Watchmen: Nuclear Holocaust Ain't What It Used to Be

By Melissa Lafsky | March 9, 2009 5:18 pm

Watchmen ApocalypseBy now, every sci-fi devotee and his grandmother has sounded off on Watchmen, Zack Snyder’s big-budget big-hoopla film version of the eponymous graphic novel. Love it or hate it (and most fans seemed to do one or the other) we can all admit that the movie remained faithful to the book, minus a few scenes and the absence of [spoiler alert] one giant alien squid.

We’ll leave the debates over the acting, direction, and overall adaptation to others (except to say that Jackie Earle Haley stole the show). But one aspect worthy of analysis is the story’s main conflict—the constant “looming” nuclear holocaust. Granted, we never actually see any evidence that the aforementioned holocaust is looming, save a few shots of Nixon upping Defcon levels—but we’ll address that later. When Alan Moore first published the book in 1986, the apocalypse on everyone’s mind was Cold War atomic bombs—which, as we’ve noted, no longer pack quite the same anxiety punch as, say, biological weapons. Today, gas masks and duct tape have replaced air raids and backyard shelters in the popular conscious, to the point where seeing mushroom clouds onscreen feels like you’re watching an ’80s homage.

Of course, none of this means that the nuclear threat is any smaller now than it was three decades ago: The danger of nuclear war is still present, and fear of missile attack still drives plenty of policy and military tech decisions worldwide. But, like Bird Flu, nukes seem to have a PR problem: Despite the fact that they could wipe us all out, the thought of them isn’t all that scary.

Which is really the main problem for Snyder and his estimated $125 million budget: No matter how faithful your script and powerful your characters, it’s tough to keep a story suspenseful when you’re working towards a climax that doesn’t pack a serious punch. Not helping is the fact that the film completely ignores the other side—the Russians. We get a few choice shots of Tricky Dick mumbling about war, but never once do we see Gorbachev ordering missile launches or troop mobilization.

Granted, world annihilation isn’t dull—it’s still enough to keep an audience engaged for 2 hours and 43 minutes. Plus Snyder never misses a chance to smack us with stakes-raising reminders of devastation (we counted at least 8 shots with the Twin Towers in the background). And when the destruction does come to the Big Apple (why do TV shows and movies always love to decimate New York?) Snyder saves us the book’s graphic images of strewn corpses and bombed-out buildings, instead focusing on the internal struggle among the Watchmen ranks. Nine million people sacrificed for the greater good, meh—but we’ll watch one lovable sociopath in a ski mask.

So should Snyder have updated his apocalypse with biotech? He’d have faced the wrath of fans had he done so. Plus who would think nuclear war could ever get boring? It’s enough to make you wonder what the next big all-consuming fear will be. Oh, wait, we know that already: thinking robots.


Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Apocalypse, Biowarfare, Comics, Movies

Comments (7)

Links to this Post

  1. P0rn Slappers | The Minority Report | March 18, 2009
  1. Scott

    If one nuke gets detonated in anger, you can bet there will be nothing boring about the idea of nuclear war. Most post-apocalyptic stories I’ve seen of late still look like it was the bomb that brought everything down, as in Battlestar Galactica.

  2. Fernando

    Don’t think biological weapons would work. I mean, it is 1985 and there’s a cold war going on. They were focusing on nukes, not bio weapons.

  3. Sanjiv Sarwate

    The book also doesn’t really feature or talk about the Russians, certainly not Gorbachev. I suspect Moore did that on purpose, since Soviet history probably unfolded quite differently in the Watchmen world than in ours. In particular, the persistence of Richard Nixon and the existence of Dr. Manhattan may have kept a moderating figure like Gorbachev from emerging.

    I agree about the story lacking some of the same punch now than it did when it was published. The enemies changed, but the story really couldn’t. It’s one thing to change the spider that bit Peter Parker from radioactive to genetically engineered, it’s quite another to take a story created with the Cold War firmly in mind and try and transplant it to different threats. Too many things would have to change, and as it was, there was enough stuff that did change to make the film fail for even someone who is not a continuity fascist like me.

    There seemed to be things that Zack Snyder and the screenwriters just didn’t get or appreciate. Case in point – the incident in the book where Jon Osterman’s father dumps the watch gears off the fire escape and tells his son that atomic science, not watchmaking, is where the future lies, leading to Jon studying physics, was completely cut, and it was a bad cut. One of Osterman/ Dr. Manhattan’s fundamental characteristics was his general passivity, which basically starts when he studies what his father tells him to. It runs through “they’re making me into something gaudy and lethal,” and his ambivalence about his involvement in Vietnam. On important issues, Dr. Manhattan is a spectator in his own life, and the movie seemed to miss that to a degree.

  4. Yasmin

    Sorry to put this comment here but I couldn’t find a place to comment on the actual article.

    So, yeah…

    Your blog? Where you implied that autism isn’t a real disease?? And the next step – that mental disorders are all not real diseases? “There is no such thing as a mental disorder unless we make it up in a book”??? Number 1, hi Tom Cruise, and Number 2, WTF?? Just because there is no collapsed lung does not mean that there are no effects just as serious as a collapsed lung or (ew!) boils…suicide? Ever heard of it?

    I have followed you and your writing since your anonymous days and have always enjoyed your work, so I am hoping that what you wrote was just worded in such a way to make me misunderstand it. If it wasn’t just poor wording, I have to say that I am really disappointed and sad to hear such ignorance from someone who is now writing for a science website. Kinda takes away your credibility…

  5. The only reason to assist community training can be to demonstrate your approval from the teacher’s union,”teaching in the test”, and lowering criteria in order to graduate extra uneducated kids. No youngster left behind..
    ..
    given that the govt university strategy keeps nearly all of them from getting as well significantly ahead. They require to boost the bar instead of pumping out hoards of uneducated young children who are not equipped with all the necessary ability to to turned into productive members of society.

  6. Sorry for the criticism, but I’m dotty the new Zune, and this, as source as the excellent reviews any opposite grouping get holographic, leave you determine if it’s the rightist action for you.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »