Ah yes, the Newsstand scenes. They are there simply to bridge in and out of the animation aren't they?
I never knew they taught it, does Alan Moore hate that too lol.
Ah yes, the Newsstand scenes. They are there simply to bridge in and out of the animation aren't they?
Yeah it helps bridge TotBF but also fleshes out the symbolism of the comic and the relationship between the newsstand owner and the kid reading the comic. And the little subplots of other characters connected to the newsstand.
I never knew they taught it, does Alan Moore hate that too lol.
Haha, well, actually I would think Moore probably would appreciate that it’s being taught at the college level because for the most part the professors would tend to agree with him. Moore feels it’s pathetic that adults indulge in escapism through comics which he correctly points out that comic books were invented to appeal to the psyche of a 12 y/o boy, i.e., that‘s the target audience In the Golden and Silver Ages. It’s similar to the position that why are we spending trillions sending astronauts to the moon and Mars when so many people here on earth go hungry each day? Etc.
Zack Snyder arrived at a different conclusion about what superheroes mean. He sees them through the lens of Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey, and therefore by definition as Jungian archetypes. Archetypes reflect real things psychologically which even if inherently abstract in nature are embedded in the human psyche; and it behooves us to understand them better in order to achieve good psychological functioning. Hero archetypes are idealizations, and reality never lives up to ideals, which is something that we’re always reconciling. But at the end of the day the psych needs ideals to guide and motivate us, to give us something to aim towards. The fact that our psyche generates heroic archetypes is not a bad thing, it’s actually good overall. And it’s also truly fascinating that the mind does this. That it gives us these archetypes to meditate on. And it happens both individually and at the cultural level.
Anyway, that’s why he gives a kind of “cool factor“ to the heroes in Watchmen in his film (including—well, especially!—Rorschach), whereas in Moore’s run other than Doctor Manhattan (the only one with actual super powers) they‘re kind of pathetic in a way. A good example is Dan who in the comics is sort of flabby and out of shape. He looks a bit ridiculous in his costume. Especially his cold weather gear in Antarctica, lol. The Minute Men in particular all look silly in their superhero getups. Moore was saying that if superheroes were real, it would be nothing like the idealized fantasy of comics. Their superhero-ism would be as troubled and dysfunctional and sad as human beings actually are in real life. It’s a deeply pessimistic view of humanity, really. Rorschach is an exemplar of that idea. Most sober, rational, thoughtful people wouldn’t really want someone as disturbed as that running around as a vigilante irl. Even as an antihero.
It’s interesting that even in the comic run Moore, who is a self-identified anarchist, takes what is for him ideologically (in terms of his politics) a thoroughly reprehensible right wing ideologue character and nevertheless makes him the one that must at all costs tell the truth at the end of the day. He’s like Diogenes, and he makes no concessions or compromises about truth as he sees it. People say that Zack ”doesn’t get” Rorschach because he makes him cool. But I would submit that even Moore can’t avoid having him feel admirable in that respect.
