The Watchmen Movie (No Spoilers)

[Fenris]

I got to see it tonight! I am very fortunate.

It was... pretty decent. Which isn't overwhelming praise, I know, but there it is. (And I do mean pretty: the visuals were the best part of it.)

Good stuff:

- The look of it, as I said, was marvelous.
- Adrian's plot was more credible (if less graphic or geekily interesting) than in the comic book.
- Billy Crudup (complete with full-frontal blue nudity) manages the thankless task of making Dr. Manhattan remote, but still individual and at least somewhat human.
- They stayed true to the darkness-of-humanity theme, which they must have been really tempted to mess with.
- It covered more of the book than I expected it to; they worked to shoehorn all kinds of things in.

Bad stuff:

- Urk, that dialogue! Lots of it just didn't translate to the screen well at all.
- The Comedian's murder is a brutal scene which is set to pleasant, innocuous music. I've gotten really tired of that: it's more cliched than ironic.
- Nite Owl's fight scenes (of which he has several) aren't the kind of thing you'd expect from a middle-aged tubby guy who hasn't fought in years.

Stuff that's not exactly either:

- One of the problems with trying to convert the book to movie form is that the movie meanders. It's a mystery that veers into a retrospective which veers into Vietnam which veers into Mars which veers into Rorchach's prison adventures...
The comic was episodic, so it felt natural there. Here, it seems to be all over the place.

- The best laugh of the movie, audience-wise, was the story of Rorschach throwing the masochist down an elevator shaft.

- Laurie's Mars revelation was rushed. It had to be, I guess; the movie's long already. But I really wish they'd managed to keep her step-by-step unveiling of what had happened; that was one of the book's best scenes.

- People who haven't read the comic are probably going to have a hard time following some parts. The ending, in particular, is going to seem to come out of nowhere, because the movie didn't have time to introduce the characters beforehand. But those of us who do know it will have all kinds of thrill-of-recognition moments.

õ
Hurm!

[fireSTRIKE!]

wanna go see this... trailers all looked good... not a big Watchmen fan, but despite any and all reviews, good OR bad, I'm gonna give this an honest chance with an open mind...

[The Confessor]

Of course, I'll definitely be seeing this as soon as it's on general release. I must say that whilst the trailers have all looked stunning, I've been a little bit worried about the overall feel of the movie. The comments you've made about Night Owl underline one of my biggest concerns after seeing the trailers...Night Owl just looks a bit too bad-ass in this movie. He doesn’t look like an out of shape, paunchy guy who's been away from crime fighting for years. He looks more like The Watchmen’s version of Batman.

I'll obviously be keeping an open mind when I go to see it and I really hope it lives up to expectations. We'll see.

[rick]

I don't expect it to be exactly like the comic, but I do expect it to be completly awsome.

I'm really look forward to it.

So Fenris, how was Jackie Earle Haily?

[Asmith]

It's encouraging to hear these early reviews all pretty much saying it ain't too bad.

Considering the high level of expectation the book put on the film, that might indicate it's actually a good movie.

So will the breakout toy this year be a little blue naked man?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2377/2457533554_8b2fa292db.jpg?v=0

[DrunkJack]

Not interested in seeing this at all. Love the book, it is a touchstone I go back to to remind myself what I love about comics. Dense story, beautiful art.

But in the end...it's not something that should be filmed or that can be condensed.

Just not interested. I've already ranted on this elsewhere, so no need to go into great detail about why.

[Deadpooligan]

I can't help but imagine... (http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2973/mooreymandias.jpg)

[StoneGold]

I can't help but imagine... (http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2973/mooreymandias.jpg)

Yeah, but how much anal nerd shit is that, hoping that the movie is going to be bad and tank?

[jessecuster3]

I can't help but imagine... (http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2973/mooreymandias.jpg)

If only Snyder would commit suicide, is that what you are saying?

[Matt Algren]

Yeah, but how much anal nerd shit is that, hoping that the movie is going to be bad and tank?
More like expecting based on avaiable evidence.

[StoneGold]

More like expecting based on avaiable evidence.

Yeah, but it's not based on available evidence. Go find an early review, they're all pretty glowing. No, it's not better than the book, but duh. The number of movies that are better than the book are an elite number, and generally they're based on shitty books, like Jaws.

This is based on "Alan Moore is throwing a fit, therefor I shall throw a fit too." But look, this is like the last thing of Moore's they can make, anyway. Because the rest of it is either too small or too pointless. Sure, they could make a Promethea movie, but damned if they ever would.



And while they could make a Tom Strong movie, why would they? The character doesn't have much name-brand value, you'd be better off licensing Doc Savage or something. Who doesn't have that much these days either, but slightly more than Strong.

[Dreadstar]

... The number of movies that are better than the book are an elite number, and generally they're based on shitty books, like Jaws.

...or my personal favorite, The Godfather.

[StoneGold]

...or my personal favorite, The Godfather.

I dunno if that movie was better than the book, but it's a contender. In any event, Puzo wrote a better book than Jaws.



Although I'd say the Maltese Falcon (the third one, damn remakes!) was better than the book. But that's mostly because I didn't like the book that much. It's funny, the dialogue is almost exactly the same as the book, but it dumps the clunky narrative style.

[Dreadstar]

Puzo was a hack. He makes Stephen King look like F. Scott Fitzgerald.

[jesse_custer]

Thank you for saying what should be said every time someone praises Puzo as a novelist.

[Dreadstar]

Thank you for saying what should be said every time someone praises Puzo as a novelist.

I actually know someone who tried to read The Sicilian.

I understand he should be off the psychotropics next year sometime.

[morna]

it's you isn't it Dread

[Dreadstar]

it's you isn't it Dread

Cellophane kumquat.

[StoneGold]

Puzo was a hack. He makes Stephen King look like F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Well sure. But he's a hack who wrote one good book where he ripped off The Prince and made it about Italian immigrant families in the mob.

[Deadpooligan]

Yeah, but how much anal nerd shit is that, hoping that the movie is going to be bad and tank?

Oh, I'm not hoping it's bad. In fact, I look forward to it.

But with all these changes, I can't help but shake the feeling the potential for disappointment becomes that much greater.

...or Moore finds some kind of joy in it being a disappointment, hence the picture.

If only Snyder would commit suicide, is that what you are saying?

I think that's just taking it a little far.

[jessecuster3]

I think that's just taking it a little far.

Not really, the comic you posted posits the exact same thing.

[Deadpooligan]

Not really, the comic you posted posits the exact same thing.

Should I have added a disclaimer? :confused:

"The views presented in the comic do not reflect my own personal views, and are, in fact, a satiric exaggeration of Alan Moore's usual brand of antipathy toward adaptations of his work."

[BYC]

The more I see the trailer, the more I'm convinced the general public will go into this movie thinking Watchmen is something it's not. There's gonna be action, but not as much action as they think, and especially the revisionist history will throw a lot of people, mainly young ones, completely for a loop.

I feel like this will get a Superman Returns feeling from the public; a good movie that people will dislike because it's too celebral and not enough action. It's likely it still still fare better due to the lack of recognition compared to Superman, and some of the poor choices in Superman Returns were really poor.

[Mic Murphy]

Some people may not like "Watchmen" because they will walk into the theater with the same preconceived notion about superheroes -- namely, some cartoonish characters geared only for children. That was some of the pushback some people have had with "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" (and going back further, with "Batman: The Animated Series") and you know there will be some people who are going to shocked when they see "Watchmen."

I think it will be a bit of a challenge for folks expecting a standard superhero movie because of the complex plot. The only other negative reviews I have seen have fallen into fanboy outrage that it strayed from the material by updating the climax and people who put up a negative review to generate buzz.

I can't say that really applied to "Superman Returns," because it deviated from the well-known source material to add elements that have no real application to the character (Superman's seemingly detached god-like viewpoint, the secret love child/triangle, the too-faithful interpretation of the Richard Donner film). But that simply is my opinion.

[Tony Bang]

I don't expect the movie to be horrible or great. Based on what I've read, and knowing Synder's other work, I expect it be a mediocre action flick with some bad dialogue and little bit on the melodramatic side.

[Indigo Al]

I feel like this will get a Superman Returns feeling from the public; a good movie that people will dislike because it's too celebral and not enough action. It's likely it still still fare better due to the lack of recognition compared to Superman, and some of the poor choices in Superman Returns were really poor.


Superman Returns was cerebral?

[StoneGold]

I don't expect the movie to be horrible or great. Based on what I've read, and knowing Synder's other work, I expect it be a mediocre action flick with some bad dialogue and little bit of mellow drama.

I'm trying to figure out if that's a typo or Freudian slip.

[Tony Bang]

I'm trying to figure out if that's a typo or Freudian slip.

I would go with Freudian slip.

[StoneGold]

Superman Returns was cerebral?

It wanted desperately to be. It wanted to be to Superman what Dark Knight was to Batman. It just failed miserably, on almost every level. But the whole thing with the bastard abandoned son was its attempt at some kind of commentary.

[howyadoin]

Superman Returns was cerebral?Not the one I saw.

[Slam_Bradley]

Not the one I saw.

Maybe it was in the second half. The first half was so boring I turned it off an never went back to it.

[Guapo Méndez]

Superman Returns was cerebral?

Yes, just add "palsy" to the statement. The script had 1 good idea (Superman returns) buried among 50 idiotic plot points and word-for-word reenactions of the Donner films.

Bleh.

I'm thinking Watchman is going to do fine. 100 to 150 million domestic and almost the same international. If it is a wee bit good, I'm getting the DVD.

[howyadoin]

Maybe it was in the second half. The first half was so boring I turned it off an never went back to it.Maybe "cerebral" means "no fighting."

[StoneGold]

I think the boring was the failed attempt at being brainy. The movie so desperately wanted to be more than what it was, but failed miserably.

[Indigo Al]

I think the boring was the failed attempt at being brainy. The movie so desperately wanted to be more than what it was, but failed miserably.

The alleged "brainy" just ended up draining the life and joy out of Superman.

but that has nothing at all to do with Watchmen, soooooo.....I'll hold out hope that this movie will be good enough and entertaining enough....and I won't gripe about it not being like the graphic novel because it can not and will not be like the graphic novel.

[DrunkJack]

and I won't gripe about it not being like the graphic novel because it can not and will not be like the graphic novel.

Then why do it?

If you can't match, or even seem to want to try to match the creativity and skill with which the original was told, and none of the interviews with Snyder seem to hint that he even understands how Watchmen worked in it's form, it's all surface he talks about, he probably doesn't even understand how the 9 panel grid worked to Moore's advantage, or even noticed all the hints and foreshadowing used in what appeared to be bits of world building. Many times the most important hints were laid out in those scenes at the newsstand...

Ugh, it just annoys me that they handed such a project to such a dim bulb action movie hack.

This isn't just a story, it's a comic that was about comics, about the graphic novel form, if you can't apply that to film, you're really dumb.

[StoneGold]

This isn't just a story, it's a comic that was about comics, about the graphic novel form, if you can't apply that to film, you're really dumb.

Except it isn't about the graphic novel form at all. It was a monthly book.



Well, serialized, anyway. Monthly is being kind.

[Asmith]

Well sure. But he's a hack who wrote one good book where he ripped off The Prince and made it about Italian immigrant families in the mob.

...and Fitzgerald ripped off Wuthering Heights for Gatsby... This is like a Battle of the Hacks, a Hackfest, a Hack-Off.

[morna]

Hackathon, Hackarama... we're turnig GM Place into a stinking Hack Pit



... sorry

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Maybe "cerebral" means "no fighting."

But there was fighting!

He fought an island!

A crystal island!

Why did everyone hate that film again?


(Do love it though - too cerebral for the general public... like uni students are sipping dark coffee and debating the mise en scène of the film. One really blatant and boring Jesus analogy and a films cerebral...)

[The Batman]

Well, he fought Luthor and his thugs on that giant Kryptonian island. Just, you know, not very well.

[The Confessor]

Well, I liked Superman Returns. I thought it was a good film and a solid addition to the first two Christopher Reeve movies.


Not that that's got anything to do with Watchmen (see my post on the first page for that) but I just wanted to add my twopence worth and stick up for a movie I enjoy.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well, he fought Luthor and his thugs on that giant Kryptonian island. Just, you know, not very well.

Well, he was out of power.

Yup, without super powers, even nerds can take him down.

NERDS.

Not that that's got anything to do with Watchmen (see my post on the first page for that) but I just wanted to add my twopence worth and stick up for a movie I enjoy.

It's enjoyable sure, but it's not a good film.

[BYC]

How do you want to define good? Because reviews by "experts" say otherwise. It's good, but it's not great. I loved the film, and even I yawned quite a bit at the horrible parts. I'm annoyed Singer went so far in trying to messiah up Superman. The falling with the arms cross thing was so stupid.

Superman didn't get beatup by any random thug. He got beatup by Kumar! Kumar is too powerful.

It's early, but so far, Superman Returns is beating Watchmen in review scores by a whopping 1%. I expect by opening Watchmen to be better than that. Probably around 83 or so. I personally prefer Metacritic a bit more. They seem to get more reviews.

[The Batman]

Well, I liked Superman Returns. I thought it was a good film and a solid addition to the first two Christopher Reeve movies.


Not that that's got anything to do with Watchmen (see my post on the first page for that) but I just wanted to add my twopence worth and stick up for a movie I enjoy.

No, I enjoyed it too. Doesn't mean I can't still have fun with it.

Well, he was out of power.

Yup, without super powers, even nerds can take him down.

NERDS.



Kumar maybe. And Lex, but he had a shiv. But the other two looked rough and tumble enough.

[DrunkJack]

Except it isn't about the graphic novel form at all. It was a monthly book.
Well, serialized, anyway. Monthly is being kind.

:rolleyes:
By graphic novel I mean the telling of a story with pictures and words what is generally called a 'comic book'. The book was written as a finite work, it was originally published in serial form but it is a novel, in that it is a long work meant to be read as a continuous piece, it's not short stories, it's not an ongoing unending serial.

In other words, don't get pedantic with me, man.

[Paradox]

Most of the time that's being pedantic.

With Watchmen, though, how it was published is actually a part of the book's structure. So, you'll get that kind of reaction from time to time. :smile:

[StoneGold]

Most of the time that's being pedantic.

With Watchmen, though, how it was published is actually a part of the book's structure. So, you'll get that kind of reaction from time to time. :smile:

And more to the point, when you're calling someone stupid for not getting something, and then you get it wrong...

[Asmith]

Most of the time that's being pedantic.

With Watchmen, though, how it was published is actually a part of the book's structure. So, you'll get that kind of reaction from time to time. :smile:

Especially since those rear text pieces weren't originally intended. After issue three they were going to be replaced by a letters page... I dunno, I could of gone through life without ever having read that owl essay. How about you?

[Paradox]

Asmith needs to fill me in:

Especially since those rear text pieces weren't originally intended. After issue three they were going to be replaced by a letters page...

Where did you hear that? And was that Moore's intention, or DC's (very different things there)?

I dunno, I could of gone through life without ever having read that owl essay. How about you?

It was the weakest of the text pieces. I saw where he was going, but it really didn't work well.

[Asmith]

Where did you hear that? And was that Moore's intention, or DC's (very different things there)?
I read about it on Mike Sterling's blog:
http://www.progressiveruin.com/
It's in the last few weeks somewhere - shouldn't be hard to find, he made a couple of days worth of posts out of it.

He seems to substantiate it enough to be able to say they weren't originally planned. But it may be worth throwing it over to Comic Book Urban Legends and getting the final say so.

It was the weakest of the text pieces. I saw where he was going, but it really didn't work well.

The word you were searching for clumsily there was 'crap'.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Well, since it's a faithful adaptation, I get the parts about veering off into Vietnam or the prison sequences.

Plus, Dan didn't engage in too much H2H in the comic.

Better not be disappointing...

[Radioactive Zombie]

Yeah, but it's not based on available evidence. Go find an early review, they're all pretty glowing. No, it's not better than the book, but duh. The number of movies that are better than the book are an elite number, and generally they're based on shitty books, like Jaws.

This is based on "Alan Moore is throwing a fit, therefor I shall throw a fit too."

The fact that the last adaptations made him lose faith in comics-to-film stuff doesn't help. Moore didn't like films in the first place, anyway.

[Tages]

I saw it too, in IMAX for Wondercon.

Fucking loathed the soundtrack. Hated the cheap sentiment of Owl and Spectre making love in the pale moonlight aboard Archie. Thought Haley was a crappy Rorschach; the voice makes him sound at times like a cross between Sin City's Marv and Solid Snake, and at other times like a male Marge Simpson, and at all times more like a tough guy than a pitiable nutcase. The action scenes use way, way too much slow-mo and other stylistic holdovers from the post-Matrix era of action filmmaking.

As far as good things, Billy Crudup does a pretty good job as Manhattan. His own flashback sequence is actually very effective, and for once in the movie the accompanying music (Phillip Glass) works with the scene. Then near the end we get Jimi Hendrix's rendition of All Along the Watchtower as Archie approaches the Antarctic shelf.

Fucking loathed the soundtrack.

[RolandJP]

I don't know about you guys but the best thing that came out of this was the Watchmen motion comic.

And the Movie, well its hard to live up to the graphic novel. It was called unfilmable for a reason. I liked it tho, I just think its edge is lost when current times are just as solemn if not close to the source material.

[jesse_custer]

I saw it too, in IMAX for Wondercon.

Fucking loathed the soundtrack. Hated the cheap sentiment of Owl and Spectre making love in the pale moonlight aboard Archie. Thought Haley was a crappy Rorschach; the voice makes him sound at times like a cross between Sin City's Marv and Solid Snake, and at other times like a male Marge Simpson, and at all times more like a tough guy than a pitiable nutcase. The action scenes use way, way too much slow-mo and other stylistic holdovers from the post-Matrix era of action filmmaking.

As far as good things, Billy Crudup does a pretty good job as Manhattan. His own flashback sequence is actually very effective, and for once in the movie the accompanying music (Phillip Glass) works with the scene. Then near the end we get Jimi Hendrix's rendition of All Along the Watchtower as Archie approaches the Antarctic shelf.

Fucking loathed the soundtrack.

I'm a little confused here. You hate Jimi Hendrix?

[Cotton]

I'm really hoping that I will enjoy the movie.

[howyadoin]

Then near the end we get Jimi Hendrix's rendition of All Along the Watchtower as Archie approaches the Antarctic shelf.

Fucking loathed the soundtrack.
I'm a little confused here. You hate Jimi Hendrix?Yeah, the juxtaposition of those statements is a bit troubling.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, the juxtaposition of those statements is a bit troubling.

He was really hoping for the BSG version.

[The Batman]

I'm a little confused here. You hate Jimi Hendrix?

Without trying to speak for Tages, it might be less about Hendrix than what might be considered a pretty obvious choice of songs.

[howyadoin]

Without trying to speak for Tages, it might be less about Hendrix than what might be considered a pretty obvious choice of songs.So the soundtrack should avoid the songs whose actual lyrics form the basis for the story?

[StoneGold]

So the soundtrack should avoid the songs whose actual lyrics form the basis for the story?

Well, that or he wanted Dylan. To which I can only say: organic web shooters.

[jesse_custer]

Without trying to speak for Tages, it might be less about Hendrix than what might be considered a pretty obvious choice of songs.

I considered that, but that song kicks quite a bit of ass. It's not like Spielberg telling John Williams to pen a quick track for a crying scene.

[jesse_custer]

Well, that or he wanted Dylan. To which I can only say: organic web shooters.

Or you could simply say that Hendrix's version stomps Dylan's.

[howyadoin]

Or you could simply say that Hendrix's version stomps Dylan's.Even Dylan says that.

[Dreadstar]

Even Dylan says that.

How could you tell?


I mean, his lips were moving and all, but what was coming out of them sounded like Portuguese.

[StoneGold]

How could you tell?


I mean, his lips were moving and all, but what was coming out of them sounded like Portuguese.

It's the title of his 47th album

[jessecuster3]

Shouldn't this whole thread be in TV/Film?

[howyadoin]

Shouldn't this whole thread be in TV/Film?But then we'd lose all the witty discourse.

[jessecuster3]

But then we'd lose all the witty discourse.

Yes, there is that....

[StoneGold]

Yes, there is that....

No, you're an a-hole!!!

[Paul McEnery]

No, you're an a-hole!!!

You're a butt-whump.

[Tages]

I'm a little confused here. You hate Jimi Hendrix?

I think it was obvious that I was talking about how the music fit the scene, since it was directly after the sentence where I complimented how well the Glass music fit.

I love Hendrix. The way he's used in this movie is ham-handed and obvious. Though not as much as playing The Sound of Silence during the funeral scene was.

[jesse_custer]

No worries. To me, the "Fucking loathed the soundtrack" statement could imply either a song didn't fit or that a song is shit. Wanted to make sure you were attributing the former to Hendrix because, honestly, what you described doesn't give me any discomfort, though hearing and seeing it will be The Test, obviously.

[Ray R.]

So the soundtrack should avoid the songs whose actual lyrics form the basis for the story?

See, e.g., Forrest Gump.

Although that might be an extreme example.

[howyadoin]

See, e.g., Forrest Gump.Please, not again.

[Ray R.]

Please, not again.

But the musical cues lead the way.....

[Michael P]

Though not as much as playing The Sound of Silence during the funeral scene was.

Oh, good grief.

[Puma]

I think it was obvious that I was talking about how the music fit the scene, since it was directly after the sentence where I complimented how well the Glass music fit.

I love Hendrix. The way he's used in this movie is ham-handed and obvious. Though not as much as playing The Sound of Silence during the funeral scene was.

Should've been "Send in the clowns"


and I really hope you made that last one up.

[Tages]

Should've been "Send in the clowns"


and I really hope you made that last one up.

Oh, if only. If only.

[Guapo Méndez]

Should've been "Send in the clowns"


and I really hope you made that last one up.

Hello Manhattan my old friend...

[The Batman]

So the soundtrack should avoid the songs whose actual lyrics form the basis for the story?

Not really. I'm just suggesting that sometimes these things work and sometimes they don't and that regardless of how awesome a song is (and Hendrix's Watchtower is an awesome song) being used poorly can make for a bad experience.

I think it was obvious that I was talking about how the music fit the scene, since it was directly after the sentence where I complimented how well the Glass music fit.

I love Hendrix. The way he's used in this movie is ham-handed and obvious. Though not as much as playing The Sound of Silence during the funeral scene was.

Really?

Ugh.

[Paul McEnery]

Who custard pies the custodians?

Hibbs does:

http://savagecritic.com/2009/02/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes-hibbs-on.html

[Michael P]

Who custard pies the custodians?

Hibbs does:

http://savagecritic.com/2009/02/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes-hibbs-on.html

Couldn't let this pass:

They decided to be clever by having it at 11:55 PM (five minutes to midnight being a theme in the book, y'see), but, of course, with the various multiple levels of security to get in, and the desire to fill each and every seat in the place ("Who has an empty seat next to them, please raise your hand. No, only one person raise their hand") it didn't start until, ugh 12:30 or so.


"This was supposed to start thirty-five minutes ago!"

[howyadoin]

Who custard pies the custodians?

Hibbs does:

http://savagecritic.com/2009/02/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes-hibbs-on.htmlDear Jesus, that is some clumsy, highschool-level writing.

[Donald M.]

Dear Jesus, that is some clumsy, highschool-level writing.

The review itself or the new ending he describes or both.

Seriously, the whole fake alien thing in the actual book might have been a bit silly (right up until the whole killing the entire population of Manhattan part) but I'm not sure how that new ending would even work or make sense.

Mind you I'm not very bright, but still.


Ozymandias: So all along, my brilliant plan was to force a man who can deconstruct matter with his thoughts to attack Earth so we call all pull together and play nice for the 20 seconds before he kills us.

Nite-Owl: Really? Fucking really?

Ozymandias: Yep. Me am genius.

Dr. Manhattan: I just killed Rorschach.

Nite-Owl: Why?

Dr. Manhattan: Because I did it in the book. Haven't you heard, this movie is very faithful and stuff.

[howyadoin]

The review itself or the new ending he describes or both.
The review.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Oh, the supposed ending leaked to IGN? Someone debunked it, I think it was Synder or someone else.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, the supposed ending leaked to IGN? Someone debunked it, I think it was Synder or someone else.

Now that we know what the actual ending is, what's the supposed ending?

With spoilers on, for those who care.

[Paul McEnery]

The review itself or the new ending he describes or both.

Seriously, the whole fake alien thing in the actual book might have been a bit silly (right up until the whole killing the entire population of Manhattan part) but I'm not sure how that new ending would even work or make sense.

Mind you I'm not very bright, but still.


Ozymandias: So all along, my brilliant plan was to force a man who can deconstruct matter with his thoughts to attack Earth so we call all pull together and play nice for the 20 seconds before he kills us.

Nite-Owl: Really? Fucking really?

Ozymandias: Yep. Me am genius.

Dr. Manhattan: I just killed Rorschach.

Nite-Owl: Why?

Dr. Manhattan: Because I did it in the book. Haven't you heard, this movie is very faithful and stuff.


Well, since the original was the tentacled vagina monster, this time round we have to have the deadly blue dong

I'm wondering how there could even have been a conspiracy to uncover without the TVM, actually.

[Michael P]

Well, since the original was the tentacled vagina monster, this time round we have to have the deadly blue dong

I'm wondering how there could even have been a conspiracy to uncover without the TVM, actually.

It does make you wonder what the Comedian saw, doesn't it?

[Paul McEnery]

It does make you wonder what the Comedian saw, doesn't it?

The DBD must have driven him mad.

[Tages]

Well, since the original was the tentacled vagina monster, this time round we have to have the deadly blue dong

I'm wondering how there could even have been a conspiracy to uncover without the TVM, actually.

Veidt tricks Manhattan into making a machine supposedly to solve the energy crisis that he then engineers into a bomb that triggers when he returns to Earth. They also mention him spending billions on tachyon research so that Manhattan wouldn't see it coming.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Now that we know what the actual ending is, what's the supposed ending?

With spoilers on, for those who care.

Manhattan's framed for nuking Earth. Ozzy dies, I think.

[Paul McEnery]

Veidt tricks Manhattan into making a machine supposedly to solve the energy crisis that he then engineers into a bomb that triggers when he returns to Earth. They also mention him spending billions on tachyon research so that Manhattan wouldn't see it coming.

Wait, what?

Is that as dumb as I think it is?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Thought Haley was a crappy Rorschach; the voice makes him sound at times like a cross between Sin City's Marv and Solid Snake, and at other times like a male Marge Simpson, and at all times more like a tough guy than a pitiable nutcase.

See that Stone Gold, people do think he sounds like Marv!

[Asmith]

Wait, what?

Is that as dumb as I think it is?

A tenticled vagina grown out of the brain cells of kidnapped psychic fortune tellers and fed with images of ba horror novels is really all that much better. I'd say they were as dumb as each other.

That vagina monster in the book always came close to ruining it for me. It really is beyond stupid and shouldn't be in there.

[Paradox]

The difference isn't about the monster's appearance, but about the far different political ramifications of the two situations.

[Asmith]

The difference isn't about the monster's appearance, but about the far different political ramifications of the two situations.

Okay. I'd agree with that. But still... the books plot device was a little bit stupid as well... and didn't necessarily have much if any political ramifications either. It's the kind of idea that you let skate by because the rest is so good.

[howyadoin]

Okay. I'd agree with that. But still... the books plot device was a little bit stupid as well... and didn't necessarily have much if any political ramifications either. It's the kind of idea that you let skate by because the rest is so good.Sure it did. The political ramification of the dead "alien" is that mankind has a common enemy to unite them.

That's not a minor detail.

[Paradox]

And Manhattan doesn't work for that because the whole world sees him as American. He can't be the "common enemy". He's the US of A and the world would blame US for anything Manhattan does. No uniting there, except possibly against us.

[darkhanamaru]

Veidt tricks Manhattan into making a machine supposedly to solve the energy crisis that he then engineers into a bomb that triggers when he returns to Earth. They also mention him spending billions on tachyon research so that Manhattan wouldn't see it coming.

oh my, as dumb i thought it would be. and as others have pointed out, a removal of the whole uniting concept. Veidt is not that dumb.

[Asmith]

Sure it did. The political ramification of the dead "alien" is that mankind has a common enemy to unite them.

That's not a minor detail.

Oh I glom that. But since it was a dead alien from an alternate dimension that was only reached by a machine that was destroyed bringing it here (hey, a bit like J'onn J'onz!) then where's the threat? Don't build another freakin machine. It only killed New York, why is Moscow running scared?

There are too many reasons for it not to be a uniting event for it to ring horribly false.

[Tages]

Wait, what?

Is that as dumb as I think it is?

Pretty much.

Manhattan talks about how he can't see past a certain point in his future because there's going to be a great big thingummy of tachyons, "particles that move backward in time," which blocks his non-linear prescience or something, and which he assumes must be the result of nuclear Armageddon. It was all very Star Trek: TNG.

So he mentions working with Veidt on making a machine that will eliminate the world's reliance on coal, petroleum and nuclear power (he never explains what it is so it might as well be magic) and then transports it to Antarctica, where Veidt later toasts his best scientists with poisoned champagne so they can't tell anyone. I wasn't very clear on whether or not the scientists knew they were retrofitting Manhattan's Miracle Machine as a giant bomb or if Veidt just tricked them into thinking they were making something else.

Regardless, when Manhattan returns from Mars, the machine activates and blows up Time Square...with tachyons, I guess. Nixon then announces to the world that the Yanks and Russkies are going to play patty-cake now because Dr. Manhattan attacked them for no reason, though just how they plan on doing fuck all about it if Manhattan really is determined to wipe us out is left unanswered, as is the question of why the hell the Soviets aren't cheering him on.

My friend Mike says he thinks the movie version works better, because now Manhattan has more incentive to leave Earth.

[Tages]

Manhattan's framed for nuking Earth. Ozzy dies, I think.

Ozzy lives. The frame job part is accurate though.

[Matt Algren]

Hibbs and Tages are making that ending up, right? Please?

[Shellhead]

No worries. To me, the "Fucking loathed the soundtrack" statement could imply either a song didn't fit or that a song is shit. Wanted to make sure you were attributing the former to Hendrix because, honestly, what you described doesn't give me any discomfort, though hearing and seeing it will be The Test, obviously.

I read something a few months back about the soundtrack, and the thing that struck me was how many '60s songs were put in a movie set in the mid-'80s. The Hendrix tune should get a pass, because that one was directly referenced in the original comic, but otherwise, there should be more '80s music represented than any other decade. That said, it was in the '80s when it became obvious that classic rock was going to stick around and really dominate a segment of the radio dial.

[Dreadstar]

I'm more of the old-school bent on soundtracks.

If you're going for "blockbuster", don't use pop songs. Hire a serious composer and hope you get lucky.

[Guapo Méndez]

I'm more of the old-school bent on soundtracks.

If you're going for "blockbuster", don't use pop songs. Hire a serious composer and hope you get lucky.

Most of the times I don't mind the music.

Of course, most times I can't even remember the music. I've heard the Watchtower song several times during the Galactica episodes and I swear I couldn't hum a bar or two of it.

[Shellhead]

According to Amazon, this is the soundtrack:

1. Desolation Row (My Chemical Romance)
2. Unforgettable (Nat King Cole)
3. The Times They Are A-Changin' (Bob Dylan)
4. The Sound Of Silence (Simon & Garfunkel)
5. Me & Bobby McGee (Janis Joplin)
6. I'm Your Boogie Man (KC & The Sunshine Band)
7. You're My Thrill (Billie Holiday)
8. Pruit Igoe & Prophecies (Philip Glass)
9. Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen)
10. All Along The Watchtower (Jimi Hendrix)
11. Ride of the Valkyries (Budapest Symphony Orchestra)
12. Pirate Jenny (Nina Simone)

So only four songs from the '60s (including the cover of Desolation Row), but they are all songs very closely associated with the '60s. And that Janis Joplin song just missed the '60s, but is still closely associated with that time period, and not with the mid-'80s. The story covers a few decades, and I don't remember the '60s being particularly emphasized. So yeah, I can understand why this soundtrack might be annoying.

[DrunkJack]

That ending sounds worse than I thought it would be. There's no way the world would unite in that ending. No reason the Soviets wouldn't blame the US for what happened.

Zack Snyder is as dumb as he sounds if he thinks that ending works in any way.

Say what you will about the alien's design, the idea of an alien attack uniting the US and the USSR against a common enemy holds water. This...doesn't even make sense.

[Tadhg]

Oh I glom that. But since it was a dead alien from an alternate dimension that was only reached by a machine that was destroyed bringing it here (hey, a bit like J'onn J'onz!) then where's the threat? Don't build another freakin machine. It only killed New York, why is Moscow running scared?

There are too many reasons for it not to be a uniting event for it to ring horribly false.

But the people don't know any of that do they? They just know that Giant Alien Monsters appear to be real.

[DrunkJack]

Also, there was that bit in the book, in Viedt's explanation of his plan, about a psychic pulse that went out with the alien attack and 'sensitives' around the world died from it, so there were casualties (often seemingly random I'd guess), around the world from the alien attack. I assume that it had some impact on the general populace as well, the psychic pulse basically making everyone understand that it was a multi level alien attack.

Imagine if suddenly 1 in 1000 people just randomly died during the attack on New York, the timing would be noticed, it would have a global impact, those psychic sensitives being hit by the psychic pulse and the non sensitives also feeling something very strange hit them all at the moment millions died in NYC.

Everyone on earth getting punched in the brain and some of them dying from it, on top of millions in the physical attack.

At least, that's how I always took his comment about sensitives dying and psychic pulses.

As for an alien attack on New York not being recognized by the world as an attack on all is kinda funny considering 9/11.

Forget what happened in the years that followed, the initial reaction was important. It was for the most part sympathetic, I can imagine an alien attack would be treated as an attack on the whole earth.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Oh, remember that Rorschach's journal reaches the New Frontiersman.

Supposedly, according to my classmate, this means that Ozzy's plot is going to be all for naught, but I don't see how. Pyramid Scheme didn't do much.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Hibbs and Tages are making that ending up, right? Please?

Frankly, it was that controversy a while back that that would be the ending. I think that Blunty character on YouTube caused a fuss, but it got debunked or something.

[jessecuster3]

Awful lot of spoiler tags for a thread that is designated as No Spoilers.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Don't blame me, blame the others.

Then again, it's just the original book.

[jessecuster3]

Don't blame me, blame the others.

Then again, it's just the original book.

Where did you see me blaming you?

[Radioactive Zombie]

Where did you see me blaming you?

dunno, lol

[RolandJP]

I keep thinking what if Christoper Nolan directed..with a script by goyer.

Music by John Williams.


Then I remember Im a nerd. And I take solace in the fact Hollywood is making superhero properties at all. It is so supergreen.

[Loren]

Also, there was that bit in the book, in Viedt's explanation of his plan, about a psychic pulse that went out with the alien attack and 'sensitives' around the world died from it, so there were casualties (often seemingly random I'd guess), around the world from the alien attack.

Speaking of which, that detail always bugged me. After 11 issues of establishing a real-life world, where Dr. Manhattan is the only true superhuman the world's ever seen, Moore then amends that in issue #12 to be "Dr. Manhattan is the only person with real superpowers...aside from all those other random people with psychic powers."

[DrunkJack]

Yeah, well, it probably fits in with Moore's weird new age-y religious beliefs.

Psychics, real or not, exist in the real world, so one could apply that to the Watchmen world. It's not a super power. It's just something that exists.

[LtMarvel]

I got to see it tonight! I am very fortunate.

It was... pretty decent. Which isn't overwhelming praise, I know, but there it is. (And I do mean pretty: the visuals were the best part of it.)

Good stuff:

- The look of it, as I said, was marvelous.
- Adrian's plot was more credible (if less graphic or geekily interesting) than in the comic book.
- Billy Crudup (complete with full-frontal blue nudity) manages the thankless task of making Dr. Manhattan remote, but still individual and at least somewhat human.
- They stayed true to the darkness-of-humanity theme, which they must have been really tempted to mess with.
- It covered more of the book than I expected it to; they worked to shoehorn all kinds of things in.

Bad stuff:

- Urk, that dialogue! Lots of it just didn't translate to the screen well at all.
- The Comedian's murder is a brutal scene which is set to pleasant, innocuous music. I've gotten really tired of that: it's more cliched than ironic.
- Nite Owl's fight scenes (of which he has several) aren't the kind of thing you'd expect from a middle-aged tubby guy who hasn't fought in years.

Stuff that's not exactly either:

- One of the problems with trying to convert the book to movie form is that the movie meanders. It's a mystery that veers into a retrospective which veers into Vietnam which veers into Mars which veers into Rorchach's prison adventures...
The comic was episodic, so it felt natural there. Here, it seems to be all over the place.

- The best laugh of the movie, audience-wise, was the story of Rorschach throwing the masochist down an elevator shaft.

- Laurie's Mars revelation was rushed. It had to be, I guess; the movie's long already. But I really wish they'd managed to keep her step-by-step unveiling of what had happened; that was one of the book's best scenes.

- People who haven't read the comic are probably going to have a hard time following some parts. The ending, in particular, is going to seem to come out of nowhere, because the movie didn't have time to introduce the characters beforehand. But those of us who do know it will have all kinds of thrill-of-recognition moments.

õ
Hurm!
LOL

This is "no spoilers"????

(No biggie, I've read the book).

[berk]

Saw the preview yesterday, and I have to say, this doesn't look good at all. At least "300", as feeble and silly a movie as that turned out to be, had a great trailer. This one, though, left me with even less interest in seeing Watchmen than I had before.

[Asmith]

Speaking of which, that detail always bugged me. After 11 issues of establishing a real-life world, where Dr. Manhattan is the only true superhuman the world's ever seen, Moore then amends that in issue #12 to be "Dr. Manhattan is the only person with real superpowers...aside from all those other random people with psychic powers."

Yeah that was another thing that pops me out of the story right at the very end.

Doc is the only one with super powers, except of course for all those hundreds of other psychics... yeeeaah... okayyy.... I really do see why they wanted to jetison the monster ending. Not that their new ending makes any more sense. At least it re-enforces the 'reality' concept of the story (or at least attempts to play the fantastical elements into it) rather than undermining it like Moore's does.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

LOL

This is "no spoilers"????

(No biggie, I've read the book).

Yeah, that doesn't have spoilers.

What plot point is spoiled in that post?

[Donald M.]

In related news that will surprise no one, the downloadable Xbox cash-in game is pretty terrible, what little I played of it. Especially the cut scenes that attempt, ineptly, to ape Dave Gibbons signature style.

Most hilarious of all? It apparently takes less than two hours to beat and they want $20 for it.

*sigh*

[Darrell D.]

Yeah that was another thing that pops me out of the story right at the very end.

Doc is the only one with super powers, except of course for all those hundreds of other psychics... yeeeaah... okayyy.... I really do see why they wanted to jetison the monster ending. Not that their new ending makes any more sense. At least it re-enforces the 'reality' concept of the story (or at least attempts to play the fantastical elements into it) rather than undermining it like Moore's does.

Psychics or 'sensitives' are nothing new in the world we live in, whether you believe in that or not.
A being that had his intrinisic field removed and then put himself back together and becoming like a god, on the other hand...
The use of the psychics in the book never bothered me.

[Darrell D.]

In related news that will surprise no one, the downloadable Xbox cash-in game is pretty terrible, what little I played of it. Especially the cut scenes that attempt, ineptly, to ape Dave Gibbons signature style.

Most hilarious of all? It apparently takes less than two hours to beat and they want $20 for it.

*sigh*

Is there at least a 'Sweet Chariot' sugar cube as a health pickup for Rorschach?

[Paradox]

DrunkJack has me add:

Also, there was that bit in the book, in Viedt's explanation of his plan, about a psychic pulse that went out with the alien attack and 'sensitives' around the world died from it, so there were casualties (often seemingly random I'd guess), around the world from the alien attack. I assume that it had some impact on the general populace as well, the psychic pulse basically making everyone understand that it was a multi level alien attack.

Imagine if suddenly 1 in 1000 people just randomly died during the attack on New York, the timing would be noticed, it would have a global impact, those psychic sensitives being hit by the psychic pulse and the non sensitives also feeling something very strange hit them all at the moment millions died in NYC.

Everyone on earth getting punched in the brain and some of them dying from it, on top of millions in the physical attack.

I never thought it affected the world, only the sensitives, but it might be. Been a long time since I read it (a million times :tongue: )

I do remember some points, though. All the sensitives didn't die. There were those left around to describe the experience. The psychic blast also contained "alien" images and experiences of their "world", which is why they were taking writers as well as artists, to do the whole world-building thing. With the alien remains in NY, putting together an idea of impending alien attack would not only be possible, but inevitable.

[LtMarvel]

Comedian's murder, biggest laugh, full frontal nudity, etc etc

[howyadoin]

Comedian's murder, biggest laugh, full frontal nudity, etc etcC'mon, is revealing the full frontal nudity ahead of time really gonna ruin the movie for anybody?

[Squall]

Well I enjoyed the movie, it had its flaws but I think the good points outweigh them, it's not the greatest movie ever, perhaps not even great but it was fun and those people looking down from the lofty heights of the graphic novel (which was absolutely brilliant by the way) will be dissapointed if they go in thinking it will be anything else.
8/10 - based on what it was, not on what it could have been

[Slam_Bradley]

C'mon, is revealing the full frontal nudity ahead of time really gonna ruin the movie for anybody?

Well I'm not too keen on a big blue phallus, but that's just me.

It's not remotely spoilerish though.


And there shouldn't be any big laughs.







The Comedian is dead.

[jessecuster3]

In related news that will surprise no one, the downloadable Xbox cash-in game is pretty terrible, what little I played of it. Especially the cut scenes that attempt, ineptly, to ape Dave Gibbons signature style.

Most hilarious of all? It apparently takes less than two hours to beat and they want $20 for it.

*sigh*

Actually, Gibbons worked on the game with them, so they aren't really aping anyone.

[Donald M.]

Actually, Gibbons worked on the game with them, so they aren't really aping anyone.

Well the cutscenes looked terrible, I thought.. Can't blame Gibbons for going for an easy paycheck I suppose.

[Donald M.]

Anyway, just got back from watching the movie. It was reasonably entertaining, though my ass and back wish it had been about an hour shorter. Considering they're intended to be sat in for at least two hours at a stretch, you'd think they'd make an effort to make movie theater seats more comfortable.

Anyway, back to the movie: as has been pointed out by others, the movie's use of and choices in musical accompaniment often feels ham-fisted and obvious, but as they're all pretty great songs it's not all bad.

Some of the best lines of dialogue from the book just sound stupid coming out of an actual (or cgi as the case may be) person's mouth. Maybe it's the performances, or maybe some lines really aren't meant ever to be spoken aloud.

I can't help but think Bubastis's sudden and unexplained appearance during the end sequence is going to leave a lot of people unfamiliar with the book scratching their heads. Why include her at all if you aren't going to bother explaining her? It feels like showing off. "Look what we can do with CGI!" If you haven't seen a movie in the last 20 years you might be impressed.

I liked a lot of it though and not for nothing, Jackie Earl Haley is incredible as Rorschach. His grumbly tough-guy voice puts Christian Bale's to shame.

[StoneGold]

I can't help but think Bubastis's sudden and unexplained appearance during the end sequence is going to leave a lot of people unfamiliar with the book scratching their heads. Why include her at all if you aren't going to bother explaining her? It feels like showing off. "Look what we can do with CGI!" If you haven't seen a movie in the last 20 years you might be impressed.


Problem is, Bubastis' very existence was one of the squid clues. But without the squid, no real need for Bubastis. Except it's fucking Bubastis, how dare you leave her out!



But they probably should have established her in the first act anyway. In the interview. Just so that she doesn't come from nowhere.

[Paradox]

Donald M. makes my temples throb:

I liked a lot of it though and not for nothing, Jackie Earl Haley is incredible as Rorschach. His grumbly tough-guy voice puts Christian Bale's to shame.

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

**headdeskheaddeskheaddesk**

[Donald M.]

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

**headdeskheaddeskheaddesk**

The fuck?
__

[Donald M.]

And there shouldn't be any big laughs.







The Comedian is dead.

Heh. It should be said though, that line is one of many from the book that didn't really come across onscreen.

Also, I was a little disturbed by what did get big laughs in the theater I saw the movie in. Namely all the major bits of nasty violence.

Another note: considering everyone else outside of the heroes dresses more or less normally, was it really necessary to have the gang that attacked Dan and Laurie looking like extras from a high school production of A Clockwork Orange: The Musical? It just looked silly. I know their look was lifted directly from the book, but like the appearance of Bubastis, it seems like a half-assed attempt to throw the hardcore fanboys a bone.

[Paradox]

Donald M. needs the explanation:

The fuck?
__

Sorry. One of my pet peeves about the previews. Rorschach shouldn't HAVE a "grumbly toughguy voice". He has a flat creepy monotone. The whole "Batman growl" gets my fanboy up. :tongue:

[moonknight11]

I loved this movie. Fuck yeah Adrian Veidt! The action scenes were great. The beginning seemed sluggish though(after the opening credits of course). The best part of the movie was when the backstory of Dr. Manhattan was explained.

[Donald M.]

Sorry. One of my pet peeves about the previews. Rorschach shouldn't HAVE a "grumbly toughguy voice". He has a flat creepy monotone. The whole "Batman growl" gets my fanboy up. :tongue:

Okay. It works for the film though, I thought. Plus, it would've been weird to have two characters in the movie who talk in an emotionless monotone. I never imagined Jon's voice that way when I read the book, but in context it makes sense.

[Paul McEnery]

Okay. It works for the film though, I thought. .

Which strongly implies there's something very wrong with the film.

[Donald M.]

Which strongly implies there's something very wrong with the film.

Won't argue with you there.

It was okay except for the parts that were terrible.

Which become more numerous the more I think about it.

[DoctorDoom]

Saw it on Friday. I liked it.

Surprising, since I wasn't a big fan of the comics when I read it a few years back.

I''m planning a re-read soon.

[Donald M.]

Saw it on Friday. I liked it.

Surprising, since I wasn't a big fan of the comics when I read it a few years back.

I''m planning a re-read soon.

That reminds. Now that I've actually seen the film . . . why would anyone say they liked the rape scene? Why would they feel the need to point that out? Even before seeing that scene in the film and how brutal it was that seemed off, but now?

Also, most of the violence in the film was ridiculously over the top in a bad way. When people are laughing at a dude getting his head cleaved, something's wrong. With the people yes, but also with the film.

[Tages]

Which strongly implies there's something very wrong with the film.

The thing that kills the film is that if you've read and liked the comic, everything about the movie you like will be because it's riding on the comic, and you'll keep getting distracted by the borderline fetishistic way Snyder recreates individual panels and dialogue for the screen. That and it's just so...clean, so photogenic. It doesn't scan.

Brian K. Vaughan was right when he said that making Watchmen into a movie is the equivalent of making Citizen Kane into a stage play. If I'd have never read the comic I would love it, and it stands up well in isolation. But I can't unread the comic, so to me it'll always be just a shiny, soulless replica reflecting the spirit of its inspiration.

[Tages]

Though to be fair, something I thought was a plot hole on second viewing is given an explanation.

Veidt doesn't just target New York. Moscow, London, Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong are also hit, so it looks like Manhattan has declared war on humanity in general and not just America.

[Paradox]

The world would still blame the US. It's their weapon out of control.

[Asmith]

The world would still blame the US. It's their weapon out of control.

I really have nothing to say to that as I agree with you. I just wanted to join in the fun of writing everything in spoiler tags within a thread that's clearly marked No Spoilers!

[Paradox]

I took that to mean no visible spoilers, unlike your unsightly panty lines. :wink:

[Asmith]

I took that to mean no visible spoilers, unlike your unsightly panty lines. :wink:

Well I have thought about going all Doc Manhattan in my pants, but it's just too damn jangly. I like the support.

[Cherokee Jack]

I read something a few months back about the soundtrack, and the thing that struck me was how many '60s songs were put in a movie set in the mid-'80s. The Hendrix tune should get a pass, because that one was directly referenced in the original comic, but otherwise, there should be more '80s music represented than any other decade. That said, it was in the '80s when it became obvious that classic rock was going to stick around and really dominate a segment of the radio dial.


I think most of the music comments here were made by people who hadn't even seen the movie. There are 80s songs used (99 Luftballoons being one), they just aren't on the soundtrack release. And the Joplin song is played during a flashback to Viet Nam sequence.

[moonknight11]

The world would still blame the US. It's their weapon out of control.

I guess so, but then again L.A. and New York got 'nuked' too.

[The Confessor]

Well, I already posted in the other Watchmen review thread but what the hell, I'll post it here too since that other thread got locked.

I went to see it on Friday night and I have to say that I'm very relieved. I think Zak Snyder did a great job in staying faithful to the source material but at the same time managing to create a satisfying movie presentation. I also have to say that I thought pretty much everyone was cast really well and portrayed their character excellently...especially Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach and Patrick Wilson as Night Owl II.

And now for the obligatory spoiler tags that everyone seems to be using...

I thought that there were some clever cinematic devices used in the film; like showing much of the history of The Minutemen and the history of this alternate world during the opening credits, rather than going into it in great detail during the film. Plus the use of Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" in this montage was spot on.

As for the change to the ending, I didn't mind it and truth be told, it’ll probably work better for the majority of casual cinema goers than the appearance of a giant squid. Plus, of course, if you were gonna have the giant squid ending you'd need the whole Black Freighter storyline and also introduce its author and show him on the desert island, which would’ve probably bogged the movie down.

All in all, a really great movie version of a really great comic. I'm very, very relieved.

[Fenris]

The world would still blame the US. It's their weapon out of control.

This is true; but frankly, I didn't think the book's ending was plausible either. Everyone would be shocked and afraid for a year or so, and then slip back into their old habits of thinking.

In the film ending, it's true that people would blame the US, but that isn't the point. They'd be too scared to launch a global thermonuclear war, and that's all that Ozzy cares about.

õ
Whoops, I guess I'm spoiling after all!

[Paradox]

To your first part, I can only agree. Of course, we only see shortly after the "unification" so the scenario as you posit it IS something Moore wants us to think about. The second part...are you saying Ozy's plan in the movie wasn't to unify the world, but rather to scare them into not letting the nukes fly? Holy character switch, Batman, that completely changes Ozy and his position in this story, too!

[Chris N]

I thought it was made clear it all worked out, in the end.

[howyadoin]

I thought it was made clear it all worked out, in the end.I'm gonna give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're being facetious.

[Paradox]

In the book? I didn't think so. Seemed to be deliberately ambiguous to me.

EDIT: Unless it's what howy said.

[Chris N]

I was half-quoting Adrian. That line was immediately followed by Doc Manhattan saying "Nothing ever ends."


Has anybody here read the book?

[Paradox]

I will take "I missed a reference" over "Chris has totally lost his mind". :tongue:

[howyadoin]

I was half-quoting Adrian. That line was immediately followed by Doc Manhattan saying "Nothing ever ends."


Has anybody here read the book?"Book"?

There's a book?

[StoneGold]

For whatever it's worth, I don't think how Ozy was trying to obtain world peace was really anything that Moore was trying to say. It's more about Ozy trying to obtain world peace through mass death. He's both the hero and the villain. Good and evil coming from the same place - sociopaths willing to play god.

[thespianphryne]

This is why you can never trust the experts and smart people.

[Paradox]

Actually, that's the whole POINT of Ozy. His intentions are good, and the concept we're supposed to struggle with on our own is "do the ends justify the means". He's very definitely trying to create world peace. We don't get to see if it's a lasting success or just a flash in the pan.

[StoneGold]

Actually, that's the whole POINT of Ozy. His intentions are good, and the concept we're supposed to struggle with on our own is "do the ends justify the means". He's very definitely trying to create world peace. We don't get to see if it's a lasting success or just a flash in the pan.

That's what I said though. My point was it doesn't matter much to the overall message whether the world is afraid of Doc or of aliens. It's more that he came up with this fucked up idea that killed millions, but potentially saved the world.


Unless you were responding to something else. In which case, nevermind.

[Paradox]

That's the part I disagree about. Moore was very much counting on the "they all gather to face a common enemy" and as shown several times, Manhattan ain't that. Certainly you don't think someone like Moore had a "well, just some fucked up plan would work" mentality, do you?

The elaborate plan to trick the world into joining together is the very basis of the plot of the book itself. Ozy's the "smartest man on the planet". If it would have worked just to frame Jon for something, he'd probably have gone that way. But he (and obviously Moore) knows it wouldn't work that way.

[Fenris]

To your first part, I can only agree. Of course, we only see shortly after the "unification" so the scenario as you posit it IS something Moore wants us to think about. The second part...are you saying Ozy's plan in the movie wasn't to unify the world, but rather to scare them into not letting the nukes fly? Holy character switch, Batman, that completely changes Ozy and his position in this story, too!

Huh. You know, I'm not sure. It's hard for me to recall if he specifically said that in the movie, or if I just interpreted Ozzy's character with the book in mind.

But he's not much of an altruist anyway: by sending Dr. Manhattan to Mars, he deliberately created the very crisis he was supposedly doing all this to solve. So we're probably safe in ascribing to him some very imperfect motives.


õ
Fortunately, he didn't know anything about password safety!

[thespianphryne]

It's all about the setup and it didn't really have one. for example, if they had just set up Jon as a some kind of wild card who did things however he wanted and was a bit of a political embarrassment and a valuable but loose gun, the movie ending would have worked a whole lot better.

[Paradox]

BTW, just for the unaware...

"how easy his [Gorbachev's] task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries ..." - Ronald Reagan, Dec. 4, 1985

[StoneGold]

That's the part I disagree about. Moore was very much counting on the "they all gather to face a common enemy" and as shown several times, Manhattan ain't that. Certainly you don't think someone like Moore had a "well, just some fucked up plan would work" mentality, do you?

The elaborate plan to trick the world into joining together is the very basis of the plot of the book itself. Ozy's the "smartest man on the planet". If it would have worked just to frame Jon for something, he'd probably have gone that way. But he (and obviously Moore) knows it wouldn't work that way.

That's crap. It works because the writer says it works, and because the writer didn't write it that way, obviously it won't?


In any event, I still say the method wasn't the important part of the story. Moore wasn't trying to make a blueprint about how to save the world - he was deconstructing superheroes. And in this case, showing how saving the world can mean being an evil douchebag. Which I think still works without the squid.

[Fenris]

Actually, that's the whole POINT of Ozy. His intentions are good, and the concept we're supposed to struggle with on our own is "do the ends justify the means". He's very definitely trying to create world peace. We don't get to see if it's a lasting success or just a flash in the pan.

Hm. I have to disagree, I think. His name is Ozymandias, and Moore didn't pick that at random. Prideful, catastrophic failure is written all over him.

õ
Look on my cake, ye mighty...

[Chris N]

That's crap. It works because the writer says it works, and because the writer didn't write it that way, obviously it won't?


The point of the recent conversation is that Moore never claimed Ozy's plan would work. That was left open to interpretation.

Paradox is giving reasons why the plan in the movie doesn't work as a plan, without having to merely point out it's different than the comic.

[Paradox]

Fenris moves and shakes:

Huh. You know, I'm not sure. It's hard for me to recall if he specifically said that in the movie, or if I just interpreted Ozzy's character with the book in mind.

But he's not much of an altruist anyway: by sending Dr. Manhattan to Mars, he deliberately created the very crisis he was supposedly doing all this to solve. So we're probably safe in ascribing to him some very imperfect motives.

Oh, certainly it's not exactly altruistic. It's Machiavellian (intentionally). Frankly, it's at least some ego. When the Comedian tells the Crime Busters that sure there are problems, but a bunch of dorks running around in tights isn't going to solve them, it hurts "the smartest man on the planets" ego, but he also recognizes the reality of what's being said. But, he's "the smartest man on the planet", so he's sure he CAN fix those problems. He "knows better". Which is all intentional.

Getting Jon out of the picture didn't cause the crisis. That was already in play. Ozy escalated it, intentionally, to get everyone to a rising fear point. He knew his plan was about go into action, and he'd give them something to focus that fear on that would (in Ozy's head) have a positive result instead of a negative one.

[Paradox]

StoneGold mistakes me:

That's crap. It works because the writer says it works, and because the writer didn't write it that way, obviously it won't?

No, it works because it follows logic and the tenor of the times (at least for a short time, anyway). The other ending just makes no sense. To put it another way, I find Moore's ending to be a TON more plausible than what's being reported as the movie ending.


In any event, I still say the method wasn't the important part of the story. Moore wasn't trying to make a blueprint about how to save the world - he was deconstructing superheroes. And in this case, showing how saving the world can mean being an evil douchebag.

See, that's the point. Moore doesn't portray Ozy as an evil douchebag. He portrays him ambiguously. Part of the whole thing is WE'RE supposed to decide in our own heads if he's evil, good, or something in between. The story doesn't TELL us.


Which I think still works without the squid.

I haven't seen it, but it sure sounds like Ozy isn't being portrayed too ambiguously. Sounds like they just made him a standard "behind the scenes villain", which wasn't what Moore had in mind at all.

[Paradox]

Fenris mentions nomenclature:

Hm. I have to disagree, I think. His name is Ozymandias, and Moore didn't pick that at random. Prideful, catastrophic failure is written all over him.

I'm not sure how exactly that disagrees with me.

[thespianphryne]

Hm. I have to disagree, I think. His name is Ozymandias, and Moore didn't pick that at random. Prideful, catastrophic failure is written all over him.

õ
Look on my cake, ye mighty...
Rameses the second was by all accounts a good and great ruler. He may have been prideful, but there was nothing of the failure about him. His failure was more philosophical. He ruled Egypt for some 70 years: reigned over a stable and peaceful kingdom. Of course, after he died, it all went to hell.

And that may be what Moore was pointing to - solutions imposed on people by one visionary are doomed to eventually stop working once that visionary is removed from the picture. In the comic, that's what the Keene act is about: you have to let the people work things out in the manner they have determined is best for them. If you impose another order on them it only leads to dissatisfaction. That's why Veidt came up with his alien attack scenario. He wanted to force leaders into arriving at their own solution. Of course, the question going begging is, how long before human nature begins attacking the status quo. Rameses established a kingdom that should have been able to take care of itself and yet after his death: chaos.

Shelley have crafted his poem about a statue into a lesson about the futility of pride and the victory of time over everything, but the thing is, we still know who Ozymandias is.

[StoneGold]

No, it works because it follows logic and the tenor of the times (at least for a short time, anyway). The other ending just makes no sense. To put it another way, I find Moore's ending to be a TON more plausible than what's being reported as the movie ending.




See, that's the point. Moore doesn't portray Ozy as an evil douchebag. He portrays him ambiguously. Part of the whole thing is WE'RE supposed to decide in our own heads if he's evil, good, or something in between. The story doesn't TELL us.




I haven't seen it, but it sure sounds like Ozy isn't being portrayed too ambiguously. Sounds like they just made him a standard "behind the scenes villain", which wasn't what Moore had in mind at all.

Except you haven't seen it, so you're literally making shit up.


In any event, I thought in the book that Ozy was an evil douchebag. Who maybe saved the world. Yes, it is ambiguous. But you don't murder Manhattan without being an evil douchebag.

[Fenris]

Getting Jon out of the picture didn't cause the crisis. That was already in play. Ozy escalated it, intentionally, to get everyone to a rising fear point. He knew his plan was about go into action, and he'd give them something to focus that fear on that would (in Ozy's head) have a positive result instead of a negative one.

I know that Ozzy said (in the book; actually, all of this is going to be from the book) that the crisis was ongoing, constantly deepening, and inevitable; but he's not exactly an objective speaker on the subject.

My counterargument, for what it's worth, is entirely interpretational: the narrator of the Pirate book doesn't understand what the real danger is. He does horrible things to try and avert a crisis that never really endangered his town at all.

If the narrator is a metaphor for Ozzy (and I think that's how it's pointing) then he's not really saving the world at all. He thinks he is, just as the Pirate narrator thinks he's saving his home; but in the end, he doesn't understand the situation half as well as he assumes he does.

The other vague thematic argument I'd make is that of the quarreling lesbians. I think they're analagous to the two superpowers. They confront each other, and get more and more intense, as the international situation worsens. By issue 11, when the US and USSR are on the verge of war, they start brawling in the street.

And the other characters step in to help them- to hold them back, calm things down, and generally get the situation under control. Which is an outcome for the international crisis that Ozzy never seems to have thought of.

Of course, it ends with him killing them all, so that's not a very hopeful analogy!

õ
And yes, this is all pretty thin!

[Paradox]

StoneGold waves it off:

Except you haven't seen it, so you're literally making shit up.

Working from limited reported information is a few steps up from "literally making shit up". But there's no surety, of course, until after I've experienced it myself, yes.


In any event, I thought in the book that Ozy was an evil douchebag. Who maybe saved the world. Yes, it is ambiguous. But you don't murder Manhattan without being an evil douchebag.

Which is the intent. To make the reader think about it and make up their own mind. It's also a reflection of governmental interference in real life, and about a hundred other things, but, eh, that's Moore.

[StoneGold]

Working from limited reported information is a few steps up from "literally making shit up". But there's no surety, of course, until after I've experienced it myself, yes.



Except it is making shit up. Because you're taking what other people are saying and extrapolating from that, making up a movie that you haven't seen. That is literally making shit up. Never said it was completely uninformed but it is still making it up.


And Ozy still is a murderous douchebag in the name of world peace.

[Fenris]

I'm not sure how exactly that disagrees with me.

I don't think the ending is really that ambiguous. Every "hint" that Moore gives suggests that it fails; and nothing, aside from Ozzy's own driving confidence, suggests that it's going to succeed.

*Shrug* Of course, your milage is bound to vary.


Rameses the second was by all accounts a good and great ruler. He may have been prideful, but there was nothing of the failure about him. His failure was more philosophical. He ruled Egypt for some 70 years: reigned over a stable and peaceful kingdom. Of course, after he died, it all went to hell.

And that may be what Moore was pointing to - solutions imposed on people by one visionary are doomed to eventually stop working once that visionary is removed from the picture. In the comic, that's what the Keene act is about: you have to let the people work things out in the manner they have determined is best for them. If you impose another order on them it only leads to dissatisfaction. That's why Veidt came up with his alien attack scenario. He wanted to force leaders into arriving at their own solution. Of course, the question going begging is, how long before human nature begins attacking the status quo. Rameses established a kingdom that should have been able to take care of itself and yet after his death: chaos.

Shelley have crafted his poem about a statue into a lesson about the futility of pride and the victory of time over everything, but the thing is, we still know who Ozymandias is.

Hm. This is true: and yet, it seems clear that Moore was thinking more of Shelley than of the original Rameses. That's why "Look on my works, ye mighty..." is the title of the eleventh issue.


õ
Or maybe Rameses just wasn't very quotable!

[StoneGold]

õ
Or maybe Rameses just wasn't very quotable!

But does provide a better fit than Trojan!

[Paradox]

Fenris gets deeper:

I know that Ozzy said (in the book; actually, all of this is going to be from the book) that the crisis was ongoing, constantly deepening, and inevitable; but he's not exactly an objective speaker on the subject.

Nor is he, I'm sure, meant to be. When you're talking about motivations, that's almost entirely residing in the POV. On the other hand, Moore's constant updating of the news of the Russian insurgencies and the worries of the President and the cabinet certainly indicate the possibility that Ozy's right.

My counterargument, for what it's worth, is entirely interpretational: the narrator of the Pirate book doesn't understand what the real danger is. He does horrible things to try and avert a crisis that never really endangered his town at all.

Certainly a possibility, and something Moore wants us to think about.

If the narrator is a metaphor for Ozzy (and I think that's how it's pointing) then he's not really saving the world at all. He thinks he is, just as the Pirate narrator thinks he's saving his home; but in the end, he doesn't understand the situation half as well as he assumes he does.

Also no argument there. That doesn't really speak much to Ozy's motivation or his plan, though.

The other vague thematic argument I'd make is that of the quarreling lesbians. I think they're analagous to the two superpowers. They confront each other, and get more and more intense, as the international situation worsens. By issue 11, when the US and USSR are on the verge of war, they start brawling in the street.

And the other characters step in to help them- to hold them back, calm things down, and generally get the situation under control. Which is an outcome for the international crisis that Ozzy never seems to have thought of.

I'm sure he thought of it, but given history, why would one think that would happen? :smile:

Of course, it ends with him killing them all, so that's not a very hopeful analogy!

Certainly something to think about, as well.

Did that really work? Would it have been better without the interference? Was it a good thing Ozy did? IS he a "hero" or a "villain"? Do things work themselves out on their own, or do they need a guiding hand behind the scenes? These are all questions Moore leaves to the reader. Does the movie?

[Chris N]

I don't think the ending is really that ambiguous. Every "hint" that Moore gives suggests that it fails; and nothing, aside from Ozzy's own driving confidence, suggests that it's going to succeed.

The other heroes seem convinced. Nite-Owl is convinced enough that he's afraid to bring Ozy to justice. Of course he's wimpy and indecisive as a rule. Doc Manhattan is willing to kill Rorschach for the sake of Ozy's plan. Though who knows what was going on in his head by the end.

[Paradox]

Fenris summons his POV:

I don't think the ending is really that ambiguous. Every "hint" that Moore gives suggests that it fails; and nothing, aside from Ozzy's own driving confidence, suggests that it's going to succeed.

Except for the part where he shows it working. :evilsmile:


*Shrug* Of course, your milage is bound to vary.

Of course! One of the best things about this book is that there are so many ways to interpret lots of stuff. I'm sure intentionally. Gets the ol' grey matter working.

[Paradox]

StoneGold demands his POV:

Except it is making shit up. Because you're taking what other people are saying and extrapolating from that, making up a movie that you haven't seen. That is literally making shit up. Never said it was completely uninformed but it is still making it up.

Fine, I'll be sure to phrase my answers as questions, then, Mr. Trebek.

[Fenris]

But does provide a better fit than Trojan!

*Blink*

Okay, now I have this horrible mental picture of condoms with erudite quotations printed on them. Kind of like something out of Woody Allen's "The Whore of Mensa." (http://waitalia.tripod.com/short-uk.html)

õ
I bet someone would buy them!

[Chris N]

These are all questions Moore leaves to the reader. Does the movie?

The movie apes the comic line by line. It just doesn't have time for most of the comic, and lacking time to set up the background for the alien plot, it deleted it in favour of an alternate solution easier to set up given what was in the movie.

Beyond the nature of the threat, the dialogue in the climactic scene is almost identical.

It conveys the same points (mostly) though with a plan is more flawed than Moore's plan.

[StoneGold]

The other heroes seem convinced. Nite-Owl is convinced enough that he's afraid to bring Ozy to justice. Of course he's wimpy and indecisive as a rule. Doc Manhattan is willing to kill Rorschach for the sake of Ozy's plan. Though who knows what was going on in his head by the end.

That was the one thing about the movie, they let Dan be slightly less impotent, putting some hurt on Ozzy at the end. Although that was as much for the audience I think, letting him at least have some pyrrhic victory against Ozzy.

[StoneGold]

*Blink*

Okay, now I have this horrible mental picture of condoms with erudite quotations printed on them. Kind of like something out of Woody Allen's "The Whore of Mensa." (http://waitalia.tripod.com/short-uk.html)

õ
I bet someone would buy them!

Best be getting your learn on when you get your suck on, bitch!

[Chris N]

That was the one thing about the movie, they let Dan be slightly less impotent, putting some hurt on Ozzy at the end. Although that was as much for the audience I think, letting him at least have some pyrrhic victory against Ozzy.

They also made him a bad-ass character out of pick-your-action-movie for at least two other scenes. The treatment of his character is the thing I most shake my head at.

I don't care that much what blew up New York.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin says:

The movie apes the comic line by line. It just doesn't have time for most of the comic, and lacking time to set up the background for the alien plot, it deleted it in favour of an alternate solution easier to set up given what was in the movie.

Beyond the nature of the threat, the dialogue in the climactic scene is almost identical.

It conveys the same points (mostly) though with a plan is more flawed than Moore's plan.

Thank you, then. If true (wouldn't want to make shit up here), then that's a good thing. It'd only be the specifics of the plan that make me scratch my head.

[StoneGold]

They also made him a bad-ass character out of pick-your-action-movie for at least two other scenes. The treatment of his character is the thing I most shake my head at.

I don't care that much what blew up New York.

It's not like Dan didn't handle himself in the fights in the book. I think it's more that his costume sucked less in the movie.

[Chris N]

The more I think about it, the more their mishandling of Dan bugs me. To the sense the comic is about each hero offering a different perspective on morality, I think Dan is the one closest to my personality. Which is saddening, because he's indecisive to the point of being worthless. He knows wrong when he sees it but never seems to know what to do about it. No authority, no conviction.

Rorschach is easier to admire, because of his uncompromising conviction. But Rorschach is clearly crazy. And extreme views are never the right answer in life.

Dan provided the perfect middle ground to Rorschach and Adrian, and you could look at them and see that nobody was right, not really. Dan still isn't much use in the movie, but the effect of his ineptness is lost when he's doing his slo-mo ninja action in those scenes.

[Chris N]

It's not like Dan didn't handle himself in the fights in the book. I think it's more that his costume sucked less in the movie.

There's a difference between handling himself and being Jet Li.

[Paradox]

I liked that in the book, Dan fought quite brutally, although seemed to be less skilled than the others. Because, well, when faced with a bunch of toughs in an alley, that's how an out of shape milquetoast wins. :smile:

[Fenris]

Nor is he, I'm sure, meant to be. When you're talking about motivations, that's almost entirely residing in the POV. On the other hand, Moore's constant updating of the news of the Russian insurgencies and the worries of the President and the cabinet certainly indicate the possibility that Ozy's right.

Well, sure, it's a possibility. If there were no danger at all, Ozzy would have been a barking lunatic to do what he did. But it's a question of inevitability; a lot of Ozzy's justification rested on his assumption that war was bound to come sooner or later, so he might as well gamble everything on his plan.

It's kind of unfair to Ozzy, I guess, that time has passed: we know that a 1980s nuclear war wasn't inevitable in our world, so it's hard to see it as being inevitable in theirs.


I'm sure he thought of it, but given history, why would one think that would happen? :smile:

Oooh, touche!


Did that really work? Would it have been better without the interference? Was it a good thing Ozy did? IS he a "hero" or a "villain"? Do things work themselves out on their own, or do they need a guiding hand behind the scenes? These are all questions Moore leaves to the reader. Does the movie?

Well, by his own argument, he's not a hero; heroes are outdated. He also says that he's not a Republic serial villain; which is kind of funny because he acts just like one, explaining his master plan to the heroes he's overpowered.

I don't think it works, for reasons that I've elaborated. Moore leaves it to the reader in the sense that he doesn't specifically tell us what happens; but I think the much-stronger thematic argument can be made for failure.

As for the movie: (oh yeah, that!) It is not anywhere near as complex as the book, so the questions aren't really "there." The outcome is indeterminate, and there are no real thematic hints one way or the other.

õ
But we'll see what the DVD adds on!

[Fenris]

The other heroes seem convinced. Nite-Owl is convinced enough that he's afraid to bring Ozy to justice. Of course he's wimpy and indecisive as a rule. Doc Manhattan is willing to kill Rorschach for the sake of Ozy's plan. Though who knows what was going on in his head by the end.

Hm, that's true. His last comment to Ozzy (complete with mushroom cloud!) might be an offhand philosophical observation, or a mean little mind game, or a warning. We can't tell which.

õ
Which is part of what makes it interesting!

[howyadoin]

That was the one thing about the movie, they let Dan be slightly less impotent, putting some hurt on Ozzy at the end.You say that like it's an improvement.

The more I think about it, the more their mishandling of Dan bugs me. To the sense the comic is about each hero offering a different perspective on morality, I think Dan is the one closest to my personality. Which is saddening, because he's indecisive to the point of being worthless.I like his ongoing debate over pizza vs. burritos.

[Chris N]

I like his ongoing debate over pizza vs. burritos.

I don't recall that from the comic, but it was just going through my head.

I had a burrito last night so I'm leaning toward pizza.

[StoneGold]

You say that like it's an improvement.


No, I say that like it's what they did. It's there for what it was - to let the audience have at least something semi-positive at the end to watch. Although even that is kind of taken away, with Ozy basically letting him do it.

[howyadoin]

No, I say that like it's what they did. It's there for what it was - to let the audience have at least something semi-positive at the end to watch. Although even that is kind of taken away, with Ozy basically letting him do it.Fair enough. When you said "that was the one thing about the movie," it sounded to me like you were pointing out something worthwhile.

[Paradox]

I really liked the ineffectualness of Dan in the book. He couldn't do anything to Ozy. He was impotent (yup!) in the face of struggling powers, much like the "everymen" he's supposed to represent.

[Fenris]

It's not like Dan didn't handle himself in the fights in the book. I think it's more that his costume sucked less in the movie.

Well, in the book, he only had the alley fight and the fight with Ozzy, right? He didn't seem to fight in the prison scene, they just wandered around watching the chaos until they found Rorschach.

He wasn't really about fisticuffs; he was about clever gizmo solutions. More like Blue Beetle than Batman, which makes sense now that I think about it.


The more I think about it, the more their mishandling of Dan bugs me. To the sense the comic is about each hero offering a different perspective on morality, I think Dan is the one closest to my personality. Which is saddening, because he's indecisive to the point of being worthless. He knows wrong when he sees it but never seems to know what to do about it. No authority, no conviction.

Yeah, but take it in context. In Watchmen, any kind of power is always dehumanizing: not just "power" in the physical sense, but any kind of personal effectiveness. It turns you into a remote godlike being, or a (nearly) friendless lunatic, or a grandiose mass-murderer. Only powerlessness is human; which is why Dan and Laurie get buffeted by larger forces for the whole series, and never seem to control their own destinies.


Rorschach is easier to admire, because of his uncompromising conviction. But Rorschach is clearly crazy. And extreme views are never the right answer in life.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes, Anakin!"


Dan provided the perfect middle ground to Rorschach and Adrian, and you could look at them and see that nobody was right, not really. Dan still isn't much use in the movie, but the effect of his ineptness is lost when he's doing his slo-mo ninja action in those scenes.

I agree completely.

õ
And with regret!

[howyadoin]

I really liked the ineffectualness of Dan in the book. He couldn't do anything to Ozy. He was impotent (yup!) in the face of struggling powers, much like the "everymen" he's supposed to represent.Bingo. He humanizes the whole thing.

[StoneGold]

He still couldn't do anything to Ozy. The only time he did was because Ozy was letting him blow off some steam.

[Paradox]

Just a note, I wasn't saying anything about the movie, there. Was just saying I enjoyed the concept. Whichever way Ozy punks him works for me.

[Chris N]

Just a note, I wasn't saying anything about the movie, there.

That's good. Otherwise you'd just be making shit up.

[Kid Omega]

Fine, I'll be sure to phrase my answers as questions, then, Mr. Trebek.

Why not just sit this one out?

You don't have to post a thousand times in every fucking thread, you know.

[Andreas Tanis]

I saw this movie opening day and loved it. I thought that because I didn't read the GN I'd be a bit baffled as to what was going on, but luckily I understood everything as it unfolded, and the movie was great, definitely in my top 5.

[Asmith]

Why not just sit this one out?

You don't have to post a thousand times in every fucking thread, you know.
Oh don't be that guy.

He was making some very good points, as were the people answering him. I for one, felt it was an interesting debate of opinions.

[Paradox]

Kid Omega has a fixation:

Why not just sit this one out?

You don't have to post a thousand times in every fucking thread, you know.

I'm going to break my internal vow to just not talk to you this once and once only.

Why is this an issue for you? Why do you give a shit how, where or what I post? I have conversations in the middle of the night with people, mostly when I'm bored at work. I like talking to people here, whether it's discussing something seriously or just making wisecracks back and forth. I'm going to continue as I have, and if that bothers you...well, I guess that's just a bonus.

[Deadpooligan]

He still couldn't do anything to Ozy. The only time he did was because Ozy was letting him blow off some steam.

Kind of interesting how he's totally cool with not beating him up after he kills millions of people, but the instant Rorschach becomes a pasty-red casualty of circumstance, he tears off the goggles and the cowl, and goes to town.

[Asmith]

I'm going to break my internal vow to just not talk to you this once and once only.

Why is this an issue for you? Why do you give a shit how, where or what I post? I have conversations in the middle of the night with people, mostly when I'm bored at work. I like talking to people here, whether it's discussing something seriously or just making wisecracks back and forth. I'm going to continue as I have, and if that bothers you...well, I guess that's just a bonus.

My theory is that he has a crush on you...

[Deadpooligan]

My theory is that he has a crush on you...

Maybe he's a tsundere.

"G-geez Paradox, c-can't you sit this one thread out? I mean, I see you all the time. in like every thread! It-it's not like I like you or anything! I'm not following you around!"

[Laurence]

Anyone who doesn't think this movie was a pointless exercise?

[Dreadstar]

Anyone who doesn't think this movie was a pointless exercise?

I was entertained, I don't find that pointless.





EDITED BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR OFFENSE ANYMORE:

[jesse_custer]

Anyone who doesn't think this movie was a pointless exercise?

Pointless as in we didn't need a Watchmen film? Yes. Pointless as in I found the film to be complete shit? No.

[Slam_Bradley]

Pointless as in we didn't need a Watchmen film? Yes. Pointless as in I found the film to be complete shit? No.


How about pointless, as in it makes money for its investors. Because that is ultimately the point.

[Matt Algren]

EDITED BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR OFFENSE ANYMORE:
Thank Christ you told us.




(See what I did there?)

[Paradox]

Prayed for Dread? :biggrin:

[jesse_custer]

How about pointless, as in it makes money for its investors. Because that is ultimately the point.

Yep. Of course, some have already called Watchmen a flop, but I think that's misleading right now.

[Dreadstar]

Yep. Of course, some have already called Watchmen a flop, but I think that's misleading right now.

A budget of $130M? It'll make that from first run, easy. In 4 weeks.

It might be a B.O. disappointment, but I don't think it can be considered a "flop."

[Dreadstar]

Prayed for Dread? :biggrin:

And I'm not taking offense at it!

[jesse_custer]

I read somewhere the budget was $120 million, and that would only add more validity to your point.

[mikekerr3]

Anyone who doesn't think this movie was a pointless exercise?

I liked the movie a lot, as much as the Dark Knight and more than Iron Man.

[mikekerr3]

Yep. Of course, some have already called Watchmen a flop, but I think that's misleading right now.

It's made 56 million in the US alone on the first weekend, It's R-rated and that cuts the aaudience down a lot, it has no big Stars and it very long, I would say it's doing well and will make a healthy return.

This movie never had the potential to be Iron Man or the Dark knight in sales the source material did lead there.

[Perry Holley]

"Book"?

There's a book?DC has done an adaption of the movie. It sucks. There's a bunch of stuff that they throw in that isn't in the movie, the ending is different, and a lot of the art is just tracings of scenes from the movie.

[Kusanagi]

I give it a 7 or 8 out of ten, really it suffers from the same thing most books to movies suffer and that's what to cut. The reveals suffered the most because there's simply no time to build them up, also some scenes didn't translate well to live action. Also pretty much all of the side stories are cut, which made me kind of sad cause it gave a street level view to the grander events.

That said the good, is real good imo, the visuals are stunning, the action's brutal and intense, I was digging the soundtrack bouncing around the timeline with classics. And even though the story had to be shortened it's still fun to revisit it, seeing in the flesh (as it were) is something I would suggest to anyone who read the book.

[Loren]

That's the part I disagree about. Moore was very much counting on the "they all gather to face a common enemy" and as shown several times, Manhattan ain't that. Certainly you don't think someone like Moore had a "well, just some fucked up plan would work" mentality, do you?

The elaborate plan to trick the world into joining together is the very basis of the plot of the book itself. Ozy's the "smartest man on the planet". If it would have worked just to frame Jon for something, he'd probably have gone that way. But he (and obviously Moore) knows it wouldn't work that way.

The more I thought about the movie ending, the more I preferred it to the book's. It still has its flaws, true, but Moore's plan has some pretty big problems that bother me even more:

First, Ozy's plan relies heavily on an eleventh-hour cheat that not only stretches one's suspension of disbelief, but runs directly counter to an established fact he'd relied upon in every previous issue. While Moore had repeatedly beaten home the point that this was a realistic universe where Dr. Manhattan was the world's only superhuman, at the end he retcons that to be "Dr. Manhattan is the world's only superhuman...except for the hundreds of psychics that Ozymandias' plan depends upon."

And Ozy's plan does rely on them a LOT. Without the psychics, there's no need to hire the artists and writers to construct the false squid world. Without the psychics, there's no way to share the image of that false world, and the threat of impending invasion, with the real world. With no images of its origins or message of its threat, the world is simply left with a giant squid monster; is that, by itself, going to make the world unite? It's scary, yes; but the world can't and won't interpret it as a lasting threat. For that, you not only need the psychics, but you need the world to BELIEVE the psychics. I've always found that a tough pill to swallow.

Snyder's ending, on the other hand, doesn't require that kind of last-minute cheat. In the movie, the physics of Ozy's plan doesn't require any more suspension of disbelief than the previous two hours. The public knows Dr. Manhattan, and they know what he's capable of. Ozy's plan simply relies on them to draw a logical, but incorrect, correlation.

Second, even if you assume that the world does unite against Squiddy, they're going to unite militarily. Resources will be devoted most directly to researching the squid and its origins, to exploiting the same means that brought it to NYC, and, most of all, to preparing to fight the darn things if and when they invade. Ozy has left that Doomsday clock at 5 minutes 'til; it's just counting down to a different doomsday now. Granted, it's a doomsday that will never come, but it's one that every nation on Earth will spend its excess resources planning to combat. Ozy may have saved the world from nuclear war, but he didn't really bring the world any kind of meaningful peace. I'd expect more from the world's smartest man than to give the world not true peace, but rather never-ending detente.

By contrast, in the movie, the world isn't united through the same kind of fear. Rather than the fear of an impending, violent alien invasion, the world is made to fear the wrath of a man who they know to have the powers of a god and who is likely immortal. They know (or think they know) what made him angry, and the world unites to prevent the future expression of that wrath. There may be efforts to counteract Manhattan, but it won't be on the level of the resources devoted to fighting off imaginary aliens. Rather, the world has been intimidated into peace. They'll play nice, for fear of retribution. (And, should retribution be required, Ozymandias can make it happen, which will only reinforce that fear.)

Third, and most minor of these three points (and one I just thought of), I think Ozy's movie plan stands a better chance of not getting uncovered for what it was, even barring Rorschach's journal. He had direct, long-term access to Dr. Manhattan, and the only physical evidence produced by the movie attacks is a radioactive signature. On the other hand, I can only imagine that when government scientists started to examine the giant squid carcass (as they inevitably would), it wouldn't take too long to realize that there was some very familiar, Earth-borne DNA in that thing. It's like trying to fake an Old Masters painting with new paint. They might not be able to explain where it came from or how it was made, but they'd probably be able to reach the conclusion that something so alien shouldn't look so Earthly on a genetic level. And this would happen in fairly short order, opening the door for Ozy's plan to fall apart. Especially if the American response is not to accuse Ozymandias, but to accuse a foreign nation of faking the squid.

Now...will the movie actually WORK long-term? Who knows. But then, I doubt worldwide brotherhood against alien squids would last indefinitely either. It certainly wouldn't without the psychics to vouch for it representing an actual and immediate threat to the whole world.

[thespianphryne]

Ozy's plan from both the book and the movie have flaws. The former for the fantasticness involved and in the latter for reasons of political fall out. The movie ending could have been given a better set up in my opinion had the story actually been adapted and not just transposed.

[Donald M.]

Ozy's plan from both the book and the movie have flaws. The former for the fantasticness involved and in the latter for reasons of political fall out. The movie ending could have been given a better set up in my opinion had the story actually been adapted and not just transposed.

Perhaps, but as I think has been pointed out, political fallout doesn't mean much when the entire world is shitting bricks because a man with the power to destroy cities through force of will has gone nuts and is pissed at them.

Blaming America isn't going to change what the world thinks Doctor Manhattan did, or believes he could do in the future, so let 'em blame America.

At least, you'd have to figure that's how Ozy sees it.

[Agent Helix]

I'd actually say the worse fallout from the movie plot isn't the political fallout, but the religious fallout.

[Agent Helix]

Beyond that, the reason that the squid, the other, the alien is such an important part of the plan in the book, and the reason that it brings mankind back from the brink isn't that it's an external threat that man must then unite to defend themselves from. Even the immediate news response has various bits postulating that it isn't a threat.

I'm going to quote a friend of mine here because he put it much better than I could.

"The squid doesn't stop the nuclear countdown because the world is worried that trans-dimensional squids don't like nuclear war. It pulls the world back from the brink because it puts the whole planet in a new context, not just in terms of a new implied threat. So while Viedt may kill millions, his intentions are very noble. He doesn't just want to end war, he wants to change the way we look at our place in the universe."

[Chris N]

Because we'll always fight with the other tribe because of our nature. So you make people reassess who is and isn't part of the tribe.

[Warpsters]

I recently read the book for the first time. I thought it was good but did not live up to the hype I've been hearing for the last 15-20 years. It just didn't resonate with me.

I felt the same about the movie. It had it's moments but that's about it.

[Fenris]

The more I thought about the movie ending, the more I preferred it to the book's. It still has its flaws, true, but Moore's plan has some pretty big problems that bother me even more:


I don't have the book at hand; but is it explicitly stated that way? From what I recall, the effect of the suicide squid was to project those horrific images into ordinary people's minds. That's what killed most of the people in New York: their bodies were intact, but their brains that were destroyed by the ground-zero effect of the telepathic blast.

All Ozzy said about sensitives was that they would have bad dreams for years to come. (Though how he knows this, I can't guess. It's not like the project could have had much advance testing.)

If the only effect is on psychics, then I agree that it's a pretty thin reed to lean on.

I do agree with just about everything else you said, incidentally. There are various pragmatic reasons that the movie solution is more practical; Moore's approach is just more appealing in its absurdity and its visual effect.


õ
It's very comic-bookish!

[Loren]

I don't have the book at hand; but is it explicitly stated that way? From what I recall, the effect of the suicide squid was to project those horrific images into ordinary people's minds. That's what killed most of the people in New York: their bodies were intact, but their brains that were destroyed by the ground-zero effect of the telepathic blast.

All Ozzy said about sensitives was that they would have bad dreams for years to come. (Though how he knows this, I can't guess. It's not like the project could have had much advance testing.)

If the only effect is on psychics, then I agree that it's a pretty thin reed to lean on.

I didn't have the book on hand earlier, but I do now. You're right that there was a greater effect than I remembered (in particular that most of the deaths in NYC were the result of a psychic shockwave affecting normal people), but the plan is still very heavily psychic-dependent. Ozzy describes how he got the brain of a psychic named Robert Deschaines, and how his scientists cloned it, filled it with "terrible information," and incorporated it into the creature to send out out a signal pulse when the thing died. He goes on:

"Other than those killed outright by the shock, many will be driven mad by the sudden flood of grotesque sensation, and sensitives worldwide will have bad dreams for years to come. No one will doubt this Earth has met a force so dreadful it must be repelled, all former enmities aside."

Dead men tell no tales. And I'm skeptical of world-changing decisions being brought about by the ravings of the suddenly insane. The only people who could share those "descriptions of an alien world...images and sounds" would be the psychic "sensitives."

And you make a great point about the advance testing. Ozzy only had one shot at this, and to make sure it actually worked, he would've had to test how the death of other cloned psychic brains affected people.

Incidentally, looking back at Moore's final issue, I also find myself preferring how Snyder had Ozzy react to the success of his plan. In the film, Veidt isn't ashamed of what he did and defends his choices as a necessary evil, whereas in the comic he's downright happy and giddy about how everything pans out. (He cries in happiness, throws his arms in the air and does a victory yell...and then a few pages later complains that people unfairly find him "callous" about this whole thing. I can't imagine why.)

[Loren]

Beyond that, the reason that the squid, the other, the alien is such an important part of the plan in the book, and the reason that it brings mankind back from the brink isn't that it's an external threat that man must then unite to defend themselves from. Even the immediate news response has various bits postulating that it isn't a threat.

I'm going to quote a friend of mine here because he put it much better than I could.

"The squid doesn't stop the nuclear countdown because the world is worried that trans-dimensional squids don't like nuclear war. It pulls the world back from the brink because it puts the whole planet in a new context, not just in terms of a new implied threat. So while Viedt may kill millions, his intentions are very noble. He doesn't just want to end war, he wants to change the way we look at our place in the universe."

Unfortunately, that's not how Veidt describes his own intentions:

"No one will doubt this Earth has met a force so dreadful it must be repelled, all former enmities aside."

[Gary_B]

Forgive me if this has been posted before, but there really is a Happy Face crater on Mars.

http://barsoom.msss.com/msss_images/2008/01/31/happy_face.jpg

[Darrell D.]

The main problem I have with ending of the movie is that there is no weight behind it.
You see the explosion that destroys New York, but there is no emotional resonance with it, because the people that died are just window dressing. It's like watching a space rock hit Paris in Michael Bay's asteroid movie. It just moves the plot along and that's it.

[StoneGold]

The main problem I have with ending of the movie is that there is no weight behind it.
You see the explosion that destroys New York, but there is no emotional resonance with it, because the people that died are just window dressing. It's like watching a space rock hit Paris in Michael Bay's asteroid movie. It just moves the plot along and that's it.

One of the pitfalls of the medium.


Although I'm not sure I really cared that much about the normal characters Moore created too much. Mostly, they just took up space and interrupted the regular flow of the main plot. Even in the original, they didn't do much but prove that ordinary people don't matter much in a world of flamboyant sociopaths.

[Darrell D.]

One of the pitfalls of the medium.


Although I'm not sure I really cared that much about the normal characters Moore created too much. Mostly, they just took up space and interrupted the regular flow of the main plot. Even in the original, they didn't do much but prove that ordinary people don't matter much in a world of flamboyant sociopaths.

I didn't get that from the original. It made the 'killing half of New York' more powerful, because it actually killed characters that we had met.
In the movie, it was just a pretty explosion and then the ruins of New York.

[StoneGold]

I didn't get that from the original. It made the 'killing half of New York' more powerful, because it actually killed characters that we had met.
In the movie, it was just a pretty explosion and then the ruins of New York.

Yeah, but the only character in the area I kind of cared about was already dead. Once Hollis was gone, everyone else was just background filler. I may have known more about them than I did in the movie (although I have a feeling wait for the expanded edition), but that didn't mean I cared about them at all. Rorschach's one death was far more impactful than everyone who died in Manhattan.

[Joe Rice]

Yeah, but the only character in the area I kind of cared about was already dead. Once Hollis was gone, everyone else was just background filler. I may have known more about them than I did in the movie (although I have a feeling wait for the expanded edition), but that didn't mean I cared about them at all. Rorschach's one death was far more impactful than everyone who died in Manhattan.

A flaw of your reading more than of Moore's execution. By book's end, the "normal" characters were almost all more precious and sympathetic than the costumed hoods.

[Agent Helix]

One of the most moving, powerful images in the book is the shot of the news vendor's body caught in the final act of trying to shield the kid he'd been arguing with through the whole book from the blast.