with Doctor Manhattan and hearing news of a ceasefire, Ozymandias advises the others not to reveal his conspiracy since to do so would restart the global crisis that would have triggered nuclear war. Reluctantly, the majority of his opponents agree to keep silent. Only Rorschach disagrees and wants to disclose the plot to the world. In order to keep these secrets, Doctor Manhattan kills Rorschach, on Rorschach's insistence. Doctor Manhattan leaves the Earth for the last time, cryptically warning Ozymandias that "nothing ever ends" and saying that he has gained an interest in human life, and intends to create some.

Ozymandias's ploy to peacefully unite the world has worked for now, but as a coda we see that Rorschach has sent his private journal detailing the fraud to a fringe newspaper supportive of costumed adventurers, The New Frontiersman. The book ends with the flunky assistant editor being given a chance to publish something from the "crank file" and reaching for Rorschach's journal.

Much of the series is spent detailing the past, including the origins of Nite Owl I, Rorschach, and Doctor Manhattan. It also describes many cultural details which only turn out to be relevant at the end of the book; for example, the writer of a famous series of pirate comics is one of the people hired by Ozymandias to create his monster. It also spends a great deal of time detailing the everyday comings and goings of the people around a small newsstand in New York City, which turns out to be ground zero for the teleported monster.

As for the "mysteries", my answers are below.

Unresolved Plot Points

{{spoiler}}

The Watchmen presents numerous mysteries, some of which are not neatly wrapped up for the reader.

• What happened to the Hooded Justice—spy murdered by the Soviets, or killed by the Comedian in revenge?
• It is alluded to several times in the book that Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis were lovers, but never confirmed.
• The hidden atrocities of the Vietnam War which removes any humanity left in the Comedian are never revealed.
• Suggestions that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the Comedian on orders from Nixon and that the Comedian also killed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
• What will happen to Rorschach's diary?
• Will Ozymandias's plot really end all war?

These need to be made explicit only for the ignorant. It is clear, despite their initial disagreements, Slik Spectre and The Comedian become lovers, probably influenced by Spectre's alcoholism. We may take as given the Vietnam atrocity is the equivalent of My Lai. It is likely, given Nixon's personality and access to The Comedian, Woodward and Bernstein were assassinated; we may credit JFK, too. As for what happens, that is irrelevant. The story is about TRYING to end war, and how flawed people do their best. Probably he fails--he, too, is only human.

Plot Summary Rewrite?

{{spoiler}}

Rorschach's investigation into the murder of Edward Blake reveals that the Comedian had uncovered a plot which stunned Blake. (We may compare it to Watergate.) Rorschach confronts Doc tor Manhattan with his theory of a conspiracy to murder former superheroes. This meeting ends abruptly and Silk Spectre II, who has been in a long term relationship with Doctor Manhattan, decides to get out for a bit to clear the air by spending some time with Nite Owl II.

Rorschach also approaches Ozymandias, the genius head of a global business empire who, in earlier times, used the costumed identity of Ozymandias, before retiring and devoting himself to his business concerns. Ozymandias shows only moderate interest in Rorschach's concerns. Later Ozymandias thwarts an assassination attempt on himself. (It is later learned that Ozymandias himself hired the assassin.)

This meeting indicates there is attraction between her and Nite Owl. Silk Spectre II has grown increasingly detached from "Jon"—that is, Jon Osterman, alias Doctor Manhattan. The reader learns superheroes have been banned for the last decade apart from those working for the government: Doctor Manhattan, who is regarded as a national defense asset, and the Comedian, who is a covert operative for the government. We learn this dates to the Vietnam era, when Doctor Manhattan and The Comedian aided U.S. amd South Vietnamese forces to victory, which helped Nixon get re-elected (despite Watergate?).

When Doctor Manhattan learns a number of his former close associates have died of cancer, he reflects on his origin (the nuclear accident that led to his transformation to Dr. Manhattan) and teleports himself to Mars, sending the U.S. government into a panic. Has Manhattan had qualms about his actions? The allusion to the watchmaker is a clear reference to Einstein, a pacifist who said he wished he had never prodded FDR to build the Bomb. Abandoned, Silk Spectre II seeks out Nite Owl II and they become lovers. They decide to leave retirement to break Rorschach, who had been captured by the police and examined by a criminal psychologist, out of jail.

After a successful jailbreak, Doctor Manhattan arrives and teleports Silk Spectre II to Mars with him. Through flashbacks, it is revealed that the Comedian was Silk Spectre II's father. Silk Spectre breaks down because she'd always hated the Comedian who had beaten and nearly raped her mother, the original Silk Spectre. During their debate, it becomes clear Doctor Manhattan has little concern for humanity. His abilities and intimate relationship with larger universal forces have distanced him from his humanity.

However, the details of Silk Spectre's birth shows him that the probability of any particular person being born are extremely low and constitutes a statistical miracle. This convinces him humanity is worth saving and to return to Earth to intervene.

Rorschach and Nite Owl II interrogate minor criminals and piece together clues to implicate Ozymandias as the only person capable of organizing the plot to kill off the masked adventurers. They track him to his Antarctic base while Doctor Manhattan and the Silk Spectre II go there directly.

When confronted, Ozymandias reveals he killed the Comedian to hide a much larger global conspiracy. By pure luck, while on an unrelated covert mission, the Comedian had found an island where Ozymandias was conducting a genetic experiment. The genetic experiment was the construction of a giant squid-like mutant with great telepathic abilities. The mutant would be teleported into New York City to send a psychic shockwave which would kill millions of innocent people. His logic was that the apparent threat of an alien invasion will convince the world powers to unite. This is his solution to stop global warfare.

Knowing Rorschach and others would investigate the murder of the Comedian, Ozymandias started the smaller falsehood of a serial killer or plot murdering masked heroes in order to hide the true reason for the Comedian's death. Ozymandias also orchestrated the media rumour and false evidence of cancer victims that forced the exile of Doctor Manhattan, the only figure he felt he could not completely control and counter.

The heroes ask him to stop his plot but Ozymandias tells them they are too late; he'd teleported the creature to New York City before they arrived. After a confrontation with Doctor Manhattan and hearing news of a ceasefire, Ozymandias advises the others not to reveal his conspiracy since to do so would restart the global crisis that would have triggered nuclear war. Reluctantly, the majority of his opponents agree to keep silent. Only Rorschach disagrees and wants to disclose the plot to the world. In order to keep these secrets, Doctor Manhattan kills Rorschach, on Rorschach's insistence. Doctor Manhattan leaves the Earth for the last time, cryptically warning Ozymandias that "nothing ever ends" and saying that he has gained an interest in human life, and intends to create some.

Ozymandias's ploy to peacefully unite the world has worked for now, but as a coda we see that Rorschach has sent his private journal detailing the fraud to a fringe newspaper supportive of costumed adventurers, The New Frontiersman. The book ends with the flunky assistant editor being given a chance to publish something from the "crank file" and reaching for Rorschach's journal.

Much of the series is spent detailing the past, including the origins of Nite Owl I, Rorschach, and Doctor Manhattan. It also describes many cultural details which only turn out to be relevant at the end of the book; for example, the writer of a famous series of pirate comics is one of the people hired by Ozymandias to create his monster. It also spends a great deal of time detailing the everyday comings and goings of the people around a small newsstand in New York City, which turns out to be ground zero for the teleported monster.

As for the "mysteries", my answers are below.

Unresolved Plot Points

{{spoiler}}

The Watchmen presents numerous mysteries, some of which are not neatly wrapped up for the reader.

• What happened to the Hooded Justice—spy murdered by the Soviets, or killed by the Comedian in revenge?
• It is alluded to several times in the book that Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis were lovers, but never confirmed. (Sorry, dude, but I think this isn't so. He's linked romanticaly with the Silk Spectre. 66.201.163.236)

cheack out SS's letters at the end of chaper 9. The SS and HJ thing was a sham. The letter also dirrectly mentions the HJ and captain metropolis relationship.Geni 10:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• The hidden atrocities of the Vietnam War which removes any humanity left in the Comedian are never revealed (He kills a pregnant woman, with his baby inside 66.201.163.236).

perhaps but he's already pretty dehumanised by that point.Geni 10:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Suggestions that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the Comedian on orders from Nixon and that the Comedian also killed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (this is left pretty clear if you read between the lines, no mystery there, really 66.201.163.236)

Comedian outright denies Woodward and Bernstein murder. Kennedy killing could have been a joke from the context.Geni 10:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• What will happen to Rorschach's diary? (It gets published and the world needs adventurers again, I mean, Silk Spectre and Night Owl say they will continue to be adventurers at the very end of the series. 66.201.163.236)

We don't know what the guy picked from the pile.Geni 10:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Will Ozymandias's plot really end all war? (no, and Dr. Manhattan tells him this, again, read between the lines. 66.201.163.236)

Not quite.Geni 10:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I like to think so. I cried way too much when Rorschach was killed. I cry everytime I finish to read the series again and again. I like to think the fact that Silk Spectre and Nite Owl's decision to continue adventuring means Ozymandias was exposed to the public and/or that the world peace achived by terrorism and (alien) weapons wasn't very lasting.66.201.163.236

These need to be made explicit only for the ignorant. It is clear, despite their initial disagreements, Slik Spectre and The Comedian become lovers, probably influenced by Spectre's alcoholism. We may take as given the Vietnam atrocity is the equivalent of My Lai. It is likely, given Nixon's personality and access to The Comedian, Woodward and Bernstein were assassinated; we may credit JFK, too. As for what happens, that is irrelevant. The story is about TRYING to end war, and how flawed people do their best. Probably he fails--he, too, is only human. --squadfifteen

Although I'm not opposed to a Plot Summary, and think this does far better than the current Summary, I do think the idea of a Chapter by chapter description could well be advantageous, as the fact that the "Watchmen" was distributed as issues would have some effects on the "cliffhanger" aspects as well as the plot progression? I think the summary can be changed, though. Any takers for the Chapter summaries? Allthesestars 20:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Seymour will pick up the journal. The whole point of that stained smiley face shirt in the last panel is to show yet another echo of the Comedian's influence. Veidt thinks he's succeeded, but by killing the Comedian personally, and thus getting Rorschach interested in the case, he's brought about his own downfall. The *only* reason for that last panel to appear that way, aside from a ambiguous, "full circle" (or knot?) reference, is to suggest that the Comedian will have the last laugh after all.

Think: all Seymour has to do is read enough of the journal to realize it's Rorschach's. Godfrey, learning that, will feel that a fellow right-thinking American died to get the truth to the American people, and he'll publish it. Despite the condition of the office, The New Frontiersman is apparently read widely enough to make Doug Roth of Nova Express want to rebut charges made in its pages, so Rorschach's journal will get publicity. Once people read that Veidt is involved in a "murder pyramid", Veidt will be investigated. His connections to the various other companies will be established. People will learn that a Pyramid Deliveries ship was sunk under mysterious circumstances off a Caribbean island. And on the island, they will find a drawing, dated 10/31/85, made by a missing artist, of a creature which NO ONE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EXISTED UNTIL TWO DAYS LATER! Once the hoax is out, Russia will accuse the US of a conspiracy, and we'll be back on the brink of armageddon again. Veidt will have completed the mariner parallel: his monstrous actions will have saved no one and damned 3 million. Jon knows; his parting comments show that. And Veidt desperately searches for a convincing alternate explanation of those comments, one that *would* absolve him of guilt. But the future is bearing down on him like a freight train ... or a freighter. Whether he lives long enough to stand trial is academic; the Black Freighter will sail in to Karnak, its sails billowed and driven by the super-heated wind of Nuclear Holocaust.

I find it significant that one of Conrad Veidt's films was THE LAST LAUGH.

• Ehh..What is the point of this particular speculation, exactly? Your assertions really only damage the meaning that can be found in the existing plot.

O.K., so in your view terrorism and mass murdering are effective ways to reach peace. GO AL QAEDA! GO FOR EVERLASTING PEACE!. Plus, Ozymandias does tell Osterman that he dreamt he was swimming towards a horrible freighter at the end.

• I don't think that's what's being said, at all. The grandparent to this post just makes note that there are an incredily large number of suppositions made about what will happen, based on the limited evidence available. It doesn't really make any judgement on the morals espoused by any of the characters in the book, just notes that the theory would seem to undo a large portion of the book. Maybe the "joke" is that for all the plotting, Rorschach undoes everything, as was said. Maybe the "joke" is that Veidt gets away with everything. If the latter is true, the ultimate joke is on the Comedian. He says he's not worried about morality, but ultimately he is. Then somebody pulls off something that is the exemplar of "freedom without moral absolutes" and he doesn't really like it after all. That would be quite the joke on the Comedian. The more I think about it, the more I wonder how hard it is to have NPOV on Watchmen. So much of it is informed by who you think is the hero of the story. Is Rorschach? Ozymandias? Dr. Manhattan? Night Owl? You could make an argument for all of them, depending on your own POV. -{Le Scoopertemp | [tk] 02:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}

The story begins and ends with a reference to both Rorschach and The Comedian. But, hey, while writing this I'm wearing a Rorschach mask while listening to Dead Souls 168.243.218.2

What's important here is that you have a Rorschach mask. Please tell me where you got it.

Rorschach wont be "reaching civilization" anytime soon

Dr. Manhattan never said he killed him. Just a thought. Think about it. 168.243.218.2

I HAVE thought about it... Rorschach is dead. I suggest that the comment of Dr. Manhattan having "transported him" away to Pluto is pointless. If this series were part of DC continuity then speculation is warranted. But I highly doubt that Rorschach will be showing up in issue #7 of Infinite Crisis as the new Anti-Monitor, and if he did, I for one would ignore it. We must distinguish between ongoing series and somethign that is FINAL. Given that Watchmen falls in the latter, speculation of a final reprieve for Rorschach is unwarranted, not based on the facts, and also does injustice to the character as well as to Moore/Gibbons's work. Dyslexic agnostic 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whether or not Doc Manhattan directly killed him (ie. personally ended his life processes) or just teleported him off to Pluto is largely irrelevant anyway. If he did send Rorschach off to Pluto (or wherever), Manhattan would still have to keep Rorschach alive. He doesn't seem to automatically think about doing that (Silk Spectre II). In any case, regardless of what Manhattan actually did with Rorschach, the point is that Rorschach is "out of the way" (excluding whatever may or may not happen with the journal). Also, it's repeatedly stated that Manhattan doesn't really care about life vs death. There's no reason to presume he'd care enough about Rorschach to intentionally keep him alive. -{Le Scoopertemp | [tk] 02:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)}

By the end of the series Dr. Manhattan, thanks to the Silk Spectre, learnt to appreciate human life, since each and every person, each and every human is unique. I mean, you have read the books, have you? I think killing any human or accepting the killing of humans would have been WAY out of character for Dr. Manhattan at this point in the comic. Jesus, he even decides to create human life of his own. Please people, if you have only read a pirated copy of the last chapter, please, try to pirate the rest of the issues. Also, the story of "Tales of The Black Freighter" is there for a reason, to symbolize Ozymandias' failure without telling it in a distasteful, direct way. 168.243.218.2

168.243.218.2, ever heard of such thing as a coherent argument? IMHO you're arguing over a moot point anyway. I think that the reason that scene is there is to show that Dr. Manhattan has gotten over determinism, and can make his own choices (i.e. letting Rorschach go and risk compromising Ozymandias' plot, or not doing so). --Pentasyllabic 04:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"The world I'd tried to save was lost beyond recall. I was a horror. Amongst horrors I must dwell. A rope snaked down. Spluttering, I grabbed it..." The world Ozymandias tried to save (as a super-hero) was lost (super-heroes were outlawed). He was a normal person. Among normal people he must dwell. He came up with a new plan, a dangerous and perhaps awful plan. He decided to enact the plan. Also, Manhattan may appreciate life more (more than not at all, which is where he was before), but that doesn't mean he has anything against death, or even murder. Indeed, he participates in the cover-up. He tells Veidt it will fail, but not why. All we could do is speculate from our own POV. This is all my POV, which disagrees with your POV. No POV has a place in the article, save Moore specifically telling us his intent with the story. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, whatever, O.K. guys you win. O.K.? Jesus, c'mon, read the damn comic again!. If the conclusive message of Watchmen is that killing half of N.Y. brings peace and a better world, then I think it's the most horrible and obscene comic ever (which I'm sure is not, Alan Moore is not a monster). Well, Osama Bin Laden is also a rich guy born in a rich family who thinks his actions will bring a better world, so I guess instead of bitching here about Ozymandias I should join the army and go kill the motherfucker myself.168.243.218.2

There really isn't a single "conclusive message", it's deliberately left open-ended. (Dr. Manhattan: "Nothing ever ends...") Ozymandias did what he thought was right, Rorschach did what he thought was right, and even Doctor Manhattan did what he thought was right. Now whose course of action does the reader think was the morally correct one? --Pentasyllabic 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, no one so far has actually said that. I (and others) have only pointed out possible interpretations of the ending of the book itself that differ from your own. I haven't seen anyone make a judgement on whether Veidt is right or not. Personally, I don't think Veidt is right. Veidt doesn't really think he's totally right. He thinks it's the only way, which is not the same thing at all. He thinks the ends justify the means; that by killing half of New York City, he'll save the billions all over the earth. The point is, there are a myriad of ways to interpret what went on in the book proper, let alone what happens outside the pages. None of the interpretation belongs in the article. The article deals with facts. Veidt killed a lot of people because he thought it would end war. That's it. Whether he was right or not is irrelevant for our purposes. Whether he succeeded or not is irrelevant too. Those are things for a forum, or an essay or a debate, but not for Wikipedia. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 06:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong... Rorschach DOES live: [2] Dyslexic agnostic 06:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue was made clear during Manhattan's conversation with Laurie on Mars, as he predicted (though "predicted" isn't really the correct word, since Manhattan claims to be experiencing all the events of his life at once) that he would be "standing in deep snow. I am killing someone. Their identity is unclear." I find it stunning that anyone would think Rorschach WASN'T killed. What would be the point? Manhattan had acknowledged that revealing Veidt's plan risks causing death on a much larger scale (i.e. World War Three) than simply killing Rorschach, or even half of New York City. How is it out of character for him to act in a regrettable but necessary fashion? In any case, I'm the one who wrote the heavily revised plot summary back on October 26th, and I did so with a deliberate effort to cite only what was critical to the main plot and indisputably supported by the text. Throwing in a happy ending for Rorschach based on nothing but rosy-eyed revisionism is pointless. Save the wild speculations for other, less factual sections of the article. 24.200.93.175, aka Bryan Ekers, 16 Nov 05

Here here. Finally the answer... b'god, you are right! Good job "aka Bryan"! Dyslexic agnostic 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ozymandias -the poem-

The character Ozymandias shares his name with a poem by Shelly (a romantic era poet, and the husband of the author of Frankenstien) I think Ozymandias is a name for an Egyptian Pharoh, witch one I don't remeber

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
.And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my works. Ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

I don't know...maybe this should be included in the article or something.... --70.49.96.88 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The name of this Pharaoh (Ramesses II) is mentioned within Watchmen, it's the password to Adrian's files on the computer when Rorschach and Nite-Owl are investigating. (According to the poem Ozymandias' article: "The name Ozymandias (or Osymandias) is generally believed to refer to Ramesses the Great (i.e., Ramesses II) , Pharaoh of the Nineteenth dynasty of Ancient Egypt. Ozymandias represents a transliteration into Greek of a part of Ramesses's throne name, User-maat-re Setep-en-re. ") I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think a few lines of the poem also make an appearance somewhere within Watchmen. --Pentasyllabic 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yah yah. That sounds about right, it should be added to the article. --70.49.96.88 14:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add a reference to the poem, be bold and do it at Ozymandias (comics). There's already a reference to his name and Ramesses II. --Pentasyllabic 19:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Once Again, Another Substantial Edit

Okay, I thought I would take Pentasyllabic's advice and be bold; you can see the results. I have:

• removed "Background" and merged it with "Plot Summary" where neccessary, as I thought the two sections were, essentially, the same thing.
• edited the "Plot Summary", implementing points from 66.201.163.236's version that was posted here, as well as adding small parts.
• added more characters to the "Character Overview" section; I suggest that this be renamed "Major Characters", or something of that nature, because there are many, many characters in "Watchmen" that add to the plot/story, but who cannot be included in a description, as they play a minor part.
• removed the "Theme" sub-section, as it was all conjecture.
• removed the "Films" section, as this was largely conjecture
• attempted to consolidate the last few sections/sub-sections, however, I am not really happy with the section title "Watchmen's Contemperary Influence", as I think that's a rubbish name, I just couldn't think of anything better at the time.

I hope that this, at the very least, prompts some sort of reaction, as I don't want this article to become stagnant. However, I do think my changes have been for the better; we really need to be a bit Cartesian here, if you will, and remove anything of which we cannot be certain. Allthesestars 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I tried my hand at some clean-up and addition to the plot summary. I think it still needs some work, but I can't get my head around what else can go into it right now. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this article still POV?

To my mind this seems pretty neutral now, but that's just one guy's POV. Anyone else think the NPOV tag might be ripe for removal from this article? -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• I was just about to post the same thing. Seems perfectly fine to me in its current state. I say go ahead and remove the tag: if someone wants to re-add it, they can explain it here. Turnstep 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• As the third to agree, I have gone and done so. Now, what about the cleanup tag? Dyslexic agnostic 07:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think it still needs cleanup work. Allthesestars has done good work fixing it up, and I've tried to add and correct some things, but it still feels to me like some more fixing needs to be done. I'm particularily worried that some of my additions, while adding clarity, may have made some sections unwieldy (Rorschach, the early part of synopsis). I'm not especially good at paring down an article, when it needs that. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will endeavour to do my best at refining this page, as I feel like there is the potential for this article to become a good example of a Wikipedia entry (it just needs some work). Rest assured that I will continue reading things over, and making my own edits (I don't know if this puts the mind at ease...) Allthesestars 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

An addition

I added the section of Juvenal's satire that is applicable to Watchmen. The translation I have given there is quite literal; Latin is quite a difficult language to translate to English. The lack of the definite article, and, in this case, the lack of prior context, means some things have to be added to aid reading. "pone seram, cohibe" literally means "place behind a bolt, constrain". However, one cannot just write that and expect people to follow it.

Also re-wrote part of the Rorschach summary; I think I have rectified your "unwieldy" additions, Le Scoopertemp [tk]. They weren't that bad! Of course, my additions are open to re-consideration! Good luck here, everyone. I think this page has come a long way. Allthesestars 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jane Slater named for John Slater

It would appear that the character name Jane Slater is an allusion to John Slater, another character whose life was sacrificed to maintain a secret of great importance to world affairs. That character appeared in A.C. Doyle's story "The Lost Special", which has been evergreen in its adaptations.69.127.3.215 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)