Should Veidt live or die?

[Overman27pj]

He has done bad things for the right reason and who's to say doing the good thing for the wrong reason is any better?

This is a much shorter and awesomer way of saying it.

 

[Mysterio]

Veidt needs to live because he is the bad guy who ends up being more successful than the good guys at bringing peace, through means that are viewed as evil. If he is killed, then it becomes a standard "bad guy is defeated by the good guy" situation. Part of the impact of the ending is that the bad guy doesn't receive his comeuppance, and that the good guys are unsure of if they should stop him.

but he's done that already whether he lives or not; his plan has already come to fruition. again, all that matters is that his plan has come to pass and that the remaining heroes agree to the conspiracy and not divulge the truth. both of those are not compromised by his death. what if Rorschach is the one who kills Veidt, the audience believes that the other heroes are on Rorschach's side, but then they kill Rorschach? that would be just as powerful.

still, this is not an explanation for "if you don't think he should die then you don't understand the story."

 

[Mysterio]

Dude I can't believe you missed that far off....

A) Veidt killed millions, but saved humainity. That's every person on the planet, and every person that will ever live on the planet from that moment on. Every hero, every villian, every lover, every marvel, every advancement, could not go on if there are no humans left.

every person on the planet minus the ones he killed (including The Comedian, Moloch, artists, writers, etc.), you mean.

It is purposely left ambigious whether Viedt is good or bad. It is up to the reader to decide, and debate, and wonder...this is one of the reasons why the character sticks with us so!!!

i'm sorry, but there's no ambiguity to it. he's not a good guy. none of the heroes are meant to be looked at as good guys. the novel was written at the height of the reagan administration in the midst of the cold war. it's anti-war, anti-nuke, and anti-right wing. the authors are clearly casting the "heroes" - especially Veidt - as representatives of what they view as an incorrect morality. they are turning the genre and the way the public looks at superheroes on its head.

RS counts Truman as a hero, but counts Viedt as a villian. Do you not see the hypocracy? They did basically the same acts, yet he thinks one a hero and the other a villian!!!

no, i don't. i feel the exact same way: Truman was a hero and Veidt is a villain. i don't find the two acts or the two moralities comparable at all. again, to someone like the authors who are making an anti-nuke, anti-war statement then yes, i can see that they would view the two things as the same.

 

[Gilpesh]

You do know... that scene where an angry mob beats Nite Owl I to death was meant to show that many of those people that were in the New York, are not at the height of innocence.

The Comedian was a mass murderer also and loved killing.

Moloch used to be just as bad as any villain, just cause we see him as an old man with cancer doesn't change that.

The writers and artists would have easily broken the silence of the island and their project to be more famous. But overall, they were the most innocent, even though those two were having an affair at the end.

Not a lot of innocent people in the numbers of Veidt's killings.

 

[Mysterio]

You do know... that scene where an angry mob beats Nite Owl I to death was meant to show that many of those people that were in the New York, are not at the height of innocence.

The Comedian was a mass murderer also and loved killing.

Moloch used to be just as bad as any villain, just cause we see him as an old man with cancer doesn't change that.

The writers and artists would have easily broken the silence of the island and their project to be more famous. But overall, they were the most innocent, even though those two were having an affair at the end.

Not a lot of innocent people in the numbers of Veidt's killings.

a very small sample from a much larger population. there were far more innocents killed by Veidt than non-innocents. regardless, he's a killer despite the deeds or past crimes of his victims.

 

[Overman27pj]

Mystero, never mind man, I really don't feel like I can explain it to you any differently.

Either you haven't read the story yet, did and are choosing to not understand, or just hopeless.

 

[Mysterio]

Mystero, never mind man, I really don't feel like I can explain it to you any differently.

Either you haven't read the story yet, did and are choosing to not understand, or just hopeless.

because i disagree with you i must not have read it, i don't understand it, or i'm hopeless? so much for a back and forth exchange of ideas.

 

[Overman27pj]

Actually I suspected you never read Watchmen after I read your post #13 of this thread, when you said that Adrian feels no guilt...He clearly states that he does, If you did read and just glossed over/didn't remember such important details you are probably going to miss some of the depth and themes of this amazing story.

 

[Mysterio]

Actually I suspected you never read Watchmen after I read your post #13 of this thread, when you said that Adrian feels no guilt...He clearly states that he does, If you did read and just glossed over/didn't remember such important details you are probably going to miss some of the depth and themes of this amazing story.

he clearly states he does? he clearly states, "i feel guilty"?

 

[Hellrider]

I personally would prefer him live. If he doesnt, it wont distroy the movie experience for me. I understand the purpose of him living(it really angered me the first time I read it), but it wont really ruin the movie for me. Anyways, I think he'll live, I personally think the movie is in good hands with Zack Snyder.

 

[Overman27pj]

he clearly states he does? he clearly states, "i feel guilty"?

"I've made myself feel each and every one of their deaths..." is a pretty direct statement.

 

[Overman27pj]

Also, My apolgies for the hopeless comment.

 

[Hellrider]

he clearly states he does? he clearly states, "i feel guilty"?

he did feel guitly in the end, he doesnt clearly state it(from what i can remember) but in the end he questions, to Jon, if it was all whether it worked out for the best in the end, and that he made himself feel the deaths of those innocent people, and that someone HAD to do it.

 

[Mysterio]

"I've made myself feel each and every one of their deaths..." is a pretty direct statement.

and is in no way evidence of guilt. to me it comes off the same as kevorkian - an agent of "compassionate" death. so in his mind he isn't heartless, but that doesn't equate to feeling guilty. seeking assurance or reassurance from Dr. Manhattan isn't guilt either; to me he was trying to appeal to a higher form to reach a mutual understanding. obviously, he succeeded.

 

[Overman27pj]

and is in no way evidence of guilt. to me it comes off the same as kevorkian - an agent of "compassionate" death. so in his mind he isn't heartless, but that doesn't equate to feeling guilty. seeking assurance or reassurance from Dr. Manhattan isn't guilt either; to me he was trying to appeal to a higher form to reach a mutual understanding. obviously, he succeeded.

For a 'compassionate' death they would have to be suffering.

They were not, they were eating chinese food, and reading the paper, and walking home from work, and getting into a Lesiban induced brawl.

He feels guilty about the deaths, about each and every one. I just don't understand how you could be reading it differently...

They don't reach a mutual understanding either...He is looking for reassurance, but recieves none..."Nothing ever ends Adrian..."

 

[Johnichi Chiba]

I hope Adrian lives, because I want people to be having this same discussion that you all are having after watching the movie.

 

[SalaciousVC]

die

 

[Mysterio]

For a 'compassionate' death they would have to be suffering.

and there was; suffering on a humanity level. suffering due to war, conflict, etc. the act itself - in Veidt's mind - was one of compassion.

They don't reach a mutual understanding either...He is looking for reassurance, but recieves none..."Nothing ever ends Adrian..."

the mutual understanding was reached when Dr. Mahattan killed Rorschach.

He feels guilty about the deaths, about each and every one. I just don't understand how you could be reading it differently...

i disagree that he feels guilty and i think i've adequately explained why.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i thought it was obvious there was some degree of guilt in his actions. he clearly questioned whether or not it was the right thing to do. which means he wasnt 100% certain it was the right thing to do. and i think that clearly leaves room for guilt. and i think that was part of the point. yes, essentially, adrian is the "villain", but that doesnt make him a monster. and the others are "heroes" but that doesnt make them angels. and event hough veidt's plan succeeds, if he is killed there is that sense of punishment, that evil was punished, the villain paid a personal price for his actions...and thats totally the opposite of what the novel intended. and if for any other reason to keep him alive....how about for the simple fact thats how it was in the source material and the film should be true to that.

 

[sad lieutenant]

the only contradiction there in regards to "good guy" versus "bad guy" is that Veidt is/was a costumed superhero. he isn't a good guy. the major theme of the piece is anti-war/anti-nukes/anti-peace at any cost. the authors are clearly not portraying Veidt as a good guy; they are in fierce opposition to what Veidt stands for.

and Rorscach isn't being hypocritical in admiring Truman and not keeping silent about Veidt's plot, but i can see how an anti-war, no nukes person (the authors) would think so.

Your suggestion that Veidt "isn't a good guy" is one reading of the text -- but I don't think it's a very interesting one. And to suggest that this reading reflects Alan Moore's intentions is a little bit much.

The question is straight from Kierkegaard: Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical? Which is to say (in this case): is it permissible to butcher millions (suspending the ethical) for the greater end of world peace ("teleological" from the Greek telos, meaning "end")? A "guy" is "bad" if he slaughters human beings; a guy is "good" if he brings about world peace. Veidt is both. Herein lies the rub.

And this makes Veidt a bit like Harry Truman, who Rorschach admires. (Truman, you'll recall, is the man responsible for nuking Japan) And this places Rorschach in an ethically tenuous position (I don't like the word "hypocritical"... if I used it earlier, I take it back!)... But it's an interesting question: How can Rorschach praise Truman while vilifying Veidt?

PS - Did you guys read about the huge painting Snyder has in his office depicting the Enola Gay with a mushroom cloud in the background? -- Only it's "the Sally Jupiter"? more evidence that Snyder gets it!

 

[Mysterio]

Your suggestion that Veidt "isn't a good guy" is one reading of the text -- but I don't think it's a very interesting one. And to suggest that this reading reflects Alan Moore's intentions is a little bit much.

i don't see how you can say that it's a bit much. both Watchmen and V are responses to the american and english conservative governments of the 80s cold war era. the novel is bash-you-over-your-head anti-nuke, and against peace at any price. that is exactly what Veidt's plan is: a peace at any price plan. i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't.

And this makes Veidt a bit like Harry Truman, who Rorschach admires. (Truman, you'll recall, is the man responsible for nuking Japan) And this places Rorschach in an ethically tenuous position (I don't like the word "hypocritical"... if I used it earlier, I take it back!)... But it's an interesting question: How can Rorschach praise Truman while vilifying Veidt?

again, i completely disagree with the Truman/Veidt comparison. yes, i believe the authors believe they are comparable, but i believe the two have diametrically opposing morals. Veidt's morality is not cut from the same cloth as Truman's. someone who is anti-war and anti-nuke, though, will see the two as one in the same.

PS - Did you guys read about the huge painting Snyder has in his office depicting the Enola Gay with a mushroom cloud in the background? -- Only it's "the Sally Jupiter"? more evidence that Snyder gets it!

how coudln't he? the comic is blatantly anti-nuke.

 

[Gilpesh]

i don't see how you can say that it's a bit much. both Watchmen and V are responses to the american and english conservative governments of the 80s cold war era. the novel is bash-you-over-your-head anti-nuke, and against peace at any price. that is exactly what Veidt's plan is: a peace at any price plan. i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't.

Wow. That is a sign of pure not wanting to agree with someone just cause you don't want to.

Nuking Japan and attacking New York are the same exact action. Killing a large number and preventing more war. Truman decided to murder millions to end a war with an atom bomb, Veidt decided to murder millions to prevent a war with a large alien menace. Same thing, only different weapons.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i don't see how you can say that it's a bit much. both Watchmen and V are responses to the american and english conservative governments of the 80s cold war era. the novel is bash-you-over-your-head anti-nuke, and against peace at any price. that is exactly what Veidt's plan is: a peace at any price plan. i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't.

again, i completely disagree with the Truman/Veidt comparison. yes, i believe the authors believe they are comparable, but i believe the two have diametrically opposing morals. Veidt's morality is not cut from the same cloth as Truman's. someone who is anti-war and anti-nuke, though, will see the two as one in the same.

how coudln't he? the comic is blatantly anti-nuke.

the problem is, you're only looking at one layer of the story (anti nuke/war/etc). the story works on multiple layers, which is one of the things that makes it great. theres more to it than your recognizing or admitting. while veidt being killed might work fine with the layer you're recognizing, it blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen.

 

[sad lieutenant]

i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't... Veidt's morality is not cut from the same cloth as Truman's. someone who is anti-war and anti-nuke, though, will see the two as one in the same. how coudln't he? the comic is blatantly anti-nuke.

I see the point you are trying to make, but you make completely arbitrary distinctions. Truman did, in effect, end World War II in the Pacific theater; Veidt's actions, as described in the comic, would have effectively ended all wars. And, yes, we all know that Harry Truman did not instigate World War II. Adrian Veidt did not instigate the Cold War (or any war, for that matter). Veidt used the same ethical reasoning as Truman -- the only difference is in scale (which is to say, the result of Veidt's "nuking" of Manhattan would yield, in effect, more peace).

And your assertion about the "moral cloth" is so vague as to be rendered nonsensical. That, coupled with your histrionics about those who oppose nuclear war (who doesn't?), make me suspicious that you carry your lunch (to middle school, perhaps?) in a shiny, well-kept O'Reilly Factor lunchbox.
It's as though you imply that Truman was "pro-war" or "pro-nuke" by way of ideological imperative! You have to remember that foreign policy was formed a bit differently before there was Fox News, William Kristol, etc.

And I don't think the comic is "blatantly" anything! As a reader of Watchmen, I find it difficult to either condemn or exonerate Veidt -- and that, I can only imagine, is the sort of effect Moore was going for. Would you kill one person to end all wars for all time? I might. And if I can justify the killing of one innocent for the sake of the greater good, would I make the same argument for two innocents? Three? One million?

Oh, and I assure you that much of the world did and does not consider Truman's decision to deploy nuclear weapons as a "legitmate [sic] wartime action". Whether you agree that it was morally justifiable or not, you have to appreciate that the nuclear attacks on Japan represented a previously unthinkable amount of devastation. And, at the time, many people regarded -- and still do -- Truman's actions as the most egregious war crime in human history.

 

[The Geek Vault]

Veidt has to live! that's part of the whole concept is the "villain" first of all isn't quite a villain and does have a good motive for doing what he does and two the other part is he gets away with it.