Chapter 808： Why the market for "Watchmen" has no potential

Harvard University once held an open class on justice - "Justice".

The moral dilemma raised in it has always been a classic psychological paradigm in the field of moral research. For example, the famous trolley problem, which was first proposed by the philosopher Philip Ford in 1967, led to philosophy, ethics, psychology, cognitive science, etc. discussion of this issue in the field.

The topics are as follows:

If you see a tram running out of control on the track, there are 5 workers doing engineering work in the direction of the tram, if the tram runs on the current track, these 5 workers are bound to be caught by the tram. There is only one way to save the 5 workers after being hit and killed, and that is to pull the track, redirect the tram, and kill another maintenance worker.

The classic moral dilemma requires subjects to make a choice on whether to sacrifice one person to save the lives of multiple people, and no matter which choice is made, it will cause the chooser to have a certain degree of moral conflict.

And this often presents a choice:

A: Stick to the principles

B: Break the rules

Harvard political scientist Kohlberg believes that people generally make two moral judgments in order to solve the dilemma in their minds:

A.: The deontological choice—

Deontism judges the rightness of an action by its conformity with existing institutions, laws or rules. In this way of thinking, the morality of behavior is fixed, independent of the situation, which is a rule-based moral thinking.

B.: Utilitarian choice—

Utilitarianism judges whether an action is moral or not, not by conforming to the rules, but by whether the result of its action increases our "greatest happiness."

That is to say, how to choose a certain thing, whether a certain behavior is desirable or not, depends on the final result of the thing. In pursuit of the greatest benefit for the many, the few should be sacrificed to save the many.

Take the example of the tram to understand the words of these two kinds of thinking.

Utilitarian, if you see 5 or 1 killed, you just choose to kill 1 person, because it is better to kill 1 than 5, right, this is a simple arithmetic problem that elementary school students will know.

But in another scenario, a moving tram, or 5 workers, sees that an accident will happen if you keep going, and you happen to notice this scene on the flyover above the track, the reminder is definitely too late, but there is a black man beside you The fat man is eating and looks ugly, you can push him down to block the tram, his death can make the tram driver brake early, and 5 workers will be fine.

How to choose?

Not a single student raised his hand in favor of pushing people to save people, and not even those who supported utilitarianism spoke up.

The same sacrifice of 1 person to save 5 people, why will everyone's choice change 180 degrees? Just because the way of blocking has been changed by hand?

Everyone should have their own moral principles, and principles determine people's behavior and choices.

Going back to the movie "Watchmen", the pharaoh in the movie is a typical consequentialist. At the end, he launched a nuclear attack on several big cities in the world, exterminating more than 10 million people, because the smartest people in the world thought it was right to sacrifice small righteousness to achieve great righteousness.

And standing opposite the Pharaoh is the uncompromising Rorschach, the representative of absolutism in the film.

Absolutism is a traditional principle and a leading principle of society. For example, the head can be cut off and the blood can flow, but the integrity cannot be lost. Some things cannot be measured by simple benefit outcomes.

It's just that on the surface, consequentialism is better than absolutism. Is it utilitarian and sleek? The principle of action is certainly tenable.

But why does the protagonist become himself, and the principled position also changes?

Because consequentialism is always accompanied by sacrifice, but no one wants to be a victim, so consequentialism often produces injustice. The so-called righteousness of sacrificing a small number of people to save the majority of people, the high probability of being forced to sacrifice is society. underprivileged groups.

In other words, who wants to be one of the sacrificed?

Germany was defeated in the First World War and the domestic economy was in a slump. Hitler stood up and waved his hand, sacrificing more than 6 million Jews and using their wealth to transfuse the German economy. For non-victims, most of them agree, so, The German people cheered and worshipped Hitler like a god.

From the perspective of consequentialism, this is also sacrificing small righteousness to achieve great righteousness. At least, Germany jumped out of the quagmire at once, and also condensed the people's beliefs, and the society's support for the government is enthusiastic.

Another example is a congressman in the anti-war movement in the United States calling on the people to put the interests of the United States first. The sacrifice of American fighters in the war is great and glorious. A reporter asked the congressman, where are all your congressman's sons, and why don't you take them? Sent to the battlefield to win glory for the country?

For the sake of power, Bush quickly transferred conflicts and attracted arms dealers. Because of the politicians and arms dealers who advocate the most ferocious war, their families and children don't have to go to the battlefield. They just sit in the mansion, hold dances, drink champagne, and count the hard-earned money that the United States brought to them in foreign wars.

This is also the so-called sacrifice in consequentialism. You are sacrificed, you are represented, and they are earned.

Fortunately, the United States will swallow this bitter fruit, and because of the unfair ruling of white supremacists at the beginning of the country, it will always explode and continue to stage the dream of 300 million people's gun battle.

And in "Watchmen", it is the repressive plot where morality confronts absolute morality.

Film is the carrier of culture, and sometimes it must be artificially processed for stronger dramatic conflict.

More importantly, comics and movies are two different things.

Comics have always been in the minority, and only people who are interested will watch them, but movies usually attract more people to enter the scene. You can't expect people who haven't read comics and have a hard-to-understand story background to read such a movie. A boring movie doesn't swear.

In other words, without knowing it beforehand, the film is about a society that does not conform to the American concept of freedom and equality, and is not conducive to the construction of a harmonious society. How can it be accepted by the American public?

In fact, even if the three-hour edited version of "Watchmen" is released, it will only pick up word of mouth, and the box office is destined to hit the streets because it is too small. This is like there are so many specific groups of people watching ghost movies. You have to invest more than 100 million yuan to make a ghost movie. Even if you please this part of the group, the market upper limit is there.

If "Watchmen" can learn the same way as a normal Hollywood type film, add more chases like machine gun shooting of trucks on the street, the White House and the bridge are bombed all the way, and add some commercial elements of big explosions and special effects, which may attract some people for visual reasons. Enjoy the audience.

Unfortunately, these elements are not available in Watchmen. Because this is a work that deconstructs superheroes, how can we try to express superpowers - superheroes can supervise the public, so who supervises superheroes? Who will guarantee justice, and who can absolutely have no selfishness? The Dark Knight also discusses this, and argues that justice police outside the law cannot be accepted by society.

The two works are both DC products. In fact, there are many similarities. Unlike the previous happy and just superhero movies, the heroes in these two movies are not so perfect and righteous.

In The Dark Knight, Batman chose to save Rachel out of selfishness at the critical moment of saving people, but fell into the clown's trap, and even caused Harvey, the hero who was supposed to protect the city to fight crime, to degenerate into a criminal with two faces. Harvey has to be blamed, criminals become heroes, heroes become criminals, and a "just" Gotham is built by lies.

Nolan's version of Batman is flawed and justice isn't so perfect, but it's these flaws and imperfections that make this movie more real, more human, and closer to the audience's grasp of them Heart.

Because the perfect hero of justice will make the audience feel false, and the "Dark Knight" still maintains the mainstream value spirit of society, which can be accepted by the audience.

"Watchmen" is too much pure analysis, which is not good for the audience's viewing experience.

The vast majority of people at the bottom of the United States do not need a movie to tell them what is the dark side of society and the ugliness of human nature, because they have seen too much in their daily lives. Educational issues, community security and even the distribution of police forces.

In a country that doesn't control guns and has gun battles at any time, how much humaneness do you expect from the people?

What they need is a placebo, an anesthetic, a moment of spiritual pleasure, to give them the confidence to continue to face the difficulties in life, and the government and the media also need a happy movie with justice, justice and positive energy to appease them Society leads the people.

From this point of view, the failure of "Watchmen" is doomed. It is a movie that deviates from the mainstream market, has no popcorn visual scene, and has too many characters and complex backgrounds, making it difficult to adapt. Even the basic plot is broken. buy it?