It’s the same story with tons of films: Taxi Driver, Joker, The Boys, Watchmen. They get universal praise from the left and right.
The Left: “This insightful satire shows the protagonist’s slow descent from obsession and inceldom into terrorism and psychopathy. It serves as a stark reminder of how these thought patterns are the beginnings of a societal tragedy.”
The Right: “I fucking love this guy. He just shoots the people he doesn’t like. Based. Highly recommended.”
To anyone who thinks this may be exaggerated, it’s not.
My former friend got swept up into the right-wing pipeline hard these last handful of years.
Right-wing often folks like these characters because they unabashedly hurt people they think justify being hurt. Just like they would like to be able to do.
Once my friend started ranting about how he thinks the US is “overdue for another genocide” then staunchly defended himself over it, I told him to never fucking come back.
You forgot Punisher. My first thought was “here we go, it’s Punisher all over again”.
Leftist ideals are good. Right wing methodology gets them enforced.
Honestly? Because he’s a good character. No one takes his morality to heart that wasn’t already deeply damaged, but a character who builds their psyche and motivations around trauma and idiosyncrasies creates a fascinating piece of a story, nonetheless. Similarly, Breaking Bad is never viewed as a tutorial on losing your morality by a thousand cuts, people view it as the chronicle of an intelligent character intentionally blinding themselves to the damage they cause and reacting in a relatable way. The fall from grace and subsequent dwelling in hell is a beautiful story arc and there’s a reason it’s employed so frequently.
Except /pol/. They’re into him for other reasons.
I remember coming across a post of tumblr where someone said that if a guy says his favorite movie/tv show is Breaking Bad, Rick and Morty or Fight Club, you should run immediately.
The reason was that while these are good works exploring complex, broken and often violent men, a certain subset (the kind of people who would claim that one of those was their favorite of all time) doesn’t have the reasoning ability to understand that they’re the villains of their universe and should not be idolized.
Rorschach easily fits within the same mold as Tyler Durden, Rick Sanchez and Walter White, a complex and entertaining protagonist who’s also a terrible person who no one should want to be.
That is a garbage reason to run immediately.
Tumblrtards are kind of infamous for magical thinking, often bordering on or just outright being delusional, being unimaginably pretentious, incredibly emotionally unstable, and absolutely loving to glom onto bandwagons of virtue signalling one-upsmanship as well as hate brigading ideas they dont understand and people that they dont like.
They often jump to conclusions ludicrously.
Here is what I mean. If a person’s favorite movie /is/ Fight Club, all you have to do is then ask them ‘why?’.
If you tell me your favorite movie is American Psycho, and the reason why is that you think its a gripping, iconic film criticizing the superficiality and violence of the chauvanistic capitalism of the late 80s…
…that is a lot different than if your reason is that Bateman is just so cool and crazy!
See the context of this ‘advice’ is ostensibly whether or not you should be a friend or partner of someone.
If you are deciding who to have in your circle by whether or not they like one of three objectively popular and excellent films, which are misunderstood by some, but not others…
…then you are actually being very shallow, and impersonal.
Superficial, even.
Right like with Rick and Morty I can tell you I loved the show for the first few seasons…
…but then its quality went down, culminating in the show eventually entirely abandoning one of its main foundational truisms:
Life is brutal, unpredictable and unfair.
The latest seasons of the show abandoned the total /randomness/ factor that defined the earliest episodes, and replaced it with much more standard… and structured plots.
The fanbase clamored over fan theories and details, anything to make there be a grand overarching plot, continuity, and eventually they got it.
But to me that is the show betraying itself. There isnt supposed to be continuity. It is supposed to be unpredictable. Most fans of the show entirely missed the point, and thus cringe ensued.
Now say what you will about my interpretation of the show here…
… but its a little more nuanced than uh, Rick is zany Pickle man.
And I dont think my interpretation indicates I am some kind of maladjusted chauvanist fascist.
Look, I love Fight Club. Fight Club is a big step in my process towards becoming less of an asshole. Worked as intended, 10/10, would reconsider my perception of the world again.
But even I can see how, particularly for a time in the 00s and sometimes beyond the examination of toxic masculinity became the iconification of toxic masculinity. It’s not “if they say it’s their favorite film, run”, it’s “man, on the aggegate all of those did the opposite of what they were ostensibly trying to do”.
Never, ever, ever underestimate the ability of the public to miss the point. Any interpretation of media, no matter how obvious and intented, will trigger “you’re just reading too much into it” or “leave your politics out of my movie” comments.
Also, I have terrible news about what your interpretation indicates, because yikes. It’s not that what you’re describing is inaccurate, it’s that “it was cool when it was hardcore, uncut nihilism justifying why the main character is right to be an asshole, and then it sold out” is not looking great for that armchair psychoanalysis you’re inviting.
If your take away from my description of Rick and Morty is that Rick is justified in being a horrible asshole and that he is an good character who in general should be emulated, then uh yikes, you are reading that into what I wrote.
At no point did I state or even insinuate that Rick is some kind of ‘good’ character or role model.
For the record: its at least obvious to me that basically all the characters in Rick and Morty are so flawed that they often do extremely horrible things. Rick in particular is yes a nihlistic asshole, who is at least well enough developed that you can sympathize with him at times, but uh no he is obviously not some kind of role model.
I said the show in general was about brutal unpredictability.
Anyway, you managed to completely miss the point of what I said, and basically just bemoan that Fight Club got adopted by idiot chuds with a misinterpretation that justifies their worldview.
The person I am responding to gave a supposed quote from Tumblr saying ‘run if people have one of these movies as their favorite’ and my point was ‘thats reductive and superficial and impersonal, why not just ask them /why/ its their favorite movie?’
Then you come in and say that actually, what other fandoms did to the movies is so bad that it means the supposed Tumblr overgeneralization is in fact correct…
… which simply ignores my point that if you are trying to judge a person based on a favorite movie, you could actually be personable and ask them why.
The whole point I am making is that you shouldnt judge a book by its cover, and that there are legitimate reasons to have Fight Club as a favorite movie that do not mean a person is a chud, if only you would have a genuine conversation with another person to learn more about them.
But here you are, putting words in my mouth and shaming me for them on the one hand, and then just totally talking around my main point on the other hand.
You know, like a stereotypical Tumblrina.
It’s tumblr. They use hyperbole. They’re not literally saying you should run a mile, just that it’s a potential red flag and worth using appropriate caution before declaring that you’ve made a new best friend, e.g. by asking what the person likes about the piece of media, just as you suggested. Some tumblr users will inevitably end up taking the post at face value, just as you did, but they’re a tiny minority and not worth fussing about. Most will be frequent tumblr users who know half the posts they see are ludicrous exaggerations of the points they’re actually making, and to scale anything back before taking it as life advice.
Ah, so tumblr is full of hyperbolic comments, thus whatever you personally take away is the correct interpretation, and most users just know not to take much seriously, because most of what is posted there doesnt actually mean anything.
Sounds like a wonderful place full of stable people and very insightful discussion.
Nothing more intellectually engaging than ‘actually this thing i said doesnt mean what it literally means, and instead means a watered down version of it, i was just being dramatic to get attention, and you are actually foolish for taking anything i say seriously.’
Cool, still doesnt invalidate my criticism of the actual words that were said, but that doesnt matter to TumblrBrains, because its really all about building a community based on shaming outsiders for taking anything said on Tumblr seriously.
Very edgy!
I’m curious where you read the part “justifying the main character to be an asshole”?
Well, from the text. Of the show, not the post. I mean from the show.
Arguably the whole ethos of early Rick and Morty is the infamous “nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody’s gonna die, come watch TV” speech. If you’re here to tell me that’s your jam and you think when it strayed into having a moral stance on being an asshole is when it started going downhill I’m gonna infer some stuff.
I may not be right, but I’m gonna infer it.
You’re assuming that because the main character of the show has that moral stance, that the show is promoting it?
That’s exactly what isn’t happening and what this whole discussion is about.
The show goes to great lengths to actually show how miserable Rick’s life is precisely because of that!
Nope, I specifically am not.
That speech is not given by Rick. It’s given by Morty. If you’re gonna do the textual analysis thing, that’s a key difference. The show acknowledges Rick is messed up, but Morty is supposedly the normie trying to get by and he uses that particular turn of phrase to comfort Summer, who at that point is coping with the fact her family is dead and replaced by transdimensional dopplegangers. Randomly, as the OP says.
So it’s not Rick’s stance, it’s the stance of the show telling us that, at the very least, letting go of reasons and meaning and purpose and indulging on the commonplace while suspending knowledge that the universe is fundamentally pointless helps in coping. That’s the show talking, not the character.
Alright, that’s way too much Rick and Morty analysis for now. If you get it you get it. I don’t need to convince anyone. Because, you know, nobody exists on purpose, and so on and so forth.
The show had a moral stance on being an asshole the whole time. I’ve got to be honest, did you actually read the other user’s comment or just skim it?
Did you read mine, or “just skim it”?
So here you just completely admit to doing the very thing I advocated against.
You are not responding to what I said, you are responding to me based on a thing I said I liked, soley based on associations of that thing I like, without actually asking me /why?/
Then you also assumed I believe things, or have opinions or whatever that I do not actually have.
I did not expect an actual example of Tumblr hivemindism to actually manifest when I criticized it.
Remarkable.
Ah, yes (raises glasses) (strikes anime pose)… remarkable.
You have to consider, if only for a moment, that people are going off of context cues here, friend.
Hey, context cues can be deceptive. The Internet is prone to generalizations, and nobody has time to be selective, so a ton of babies go waaaay out of here with a deluge of bathwater. But at the very least seeing people react to what one does online provides… a sense of branding feedback?
People love to make sweeping declarations in social media. It’s all mostly crap, but it’s worth interrogating what one is projecting to make that cut sometimes. And I say this as somebody who gets branded a “reply guy” all the time. Often rightfully so.
But even I can see how, particularly for a time in the 00s and sometimes beyond the examination of toxic masculinity became the iconification of toxic masculinity. It’s not “if they say it’s their favorite film, run”, it’s “man, on the aggegate all of those did the opposite of what they were ostensibly trying to do”.
Never, ever, ever underestimate the ability of the public to miss the point. Any interpretation of media, no matter how obvious and intented, will trigger “you’re just reading too much into it” or “leave your politics out of my movie” comments.
I guess I don’t see why mass misinterpretation needs to be the final word on a film’s cultural impact (and/or moral value). Times change, people change, and ideas change, but the movie and the message of its creators is still there.
Sure, it’s not like it was an intended result, but it’s still a valid critique of the period and the movement. It doesn’t have to be the “final word”, but it’s definitely A word. Some of the cultural impact was absolutely the opposite of what it intended, that’s a fair observation. I think Palahniuk, particularly after he came out, has addressed that pretty head-on (see below), but also with much less social repercusion.
I also don’t think it’s a moral assessment of the film or the book or their authors, though. It’s a read on the audience, for sure. I think it’s valid to point out that if one is unironically on board with good ole Tyler Durden that’s… you know, a pretty big red flag right there? Not for the movie, but for the individual audience member.
Yikes to your last paragraph which says “I only like media that doesnt hurt my feefees or make me think”.
…
Does it?I think I would remember typing “feefees”.
I swear to Crom, online edgelords have been having an argument with an entirely imagined adversary for decades now, and I’m old enough to remember being one of them and getting over it. Frankly, the retroactive shame hurts my feefees so, so much more than any piece of media I’ve ever watched, played, read or listened to.
But also, having grown up as a kid in the media wild west of the 80s the idea of “only liking safe art” is absolutely hilarious.
But what if I answer that I liked American Psycho, not because it’s incredibly deep view masculinity of the 80’s and all that philosophical stuff, but because it’s funny.
American Psycho is my favorite comedy movie
I mean half of the funny parts are only funny because they’re making fun of the 80s hyperconsumerist mindset, so…
I would think “hey you get satire!”
Honestly I would say that that is a legit, if non nuanced take. The movie is absolutely hilarious if you have a dark sense of humor, so all I would really conclude about you personally is that you have a dark sense of humor.
I might be able to infer that you are not super into politics and social theory or whatever, but, you know, I would have to get to know you better to really know that one way or another.
Tumblrtards are kind of infamous for magical thinking
As an occultist, I can confirm that there isn’t a lot of thinking or magic to be found on Tumblr.
And yet you ran into the point directly.
This isn’t magical thinking, as you said it yourself, either you like American psycho because of 0 media literacy (in which case we all agree you’re undesirable to date for a Tumblr user)
Or you like American psycho because of the reasons you cited, which mind you aren’t bad reasons to like it, but it makes you a film bro. To consider it amond your top movies means all you care about in media is how it made you think about society, and honestly if the most you’ve though about society was when watching American psycho then I can see why someone wouldn’t want to date you.
The Tumblr rule of thumb isn’t entirely about not dating bigots (though bigots do tend to be weeded out by this check which was kind of the point), it’s also about avoiding dating asshats in general. What does it say about you that you like Rick and Morty because you agree that life is brutal, unpredictable and unfair? What does it say in the context of someone debating whether they should date you?
Look at all the assumptions you’ve made about a person over their opinions on two pieces of media. That is exactly the behaviour that was called out and you walked right into it.
No, I’ll stand by it. If your favorite movie is American psycho, either you have 0 media literacy, or you’re an asshat.
“Oh but people are complex and it is my right to like American psycho” yeah, sure. But if it’s your favorite movie then I wouldn’t take the chances of dating you. That’s what it means.
Out of curiosity, what are some favorite movies that would, to you, be strong signs that you would be very interested in dating a person who told you it was their favorite movie, with no knowledge of why it is their favorite movie?
Ok so you have said that:
If I have an interpretation of American Psycho that is that it is a critique of society… than this means I am only capable of criticizing society when watching a movie.
Well for one, no, that is not personally true of me, and most importantly, that is not even kind of logically valid to assume or infer.
If I read a book and have opinions about it, does that mean I do or do not have similar opinions of similar real world situations,? Does it mean I do or do not incorporate those opinions into other parts of my personality, or job, or activism or lack thereof?
No. Obviously no. To make that leap would be a vast overgeneralization.
Sure, some people have opinions about art and media, but it doesnt affect their actual lives and actions much. Other people have strong convictions that drive much of their lives, and have consistent views on art and media to go with them. Still others may have an obviously hypocritical view of a real world situation, or not even realize the similarity of a real world situation due to ideological blinders. And others are every other possible kind of something else.
You end with literally begging the question, the answer to which was my whole original point:
Dont use overgeneralizations and assumptions to assume you know what a person thinks, when you could just actually ask them what they think.
Who the fully fuck do you actually believe like American Psycho because they like to murder? Is this the topic on hand here? You shouldn’t date criminally ill murderers and that they like movies about murdering? Because I don’t even think murderers do that
What does it say about me that my favorite movie is, and I apologize in advance because I’m speaking genuinely, The Game?
It says about you that you are a wonderful dude who is handsome and likely has a huge penis.
Also, unrelated, I too love that film as my favorite.
Damn its been a while since I’ve seen that.
Yep, for normal folks good characters don’t have to be good people.
I don’t like him. I never understood why he has my parents fighting on his mask wth?!
I just want you to know I went to my partner in the other room to tell them about this comment. well played.
And I told mine about your comment
Me too! But as a large language model, they are unable to provide counseling services and gave me a number I can call.
The circle is complete
The internet is a place where nuance goes to die and everyone talks out of their ass. Watchmen was all about nuance. Here’s why I think this post is full of shit:
Rorschach was an extremely flawed individual. However that title could basically be applied to every single hero except Nite Owl I. A huge portion of Watchmen revolves around that while none of the characters are necessarily admirable they all have some redeeming qualities.
Calling Rorschach an "incel man child " is an idiotic oversimplification of his character. He didn’t decide he hated women after watching too many Andrew Tate videos; Rorschach went though an extreme amount of childhood trauma. We see how horrifying the situation was via flashbacks. Even after all of that, he manages to rise above it all and become a genuine hero. He only went full psycho after being exposed to the most vile shit Moore could get printed. There’s even a whole subplot which more or less mocks attempts to be an armchair psychiatrist and dismiss him outright.
Rorschach’s philosophy also doesn’t exist in a vacuum. A huge part of his role is an ideological counterpoint to Ozymandius, who is the ultimate “ends justify the means” type of person. The entire last act makes you appreciate Rorschach’s philosophy a lot more. The ending of the book presents a “Lady or the Tiger?” situation where you’re not really sure which of the two was more right.
Finally, he has a decent number of badass moments. The whole “you’re locked in with me” is straight up cool. It is on some level meant to be such. It’s hard not to look at him and be on some level impressed.
Rorschach isn’t someone you’re supposed to idealize. However you’re not supposed to just dismiss him either.
For whatever reason Internet Media Discourse™ can’t include the possibility that a character is meant to be sympathetic to some extent but ultimately wrong. They’re either perfect and did nothing wrong or an irredeemable monster, no in between.
I honestly wonder how many people have actually read Watchmen. I feel like the discourse around a lot of this stuff is driven by people who have read the cliff notes or are just blindly upvoting shit.
It’s mainly the movie.
In the movie he’s pretty much the only one of them all that actually holds on to his morals. He goes the whole movie practicing what he preaches while everyone else is shown to do the opposite.
The comedian was just an abusive power hungry drunk.
Ozymandius was willing to kill millions for “the greater good”
Dr Manhattan was too removed from his own humanity to care about anything anymore
Night owl and the purple girl I can’t remember gave it all up entirely and then they fuck meanwhile she was still in a relationship with Dr Manhattan.
Rorschach was the only one in the movie that actually held to his morality the whole movie. Especially with the scene of him unmasked as a begger on the street and that’s how he learned about the goings on in the city. He actively lived a life of poverty to help him be a better hero.
Absolutely right, although I would say Nite Owl is also flawed, at least the second one. He was only a hero because he a) worshipped the first Nite Owl and b) he felt like a loser and couldn’t get it up when not in costume, basically turning his vigilante life into a sort of fetish.
Yeah I was talking about the first Nite Owl. I think the second one is called Night Owl.
The first one is honestly just a chill dude.
Because most people haven’t actually read Alan Moore’s Rorschach, they’ve seen Zac Snyder’s Rorschach. These are not the same character
If I remember correctly, there was talk about how closely the movie followed the graphic novel when it was being made and im sure that didnt help people want to to check out the source material.
I think most people aren’t interested in both mediums. Especially at the time most people only really experience fiction from some sort of film/television
The movie was very much an abridged version of the novels. Meaning all the nuances and hints that were disseminated throughout the pages or in the backgrounds had to be set aside until we are left with the movie version. A very “Loyal Stupid Paladin” character, which really isn’t a misrepresentation; it is the same character. Just, you are not given quite enough in the movie to see where he’s actually coming from.
Because the world that he lives in, despite all of the machinations and ulterior motives of characters and “lesser of 2 evils” scenarios, is actually still incredibly black and white. It’s OUR world that has nuance. We like Rorschach because he’s principled and we wish we could treat our problems the way that Rorschach deals with his problems: kicking the door in and punching them. In Watchmen, everyone gaslights Rorschach to believe that he’s a crazy psycho who isn’t onto a huge conspiracy. Characters in Watchmen are very much good or evil but possessing complex motivations.
Make an asshole character charismatic and you’ll have people taking their side or at least liking them unless the story spares no effort to make it resoundingly clear that they’re not justified in their positions or actions. Similarly, take a character who’s cringe in their mannerisms and expressions and you can paint them as the antichrist, and far fewer readers/viewers/players will critically examine if your framing is appropriate for what the character actually does.
This is because humans are wired to associate good aesthetics (in looks, speech, symbology) with moral correctness, and that sips down into how people relate to media. It takes a bit of effort to reason your way out of blind accepting what your instinct is telling you about someone, which is why you can find so much people willing to say “I love people from [backwater shithole], they smiled so much to me when I visited” despite [backwater shithole] being racist as hell, having just outlawed abortion and being perfectly fine with rampant bullying in their schools, and a lot of people just don’t put in that effort.
I liked Rorschach when I was a dumb teen by the way. The good news is that, even if humans are inherently flawed, we have tools to overcome those flaws.
I just like him because he’s a wildcard that fucks shit up. His unhinged philosophy just makes it funnier.
Rorschach is a satire of Batman and Batman-like characters.
Anon gets it, but doesn’t make the leap to wondering if other people don’t.
Unless they’re also against people enjoying characters who do awful things for terrible reasons. In which case: how do you not write off Watchmen, altogether? My guy: that’s the whole point. Moore wanted to take a Charlton Comics proto-Justice League and utterly destroy them with a rigidly-paneled masterwork essentially titled Superheroes Are Bad, Actually. DC said he had to make up his own guys. So he did, and held absolutely nothing back. Everyone is terrible. Some subtly… some super duper not. And it’s fucking awesome.
No less than David Bowie has highlighted the appeal. “Take a look at the lawman, beating up the wrong guy - oh man, wonder if he’ll ever know, he’s in the bestselling show?”
Because resentment has moral weight, and people feel that intuitively. It’s very taboo owing to being in conflict with more popular moral paradigms, so most of the time with resentment based moral thinking people pretend that’s not what they’re really about. But that means it is especially novel and satisfying when a character comes right out and says it, even if that character is supposed to be wrong or the bad guy.
Because he GETS SHIT DONE.
Since when is he a hypocrite, terrible detective, or manchild? Or even a psychopath? There are a lot of things wrong with him, but not those particular things IMO. But maybe it’s been too long since I read Watchmen and I’m forgetting something?
He doesn’t try to prevent crime, he simply delights in the sadistic act of beating up criminals, which is ironically a crime.
He instantly judges people based on which side of the law they stand on, but when he is declared a criminal himself, he doesn’t even attempt to reflect on it. He just keeps punching.
When his own friend is revealed to be a rapist, murderer and war criminal(?), he has no interest [“I’m not concerned with speculating on the moral lapses of men who died in their country’s service”], because he doesn’t actually care about crime, he just uses ‘fighting crime’ as an excuse for his real passion, beating up those he considers undesirables.
He’s a hypocrite (and a fascist).
If I remember correctly he was a pretty good detective in the sense that he figured shit out as fast as literal supernatural humans
He figured out Ozymandias was going to do something terrible. He beat the smartest man in the world. He is a terrible “hero” for a variety of reasons but that isn’t one of them.
Aye, arguably he’s the only one of the heroes who sticks by a moral code, albeit a brutal one. Even at the very end, knowing it would kill him, he sticks to it, and dies for it.
I’m surprised no one has yet mentioned that it’s because he’s the polar opposite of Ozymandias, and Ozy was the villian(?).
Ozy is the epitome of “the ends justify the means.” He’s logical, calculating, and willing to murder countless innocents if it means bringing about a better world.
Rorschach is a moral absolutist. No end ever justifies evil actions; he does have a harsh sense of justice - there’s no “reforming” in his playbook. If you’ve sinned, you get punished, and for him they’re biblically just punishments. Sinners get fire, brimstone, pain, and hell.
Ozy could be reasoned with, if anyone had been as smart and capable; Rorschach could not. These two characters were the bookends of the morality scale in the comics.
I think Rorschach is the most relateable character, at least for men. He represents our inner edgelord. He’s the only Everyman character: like us, he has no abilities, training, or gadgets. He’s unwaveringly convinced of his rightness; his conviction is his only superpower. He’s a little like Orson Scott Card’s Ender: when he acts, it’s with complete commitment to the destruction of his opponent; he doesn’t hold back, and that lets him win (most of the time).
I wonder how populer Rorschach is with women readers; I suspect his fanbase consists mostly of men, because Rorschach is testosterone: rage, violence, righteous anger. There’s no negotiation, no rational debate, no weighing costs… just action and reponses to the immediate.
deleted by creator
Lol, I love Rorschach, easily the best character IMO.
