# Watchmen - S01E01 "It's Summer and We're Running Out Of Ice" 10/20/2019 *spoilers*



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Figured we needed a thread for this where we can discuss the actual episode without spoiler tags. Also, because this show treats the original graphic novel as canon, I think we need to be able to discuss that here without spoiler tags. So that's the rule for this thread. All discussion of Watchmen IP is fair game.

I never read the original graphic novel. I saw the 2009 Zach Snyder movie and was not impressed. But I really liked this episode and I really want to see where it's going. 

I took the advice of TV critic Tim Goodman and read the Wikipedia plot summary of the graphic novel so I had at least a little idea of some of the backstory. I'm not sure what the 1921 Tulsa Riot scene had to do with the modern-day stuff, but interested in finding out.

I'm also super curious about the squid storm. I know the ending of the graphic novel has to do with Adrian Veidt somehow creating a giant squid that attacked NYC in an effort to get the world's powers to stop the cold war and work together against this alleged alien threat. But my understanding is what he did was a giant hoax (even though it killed a lot of people). So why is it raining squid in Tulsa, OK 34 years later?

When the kid in the class was asking Regina King's character about redfordations, I thought that was just to show that he was uneducated and didn't know how to pronounce reparations. But listening to a couple podcasts, I realize that's the name given to the reparations enacted by President Robert Redford. I knew he was POTUS in this universe, but that adds a new twist.

So the world thinks Adrian Veidt is dead, but we see that he's alive. I wonder how that's going to play out.

Bummer that Don Johnson's character had to die in the first episode. But it was not a surprise at all. If they wanted it to be shocking, they shouldn't have telegraphed it so clearly.

Anyway, discuss...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

There's a good chance that the Tulsa Riots are the origin story for Lou Gossett Jr's character turning out to be Hooded Justice (who disappeared in the comic when the government enacted anti-mask laws). It certainly is implied from the silent movie, him teasing about lifting 200 lbs, and how closely the silent film matched the final scene. If not Hooded Justice then at least some sort of hood-shrouded, costumed person based on Bass Reeves. It also certainly sets the tone for the racial violence we see later.



Spoiler: Mildly spoilery IMDB cast info from episode 1



His character's name is listed as Will Reeves on IMDB, further lending credence to this idea, since he might have taken the Reeves name on after his escape.



My assumption is that the squid hoax is being kept alive through someone in the know, possibly Veidt, possibly through some government conspiracy.

I'm curious about how Judd had an Owlship. That should prove interesting.

The Redford thing was teased/spoiled a lot in the speculation for the show. It was revealed he would be the president but it is unclear if the actor will actually be in the show at all.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

IIRC, Redford announced his retirement from acting (not that that would prevent him coming out of retirement)


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I really like it. I hate the D. Johnson is already dead, though. Maybe he'll be back in some flashbacks. 

I wonder if Veidt is going to try to make another Dr. Manhattan with his play. And those 2 people taking care of Veidt seem off to me. What's with the horseshoe that guy tried to hand Veidt?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm also super curious about the squid storm. I know the ending of the graphic novel has to do with Adrian Veidt somehow creating a giant squid that attacked NYC in an effort to get the world's powers to stop the cold war and work together against this alleged alien threat. But my understanding is what he did was a giant hoax (even though it killed a lot of people). So why is it raining squid in Tulsa, OK 34 years later?


In the episode, somebody (was it on the radio? i forget) said something about "random transdimensional attacks" (I might be paraphrasing.) I'm guessing the raining squids was that.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Apparently HBO has setup a website with the backstory on what happened during the 34-year gap between the end of the comic and the beginning of the series.

Watchmen 'files' reveal what really happened after the comic


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So the world thinks Adrian Veidt is dead, but we see that he's alive. I wonder how that's going to play out.


This is technically a spoiler since the person in the episode is never named, not even in the credits. The only way to know who he is is to read blog posts or other outside the show info.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

morac said:


> This is technically a spoiler since the person in the episode is never named, not even in the credits. The only way to know who he is is to read blog posts or other outside the show info.


I thought that was Veidt, unless it's a clone or something. I didn't look at the credits but who else could it have been? And who are the odd maid and butler who keep calling him "master"?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

hairyblue said:


> I thought that was Veidt, unless it's a clone or something. I didn't look at the credits but who else could it have been? And who are the odd maid and butler who keep calling him "master"?





Spoiler



It's available info outside the show, it's Veidt and his companions are AI/androids/whatever they call them in this universe, but why we saw the headline of him being declared dead will need to be addressed in the show at some point


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I took the advice of TV critic Tim Goodman and read the Wikipedia plot summary of the graphic novel so I had at least a little idea of some of the backstory.


Thanks for this suggestion.. I need all the help I can get. I know I read the graphic novel years ago but don't remember much.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure what the 1921 Tulsa Riot scene had to do with the modern-day stuff, but interested in finding out. Anyway, discuss...


Wasn't the Lou Gosset Jr. character the little boy from the beginning grown up? It was a blink and you missed it moment (and I probably should have rewound to double check) but I'm pretty sure he that while sitting under the tree I saw him clutching the note the boy had at the beginning (something to the effect of "take care of this boy").


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

And how did Rorschach become a symbol for racism? All I know is from the movie and I didn't see that coming.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattyro7878 said:


> And how did Rorschach become a symbol for racism? All I know is from the movie and I didn't see that coming.


In the comic, he was a Reagan- and Thatcher-era hard-line conservative law-and-order type. He showed everything that was wrong with that philosophy. (More specifically, he showed everything that was wrong with Ayn Rand-style libertarianism; he was based on a character created by Rand fanboy Steve Ditko to celebrate those values.)

Of course, that zoomed Snyder pretty good. Snyder admired Rorschach.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Well, also he was all about black and white morals and nothing in-between. And using violence to enforce this. Plus his mask was literally white and black liquid that never mixed. It’s actually pretty brilliant and reasonable, IMO.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I like that observation that the parts of the mask never mixed. Pretty neat. Not the concept. The image.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> In the comic, he was a Reagan- and Thatcher-era hard-line conservative law-and-order type. He showed everything that was wrong with that philosophy.


I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but he didn't show that *anything* was wrong with that philosophy. He was a hero and opposed Veidt's deception---he felt that people deserved the truth.

I certainly don't recall anything about Rorschach that would imply that he endorsed racism...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but he didn't show that *anything* was wrong with that philosophy. He was a hero and opposed Veidt's deception---he felt that people deserved the truth.
> 
> I certainly don't recall anything about Rorschach that would imply that he endorsed racism...


Rorschach was not the hero of the story. No one was, really.

Rorschach read publications littered with racism in the comics. His journal and words didn't explicitly include racism -- just homophobic comments -- but the material he read otherwise aligned with his worldview so it is a reasonable inference.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but he didn't show that *anything* was wrong with that philosophy. He was a hero and opposed Veidt's deception---he felt that people deserved the truth.
> 
> I certainly don't recall anything about Rorschach that would imply that he endorsed racism...


He was also a brutal thug whose answer to anybody having different ideas was to beat the living $&#^ out of them...

It's not that he endorsed racism per se. It's that his kind of black and white, uncompromising, destroy-those-who-aren't-us philosophy is perfectly compatible with white supremacy.

Honestly, if you came out of Watchmen (the comic) thinking Rorschach was one of the good guys, I worry about you.  I think Moore was being very cleverly subversive, presenting a bad guy who took superhero ideology to its logical extreme, in a medium that is conditioned to see superheroes as the good guys.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Honestly, if you came out of Watchmen (the comic) thinking Rorschach was one of the good guys, I worry about you.  I think Moore was being very cleverly subversive, presenting a bad guy who took superhero ideology to its logical extreme, in a medium that is conditioned to see superheroes as the good guys.


Someone's got to take over the DC movie universe now that Snyder's out.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

As for the show, I thought it was fun world building (or at least revisiting). I want to see more. I wouldn’t mind a prequel series in this tone that replaced the Watchmen movie.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

It's been awhile since I've read Watchmen so while the 7K speech from the video sounded familiar, I didn't recognize it as an adaptation of the Rorschach journal entry from the beginning of the comic until I began re-reading the comic yesterday.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Never read the comic, but for $6 for the Kindle version (for my iPad), I decided to get it


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mattyro7878 said:


> And how did Rorschach become a symbol for racism? All I know is from the movie and I didn't see that coming.


As said before, I haven't actually read the graphic novel, but the stuff I've read and heard, Rorschach was very enmeshed in far-right ideologies, and he sent his expose of Veidt's culpability in the squid attack to one of those right-wing publications, so it makes sense that those who idolize him are the ones who subscribe to those philosophies.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

Jackie Earl Haley was a perfect cast for Rorschach. I think this was one of his best performance. 

But he sees the world as black and white. And the world is not black and white.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

I thought the blood drop on the badge was a nice touch, recalling the blood drop on the Comedian's smiley face button from the comic and the movie.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I enjoyed the movie. It was my first Watchmen encounter so no opinions on its faithfulness to the comic.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Now I want to see the Movie again.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Watch the motion comic instead. (12 episodes, each about 30 min condensed versions of the comic) It was distributed for free back in 2009, its on YT.

Watchmen The Complete Motion Comic DVD Review - IGN

I like the Synder movie, and I'm not a purist. I just feel the Motion Comic is better primer for the series overall if you can't (or don't want to) read Watchmen again.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Thanks, but i like the way I can read it in "Panel View" in Kindle on my iPad. Also, I haven't read a comic book in a very long time, so I'm enjoying the experience.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> Thanks, but i like the way I can read it in "Panel View" in Kindle on my iPad. Also, I haven't read a comic book in a very long time, so I'm enjoying the experience.


I recently bought the Rick and Morty D&D comic. I read it with the Kindle app and liked the Panel View reading too.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

hairyblue said:


> I recently bought the Rick and Morty D&D comic. I read it with the Kindle app and liked the Panel View reading too.


I'm mixed about panel viewing. It can be really good but I've seen mixed implementations of it for accuracy, etc. also, it takes something away from comics that use the panels in an artistic way on the page. You lose the feel that was intended. I read a lot of comics on my iPad and I don't usually use it. My iPad Pro is almost exactly the size of a comic so it works well as a page.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I'm mixed about panel viewing. It can be really good but I've seen mixed implementations of it for accuracy, etc. also,* it takes something away from comics that use the panels in an artistic way on the page. You lose the feel that was intended.* I read a lot of comics on my iPad and I don't usually use it. My iPad Pro is almost exactly the size of a comic so it works well as a page.


And Watchmen is very much such a comic!


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And Watchmen is very much such a comic!


I totally missed the linkage in issue 5 even after my re-read.

Watchmen's Fearful Symmetry: (almost) frame by frame


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

TonyD79 said:


> I'm mixed about panel viewing. It can be really good but I've seen mixed implementations of it for accuracy, etc. also, it takes something away from comics that use the panels in an artistic way on the page. You lose the feel that was intended. I read a lot of comics on my iPad and I don't usually use it. My iPad Pro is almost exactly the size of a comic so it works well as a page.


I have an iPad mini, so Panel View is a must.
I see the point of seeing the full page, so when I reach the last panel on a page (indicated by page number) I can switch to full on the next panel to see the layout and then switch back.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> I have an iPad mini, so Panel View is a must.
> I see the point of seeing the full page, so when I reach the last panel on a page (indicated by page number) I can switch to full on the next panel to see the layout and then switch back.


Some viewers show the full page before they show the panels on each page.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

hairyblue said:


> I thought that was Veidt, unless it's a clone or something. I didn't look at the credits but who else could it have been? And who are the odd maid and butler who keep calling him "master"?


I just finished re-reading the comic and I had forgotten many details of the ending. Otherwise, I would have feared for the fate of the maid and butler when Veidt served them their drinks!


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

Thanking them and poisoning them. Yeah, when you poison people, it makes it hard to serve food and drinks to others without that always going through ones mind.

New episode tonight!

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Decent recap inside look.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> Decent recap inside look.


That was very helpful, thank you.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but he didn't show that *anything* was wrong with that philosophy. He was a hero and opposed Veidt's deception---he felt that people deserved the truth.


Yes, he did.
Even if the world was destroyed because of it, he wanted to tell the people the truth.
No shades of gray with him.



Amnesia said:


> I certainly don't recall anything about Rorschach that would imply that he endorsed racism...


He wasn't a member of the KKK or anything like that but I got the sense that he didn't have a particularly positive view of minorities.

I remember in the comic, that when Captain Metropolis was trying to form "The Crimebusters", one of the problems written on the chalkboard was something like "***** unrest".
I assume that was Nelson's opinion but I can see Rorschach agreeing with the sentiment.

My initial reaction was to take a pass on this show.

Right now, the only reasons I'm watching the show are because Damon Lindelof is the showrunner and I saw some glowing reviews.

And it's interesting.
I keyed into the fact that the servants were androids when they did the horseshoe bit.
I also want to know how did Judd get a version of Nite Owl's ship Archie.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

logic88 said:


> I just finished re-reading the comic and I had forgotten many details of the ending. Otherwise, I would have feared for the fate of the maid and butler when Veidt served them their drinks!


Can you elaborate on what you mean (in spoiler tags if needed)? It's been just long enough that I don't recall what you mean from the comic.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Can you elaborate on what you mean (in spoiler tags if needed)? It's been just long enough that I don't recall what you mean from the comic.





Spoiler



In issue 11, Veidt told his three helpers that their work was finished and he had something to celebrate. When they gathered in the bio-dome, Veidt served them drinks and began his back story. As he was telling the story, the men sat stone-faced and didn't respond. Once Veidt finished his story, it turns out that he had poisoned all three men and then as he left, he opened up the bio-dome to the arctic elements.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

logic88 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> In issue 11, Veidt told his three helpers that their work was finished and he had something to celebrate. When they gathered in the bio-dome, Veidt served them drinks and began his back story. As he was telling the story, the men sat stone-faced and didn't respond. Once Veidt finished his story, it turns out that he had poisoned all three men and then as he left, he opened up the bio-dome to the arctic elements.





Spoiler: related speculation



The more I watch the Veidt scenes, the more I'm convinced he's trapped in a world Dr. Manhattan made. Those aren't his clones, they're life that Jon Osterman created. And the food that's unpalatable (anniversary cake and tree-grown tomatoes) could come from a being divorced of human perceptions like taste.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> Spoiler: related speculation
> 
> 
> 
> The more I watch the Veidt scenes, the more I'm convinced he's trapped in a world Dr. Manhattan made. Those aren't his clones, they're life that Jon Osterman created. And the food that's unpalatable (anniversary cake and tree-grown tomatoes) could come from a being divorced of human perceptions like taste.


Not sure if that needs spoiler tags since it's speculation unrelated to the comic material he quoted, but I'll continue with it.



Spoiler



So, like Watson's early recipes? If this theory is true, then it may be Westworld-esque since we have seen Manhattan destroy his creations in the show already.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

JYoung said:


> I remember in the comic, that when Captain Metropolis was trying to form "The Crimebusters", one of the problems written on the chalkboard was something like "***** unrest".


I'm reading the comic now (first time). Up to that part. Chap IX, pg 14, "Black Unrest"


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

I've watched up to Chapter 3 of the motion comic. It seems like very little has happened in each chapter. I assume this picks up?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

it's Slow burn. I didn't perk up until the Rorshach issue (#6 "The Abyss Gazes Also")

But Readers Digest rules. You're getting the main bullets, not all the subtext Alan Moore is famous for.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Tony_T said:


> I'm reading the comic now (first time). Up to that part. Chap IX, pg 14, "Black Unrest"


Interesting that the dates of the comic in the later chapters , (i.e. October 31, November 2) is coinciding almost directly to when I'm reading it now.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

TAsunder said:


> The Redford thing was teased/spoiled a lot in the speculation for the show...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> View attachment 44206


That's from the original 1985 graphic novel, right? Given that in the Watchmen universe, Nixon was still president in 85, I wonder if the guys who wrote this intended for that RR to mean Ronald Reagan. And then when Lindelof adapted it, he just decided to use that clue to mean something totally different, yet similar (actor in the WH).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I don't know, that picture looks a lot more like Redford c. 1985 than Reagan...


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> Nixon was still president in 85, I wonder if the guys who wrote this intended for that RR to mean Ronald Reagan.


Reagan wouldn't have ascended in the Watchmen universe. I think it was always meant to be Robert Redford.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

dianebrat said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It's available info outside the show, it's Veidt and his companions are AI/androids/whatever they call them in this universe, *but why we saw the headline of him being declared dead* will need to be addressed in the show at some point





Spoiler



Headline said " Veidt Officially Declared Dead", so dead per statute of limitations, no body found"


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's from the original 1985 graphic novel, right? Given that in the Watchmen universe, Nixon was still president in 85, I wonder if the guys who wrote this intended for that RR to mean Ronald Reagan. And then when Lindelof adapted it, he just decided to use that clue to mean something totally different, yet similar (actor in the WH).


Yes, the 2019 Kindle edition, so not sure if edited, but a few pages later...


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's from the original 1985 graphic novel, right? Given that in the Watchmen universe, Nixon was still president in 85, I wonder if the guys who wrote this intended for that RR to mean Ronald Reagan. And then when Lindelof adapted it, he just decided to use that clue to mean something totally different, yet similar (actor in the WH).












From Absolute Watchmen (2005 Edition).

Edit: Tony_T beats me by a minute!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

...and looks like it's he's retiring...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I just finished the comic and I’m re-watching episode one and I’m seeing a lot of easter eggs (just noticed a poster for National Bank with “Dollar Bill”)


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

So Veidt is writing a play (a tragedy, in five acts) called “The Watchmaker Son” (Dr Manhattan) and has leading parts for his maid in his butler (who just made a Pocket watch for Veidt’s anniversary from his drawings). Hmmmmm....


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Saturn_V said:


> Reagan wouldn't have ascended in the Watchmen universe. I think it was always meant to be Robert Redford.


I just watched the movie, and


Spoiler



the movie changed it to Reagan


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

And replacing Redford (D) with Reagan (R) in the movie makes no sense- especially since term limits were repealed in the Watchmen universe. It assumes that either 
a.) Nixon would not run again in 88' or 
b.) Reagan would challenge a sitting president from the *same* party, running to Nixon's right. 

According to Peteypedia, we do know that the Republicans held the executive branch for 24 years, 1969-1992. What's not known for certain is whether Nixon was president that whole time, but I'm betting he was.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> And replacing Redford (D) with Reagan (R) in the movie makes no sense- especially since term limits were repealed in the Watchmen universe. It assumes that either
> a.) Nixon would not run again in 88' or
> b.) Reagan would challenge a sitting president from the *same* party, running to Nixon's right.
> 
> According to Peteypedia, we do know that the Republicans held the executive branch for 24 years, 1969-1992. What's not known for certain is whether Nixon was president that whole time, but I'm betting he was.


I thought we knew that Nixon wasn't running for re-election in 88, but maybe I'm misremembering something I heard since I haven't read the book myself.


----------

