CBR: THE SQUID IN THE PICTURE: Watchmen's Biggest Change

[CBR News]

Screenwriter David Hayter, Adrian Veidt performer Matthew Goode and illustrator
Dave Gibbons talk to CBR News about the "Watchmen" film adaptation's biggest
departure from the Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons graphic novel.


Full article here (http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=20357).

[rufusmcgregor]

"’Watchmen’ is about powerful people imposing their own moral codes on the world and yet, they’re not purely moral people. They’re flawed--intensely flawed--people with the huge egos. It’s really acting out of ego to impose your will on the world. So I felt that sort of all tied together.”"

First off, I enjoyed this interview. It explains the psychology behind the changes made in the film quite nicely.

I feel the above quote from Hayter is spot on as regards the film. I actually posted a comment to this effect elsewhere on the internet, so it is nice to see my own thoughts echoed by the screenwriter.

The INTERESTING thing, however, is that the above quote is the exact OPPOSITE of the premise of the graphic novel -- which is is about POWERLESS people who stand by while powerful people impose their own moral codes on the world.

It is a HUGE difference and it plays out in a myriad of ways. For example:

Nite-Owl and Silk Specter kicking ass and breaking bones (in the movie) is what POWERFUL people do. Nite-Owl and Silk Specter schlubbing around prison looking kind of confused (in the graphic novel) is what POWERLESS people do.

Hanging out in the War Room debating nuclear annihilation (in the movie) is what POWERFUL people do. Hanging out at the news stand commenting on what the aforementioned powerful people decided to do (in the graphic novel) is what POWERLESS people do.

I think most of the fanboy divide on the Watchmen adaptation actually stems from this fundamental premise swap.

Interesting, no?

[Sean Walsh]

Adrian Veidt performer Matthew Goode...

Wha?

"Actor Matthew Goode" or "Matthew Goode (Ozymandias)" works just as well.

"Adrian Veidt performer" makes Ozy seem like he's a Muppet. .....and talk about a departure from the comic... :wink: :tongue:

[Ontir]

I think Goode was the weakest link in the production. I'd have cast Patrick Wilson as Ozymandias, but knowing Jude Law had lobbied for the part, I can't imagine why it didn't go to him. I've seen Goode in a half dozen things, and aside from hair colour and accent, he's always exactly the same, which is to say, never quite right.

Had they kept the book's ending, this thread could be called the Squid Stays in the Picture! LOL

[Tetsuo_man]

I think Goode was the weakest link in the production. I'd have cast Patrick Wilson as Ozymandias, but knowing Jude Law had lobbied for the part, I can't imagine why it didn't go to him. I've seen Goode in a half dozen things, and aside from hair colour and accent, he's always exactly the same, which is to say, never quite right.

Had they kept the book's ending, this thread could be called the Squid Stays in the Picture! LOL

Snyder felt that having "big names" would distract from the film and he considered Jude Law to be one hence Law not getting the part.

[StoneGold]

Snyder felt that having "big names" would distract from the film and he considered Jude Law to be one hence Law not getting the part.

Plus it keeps the budget down.



That said, I don't know if Law could have done anything that Crudup didn't.

[Tetsuo_man]

Plus it keeps the budget down.



That said, I don't know if Law could have done anything that Crudup didn't.

Thing is only two big movies of Crudup's I can think of are Almost Famous and Big Fish with the rest of his work mostly being very small indie films whereas Jude Law in recent years has done a S@#% full of mainstream work. And really how many people who saw almost famous would recognize Crudup without the long hair and moustache?

[the_coldest_sun]

Yeah, I didnt recognize Crudup at first even though the name sounded very familiar. And I'm glad they went with lesser known actors. I love Jude Law's work and I think he would've been good for the role, but it would have been distracting and taken me (and possibly others) out of the story.

[Jared]

Wait, didn't Jude Law want to be Ozymandias, not Dr. Manhattan? He wouldn't have been replacing Crudup.

I actually think something along the lines of David Hayter's original idea for faking an attack from space would have been better.

Maybe the director's cut will have more exposition of how Manhattan as the culprit gets the world to unite, but as it stands I just don't like it. Veidt should have broadcast fake message from Manhattan to the world telling humanity to end its warlike ways or be destroyed. Then, I could buy it.

[SlightlyMad]

Hanging out in the War Room debating nuclear annihilation (in the movie) is what POWERFUL people do. Hanging out at the news stand commenting on what the aforementioned powerful people decided to do (in the graphic novel) is what POWERLESS people do.


As I stated in the main Watchmen thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=8550024#post8550024), I think the editing out of Bernard the Newsvendor was the biggest loss in the transition from Comic/Graphic Novel to Movie. As the literal man on the street, he was best way for the reader/viewer to get a "real" connection with the Watchmen World.

[Ontir]

Wait, didn't Jude Law want to be Ozymandias, not Dr. Manhattan? He wouldn't have been replacing Crudup.

I actually think something along the lines of David Hayter's original idea for faking an attack from space would have been better.

Maybe the director's cut will have more exposition of how Manhattan as the culprit gets the world to unite, but as it stands I just don't like it. Veidt should have broadcast fake message from Manhattan to the world telling humanity to end its warlike ways or be destroyed. Then, I could buy it.

Law wanted to be Ozymandias, not Manhattan.

If he'd played Manhattan though, he'd have been willing to do the nudity. They could've just spray painted him blue and saved a bundle on CGI!

[Cyke]

I thought I read that Jude Law couldn't be involved with the movie because the project had been delayed so many times that it interfered with scheduling negotiations, but yeah, I do recall how hard he lobbied for the role of Ozy.

With that said, I thought Goode did a halfway decent job.

[Balto]

"’Watchmen’ is about powerful people imposing their own moral codes on the world and yet, they’re not purely moral people. They’re flawed--intensely flawed--people with the huge egos. It’s really acting out of ego to impose your will on the world. So I felt that sort of all tied together.”"

First off, I enjoyed this interview. It explains the psychology behind the changes made in the film quite nicely.

I feel the above quote from Hayter is spot on as regards the film. I actually posted a comment to this effect elsewhere on the internet, so it is nice to see my own thoughts echoed by the screenwriter.

The INTERESTING thing, however, is that the above quote is the exact OPPOSITE of the premise of the graphic novel -- which is is about POWERLESS people who stand by while powerful people impose their own moral codes on the world.

It is a HUGE difference and it plays out in a myriad of ways. For example:

Nite-Owl and Silk Specter kicking ass and breaking bones (in the movie) is what POWERFUL people do. Nite-Owl and Silk Specter schlubbing around prison looking kind of confused (in the graphic novel) is what POWERLESS people do.

Hanging out in the War Room debating nuclear annihilation (in the movie) is what POWERFUL people do. Hanging out at the news stand commenting on what the aforementioned powerful people decided to do (in the graphic novel) is what POWERLESS people do.

I think most of the fanboy divide on the Watchmen adaptation actually stems from this fundamental premise swap.

Interesting, no?

Except I don't really agree with your interpretation, mostly 'cause of its inaccuracy. The graphic novel didn't depict Nite Owl and Silk Specter schlubbing around the prison in search of Rorschach. They pounded their way past at least a few prisoners in the comic. And not before Dan turned on his sonic screechers to demobilize the entire rooftop full of guards and rioters. Powerless? They strolled through pure anarchy untouched.

[Cyke]

Except I don't really agree with your interpretation, mostly 'cause of its inaccuracy. The graphic novel didn't depict Nite Owl and Silk Specter schlubbing around the prison in search of Rorschach. They pounded their way past at least a few prisoners in the comic. And not before Dan turned on his sonic screechers to demobilize the entire rooftop full of guards and rioters. Powerless? They strolled through pure anarchy untouched.

My big issue with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre was how brutal they were in their fights, most especially with the gang of muggers. If each one of the Watchmen represented a certain outlook of humanity, those fight scenes would make those two heroes confused with Rorschach.