Rob245

16th Jul 2020

Watchmen (2009)

Question: If Rorschach's considered nuts then why kill him? Why kill the Comedian? Why wasn't he heavily guarded in prison once caught? Why not arrest Veidt?

Rob245

Answer: The Comedian discovered what Veidt was planning to do, so Veidt killed him to silence him. Rorschach isn't causing problems for the prison once he's in there. Every violent thing he does is in self-defense. There's no reason for him to be heavily guarded. He's killed because they can't risk anyone exposing what Veidt did and ruining the world peace that was achieved. Veidt is not arrested for the same reason.

Phaneron

17th Mar 2020

Watchmen (2009)

Question: Did this movie have some sort of point? That genocide of several million to prevent war was a good idea? That and how did they avoid being sued considering Batman's got an Owl Man, a Spider Woman was in existence before this spider super heroine and the white masked guy seems to be a take on The Question.

Rob245

Answer: Why would they be sued? DC own both the DC comics properties and the Watchmen characters.

Answer: You forgot where DC ended up owning Captain Marvel claiming he was a Super Man ripoff and how Marvel sued the name away from the character.

Rob245

Answer: There is no "spider super heroine" in this movie. Silk Spectre has no superpowers, so I'm not sure where you're getting the connection to Spider-Woman from. Watchmen is a DC property, as are Batman and The Question, who was acquired by DC several years before the Watchmen graphic novel was published, so there would be no plagiarism lawsuits in response. The point of the movie, much like the graphic novel it is based on, is to illustrate the dangers of nuclear tension and war, and how regular people pay the price of the actions of contentious governments.

Phaneron

And to show that someone who is supposedly super-smart is also usually super-insane.

lionhead

Answer: I mean as in Bob Kane suing since Owl Man's sort of like Batman.

Rob245

Bob Kane undoubtedly received royalties for creating Batman, but the character is owned by DC. It's not as if he had the right to start his own comic book company and take Batman away from DC, so even if he felt slighted by Nite Owl II having some similarities to Batman, he would have no legal grounds to sue for it. Furthermore, characters would have to be blatant ripoffs in many ways in order for comic book companies to be able to sue over. Marvel and DC have many characters that are similar in powers, appearance, etc, but those similarities are usually so superficial that they can be dismissed as homages or parodies and it would prove difficult for one company to sue the other over it. A really good example would be Deadpool who was practically created as a parody of Deathstroke. The only case I can think of where a lawsuit had enough merit to go to court was Marvel suing Awesome Entertainment for redesigning Fighting American into a shameless ripoff Captain America.

Phaneron

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.