Hidden Meaning in WATCHMEN – Earthling Cinema

Hidden Meaning in WATCHMEN – Earthling Cinema


Greetings, and welcome to Earthling Cinema. I am your host, Garyx Wormuloid. This week’s artifact is Watchmen, based on
the popular graphic novel by Demi Moore and directed by Zack “The Snide Man” Snyderman. The film follows a group of Earthling superheroes
who fight crime using their mighty powers of… punching… and kicking… and um, somersaulting…
and OH SH*T!! However, costumed vigilantism is outlawed
for being too effective, forcing all the Watchmen to either retire or keep working as government
stooges or continue doing whatever they want. Soon the Watchmen start getting watched too
hard, prompting the emo one to start a LiveJournal. Papa Smurf throws a tantrum on live TV, then
puts himself on a Martian timeout and puts his pubic hair on timeout as well. His absence allows the Soviet Union to step
up their war efforts in a safe space. Rorschach is cornered by the police and goes
to jail, where he cheats on his diet by indulging in a little fried food. Papa Smurf’s girlfriend Hot Pants puts in
a transfer to become Owl Boy’s girlfriend instead, and they help the Rorschmeister escape. Papa Smurf tries to win Hot Pants back by
showing her his arts and crafts project, but she tells him this part is pointless and let’s
just get to third act already. Rory and Owl Boy find out that their friend
Weird Headband is the master chef behind the whole enchilada. They confront him at the Wall from Game of
Thrones, where he lives with his pet fever dream. A bunch of cities go kablooey, but Headband
explains that the only thing cooler than a million deaths is a billion non-deaths, so
they let him off with a stern warning. Papa Smurf heads off to another galaxy for
a really boring spinoff, and they print Rory’s LiveJournal, which turns out to be the screenplay
for the hit movie Watchmen. Watchmen deconstructs traditional comic book
tropes through its depiction of superheroes as flawed individuals, aka individuals who
like to f*ck. Rather than shining examples of patriotic
virtue, these characters range from nihilistic to disturbed and violent to having a dadbod. Whereas classic comic book heroes are customarily
identifiable as good guy vs. bad guy, Watchmen blurs the lines between the two better than
Robin Thicke did when he plagiarized Marvin Gaye. Weird Headband appears to be a Lex Luthor-style
megalomaniac who goes around giving cancer to people willy nilly and wiping out entire
cities, also willy nilly. However, his actions successfully avert nuclear
war and establish peace. Nothing willy or nilly about that. Similarly, Rorschach’s relentless pursuit
of justice could be construed as noble, but his methods are more likely to terrify than
to comfort because he’s a dirty ginger. He breaks into crime scenes, tortures criminals
for information, and brutally murders those he deems guilty. He also seems like the kind of friend who
never remembers your birthday but always expects you to remember his. In order to better understand Headband and
Rorschach, one must begin with their names. Headband, or “Ozymandias” in Egyptian, refers
to Rameses II, a powerful pharaoh who built a massive empire of cultural, architectural,
and religious achievements. Headband considers himself to be a modern-day
pharaoh — only without the whole pulling your brains out through your nose thing — so
he acts as he believes a legendary ruler would. Rorschach’s name and mask are derived from
the “Rorschach Test,” which famously always shows a picture of my mother giving me a firm
spanking. Rorschach believes right and wrong are distinct;
black and white, with no gray area, not even where the black and white parts overlap. Once he determines a wrong has been committed,
he must punish it with all of his knife. These two philosophies clash when Rorschach
learns of Headband’s genocidal shenanigans. In the parlance of ethical theory, Headband
is a consequentialist. He justifies his actions by evaluating their
ultimate consequences, which makes total sense. In contrast, Rorschach is a deontologist. He believes that one must be judged by the
actions they take, and not the results of those actions. Damn, that makes sense too! Rorschach delivers his journal to Breitbart
Simpson, and while the film remains flirtatiously coy about whether its contents are published,
the viewer is forced to confront the question: is revealing the truth more important than
preserving the peace? Or perhaps Papa Smurf was right all along,
and none of it matters because everything is predetermined. Which is how I know this episode is gonna
end riiiight… now. For Earthling Cinema, I’m Garyx Wormuloid.

100 thoughts on “Hidden Meaning in WATCHMEN – Earthling Cinema

  1. Fuck this movie made me confused as FUCK and everything in this movie fucks my mind .fuuuuuuccccccckkkkkkkkkk why did the have to kill rorchak fuckinh dumb shite

  2. Exellent video guys! Keep up the Good work and remember to store the info so the romulean archeologists can find it

  3. Headband and facecmask have a very awesome, "2 sides to the same coin" thing going on… They both feel they are "just" and can deliver "Justice" as they see fit… Interesting

  4. This wasn't the hidden meaning. It was the obvious meaning. It was the whole point of the comic and the movie.

  5. "His name derives from the Rorschach Test, a psychological test of inkblots that all show an image of my mother giving me a firm spanking." HAHAHAHA

  6. I think the greatest question about Ozymandius' actions are "does the means justify the ends?". And in Ozy's case I would say no because he committed murder, which is wrong, and creating peace whether there would be a world war 3 or not does not justify. The means are often what separates the villains from the heroes. The villain may have a noble goal in mind but terrible, unethical means to achieve it. And so Ozy no longer was a hero but a villain in the end.

  7. I hate being mean but this was such a trashy review which made me cringe. I mean, you either being funny or basically reciting some events of the movie. Where is the hidden meaning? This is my observation is: Mr. Manhattan represents knowledge and every other character represents some group and/or ideology, like politicians, army, resistance, etc… and of course the big boss who runs the whole show. Also, the referring to ancient Egypt is an implication to the knowledge that has been stolen and hidden from the public, like the "secret Vatican archive." this movie is so simple to understand yet profound.

  8. This review saved me so much time!!!! Thank You as I am grateful for not watching this movie after watching this review. 100%

  9. Lots of stupid jokes, but in the end you NAILED the whole point of the movie. “IS GETTING OUT THE TRUTH WORTH THE CHANCE OF BRINGING TOTAL CHAOS AND WAR TO OUR PLANE?” MY question is, “WHY THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN A QUESTION? WHO DECIDED THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO PIT ALL THEOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY INTO DECEIVING THE MASSES?”

  10. Theory : What if Manhattan is the writer?

    Let me explain, Manhattan appears completely desensitised towards humans at some point, he feels he is doing damage while trying to help them and he leaves but that doesnt mean the world is perfect without him, he seeks out alien life but we dont know if he will try and influence said life or not, he allowed himself to be used by the government for no reason and in the DC universe he keeps messing up the timeline out of curiosity. And he always said that nothing ever matters and nothing ever ends.

    Now let's look at these from our perspective as the viewers and readers. Manhattan has no power over us or impact in our lives since well he is a fictional character. Non of the people Manhattan has killed or inadvertently harmed are real so even if we like some of them as characters none of their deaths has any real impact. And now let's see how Manhattan's story and personality reflects the writer : Manhattan originally works for the goverment despite his sheer disinterest in the same way that many superhero comic book writers were somewhat obliged to go full America fuck yeah in the 60s and 70s. Manhattan self exiled himself to Mars and leaves humanity to themselves in the same way that a writer tries to get himself out of the picture and to metaphorically let his characters act on their own. And finally Manhattan keeps messing up the timeline out of curiosity in the same way that the creators might make alternate universes where their characters suffer more (injustice) and like Manhattan they dont really care since in the end they are just fictional characters, non of their struggles is real. Even Manhattan's quote : "Nothing ever ends" could be interpreted that way : Nothing ever ends because their will always be more comics and alternate earths and redcons that will start things all over again. Nothing Matters because in reality all of these are just comic book characters.

    And Manhattan's depression at his inability to actually do anything could very well be the writer's disappointment at how he can never give his character's closure since no matter what it will all start all over again. Manhattan's determinism could reflect the certainty that no matter what happens in the DC universe or any other fictional universe for that matter is ultimately pointless.

    And his final desire to look for alien life could reflect the writer moving on to another book

  11. So are we going to stop using the word “hidden” to describe subtext? It is meant for you to see, by definition it is not hidden.

  12. Moore’s writing is beautiful. You know it’s good literature because there is so much meaning and human truth. Literature is great because you can study it and someone else can come along with a different perspective and completely change your perspective or add to yours. One of the many plot and character elements in watchmen is the repeated phrase (I’m pretty sure it shows up twice- one when Rorschach is in the snow and one when he’s eating Dan’s beans) “fine like this.” It kinda speaks to his character in multiple ways. On one hand, it seems to show independence and suggest that he doesn’t need other people’s help, which would make sense given his childhood. It also suggests that he is fine with things the way they are because he is fine with not having a pristine life. He eats cold beans because he is used to eating cold beans, if ya know what I mean. I dunno, but it’s beautiful to dissect good literature.

  13. Massive disservice to the gravity of what's actually being discussed.
    This channel consistently does this.
    It's clearly intentional.

  14. “Could be seen as noble, but his methods are more to terrify than comfort. Because he’s a dirty ginger”😂

  15. My dad introduced me to comics and comic book movies , and when he seen watchmen when it came it he told he didn’t get it and never heard of them .. so I never watched it until a few years ago .. to which I loved it and immediately read the source material and was in aw of how much I’ve been missing out on

  16. This channel is loosing its taste ..
    This channel was supposed to be breakdown of philosophy about a movie .not about making comedy videos .btw I m from India .

  17. I like your video, but I have a few thoughts. Dr Manhattan represents knowledge and Rorscach represents truth. The ending of the movie ( and im only going to use the movie for this) suggests that both transcend or are at least immune to death. As we can see Manhattan and Rorscachs Hat together on the other side of the blood stain, leaving behind all the other characters. Rorscach takes off the mask before he dies, Walter Kovacs can be killed but not Rorscach. Truth can be used by anyone who picks it up, so to speak. In the movie it is repeatedly said " somebody knows" , knows what? The Truth. Again knowledge and truth. Someone is hiding something and it just so happens they're using Dr Manhattan to do it. In fact almost keeping Manhattan to themselves. And believing they can get remove him entirely if they want. Ozymandias seems to succeed, at least at a passing glance, but notice small things that transpire when he speaks, when he talks about his " moral safe guards" we see Rorscach. When he talks about " seeing every innocent face" we see triangle windows outlined in black with his self made monuments then it shifts over to the tv's , squares outlined in black showing the world. He isn't doing anything new. Hes not different than the world he is the same. We see his Office building and its right next to others. He talks about oil and nuclear power etc, he wants to trade that for what he has to offer. But its all the same, just stream lined. He is faster and smarter but at the end of the day he is just doing what is normally done but more efficiently. Going back to the whole " somebody knows" bit, Ozymandias kills everyone who can leak his plan , or somehow gets rid of them or manipulates them, but there will always be one person who knows, him. He defeats his own purpose. He wants to be like a king or pharoah, but no one can ever know what he did, no one can ever know why he built those monuments in the snow. And even after wards if people worship him for saving the day, they are worshipping him for saving the day that he ruined. He will never have what he truly wants. And he acts on the assumption that what he does is the best. Now we can argue that Rorscach is doing the same thing. But here is the difference. We have two scenarios , tell people the truth no matter what and do the best with the knowledge we have OR Tell people a lie , force or manipulate them to act on false information and do whatever it takes so they never find out. That's blunt but that sums it up. This argument may seem odd and over simplified but consider it and then take a look back at the conversations they both have with Manhattan. Its kind of interesting even though its simplified. And in between both conversations, he says " without condemning or condoning, I understand" . There are lots of visual cues, like the city being the background to the graveyard, or the snow wasteland with Ozymandias monument when Rorscach says " not even in the face of Armageddon" , and if you take those things , all these things , you have two stories playing out , a man willing to kill anyone to conceal the truth vs a man willing to die to reveal it. There is also one noticeable difference between the two and that's the way they speak to Doctor Manhattan. And the means by which they communicated. One was personal the other distanced. When is the first time we see Veidt and Manhattan speaking to eachother? Through a tv screen. And Rorscach and Manhattan, face to face. This suggest from the get go that there is something distorted about Veidt/ozymandias, just like how the scene at the end with him looking at the Tv sets talking about how he made himself " see every innocent face " is also distorted or even a lie, that in turn reinforcing the idea of the tv like windows behind his head representing him. Where as Rorscachs face , reinforce the idea that anyone can be Rorscach if they choose to be , pick up the hat as it were. I also think that the color scheme of the mask is distracting , for example what if it were two different colors? Would it matter? I don't believe the monochromatic aesthetic of the mask is to take precedence over the shifting of the images. And I say that because unlike an actual Rorscach test these images are not set in place. Whats important is that its always shifting always moving and yet never really changing. This can also be applied to the fact that the frames of the tv sets and the windows behind veidts head are frozen in place, they represent one idea, one belief one value one way, but the ever shifting face of Rorscach can be applied to all and like I said , anyone can be Rorscach . At a glance Rorscach may seem rigid , but in what way? If we take into account the rigidity or at least the implied rigidity of the world and Veidt through the screens and Windows, by comparison there rigidity is in their values and ideas themselves where as Rorscachss rigidity is in his unwillings to be frozen in place. And that is a huge difference, an overwhelmingly important difference. For example , it's the same as the difference between water and the container it inhabits. Ozymandias and the world are concerned about the container , Rorscach is concerned about what's inside the container ,again, the fluidity of the Mask vs the borders of the screens and Windows we see. This can also be reinforced by the fact that Ozymandias and thw world in effect build monunents to themselves , Ozymandias literally and the world inadvertantly through cities ECT, trying to become immortal , trying to preserve the container. Rorscach throws his container, Walter Kovacs away to preserve the substance inside , even if it means he will never be the container again as long as the substance survives , that's all that matters. And going back to the end scene with the blood and Manhatta. And the Hat, Rorscach achieved immortality. Ozymandias only got an empty lifeless container. But that's assuming I'm correct in my interpretations. A lot of people will disagree. Also take all of this and watch the last two conversations again, Ozymandias , Manhattan and Rorscach , the implications of what they say are chilling , if in fact you do use my interpretations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *