Movie News

No Squid For You!! 30 Minutes Of WATCHMEN Screens In UK & Snyder Talked 5th-dimensional Squidish Thingies!!

Published at: Nov. 17, 2008, 11:49 a.m. CST

Merrick here...
Thirty minutes of WATCHMEN recently screened in UK, after which Zack Snyder and Dave Gibbons presented themselves for interrogation. Among the topics addressed was the rumor that multiple versions of the movie's ending exist, and Zack (once and for all) settled a question that has troubled so many for so long: To squid, or not to squid?
Jack Carter was there, and sent in this report...
Greetings from over the pond… On Friday I was lucky enough to attend what I believe was the first UK publicity event for Watchmen. They screened around 30 minutes of footage… if memory serves me correct this was the same three scenes that Moriarty reported on a while back… but the real points of interest came after the footage, where Zack Snyder & Dave Gibbons took the stage for a Q&A. Before I dive into what was said & what shown I just thought I’d point out that I’ve read the graphic novel. I only read it for the first time around 12 months ago, but straight away it gripped me & stood out against almost everything else I had read. What struck me most was the sheer depth to it… the characters, the story, the history & the politics. Watchmen really is one of the most outstanding & rewarding novels that I’ve come across. Zack introduced 3 segments of the film… the opening 10 minutes, Dr Manhattan on Mars & the rescuing of Rorschach. I know this footage has been covered in some detail on here before, but I just have to reiterate just how fantastic it all was. What struck me the most was the feelings the scenes provoked, especially when you consider that they weren’t being played in order or with context. The segment of Dr Manhattan on Mars was possibly my favourite part of the novel, and the film perfectly captures its poetic rhythm. I had to almost pinch myself that I was actually seeing this on the Cinema… Manhattan narrating his life and considering the notion of time & existence. Everything in this scene worked… the visuals, acting, pacing & sound. I can imagine that in many hands this would have been exorcised from the script, but here it was in all its glory and it literally gave me goosebumps. This section was the perfect companion piece to the jailbreak, which was both exhilarating and exciting, a shot of pure adrenalin. Best of all though was probably the opening scene, and in particular the title sequence. I know the titles have been lauded on here already, but I cannot stress enough how good they are. For those who don’t know, the titles basically provides a 6 minute history to the minutemen and the watchmen (as they are referred to in the film), all played out to the Bob Dylan classic ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’. I cannot think of a more creatively economical way that they could have done this… and it works perfectly to those who have read the novel as well as to those that are coming in cold. Seeing history being re-written infront of your eyes to fit in with the Watchmen universe is a great experience, and straight away makes you feel like you’re watching something special. I just wish I could watch it again now because there was so much detail to take in & so many bits that you can’t possibly take in on one viewing. And the choice of song… perfect. After the footage Zack Snyder & Dave Gibbons took questions from the audience on stage, including one brilliantly dim guy who managed to insult 300 (a great way to kick things off). When discussing the film I thought Zack came across really well… quite a dry sense of humor and an obvious passion for the source material. Many of the questions fielded were fairly unremarkable, but there were some interesting bits which I’ve outlined below. On being offered Watchmen: Interestingly Zack talked about when he first received the call on Watchmen (I believe as he was editing 300). Apparently during that first conversation Warner Brothers told him about how they were going to modernize the story… no cold war, no 80s setting and no Richard Nixon. I think it’s important to acknowledge this image for a minute, especially when trying to debate the ins & outs of the upcoming adaptation. Now we don’t know what we have on our hands until March ’09 but everything so far strikes the right cord and I truly believe we could have something special… a Watchmen to live up to the novel. But that thought about what it could have been… a diluted imitation of a superior story… well it just makes me glad that Snyder got on board. People can, and probably will, nit pick this thing to death… but we’re going to get a film that is committed to the source material from a director that wants to bring the ‘unfilmable’ to life. The main thing I wanted from this was for it to feel like a Watchmen film. Remember that feeling when you watched Batman & Robin or LOEXG… that feeling like you were watching something you knew, but no longer recognized. Watchmen could have gone down this route… it could have lost it’s complexity, moral ambiguity and its soul… but it hasn’t. When Rorschach is on screen… well damn that’s Rorschach! Snyder has always insisted that he’s a massive fan of the graphic novel, and I really think this shines through in the footage that I saw. He did also state about the initial pressure to bring this thing in as a PG-13, but that the studio has come around to the fact that it has to be an R (no doubt helped by the performance of 300). The Squid: (Dave Gibbons reaction… ‘its not a squid, it’s a 5th dimensional being’) Zack Snyder confirmed that the ending is the one seen in the recent test screenings. The ‘squid’ is definitely not in this thing… its not being hidden in a different ending… its gone… vanished… with the big calamari in the sky. This has created a fair amount of debate for obvious reasons, but I have to say that I side with the filmmakers on this one. Zack came out with a good summary for its exclusion. He only has a finite amount of time to play this thing out in cinemas… roughly 2.5 hours. Now to include the squid would have meant sacrificing a lot of the character to story, there’s just not enough time to play it both ways. And Watchmen lives and dies by its characters… it’s the dilemmas that they face and the decisions they make… it’s what they come to learn about the world & their place within it… that helps make the novel what it is. The essence of the ending is still intact… the characters still go through more unless the same progressions that they did in the novel. At the end of the day the ‘squid’ is a means to an end… the filmmakers have gone down a slightly different route, but the overall picture is still the same. Also it might not be something that fans want to consider, but this thing has to have a mass audience appeal and I don’t know if the majority of cinema-goers will buy the third act turning into Cloverfield 2. It sounds like Zack has gone into battle with the studio on a number of different things, and if the ‘squid’ is the sacrifice that needed to be made then so be it. I’d rather have a different mechanic within the films climax, then a PG-13 or modern day Watchmen. Dave Gibbons was in absolute support of this decision as well… he stated how this has been the best film project that he’s worked on to date & that the most important thing was to maintain the integrity of the graphic novel, something that has been done. Whilst we’re on the ending…. They also confirmed that the final scene is the same as the novel with regards to Rorschach’s journal being found. Watchmen & mainstream audiences Zack was asked the question that many people are wondering ‘how will this play to unsuspecting audiences… do you think they are ready for it?’ He came out with something along the lines of… ‘People have got complacent. Sure they like to see something safe like Spiderman, but people are always waiting for it to be taken to new level. The Dark Knight was like a poke in the eye, but this will really shake their shit up’. Now there’s no denying that Watchmen is a difficult sell, and I’m sure there will be a lot of people who just don’t ‘get it’… but it was reassuring to see how much faith Zack has in the ability of the source material to find an audience. He brought up Superman, saying ‘I always wondered if you had these powers, how far would you take it? I mean it’s all good flying around putting out fires, but wouldn’t you just go & grab all the political leaders, put them In a room, and force them to sort their shit out?’. To Snyder it seemed like Watchmen was all about that question… about how far Veidt was willing to take things & the impact this had on the other characters & their pre-conceptions of heroism. It turned the idea of the villain onto its head & into a moral dilemma. How do you define the term villain? Is someone a villain because of a course of action? Or could inaction, the failure to take responsibility, be just as critical to the world en mass? Zack seems to be hoping that the questions & the ambiguities of Watchmen play well with audiences, that they won’t mind having their intelligence tackled as they eat their popcorn. We will have to wait until next March to see if that happens, but I really hope that he’s right. The DVD Snyder also discussed the DVD at some length. As well as the theatrical cut there is to be a 3.5 hour version that incorporates the novels ‘comic within a comic’, The Black Freighter. This will take the form of animated segments ala Kill Bill. He also noted that they are creating a documentary based around Hollis Mason’s ‘Under The Hood’ memoirs for the DVD release. In many respects I’m looking forward to the DVD more then the film because it’s going to be such a rewarding experience having the full spectrum of the novel brought to life. I know you can’t judge a film from 30 minutes of footage and there is a chance that the filmmakers could drop the ball, but from what I saw this thing is in good hands. It really did feel like the pages of the novel were appearing before me on the cinema screen & the emotions that I felt when I read Watchmen were the same ones I experienced in the Cinema on Friday. It doesn’t matter what I or anyone else says… this thing will be debated through & through such is the level of fan-dom. I’ve tried to refrain from too much hyperbole in this write up… but to hell with it… I think Synder’s Watchmen is going to be incredible. In years to come when you’ve watched it umpteen times on DVD I don’t think you’re going to look back and think of things like the ‘squid’… I think you’re just going to remember how much it kicked your arse when you saw it come to life in the Cinema. I can’t wait… roll on March. If you use this call me Jack Carter

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:51 a.m. CST

    The ending to this won't make sense.....

    by TheWaqman

    if the movie blames Doc Manhattan in the end then it won't yield the end result of the comic. In the comic, Ozymandias plopped that squid in the limelight so that the two opposing forces would cease hostilities and unite against a common enemy (in this case the giant enemy squid aliens!!! Put Fear into them). But in this movie, if he puts the blame on Doc Manhattan, all it will do is bring the world against the US since he's their bitch and fights wars for them. So basically, does it need the squid? No. But it needs to blame the bombing and attacks on some unknown force rather than Doc Manhattan. /TB I win fuck off guys.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:51 a.m. CST

    wooooooo.... damn

    by unkempt_sock

    poor squid

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:54 a.m. CST

    no squid

    by sokitome

    I was really getting excited about this flick until now. I thought the whole point of the book was the squid, but i hope they keep everything the same and just have something else but the squid, if not i don't know. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but this is still VERY troubling.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:01 p.m. CST

    ..and the tape from a million nerd glasses suddenly pop off in a

    by Bouncy X

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:01 p.m. CST

    You all know where I stand on this

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    No need to keep rehashing the same old arguments. <BR><BR>A simple statement: this movie may be overall a good--even a great one--but the alternate ending the filmmakers chose simply doesn't work logically on any level. Enough from me about all that.<BR><BR>(ø‹›≈≈

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Agreed.

    by donkey_lasher

    Dr Manhattan was the deterrent. Will he still be this after being framed for killing millions? I was looking forward to this, and It might still be cool....but I think the ending will have many moviegoers thinking "Meh"

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:01 p.m. CST

    wow...

    by Bouncy X

    i couldnt even finish my lame joke...it was supposed to end with "anger". hmmm.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:02 p.m. CST

    No squiddy, but the journal's there...

    by BiggusDickus

    ...ok, so that's one of my two major gripes dealt with.<p>I'm still worried about the ending, though. It's been wanked dry in these talkbacks already, so I'll keep this short - if there's some sort of con pulled on everyone to make them think that the threat is from 'extraterrestrial' sources, then, yes, it still works. If Zach has geared the whole thing toward blaming Doc Manhattan, then it dies on it's arse and shows that the director simply hasn't understood his source material.<p>Biggus out.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:03 p.m. CST

    The Film Jerks Off into It's Mouth and Spits It in

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    Your Eye. <P> That's not Fucking, thats RAPE!!!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Hey Merrick

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    What do *you* think? They put you in charge of all WATCHMEN news, apparently, but you don't seem to be eager to share your opinion. What gives?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:04 p.m. CST

    On the topic of no squid

    by mukhtabi

    The film adaptation is purely that... an ADAPTATION. Its the way Warner Bros. sees The Watchmen story. Probably why Alan Moore hates his books being adapted... it can never be the pure substance. Having said that, I think 'no squid' is not that big of a deal. Since its an adaptation, they can take some license, after all its their money making this film. Granted they want our money at the BO, but our investment does not individually equal the millions of dollars they've sunk into this thing. That Dr. Manhattan is the villain can only work, if Veidt takes the pain to claim the entity has gone rogue, and is no longer fighting for the US or anyone. That's a tricky balance beam, but hopefully whatever solution they arrive at I will feel is satisfactory, because I'm going to pay to see this one, guaranteed.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Watchman- Snowballing into your Eyeballs in 08

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Maybe I'll just watch up to the big reveal....

    by dr sauch

    and then leave and pretend i saw the squid ending.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST

    AHHHH I CANT FUCKING BELIEVE IT

    by dr sauch

    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUU......

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST

    No squid for you

    by crazybubba

    funny

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST

    I wouldn't pay a squid to see this now....

    by donkey_lasher

    .arf

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    The squid is cool

    by Coma Baby

    Story spoilers... maybe the squid thing is due for a redesign/update by Gibbons, but it's just so utterly weird and unexpected - much more shocking than a nuclear explosion. It's also more satisfying because of the tiny clues left throughout the story, with its designers disappearing one by one. It also ties an objectivist element to Veidt (in its similarity to Atlas Shrugged) that makes him more interesting as a character and a villain.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Wakman....

    by Cagliostro

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Wakman....

    by Cagliostro

    Thank you.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:10 p.m. CST

    ..or you could...

    by donkey_lasher

    ...take a chinese takeaway into the movie theatre and pretend it's attacking you....

  • "Dave Gibbons was in absolute support of this decision..." Unless he's a total shill, he must have sufficient understanding of the significance of the climax. There must be more going on

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Squids been replaced with Chocolate Covered Pussy Juice

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    A tidal wave of the Interdimensional Chocolate Flavored Orgasm engulfs time square. Drowning & Destroying all in it's path.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Big deal, no squid.

    by Negator76

    I'm a HUGE fan of the book, and I always liked the sci-fi weirdness of the squid in the original story. But it's not a deal-breaker. If the culprit behind the 'attack' is killed or brought to justice, THAT would be a deal-breaker, because it would completely betray the moral ambiguity that forms the heart of the book. I'm cautiously optimistic based on these reports. But if I go into a theater in March and see 3 hours of slow-motion money shots, I'm going to be PISSED OFF.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:14 p.m. CST

    I CREATED THE SQUID.

    by AdrianVeidt

    And I'm very okay with leaving it out.<p> The most brilliant part about Watchmen wasn't the gigantic squid - it was the overall shock of Veidt's plan. Sure, in terms of illustration and shock value, the squid was a gigantic "holy shit," but they will still be able to pull that off.<p> I'm very excited for this, and think that Snyder is doing this right.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Also, I'm blonde, but again - sacrifices.

    by AdrianVeidt

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Interesting comments from Snyder and Gibbons

    by 11ZOMBIES

    It is surprising how much of the book they have retained in this adaptation, especially considering previous drafts of the project. I'm rooting for another win for Zack Snyder on this.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:20 p.m. CST

    something safe like Spiderman?

    by necgray

    Fuck you, Zack. I guess "quality comic book adaptation" = complacency. What a douchebag. Glad to hear that Watchmen is turning out well, but don't act superior. Man, that pisses me off. I'd like to see Sam Raimi kick him in the teeth...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:20 p.m. CST

    I love all these douche's complaining about an end

    by irrelevntelefant

    they haven't even seen yet. all they know is " no squid" <P> do any of you complainers know how it ends in the movie? no? then shut the fuck up until you see it.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:21 p.m. CST

    It's not too late to fix the ending

    by Eyegore

    Still four months to fix it. Do the right thing Zack. Blaming Manhattan will not work. It's a whole different story.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:23 p.m. CST

    the journal is what matters

    by newc0253

    otherwise the ending would be truly shit

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:23 p.m. CST

    coma baby good point

    by crazybubba

    and is it just me or does this reviewer just not get. For example he says,"And Watchmen lives and dies by its characters… it’s the dilemmas that they face and the decisions they make".---I don't see that as completely true. The politics and subtext of the novel are just as relevant to me. He also says, "Zack was asked the question that many people are wondering ‘how will this play to unsuspecting audiences' ". How many of you are asking this, I could care less. Was this review even written for fans of the novel.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:26 p.m. CST

    So there'll be an ending where Plum or Mustard ate the murders?

    by ricarleite

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:26 p.m. CST

    ate = are

    by ricarleite

    Damn

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:29 p.m. CST

    get over it!

    by Nohomo

    no squid... so what?! i am quite happy with a version that blames doc manhattan for the destruction. it's going to be a great movie.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Want to see drawings move? Get Snyder. Want the story intact?

    by JackPumpkinhead

    Get someone like del Toro. This guy Snyder seems efficient at xerocopying drawings and making them move in live action. That works great if he deals with a simplistic story, such as ones from Frank Miller ("Everything's dirty. Everyone's evil. But blue hair and blonde eyes are good. And brown skin is very bad."), but when it comes to adapting a story by Alan Moore... well, that's something out of the boy's league. I expect that this film will be very faithful... to the drawings. Story? Eh, who needs story when there's high-definition stuff exploding in slow motion.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Actually, we do know from the screener report and a variety of screenplay drafts precisely what form the new climax will take. Perhaps you should do your homework before making asinine assumptions, dipshit. <BR><BR>Shut the fuck up, indeed.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Yeah, been said, been there, done that...

    by Darth Macchio

    [spoilers]Ok..we all see now it was never about the actual squid but the notion or concept the squid represents. Having the actual squid with the backstory behind it (which, contrary to Snyder's belief, isn't tons and tons of storyline, in fact, I'd argue his claim of cutting it to fit for time is an exaggeration but I digress). But the point is if they do not have an "external" and "absolute" threat, then it simply will not be the same ending whatsoever. Think the new movie ending of "I am Legend" which basically says 'fuck off' to the original story not to mention the title of the novel!<p> Even with the squid dying and there being no notion of 'invasion' in the GN, the event itself killed millions within a certain range of NYC and the entire world felt the psychic reverberations of the squid's death. Every living human felt the psychic scream! This means it is unequivocally an EXTERNAL entity (even though that's the "con" as it was genetically engineered by humans).<p>If the world doesn't believe Veidt's "con" and doesn't interpret the threat/concept as EXTERNAL it simply does not work. If Snyder expects the audience to buy that the world would watch Doc Manhattan eviscerate the Vietnamese (basically single-handedly) but then would believe Americans in the film when they say he's a threat to the world? By just blowing up a bunch of atomic bombs? But Doc is not a *US* threat to the world? With us being one of the powers involved in the GN's escalating "cold war" in the first place?<p>Ironic, all this talk about the squid itself without the idea it represents from the filmmakers. The squid means nothing. The precedent means everything: if they replace it with some contrived threat from Manhattan then it sucks. Period. If they change Manhattan to actually BE the threat; and thus be in cahoots with Veidt, then it will FUCKING suck.<p>But if they just use a different idea that accomplishes the same context as the squid then it will not be missed by any but the most purest of geeks. I hope this is the case but I worry that all this hoopla is motivated by both annoyance and defense from the filmmakers. Annoyed with the idea of people freaking out over what the filmmakers see as trivial or in defense of something they know is bad but could not come up with a better solution.<p>As with anything...time will tell.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Zack's Ego Likes to Finger Fuck Itself

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    Notice how short his nails are, Yeah....

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Too soon for speculation

    by Grayskull

    Squid or no squid, it's very illogical to say the ending won't be logical without the squid without having first seen the movie. Wait until next year before wadding up your panties. You might be surprised... or you might be vindicated.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:35 p.m. CST

    reboot the watchmen

    by zom-bot.com

    in five years someone 'fresh and edgy' will remake the watchmen. some remakes are literally 5 years now, as opposed to 20. human consciousness is speeding up and she is getting bored even faster than she used to.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:36 p.m. CST

    "MEH" was deemed an official word today

    by zom-bot.com

    how fucking sad. i guess i assumed it already was one. i imagine harry thinks he invented it.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:37 p.m. CST

    20 years from now

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    The majority of fans will not remember the graphic novel. They will watch the shitty movie instead.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:37 p.m. CST

    WHY YOU NEED THE SQUID

    by captainalphabet

    I'm lookin forward to this as much as the next guy, but leaving out the squid does fuck up the ending. SPOILERS. As mentioned above, the squid unites humanity against a common, EXTERNAL foe. If the disasters are blamed on Manhattan (who represents perhaps a future evolution of man, a 'perfect' being) - what exactly is manking supposed to unite against? SCIENCE? THE FUTURE? It's fucked up and misses a big point. In fact this ratified Veidt's plan might not work at all, dividing the world much as it is today - science vs. superstition!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:38 p.m. CST

    If Zach filmed the shot in Normal Mo rather than Slow

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    He'd have more time to put in the Squid, gotta love that bullet time crap!!!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Lamer and lamer...and now EXTREME hubris....

    by tensticks

    "Dark Knight was like a poke in the eye, but this will really shake things up"--EXCUSE ME? What hubris, what arrogance! Seriously, I stand by my statements made MANY times: this will be lame beyond lame, the time to make this movie was over a decade ago, it will sink after a big opening, and be reduced to a punchline of movie-disaster jokes. You watch--it'll be "Batman & Robin" for Gen Y. It won't even be "Mystery Men".

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST

    i know i am going to get shot down....

    by mrbong

    .....by people that don't read this properly, but bear with me. i have heard of this "Watchmen" comic / graphic novel, but never read it and have no idea what it's about. all i have seen is the trailer & posters, and to me the whole thing looks like a poor man's Heroes meets X-Men via some rejected Fantastic Four FX. sorry, but with all the "buzz" around this i just don't get it, and it looks like a box office disaster. the guy who wrote it didn't want it filmed, i seem to recall? on what i have seen, there will be no Anne Rice apology here.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Damned right, Darth Macchio

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Excellent analysis. Funny how the majority of the pro-Squid TBers don't bother to logically argue why removing an external threat with a partisan one wouldn't harm the story's climax (there are notable exceptions like Brian's Life).

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Guess what

    by MetiphisLabs

    None of you have seen the whole movie yet. No one knows what maneuvering has been done to make the new ending work. All this conclusion jumping is pretty annoying and hollow.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:41 p.m. CST

    also, with manhattan being god like

    by zom-bot.com

    then the meaning is skewed to 'see what god did? god is bad! we need to unite against god or other all powerful beings'. sorry, squid or no squid, the united struggle against an OUTSIDE force, not an all powerful one- was the crux of the finale, and the purpose of veidt's plan.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Regan started the whole alien invasion would

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    Reunite the world idea in a speech he dropped. Watchmen lifted it, but I still agree. <P> The Squid Stays in the Picture!!!!!

  • Because we all know Alan Moore's going to hate on this movie no matter what and who's the next credible authority on WATCHMEN? That's right, Dave. <p>Let the Squid go, kids.</p>

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Holy Flaming Nipple Squid, Watchman Optimus Batman!

    by Squashua

    Biff!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST

    I can see why you'd have Dreiberg Kill Veldt,

    by cookylamoo

    After his plan comes off, it doesn't really matter if Veldt lives or dies, and you don't have to have a movie where a guy who kills millions of people gets off scott free.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Of course, there's the problem of HOW he'd kill Adrian.

    by cookylamoo

    Since Veldt completely outclasses Dreiberg in the novel on every level.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:53 p.m. CST

    the squid is stupid.

    by kgerm

    I know a lot of people who love the book, get to that last chapter and there's a one-eyed squid overlooking destruction and chaos. That's gay. Nevermind that it was hinted at, it's still extremely stupid. Even for Alan Moore. The fact that Ozymandias reverse engineered something from Dr. Manhattan makes it a far more credible ending.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:56 p.m. CST

    All this talk of how WATCHMEN is so awesome

    by OzzyManDiaz

    Gives me a geek boner and makes me squirt geek juice over everyones face. Im sorry again, guys.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Further....

    by Darth Macchio

    Snyder keeps talking about cutting the squid to keep it under 2.5 hours or something similar. So...how about all the backstory that needs to be ADDED to make it remotely plausible that Manhattan is now the threat? Added as in increasing the length of the movie!?!?! If you've read the GN you know that people believe the threat of Manhattan at first as he is utterly inhuman after the accident but when he basically wins Nam with hardly any American casualties (which if I remember correctly, Doc was reluctant to even get involved in what he perceived as pure human folly and only did so at the urgings of his fellow costumed heroes) somehow the US (or Veidt) is able to convince the world Manhattan's the threat? Because a bunch of h-bombs go off at the same time around the world? Really?<p>All that said: Zack and team now have to come up with backstory which ADDS to the overall time of the movie but yet we're supposed to believe that the story "As is" is unfilmable within 2.5 or 3 hours?<p>Plus the idea that anyone outside of Moore (et al) would have the audacity to put in their own creativity to a beloved work of fiction such as Watchmen, is somewhat offensive to say the least. A bit here and there, of course, cinematic translations of literature being what they are...but to rewrite the climax itself? Snyder's a talented guy no doubt, but if he doesn't get the idea behind the squid, then he sure as shit doesn't have the creative chutzpa to fill in the stuff he sees as irrelevant with his own nonsense. I hope I'm wrong. But I fear this may follow a similar fate of all of the various, an inaccurate, film-tellings of "I am Legend." Such a simple concept of an ending but yet no one has been able to film it so they, seemingly with arrogance, rewrite it to meet their own, typically lackluster, standings.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Darth Macchio

    by TiNSeLToWN TeRRoR

    I agree 100%.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Le Vic- my bad, but still it's like the hate Ledger and Craig

    by irrelevntelefant

    got before anyone saw them as the Joker and Bond. <P> my point is, I don't give a shit what you have read, you haven't seen the movie. you have seen snippets and read "reports" and screenplay drafts, that's it. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE. <p> <p> My question to you is, if Snyder pulls it off and his ending does make sense and does work as well as the book , can you get past you're predisposition and admit that it worked?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Fascinating...

    by TroutMaskReplicant

    Have a read of this. Google the Outer Limits episode The Architects Of Fear.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:14 p.m. CST

    I don't mind it, yet.

    by Toonol

    <p>When you adapt a story, you can accurately capture the characters, the plot, and the theme. The plot, however, is the area where you can deviate the most from the source.</p> <p>It still needs to make sense, but as long as the plot still serves the characters, and expresses the same theme, it should be fine to make changes where necessary (and removing the squid probably was necessary).</p> <p>The question is, does the change with Dr. Manhattan work? Does it still make the same POINT that the squid did? I see potential problems with that, but I don't think we can say for sure until we see it.</p>

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:15 p.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant....

    by seanny_d

    EXACTLY! For people to say that the story doesn't make sense without the squid, you haven't seen it yet. There will obviously be changes. I think judgment needs to be reserved until the movie is seen before you go all apeshit on the thing. <p>I'm beginning to think that I need to start staying away from talkbacks. I'm a generally positive person, but even these things are starting to bring my disposition down a couple of notches because there is never any positivity anywhere.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Why the Squid is not needed

    by toadkillerdog

    The argument for the squid goes like this: 'It is an external threat, and will unite the world. Manhattan is an American and it will be seen as American plot.' I say: Nope. First of all, even Moore/Veidt, realizes that a squid alone could not 'unite' the world. That is why the psychic compulsion was needed. In truth, the external threat could have been a space pig, as long as the psychic compulsion is what really pushes the unifified response. So, the squid itself is irrelevant. As to it being an external vs internal, consider this. NYC is Americas greatest city beyond a shadow of a doubt. If a DocM frameup results in NYC being blown off the map, don't you think that would convince a helluva lot of people that America was not involved? I mean blowing up your greatest city, and potentially crippling your economy, is generally not the way to acheive world domination. Add to that, most of the other cities destroyed by DocM around the world are allies of America. <p> Now, onto Manhattan himself. He is an American. Has acted as an agent of American gov't. No question about that. Let me throw out a name for you. Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? 9/11. Remember that? Bin Laden is a Saudi citizen. A very famous one. Most of the terrorists were Saudi's. Does the world blame Saudi Arabia? Does the United States blame Saudi Arabia? Lets take this one step further. Mecca and Medina are the two holiest cities in all of islam, and they are located in Saudi Arabia. If say, the Saudis had the power to destroy cities, but wanted to keep the blame from themselves, do you think they would destoy their holiest of cities to do so? NYC aint holy, but it is just as important to American way of life, and much moreso to the world, than Mecca or Medina. The rest of the world knows that. They would not easily beleive we would destroy our own greatest city. <p> Next up, this myth of unified response. If a giant alien squid attacked Tehran, do you think Israel would lift a finger to help? If a giant alien squid attacked germany or japan during WWII, would America and it's allies have stopped fighting?If a giant squid attacked Israel, would arabs rejoice or team up with Israel?<p> No to all. And why, because it takes more than a single isolated event to achieve the type of unified response that Moore/Veidt would need. It would take multiple squids or whatever in multiple countries to achieve that effect. Even then, it would not be universal, nor would it last. Which is why the psychic compulsion was needed. <p> The external threat alone could not do the trick. A single event alone could not do the trick. Manhattan is feared by the very gov't who uses him, and the American people. Combine his destroying of Americas greatest city, with other cities around the world, and add the psychic compulsion to revile him, and yes, it makes sense that Manhattan could unite most of the world against him, and not blame it on America.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Roger Ebert just gave it 1 1/2 stars....

    by irrelevntelefant

    he was reading the TB and agreed he doesn't actually have to watch movies anymore in order to have an opinion of them. <p> He is giving Captain America: The First Avenger 3 stars cause he liked the font used in the press release...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:27 p.m. CST

    I never got THE BLACK FREIGHTER

    by BobParr

    What was the point of it?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:32 p.m. CST

    squid not needed - Rorshach's journal is

    by Cedar_Room

    the squid is a McGuffin - it is something that needs to happen. This something can be anything, and it sounds like it will do the same thing and bring the characters to the same points. I'm fine with that - and to be honest the squid was the thing I had the biggest problem with in the book. It just felt - out of place. As long as the purpose of the squid is retained the film will be just fine - and it seems to be. What actually worried me more was that they were supposedly cutting out Rorshach's journel at the very end - this absolutely needs to stay in. Its the perfetc redemption for Rorshach, and it should leave you with that great feeling that I love at the end of a film. The one which sets up possibilities which could turn the whole denouement on its head. I am SO glad this is being kept in. Now I just cannot fucking wait. Bring it on!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Well guys

    by Wants Vaders Executor

    for what it's worth, I think the alternative ending can work. <br> <br> I didn't yet read the comic but intend to do it come Christmas. Based on the trailers which were released until now I have to say, besides that I totally enjoy the images and find the other characters highly interesting (and Silk Spectres ass hot as hell), Dr. Manhattan comes across as an unlikable character through and through. And not in a "well he is not supposed to be liked" kind of way. He is odd. <br> <br> Based on these observations, I will totally buy Snyders "Manhattan is not from this world anymore and freightens the humans to such an extent that they believe he's the villain"-explanation. <br> <br> May be I change my mind when I actually read the comic :-)

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:35 p.m. CST

    toadkillerdog

    by Mort Meyers

    Well said. i agree totally.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:37 p.m. CST

    ....this is a sad day for all squid-kind

    by TakeItEasyMon

    You don't have enough time to tell the whole story and keep all the important, -essential- plot points in the movie? Try cutting some fucking action scenes and filming at regular speed. There. Problem solved, time enough for all of your cut exposition. This is ridiculous. Why do people have a need to put their egos into things and change them? Or at least change the important parts? Snyder should write his own superhero movie and do as he pleases; why do you need to mess with this established story? Aside from not working plot-wise, it's just insulting. People are smart enough to "Get it" if you give them a chance. Why include the black freighter then at all? Sigh. As someone mentioned earlier, adding in all the new exposition to set up the doc as badguy angle is just as much as all the squid prelude material. Oh, right, there won't be any setup for the doc ending, it will just come out of nowhere. And if Dreiberg kills Veldt....jesus why the hell do you need to change the fucking story? What makes you so goddamn qualified to do this? Seems like there's been plenty of smart decisions so far, but why the need to change the plot? Ugh.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:44 p.m. CST

    what kind of money are studio plants making these days?

    by crazybubba

    and where do you send your resume?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:44 p.m. CST

    "Not a squid...."

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    You heard it from the man himself. If you Watchmen purists think you're helping your case by throwing around that misnomer (it's a "5th Dimensional Being"), then you've both weakened your own arguments as to its importance and revoked your already depleted geek cred. If this seems a silly distinction to you, then I'd totally agree. Just wait for the movie to be seen before passing judgment on how it plays out.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:46 p.m. CST

    If the squid is out it necessitates more changes...

    by Johnno

    Zack would have to change a lot of things including entire themes with this ending, it could all work in film, but it wouldn't be the same as the book, alright fine... but then again, what's the point of putting the Black F. anime in then? Guess I'll have to see the film, and hopefully a lot has been changed so the movie stands good on its own. And not for the worse... Maybe it won't be a fear of nuclear weapons in people's minds but maybe dumbed down to a general tone of war.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:47 p.m. CST

    I look forward to 2021 for the remake

    by My Mom Is A Whore

    The one where they actually film the greatest graphic novel of all time... rather than thinking they know better because they did some adverts and a gay green screen action movie.<p>Snyder = Fail

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Watchmen

    by bobbofatz

    What did Bogart say to the cephalopod? Here's looking at you squid.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I'm not doing this again...

    by Brians Life

    Thank for the shout out, Le Vicious. Glad we can keep a level head and still disagree.<br><br>Ya'll know where I stand. I'm optimistic, but cautiously so. Still wish they weren't fucking called WATCHMEN though. THAT is just change for the sake of change.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:47 p.m. CST

    All signs point to this barely breaking even

    by I am_NOTREAL

    The trailers looked more or less like the graphic novel (except that Nite Owl isn't fat), which for someone dying to see a live action Watchmen must be a good thing. But the large majority of the moviegoing public is going to see that trailer and say, "what the fuck?" Which means a big opening weekend thanks to huge distro, a dearth of competition, and a sizeable core audience, followed by steep drops in all subsequent weeks, followed by it crawling out of theaters only $10 or $12m domestically over budget. Foreign receipts and DVD will make it profitable in the long run but will it be worth the effort? I say no.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Cedar is right...

    by ZapRowsdower

    The journal is, by far, the most crucial to the ending. The "possibilities" that one can infer from the publishing of Rorschach's journal is what makes the ending so fucking awesome.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:50 p.m. CST

    And I must say that...

    by Johnno

    toadkillerdog makes some good points, so I'm going to reserve judgment...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:51 p.m. CST

    you know, I read there is a scene where Doc Manhatten

    by irrelevntelefant

    raises his right hand and blows this guy up, but in the book IT'S HIS LEFT HAND! <p> and the shade of blue for DM is more teal blue than grey-blue.... THIS IS GOING TO SUCK!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Wow. A nuke exploding for an ending.

    by spud mcspud

    Makes me almost nostalgic for that other work of staggering genius that ends with a nuclear holocaust:<P> TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES.<P> Is there a fucking conspiracy to ruin EVERYTHING Alan Moore ever wrote when making them into movies? It's not even difficult to get right: just MAKE THE FUCKING MOVIE EXACTLY LIKE THE COMIC!!! It's not fucking rocket science!!<P> You squid-meh-ers, enjoy the LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY WATCHMEN. I'll be reading the GN and NOT giving Hack Snyder my fucking money. Why enable the Great White hope of the genre to shill his fucking soul?<P> FUCK YOU SNYDER!!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Dammit...okay, one quick point.

    by Brians Life

    I disagree with those who say the main reason that the US/Russia unite is to combat a possible incoming alien threat.<br><br>It's stated that the scientists at the Extraspatial Studies Institute accidentally BROUGHT the squid here.<br><br>It wasn't invading. Sure, the sudden appearance of the mass unknown was a factor but it was the untold destruction in New York that was the catalyst for the new found peace.<br><br>This happened very recently in America. Remember? A time when a lot of people died in NYC and the world was united behind us? <br><br>I think that invalidates that idea that the threat in the movie MUST be extraterrestrial (which I would argue further IS Doc Manhattan as he no longer has any connection to humanity).

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:53 p.m. CST

    why does everyone seem to miss the point of the book?

    by bacci40

    ok...dont use a squid creature...use something else...but there are many reasons for the squid...how does the comedian come upon the plot if there is no island? what is the purpose of the pyramid corp if there is no squid? what is the purpose of the black freighter story if ozy is framing the doc? what is the purpose of the black freighter story if there is no island? and read the novel again, its not just that the world unites because of a threat, its that they unite because of the horror unleashed upon nyc...wanna know why 9/11 was forgotten so quickly? no bodies...devastation is nice, but the constant mental pictures that were created by veidt, at least in his mind, would keep the world united forever...even if some didnt believe the invasion story or thought it was just an interdimensional accident...ergo the use of the psychics brains, which would keep the vision in everyone's head...its why we are left with the question as to whether rorshach's journal would even mean anything anyway, except to the conspiracy theorists...as for the prison scene, i dont like that (due to time constraints bs) rorshach now doesnt have them go back to his apt to pick up his spare costume...in making this change, significant plot points and overlays are taken out....first, rorshach gets his suit from the shrink's office....shrink cowers....gone is the entire plot line of rorshach's impact upon the shrink, who by the last session, no longer is attempting to cure him, but has accepted him and his world view...gone is the scene of walter walking out of the prison with the fully costumed nite owl and sil spectre, for the kovacs character is now the costume of rorshach...gone is the confrontation with the landlady and the kids, showing rorshach to truly be the superhero version of holden caufield....and gone is the foreshadowing to every reader, that when rorshach puts on the suit that he wore when he was born (killed the pedofile) he is going to his death, and he knows it...i know im gonna get flamed, but shit...there are son many reasons why watchmen is still considered the best comic ever created, and the layered storyline and symbolism has much to do with it...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:55 p.m. CST

    THE MOST FAITHFUL ADAPTATION EVER MADE...kinda!!!

    by TallBoy66

    I don't get it. "Lets do the comic page by page, shot by shot. Except, lets not." Don't make much sense, and that squid visual is trippy.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Spud McSpud...this is what Alan Moore said.

    by Brians Life

    "I wrote a comic book, not a movie."<br><br>I actually think it would be grossly irresponsible to simple "MAKE IT EXACTLY LIKE THE FUCKIN COMIC BOOK". If that was the case, X-Men never would've done the business it did and we'd not have had all the comic book movies we've had the past few years.<br><br>Some I'm sure think that's a good thing.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    I am_NOTREAL...dan is fat

    by bacci40

    nite owl's suit, holds his gut in...which works alot better for the character feeling more like a man when in the suit

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:57 p.m. CST

    I'm not even touching the squid - no squid debate

    by I am_NOTREAL

    Because while the graphic novel will endure, the movie will be nothing more than a footnote in ten years anyway.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:57 p.m. CST

    toadkillerdog

    by spud mcspud

    "NYC aint holy, but it is just as important to American way of life, and much moreso to the world, than Mecca or Medina. The rest of the world knows that. They would not easily beleive we would destroy our own greatest city."<P> Exactly! Because if loads of people in the world thought the US WAS capable of attacking its own city - like a Reichstag event! False Flag, don't they call it? - then, hell, maybe they'd think 9/11 was a conspiracy! Because there was no such thing as Operation Northwoods, right? And there's no chance that 9/11 could have been a modern Northwoods, is there? Obviously 9/11 happened EXACTLY as the Commission said, and there's no loose ends to tie up, right? The US would NEVER hide anything from the public! Go to sleep, your Government has this under control...<P> Seriously, TKD. That argument has more holes than my shower head.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:58 p.m. CST

    bacci...do you just assume...

    by Brians Life

    that the movie is just gonna leave a big hole where the squid used to be?!?! I don't think Snyder is a "visionary director" but I trust him enough to make up for the changes.<br><br>"how did the comedian come across the plot if there's no island?"<br><br>REALLY? You're REALLY asking that?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:58 p.m. CST

    I recall Gibbons drawing Nite Owl as chunky even in the suit...

    by I am_NOTREAL

    but a friend borrowed my copy a couple of years ago and I haven't got around to buying another one yet. Doesn't really matter.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2 p.m. CST

    Iamnotreal...don't be that guy...

    by Brians Life

    ...the one that makes box office result predictions.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:01 p.m. CST

    I am_NOTREAL....one other thing

    by bacci40

    i think you are wrong about the grosses...when the first trailer was released, book sales exploded, leading dc to make a 1mil print run...internet buzz has remained strong, as have the films tracking numbers...the only thing that could hurt the movie is the r rating...but that didnt hurt 300...add to that, the dvd will be filled with things not in the theatrical release, which will make it play like reading the book, and the studio is indeed looking at a money maker...fox wouldnt be suing if they thought the movie would bomb...theyve seen the tracking numbers and want their cut....will it do dk biz? probably not....but it should do 300 biz

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Spud

    by toadkillerdog

    You do not really think that the American gov't was complicit in 9/11 do you?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Brians Life...ya, im asking

    by bacci40

    if the plot is as has been leaked, then the only two people working on the plot are ozy, and a clueless doc...so how does the comedian stumble upon the plot? no missing artists, no stolen brains, no missing scientists....what is he investigating? i knew i would be flamed, but not on that huge plot hole

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Brians Life (mucho spoilerifico)

    by spud mcspud

    Yeah, but this isn't X-MEN or SPIDER-MAN. It's WATCHMEN - arguably the most cerebral and intelligent graphic novel ever written, and that's arguable / provable in many, many different ways. It's constructed EXACTLY like the clock motif that the whole story goes back to over and over again. Removing the squid isn't just like removing a cog: Snyder has removed the counterweight. That ending is the inciting incident that brings about the New World Order Ozy was hoping for. How exactly is he going to imagine all those face of the people he killed... if he didn't kill them, but Manhattan did? How does Ozy get to rejoice about his huge evil plan working if HE didn't carry it out, but Jon did?<P> And most importantly, how is this going to impact on the scene where huge Jon says "I am disappointed, Veidt. VERY disappointed!" and reaches in to grab him. Ozy wields the remote. Jon says "What is that? Another ultimate weapon?". Ozy says "Yes, you could say that." Hits the reomte - the screens flicker into life. Aaaaaaaaand...<P> Is Ozy going to hit the remote, showing what he's done, and then as Dreiberg falls to pieces, saying "Jesus, all he did was prevent us saving the world,", Manhattan goes - "Aaaaaaggghhhhhh! Whaaaaassuuuuuup! I was in on it ALL ALONG!!! Hey, Ozy, tell 'em, maaaaan!"?<P> IT DOESN'T FUCKING MAKE SENSE!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Nice read

    by Aeghast

    I can't wait either.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:07 p.m. CST

    I am_NOTREAL...you are right

    by bacci40

    but even i didnt really buy how dan felt more manly in a suit that still made him look like a shlub...to me, this works....plus it is a rip on the batman and robin costume

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Spud...Manhattan is not IN on the plot

    by Brians Life

    as I understand it. Rather Ozy in a way frames him.<br><br>That's why I enjoy the change. I've said before if this was an HBO Miniseries and they announced they were changing the ending I'd be right there with all of you. But I understand having to sacrifice it for a 2.5 hour running time.<br><br>I think it works because as Manhattan comes back to finally help the planet he claims to no longer "have a stake in" he comes to realize not only can he not but he has now been villainized (is that a word?). So, Manhattan maintains his godlike nobility and we still get to have the "In the end? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Ebert just gave the 2021 remake of Watchmen 4 stars

    by irrelevntelefant

    Apparantly Christopher "McLovin" retires from acting in 2010, then goes on to direct 5 films, all oscar nominated with no wins, until he remakes Watchmen, puts the squid back in and goes home with the statue...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:11 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud...the doc isnt in on it

    by bacci40

    he was just working with ozy, who was using him...of course, you then have to believe that the doc never once questioned through those many months of research why the tachions are alwasy so strong at veidt's place, so that his ability to be in different times at once was muted

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:13 p.m. CST

    toadkillerdog

    by spud mcspud

    I don't think they did it... But I also don't think the folks at NORAD are so fucking thick that they pointed the only radar they supposedly had that could see those planes THE OTHER WAY ACCIDENTALLY! Or that F-15s couldn't have reached those airliners WAY before they got to the WTC... or that they weren't spotted earlier... or that the CIA / FBI couldn't have spotted the dodgy terrorist-types learning to fly airliners at schools that were under surveillance... or that after the entire WTC was flattened, miraculously several of the hijackers' passports were found almost undamaged at the site... or that there is NO CCTV FOOTAGE WHATSOEVER of whatever hit the Pentagon that day... or that WTC7 could fall down because of some debris from the other towers falling on it... or that there just happened to be a drill diverting all fighter jets AWAY from where the hijacking ended up - on the same day it all happened... or that the American government had NO IDEA WHATSOVER that anyone would fly airliners into buildings - despite there having been at least 3 novels prior to 9/11 and at least on TV episode (pilot episode of THE LONE GUNMEN, X-Files spin-off show) that used the hijacked-plane-flying-into-the-building plots effectively (one of the novels even had BIN LADEN ORGANISING THE HIJACKING!)...<P> Or any of the other coincidences that all just happened to stack up AGAINST the official story.<P> no, toadkillerdog, I don't think Americans blew up the towers, and it was obviosuly Saudi terrorists who hijacked the planes and hit the towers. But there is A LOT of unexplained stuff that has been ignored by the official story... all of which point troublingly to the US government having a vested interest in a terrible catastrophe happening in order for them to galvanise an unsuspecting (and largely uninformed) public into supporting an illegal war that was being planned several months before 9/11 even happened.<P> Is it such a stretch to think that someone, somewhere, let this happen to further their geopolitical military aims? Would it be so hard to think this way in the world of WATCHMEN?<P> At the very least, you have to admit, the 9/11 Commission was the most obvious whitewash since Watergate...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:15 p.m. CST

    bacci40

    by spud mcspud

    You also have to ask yourself why an almost omniscient demigod who is now more intelligent than any other creature on Earth can be fooled by someone who is so obviously a superintelligent megalomaniac with an Alexander complex and an ego the size of a planet.<P> But, hey, maybe in Zach's WATCHMEN universe, Jon just has flashes of dumb. Y'know, to help us suspend that disbelief just that little bit more...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST

    toadkillerdog

    by spud mcspud

    I'd like to also add - I'd hope such a thing will not be allowed to happen on Obama's watch - he doesn't seem like the kind of psycho that would allow an atrocity to happen to justify a war he was already planning. I think only a Bush could be THAT psychotic.<P> I hope I'm right... and I REALLY hope Obama re-opens the 9/11 Commission to REALLY look into what actually happened behind the scenes... but I won't hold my breath. I think he'll take a deep breath, decide that is all in the past, and move on, letting the Commission's lies and fabrications lie as they are.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by Cap'n Jack

    In the book, Ozy had a device of some kind that blocked Doc Manhattan's ability to see the future. tachyon's or something. so there...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by TakeItEasyMon

    Agreed. Point, set, match against the non-squiddies.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:19 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by TakeItEasyMon

    agreed on the watchmen stuff, not on the 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:21 p.m. CST

    *sigh* Oh well, TDK's ending was a bit weak too

    by G100

    ****SPOILER*** (Though by now anyone who went into this thread WITHOUT haveing read the comic is well and truly spoiled)<p> <p>We DO pretty much know how Snyder has Viedt frame Manhattan already from the trailers.<p> <p>The "explosion" in New York is the same blue ringed bubble energy expansion that we see when Manhattan Teleports himeslf or anything else. So presumably there is probably an island (or Viedts fortress or somewhere else) which contains the machinery necessarry to generate this "explosion". (possibly the "free energy machine hinted at)<p> <p> My problem is it's going to have to be a little bit more than a blue explosion to hammer home the horror and we haven't seen the full effect yet OR it's aftermath. We DID see Manhattan and Laurie teleport back from Mars in one of the trailers and they seem to be on the edge of the devastation in NY. Perhaps the "explosion" actually lifts a huge fucking spherical chunk of mass out of New York ? (like the Borg crater)<p> <p>And BTW Manhattan is PASSIVE!! He doesn't give a fuck! This isn't a minor fucking detail it's hammered home again and again in the comic and is why he fucks off at the end. So Veidt will have to truly "FRAME" Manhatan and convince the world Manhattan has suddenly took it upon himself to act of his own volition in an INCREDIBLY vengefull manner. Instead of studying Gluinos or doing what he's told by Nixon and everyone else. (including most importantly his father BEFORE he was Manhattan)<p> <p>Stilll most of the Movie looks and sounds like it will be pretty good fucking stuff (there is MUCH Manhattan and Rorschach goodness before the end to wow audiences)even if the ending turns out to be underwhelming.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Cap'n Jack

    by spud mcspud

    Yes, but it didn't block Jon's reasoning ability, did it? He can't be THAT thick - he's a demigod!<P> Oh, and you SUCKED on Doctor Who... ;D

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Acquiescent pussies like no squid

    by awepittance

    i don't know anyone in real life who isn't a pussy who can say honestly 'yeah watchmen movie will be cool with a new zack snyder ending'

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:25 p.m. CST

    TakeItEasyMon

    by spud mcspud

    Cheers for that. I don't want to turn this into a 9/11 talkback - God knows there's been enough of those - and don't want to offend anyone either... but my point is: if you can find so much evidence to support a conspiracy such as that - real or imagined - in the REAL world, it's not so difficult to imagine someone making that same creative intellectual leap in the Watchmen universe, is it?<P> Bottom line: removing the squid has fucked up the ending, because the way Moore wrote it, EVERYTHING in that novel supports EVERYTHING ELSE. Remove ONE THING - it ALL FALLS DOWN!!!<P> Non-squiddies just do not get it...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    wrong cap'n jack...

    by Cap'n Jack

    I'm the Captain of the Black Pearl...!<br><br>and true about Jon's reasoning ability, but I always thought in the book that Jon relied so heavily on his omniscience that he lost some common sense towards the end.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Spud

    by toadkillerdog

    Dude, you can examine every single major event in world history, both positive and negative and could construct theories to 'prove' one way or another that a conspracy occurred. That does not make it so, though. I am not going to argue 9/11 with you or anyone. It is pointless. I will say this with regards to the planes, Boston to NYC is less than 200 miles. Planes have dropped off radar before. Planes have deviated from course before. Planes have been hijacked (It had been quite a while in US, which would make us even less alert) before. And the military has not been scrambled. So, no, the military would not have known about the planes in time to do anything, and evn more consider this: It takes an act of the President to order a military fighter to shoot down a civilian American passenger plane. No one knew what the first plane was going to do. The second plane hit too quickly before any decison could be made. <p> That is all I think really needs to be said about 9/11. Argue Watchmen all you want, but please keep the crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories out of it.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Brian's Life

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    You bring up a good point, and I have a perfect comeback which is supported by dialogue in WATCHMEN itself. However, I'll leave it for others to argue on.<BR><BR>Aside from squid issues (and, yes, we all know it's not really a fucking squid), I'd be interested in discussing other adaptation points that work and don't work. <BR><BR>Brian's Life--I think you mentioned the trailer containing dialogue in which some of our "heroes" (e.g., Rorschach) refer to themselves as "the Watchmen." If Snyder is so into making the characters as close to the original story as possible, he'd know our protagonists would NEVER refer to themselves as such. The name "Watchmen" is, of course, an Orwellian swipe at masked heroes. Even if some of the heroes used the name ironically to refer to themselves, Moore's Rorschach NEVER would. And that's a fact.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Footage looks stunning

    by RobFromBackEast

    I was in London for this. The guy who insulted 300 was a fat german assclown who just wanted to say something mean. Seriously guys, this will be stunning. The title sequence and the Dr Manhattan stuff is amazing.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud...or he just doesnt care

    by bacci40

    which is alluded to in the novel...which is fine, but i still dont like it...there is a reason why moore didnt go that way...framing a fellow crimebuster wouldve been to gauche for ozy, and despite his own protestations, he is indeed an rko villian...or rather, a villain right out of the comics, who has come up with the most outlandish way to overt nuclear destruction...for some reason, every screen writer and zack have decided the ending has to make logical sense...it doesnt, that isnt its point...again, we are back to galactus showing up as a cloud, cuz nobody would buy a giant dude in a purple suit....ya, but they will buy a dude who now looks like a walking rock, a dude that can stretch every part of his bod, a guy who can catch fire and fly, an invisible girl and a silver dude who flys around on a surfboard...to me, framing the doc is lazy writing and totally misses the point of ozy

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:29 p.m. CST

    I got a squid for ya...

    by JimCurry

    In my pants! (I am referring to my penis.)

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:29 p.m. CST

    I'm thrilled that the final scene

    by Cap'n Jack

    from the book is there!! This is the first I'd heard that.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:30 p.m. CST

    bacci40

    by spud mcspud

    Dan in the suit - the suit gives him virility, in that he stops being Dan and becomes Night Owl. I always read that as Alan Moore's little joke on Batman - that maybe the only way Bruce Wayne can get it up, the only thing that gives him the horn, is being Batman - and that, therefore, the only thing that makes Bruce horny is the thought of wreaking vengeance on evil. Perverted much?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:31 p.m. CST

    "non-squiddies just do not get it"

    by Brians Life

    You guys are deluding yourselves. This isn't an "us versus them" so stop trying to make it one.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Veidt is a broken genius

    by AdrianVeidt

    So perhaps framing the doc only alludes to a great plan gone wrong and stapled with too much hubris. Yes it's different, but it still paints the characters in the same light!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Cap'n Jack...you are right

    by bacci40

    but now zack wants us to believe that the doc wouldnt question this fact for months, while working with ozy...in the book, he doesnt have any contact with ozy till the very end...and he does question the tachyon field...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:35 p.m. CST

    should I bother reading all these posts

    by the milf lover

    or all you geeks just repeating the same 'we want squid' pathetic whining that you've been spewing in every fucking Watchmen talkback so far?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:35 p.m. CST

    And Squid aside...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    I AM glad Rorshach's journal is in. Also I understand that *SPOILER* Veidt is not killed retributively by Dreiberg (as if). <BR><BR>This is all good news--if true.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Give me a fucking break with the squid already...

    by MichaelCorleone

    Losing the squid doesn't do anything to the story, no matter how much you want it to apparently. The people that are pissed are the same people that were going to hate this film no matter what. This isn't the comic folks, it's called an adaptation. That's what happens when you make a book or comic book into a film. Don't be so damn naive. If you really thought this film would be shot for shot the same as the book, then you know fuck all about how to tell a story. I'd argue that half of you fuckers haven't even read the damn thing. You're just part of the bandwagon that wants to suck Moore's dick. He's not the god you make him out to be. He's a good writer and let him be that. Raising him to this god like status only sets you and only you up for disappointment with anything.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:36 p.m. CST

    should I bother reading all these posts

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    or all you geeks just repeating the same 'fuck you squidders' pathetic bitching that you've been spewing in every fucking Watchmen talkback so far.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    How does the squid take more time?

    by Bass Ackwards

    There were a few hints and suggestions, though with the new ending you're still gonna need those little clues dropped in. But it's not like the novel spent pages developing a back story and family history along with criminal motivations leading up to a big sprawling monster battle. The squid only happens at the end, and when it happens it takes one second to do what it does. Hell even the book didn't waste time giving us a full on squid shot. I'll listen to a lot of arguments for exclusion. But that it takes up too much time? Hurm.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    see how that works, milf lover?

    by Le Vicious Fishus

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Squid ain't no country I ever heard of

    by Shaw

    Do they speak English in Squid?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:38 p.m. CST

    toadkillerdog

    by spud mcspud

    Agreeing to disagree - except for the "crackpot" part. That's your opinion. I know people who believe that the US never landed on the moon either. I actually DO think we went to the moon, but it doesn't stop the "false moon landing" believers from having some very good points (mostly pointed out in the excellent "DID WE REALLY GO TO THE MOON?"), and I wish NASA would stop just skating over it and publish that damn book they were going to publish that refutes every point the fake-moon-landing believers ever made. THAT could be some interesting stuff.<P> I do still wonder wh ythey don't just release the pictures of whatever hit the Pentagon, too, if only to shut the crackpot conspiracy theorists up. Exactly how could a still frame picture of a plane crashing into the Pentagon be any kind of national security risk - unless, of course, the Pentagon is afraid of us seeing what is in the picture?<P> If it's the plane, RELEASE IT - and make the tinfoil-hat-wearing-twats like me look stupid! Wouldn't that make sense?<P> Aaaaaaanyway, back to WATCHMEN...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Okay, I'm done.

    by Brians Life

    No more Watchmen talkbacks until the fucking thing comes out. Off to buy a PS3 to keep my Wii company. See you in 6 months, assholes!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST

    We've got to have plenty of time...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    for slow/fast-mo action sequences galore and non-canonical scenes which explain the filmmakers' brilliant new climax! Haven't you heard?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:40 p.m. CST

    MichaelCorleone

    by spud mcspud

    You have no fucking idea whatsoever.<P> And for most of us that HAVE read the graphic novel- many times over, and still re-reading it - we actually enjoyed pretty much everything Zach Snyder did... til we heard how he pussed out on that ending, and in that instant shilled out his soul to the corporate fucks and bought his place at their table by ass-fucking the greatest graphic novel ever made.<P> If you care so little for great genre literature, you're not fucking worthy of that TB handle. From now on, you're Gomer Pyle, understand?!?!?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Seriously--that sucks, Brians Life.

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    You will be missed as a voice of reason and sanity. Even if I don't agree with you sometimes.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Shaw

    by spud mcspud

    And I will strike down with great vengeance and fuuuuuuuuurious anger, those who attempt to poison and destroy my squid! And you will KNOW my name is ALAN MOORE - WHEN I LAY MY MEH UPON THEE!!!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:42 p.m. CST

    15 minutes of Wall E sold me on its genius.

    by knowthyself

    I could only imagine how much more you can get from 30 minutes of a film.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Brian's got the right idea...

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:44 p.m. CST

    WB must be scared out of their minds...

    by knowthyself

    ...whats up with all these screenings? What are they trying to find out?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:45 p.m. CST

    AdrianVeidt

    by spud mcspud

    Surely the beauty of the ending to Moore's GN is that Adrian DOESN'T break under the pressure - and that his psychopathic adherence to his insane plan is what enables it to actually succeed - and that the great evil he now bears the guilt and responsibility for has - as he always believed it would - actually SAVED THE WORLD?<P> This new ending robs the preceding story of its epic scope and turns it into a generic whodunnit with a STRIKING DISTANCE ending.*<P> *STRIKING DISTANCE ending: Taken from the Bruce Willis shitfest of the same name, it refers to any movie etc that has an ending where the antagonist / villain is revealed to be the least likely person in the cast, simply because they ARE the least likely, and the revelation makes fuck all sense whatsoever in the preceding story.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Shaw

    by spud mcspud

    The truth is, you're the Zach. And I am the tyranny of evil squid. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd (of the original ending!).

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:49 p.m. CST

    I can follow the logic of the new ending..

    by knowthyself

    ....Doc Manhattan is already being seen as a villian in the book. Being blamed for giving people cancer. Dissapearing mysteriously. Ozymandias takes advantage of this and frames Manhattan for his crime via the "simulated manhattan" bomb. In Watchmen Manhattan leaves earth...now he really has a reason to leave earth and being so objective he won't care what humans think of him. This unites earth against an "alien" force...same as the squid. With Manhattan being an external threat just like the squid it serves the same purpose. The threads are there for this ending to be possible. Its not too far off the mark.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Shaw

    by spud mcspud

    Basically, I'm just gonna walk the Earth. Y'know, like the squid from WATCHMEN.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Squid or no squid, it's better than...

    by chrisd

    what they are doing to Star Trek.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:55 p.m. CST

    It's a happy ending.....

    by cookylamoo

    compared to the end of "Dawn of the Dead".

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Still a stupid idea

    by ballyhoo

    It takes more effort to make a rogue Dr. Manhattan ending work than an alien threat ending.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3 p.m. CST

    Manhattan does manage to "save" earth.

    by knowthyself

    If he allows himself to be blamed he can indeed save the earth. Considering that Manhattan ended up agreeing with Ozymandias in the book this really stays within the boundaries of the GN.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:04 p.m. CST

    not about the squid you fucking retards

    by sokitome

    I swear the average IQ on this fucking talkback is like 4. The point is not about the squid it is about the plot. If MANHATTAN is to blame or the focal point of VEIDT, THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY PERIOD! That's like changing the "killing Joke" and making Alfred the bad guy. WTF! The whole point of external forces is right on. Whoever said that we don't blame saudi arabia for 9/11 is also wrong. Granted we don't blame a single nation but we do blame an entire race of people. We were willing to go into IRAQ because of 9/11 even if there was no evidence connecting them to that or any other terrorist actions against the U.S. So yes i do believe the ending would not work if MAnhattan is the percieved threat.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:05 p.m. CST

    I'm beginning to think this ending will work.

    by Cap'n Jack

    in the bounds of a 2.5 hour movie, I think this could work well if done properly.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:08 p.m. CST

    The squid WOULD take more time

    by Leopold Scotch

    If it was a direct translation from novel to film, then no, it wouldn't take much more time to incorporate it...<br><br>But then the film would be fucking ridiculous for 90% of its audience. They would need to introduce the concept of the squid much more explicitly on film if they want it to look like it didn't just come out of nowhere, and this would take some time.<br><br>Anyway, Manhattan, for me, is just as external a force as the squid. He was created in the US but the removal of his intrinsic field - his connection to the world - works thematically as well as physically. When he teleports back to Manhattan after the disaster, he doesn't even look around, he just picks up a newspaper. A huge chunk of the novel is spent establishing that he's almost completely removed from humanity and then, finally, humanity makes sure he is completely removed by accusing him of causing cancer and practically chasing him from the planet. What would humanity be uniting against? Its sheer vulnerability: the disaster, caused by Manhattan could, in theory, provide perspective for the feuding countries.<br><br>In any case, the world is just as likely to unite against the Dr and not the US as it is to unite against aliens (read "NOT VERY"). I have no problem with Adrian's theory and plan as the climax of the story, but if you're really going to use the argument that Snyder's revised plan wouldn't work, then you're implicitly saying that you firmly believe that the threat of an alien invasion would unite the plante FOR REAL.<br><br>Are you prepared to do that? If you are, then HA HA to you...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:08 p.m. CST

    MichaelCorleone = studio plant

    by awepittance

    Spud Mcspud knows what he's talking about not only on how important the Squid ending is but also how the Dr manhattan ending would not work because golly look at how well the fuck-up of 9/11 worked! 30% of the world practically believes it was an inside job. Do you really think the world would go along believing Dr manhattan acted alone and the United states didnt do some kind of false flag attack? im sorry but america has a terrible track record and most people across the world would not believe their innocence. Anybody with half a brain and has read a few american military history books would know this. no one would say this unless they like Zack sausage up the butt or if th

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:09 p.m. CST

    The point, gentlemen

    by TakeItEasyMon

    ..is that people just can't leave things well enough alone. Everybody with a piece of any adaptation has this sick need to inject themselved and their changes into the project, rather than just being a responsible shepard and bringing it to a new medium. And while yes, we should be happy that what looks like 75% of the movie is what we might expect or hope for, why settle? We have to ask ourselves what happened to the other 25%? What logical reasoning or studio pressure led to them saying "let's take out these huge parts of the film and insert our own new parts" Of course we are bitching, but I think a lot of us would just like to know what the reasoning was. Not enough time or 'audience won't get it' are not valid excuses. If the movie audience can handle a glowing naked blue man flying around Vietnam in an alternate history flashback, they can handle a fucking giant dead squid.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Leopold

    by sokitome

    It doesn't matter if we believe the world will unite against an alien threat. It matters that Moore did and the whole point of the novel is that idea. If you change that theme then it changes the very nature of the book. No matter what Dr. Manhattan was HUMAN! Regardless of is powers he is still associated with humanity. The point of the novel is to bring the outrageous to the real world and how we deal with it. By changing the antagonist to someone who was once human changes the entire theme of the novel.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:17 p.m. CST

    ..what's more,

    by TakeItEasyMon

    I'd give credit to Snyder if he would just come out and say that he feels he is a better writer than Moore and his ending / other changes make more sense. That he is qualified enough to change someone else's work. At least then we hear a direct explanation. I think he's got a bible 2.0 coming out next year, where jesus escapes from the cross and goes on a slow-motion rampage through Jerusalem. His crown of thorns is like the Glaive from Krull.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:21 p.m. CST

    the ending with the squid really would lose

    by Cap'n Jack

    most of the audience seeing this movie. and I hate people messing with source material more than anyone. but I can see why Zach did this...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:21 p.m. CST

    The guy who wrote Y: THE LAST MAN was smart...

    by John Maddening

    He wrote one ending for the comic, one for a TV series, and one for a movie.<br> <br> BRILLIANT!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Nothing can unite us talkbackers...

    by knowthyself

    Maybe an alien squid attack would?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:28 p.m. CST

    re. sokitome

    by Leopold Scotch

    Yes, he WAS human, but as I said, a huge part of the novel focuses on establishing his increasing alienation from humanity. I would argue that, as of the time of the disaster, he is no longer associated with humanity at all (especially from the point of view of the rest of the world). The only reason he goes back to Earth is because the universe has informed him that this is what he is going to do. Granted, to demonstrate that he might still care, he kills Rorschach but again, he isn't really in control of his actions here, and the public doesn't know that he's done this. As far as they're concerned, he's probably just as inhuman as a giant alien squid, and he's proven this by giving everyone he's associated with cancer.<br><br>It's not for me to say that it's a better storyline, but for the sake of tying threads up with one another and not risking a reception of ridicule, I would choose the revised ending on paper at least (I'll wait for the film before I judge it).<br><br>Funnily enough, I was discussing the movie about a month ago with someone who had just read the novel. They said themselves they're not sure the squid thing would work on film and I agreed. I would be curious to see it, but I'm just glad they seem to be hitting so many right notes as it is.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST

    If we're lucky...

    by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder

    ....Snyder is shooting for "Blade Runner" or "2001" territory, not just a pissing match with TDK or Superman movies.....I still look forward to this. The Squid would be nice for sentiment's sake, but Toadkillerdog (as ever) makes very good points...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:43 p.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by Bob Cryptonight

    Well said...and funny!!! Everyone should just wait and see the movie.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:49 p.m. CST

    This Can't Happen

    by Evil Chicken

    Soon Enough! I CAN'T wait for this one. Trailer 2 just shines. This will rock, bottom line.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Mars

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    I am stoked that the Mars sequence is apparently in--in its entirety sounds like. I always daydreamed--way back in my college days in the late eighties--about the Mars sequence being put to film. And I am excited to see it.<BR><BR>I still think the new climax sounds like a bad idea, but there are plenty of reasons I still want to see this film adaptation.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:49 p.m. CST

    he keeps downplaying the impact of TDK...

    by jason baum

    and it's annoying as hell. i love everything about this film, and so far snyder as well - but this whole "TDK is just another part of the machine, but we are sooo anti-establishment..." get over yerself fuck-head. both movies are excellent, and will open different doors for the medium. i suppose the real test would be if they were released in the same year, especially come awards season.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Squid or No Squid...

    by andtheflesh

    shut the fuck up already!<br> <br> I think I'm just going to avoid the Watchmen talkbacks from this point forward. If I have to listen to a bunch of crybabies boohoohoo about the goddamned squid for 6 more months I'm going to base jump without a parachute.<br> <br> I mean, hell, approve or disapprove, who cares?! Can you at least hold off on your sobbing till the movie is actually IN theaters and you've seen it?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Snyder on TDK

    by andtheflesh

    If you actually look at what he says, he's not bashing the Dark Knight at all. He's saying that the TDK came along and knocked people on their asses. Watchmen is going to shock people even more. Period. Even if the movie sucks, the issues that the story tackles are a hell of a lot more intricate and brutal than the Dark Knight. And don't get me wrong, I loved TDK. Watchmen is just a completely different animal.<br> <br> BTW...whoever complained about his insulting Spiderman. Spiderman is safe. It doesn't ever step out of moral boundaries. The first two were great films but they were hardly challenging to a viewer on any level. Even the use of CGI was readily apparent.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4 p.m. CST

    Renter

    by Breck

    After watching the latest trailer and now reading this, it's clear that Zack Snyder and his writing team just don't get it. Straight to the Netflix queue with this one. That's as much support as I'm willing to give this film.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:01 p.m. CST

    We're still having this argument?

    by phool2056

    Jesus Christ, the original one was in a series of static pictures with captions and word balloons, and they're making it into a series of moving pictures with noises and music. It's already fundamentally different, which is part of why Alan Moore hates all this stuff. The whole thing is in its basic essence changed; it won't be a book that you sit by yourself in a cozy chair and move your fingers to flip through, it'll be a movie that you sit very still to watch in a darkened room with a bunch of other people. If you're going to get pissed off about something, get pissed off about the basic hubris inherent to any adaptation. If you're not getting angry about that, and I'm not, accept that the two things, even in shot by shot reproductions like 300 or Sin City, are still so fundamentally different that getting irate because the visual towards the end doesn't include tentacles is just hating for hating's sake. And even if the movie is absolutely terrible by any standards, I'm still glad it's coming out, and I'm relatively certain that there will at least be moments when some of my favorite images or lines or ideas will be manifested in a new way that'll make me feel happy. Even in an absolute shitfest like Daredevil, I was just pleased as punch to see a high budget movie realization of the death of Elektra. We're living in a golden age of nerdry, and I am pleased to acknowledge its every manifestation.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    by awepittance

    I think TDK is very hyped up in its darkness, i didn't find it that dark or gritty. i was actually pretty disappointed about how overall tame it was. Watchmen will no doubt kick it's ass in that respect. No 'the prisoners were too moral to blow up a boat full of innocent people' bullshit quasi moral choice plot devices. that was ridiculously bad jesus christ i can't believe so many people have a hard-on Dark knight.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:03 p.m. CST

    While there is no Squid, if you watch the trailer closely,

    by irrelevntelefant

    you can clearly see a plate of calamari on Ozymandias desk...<p> I think that subtley speaks volumes....

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Alternate universe....

    by Darth Macchio

    Comparing our modern world to the world of Watchmen does not make for an absolute argument. A good point to be sure but not an absolute point. If we had lived with costumed heroes for decades and we knew about the existence of an omnipotent being, the same conjecture you use to justify the "Snyder Ending" could be used to justify the original ending. I do not think people would separate the idea of Doc M being an American; maybe at first but not long enough to ensure our survival and accomplish Veidt's purpose. Our enemies in the Watchmen universe wouldn't question our take on the event?...even if our greatest city was destroyed?<p>You guys make some great points but you must know that there are a significant number of Europeans today who believe that Bush/American Government was behind 9-11 right? Or maybe the Israelis? I'm not looking to argue either point except to note the ambiguity of the argument of who is to blame and how time bends to a variety of viewpoints based on ceaseless human conjecture.<p>With Doc Manhattan in the alternate Watchmen universe, my point is that we'd have that same discussion which would take away from Doc M's "otherworldliness" and not cement his status as "alien". The main point is the "event" has to be unequivocal, it cannot fail or be discovered to be false or it fails and the reverse happens. I firmly believe without question that the 'psychic death scream' aspect is mandatory as anything else would be subject to our egos and our intellectual scrutiny; and we're quite good at explaining away any number of difficult realities with just semantics. If not today, then by tomorrow.<p>I think it's possible to work an angle with Manhattan and I hope Snyder pulls it off but with all of this pretzel twisting, I wonder why they didn't just keep the context and just chang the entity. But to change that entity to something that, even as bizarre as Manhattan is, people still know about him, fear him, hate him, are in awe of him...basically, he's a "known phenomenon" and thus, just mundane enough, even in his 'supernaturalness' to be considered a national threat and not a world-wide threat.<p>Good points all and believe me...it's not about hate or any other bullshit. I like Snyder's work and I feel from what we've seen it looks to be aesthetically perfect and conceptually it's looking more and more like Snyder may have cracked one out of the park but if he half-asses the ending out of convenience and not story, then the tidal wave of geek hate that hits Snyder, et al (and prolly AICN too) will be absurdly dramatic and, I'm 100% sure, quite a fun show to watch!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Three extra sentensec can make this ending work

    by David Cloverfield

    I have no idea what are you guys bitch about. First example coming to my head: In the TV interview Veidt's people not only accuse Manhattan of giving folks cancer, but also accuse him of being an alien agent posing as a one time human. As comic booky as the Squid, but less complicated. And it's the first idea that's coming to my not scriptwriter head. They had months to make it work.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Speaking of TDK

    by Bass Ackwards

    I think it's great timing that were getting TDK and Watchmen, possibly reinventing suodrheroe movies the same way TDKR and The Watchmen GN did 10 years ago. And yes I know TDK isn't an adaptation of Miller's GN, but I think an argument can be made that it realigned movie goers perceptions of what a comic movie could be, the same way Miller's GN did to comic books.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    In Snyders version, Doc palls around with terrorists and

    by irrelevntelefant

    refuses to show his birth certificate....

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:22 p.m. CST

    The best way to simulate the shock of the squid...

    by DarthCorleone

    ...is to convince Watchmen fan nation that there is no squid and then spring it on them unaware!<br><br>Yeah, wishful thinking, I know. But it would still be pretty damn effective.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:26 p.m. CST

    I could give a fuck about the squid

    by disfigurehead

    I want to see the movie already.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:32 p.m. CST

    NEW FOOTAGE!!!

    by perromaldito

    Guys! did i miss this??? http://www.vimeo .com/ 2058684 WTF!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:34 p.m. CST

    So many questions

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    What about this if this and this and that if there's no squid?! You know how to get the answers to all your plot questions in three easy steps? WAIT UNTIL THE MOVIE COMES OUT! WAIT UNTIL THE MOVIE COMES OUT! WAIT UNTIL THE MOVIE COMES OUT!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:39 p.m. CST

    In the book Rorshache is 5'8", in the movie 5'9"

    by irrelevntelefant

    THIS IS GOING TO RUIN IT! FUCK!!!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:42 p.m. CST

    I´m not kidding!!

    by perromaldito

    Doc manhattan tearing appart a tank? silk spectre fucking night owl? Giant doc Manhattan grabbing Ozy??? this is all new right???

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:45 p.m. CST

    phool2056

    by spud mcspud

    "Jesus Christ, the original one was in a series of static pictures with captions and word balloons, and they're making it into a series of moving pictures with noises and music. It's already fundamentally different, which is part of why Alan Moore hates all this stuff. The whole thing is in its basic essence changed; it won't be a book that you sit by yourself in a cozy chair and move your fingers to flip through, it'll be a movie that you sit very still to watch in a darkened room with a bunch of other people."<P> Really? So the difference between this comic book malarkey and these "movie" things is that one is static and the other isn't? Fucking hell! Is THAT why the Harry Potter movies were aso different to the books? I was expecting lots of words on a big screen and instead I saw lots of people pretending to be Harry and...<P> FUCK OFF YOU CONDESCENDING TWAT!!!<P> If you don't see that changing the squid to Manhattan fundamentally changes the entire plot of WATCHMEN, and the way EVERYTHING in that story affects EVERYTHING else, you're either too fucking dumb to get it anyway or so un-connected to the material that wouldn't have cared if they'd just made it and fucking called it BATMAN III. It matters for hundreds of reasons, most of which have been made in the last few days, all of which make A LOT OF SENSE. If you don't get it (and I very much suspect from your post that you don't) go re-read that graphic novel UNTIL YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT. Then you may get an idea of WHY we're so pissed off at Zach pussing out on the ending, because he thinks his punk ass can write a better ending than the one that climaxes arguably the greatest graphic novel ever written.<P> That, or you are entirely composed of chlorophyll. In any case, you couldn't be more fucking wrong.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Also...

    by spud mcspud

    "I'm relatively certain that there will at least be moments when some of my favorite images or lines or ideas will be manifested in a new way that'll make me feel happy."<P> Yeah, well, I liked the Batmobile in BATMAN AND ROBIN. Didn't stop that from benig THE WORST FUCKING SUPERHERO MOVIE EVER!<p> So he got the aesthetics right. If he fucks up the ending, it won't fucking matter how nice it all looks. YOU CAN SPRAY A TURD GOLD, IT'S STILL A FUCKING TURD!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:51 p.m. CST

    It's not even really a squid anyway...

    by sonnyfern

    so there...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5 p.m. CST

    The Watchmen instead of Minutemen

    by Dominic-Vobiscum

    I bet you a million dollars that was one of the concessions that Snyder had to make in order to get the R rating and keep the 1980's setting because execs "didn't get" why it's called Watchmen when the team isn't called The Watchmen.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5 p.m. CST

    A couple things...

    by Thrillho77

    1. To all those telling us to stop calling it a squid: Let's see...what's easier to write? "Squid" or "5th dimensional being" - we KNOW it isn't a squid...but it IS squid-like. We're going to call it that - and I'll thank you to jog off about it. <p> 2. I've come to accept the change away from the squid ending. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think that nothing is lost. There WILL be some subtext lost. But it doesn't bother me too much - I will always have the book to fall back on. <p> 3. They're actually calling them "The Watchmen" now? I heard it in the trailer, but the dialogue seemed kind of pieced together. Perhaps so that those uninitiated wouldn't be confused watching the trailer. I was assuming they'd change it back during the movie. It doesn't sound like it. A small tiff, but disappointing.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Chill people, Fuuuuuuck

    by RobFromBackEast

    Jesus Christ. I’ve never seen such an outpouring of utter fucking geek rhetoric bullshit in all my fucking life. People, the footage looks stunning. What Snyder has done with the opening montage alone will install confidence in the most die hard Moore fanatic. Spud, you seriously need to start chowing down on some zanex man; I can almost feel the fucking vain bursting in your forehead. Having set through the presentation and listened to the man and what he has to say, I have every confidence that he will knock this fucking thing out of the park and into the parking lot. Trust me, it’s good! Now fucking relax and wait for the god damn movie to come out before passing more judgement,

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:06 p.m. CST

    I always thought the 5th dimensional squid-like being...

    by Anti-fanboy

    was kinda hokey, anyhow. As long as it's replaced with a plot mechanism that believably fulfills the same function, I don't think I'll miss it much.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Anti-fanboy

    by RobFromBackEast

    Exactly. Finally, some fucking common sense!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Did you see it?

    by perromaldito

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:13 p.m. CST

    In the book, Silk Spectre is completely shaved down below

    by irrelevntelefant

    but in the movie she has a landing strip <P> ZACH SNYDER IS THE ANTI-CHRIST! <P>HE HAS SKULL FUCKED ALAN MOORE'S VISION UNTIL IT BLED FROM THE NOSE!<P> IS IT TO LATE TO GET MCG TO COME IN AND SAVE THIS MOVIE?!? <P> WHERE IS MICHAEL BAY? SAVE US MICHAEL BAY FROM THIS ORWELLIAN HELL ZACH SNYDER HAS UNLEASHED UPON THE EARTH!!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Didn't O'Neil approve the League movie?

    by ballyhoo

    Looking for a link but search engine sucks.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:16 p.m. CST

    RobFromBackEast

    by spud mcspud

    Whilst I appreciate your perspective having actually seen the presentation - and your concern for my mental well-being! - your assessment that Zack will knock this out of the park hinges on the very unsteady fulcrum of That Ending - ie, that Zack Snyder is capable of writing an ending as powerful as the one Alan Moore wrote. Well, alan Moore is the most critically acclaimed, well regarded and respected writer in comic history; Zack has made two okay-to-good movies, both based on other people's properties (so he hasn't exactly had to stretch those creative muscles) and (to my knowledge) had no graphic novels or comics published.<P> So. Who do I put my faith in to deliver the ending to the story WATCHMEN that will give it the emotional, epic ending that the material deserves? The man who continues to sell millions of graphic novels and comics, many by strength of his name alone, or the relative neophyte whose track record in this genre depends on what others have written?<P> I've no doubt Joe Schmoe and the read-it-once-but-didn't-really-get-it crowd may dig the action and the bad-ass Rorschach. Some of them may even begin to grasp the concepts contained in there. But to those who've read and re-read htis graphic novel, discovering more and more in the story every time, this ending is a stomp to the nuts that doesn't stop for two and a half hours.<P> The entire ending at Veidt's fortress makes no sense whatsoever with the Manhattan frame-up. None. At. All. How can it? And I'm sure it's going ot be very pretty and all, but this is like getting to fuck Angelina Jolie and then stopping just before she gets undressed. The greatest event in comic book adaptations in upon us, and they have fucked it in the last quarter. What's the point in a 90% great Watchmen? Why are so many people prepared to settle for meh?<P> People who aren't bothered by this changed ending = zombies in Romero's LAND OF THE DEAD. You keep staring at the pretty skyflowers, people, so you can miss the greatest story ever written as Zack the Hack systematically dismantles it before you.<P> The rest of us will always wonder how great a 100% adaptation of this amazing story COULD have been. I hope this movie fucking sinks without trace - Snyder is no more worthy of being in charge of this movie than Paul What Shite Anderson was of helming an AVP movie.<P> I hope you enjoy it, Rob. It's just not fucking close enough for me.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Of course your realise, Rob...

    by Anti-fanboy

    that we're only moments away from someone explaining to us exactly why we should miss the squid-dimensional 5th-like being-thing.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Anti-fanboy

    by spud mcspud

    Squid = hokey<P> As opposed to Veidt's plan, which is NOT at all hokey, or the idea of an atomic accident removing an "intrinsic field" (whatever THAT is) and turning a mild-mannered scientist into a glowing, omnipotent god? Or how about the guy who fights crime dressed as an OWL? Not hokey. At. All.<P> Yep. 'Cos there's NOTHING hokey about the other stuff - just the squid...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Wow, that was quick.

    by Anti-fanboy

    :)

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:19 p.m. CST

    perromaldito

    by spud mcspud

    IT'S HUGE! IT'S A LION!<P> Oh, wait. Nope, it's an anti-climax...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Anti-fanboy

    by spud mcspud

    Yeah, you called it. I'm notoriously easy to bait tonight. Don't get me started on the climax to Dr Who Season 4 (Smashing did, and we're STILL arguing over it ;D)...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:22 p.m. CST

    I was just asking...

    by perromaldito

    if this: http://www.vimeo.com/ 2058684 is new footage, i.e not seen in any of the two previous trailers

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Spud Mcspud

    by crazybubba

    way to defend your position. Great points, i'm tired of the snide comments from the studio plants telling people to wait for the movie and acting as if its pointless to discuss the movie before it comes out. There is enough information out there right now to discuss potential flaws. I guarantee that if everyone was singing Zach's praises about how great the movie will be no the plants would stop all the lecturing about waiting till the movie comes out.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:27 p.m. CST

    um spud, it's hollywood- nothing is ever 100% adapted, unless

    by irrelevntelefant

    it's the director putting up the $$$.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Spud

    by RobFromBackEast

    Spud I think passion in anything is fucking fantastic, but the fact of the matter is this film was going to be made no matter what, and that we should all be thankful it has landed on the lap of someone with genuine talent and an appreciation of the material. I have read the graphic novel on more than one occasion, and actually reread it before flying over to see the footage so it was fresh in my mind. Snyder has brought the grubby ambience directly from the novel, as well as some really smart, nifty ideas in the montage. From what I understand, the ending will not deviate too much from the actual novel. Despite the absence of the “fifth dimensional being”, I firmly believe that it will still work. Sure, we’d all have loved Alan Moore to have been involved, but Gibbons really gave this his seal of approval and showed strong support for Snyder on more than one occasion through out the presentation and questions. He has hung his balls out there having seen the film “five times”. It’s not Moore’s seal of approval, but that was NEVER going to happen, even if Warner Bros bought Moore blowjobs for life. Don’t write it off because of the squid man, that’s all I’m saying.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Rob, you must be a plant....

    by irrelevntelefant

    you are actually going to wait to see the movie before you have an opinion. <P> shit, I must be a plant too. I hope I'm a plant of a sativa nature...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:33 p.m. CST

    crazybubba

    by RobFromBackEast

    I’m not a plant. I’ve been posting talkbacks here for years. So go find a particularly girthy dildo and stick it up your pile ridden rectum. That’s a beyond clichéd response, and only serves to advertise your complete lack of any significant understanding on the subject. Grease up that dildo good, sir.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:35 p.m. CST

    These TB's are great

    by crazybubba

    i've read it twice, but i'm gaining a greater appreciation for the gn through the tb debates, that is when it involves tbers engaged in real debate i.e. toadkillerdog and a few others,not plants trying to suppress criticism about the flick.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Spud McSpud

    by AngryBuddha

    Amen preach on McSpud, you nailed it.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:38 p.m. CST

    So, fellow tbers...

    by perromaldito

    Nobody´s going to tell me if it´s new right?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:38 p.m. CST

    crazy, it's one thing to discuss potential flaws

    by irrelevntelefant

    but to basically have passed final judgement on a MOVIE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN MORE THAN 5 MINUTES OF IS JUST TOO MUCH! <P> I'll be as pissed as the next guy if Snyder fucks this up, but I'm waiting to see the movie before I decide whether or not to hang him in effigee in front of my house.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:40 p.m. CST

    "suppress criticism about the flick"

    by RobFromBackEast

    Fuck man, the film will make money anyway. The studio doesn’t need the hardcore fans for it to make money - which is why Brett Ratner still has a career. Thus, your point is null and void. You need a fucking beating with the baton of common sense. I’m a fan of the novel and expressing my opinion on the footage I’ve seen; just because it is positive doesn’t make me a plant.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:42 p.m. CST

    robfrombackeast

    by crazybubba

    first, suck my cock, second-this the first time i've seen you in this watchmen tb and so far you've been spewing the same garbage a whole lotta tber's i've never seen before have been today. There's definitely something wrong in Denmark when a whole bunch of new names are all parroting the same thing. So go suck eggs pencil dick.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Rob

    by spud mcspud

    I think what's really killing me is, before news of the lack of squid hit, that movie REALLY hit everything we fans wanted it to hit. They nailed Rorscach - he sounds uncannily like we wanted! The look is awesome! Nite Owl looks like a Batman wannabe - EXACTLY like the GN! The Owlship is awesome! Manhattan is awesome! IT LOOKED PERFECT!<P> So WHY change that perfect ending?<P> So much esle has to be rewritten now, or none of it makes sense. Why would the Comedian be killed now? What would he have seen? He HATES Manhattan in the GN - why would he suddenly give up after discovering a plot to discredit him - the Comedian in the GN would leap at the chance to help in this plan, not give up and want to die!<P> What about the psychic shockwave? How would multiple nuke detonations contain that kind of horror? The GN makes it clear that the after-effects will "give psychics the world over bad dreams for years to come", and leave EVERYONE in no doubt that the threat they face affects EVERYONE. How does Manhattan going rogue have that effect?<P> What about Rorschach at the end? Surely Manhattan wouldn't care if Rorscach went back to the US and told the media "It's all fake - Manhattan was framed!". They'd laugh him off like the conspiracy theorist psycho they always believed him to be, and Rorscach WOULD NOT be believed.<P> Either way, Manhattan wouldn't do what he does in the GN.<P> What about the scene with Manhattan and Ozy in the orrery at the very end? We get the impression in the GN Ozy wants to be like Manhattan - that Jon's godhood is all that Ozy would like now, but can never have! He ENVIES Manhattan; he ADMIRES him; he WANTS TO BE HIM. Why destroy all that, even for a plan to save the Earth?<P> bottom line: Snyder will have had to change much, much more than just the ending to accommodate the lack of calamari, and my guess is that none of it will make much sense. He gets WATCHMEN in the aesthetic sense - in an aesthetic sense, Zack is an exceptionally talented director, 300 proved that - but he has fundamentally misunderstood the themes, subtext, philosophy and underlying messages that WATCHMEN delivers in the GN. He seems to have just made a movie that looks EXACTLY how we'd all have liked it to look - you have no idea how much I loved the look of the first trailer! - but a different ending changes everything. It cheapens it and makes it inferior to the GN - and we're dealing with the greatest GN ever written. Why do this at all, if you're not going to go 100% with it? And not only did he not go 100%, it was that ending - that completely left-field, unexpected, masterful ending - that they changed? WHY?!?<P> It hurts more BECAUSE it looks so great, Rob. In the interest of politeness, I won't accuse you of any shrubbery-pokery, but I'd ask this of you: what do you do in the industry? You sound like a guy who either writes, produces, or has some other insider knowledge / occupation to do with the movie industry.<P> Story trumps style every time, is all I'm saying. Zach doesn't get that.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Admiral Ackbar says

    by spud mcspud

    IT'S A TRAP!<P> His talent can't handle an ending of that magnitude!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Buy me dinner first asshole

    by RobFromBackEast

    And just because your mother breast fed you into your teens doesn’t mean that the whole world is laughing at you. Granted, I’m laughing at you on account of your utterly adolescent post; but you can point your angst ridden tirades in a different direction. I’m not an fervent fanboy, I’m a journalist and a fan, sick of cynicism from uninformed fuckwits like yourself.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:50 p.m. CST

    One MORE for Spud than back to Mirror's Edge

    by Brians Life

    Spud...COME ON! <br><br>I read Watchmen probably once every 2 months. I have the Absolute Edition and a dog-earred copy I keep on my desk that filled with notes and post its. Don't turn this into a "you don't get it" pissiing contest.<br><br>Oh, and your Angelina Jolie comment makes no sense.<br><br>You're being TOO MUCH of a purist, Spud. You know in the real world we have to allow for changes to our beloved properties. Don't write the movie off as "meh" just because there is something different in it that YOU don't like. <br><br>And furthermore, don't write off those that can understand from a practical film making perspective why this change needed to be made.<br><br>Le Vicious Fishus, I will read anything you type b/c you seem to have a cool head about this whole thing. Keep fighting the good fight.<br><br>Spud, relax. Oh and simply saying that they couldn't possibly come up with a good ending because Alan Moore is a great writer....well, duh. But Alan Moore wrote a comic book, this is a movie. <br><br>Move to LA, work in the industry and you'll find a TON of like minded geeks that can easily understand why the squid wouldn't work due to <br><br>1. running time and I'd MUCH rather have fully fleshed out characters who's futures I care about than compromised cardbooard cutouts and the squid.<br><br>and 2. this movie is being made by a FUCKING MOVIE STUDIO!!!! What do THEY want to do? MAKE MONEY!!!!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Bravo, Brians Life, Bravo....

    by irrelevntelefant

    I couldn't agree with you more...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Brian's Life

    by spud mcspud

    If they wanted to make a ton of money making a GN into a movie, maybe going for one of the most beloved yet most difficult to understand GNs wasn't such a great move. Add to that the fact that every other Alan Moore adap has been (a) meh to fucking awful in execution and (b) not made much money at the almighty Box Office, and I'd have to conclude, this studio has shit for brains.<P> some things are made for the sake of art, not money. WATCHMEN the movie SHOULD HAVE been one of them.<P> and about the fully-fleshed characters - so WHY frame up Manhattan? See my above posts for all the bits that are going to have to be rewritten (badly) to accommodate Zack the Hack's brave new ending.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:54 p.m. CST

    No squid fucking your eyeballs in 2009

    by MCGhost

    Had to say it.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Another thing Spud....and EVERYONE

    by Brians Life

    Your rationalizations for what they must be doing now that there is now squid is making me thank the MAKER that YOU are not writing this movie.<br><br>Seriously, do some of you just think there's going to be a BIG HOLE where the Squid used to be!?!? Or maybe they'll just put up a big black CENSORED bar!??! COME ON! For realz. This back and forth is ridiculous. <br><br>Whatever the ending in the movie, I have faith that the strings will all attach. We won't need to worry about why the Comedian knows....I'm SURE it will be in there. it's not like they lost script pages!?!?<br><br>And since I don't seem like a DIE HARD defender of this flick here are the two things I fucking hate about it so far...<br><br>1.Rorshach's voice...too much a growl and not a whisper<br><br>2.That they are called WATCHMEN. See, you know what THAT IS people...THAT is a change that should not be made. The Squid I get, but "Watchmen" is a change for the lowest common denominator. It's so stupid people don't walk out of the theater saying "I dunna why it wasuh called Watchahmen!?"<br><br>All in all, my cautious optimism tells me we will all end up with a WATCHMEN movie that looks pretty good but is probably lacking in the larger ideas that make the Comic what it is. BUT, for that, WE have the comic. Peace. See you all in 6 months. Enjoy Christmas.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:59 p.m. CST

    are you deaf...

    by crazybubba

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUTTA MY MOUTH!!!! I'm not just talking about you rob, so quit trying to make it all about you. It's just strange that a lot of new names are saying the exact same thing. Maybe Hollywood doesn't care, but someone out there does because Snyder has had to address the issue. And if Hollywood didn't care, why even bother sending their directors to comic-con? All those fanboys don't represent the general viewing audience anyway.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Spud

    by RobFromBackEast

    I’m a film critic, not an American one and I was flown to London with a couple of hundred other critics to “stoke excitement” for the flick. Frankly it worked. I can understand you feeling let down from rumblings you’ve heard, but no one knows what way the new ending will effect the films narrative overall. I know what you’re saying, one change of that magnitude will cause a ripple effect of sorts; but at this point we don’t know what exactly it has been replaced with. Regardless of responses from test screenings things can still change considerably between now and then. Snyder is playing a very tough fucking game appeasing the fanboys and the studio. Man, if you seen some of the Manhattan shit you would cream your pants. This is stunning, uncompromising fucking violence that he’s already taken shit from Warners for. He really loves the material and appears to be treating it as such. He answered some tough questions with aplomb, seriously tough questions, and essentially made all the right noises for me. That’s all I’m saying. And I’m not easily impressed.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Spud, you are just now realizing studio's have shit for brains?

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Brian's Life

    by spud mcspud

    And for "those that can understand from a practical film making perspective" I keep mentally substituting this for "sell-out soulless suits who don't understand great art or great literature, but base everything on test screenings filled with sub-morons".<P> I'm not a complete neophyte, and you seem to get the fact that art and commerce are uneasy bedfellows. What I DON'T understand is your apparent willingness to sacrifice great writing for dumb writing in order to lure more morons to a movie they won't understand anyway. You'll piss off the real fans for changing it, and the non-GN-reading viewers won't understand (a) why the Comedian was willing to give up and die, (b) why Ozy would frame someone he respects and admires, (c) why Manhattan - being omnipotent and all - won't just tell the world that he was framed, or turn Ozy into a red smear in the snow, or anything other than that half-assed attempt at an ending.<P> The threat isn't extra-terrestrial any more - it's national (Manhattan being, notionally at least, American). Therefore, it loses the epic scope of the novel, and makes no sense into the bargain. The awesome scene in Ozy's Antarctic station will now either be (a) very different (read: worse) or (b) make zero sense whatsoever if not changed (read: worse).<P> Basically: an awesome adaptation right up to that perfect ending. WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Not to beat a dead squid...

    by rockround

    But seriously- you guys getting all amped about the squid - get a grip. You realize that ultimately, they aren't making this movie for the 12 uber-geeks that get bent out of shape over these things- they need to make it accessible to a broader audience so they can get the ridiculous amount of money back it takes to film this thing. If they had kept the squid - a HUGE number of the audience would have been looking at the screen going "WTF??" Sacrificing a profit so a bunch of comic worshipping shut-ins could wet themselves would be fiscal suicide.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Brian's Life!!!

    by spud mcspud

    So by your rationale and "cautionus optimism", I take it you LOVED Batman and Robin because it had a BATCAVE, a BATMAN, a ROBIN, a BATMOBILE, a VILLAIN (3 to be precise) and A PLOT.<P> What? You HATED BATMAN & ROBIN? But it "looked pretty good" although it WAS admittedly "lacking in the larger ideas that make the Comic what it is. BUT, for that, WE have the comic."<P> Hey, Schumacher should have used that defence. "Hey, you may have thought B&R sucked, but it looked great and for the amazing plots and nuances of the character etc, you still have the comics. Fuck you, you can't have your ticket money back. Fuck you and good night."

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:07 p.m. CST

    rob

    by crazybubba

    you might need to work on your journalistic skills cause you've mistaken honest discussion and debate for cynicism. But something tells me that's not the case. If your not a plant then your probably a troll.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Good fucking god.

    by RobFromBackEast

    Is that what you call telling me to suck your cock? An “open and honest debate”. Are you fucking kidding me!? Seriously man, I would fucking LOVE some of what your on.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:15 p.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by spud mcspud

    Nah - that sank in about the time I saw BATMAN & ROBIN. I mean, intellectually I realised it years before, but that movie proved to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that film studios actively HATE their audiences. If they could legally just catch us in the movie queues and beat our ticket money out of us, they wouldn't bother with movies at all. They just do not give a fuck.<P> **sigh**<P> Roll on AVATAR. I have faith in Cameron...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Rorschach's Voice and "Watchmen"

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Carry on, Squiddites and Squid-foes.<BR><BR>Rorschach's voice in the latest trailer doesn't really phase me. It may be due to the fact that I know the actor playing him is of the highest fucking caliber. Haley'll pull it off alright.<BR><BR>Rorschach, Note Owl and Company calling themselves "The Watchmen," however, is disturbingly ridiculous. I know for the casual reader or audience member this will seem trivial, but think about it in context. Can't believe the screenplay writers made a choice that poor.<BR><BR>Other than that (and--yes--the climax change), I'm a pretty happy camper so far. Oh, and I am a bit worried about the Snyder (TM) slo-fast mo being a bit too much as well.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Nite (not Note) Owl, naturally...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:21 p.m. CST

    How I know WATCHMEN is doomed:

    by spud mcspud

    Variety reported that two studios - the one who owns and is making WATCHMEN and the one who used to own the rights and is suing the other (fuck it, it's past midnight in the UK and I'm too tired to know which studios) are arguing over something very important. TO THEM.<P> These two studios are arguing OVER THE SEQUEL RIGHTS TO WATCHMEN.<P> THAT is the fucking problem with this project in a nutshell. and anyone who doesn't see why a sequel to WATCHMEN is an extraordinarily fucking ABYSMAL idea, not only has no idea what the ending of WATCHMEN means, but deserves to be eaten repeatedly around the head with the hardback Absolute Edition UNTIL THEY GET SOME FUCKING SENSE IN THEIR HEADS!!!<P> Explain why THAT isn't a bad idea, you non-squiddies...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:24 p.m. CST

    You'll pay, You'll all pay

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    and that's why this shit continues to happen. Cocksuckers of the world unite!!!! But heres the thing. After it's all said and done you will voice your honest opinions of the final film, and Mr. S will have the rest of his life to live with his choices. People will never, never stop reminding him of this colossal fuck up for the rest of his life!!!!! The rest of his life. He will be on his deathbed and his hired nurse will whisper in his ear. "This is for the Squid" and then she'll inject him with potassium chloride.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:26 p.m. CST

    No squid =

    by Defrost

    Fuck this movie

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:28 p.m. CST

    NEW FOOTAGE

    by perromaldito

    this: http://www.vimeo.com/ 2058684 is new footage, i.e not seen in any of the two previous trailers

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Spud

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    A sequel? I'm game, but only if Ozy grabs Doc Manhattan in an embrace and says 'Are you ready?' before the two of them fly into the sky and explode. Everyone down below watches the explosion in awe. New York is saved... and in the sequel Doc Manhattan has amnesia and Ozy is suffering from radiation burns to 93% of his body.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:37 p.m. CST

    perromaldito

    by Thrillho77

    NOT new footage. Footage that was shown weeks ago.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:39 p.m. CST

    go back and read some of the other posts by

    by crazybubba

    ozymodean or something like that and g100 and spud and few other guys they make some interesting points and quit trying to twist what i'm saying plant.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Where???

    by perromaldito

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:39 p.m. CST

    SpikeTV Scream awards

    by Thrillho77

    It was on the net the next day

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:41 p.m. CST

    I thought...

    by perromaldito

    The only footage out there was the teaser and the theatrical trailer

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Watchmen II : Even Watchier

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:44 p.m. CST

    (ø‹›≈≈

    by Mockingbuddha

    First of all, Giant squid has always been shorthand for giant genetically engineered transdimensional psychic bio-bomb thing Gibbons you condescending and talented man. Second who cares if the new ending will work. Giant Squid was SO FUCKING COOL!!! Has everybody forgotten COOL!!! Now it'll be another ten years before someone can reboot it properly with the squid. I ain't gonna lie. I will see this movie, I even gave LXG a shot, and fuck you if you think I'm bitching about the squid because I want the movie to fail, I want it to rock, that's why I've been talking about the squid in these TBs since they announced the director, hell, even before that, whenever there was a story about Watchmen movie rumors, I was talkin' (ø‹›≈≈ But when the end of the movie gets there I am going to be so fucking sad at how cool it could have been, but is not. (ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Watchmen II: Watching Me, Watching You!

    by Mr. Zeddemore

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:46 p.m. CST

    oops

    by perromaldito

    stupid me, i only watched the crappy friday the 13th clip, looks like i missed on the good stuff!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:46 p.m. CST

    It was new to me perromaldito

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    So thanks for that. <P>The rest of these bitches are hip deep in some important shit, the abscence of their beloved squid and what not, so they haven't been paying attention, but Mel appreciates the footage, Mel always appreciates it.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Now that you mention it Mel...

    by perromaldito

    ...What´s with this shit no Squid??!!!!!! just kidding

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Mel

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I don't think it's about the squid so much as what the squid represents. Namely a plan that will unite people against a common enemy. There are ways they can do it properly, but if it's Doc M then it's going to require a greater suspension of disbelief.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:50 p.m. CST

    (ø‹›≈≈

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Indeed! Ever get my last INVISIBLES commentary reply, MockingB?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:51 p.m. CST

    NEVER SURRENDER!!!!

    by Mockingbuddha

    EVEN IN THE FACE OF NO_SQUID!!!ZACK RATNER IS A GIANT DOUCHE!!!(ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈ Non squidies suck!! I'm not a good loser. :(

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:51 p.m. CST

    WTF?

    by WaitingforAvengers

    I'm really surprised there are so many people promoting changing Alan Moore's novel. Don't ever complain about films not following the source material again. I'm honestly baffled why people think changing the best graphic novel of all time is a good idea.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:52 p.m. CST

    I have to laugh perromaldito

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I scrolled through the entire talkback, found your link and went to the footage, then watched for like 10 hundred posts as no one commented and you kept checking in to see if anyone would answer. <P>Sorry man, it was like watching Donny ask a question but Walter and The Dude were waaaaayyy to deep in the weeds to hear you. Finally somebody explained it was from Spike. Up till then I thought maybe they just weren't reading or something.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:55 p.m. CST

    People who think changing the squid is a good idea...

    by WaitingforAvengers

    Did you like Galactus being a cloud in Fantastic Four? People are saying "The regular audience might not get it!" Well, they might not, but a good film takes risks. They could have taken out the plot twist in Fight Club to make sure more people understood it, but it wouldn't have made it a better movie.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:56 p.m. CST

    I´ll see the movie first BUT

    by perromaldito

    The squid doesn´t sound THAT far fetched if you think obout it. It doesn´t just come out of nowhere, Ozy explains it quite well 35 minutes before it appears, i mean, Doc M is weird too, but it is also explained so im not buying that argument mr Snyder

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:56 p.m. CST

    yeah buddha

    by crazybubba

    when i heard snyder was on board i was actually excited about it, because i knew he took 300 so seriously. Not a big fan of the movie, but he seemed to show a lot of respect to miller's work that's what makes this more of disappointment. Not that i'm blaming him entirely for any flaws the movie might have. I'm sure big shot marketing know-it-alls shoulder most of the blame.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7 p.m. CST

    Mel

    by perromaldito

    I´d been hilarious if it WAS new footage and those douchebags didnt see it cus they were having their stupid argument

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud...not arguing over sequel rights

    by bacci40

    la times had a great article sunday on the law suit...seems warners messed up a little when it came to some basic contractual obligations to the original holder of the rights (fox) when they signed snyder and tse for the flick...its convoluted biz shit...where basically everyone gets theres...variety might be quoting some entertainment lawyer who doesnt know shit about the book, in regards to the sequel/prequel deal...there can be no sequel...there could in theory, be a prequel, however, zack himself said he would lobby against this, and the wb would have to face angry hordes of fanboys, as well as the wrath of the snake god

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Spud...

    by DarthCorleone

    Spud>> I'm not a Watchmen expert; I've only read it once. I don't have a firm opinion on the squid-absence yet. Basically I'm going to see the movie and hope they make it work. I did want to respond to this, though...<br><br> (b) why Ozy would frame someone he respects and admires, (c) why Manhattan - being omnipotent and all - won't just tell the world that he was framed, or turn Ozy into a red smear in the snow, or anything other than that half-assed attempt at an ending.<br><br>Wouldn't the "why" in both these cases be that Ozy and Manhattan both conclude that Ozy's plan is for the greater good, just as it is in the graphic novel? I'm not saying that automatically makes the plan itself smoothly achieved and credible (e.g., perhaps Ozy could have come up with a similar plan that didn't involve framing Manhattan), but the ultimate motivation seems the same to me.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:14 p.m. CST

    I'd be open to hearing what makes a Blue Explosion good

    by G100

    Rather than this attempt to distract by trying to piss on Moore's ending, which lest we forget, WORKS.<p> <p>Remember WHATEVER Snyder has replaced Squiddy with (and it certainly seems to be Gigantic Blue "explosions" resembling Manhattans Teleport) We HAVE to see the HORROR the Carnage and the REASON the World would turn back from the Brink of a Nuclear face off. So it's got to be something pretty incredible.<p> <p>A large blue flash and some debris simply ain't gonna do the trick visually or emotionally as the "payoff" of the plot. Perhaps Snyder has something up his sleeve for the destruction and aftermath... but so far the idea at least of Big Blue Explosions is frankly pretty fucking dull.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Some thoughts

    by Leopold Scotch

    1. Just because some of us don't care that there is no squid doesn't mean we don't understand the significance of the squid in the novel. The novel isn't hard to understand unless you're like 10. It's just that we think an alternate device (read NOT ENDING) might work too.<br><br>2. That said, the exclusion of the squid, to me, isn't just a good idea in terms of whether newbies will get it or not: as much as it might horrify some people, certain fans of the novel DIDN'T care for the squid. For some of us, the novel DIDN'T have the perfect ending. <br><br>I loved the book, but I had to get over the squid thing to do so. Fortunately, the novel was so great otherwise, that I didn't have much trouble at all getting over it. Now let's see if the squid lovers can manage to do the same with the film...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:20 p.m. CST

    its like smurf fart.

    by crazybubba

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Silent but Deadly then. And from Papa Smurf no doubt

    by G100

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Everyone should just Calamari down

    by Rue The Day

    No squid will be good. And if it hadn't been spoiled on the interweb, the new ending would have provided a bit of a shock to people who thought they knew what to expect...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:27 p.m. CST

    G100

    by Leopold Scotch

    When the squid actually teleports and begins its psychic assault, it pretty much IS a big blue and white explosion. At least based on the few frames in the book, it's the blue/white light that constitutes the psychic force that kills everyone. The only difference would be that there's not a big squid in the middle.<br><br>I gotta go.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:28 p.m. CST

    WaitingforAvengers

    by Cyan09

    Actually, I did like Galactus being a cloud, because you can image a giant man in a purple suit if you want without it looking pants-on-head retarded on the screen. However, since the entire rest of that movie was in fact pants-on-head retarded they might as well have used a giant purple man. I personally didn't care for the Giant squid ending in the graphic novel, I certainly understand all the many layered reasons it was used, and I respect it, I just feel that there could have been a much more elegant solution that would have accomplished the same thing without being quite so out of left field from the rest of the story. I certainly think that blaming it on Doc Manhattan is flawed as well, but I'm going to hold off on my bitch-fest until I see the movie and how it plays out. As for fight club, I don't think removing the twist is the same sort of thing. Plus, who honestly wouldn't understand that twist? The thing about fight club that should draw comparisons is the fact that the movie went with a much more "hollywood" ending in that they blew up the buildings, rather than the far superior ending that was in the original novel. Which, by the way, still kind of pisses me off.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:37 p.m. CST

    looks like crazybubba won this talkbalk

    by crazybubba

    damn he's good.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Giant Purple Man

    by WaitingforAvengers

    Dr. Manhatten is a Giant Blue Man, and in the trailer it looks awesome. Sure, Galactus might not have worked...but don't you think it's better to take risks? If you don't, you end up with something unmemorable.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:40 p.m. CST

    This film is peaking too soon

    by malificus

    I REALLY wanted to see it about 4 months ago, now with all the sneak peeks, ET stories and endless poster derivations I just want it to be over.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Remember folks this books is based on The OUTER LIMITS.

    by Redfive!

    Alan Moore himself said so,THE SQUID IS ESSENTIAL.Bubastis is the prototype,The Day The Earth Stood Still is playing at the movies,Miss Manish draws the squid before you know its coming,Dr Manhattan going to Mars,the colors of Mars plus the symbolism and colors to the squid,its all there and well thought out by Moore. I think snyder wants to make a great movie,but this is the guy who took all the heavy commentary out of Dawn of the Dead and produced a zombie baby.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Ummmm, what?

    by Deuce Hexx

    Doesn't Manhattan leave earth at the end of chapter 3? If Veidt's plan is to just frame the Doc, why not set off his blue bombs then? Also, I seem to recall Nixon's advisers telling him that even with Manhattan's intervention, a large number of nukes would still make it through when war broke out. And the escalation of the Cold War proved that Manhattan WASN'T an effective deterrent and the Soviets knew he wouldn't be able to stop a war. So why would everyone stop if Manhattan goes rogue? Wouldn't Russia see America's most powerful weapon turning against them as an ideal time to attack?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Well the psychic shockwave came from squiddy

    by G100

    He wasn't just window dressing and physically he causes a fair bit of destruction too.<p> <p>***SPOILERS*** The point is this IS the plot reveal visually and emotionally so if it ain't squiddy it HAS to be good.<p> <p>As though Veidt will outline the plot in Karnak, hearing his calm explanation of the mechanism for horrific mass murder that will change the course of History is not enough. We have to SEE the full force and horror of something that could cause the two superpowers to turn back from the brink of a Holocaust. These Big Blue Explosion AND the aftermath will HAVE to be fucking good REGARDLESS of all the arguments about Squiddy.<p> <p>And I'm still very happy to see most of the Movie as it's an awful lot of superb fucking story up to the NY "reveal" whether that works well or not.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:02 p.m. CST

    It's more like an Octopus...

    by sonnyfern

    I think we should call it that. Seriously so long as the basic idea is in there...that a catastrophe happens that has to band the world together...doesn't much matter to me.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Two cents

    by Don Lockwood

    Well, here's mine. I don't think losing the "squid" necessarily breaks the film. We haven't seen the film. Maybe Manhattan is shown to break any kind of allegance to the US. Maybe the idea is that if nukes blow up all over the world, the survivors will be forced the band together to rebuild the world in unity. Oh, wait, that's what the squid was supposed to do. Goodness, look at that. <p> As for sequels, yes, a sequel would suck. A prequel about the Watchmen in their heyday? Might not such so much depending on who does it.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Dr. Manhatten/Sylar Watchmen nod on Heroes

    by zooch

    just now.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:09 p.m. CST

    edits (because the talkback software sucks)

    by Don Lockwood

    replace any "squid" with ""squid"". <p> "forced the band" = "forced to band" <p> replace "such" in last sentence with "suck".

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:12 p.m. CST

    is it wrong that...

    by Stickman83

    I don't think Adrian's plan is crazy?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:15 p.m. CST

    It's amazing how all you idiots are judging the end..........

    by Evangelion217

    before you even see the film. Wait till the damn thing comes out, to see what actually happens in the end. Just because they took out the squid, doesn't mean that the ending has been completely changed. And maybe Doctor Manhattan won't be blamed. Ever thought about that?? And yes, one of the changes did bother me. But Hayter's original script was completely different from the GN, and Alan Moore ended up loving it. So I hope the more accurate depiction of the GN, will turn out to be a great film. :)

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Bubastis does become kind of pointless doesn't he?

    by Bass Ackwards

    Veidt, after realizing the inneffetiveness of crime fighting in the 70s, built his fortune so that he could dedicated himself to this grand scheme. But now that the scheme's changed, wasting time to create exotic genetic experiments on the side doesn't quite fit. He's not a mad scientist.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Pathetic...

    by rutgersjaffo

    You know, the guy seems to have gone above and beyond to keep this thing as close to the novel we all love as possible and what does he seem to be getting for it? Nothing but a bunch of dorks whining that he took away their precious squid. All of the other things he seems to have gotten right just aren't enough I guess. For myself, I am glad someone seems to be getting this as close to right as possible and yes I will go and see it. Squid or no squid, I have waited since my teen years to see this on the big screen. Screw the haters. Don't like the fact that your precious squid is gone? Just don't go see it. Of course, you and I both know you will go see it and do nothing but bitch the whole time. Out...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Spud McSpud

    by Brians Life

    Everything that you said is wrong.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Fascinating...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    The Anti-Squiddites do not appear to be an overly intellectual or even rational bunch (with a few notable exceptions). <BR><BR>Just an observation.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:27 p.m. CST

    No squid, just a plant

    by drturing

    come on dude, you just blew enough sunshine up Snyder's ass to obliterate Icarus. the prison break being a "shot of pure adrenaline" who the fuck talks like that who doesn't work in marketing?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Question (I haven't read Watchmen completely)

    by SnakesOnABicycle

    Why is it "a difficult sell"?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Snyder should of come out and said...

    by Redfive!

    right from the beggining that there will be changes but just littles ones.The last trailer shows that clearly.Plus he's been preaching that the books the bible for his movie yet I can name 10 things that are already changed in the 2 minute trailer.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Jeez, potato guy.

    by phool2056

    The point I was trying to make is that things are different, you know? Plant, right? Yeah. I'm pretty sure nothing I can say here would sway anyone either way in terms of actually seeing the movie. Probably nearly everyone who cares enough to read that far down an ugly talkback is going to see it at least once anyway, after which any plants will be pretty obvious. Batman and Robin is actually a perfect example by contradiction of what I was getting at. Everything, mind you, everything in that movie is wrong. The wings on the batmobile waggle when it drives. The bat-suit has nipples. Arnie plays Mr. Freeze. They even managed to make Uma Thurman distinctly unsexy as Poison Ivy, which is no mean feat. There is absolutely nothing for any comic book fan to enjoy in that movie, unless they're into comics for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm into, in which case, more power to 'em, have fun with it and wash your hands afterwards. Whereas with this Watchmen movie, even in the previews we've gotten to see a cool and pretty true to the book portrayal of Doc Manhattan's transformation, as well as the clockwork Mars structure and a few other moments which made me extremely happy. I'd love to see the squid. I really would. But the movie is not the book, and the book is still there for me to read for the millionth time once I get it back from circulating among the friends I frequently regret loaning it to. I don't particularly like being accused of not liking the book as much as you think I should to be allowed to join the argument, but I doubt I can say anything to convince you that's not the case, barring posting the entirety of the paper I wrote on it last year, which I'm really not willing to do, I've spent too much time on this already. I'm not sure how taking pleasure from seeing things that I love in one medium translated into another one makes me stupid, and personally attacking me for it is the sort of thing that generally lowers the tone of what could be interesting discussion. I realize that does sound a little condescending, but what the fuck, I didn't appreciate it. I'm prepared to accept some changes to the movie, and we differ in opinion on the importance of the squid. Therefore I am a plant, stupid, and I hate the book.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:34 p.m. CST

    The geek-purist in me will miss the alien cephalopod attack.

    by Anti-fanboy

    The movie-lover in me that wants to enjoy this regardless will be the one in the theater, though. And he won't mind the self-acknowledged silliness of dressing up in costumes to beat-up bad guys, or the idea of an "intrinsic field", which, obviously, is a meta-framework for tri-dimensional corporeality, but also, in living things, a functional matrix and interface for the soul to inhabit and interact with a material body, so that, even if removed, a sentient mind (soul), still persisting within the field, and possessed of a watchmaker/physicist's intellect for function, could, with the help of the field's inherent tendency to "regenerate" its previous physical shell, not only fully do so, but, due to the expansive nature of such an event on an already extraordinary human consciousness, result in a being possessed of superhuman understanding and control of his intrinsic field, and, as an extension, spacetime and matter/energy, duh. Or maybe it was just Alan Moore’s homage to such comic book pseudoscience. Nope, won’t terribly mind. Nor will he miss the parapsychological explanation for the deaths of countless nascent sensitives whose brains’ exploded from the psychic shock produced by the sudden death of a giant cloned brain. Not that I had a problem with these things in the graphic novel.<P>That said, some small part of me still clings to the what-if? awesome awfulness of an 80’s Watchmen, with Ahnuld as a spray-painted Doctor Manhattan… “Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing evah ends… Ah’ll be BACK.” Leading inevitably to a sequel where we learn that the alien squid was a REAL alien squid, that Adrian Veidt is in league with the aliens and, after Manhattan left, revealed himself to be evil and intent on actual world conquest, and who seems unstoppable with his army of giant alien squid, until Doc Manhattan returns to kick some serious alien ass. Third act, he confronts Veidt, only to discover that Adrian has exposed himself to the same intrinsic field experiment that created Manhattan(!!!). Crazy battle of the gods ensues, via the magic of practical and optical effects.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:37 p.m. CST

    here's the abridged version of the no-squid argument

    by crazybubba

    1)quit whining dorks, don't even whisper anything critical about the movie till it comes out. 2)Doc Manhattan will work because he can be turned into an alien threat to the world because i said so....*puts hands over ears as someone tries to challenge that argument* nahnahnahnahnahnah..."i can't hear youuuuu" 3)Squid never worked anyway,Moore put together a great story that is assigned reading in university english courses, but he dropped the ball with that out-of-left-field random ending.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:37 p.m. CST

    ZACK SNYDER KEVIN SMITH LOVES YOUR MOVIE AND SAYS

    by drturing

    that it's not better than The Dark Knight. I guess it's not going to really shake them up. Also, the squid is the difference between you being the next Michael Bay as opposed to a Jean Giraud or Alejandro Jodorowsky or James Cameron or Stanley Kubrick. Fuck I bet even Gore Verbinski would've realized the squid is the kind of mind violation the story needs.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Does anyone else think that

    by drturing

    the shot of the Comedian in Nam has a really phony, 300, digital feel to it? Like a replication of a panel but totally missing the idea of what that image is supposed to mean?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    bacci40 yeah right

    by drturing

    laywer doesn't know what they're talking about no sequel, etc? dude, we're talking about people who are already thinking of a 300 sequel, who snyder is proud to show off his watchmen action figures of, and who have licensed watchmen into a video game... a watchmen video game. i just... can't...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:47 p.m. CST

    All you fucking COWARDS is what you are

    by drturing

    everyone who tries to justify the change by saying that "sheesh, it's a movie studio, whaddya gonna do, it's gotta make money." You are the soulless asswads who wallow in mediocrity and keep us all numbly entertained rather than moved. You're the Brett Ratners to the Christopher Nolans of the world. Watchmen has been celebrated and sold extremely well for nigh on decades now, earning praise from the comics industry to such institutions as the New Yorker... And all of that with the squid intact. You're all missing the point - first of all all the allusions that lead to the squid in the first place, as someone else has pointed out above rather brilliantly, from the usage of color and drawings and foreshadowing - a sort of invisible psychic thread running through the book to begin with, a book which was designed to utilize the format of a graphic novel to tell a story no other medium could.<p> All of you fucking Len Wiseman wannabes are the poisonous mediocrity, who justify bastardization and disrespect out of the pure insecurity that inside yourself you do not have one tenth the creative power to even attempt something such as Moore's work. Fact.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:51 p.m. CST

    it's all clear now...

    by irrelevntelefant

    if you wait to actually SEE the film before you make a final judgement, you must be a plant... <p> I totally see the intellectual sense in coming to that conclusion <P> in fact, anyone that wouldn't take a stand now and declare this movie worse than fantastic four/ghost rider/batman and robin/electra combined, well hell, they shouldn't even be allowed to step foot in a comic book store. their comic book buying privledges should be revoked. THAT WOULD BE RATIONAL! <P> JUDAS, YOU ARE ALL JUDAS THAT REFUSE TO SUCKLE THE HAIRY BALLOON KNOT OF HE WHO IS ALL THAT EVER WILL BE OF COMIC BOOK... NAY GRAPHIC NOVEL WRITING! TO CHANGE ONE WORD OF HIS GLORIOUS VERBAGE SPUNK WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO SPITTING ON JESUS UPON THE CROSS!!! YOU HAVE MONKEY BRAINS FOR WANTING TO ACTUALLY SEE A FILM WHEN ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT TRUE GEEKS MUST HATE THIS FILM AND YOU MUST SUBMIT AND FALL IN LINE. <P> ZACK SNYDER IS THE SALMAN RUSHDIE OF THE GEEK EXTREEMISTS! <p> ALL HAIL HYDRA~!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:53 p.m. CST

    nothing gets adapted 100% in hollywood... ever

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:56 p.m. CST

    is that shakespeare?

    by crazybubba

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:56 p.m. CST

    Darth Macchio....

    by TheWaqman

    ....I said it first. I just used less words. This ending will be stupid though, blaming Manhattan makes no sense and destroys everything Ozymandias worked for. Leave it to Snyder to fuck something up like this. He should go back to jerking off to slo-mo porn.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9 p.m. CST

    one of his lesser known works "The Taming of the Twat"

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Slo-mo porn.

    by phool2056

    I'm trying to decide whether I could get into that. Would that make me a slo-mosexual?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:06 p.m. CST

    I'm a fast-mo porn fan myself...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Like to git'r'done.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:08 p.m. CST

    i don't believe in santa clause, the easter bunny, or

    by irrelevntelefant

    that any book (comic or otherwise) will ever get 100% translated to screen. the book is almost always better. <P> I haven't seen the movie, but I do already know the book will be better. but apparantly that somhow is supposed to hope the movie sucks? so, what? they stop making comic book based movies cause they will never live up to the source? <P> please...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Well.

    by phool2056

    I'm pretty sure the opposite of slo-mo is actually no-mo.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:10 p.m. CST

    and, no slo-mo porn... really bad idea...

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:10 p.m. CST

    and like Costanza, I'm out...

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:13 p.m. CST

    super-speed mo?

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    It's Snyder-mo in any case (i.e., speeding up the film only to slow it down to a near pause ad nauseum).

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:19 p.m. CST

    YEAH! WATCHMEN VIDEOGAME ALLRIGHT!

    by drturing

    http://io9.com/5090809/alan-moores-worst-nightmare-watchmen-video-game

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Let's all admit...

    by Freakemovie

    ...that when we read the graphic novel and it decided to climax by plopping a giant fake squid in the middle of New York City, our brains took those three seconds to go, "Ehhhhhhhh....okay, whatever, the rest is a masterpiece, it works." No squid in the movie = who fucking cares, it's a fucking Watchmen movie.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:23 p.m. CST

    what freakmovie said...

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:23 p.m. CST

    By the way...

    by Freakemovie

    **more spoilers**<br><br> It's painfully obvious throughout at least the last 2/3 of the book that Ozymandias is the guy behind the conspiracy. That always bothered me. Let's stop pretending Moore's word is Gospel -- the novel has flaws just like every other work of fiction ever created.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:24 p.m. CST

    if he puts the blame on Doc Manhattan, all it will do is bring t

    by randie1313

    ...Because the U.S. would blow up New York. Yeah.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Damn these Watchmen TBs are repetitive

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    So ... repost!<p>It seems like conventional wisdom dictates that Watchmen is a "deconstruction" of superheroes and/or superhero comics, but frankly, I don't buy it. The reason is, most of what it does is invert or subvert the genre in a perverse way. I think in some sense, this aspect of Watchmen, which gets a lot of attention, is actually pretty sophomoric. "Hey what is people found out such-and-such hero was actually a DICKHEAD?" is what it amounts to, and Alan Moore pretty plainly states this concept as the impetus for the project.<p> I don't think it's really much of a deconstruction to play "opposite day" with a bunch of archetypes, really - and that includes taking larger than life figures and applying a quasi-reality to it. This is not to say Moore and Gibbons didn't do a good job of this, just that the term is probably inappropriate.<p> It may be worth noting that "deconstruction" is a poorly-defined word, but I think, for instance, that the depiction of Batman in The Dark Knight Returns is a more deconstructive take on superheros in that it takes the archetype apart and puts it back together in a way where all the pieces are still represented, but shown from a different perspective. So on one hand you get, for example with Night Owl, "what if this powerful figure from your childhood was somehow impotent" vs "if you think about it, this powerful figure is kind of fascistic" (Batman AND Superman, in their ways) in the Dark Knight Returns. It's more a case of reworking or re-presenting what is already there with the character than adding a largely unsuggested underbelly.<p>I'll add to my repost that I do think Watchmen is pretty great, just overrated. People call it a great novel; it's not a novel. People call it the best superhero comic ever when it barely possesses any of the attributes of the genre it supposedly exemplifies; Moore himself brags that it is "designed" to show off what the medium can do exclusively - a somewhat dubious claim for a writer working in a visual medium. MOST comic books demonstrate these exclusive traits, they don't need to be designed to do so.<p>Overall I think my main problem with the overrating of Watchmen is people cream their jeans because Moore and Gibbons abandoned much of what makes superhero comics great and replaced it with "adult" themes, intellectualism, complexity and density - all fine things, but things which scream "legitimacy" for a medium and genre (and fans) that shouldn't have to change its stripes to gain respect and admiration.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Squid is simply the way the artist represented it

    by malificus

    The relevant aspect, which was pretty cool, was the psychic death throes it would emit that would kill so many people. The threat aspect remains intact as does the overwelming majority of the key plot threads. It could have looked like a giant testicle for all of that, the unifying threat is what matters. People need to get over it, Jesus drturing if you find it so offensive then simply ignore it, but bear in mind that if the Watchmen, the be all, end all of the graphic medium had been written simply as a text novel no one would have given a shit. The visual aspect was at least as important, and now the story is being told in a new medium and the director has decided, for whatever reasons, to change certain aspects to make it appeal to a broader audience, big whoop. You scream bloody murder over losing the 'squid' while Snyder's got a fool running around on screen dressed as a fucking OWL. New Frontier made for a decent cartoon adaption but was obviously inferior to the awesome original books. Do I then take a huge shit on anyone who enjoyed the DVD? Does that make me righteous and superior somehow? It's just a fucking movie of a fucking comic book, it's not the fucking bible and Moore didn't bring it down from the mount, though you might believe he did given his unbelievably annoying air of self importance which over-reactors like drturing feed in to. The guy tells a spins yard, he hasn't cured a single disease or changed mankind for the better one iota so achieve some perspective man.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:58 p.m. CST

    HERE HERE THUNDERBOLT!

    by malificus

    You re-post all you wanna!

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Lighten the fuck up about the squid already

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    I've read a lot of good arguments for the squid and against. All I can say is I'll wait until I see the movie. I've read the graphic novel twice and loved it each time. I understand the place it has in comic book history. As much as I would like to see the squid, I don't think it's unreasonable to alter the story slightly for the reason of length or to have it make sense to the non-fans who regard comics as childish. And let's face it, when the last reel unloads and a giant squid teleports in the middle of Times Square, regular folks watching it will be laughing their fucking asses off or scratching their heads. So, just keep an open mind about a slightly different ending than what you've been exposed to for the last two decades and relax. I'm just be happy there's a Watchmen movie coming—something they said could never be done. And who knows? Maybe it'll be even better than the book. Watchmen is a great story but it's hardly a sacred text that can't be improved upon.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:08 p.m. CST

    Well put, T-bolt Ross

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    At the end of the day, those screaming the loudest about Watchmen, those who think it's they and they alone who "get it", are only fans who can only see a future of graphic novels getting darker, darker, grittier, grittier, more nihilist and more full of the hate that they, themselves feed off of to get through their own miserable existences. Other than the fairly legitimized Watchmen, I have doubts as to whether or not their literary competency could hold up to too much scrutiny. I don't think you'd hear too many of the "squidites" here agonizing over changes in any other of the zillions of literary adaptations in production.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Re: Alan Moore

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    He is such an artiste, he's really like a walking cliche. He does have a tremendous air of pretension, but that's his prerogative as a "magician" I guess ... Though in the end - sometimes I agree with what he says, sometimes I don't. I guess that's the same as anyone else. <p>He is a great writer at times, but I like other stuff he's done as well or better than Watchmen. From Hell is closer to being his "masterpiece" if you're into that term. What a great piece of work that is.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Good point, Jehosaphat.

    by phool2056

    I don't seem to recall anybody squealing about Sweeney Todd being adapted from the musical rather than the original penny dreadful or the "real" case. Or about the genuinely unnecessary cuts most directors will make to Shakespeare to make it fit a running time. I haven't seen anything about the probably only rumored Paradise Lost movie I've dimly heard about, but somehow I doubt these same dudes will be clamoring that they've left out what the author considered the most important part, namely the chapter-long diatribe that synopsizes the key points of the bible. Not that I consider the squid unimportant, mind you.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Wow, just wow

    by CaptainMorgan

    It sometimes surprises the hell outta me how hateful and aggressive people can get when they don't agree on something. So if I am anti-squid, and I meet a pro-squid down the street, are we to initiate fisticuffs? I don't post on here much, and the aggressive nature of a high percentage of talkbackers is why, Im sure. Take it how you want it, but my first intro into Watchmen was the actual movie script (the one being shot), and it seems like having Doc M. going bad (even if a hoax by Veidt) is a far fetched thing....uh, a mojority of the novel (yes, I finally picked up a copy to compare it to the script, VERY similar, almost identical)deals with Doc M. getting pissed at humanity, being backed against the wall by what he sees as inferior beings. To the point he isolates himself on the moon. Uh...thats a pretty decent build up for humanity to think that he is turning on them. The plot seemed to flow so well, that I was shocked to hear and see (in the comic) that the ending limped around with the conclusion Doc M story to throw in the squid from outta nowhere. And take it how you want it, but there is a 'little' more to the revised ending involving Doc M. Its just not "Boom" and the world unites. All I can say is I cant wait to see this, and I am sold on the story on the script, so count me in. Those of you who decide to hate on it because of a (minor in some eyes, major in others) change in the ending, Im sorry you won't get the movie you have pictured in your minds.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Hooper was supposed to die in Jaws

    by Crimson Dynamo

    He died in the book, they changed it in the movie, and we all remember what a piece of shit that was

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:52 p.m. CST

    never read book & i agree with the nay sayers

    by Alpha Trion

    not a fan, never read it, but i am a fan of film and it sounds like a page by page adaptation of this book would be far more compelling than what your getting. ive read all the posts for those who hate the idea of no squid and i realize its the weird nuances of this book that made it such an endearing graphic novel. that and the violence and the character studies. sad. i feel sorry for you hardcore fans. i shall wait for netflix on this one.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:02 p.m. CST

    No squid ruins it for me

    by krushjudgement

    I'll be hard pressed to leave that theater in a good mood.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:06 p.m. CST

    wow, am I some kind of weird hybrid?

    by Negator76

    ... Is it possible? I have absolutely no problem with the 'squid' in the graphic novel... I think it's kind of a great homage to traditional super-villainy, complete with Adrian's grandiose speech that explains it all (except that, unlike most Bond villains, he does so AFTER he's succeeded). But even though I like the squid, it's NOT ESSENTIAL. If Adrian was killed by Nite Owl to self-righteous applause, that would be a deal-breaker. If the movie ends by setting up a sequel starring Rorschach, that would be a deal-breaker. As it is, all the themes and characers seem intact so far. It still might be a piece of shit exercise in filmmaking, but for now, it deserves the benefit of the doubt. However, I do agree with a previous poster that the movie should emphasize the post-catastrophe carnage. That's the only way to emphasize how monstrous Viedt's actions are, even if they do save the world. A big Roland Emmerich shockwave won't cut it. We need to see the physical trauma, the human cost of Viedt's actions in as visceral a way as possible.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:07 p.m. CST

    As someone who has never read the source...

    by MurderMostFowl

    I already accidently covered myself in spoilers a long time ago, so I'm not too afraid of reading Watchmen talkbacks, but one thing I just don't get... why are you guys obsessed with the Squid? <BR> Do you realize how random it would seem to a movie audience? Why not just have the entire world turn into a bowl of petunias and a very surprised looking whale? It will *not* get the message across to have it. It was a lame excuse to have a "bad ass" ending in the novel in the first place, wasn't it? Be honest. That's the way it seems to an outsider like me.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:21 p.m. CST

    Moore's also pretty funny Thunderbolt Ross

    by G100

    Sure he can get pretty fucking annoyed about his work and has clearly had his fill of Hollywood.<p> <p>But a guy who says he worships an ancient snake glove puppet God might actually be fucking with people and not 100% serious all the time.<p> <p>You think these talkbacks are repetitive, fine, here's something I can't remember seeing said about wathchmen. Scattered through are some very funny scenes and dialogue.<p> <p>Some of the gags are superb from the fate of Captain Carnage to Kovacs discussion about the end of the world to Rorschach saying "why so few of us left active, healthy and without personality disorders ?" to Veidt delivering many a one liner to the discussion around Rorschach as he visits the bathroom to "take care of business" with big figure.<p> <p>It's not all grim and gritty. And far from trying to portray Heroes as DICKHEADS, Moores starting impetus was to have a murder mystery with superheroes (established ones but this fell through) and through this to examine what superheroes would be like "in a credible, real world" evolving into a tale concerning "power and about the idea of the superman manifest within society."<p> <p>I think anoyone who concludes that every "Hero" in watchmen is simply an asshole is misreading it. Because it's hardly stretching things to merely point out that to actually don a mask or cape and become a Hero and fight crime in a real world situation would take a complex and powerfull personality that would no doubt be conflicted, at times unsympathetic, even occasionally noble but definitely quite different from the fairly naive psychological portraits Comics were all to used to portraying.<p> <p>And Jehosaphat, the problem with you saying "At the end of the day, those screaming the loudest about Watchmen, those who think it's they and they alone who "get it", are only fans who can only see a future of graphic novels getting darker, darker, grittier, grittier, more nihilist and more full of the hate that they, themselves feed off of to get through their own miserable existences." is that Moore HIMSELF expressed dismay that "The gritty, deconstructivist postmodern superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen... became a genre". He said in 2003, "To some degree there has been, in the 15 years since Watchmen, an awful lot of the comics field devoted to these grim, pessimistic, nasty, violent stories which kind of use Watchmen to validate what are, in effect, often just some very nasty stories that don't have a lot to recommend them." While Gibbons chimed in with his view that while "readers were left with the idea that it was a grim and gritty kind of thing", he said in his view the series was "a wonderful celebration of superheroes as much as anything else."[s.f.wiki]<p> <p>I don't know if I would place From Hell above watchmen or not but it's unquestionably superb. And you can well understand why Moore might be pissed off at Hollywood after seeing his complete sociological examination of the Victorian era in which the Ripper operated turned into the whodunnit exploitative Jack the ripper hunt with gory horror thrills Movie that he was clearly all too aware of and dismayed by from his musings on the Media treatment of the subject in From Hell.<p> <p>Incidently I can also well understand why Moore thinks The Wire is the greatest programme on TV since it also treats a society with the same thoroughness and "holistic" style From Hell did.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:23 p.m. CST

    What whould you do...

    by Alpha Trion

    if a giant squid appeared in a metropolis close to you and started killing people and destroying that city? sit on your couch and wave at the t.v. "laame". i think its the sheer outrageousness of a giant alien squid that makes it more believable for a violent world to unite.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Bubastis has a minor role in showing Veidts ruthlessness

    by G100

    It shows us he is willing to sacrifice not only his loyal retainers but his beloved pet.<p> <p>But that still only underlines how crucial it is that we see the full Horror and cost of the very public and impersonal sacrifice of lives he has made to contrast it with.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:30 p.m. CST

    I've got a fantastic idea...

    by TheBlackKnight

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:33 p.m. CST

    I've got ANOTHER fantastic idea...

    by TheBlackKnight

    ...the first one was to leave my post blank. I regrouped and came up with this one...<p>Lets get some Hollywood payroll screenwriters to become comic book authors and artists, creating comic books with the sole idea of their one day being adapted to film. We can then hire the original authors of the comics to pen the script! Nothing will be lost in the translation, and we'll have faithfully adapted films from comic book to screen.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:47 p.m. CST

    You squidlers don't get it...

    by speed

    There are some things...many things that work in comics that just simply won't work in a movie. The squid is one of them. A mainstream audience is going to laugh at a squid ending. It had to go and as long as the essence is there (as it's been reported) then everything is chilled bananas

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:04 a.m. CST

    MAJOR SPOILER!!!

    by Dogmatic

    I am not so torn up over the squid not being in the movie....it was just the instrument of destruction....I am ok with the instrument itself being something else. <p> To me the MAIN thing is that the greatest comic book twist ending of all time remains intact in which Nite Owl, having heard Veidt explain his masterstroke plan, tells Ozymandias that he needs help and couldnt seriously believe they would allow him to carry out such a ridiculous plan. He then asks him when he planned to do it to which Veidt responds "Do it? I did it 45 minutes ago." <p> BAM!!! <p> I am pretty sure that would drop the jaws of any non-Watchmen educated people in the crowd. Can't wait for my wife to see that part with me. The moment when the audience realizes that these superheroes never even had a chance to stop the mad genius....that before they even fully understood what the diabolical plan was...it had already been accomplished. And THEN comes the moral dilemma that follows it. <p> As long as that scene is in place....I can do without the squid.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:17 a.m. CST

    SPOILER MAXIMUS

    by malificus

    But what you poor saps don't realize is the true sucker-punch that Snyder has in store for Watchmen viewers when Brandon Routh steps forth at the end mere MOMENTS before Veidt's plan is actualized and stops the whole thing, thus setting up the next Superman film and literally making fanboy chests explode with rage, bringing that action right into the theatre as it were.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Bubastis *spoiler*

    by markjamesmurphy

    The last time I read Watchmen, I had a funny thought. *SPOILERS* At the end, Veidt tries to gank Manhattan by removing his intrinsic field again. But Manhattan comes back, and says that re-assembling himself was the first thing he learned how to do. Well, BUBASTIS WAS DESTROYED in the blast too because he was standing in the wrong place. Wouldn't it be crazy if Bubastis learned how to reassemble himself, and became God-like? He could be Dr. Bubastis. THERE'S YOUR FRIKKING SEQUEL RIGHT THERE. Period. By me.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:30 a.m. CST

    The world uniting

    by Dominic-Vobiscum

    Here's something to ponder. The squid is an alien threat and the whole psychic thing makes everyone on Earth aware of it and such. Yes. Cool.<br><br> NOW! The world unites and what not. But what do they actually do? Commiserate about how awful it was? Send fruit baskets and candy bouquets to the U.S. with mylar balloons filled with helium? The Institute thing that was responsible is destroyed and no one would really want another accidental visit from interspacial cephalopods, so they'd probably just make some worldwide ban on such scientific goings-ons a la cloning.<br><br> Then what? No impending doom overhead. The squid wasn't invading after all. And even if there WAS an impending 5th dimensional assault on the horizon how would you guard against that? Would you put tanks on the spaces between molecules? Post troops on the creases of reality?<br><br>Hackles might be up for a few months, but we (the human race) are incredibly resilient in our apathy. A couple of months would go by, all that goodwill would die down, and before you know it, it'd be right back to puffy faced blowhards issuing stern declerations of almost war while their stubby little fingers hover defiantly over shiny red buttons.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Here's the REAL kicker on mankind uniting

    by malificus

    Talkback posters want to kick each others' asses over a squid in a fake story, the same squid that is supposed to unite people in common cause. Veidt's not as smart as he thinks he is.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:36 a.m. CST

    As many hits as any Watchmen thread gets

    by malificus

    AICN should keep posting Watchmen stuff just for the traffic.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Zack Snyder is afraid of me.

    by Lashlarue

    I've seen his true face.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:43 a.m. CST

    Dominic

    by phool2056

    It's a good point, but I think that's why the end, or almost the end, is Dan and Laurie deciding to go back into costume, albeit in Laurie's case a more practical one. The world still needs watching, for better or for worse. Especially with the New Frontiersman coming across Rorschach's diary. I also totally agree with whoever it was posted the huge spoiler about the "I did it forty-five minutes ago" thing, and honestly I'm kind of sad that the squid hullaballoo might ruin that for some people.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:09 a.m. CST

    so they do refer to themselves as "The Watchmen"??

    by finky089

    eh, what the hell, Snyder?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:20 a.m. CST

    THEY SHOT THE SQUID SEQUENCES!

    by JERRY HORROR

    However, this was the same squid whom appeared in Goonies. His name was Walter Murphy. He thought his gig break would be Goonies, unfortunately the studio and Dick Donner felt Walter would change the "semi-realistic tone" that the "Goonies" had going for it. After the debacle Walter had a brief relationship with Ricki Lake, alas, Ricki would lose weight and felt a former "big girl" deservedly needed less tentacles and more testicles. This unfortunate incident led to a 3 year peyote binge in Phoenix , Arizona with male, hetro-lifemate: Gary Busey. After being arrested for humping a statue of Grimace at a local McDonalds playland, Walter was jailed and forced to get sober. After years in prison, Walter was offered a role in Tim Burton's "Ed Wood". Unfortunately, Touchstone pictures were all too familiar with Walter's "Grimace incident", so they got some stock footage and a rubber squid. Heavily medicated and on the brink of suicide, Don Cheadle offered Walter sage like wisdom that would save his life:"Now Walter, you are a damn good actor, but, more importantly, you're the only motherfucking squid that can talk!" After a some small stint's way off broadway, a bit part on that show that's like a spin off with Brad Garrett but, it's on Fox and he's not from Queens and it's not funny, but ,"The King of Queens", wasn't really either, but people lover Jerry Stiller and wanted to bang the chick whom that fat slob was married to. I apologize, I digress anyways, after rehab, a love affair with Amy Winehouse, Zack Snyder had met his muse and had a love child with Walter. Now, Zack knew damn well the studio wan't gonna have no muthafuckin squid in that movie. But, he shot it anyway. For love. Walter always told Zack Snyder he loved too hard. Zack told him, "Walter, how else can a person not love you, this much or this deep". So after that they made out to some old "Savage Garden" records and stuff. Shortly after, Zack went back to his wife and family. It was only right, he and Walter's love couldn't last, not even in "liberal" California. Shortly after. Walter gave away the child. Heartbroken he knew it was best. On August first 2008, after witnessing the "Watchmen" trailer at a matinée of "The Dark Knight", Walter was found with 2 hookers and an eight ball of Cocaine in a local Howard Johnson in Alabama. Apparently he had hung himself or choked or had the strippers choke him. I'm not sure and neither was Muary Povich, who was to have a show revealing Zack Snyder and Walters love child. Muary's house was shot up and he stayed quiet. Until I had a threesome with him and his wife, Connie Chung. Whom believe it or not is still hot and even hotter with a strap on. Oh, what was I saying? Oh the Love child...the love child was adopted by a well to do family. Walter wanted it that way. Please read my blog so I can out scoop Harry and Perez Hilton on this one. www.myspace.com/jerryhorror The truth is out there on my ficken sweet ass blog!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:58 a.m. CST

    More Alan Moore!

    by BiggusDickus

    Let's have 'The Ballad of Halo Jones' on the big screen, eh? Or 'Skizz'. Or 'Dr & Quinch'. Hell even old 'Abelard Snazz' would make a corking fun movie. Man, I'm stoked! Where's my veeblefetzer?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:19 a.m. CST

    The squid will be on the DVD/Blu-ray

    by Dingbatty

    It will be difficult fitting it into the player.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:40 a.m. CST

    Watchmen movie starring the Batman voice?

    by zooch

    Rorshach sounds so much like Christian Bale's Batman in that trailer.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:49 a.m. CST

    what about the Comedian?

    by ianrewel

    I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, but if there is no squid, then why would the comedian be so fucked up and break into Moloch's?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:53 a.m. CST

    What does David Gibbons have to do with anything?

    by Chishu_Ryu

    Okay he illustrated the comic book and helped visually design the characters and look, but he wasn't the literary mastermind behind the work. Getting David Gibbons to put his stamp-of-approval on the film, particularly "no squid", is like asking cinematographer Gregg Toland to okay re-cutting Citizen Kane to make it happier, or asking rapper Kool Keith's "First Come First Served" album producer Dan the Automator to okay the remix of Kool Keith's music to make it more danceable and hip-hoppier, or asking Disney animator Ollie Jones to okay editing Walt Disney's Pinnocchio for content to make it more PC and less scary to kids these days. I know we're talking about an adaptation to another medium here, but I think movies, particularly if they're popular, can sometimes supplant the original comic book stories in the minds of fandom...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:16 a.m. CST

    I wish you people would shut your HOLES.

    by ivehadsex

    Seriously. I realized the Manhattan framing could work very, very well once I thought about it for awhile. Seriously, think about it. It's pretty elegant. Also the characters are what's important. I'm mad that the Comedian doesn't shoot a pregnant vietnamese prostitute, HOW ABOUT THAT, HUH

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:16 a.m. CST

    Spud

    by Lost Jarv

    put down the tinfoil hat and step away from the crack pipe. None of those things are "good points". All of them can be easily explained by co-incidence, incompetence etc. You question these things because you want to believe in them- not because they are real. <P>Don't be silly, and turn your back on zfisk land before you join the crazies.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:24 a.m. CST

    The Squid HAD to go...

    by BurnHollywood

    Everybody on the set was warned ahead of time that the Squid had a drug problem, but they gave him a chance anyway. But boy, did he blow it. All night parties, whores dropping in unexpectedly, harassing phone calls to his co-stars, and finally, the straw that broke the camel's back: he lured an underage girl into his trailer and squirted ink all over her face.<p> Sad to see such a bright career end so early, but maybe a few months in rehab and a couple of years on the comeback trail could get him another opportunity, like happened with Downey in IRON MAN. We'll see.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:10 a.m. CST

    Jarv - Don't worry!

    by spud mcspud

    I've not made myself a tinfoil hat just yet...<P> But that's a LOT of coincidences on one day, to catastrophic effect, and the Commission just ignored the hard questions, rather than completely and exhaustively annihilate the conspiracy nut theorists' various theories. And there's no way I believe WTC7 just fell down. That explanation would be funny if it didn't involves so many senseless deaths.<P> 9/11 will never be explained now, though. Obama will ride the wave of goodwill over his inauguration and forget about any rehashing of that event. But there's just too much "coincidence" about it...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:14 a.m. CST

    Biggus Dickus

    by spud mcspud

    I'd fucking LOVE to see BALLAD OF HALO JONES (I think a young Patricia Arquette could have nailed the role - I've no idea who I'd cast these days, but Michael Clarke Duncan has to be a lock for General Cannibal, and Gary Coleman for Lux roth Chop!) on the big screen, and as for SKIZZ...<P> They'd NEVER get it right. But if you DID make SKIZZ, you'd have to set it in the specific period and location that the GN is set in, because that story is more about the alienation involved in living in early 80s Thatcherite Britain and having no hope of a job, self respect, or a feeling of belonging etc than it EVER was about the alien Skizz. Can you imagine - an early 80s Brummie set ET for our time? I'd be absolutely stunned to see it done right, but I honestly believe SKIZZ could have been a British masterpiece of ET prooportions, done right back in the day. It's too late and too niche now to get it done right though.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:22 a.m. CST

    Amen drturing! Preach, my brother!

    by spud mcspud

    There seems to be an air of "They removed 'yippee-ki-yay-MOTHERFUCKER' from DIE HARD 4 to get the kids in and get a PG rating" about these squid-removal apologists, doesn't there? Like there's nothing wrong with eviscerating a classic of the genre then throwing some inane shit like "It's a movie, it HAS to be different from the book!" or "You've still got the book if you don't like the movie"!<P> WHAT? THE? FUCK?<P> Why make the classic story, rave about how the GN is "your bible" when making the movie, then rewrite the ending and thus have to go and change the ENTIRE PLOT if you truly believe that the GN is the fucking bible, then?<P> It's BULLSHIT, people - BULLSHIT. I'd have a LOT more respect for you squid apologists if you'd just come out and admit you're the kind of people who think Len Wiseman and Brett Ratner are actually quite good directors, who believe that there is nothing wrong in changing characters beyond recognition, adding ridiculous and nonsensical plot twist that have no internal logic whatsoever, and generally that fucking with a beloved franchise to create substandard sequels is a fair business model and the way Hollywood should do business, rather than being the death of true creativity and risk-taking in a town supposedly built on these fucking ideals in the first place.<P> With a few notable exceptions, you squid apologists are just fucking happy to sell out - you're happy to have half a good film instead on a whole great one. What's the fucking point in that?<P> If ever there was a classic graphic novel that didn't warrant a reboot, reimagining, a rehash or whatever fucking marketing buzzword bollocks is going around the obscenely expensive exec offices this week, it would be WATCHMEN.<P> Is there anyone on here who thinks that losing the squid actually ENHANCES the ending? And if not, then why the fuck should we be happy to eat a bowl of 80% ice cream and 20% shit, then? Why watch an aesthetically authentic, well acted, tonally perfect WATCHMEN movie for two hours turn into an insipid carbon copy of a carbon copy watered down and turned into piss for the eyes?<P> WHY FUCKING BOTHER?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:24 a.m. CST

    Jarv

    by spud mcspud

    What's zfisk land anyway?<P> I is confused...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:26 a.m. CST

    About the "squid is too far out there" argument

    by spud mcspud

    But Doctor Manhattan isn't? The whole Doctor Manhattan concept is NOT as far out there as a man-made, genetically engineered abhorrence created to FAKE the idea of an alien invasion?<P> I have an easier time believing in the squid. Had McCain won the election, he'd have used the same concept as a false flag to justify invading Iran. "Hey, that damn squid was tracked by NORAD as emanating from Iran. They got alien squids on their payroll, goddammit! GO! GO! GO!"<P> There won't EVER be a Doctor Manhattan. Even David Blaine can't do that.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:48 a.m. CST

    A non-squid ending seems like SHIT to me

    by Big Dumb Ape

    Seriously, what the fuck? The squid was what WATCHMEN built towards... Alan Moore's reasoning for having the squid in there made perfect sense in the context of the whole tale, in terms of the point he was trying to make...and what really cracks me up is first Snyder goes around ranting about how "faithful" he wanted to be to the book, how much he loved it and didn't want to deviate from it (to the point that from the trailer it looks like he owes Dave Gibbons an actual co-directing credit for sticking to the visual storytelling so faithfully)...<p>...And yet now Snyder does a 180 and says a squid ending wouldn't work, and even lamer he now says there wasn't "time" to have the squid ending -- so instead we get this bullshit involving Dr Manhattan which makes NO FUCKING SENSE as the very first post in this talkback, by Waqman, clearly points out.<p>Will I see the film? Sure. Does it look like a nice production, where money was well spent making things LOOK good? Seems so. But is this the adaptation of WATCHMEN I wanted? Fuck no. I want my squid!<p>And the biggest irony here? What once started out so promising has now become a situation where once again Alan Moore will have every right to give the finger to Hollywood and to say "You guys fucked up my work yet again."

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:51 a.m. CST

    Spud

    by Lost Jarv

    zfisk/ Homewrecker is/ was (I think he's still lurking around here under another name) a rabidly anti-semitic poster that genuinly believes that the twin towers were flattened as part of a zionist conspiracy. <P>I shit you not. The dude's nuttier than a Snickers bar. <P>PS- I think incompetence is more explanatory than co-incidence, and if there was a whitewash, then it was to cover up said incompetence. <P>The problem with these squeals for an Inquiry of some sort is that unless the answer is "It Woz The Gubernmnet Wot Done It" then anyone who thinks there is something more is never going to be satisfied.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:18 a.m. CST

    Dude, Where's My Squid?

    by Ghostball

    'We didn't include it. We figured the audience would think the graphic novel was full of shit. We love the comic ourselves, y'know... it's just we figured the audiences would hate it, and we decided to kowtow to them, cuz we're gutless.' <p>Still - I'm full shit, cuz I'm still gonna see it twenty fucking times and buy the Blue-Ray special holographic 3D special extra (still sans squid)edition...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:44 a.m. CST

    Fiscious

    by Mockingbuddha

    I got your Invisibles post. I agree that the end was a bit new-agey feel good, though, again, having Robin be the King of All Tears was pretty cool, and a very interesting take on what time travel would look like. Shit now I can't remember what that Morrison title you recommended was called, I know I had not heard of it. Tell me what it was again and I'll write it down this time.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Mockingbuddha

    by Ghostball

    If Fiscious doesn't get back to you, could it be 'The Filth', 'Seven Soldiers' or 'We3' maybe? Or maybe I'm just adding to the confusion...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:18 a.m. CST

    It's a late eighties/early nineties Morrison comic

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Called ZENITH. A must read.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Now zom-bot... everyone knows...

    by Kid Z

    ...Bart and Lisa Simpson invented "meh".

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:52 a.m. CST

    Watchmen sequel

    by andtheflesh

    If they do make a Watchmen sequel it will be full of no name actors, have no fan support, no artist support, and go directly to video.<br> <br> Say all you want about Snyder, but I don't see there being a chance in hell that he'd ever make a Watchmen sequel. And Gibbons, for sure, would not touch that turd with a 10ft pole. Not to mention fan backlash and general nerd rage across the internet.<br> <br> If the studios think a sequel is possible then they clearly haven't seen the movie, they know nothing of the story, and they underestimate the level and abundance of scathing hatred they would call down upon themselves just by making the announcement that there would be a sequel.<br> <br> I for one hope that they try. The talkbacks for that announcement would be hilarious. I wouldn't even be surprised if some Watchmen superfan tried to burn the studio down.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Kaspianwithak

    by andtheflesh

    That's a valid comparison but an odd one considering that Bladerunner is a lot better than the short story.<br> <br> I can think of only two other examples where the source material was actually improved in the transition to film.<br> <br> 1. Shawshank Redemption - The story is much more complex and rewarding than the 10 page short story by Stephen King.<br> <br> 2. Fight Club - Chuck Palahniuk, himself, admits that the movie improved his book. What little changes were made to specific scenes from the book only made those scenes more interesting. Their first meeting on the plane feels a lot more natural than the beach scene from the book.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:04 a.m. CST

    What's MOST important about the ending...

    by knowthyself

    ...is that Ozymandias enact his plan. Kill millions of people. Get away with it. Have Manhattan agree to keeping it a secret. Have Nite Owl agree to keeping it a secret. Have Rorschache disagree and get killed by Manhattan. And then have Rorscaches journal on a stack of papers. THAT is what needs to remain a part of the ending and Snyder did it. Don't you realize Hollywood would have CHANGED all of that if it wasn't for him insisting on keeping it? You really can't see the forrest for the trees here guys.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:54 a.m. CST

    The truth is...

    by Ghostball

    ...the studio had no idea so many people would be so fucked up over the ending getting so fucked up... now they know, but they'll never have the opportunity to put their learning into practice with anything that will EVER matter so much as this did. In the end Watchmen will be a good movie, instead of a classic. We have to live with this.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Shawshank Redemption a bit more than 10 pages ...

    by Shan

    I seem to remember it was closer to 100 or more. Which for Stephen King is admittedly not a huge amount but still ...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Misattribution

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I think G100 attributed to me a quote I was not responsible for. On the other hand, I think I more or less agreed with it so I don't know what to do.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:31 a.m. CST

    From Hell...

    by rutgersjaffo

    You wanna talk about taking liberties?! As a confirmed Ripperologist, I can tell you that if you want to bitch about the changes to Watchmen as ruining Moore's work, you might want to take Mr. Moore to task for all of his fabrications and HUGE factual errors he threw into From Hell. If what you know about the Whitechappel murders comes out of Moore's From Hell, you don't know much at all. The point? Sometimes you have to adjust the story to the medium and to the audience. Get over it...the squid was always stupid and you know this. If it were left in, there are about a million logic problems that jump up due to modern science. They should make the enemy at the end that unites us all be Andy Dick...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:40 a.m. CST

    BTW G100

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I never said every hero in Watchmen was an asshole. I was using a sort of admittedly glib shorthand when I made the "dickhead" comment but I thought that was pretty obvious. <p>And even so I don't have a problem with that concept really, just that calling it deconstruction as a means of praise is inaccurate and overstates the conceit at work. Not that I think that, regarding deconstruction vs. subversion, one is superior, but it appears to me that the former is often used by those who want to elevate the level of discourse in the comic to a certain quasi-intellectual level. <p>In regards to Alan Moore's stated impetus for Watchmen, I'll stand by my characterization. <p>Though I appreciate shining a light on the humor in Watchmen, I was never of the mind that the comic is without humor. Similarly I have no bone to pick with Alan Moore and have often thought he was a funny guy, intentionally or not (or a combination of the two -see his self-admitted self-delusion in that Steve Ditko documentary). <p>I think the idea that Gibbons espouses, that Watchmen is a celebration of superheroes, is possibly absurd.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:42 a.m. CST

    You ask a great question, ianrewel

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    The answer will come when the movie is out. Spud would do well to calm his shrieking ass down and wait for the movie to come out, too. Of course, he won't be seeing it, WILL YOU, spud mcspud? I could care less about the so called squid if the story is well told.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Summer Cockbuster

    by Coma Baby

    I do not understand why fans of the GN and genre films would rather see a movie climax with a big explosion than a giant pulpy 5-D squid creature raining psychic death. Snyder's claim of keeping true to the GN, just w/o the squid doen't make sense. He'll either have to rewrite much of the buildup and clues to the squid to make it a buildup to a explosions or lose a lot of the richness and intricacy that leads to the squid in the novel. It makes me think the ideas behind the characters and the plot are lost on him and might get lost in the translation to summer blockbuster. The detective plot and the sci-fi twist at the end make for great story but what keeps people coming back to watchmen is the richness of ideas about comics and the society that consumes them. Don't get me wrong, I think the new ending could work logically if they set it up right. And keeping Rorshach's journal at the end gives me some hope. But most important to me as a film fan is the power of images. A well done 5D psychic squid death and its aftermath is a lot more imaginative, bizarre, shocking, and memorable than another summer explosion. Trading that in for something cliche and lame says something to me about Zach Snyder as a film maker.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:45 a.m. CST

    From Hell

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I read a book well before I read From Hell that completely debunked must of the "theories" Moore based his story on, and I'm pretty sure Moore himself has stated he is aware of the inaccuracies but that they served the themes he wanted to explore ... Since it doesn't purport to be a non-fiction work, who cares anyway?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:49 a.m. CST

    And spud,

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    I'd never argue that the "squid" change is equivalent to minor dialog alterations from source to screenplay; I'll agree that it's more central to the plot than that. However, I can't possibly see that it has to be that exact same thing period. I think the narrative can support changing the extra-dimensional MacGuffin with something else. You may be right. They may well screw up the story with the change. I can't possibly see that as a foregone conclusion, however. They could tell the story in such a way as to make the tale both as visually and narratively stunning as the original. Or they could ruin it. We'll see.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Enough with the squid already

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    The reason it was cut was for purposes of efficiency. It's been stated more than once now that it is too much of a set up to fit into a movie. Debating the merits of the thing is beside the point - to make a Watchmen movie, they had to cut something and that's what they cut. It's not a final judgment, just a time consideration.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Coma Baby, thank you.

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    You argued spud mcspud's argument better, more cogent and with less than 99% of his fanboy rabies lather. There is hope for the Talkback yet! Do I agree? No, but I thank you.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Gotta say though...

    by Ghostball

    best AICN headline... EVER!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Can there EVER be a squidless watchmen talkback?

    by knowthyself

    Can we go back to being excited about the trailer again? This movie looks awesome.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Nope, knowthyself, there can't be.

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    It was hijacked by GN fundamentalists long ago. Well, them and fools like me attempting reason.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:28 a.m. CST

    JumpinJehosaphat!

    by spud mcspud

    What's wrong with a little fanboys rabies lather?!?<P> I like to put the FUN in FUNDAMENTAL. But a squid-less ending is still gutless, ass-kissing the studio and totally negates the point of even making this so called "faithful" adaptation.<P> And as for purposes of efficiency being the reason for the cut... you could have foreshadowed the squid plan within four or five scenes, much as the GN does. The big reveal is when it happens, not earlier. It's hardly referred to at all in the GN until Ozy reveals his plan - which is why the squid is such a massive mindfuck when it happens.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Yes, spud, the squid is awesome.

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    And yes, I loves me some rabies lather every so often. However, dude... I don't know. So much of what has been said by yourself and others smacks of caring less about the material and more about being legitimized in a forum. I do think had you led off with what you've just wrote, it would have been a bit more supportive of your point than yelling, "MAKE THE FUCKING MOVIE EXACTLY LIKE THE COMIC!!!" It doesn't just simply fall into place like that and you damn well know it.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:54 a.m. CST

    So, in other words . . .

    by cmsof

    As Alan Moore has said, Watchmen is unfilmable.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:55 a.m. CST

    From the works of Dr. Squid...

    by sagaman

    That Zachary! That Zachary! I do not like that Zachary! Would you watch this jonergy? I will not watch it, Zachary. I will not watch this jonergy. Would you watch it here or there? I would not watch it here or there. I would not watch it anywhere. I do not like this jonergy. I do not like it, Zachary. Would you watch it with a foiled rape? Would you watch it with a tangled cape? I would not watch it with a foiled rape. I would not watch it with a tangled cape. I would not watch it here or there. I would not watch it anywhere. I do not like this jonergy. I do not like it, Zachary. Would you watch it with pink airships? Would you watch it with Ozzy’s nips? Not with pink airships. Not with Ozzy’s nips. Not with a foiled rape. Not with a tangled cape. I would not watch it here or there. I would not watch it anywhere. I do not like this jonergy. I do not like it, Zachary. Would you? Could you? With a moving mask? Here it is! No need to ask! I would not, could not, with a moving mask. You may like it. You will see. You may like it with World War III. I would not, could not with World War III! Not with a moving mask! You let me be. I do not like it with pink airships. I do not like it with Ozzy’s nips. I do not like it with a foiled rape. I do not like it with a tangled cape. I do not like it here or there. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like this jonergy. I do not like it, Zachary. Knot-tops! Knot-tops! Knot-tops! Knot-tops! Could you, would you, with Knot-tops? Not with Knot-tops! Not with World War III! Not with a moving mask! Zack! Let me be! Say! With Krystalnacht? Would you, could you, with Krystalnacht? I would not, could not, with Krystalnacht. Would you, could you, with dog chops? I would not, could not with dog chops. Not with Krystalnacht. Not with Knot-tops. Not with a moving mask. Not with World War III. I do not like it, Zack, you see. Not with pink airships. Not with Ozzy’s nips. Not with a foiled rape. Not with a tangled cape. I will not watch it here or there. I do not like it ANYWHERE. I do not like this jonergy. I do not like it, Zachary. You do not like it. So you say. Watch it! Watch it! And you may. Watch it and you may, I say. Zack! If you will let me be, I will watch it. You will see. (Roughly two-and-one-half hours later…) Say! I like this jonergy! I do! I like it, Zachary! And I would watch it with prison fights. And I would watch it with owlship flights. And I would watch it with sugar cubes. And I would watch it with Malin’s boobs. And I would watch it with police strikes. And I would watch it with dismembered tikes. And I will watch it with bottle gashes. And finger breaks. And Karnak smashes. And a moving mask. And World War III. It is so good, so good, you see. So I will watch it with pink airships. And I will watch it with Ozzy’s nips. And I will watch it with a foiled rape. And I will watch it with a tangled cape. And I will watch it here and there. Say! I will watch it anywhere! I do so like this jonergy! Thank you! Thank you, Zachary.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Unfilmable squidity

    by blah13

    So, basically, if this thing came out and no prior mention had been made of the lack of squid, would everyone still be as pissed? I don't know cause it hasn't come out yet. BUT, for everyone considering NOT seeing it because of the lack of one detail, and let's be honest, the visual of the squid in TIme Square is awesome in the book, but it is a somewhat incidental means to an end, don't. This film has obvious gallons of respect for Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons seminal work and the characterizations (from all seen footage) seem to be spot on with stunning accuracy in both look and feel. Hearing Rorschach's grim and gritty 80's hoarse voice come through that mask gave me chills. It was exactly how I heard him while reading it. ANd I think most of the film will play out that way, too. Give it a chance, and if they somehow manage to bugger-up the ending, then damn! that sucks. But if the squid's replacement is the Doc MAnhattan INSPIRED (not nessecarily blamed-on) machine that we've all heard about make a decent stand in, then all the more power to them for bringing this thing to life in a more accessible way. Plus, with that ending, you could still keep the plot thread of Ozy kdinapping scientists and the like for its development. Overall, just give it a chance.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:12 a.m. CST

    JERRY HORROR; sagaman

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I hear you

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Damn, sagaman!

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    How long did it take you to bust that out? Well done!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Rorschach's voice

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I always imagined it kind of like Princess Leia-as-bounty-hunter in ROTJ. A little less so, but along those lines; somewhat inhuman sounding.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Snyder already filmed the unfilmable parts.

    by knowthyself

    You know the ending where millions of people are murdered. The kind of ending no studio would green light under normal circumstances. Why is this being over looked? That's a pretty fucked up thing to watch and its kept intact thanks to Snyder and co.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Deliciosooo!!!

    by Darth Macchio

    All of you guys saying these 'Squid' talkbacks are stupid should spend some time in the political TB's. Picture the same thing here (prolific righteous opinions) but add to it crass but sometimes highly creative insults but more to the point, they always become a insult tennis match. Sometimes it's like monkeys throwing shit at each other but who can also talk.<p>This TB may be repetitious but we're (a) arguing FILM (b)arguing over the film version of a graphic novel (c) arguing about something only "geeks" would know about and (d) arguing/debating in a mostly friendly if not lightly insulting and not overtly personal kind of way. All good things, no?<p>I don't know about you guys but even if you think I've got totally supertard ideas/notions over the "squid" issue, I'm thrilled that geeks are alive and well and not only that but kicking the shit out of each other and our opinions on things like getting a Watchmen movie, even if only 90% of what us "purists" want. I don't agree that we should praise the comic Godz and just be happy with whatever Snyder drops on us. Like starving geeks without sustenance we cannot be indiscriminate otherwise we wind up with Michael Bay's WATCHMEN in ten years (and then lament that Moore is in jail for life after killing Bay with his bare hands). We've kinda been fed a good diet of kickass for quite a while now with some exceptions so lowering our expectations serves only the Uwe Boll's of the world. And I firmly agree that the notion of "Come on man, it's just a summer popcorn movie..what do you expect Citizen Kane?" needs to just go jog off as that kind of pessimism has no place in the world of creative entertainment. Sucks is as sucks does, after all.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:24 p.m. CST

    blah13

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    What did you mean by this? "Rorsach's grim and gritty 80's hoarse voice" <p>Is he supposed to be in his 80s, and thats why he speaks like that? Or you mean 80s like the decade? So everyone spoke with a hoarse voice way back then?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Thank god the squid is gone

    by jimmy_009

    That really tainted what was otherwise an amazing piece of work. Good call IMO.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Last

    by logocult

    W.i.n.o.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:41 p.m. CST

    THIS JUST IN-- McG FILMMAKER OF THE YEAR!!

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Filmmaker Joseph 'McG' McGinty Nichol has been named Filmmaker of the Year by the heads of the CineAsia movie convention. <P> The Charlie's Angels director will pick up his prize at an awards ceremony in Macau on 11 December.<P> McG's latest movie, Terminator: Salvation, starring Christian Bale, is due for release in May 2009. <P>

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2 p.m. CST

    Danny....are you an assassin?

    by Darth Macchio

    Not with bullets and blood or death or anything like that but maybe a pie assassin? Not as in killer of pies but as in person who "hits" people with pies? Like that guy who pies politicians and Bill Gates? AWESOME = FACE(PIE)<p>And how completely awesome is it that the word "Assassin" has the word "ass" in it not once but twice!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Shan

    by andtheflesh

    I stand corrected...It's been years since I've read it. I think I may have confused it with his Lawnmower Man shortstory, which even at 10 pages is, I am sure, remarkably better than the movie.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Darth Macchio

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Those pie assassins are pretty funny, but sadly I am not one of them. I especially enjoyed the guy that egged Steve Balmer while he was giving a speech. He just calmly stands up and starts throwing them at him, then picks up his laptop and walks out of the room. Brilliant....bloody brilliant.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Wow...

    by TheKappa

    Are you fanboy bitches THAT hung up on something as stupid as a fifth dimensional squid not being included in this film? There HAS to be something better you can do with your time... I'm sure there's a Star Trek talkback where you can bitch about the changes they made to the design of the Enterprise or something. <p>You're getting a 95% faithful adaptation of Watchmen. Fucking swallow it and like it. At least don't bitch until you see the goddamn film. <br> It's idiots like you that give other comics fans a bad name.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Indeed...and Balmer is pretty much Yosemite Sam...

    by Darth Macchio

    ...only not as pissed off. His thundering performance at those Stepford pep rallies in Mircosoftville are the stuff of legends. Didn't the same egg guy get Steve Jobs as well?<p>.<p>.<p>Oh...I forgot...SQUID! NO YOUSUCK! NO SQUID! !!!SQUID!! IF THERE'S NO SQUID THEN YOU'RE THE CAPTAIN OF THE DICKS! IF YOU WANT THE SQUID YOU WORSHIP THE GOD OF FATMANASS 24/7 YO! NATCH!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:17 p.m. CST

    BTW Thunderbolt Ross

    by G100

    I never said you said every character in Watchmen was an asshole I said "anyone"(well actually "anoyone" due to a typo ;-)).<p> <p>But since you then say "I don't have a problem with that concept really" it does mean it's a view you are happy to perpetuate.<p> <p>The fact of the matter is when you say "Hey what is people found out such-and-such hero was actually a DICKHEAD?" is what it amounts to, and Alan Moore pretty plainly states this concept as the impetus for the project." you aren't using glib shorthand there. You are putting your own words in Moores mouth. Words he never uttered (unless you can show me the quote in where he "plainly states as much?") for the sake of your own characterization. One that is inaccurate.<p> <p>You also seem to think using the word deconstruction implies Moore or those who enjoy the book are guilty of "quasi-intellectualism". And posit your own charceterization of watchmen as subversion. This is also implicit in your disbelief of Gibbons who considers the work a celebration of Superheroes.<p> <p>I would answer that watchmen doesn't paint any of the Heroes as black and white (hurrrm) stereotypes or portrays the Superheroes as some kind of blight that the world would be better without. There is clear affection for the characters and if watchmen was as one-dimensional as a simple attack on the Superhero myths and archetypes it would NEVER be as popular and well regarded as it is. Certainly not by the comic fans themselves.<p> <p>It's not a attack or hit piece on Superheroes but it's clearly not an unquestioning naive praise and acceptance of all that has gone before.<p> <p>It highlights both the good and the bad in the superhero comic and uses them throughout it's narrative which, lest we forget, is an adventure story in which the Heroes try and save the planet from what they think is an Evil machiavelllian villain intent on destroying the world.<p> <p>True, it turns out that the plot is not that simple. And True, Rorschach and the Comedian display some pretty negative traits (to say the least) at times but EVEN the Comedian cracks and is filled with remorse when he discovers what is planned and Rorschach, for all his grim violence, is always motivated by a desire to do good. (though it's HIS definition)<p> <p>Rorschach attacks muggers who prey on weaker citizens, enacts retribution on a multiple rapist, puts countless criminals away including criminal masterminds like "Big Figure". And most importantly when no-one else gives a shit he goes after the kidnapped girl and pursues the killer of the Comedian.<p> <p>Whatever his manifest problems and subsequent fall from "grace" Rorschach's impulses and many of his actions are indeed "heroic".<p> <p>All the characters have failings and we are not spared from them but equally we always see their virtues however imperfect. They are not portrayed as simple "assholes".<p> <p>If such complexity and adult-themes equates to psuedo-intellectualism or some kind scream for legitimacy in your opinion, then there is little I can do to dissuade you of that.<p> <p>But I will point out that regarding watchmen as one of the best comics written doesn't stop me from really enjoying comics of all kinds. Even the naive portrayals and simpler early examples.<p> <p>Work which Moore himself also clearly loves and is steeped in or he wouldn't have produced so many examples within that genre, complex or not.<p> <p>And thanks for making the point that From Hell is fiction as it's an important one that seemed to have been missed by someone somewhere along the way there.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Christ

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    They've changed the ending. That should piss anyone who enjoyed the GN off.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Oh and The Wire is ALSO fiction

    by G100

    Doesn't stop it from being a fascinating, engrossing, complex examination of an entire city and it's society either.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Maybe just use potato guns....

    by Darth Macchio

    ...only not point blank as that probably would kill a mutherfakyus (shouldn't say that with that accent). But I bet a good potato gun shot to the belly might change McGinty's notion of having full grown adult strangers calling him by his childhood nickname. By the way, my sister's childhood nickname was "jackass peanut butter" so if you ever see her tell her Macchio said "Bonk! JACKASS P-NOBZ BUTTa! Huwah huwah huwah!!! (Jabba the hutt's laugh in case you were wondering).

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:34 p.m. CST

    G100 (everyone else please forgive me)

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    When you said “anyone who thinks every character is an asshole, etc” I assumed you were alluding to me (not me and me alone, mind you) because of the context. Correct me if I’m wrong. <p> When I said I don’t have a problem with that concept, the concept in question was subversion of the superhero genre rather than deconstruction. I don’t have a problem with the kind of literary subversion Watchmen engages in. I wasn't talking about making all the characters into assholes. Remember that was my "glib shorthand" ... To wit: <p> If I were putting words in Moore’s mouth, that would be me claiming he said something he didn’t. I gave my droll and irreverent take on what he said, is all. He said the impetus for Watchmen was he wanted to “show a reality that was very different to the general public image of the super-hero” and that the heroes in question would be “dysfunctional” … <p> My line, “Hey what is people found out such-and-such hero was actually a DICKHEAD?" and the “opposite day” comment are how I characterize this idea; it doesn’t mean I think the characters are assholes or I think Alan Moore thinks that. In fact if I have to explain how my statement is shorthand and not, in fact, a scholarly critique aimed at representing the textual content of what Moore said - without actually quoting it - then we aren’t speaking the same language anyway. <p> I don’t think a work of subversion is necessarily not a celebration. I just don’t believe that’s the case here. So you’re just tying together two different thoughts that are unrelated in that case. <p> I don’t think there’s anything wrong with subversion, as I said. And as I said, I think deconstruction itself is a shakily-defined concept, but I don’t think Watchmen is really deconstructivist, so to speak. This was, believe it or not, my main point. <p> I NEVER said those who enjoy the comic (OF WHICH – I HAVE MADE PLAIN – I AM ONE) are “guilty” of anything. I said those who characterize Watchmen as an exercise in deconstruction are using the term inaccurately, and such a term, especially used inaccurately, has a patina of pretension and, yes, quasi-intellectualism to it. (I don’t know that Alan Moore has used the term, and I kind of doubt he has.) <p> This also speaks to my point about only celebrating a genre and medium when it gets so high-falutin’ as to in essence reject itself. <p> You wrote: “I would answer that watchmen doesn't paint any of the Heroes as black and white (hurrrm) stereotypes or portrays the Superheroes as some kind of blight that the world would be better without. There is clear affection for the characters and if watchmen was as one-dimensional as a simple attack on the Superhero myths and archetypes it would NEVER be as popular and well regarded as it is. Certainly not by the comic fans themselves.” <p> The second part of the above paragraph may be true but it’s certainly not relevant to anything I said, since I never characterized Watchmen as simple, one-dimensional nor an attack on anything. I never said there wasn’t affection for the characters. I just said it wasn’t a celebration of superheroes. Big difference there. <p> It’s ridiculous to suggest that I think complexity and adult themes equal quasi-intellectualism or a cry for legitimacy. What I will and did say is many FANS who are burdened by a sense of guilt about their adolescent and geeky reading habits are all too quick to over-celebrate and over-analyze a work that contains those things, all in the name of a more “grown up” legitimacy. That’s not a knock on the work itself – very little of what I wrote is, as a matter of fact – it’s more criticism of the PERCEPTION of the work. <p> Anyway you go on to make a number of additional points, but I fail to see how they are relevant to my point either. I just spent 20 minutes basically REITERATING stuff I already wrote because I felt the responses had mischaracterized my original posts. I do understand sometimes you have to clarify stuff but this is too much even for me – I think I’ve demonstrated a level of nerd diligence here that should get me off the hook of responding to the remaining points.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:45 p.m. CST

    i said it once and i will say it again this is all well and good

    by slappy jones

    but it still concerns me that 300 was a steaming pile of garbage.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:51 p.m. CST

    JumpingJehosophat

    by spud mcspud

    One of the USPs of Zach Snyder doing WATCHMEN as opposed to the spectacular meh-ness of such non-visionaries as Len Wiseman, Paul W S Anderson or Brett Ratner was the fact that he was trumpeting to all and sundry that he would not be changing one word of the graphic novel, it's pretty much perfect and so why would we fuck with that?<P> Then he changes an ending that will require rewrites of the original plot going right back to the very beginning (such as, what the Comedian sees THIS time round, and why it's so terrible that he gives up and allows himself to be murdered).<P> Snyder used the way we fanboys are particularly fanatical about how great the WATCHMEN GN is, and particularly about not altering any of it - then used that to big himself up as the saviour of the movie WATCHMEN becuase he won't change any of it - THEN HE CHANGED IT. He lied, he sold out, he has no respect for the material, end of.<P> As for "It doesn't just simply fall into place like that and you damn well know it", well, Snyder should've thought of that before he fucking lied aboout what he was going to do. My guess is he thinks he's hip and edgy to have pulled this bait-and-switch: "hey, it's what Moore did with the squid, I'm just doing it again for the movie!". Yes, but Alan Moore actually knows what he's doing. I'm still waiting for someone to actually form a cogent argument that actually explains why the Manhattan frame-job is going to be better than the faked alien invasion and resulting psychic shockwave. And the "unbelievable" argument doesn't work in a movie where one of the superheroes is a glowing blue god.<P> None of the arguments work for changing the ending. Zack changing the ending = Zack thinking he could actually write one as good as the original ending, and failing to understand why the original was so great in the first place. I can't get the image of Jon Manhattan going "Ta-daaaa! Okay, I did it. I'm in it with Ozy. And now none of you are going to do or say anything, because we just saved the world. Now, fuck off and try to figure out why everyone believed it why I leave this universe for one less complicated. And because notihng ends, Adrian, nothing EVER ends, there might even be a sequel. Tootdle-oo, don;t let the door hit Alan Moore's ass on the way out" out of my head. It's like a fucking Scooby Doo ending.<P> "It's you! Jon Osterman! It was you all along!"<P> "Yep. Sorry Adrian had to fry Scooby though. We'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't ofr the masked psycho, the man who wants to be a crime-fighting owl and that hot chick no-one knows the name of yet. Ah, fuck it, I got points on the back end anyway AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAA!"<P> Only person to walk away from this fucked ending with any dignity? Alan fucking Moore. he was right all along...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:59 p.m. CST

    "WHILE I leave this universe"

    by spud mcspud

    Fucking typos. Must be my fanboy rabid slather short-circuiting my keyboard ;D

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5 p.m. CST

    SPOILERS!!!

    by spud mcspud

    Is it too late to point out there might be spoilers for the GN AND the movie on this Talkback?!?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Jarv - zfisk sounds NUTS!

    by spud mcspud

    One thing I've never understood, though, is why Jewish people seem upset with the stereotype that they are all great at making loads of money. As a working class white Caucasian Englishman, the stereotype of me can range anywhere from being a beer-swilling, wife-beating BNP supporting football hooligan to a spliff-chaining, drug addled, drunken, lazy, dole-bludging chav twat with nothing to offer the world. I don't usually pay much attention to stereotypes - obviously I am NOTHING like the above - but I'm at a loss to see why being accused of being tight and good at making money is a bad thing. It's a bit like the stereotype of black men being well endowed - rather that than, say, white men can't dance! I'd LOVE for people to think of me as a man with a talent for making money and a HUGE dong.<P> Mind you, I s'pose, one out of two ain't bad... ;p

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:55 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud, the roots of anti semitism

    by drturing

    the jewish stereotype is dangerous because it propels people into fear that they are the cause of their misfortune; i.e. they're the secret cause of financial misery, collaborating with other jews to steal wealth. this also has to do with the ancient roots of semitism, where jews spread throughout europe were not allowed to have proper jobs, and thus created banking systems to have something to earn a living. King Phillip the Fair (who was anything but) decided to steal all their money and kick them out of France. The funny thing beyond all this is that there are still Hasidic ghettos in the US - where you will see orthodox jews living in complete abject poverty.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:56 p.m. CST

    oh and also as a brit you should expect -

    by drturing

    to be considered a sexually repressed, stiff upper lipped, closeted gay man who only really likes public school sodomy and thinks of the queen during orgasm.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:58 p.m. CST

    The Wire is based on a lot of reality

    by drturing

    David Simon says he feels like an impostor as much of it wasn't written but borrowed from his journalism - I think he's being far far too humble.. But know that Omar is based on three real stick up men who would steal from drug dealers, and one of them did jump 12 stories out a window and survive a shootout in doing so.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST

    The ending

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Chaps - how about we all leave the cinema when Ozy says 'but I did it forty-five minutes ago', and that way we can pretend the squid appears.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:19 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud, it sounds then like you feel betrayed.

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    You sound as if you take it as a personal affront that Snyder promised something in a pitch meeting that he then realized he couldn't do, but went ahead with the project anyway. I suppose I can appreciate that, if what you say played out is true. However, I find it a stretch to think Zack deliberately set out to deceive, otherwise it seems to me many more corners would have been cut. As far as the "Manhattan frame-job" plotline goes (if that is, in fact, the plot of the finished film), we won't know how it plays until we see it -- or rather I see it. Sounds like you'll be setting this one out.

  • I don't happen to think it's the primary impetus of Moores genesis for the novel even when you claim "it's simply a droll and irreverent take on what he said" you did still say "Alan Moore pretty plainly states this concept as the impetus for the project." I don't see him stating that as quoting the word "dysfuntional" (without much context) seems to be stretching things especially when you claim it as the impetus for the project. And the "reality" quote doesn't automatically mean subversion or dickhead heroes either. TDKR also shows a level of reality unfamiliar to the general public.<p> <p>Besides "dysfunctional" doesn't automatically mean asshole or dickhead. Abnormal certainly, (they are all cleary anything but normal) damaged, yep some of them are also clearly damaged, but I repeat that doesn't stop them from being a lot more than that and I can only reiterate that Moore (to me at least, and from the quotes I produced) was clearly motivated by a great deal more than simply portraying Dysfunctional Superheroes or Heroes.<p> <p>"It’s ridiculous to suggest that I think complexity and adult themes equal quasi-intellectualism or a cry for legitimacy." To that I can only quote your own words "Moore and Gibbons abandoned much of what makes superhero comics great and replaced it with "adult" themes, intellectualism, complexity and density - all fine things, but things which scream "legitimacy" for a medium and genre (and fans)" If I made some kind of "ridicuous" leap of misrepresentation there then I apologise.<p> <p>But we could frankly argue over the minutia of misrepresentation forever (to the immense boredom of all) and qualify any of our comments as droll irreverant takes on each others words but it serves little purpose.<p> <p>We could also debate whether it is Subversion or Deconstruction endlessly too.<p> <p>I can only state that my opinion is watchmen is far more than subversion as you have stated your case as to why you think it is subversion.<p> <p>Most of my comments have been to show why I think watchmen is pretty well rounded and respects comics and their archetypes, charcters and myths as much as critiques them.<p> <p>If it helps matters and ends this pretty tedious exchange, I can only repeat yet again, that nobody needs to like watchmen or consider it one of the greatest comics written.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:44 p.m. CST

    True enough drturing

    by G100

    David Simon's excellent Homicide book reveals a great deal that has been appropriated wholesale.<p> <p>Though to be fair much of the many large plot arcs are constructed from the minds of the writers.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Minutiae of misrepresentation

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I think by international law, the conversation stops when someone misrepresents the misrepresentation.<p>I would only say in addition that, judging by your response, attempting to clarify things serves little purpose indeed - particularly when a clarification that should've been unnecessary in the first place is deemed a qualification, and in general, attempts to clarify certain points end up right back at square one. <p>I think that's why I bowed out already?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:25 p.m. CST

    knowthyself

    by Mockingbuddha

    You already got a squidless movie, now you want squidless talk backs?!!? Greedy!!! (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Ghostball

    by Mockingbuddha

    Thanks for attempting to assist with the Morrison question. It's the thought that counts. I think it would be hilarious if Invisibles fans turned every Watchmen talkback from here on out into a crazy Invisibles metaphysics debate, and respond to other posters as if they're saying something stupid like Lord Fanny's not a guy!! Instead of yelling about a Giant Squid we could coin the catchphrase, "Balls on Fanny!!!" or something. Also funny would be to throw raw calamari on Zack Snyder whenever he goes to a con or an interview or anything. (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈(ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ Wish I wasn't too lazy to implement my dischordian ideas.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:53 p.m. CST

    ...We Being The Watchmen

    by Durant

    Kill me, but the squid's not a deal breaker for liking or not liking the movie, the adaption can have differences but still be engaging. Darabont changed the ending to The Mist... not my favorite, but... I Am Legend ending changes? Uh, he's not Legend anymore, really. The US Release of The Descent compared to the original? Blasphemy! <p> But I liked Blade Runner better than Do Androids... and Election better a la Payne. Fight Club, no ("in heaven, everything is white on white..."). Adaptation, yes. Field of Dreams, yes yes yes (nothing against albinos). <p> So adaptation to a different form doesn't always equal inferior product, in my humble opinion. <p> But what's with referring to "Watchmen" in dialogue? "Watchmen" is a reference to poet Juvenal's fairly well known (whether you know it's Juvenal or not) quip. It's not like they call themselves that in the novel, that seems to be a "dumbing down" to me. <p> Worst case, the "Visionary Director of 300"(tm) has a case of Magic Johnson play-by-play disease (He is dribbling the ball downcourt... he being Avery Johnson...). Two cents: we don't need to call them Watchmen to "get" the title, it should be in the graffiti and a little more subtle.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9 p.m. CST

    Um...

    by Durant

    Just occurred to me that calling it Magic Johnson disease could be misinterpreted -- I'm talking about how when an NBA analyst, he constantly used sentences like "He inbounds the ball" and then followed up with "He being Tom Tolbert"...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:11 p.m. CST

    What was the verdict on the V for Vendetta ending?

    by knowthyself

    The Wachowskis changed it so that everyone was dressed as V. Did that cause an uproar as well?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:28 p.m. CST

    V for Vendetta ending.

    by Shan

    I seem to remember some discontent about that ending as well at the time.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 1:51 a.m. CST

    New Witch Mountain > Watchmen

    by the milf lover

    because the Witch Mountain trailer gives us the Gugino goodness the Watchmen trailer deprived us of.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 2:30 a.m. CST

    Jack Carter ????

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Sounds like a name I would give to my spy characters when I was 9 or 10 years old and doing creative stories. <p> Expectations are getting too high for this film. <p> I personally believe that it will have some nice scenes but as a complete 2 and half hour picture think it will come across as a jumbled mess. <p> Don't have a lot of confidence in Zack for a story that is more complex than a music video, let alone what is going on in Watchmen.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 3:48 a.m. CST

    The Ending, Haters and Blaming Zak

    by yiannis

    I think most people on this talkback should just give up. Trying to change a geek's mind on something is like trying to discuss philosophy with a door. It just ain't gonna happen! So all the pro-squid, pro-Moore, must-be-exactly-like-the-book crowd aren't gonna change the minds of the open-to-change, think-new-ending-will-work crowd and vice versa. Both sides have used every type of argument going, from playground insults to incisive dissertations, without success. Give it a break, guys!<br><br>However, I do have one question for the "pro-squid" brigade:<br><br>Why is everyone blaming Snyder exactly?<br><br>Zak Snyder is a pure director, not a director/screenwriter. He has not written scripts for any of his films, including Watchmen. A director of this nature has very little input into the story and plot of their films. They will make tweaks here and there, based on how they choose to best interpret that story, but will NEVER even be in a position to make any sort of sweeping changes. Therefore straight off the bat if anyone has problems with changes made to the storyline they should be hurling insults at the SCREENWRITER, not the director...<br><br>Secondly, by all accounts the removal of the squid was just ONE of dozens of major changes the studio were looking to make (modern day setting, Veidt being killed, the infamous Jon-goes-back-in-time-to-destroy-himself-and-everyone-gets-transported-to-an-alternate-universe-plus-Rorsharch-survives ending) and Snyder has waged a series of battles to overturn these changes. As we know, studio executives are one of the lowest forms of life on the planet (greenlighting YET ANOTHER Nutty Professor, anyone?) and directors frequently have to fight stupid and illogical reasoning from stupid and illogical people. Far more respected, established and influential directors than Snyder have lost big battles in the past (James Cameron and the ending to The Abyss, Ridley Scott on both Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven, all the way back to Orsen Welles and The Magnificent Ambersons), so perhaps this was one battle that Snyder simply couldn't win? Shouldn't he therefore be commended for all the battles he DID win, rather than vilified for the one he DIDN'T?<br><br>Thirdly, dedicated fans of the GN have come down on both sides of this calamari-based debate, which goes to show one of the most cherished things about the GN: that it is ambiguous and that readers are freely able to interpret it and read into it all sorts of meanings. This is a freedom that is rarely, if ever, available to people working in the medium of film and CERTAINLY never for those working in mainstream cinema. Cinema is shackled by its need to present a logical and linear story, even when dealing with the fantastical (please note that "linear" does not IN ANY WAY mean "told in chronological order" - Pulp Fiction is still a "linear" story). Though some films and some directors very obviously free themselves from this (David Lynch being a good example), these people are working on the fringes of the mainstream and have to realise their more "illogical" visions on very small budgets.<br><br>Watchmen is simply too big a story, in scope and ambition, and requires too much in the way of SFX for it to EVER be made on a small budget. Therefore, for it to be made at all, it has to be made as part of mainstream cinema. If it is a mainstream film, it has to appeal to a mainstream audience...<br><br>... and a mainstream audience will laugh the squid out of the fucking cinema!<br><br>Of course, a mainstream audience can buy big wierd monsters in movies (Hellboy 2 and Cloverfield have both been mentioned in talkbacks) PROVIDED the movie they are watching reasonably sets up expectations that a big wierd monster could be a part of this world. Even in the GN, the squid is a curveball and I don't want to hear about how "it's perfectly set up and you can see it coming a mile off" becase that's just retroactive justification when you already know the ending.<br><br>Come on! Did anyone (especially anyone who read the GN in its original serialised form) HONESTLY even entertain the idea that Veidt would unleash a giant psychic squid on NYC in order to bring about world peace when they were reading, say, issue 3? I would personally go so far as to say few, if any, even entertained the idea that Veidt might turn out to be the villan THAT early in the story.<br><br>People talk about the scene on the island and the boat blowing up? Well, without having the GN to hand I would guess from memory that they are between a 1/2 page and 1 page per scene, right? Out of, what, 350 or so? People talk about the Black Freighter sequence as if it holds all the secrets, but the only real clue towards the SQUID in that is that the writer of that comic has gone missing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only disclosed in a quick aside in the New Frontiersman office? The Black Freighter story itself has nothing to do with it, although it does link thematically with a number of OTHER themes in the book (In my mind Rorsharch's inability to compromise in particular).<br><br>All the other tidbits of information that justify the inclusion of the squid (what the Comedian REALLY saw to tip him over the edge, Veidt's masterplan, even the very existence of psychics) ALL come during Veidt's monologue. In a 2.5 hour movie, this monologue will probably be delivered somewhere around the 2 hour/2 hour 10 minute mark and might last for 4-5 minutes. It will be tough enough to explain Veidt's overall plan to bring about world peace in that time (which IS essential to the ending). Think about trying to explain all of THIS in that time as well:<br><br>That Veidt has offices at that exact location that deal in whatever technology they were supposed to be meddling with that supposedly brought the squid to earth<br><br>That psychics exist<br><br>That a collection of artists - NONE of whom have been introduced as characters - have created this tentacled beastie<br><br>That the REAL devestation is not physical, but psychic (THAT'S the tough one to explain)<br><br>I'm sorry, but there is simply NO WAY that a mainstream audience (by which I mean anyone who has not read the book and had time to digest the true meaning of what happens at the end) is going to buy that many leaps of faith at the very end of the film. It simply won't happen! Are you pro-squid people so self-centred that you believe this film should be made ONLY for you and that movie lovers who HAVEN'T read the GN should be totally excluded from this MOVIE experience?<br><br>Now think about the alternative they are using:<br><br>Jon's disassociation from humanity - and humanity's active shunning of HIM - are already key plot points in the story and are given a lot of emphasis. Even the escalation of hostilities is directly linked to Jon not lining up on the American side of the battlefield anymore. Whether it is so that Jon can't foil his plan, or so that Jon can be framed as the "monster" in his plan, making Jon leave Earth is ALWAYS a vital part of Veidt's plan.<br><br>Whether devestation is supposedly caused by a squid or by Jon, the audience will know that they (either the squid or Jon) are really innocent and that the true culprit is Veidt. The key to the ending (and the entire story) is that Veidt commits a horrible atrocity in order to bring about world peace. I really don't see how changing the NATURE of the atrocity affects the REASON why it was necessary.<br><br>The audience will already be familiar with the awesome destructive power Jon possesses. If the entity blamed for the atrocity is really innocent - and if that innocence is clearly defined to the audience, whether as a reader or a viewer - then SURELY it makes more sense for the culprit to be one the audience is already familiar with, rather than try to introduce a NEW destructive power into the story at such a late stage? It may work in the GN, but in cinematic terms that really is BAD storytelling!<br><br>The Comedian's reaction to his discovery of Veidt's plan has NOTHING to do with the squid or the island. It has to do with realising that Veidt plans to bring about world peace and therefore he is effectively obsolete. Since Veidt's plan isn't changing, this reaction is still the same. HOW the Comedian discovers the plan is purely incidental and can be achieved in a literally INFINITE number of ways.<br><br>Even in the GN, the other key characters (Dan, Sally, Jon and of course Rorsharch) are faced with the impossible choice of revealing the guilty party and ending world peace, or accepting world peace and letting a guilty man go free. Their choices are not made any different by the fact that Jon is the patsy rather than the squid. Even Jon's choice is still the same. The fact that the journal is CONFIRMED as still being in the movie is to me a very clear sign that these choices have not been altered, which further suggests that Veidt's ultimate plan has not been altered. SURELY that's more important than which FAKE atrocity he uses in order to carry out his plan?<br><br>Even the supposed rumour that multiple cities are now attacked makes sense. With the squid, the damage was all psychic, so would LITERALLY be felt the world over regardless of where was attacked. Veidt's lab could have been in ANY city in the world and the ending would still have been the same. With Jon, though, his supposed "attack" needs to be on all of humanity. If he just attacked NYC, America's enemies would think he had turned on America and would, if anything, escalate hostilities further to capitalise. However, if multiple cities are attacked all across the world, INCUDING in America, then the message is clear that Jon has turned against HUMANITY. This can still have the required effect of bringing humanity together.<br><br>I don't believe for a second that all the pro-squid brigade on these boards don't "get" the true meaning of the ending. Quite the contrary, I think they understand it perfectly well (most do anyway - there's always a few bandwagon-hoppers no matter what you're discussing). I just think that, for whatever reason (blind faith in Moore, lack of faith in Snyder, reactionary to change in any form), these people - YOU people - have not entertained the possibility that you CAN remove the squid WITHOUT removing the underlying meaning behind the ending and, ultimately, the story itself.<br><br>Well, I HAVE entertained that possibility and firmly believe it can work. My reasoning is, I like to think, well articulated above. If Veidt WASN'T trying to bring about world peace, I agree that would be a total travesty and mockery of everything Watchmen is about, but NOWHERE has it been written, said or even hinted at that that might be the case.<br><br>Maybe this reasoning can get through to you, maybe it can't. In all likelihood, it will get lost in the endless stream of repetitive nonsense that makes up 90% of any talkback. However it would be a shame if legions of fans who have hoped, prayed and begged for a high quality movie adaptation of their favourite graphic novel for 20 years don't ever watch that adaptation, simply because they grossly over-emphasised one small change that, ultimately, did not affect the true meaning of the film...<br><br>Maybe, just maybe, Snyder understands Watchmen just as much as any of you and maybe, just maybe, he and the rest of his crew understand the needs of cinematic storytelling just that little bit more...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:14 a.m. CST

    by yiannis

    By the way, I know I totally ignored my own advice from my first paragraph. Guess I must like philosophising with woodwork...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:19 a.m. CST

    by NudeGobblin

    I used to think Watchmen fans were some of the most intelligent comic book readers. Then I looked at this thread... *shakes head* Hope I'm not there are the same screening with most of you as you'll probably be whining through most of it..

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:23 a.m. CST

    by NudeGobblin

    oh - and if some of u rabid losers are so concerned with sticking to every one of Moore's ideas, call the thing a "comic book". Moore thinks the term Graphic Novel is a joke.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 5:38 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I feel a bit let down

    by spud mcspud

    And Zach's been trumpeting the "this will the closest adaptation EVER" thing all over the place - not just at one script meeting. Bottom line, he promised an utterly faithful adaptation, then bowed to studio pressure and changed the ending. We can argue how MUCH he changed it - a lot or a little - until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the Manhattan frame-job isn't as out there an idea as the fake alien squid invasion plan is. And coming straight after Veidt's musings on how the plan to save the world from itself requires lateral thinking on a par with Alexander severing the Gordian knot in two with his sword, he's indicating that the solution HAD to be sufficiently mind-blowing as to make EVERYONE in the world stop and take notice. What's lateral thinking or mind-blowing about faking attacks on the world by the only truly super-powered superhero in it, who everyone is already convinced is killing people by his mere existence already? Exactly why is this a stretch? It's making a mockery out of the smarts that Veidt has: he's created the squid because only an event that bizarre and terrifying - and sufficiently ALIEN, which Jon isn't becaue of the fact he is a HUMAN made SUPERHUMAN by the accident - could unite the world against the imagined alien menace. And since Jon is so powerful, how exactly would the world unite against him anyway? If he wanted to, he could snap his fingers and turn the planet into atoms! So either people would (a) figure there's more to what Jon is being accused of, since he HASN'T made the world dissolve or whatever - but WHY NOT?, and (b) not bother uniting because this is a threat that they have literally NOTHING to defend against! This is only reiterated in the Vietnam sequence, where all the artillery the VC can muster doesn't do a blind thing to him - Manhattan is indestructible.<P> A dead alien squid that sends a psychic aftershock that kills millions of people? The world's scientists might at least THINK there's a chance to defend against it - they'd be trying to deduce where it came from, what's it made of, can its skin be breached by conventional weapons, etc etc. In short, they'd believe they had a chance against it - where the earlier parts of WATCHMEN will demonstrate that NO-ONE would have a chance against Jon if he decided to turn evil. In short, Jon's frame-up doesn't work - no-one would unite against something that is (and has in the past been) demonstrably indestructible.<P> and let's not get into how dumb a series of nuke eplosions due to "malfunctioning" free energy sites would be. No-one would unite against anyone over that - except Americans uniting with lawyers to sue everyone involved, the Brits to harrumph and have afternoon tea, etc etc ad Michael Bay gross stereotyping infinitum...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 5:46 a.m. CST

    yiannis

    by spud mcspud

    "The key to the ending (and the entire story) is that Veidt commits a horrible atrocity in order to bring about world peace. I really don't see how changing the NATURE of the atrocity affects the REASON why it was necessary."<P> Because the GN spends so much time alluding to Veidt's superintelligence, and drawing parallels between his journey to his own circumstantial 'apotheosis' and the journey taken by Alenxader the Great, the final part of the event - the staged atrocity - has to be sufficiently out there and bizarre as to be a worthy parallel to Alexander solving the Gordian knot by severing it in two with his sword - classic lateral thinking. There's no way the Jon ending can be that worthy, that sufficiently divorced from reality (the very left-field out-of-nowhere nature of the alien squid attack represents how far out of normal modes of thinking Veidt is willing to go to achieve his aim - and it's fittingly grandiose enough to establish him as the RKO serial villain he is claiming not to be too!) and simultaneously be a threat that can conceivably be defended against. The people of planet Earth already KNOW than Jon CANNOT be stopped, harmed or destroyed - so wouldn't the Jon ending just bring about worldwide apathy and a mounting sense of impending doom, rather than bonding together, ceasing hostilities and beginning a New World Order of peace - which is what Veidt is originally going for in the GN?<P> Bottom line? There's no way to make the Jon ending compatible with the themes of Watchmen, and of Veidt's journey and its parallels with the life of Alexander the Great in particular.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Snyder didn't change the ending.

    by knowthyself

    Would people stop saying that? Ozy wins. Rorscache dies. The heroes make a really fucked up decision. Rorschaches journal ends up as a ticking time bomb on a desk. Its in the movie. Its not changed. Stop saying its been changed. THAT is the ending. Not the god damn squid.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:33 a.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by yiannis

    I'm sorry, but that response simply makes no sense to me at all. It simply makes you sound as though you already have your answer (the squid stays in the picture) and are desperately looking for anything to justify it.<br><br>First of all, how EXACTLY does changing the ending to Jon detract from Veidt's intelligence? He still has to turn the world against Jon in the first place (the "LEAVE ME ALONE!" in the 2nd trailer would seem to suggest that the whole "cancer" plotline is still intact, meaning that he has employed Moloch and the rest and given them cancer), therefore CREATING himself the escalating tensions that necessitate his atrocity and he still has to create a technologically advanced threat to the world (how is replicating Jon's awesome power many times over less impressive than designing a psychic cephalopod?) that shocks the nations into acting together.<br><br>Secondly, the parallels to Alexander the Great are NOT throughout the novel, they are again alluded to ONLY in the penultimate monologue to his soon-to-be-doomed lackeys. Now, you might not realise it, but Yiannis is a GREEK name. Furthermore, my real first name is Alexander (Yiannis is my middle name and internet name) and I was named AFTER Alexander the Great, therefore I am VERY familiar with his life story, perhaps more so than you (how mch do you really know beyond what Watchmen tells you?). However, reference to the GN alone will suffice here.<br><br>The Gordian Knot is a very minor episode in the life of Alexander the Great and is NOT the source of Veidt's admiration of him. Veidt admires him and aspires to be like him because he strove to unite the world in a way never before attempted. However, he ultimately failed to do so. This is why Veidt TURNS HIS BACK on Alexander the Great as an influence. Direct quote from Issue 11:<br><br>"I saw at last his failings. He had not united ALL the world, nor built a unity that would survive him"<br><br>Veidt ultimately turns away from the path of Alexander the Great towards the wisdom of the Egyptians (Oxymandias is Rameses the Second's Greek name, again straight from the novel), in order to finally achieve what Alexander was UNABLE to do, what he FAILED to do.<br><br>If Veidt himself considers Alexander the Great as a FAILURE, why must his masterplan rely on a minor episode from this failure's life?<br><br>Perhaps this will make you rethink your rationalising a little bit, as you have clearly either misunderstood or not remembered a considerable portion of the GN which you then try to use as the backbone of your argument.<br><br>However, I sense that it will not. The sheer selectiveness of your argument (ignoring the GN itself in order to defend it!) suggests that you simply will not accept ANY change to the GN, no matter what (even though your understanding of said GN is flawed, apparently). Perhaps you never wanted it to be made into a film at all, in which case at least be honest (if that is the case, though, what business do you have on a MOVIE message board?). In the end, though, I don't really care, because YOU are the one who will be deprived of a potentially excellent cinematic experience, not me.<br><br>You are the clearest example possible of my "door". I hope you have enjoyed the philosophy.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Nope - the ending WAS changed...

    by Ghostball

    and dramatically so. That doesn't mean all of us can't handle that - it sounds like it'll still be a great movie, just flawed for the fact it lost it balls at the end. LET THIS BE THE LAST MENTION OF IT 'TIL THE MOVIE OPENS.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:48 a.m. CST

    yiannis

    by crazybubba

    the squid is the curveball that wins the game, its great, in fact its more than a curveball its a slurveball. No one knows for sure if mainstream audiences would accept a squid or not, but if they don't, they won't care if the rest of the movie is as great as the anti-squidders say it will be. Does every hate the Sopranos cause they didn't like the ending to the series finale. Doubt it.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:50 a.m. CST

    besides

    by crazybubba

    whats great about ending a movie with a smurf fart.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:59 a.m. CST

    oh, and spud mcspud?

    by yiannis

    I couldn't leave without pointing out a further gaping flaw in your previous post not directed at me:<br><br>"A dead alien squid that sends a psychic aftershock that kills millions of people? The world's scientists might at least THINK there's a chance to defend against it - they'd be trying to deduce where it came from, what's it made of, can its skin be breached by conventional weapons, etc etc. In short, they'd believe they had a chance against it - where the earlier parts of WATCHMEN will demonstrate that NO-ONE would have a chance against Jon if he decided to turn evil. In short, Jon's frame-up doesn't work - no-one would unite against something that is (and has in the past been) demonstrably indestructible."<br><br>I have made this mistake before in my understanding of Watchmen, so I can be a little more forgiving here, but the world does NOT unite in a military sense to defend themselves from attack. The world unites out of SYMPATHY to a tragedy of epic proportions. The point of the squid is not - CAN NOT BE - to unite the world through fear of alien attack, as this would lead to a very paranoid, afraid and suspicious planet. Hardly the utopia that Veidt dreams of, is it? The point of the psychic attack is to create a tragedy LITERALLY felt the world over, so that all of humanity realise how fragile life is and how futile war is.<br><br>How this particular aspect plays out with the "Jon" ending is obviously not known at present and speculation is fairly pointless until we either know more or have seen the movie. However, to me the potential resonance of this change is very clear. Jon was created by technology whose primary application is in war and was used by his government as an instrument of war. Although it is never alluded to in the GN, it would not be a stretch to imagine that Russia, China and the rest of the opposing powers to America are conducting experiments to produce their own "Dr. Manhattan"s. The fact that this instrument of war turns on humanity and comes close to destroying it would seem to me as powerful a reason as any to make even hardline leaders of nations recognise the fragility of life and futility of war.<br><br>Again, though, I do not expect to change your mind, as I have already stated in so many ways that I do not believe you are inclined to ALLOW your mind to be changed. However, I do enjoy these little deconstructions of your work.<br><br>Until next time, dear door...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 10:16 a.m. CST

    crazybubba

    by yiannis

    You seem to have misread my post somewhat. I never said that mainstream audiences couldn't accept the squid as a monster, nor that mainstream audiences couldn't accept a curveball (love that word "slurveball" by the way!).<br><br>What I said was that mainstream audiences would find it difficult to accept all the reasoning and backstory that the squid necessitates in a 4-5 minute monologue that ALSO has to explain the reason why the squid was necessary in the first place. This isn't like Cloverfield, where you can just have the monster show up and not need to explain it and that explanation would simply not work as the climax to a major motion picture.<br><br>It works fine in print because you are reading it at your own pace and are free to pause, consider and rationalise at leisure. In a movie, the audience's pace is set by the actor's delivery and the time necessary to get a cinema audience to TRULY accept the squid before its appearance would either involve the actor speaking sloooooooooowly as if explaining something to a child or cramming in so much information that either way the squid's appearance would be preceded by a 20 minute dialogue (or indeed monologue!) scene. After 2+ hours of dense and complex plotting, all this will do is cause fidgets in those with leaky bladders. Even those who have been following the plot intensely would likely nod off at a 20 minute speech. The result would be cinematic disaster!<br><br>The Jon ending, on the other hand, does not need nearly as much explanation, as the audience have already bought into Jon and know what he is capable of (if they haven't, chances are they'll have already left by this point anyway). Therefore the final monologue does not need to explain what Jon is or what he is capable of, only to explain Veidt's plan and how he has used Jon to achieve it. This will ensure the cinematic audience stay in the moment right through until the end of the movie.<br><br>The ending of the book is a great ending FOR A BOOK, but a LOUSY ending for a film. Anybody who truly understands the necessities of cinematic storytelling (and there are plenty WITHIN Hollywood that don't, never mind fans) can understand the need for change. Whether they agree with the PARTICULAR change is subjective. I do.<br><br>Roll on the smurf farts!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:04 a.m. CST

    yiannis

    by sokitome

    I will try and explain why the ending with the alien invasion concept is the only one that works. The ending is not just about pitting US vs. them scenario it is the scenario we are not alone. The proof of alien life existing would be a fundamental change in how everyone on the planet would view their lives. Most of the world believes we are alone and unique in the Universe, hell most fundamental christians I know adhere to this belief like the existence of Christ himself. This is the whole point of the ending. It is not the shock of the death, or just the psychic waves, it is the 1) the proof the humans are not alone and 2) aliens are trying to kill us. This is why Veidt's plan works. By placing the blame on Dr. Manhattan fundamentally changes this. There isn't a whole race of DR. Manhattans and having him attack would not be as fundamentally earth shattering revelation as would the existence of aliens trying to invade the earth. IT's a perfect example of Alan Moore's brilliance. It is a far out comic book ending with a sense of realistic truth about it. IF the United States government were to come out tomorrow showing irrevocable evidence aliens existed and were trying to kill us, it would be a life changing event for most of the people of the planet. That is why the alternate ending would not work. IT is not just the outside forces, or one enemy to unite us, it is also the fundamental change in our belief that humans are alone in the Universe. These are the big questions Moore put in the novel which make it so great. I am sick and tired of people saying fanboys need the movie to be exactly like the film. Thats a fucking joke. I will concede the whole minutemen into watchmen thing, skinny nite owl, or any other aesthetic change. Hell I wouldn't even mind new more "realisitic" uniforms. but this change fundamentally changes the entire book. This book was a huge success with the squid ending, to bastardize it like this would be criminal. But you're right I will go see it, but if the ending is what the rumors say they are then it changes the entire story from watchmen to something totally different. Just because 2% of the people who read it didn't like that ending and didn't get it, we have to dumb it down. Why not change the ending to Romeo and Juliet to where they live, oh wait that would change the entire nature of the "tragedy" that is Romeo and Juliet. But it would do waaaay better at the box office.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST

    yiannis you dipshit - keeping the ending would not be hard

    by drturing

    first of all, a director like Snyder has way more input as the movie continues to get made than the scriptwriter by far. in fact, i very highly doubt the scriptwriter was on set every day. that just isn't how it works. directors today in hollywood- especially the ones of Snyder's ilk - get far more power than writers. after all its perceived that he and not the writers of 300 made that one a money machine. Likewise suits aren't all idiots - there are a lot of good people in Hollywood who know their shit well, like say, the people who gave Nolan free rein and support to make his Batman films.<p> The problem is this, as far as compromises go: there was a way to sell the ending of Watchmen as is to the suits. It's simple: "And then we have an ending which will be the most balls out talked about fucked up ending since Seven - we even hype it in the press by insisting that reviewers do not discuss it - and have people walking out of the theater in a total complete daze of confused emotions. It's an iconic ending, the kind that guarantees that twenty years from now people will say "remember that movie that ended with the squid invading earth and slaughtering an entire city"?<p> Which I recall is how David Fincher convinced the studio to retain the head in the box in Seven, by saying and fighting for pretty much the same thing.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Furthermore one thing about marketing this

    by drturing

    Having committed the whole hog to a rated R, faithful version of Watchmen in which a pregnant hooker gets shot, what's the point in even changing things? Snyder should've stuck to his guns and said this to the suits: "These characters are not icons in pop culture, but beloved by people across a spectrum, from comic readers to highbrow literary people. We have to commit absolutely to this story that they love, and that means retaining all the things we think are unusual and risky, because we're taking a huge risk as it is. And most importantly, this is one of those movies where we need the people who love the original to turn to their friends when the trailer plays and say "Oh mannnnnn you have to see this, the dark knight had nothing on this, and that looks perfect". We need that initial crowd to spread the hype for this R rated beast beyond what we'll be able to sell in a trailer, to have them say to their friends "get ready for the most uncompromising, original, deep superhero story ever told."<p> Instead what they have right now are, as I've overheard, nerds saying "it looks a lot like the comic, but i hear they changed all sorts of shit to make it hollywood, so i'll wait for DVD".

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Everybody has good points....but

    by Darth Macchio

    ...what I don't buy as logical conjecture is "how people will react" to either the squid or Manhattan. This is rank supposition and not fact. You cannot predict the entertainment-based reaction of people with any serious degree of accuracy; thus, using this 'prediction' as a reason for making changes doesn't hold much water in the empirical sense. It is why, as one example, many scientists call "social science" an oxy-moron. You guys bring up good points but using the imagined reaction of the audience is really reaching no matter how you slice it. Far better to speak of audience reaction in the merest general terms or just speak what you probably actually mean to say: YOU won't like it so it's likely no one else will too.<p>For those of you providing counter-point to the purists...why? Why argue so vehemently over *removing* the "squid" and thus having to significantly (if not dramatically) alter the climax of the story? No being facetious...just curious. Why do you *want* the ending changed?

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Have to agree with Darth Macchio

    by Coma Baby

    People who hate the squid and like the new ending should just say so (as some have) and not reject an idea because of the feelings of an imagined general moviegoer. That line of argument seems like similar reasoning to the box office shouters who tell you a film was good because of how much money it made and how many people went to see it. It's not your money, you're not the producer. Don't worry about what you imagine society will think of a movie, tell people what YOU think. I like the 5D psychic squid death because I think it's a cool and strange, somewhat convoluted idea that fits as a pulpy reference to comics, and is, if done right, unexpected and mind blowing - especially if there are few tiny hints along the way. I definitely understand there are those who like the GN and but don't like the end (for me it works). But, really, that's the story. I think people who genuinely don't like the squid, likely don't like the end of the GN and think it needs to be fixed. And OK, that's fair. If you like the GN and like the end, don't tell me you don't want to see it on the screen.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 1:14 p.m. CST

    And don't tell me the GN ending is unfilmable

    by Coma Baby

    Any director or cinematographer with enough creativity and vision can make it happen, with or without boatloads of money.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Philosophy and Doors

    by yiannis

    My first paragraph may well have been the truest thing ever written on AICN!<br><br>I have expressed my opinion in a logical and articulate manner, without ever trying to preach. I have conceded that such opinion is highly unlikely to change the minds of people whose minds don't want to be changed. I don't particularly "want" the ending changed (Darth Macchio!), however I accept that, in order to adapt ANY - repeat, ANY - work from another medium into cinema, changes HAVE to be made.<br><br>Yet some of you are STILL reusing the EXACT same arguments over and over and over again. Do you honestly think that, after giving a highly in depth analysis, referencing and quoting the original GN at all times, IN FAVOUR of the changes being made to the movie, that you are going to come along, say the same unsubstantiated opinions I've been reading for 6 months and SUDDENLY make me "see the light"? If I wasn't convinced the first time, why would I be convinced the 89th time?<br><br>At least one person tried to present a logical argument by quoting me and referring me back to elements of the GN...<br><br>... shame he totally missed the point of the passage he was quoting...<br><br>The simple fact of the matter is that NO work of literature will EVER be adapted EXACTLY as is onto the screen. This ONE change has generated a lot of controversy, because it affects some very distinctive imagery occuring during the climax of the film. I have tried to explain in very detailed terms exactly why I believe that this ending does NOT affect the plot of the ending, apparently without success.<br><br>If you REALLY cannot listen to reason, no matter how well it is articulated, and believe that saying the same things over and over again constitutes a valid argument, then I really can't be bothered with this peurile crap anymore.<br><br>I will go to the cinema in March and fully believe that I will thoroughly enjoy myself. If you are so intent on hating this movie that you refuse to like it no matter what, and if you are so set on the fact that changes can't be made to this great novel that no amount of reasoning can POSSIBLY convince you, I have only one thing to say...<br><br>Philosophy and doors...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Yiannis

    by sokitome

    awfully full of yourself. Your arrogance is your flaw. I read your point by point argument and it has one gigantic flaw. You ASSUME mainstream audiences cannot handle the original ending or other elements of the book. How do you know this? Are you fucking psychic? Human response to art is completely unpredictable or else we would be able to predict box office draw 100%. That's a big assumption. that is why alot of movies today are formulaic crap! The true achievements are when artists take risks, like casting Downey Jr. as Tony Stark instead of Tom Cruise. Artistic achievement is about taking risks. Star Wars never would have been greenlit by your logic. 8 ft. Wookies, little talking green samurai masters in space, or big black robot looking thing that breathes heavy. Star Wars was a huge success because it offered the audience something they have never seen before. Your argument is based on too many assumptions. Plus I don't think anyone on the board has successfully argued how Dr. Manhattan can replace the "we are not alone" concept I stated earlier. The shock of the ending is the point of the book. IF you don't agree with me talk to alan moore, I'm sure he'd agree. OH wait you think you know more than him, when is your latest book coming out? oh wait you don't have a book? That's a surprise.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 2:45 p.m. CST

    yiannis

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    "My first paragraph may well have been the truest thing ever written on AICN!"<BR><BR>To which paragraph do you refer?<BR><BR> "...in order to adapt ANY - repeat, ANY - work from another medium into cinema, changes HAVE to be made."<BR><BR>This argument is a classic straw man fallacy. Who is arguing that changes don't have to be made in a film adaptation? No one. The pro-squid argument is that the climax of the WATCHMEN film adaptation doesn't have to be changed beyond recognition (and--incidentally--arguably losing its original meaning in the process). And that's a reasonable expectation. <BR><BR> "Yet some of you are STILL reusing the EXACT same arguments over and over and over again."<BR><BR>Another fallacy--as if the anti-squiddites aren't reusing the same arguments for the changes themselves. <BR><BR> "The simple fact of the matter is that NO work of literature will EVER be adapted EXACTLY as is onto the screen."<BR><BR>Again with this tired, beat up old straw man, yiannis? *No one* is arguing that the film should be EXACTLY like the source material. How precisely are you getting the impression that anyone thinks this?<BR><BR>In fact, I myself am fine with any number of changes to the source material for both aesthetic and practical reasons. I'd even be ok with the "squid" being removed from the film IF it is replaced by a proxy that conveys a similar overall meaning (i.e., that an external, extraterrestrial threat changes the mass consciousness of the world and brings nations together at least temporarily). <BR><BR>I can't think offhand of any plot point in a WATCHMEN adaptation (imo) that could be considered a bigger change than replacing the story's overall meaning. Using the Doc M frame job in the "squid's" stead has plot and character ramifications that go all the way up to the beginning of the story. For instance, why would a Doc M frame job break Blake's mind? Why would he allow himself to be killed or blubber in Moloch's apartment? So much will need to be (not just removed but actually) rewritten to explain the new, "improved" climax. <BR><BR>"I have tried to explain in very detailed terms exactly why I believe that this ending does NOT affect the plot of the ending, apparently without success."<BR><BR>You actually have done a decent job stating your case (when not throwing out fallacious arguments), but I still think you're fundamentally mistaken and possibly misunderstand key elements regarding the overall story's meaning. It could be argued as a matter of interpretation however. <BR><BR> "If you REALLY cannot listen to reason, no matter how well it is articulated, and believe that saying the same things over and over again constitutes a valid argument, then I really can't be bothered with this peurile crap anymore."<BR><BR> I'm not certain why you continue to harp on this rather bizarre, fallacious argument (i.e., that pro-Squidders are using the same arguments over and over to make their own case). Please read a WATCHMEN TB or two carefully. You'll find that, sadly, your own arguments are anything but unique. And since when is originality and variance of thought a condition for making an argument? That line of thinking is simply perplexing (and unrealistic) to me. <BR><BR> "I will go to the cinema in March and fully believe that I will thoroughly enjoy myself."<BR><BR>Believe it or not, I'm going to be right there in March as well. I have huge reservations about the film considering the quintessential change that's been made to the story's meaning, but I do like a lot of what I've seen of the adaptation otherwise. I'm no WATCHMEN purist. If Snyder & Co pulls it off, I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong. <BR><BR>"If you are so intent on hating this movie that you refuse to like it no matter what, and if you are so set on the fact that changes can't be made to this great novel that no amount of reasoning can POSSIBLY convince you, I have only one thing to say... <BR><BR> Philosophy and doors..."<BR><BR>You're again putting words into the heads of your opposition. Sure, some folks are intent on "hating" the movie, but to my mind they have a good reason to at least be pretty pissed about the change to WATCHMEN's climax. Again, I hope you're right that the movie will be enjoyable (which, btw, you seem "intent" on believing yourself). <BR><BR>If you want to throw aside your straw dogs, yiannis, I'd be more than happy to engage you in a rational debate on this (or any other WATCHMEN related) matter. Honestly, I'm a little tired of the squid discussion at this point and would love to engage in a discussion about other adaptation elements we've seen. I'm personally very happy, for instance, that the Mars sequence is in more or less in its entirety as scripted originally in the comic. I always thought that sequence lent itself to film, and I look forward to seeing it.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 3:18 p.m. CST

    "Unfilmability" and Gigantic Blue glowing Men

    by G100

    Yeah, it's a massive puzzle yiannis. Why wouldn't anyone automatically bow down before your unassuming and humble manner and dismissal of those who's opinion differs from your own ?<p> <p>You could always try labelling them geeks and their views peurile while dismissing them because they won't come round to your point of view. That should do the trick.<p> <p>Have we heard alot of the arguments on both sides before ? Of course we have. Does that mean some of the arguments marshalled on both sides must be discarded because they have been aired before ? Nope. Some of the reasoning on both sides is solid enough but ultimately people will decide themselves and they will ONLY have the full benefit of comparing how both endings work after seeing the Movie.<p> <p>For myself I simply don't think Snyders alternative ending has as much impact, going from what we KNOW of it so far.<p> <p>One thing that cannot be denied is that the destruction, death and horror of the culmination of Ozymandias's plan in chapter 12 is not a minor detail. It's the "reveal" of the true scope and endgame of the conspiracy that has driven the plot of the comic up to that point.<p> <p>So it's clear that when it is changed it's not minor canon or the odd line of dialogue or costume re-imagining that has been altered. It's a big part and focal point of the comic.<p> <p>Now I've also heard the argument that Squiddy (the extradimensional telepathic horror) simply cannot be conveyed on the Big screen or that is somehow inherently "laughable" or far too "ridiculous" MANY times before.<p> <p>Certainly some things are far harder to convey on the page than on the screen but, speaking personally of course, I don't think Squiddy is unfilmable or ridiculous myself. Extremely difficult to get right without a doubt. But impossible to capture in the cinematic form ? No.<p> <p>It would require a scene of unparraleled horror and atmospherically it would have to be extremely carefully handled. Intercutting the horrific visual imagery from the psychic shockwave (which are described and are gruesome indeed)with the gradual revelation of the vast amount of bloody corpses in NY surrounding the first gigantic tentacled signs of squiddy, building to the climax of the main body of squiddy Teleported into the middle of a solid building, would be an extraordinary difficult scene filmically but impossible or inherently unfilmable ? Again IMO No.<p> <p>And here's where the Snyder version is goin to have problems. IMPACT. If his vehicle of death and destruction is a Gigantic exploding version of the Manhattan Teleport effect then you lose much of the impact and crucially HORROR of the original. BUT Snyder may be clever enough to counter this diminished shock by his handling of the full swathe of destruction and aftermath. I simply don't know that yet and only those who have seen the ending do at this point.<p> <p>But if doesn't show unparrallelled bloody horror and destruction in the culmination of Oztmandias's masterplan then he weakens all that has gone before and the REASON that two Superpowers would turn back from the brink of Apocalypse. So it's a case of how well he carries it off in the end.<p> <p>As for the point that an extradimensional Telepathic creature is ridiculous so would elicit the wrong response from the "average" cinema goer. Well, the fact of the matter is it dependant on how WELL it is revealed and realised, but we already have a 50 foot High Gigantic Blue glowing demi-god striding about Vietnam laying waste to all in is path so WITHIN the Movie and story it's not QUITE the unbridgeable conceptual leap for the audience some have tried to paint it.<p> <p>Moving onto Manhattan as the vehicle of destruction. For many people there is something about this "solution" that jars and feels wrong. Again much of it depends on how well Snyder manages to handle it but the idea itself has a couple of problems.<p> <p>Firstly all that has gone before (in the comic at least) has shown us that Manhattan and Osterman is PASSIVE. His is the tradgedy of inaction being swept along with the plans of others and being caught up in "fate".<p> <p>Now it's perfectly true that Ozy will have to frame Manhattan so it's not the Movie audience Snyder has to convince of Manhattans turn to evil. It's the public of the watchmen world that Ozy has to persuade that Manhattan has suddenly turned into a vengefull God (as it were) in the frame up. So it's not an insurmountable problem plotwise but it does at least feel wrong for many.<p> <p>It also loses one of the points of the comic which was in keeping with the whole narrative Moore and Gibbons constructed. That of having a comicbook alien "supervillain" (Starro for example) within the world as a counterpoint to Manhattan and completing their "realisation" of a true comicbook world.<p> <p>True, this will probably not matter so much to the "average" cinemagoer but it was a beautifull way of introducing a staple of the "superteam" comic into the story within the "reality" of the watchmen world that Moore and Gibbons created. So some will mourne that loss with cause.<p> <p>Finally I have said time and again that I will not be one of those who takes some kind of "fundamentalist" stance and refuse to see the Movie because of Snyders alternative ending. On paper at least, to me personally, I have deep reservations about it's effectiveness, and I am certainly not one of those who thought the comics ending was in some way "silly" or didn't work.<p> <p>But I'll wait and see how effective Snyders ending is. Because EVEN if it ultimately disappoints I could still enjoy all that goes before it if that is carried off with skill. (and there is a HUGE amount before the "reveal" that is brilliant remember)<p> <p>The Dark Knight for example, seemed to me at least, to lose a great deal of it's previous narrative drive and power in how it was resolved at the end of the Movie but I still thoroughly enjoyed the Movie.<p> <p>Some would like to paint differing viewpoints that are in evidence as black and white.(hurrrrm) Comic book "geek" versus Snyder "apologist". But it's not that simple. There are some who take an extreme view and some who defend their point of view with more force than others and some who will "listen to reason" and some who are frankly clearly bored with the whole debate.<p> <p>All I can say is I'm not going to fully judge until I have seen the ENTIRE Movie and if the Movie turns out to be better or worse than it could be, ultimately I STILL have the comic so, for me at least, nothing will be lost.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST

    G100

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    A fair and well rendered, logical response, my friend.<BR><BR>And I agree that I may well derive enjoyment out of the film even in the likely event that I loathe the filmmakers' major change to the story's plot--and meaning. <BR><BR>Interestingly, the couple of clips we've seen from the trailers of Laurie and Jon transporting into NYC's devastation look... really hokey and cliche to me--a typical post-apocalyptic devastation set. One of the most unexpected and HORRIFIC things about the mass death revealed in CHAPTER 12 is that it IS so bloody and grotesque with the huge, dead Lovecraftian Thing in the background. Nobody expects that, and that's a GOOD thing. It's upsetting in a truly outre way. And it's a neutron-bomb like tragedy--buildings are, aside from squiddy's landing spot--untouched.<BR><BR>Which reminds me: one of the practical problems with Snyder & Co's solution is that blowing up (literally--buildings and all) a number of great city's like NYC would be *absolutely devastating* to the global economy and would produce worldwide panic. Squiddy in Manhattan is localized--the vast majority of the world unaffected, and even the basic infrastructure of Manhattan itself ready to be repopulated.<BR><BR>And dear god--how many times do we have to see "nuclearish" explosions destroying great city buildings? YAAAAAAWN.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4 p.m. CST

    Quite correct Le Vicious Fishus

    by G100

    And I thank you for also making your points clearly and rationally.<p> <p>Yep, we see the Very Beginning of the "Teleport Bomb" and Jon and Laurie Teleoporting in to what APPEARS to be a standard ruined cityscape, but I'll give Snyder the benefit of the doubt here, he COULD have a great deal in between the beginning and end as well as the full scope of the vista and aftermath which Jon and Laurie look upon to counter a standard "Big Bomb in a City" ending.<p> <p>We also see a beautiful rendition of a Nuclear Bomb in the Dan dream sequence so Snyders also set himself up to compete against that visually.<p> <p>We'll see in the fullness of time of course but I think, even putting Squiddy to one side, Snyder HAS to knock that destruction of NY out of the park just within the confines of his vision of the Movie. I actually quite like the beginning of the Teleport which breaks a few windows with the expanding ring Teleport effect. But that to me would still be there even with the original ending as Squiddy IS Teleported in by Ozy using Technology based on Jon's work.<p> <p>And to be fair there is SOME physical destruction from Squiddy when he Teleports in, just nowhere near the devastation of a Gigantic Bomb or Nuclear device.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:15 p.m. CST

    G100

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    I just love the VISCERAL nature of Chapter 12's ultimate reveal. We're not seeing the heavy handed and typical scorched earth scene in which corpses (if still intact) are burned beyond recognition. It's a real EC bloodbath. From what I can see of the blasted Manhattan in the trailer, it looks like we can look forward to a typical blasted cityscape. I agree that Snyder has a hefty job of making the Doc M destruction more impressive than the GORGEOUS nuke dream sequence you mentioned (and it's tidbits like that which make me excited about the film despite my substantial problems with the changed climax).<BR><BR>It's interesting that so many readers have revealed in the TBs that the Lovecraftian horror's appearance jarred them out of an otherwise engrossing story. I had a very different reaction. The moment I turned to the first splash pages of Chapter 12 (way back in '89), I literally fell out of my bed in astonishment and--yes--horror. I'd never seen a moment so bold and original accomplished so well in ANY kind of literature, let alone in a comic book! <BR><BR>But, then, I'm a longtime Lovecraft fan, so it was all right up my alley...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Lovecraftian...?

    by rutgersjaffo

    Maybe the use of that particularly apt comparison explains all. Most folks you will run into--and not just Americans either--have not taken the time to read H.P.'s masterpieces. Those of us who have instantly got the nod in Watchmen to The Dark Ones and Cthulu via Moore's use of an extra-dimensional being of bizarre appearance to mindfuck New York. But to the vast majority of audience members who will see this film, there is no doubt that the reference would have been lost and the squid may have appeared just plain silly to them. If that's the biggest thing that has to be dumbed down to make this happen, I guess I'll have to live with it. As was already said...I will ALWAYS be able to read the GN at my whim.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:40 p.m. CST

    rutgersjaffo

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    I see your point, but I don't see the idea that such a Thing happening would make our world feel at once smaller and more unified. Any alien attack would do--but making the alien completely oblivious and malignant at the same time put icing on the cake for me.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 6:22 p.m. CST

    My last post did not make sense.

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Forget.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 6:24 p.m. CST

    The Squid is the Sexiest Tomboy Beanpole...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    on the Planet.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 7:02 p.m. CST

    I think many watchmen fans are familiar with Lovecraft

    by G100

    Not ALL of course, but generalisation or not, I've seen it brought up enough times to see it's certainly a connection that many have.<p> <p>which brings me to an interesting point. (perhaps ;-))<p> <p>IF the Mountains of Madness was indeed made into a Movie it would face a similar problem to Watchmen.<p> <p>Namely, how do you make the pursuing "horror" Old ones or that which Danforth glimpsed and drove him over the edge visible for the big screen ?<p> <p>Sure, the barrel shaped monstrosities are well described and with skill could be transfered from the page to the screen much like the cyclopean, alien architecture could. But the horror of the old ones is so not well definied in physical or anatomical terms and you need to see "something" in a Movie even if it is glimpses of an accumulation of the elements described therein.<p> <p>Would the studio say change the ending ? Would there be an acceptance that the ending had to be changed lest the old ones be made "ridiculous" ? Who can say.<p> <p>But rendering visible and "realistic" the horrors and Alien creatures and vistas from Literature and Comics is not a new problem and will always be with us I suspect. Some will be more successfull than others in accomplishing it but it should usually IMO be tried.

  • Oh, there's no real "evidence" for it, but it is a scientific FACT! ;-)

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Le Vicious Fishus

    by yiannis

    Excellent post!<br><br>I was a little worried, considering the frankly obscene insults I've seen levelled against perfectly valid points in the past, about what sort of response my post might provoke. I think there are FAR to many examples on this board of people forming their opinions FIRST and THEN looking for the facts and rationale to back it up. Under such circumstances, it can sometimes be easy to make generalised statements that tar innocent people with the same brush.<br><br>You are clearly not in that mould and I wholeheartedly apologise if you have taken any offence at my comments. I likewise am more than happy to enter into any debate with you, including this one. After all, that's why I come on the boards and I hope I'm not assuming too much if I say I think that's why you do as well.<br><br>First of all, the "first paragraph" I mentioned was that from the post "The Ending, Haters and Blaming Zak", which was:<br><br>"I think most people on this talkback should just give up. Trying to change a geek's mind on something is like trying to discuss philosophy with a door. It just ain't gonna happen! So all the pro-squid, pro-Moore, must-be-exactly-like-the-book crowd aren't gonna change the minds of the open-to-change, think-new-ending-will-work crowd and vice versa. Both sides have used every type of argument going, from playground insults to incisive dissertations, without success. Give it a break, guys!"<br><br>I hope the tongue-in-cheek intent behind that comment is clear. I am honestly not advocating ceasing debate, however the level of debate is not always as high as you seem to want to engage in. Nor am I saying that the purpose of debate is to change opinions. However, many people on these boards are trying to use it for that purpose. I may sometimes be guilty of that myself, but most often I try to make a reasonable argument for my side of the case and only refer to others if they have made points I consider obviously NOT valid. My attack on the person who did not understand Alexander the Great, nor how he was used and referenced in Veidt's story, is a case in point.<br><br>My overriding point about Watchmen and the squid ending can be simply summarised as follows:<br><br>The ending of the novel is a great ending. However, when I talk about the ending, I don't mean the images portrayed on the page, or even the words of Veidt's reveal-all monologue (however beautifully it might be written), but the themes that bind that ending together.<br><br>The world of Watchmen, to me (some might argue otherwise), is in a state of constant Cold War and this is primarily due to the presence of Dr. Manhattan. Veidt knows this and knows that the suspicion and unease that Jon creates (at least outside of America) will mean that the world can never be united, except in fear of annihilation.<br><br>However, simply removing Jon is not the answer (which is why the whole Jon-goes-back-in-time ending was so ridiculous), as it can - and DOES - lead to a new escalation in aggression, particularly against an America now shorn of its unstoppable weapon.<br><br>In order to bring about the world peace and unity he craves, Veidt must obviously get rid of Jon permanently, which is the part of his plan that very nearly fails. He tries enforced exile, only for Laurie to foil him, then tries destruction without success. In the end, it is Jon's choice that makes this part of the plan work.<br><br>The second part of Veidt's plan is to shock the world into unity. Many peope have claimed that this is brought about by "alien invasion" which I dispute. I thought that once, but numerous posters have reminded me that the appearance of the squid is set up as an accident at Veidt's laboratory. You cannot create unity through fear of invasion, as fear is not the path to the utopia of Veidt's dreams. In fact, it is precisely why Alexander the Great failed. His unity was brought about through military power and would only last as long as Alexander's armies lasted.<br><br>No, the unity Veidt craves must be brought about through compassion, through the realisation that human life is fragile and that war is ultimately futile. For me, the psychic element is far more important than anything "extraterrestrial", as this implants the image of a horrific disaster in the minds of virtally the whole planet. The squid is not an alien invasion, it is a global disaster.<br><br>The significant problem with the "Jon" ending - at least as far as I can tell from the few details released so far - is that the actions that Veidt blames on Jon can clearly be interpreted as an "attack", bypassing the disaster angle so important to the squid. However, my opinion of how this MIGHT work - how I hope it WILL work - is that Jon is the ultimate weapon of war. Created (albeit accidentally) by technology the primary purpose of which is war and held up by America as their most potent weapon. The fact that this "ultimate weapon" subsequently turns against ALL of humanity is a very anti-war statement, as if all the nukes on the planet suddenly developed sentience and fired themselves straight at the nearest targets, irrespective of political alignment.<br><br>the balance of this is very delicate and is seriously "execution dependent". It sounds perfectly fine when typed in a talkback, but the real trick will be how this angle plays out in terms of dialogue, character reactions and visuals. We will not know this until we see the film.<br><br>The obvious reaction to this is "so why not just use the squid?". However, my problem with use of the squid is that it necessitates introducing the notion of psychics, for without them there can be no psychic blast. In literature and comics, this idea can be introduced fairly easily, but in cinema how exactly do you introduce psychics?<br><br>I have actually been working on a serious film script about psychics for a number of years now and have found it very difficult. How do their brains process information? What powers exactly do they have? How do their powers work? These are difficult enough problems when you have an entire movie's running times to figure them out. When you are dealing with the final 20-30 minutes of a movie, when the film needs to be continuously building up momentum towards its climax, how exactly do you suddenly introduce a new concept that big, that poses so many questions in the mind of the audience?<br><br>Furthermore, how do you base a significant aspect of the conclusion of your film on information that is not available to the audience anywhere else in the movie's running time? People might talk about some of the great twist endings in films past, such as Fight Club. To use that film as an example, though, the hint that Ed Norton is insane is definitely there all throughout the film. The Sixth Sense is another, so imagine if that film didn't even HINT at the existence of ghosts until the final 20 minutes?<br><br>Also, how do you convey on screen a global disaster that is ONLY happening in people's heads?<br><br>I don't necessarily say that the change to the ending is for the better. In fact, it has a lot of work to do in order to prove that the themes of the ending - even just in my eyes - are being fulfilled. However, I understand WHY the changes have been made and, in the same position myself, I would probably do the same.<br><br>There HAS to be destruction on a massive scale at the end of the film.<br><br>This destruction HAS to be masterminded by Adrian Veidt in order to unite the world.<br><br>Jon HAS to choose, or his own accord, to leave all us stupid humans to our own devices.<br><br>Dan and Laurie HAVE to choose world peace over bringing Veidt to justice and leave to seek happiness together.<br><br>Rorsharch HAS to die rather than compromise (Never, even in the face of Armageddon).<br><br>Rorsharch's journal HAS to be sent to New Frontiersman at the end.<br><br>It has already been confirmed that the last of these six points IS intact in the movie. As far as I am concerned, if the other five points I have listed are intact in the movie, I will leave the theater thinking to myself "I've just seen Watchmen!". If these points are NOT present, then I will leave the theater thinking "I've just watched a pile of shit pretending to be Watchmen!" and all the pretty pictures in the world won't change that.<br><br>We won't find out the answers to that until March...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:12 p.m. CST

    G100

    by yiannis

    Also a very good post! Sadly you aren't going to get quite as long a reply as Le Vicious Fishus did. Sorry, but I just don't have it in me a second time!!<br><br>Again you make valid points and your opinion is reasoned, educated and backed up with fact. It should be clear from that that my various "peurile" tags were not meant to be applied to someone such as yourself. For that reason I am a little stung with your sarcasm at the start of the post, although it is fair to say that, if you thought that I was directing such comments at you JUST because your opinion differs from mine, such sarcasm was justified.<br><br>I agree with you that Lovecraftian beasties are difficult but not impossible to depict on screen. Certainly I feel that Mountains of Madness is in the right hands with Del Toro.<br><br>My issue with the use of one in Watchmen is NOT whether people will buy it, as it would have to be clearly shown that it wasn't actually REAL - therefore not disrupting the "logic" of the world.<br><br>Again, my issue ALL goes back to the use of psychics and how they are introduced. When reading Watchmen, it took me 2-3 reads to fully appreciate that the destruction of the squid was more psychic than physical, because this whole aspect was dealt with very subtly, established without reasons or background and left largely to the reader to fill in the full horror with images in their own mind.<br><br>This approach CAN work in a movie, but my belief is that it WOULDN'T work in a large-budget movie that is relying on a large part of its audience being unfamiliar with the source novel. Perhaps I am giving the movie-going public too little credit, but more often than not in life I'd rather be a cynic pleasantly surprised than an optimist bitterly disappointed.<br><br>Maybe I'm making too much of the whole psychic angle, but I don't believe so, as it is so much a part of the devestation caused. Maybe I am also projecting my failures as a budding screenwriter onto this project due to trying to use similar notions in my script, but again I don't buy that, as any movie dealing with psychics has to contend with pretty much the same problems, except I have 120 minutes and Watchmen would only have 20. In my mind, introducing psychics into a movie EXCLUSIVELY at the climax is counter-productive storytelling and relies too heavily on the audience being willing to make a leap of faith with you, something I believe to be a gamble best avoided if at all possible.<br><br>I believe that the alternative put forward (which again is NOT Snyder's idea and was already in the script by all accounts when he came on board) CAN work and hope it WILL, but again we will not find that out until March. Perhaps I am optimistic where you are pessimistic when it comes to this film, but in reality that's an absurd oversimplification. We both want the best film possible and we will get the best film that THIS GROUP of filmmakers could make.<br><br>And after all, what would you rather see?<br><br>Period setting, Veidt victorious, world peace achieved, Rorsharch dead, Dan and Laurie in love, Jon gone to the stars, journal delivered and NO SQUID?<br><br>Or a modern day film with Veidt dead, Rorcharch alive, no journal, Jon going back in time to stop himself from being created, no world peace, Ah-nuld cast as Jon and STILL NO SQUID?<br><br>It was only a short while ago that the second option was almost a reality. Perhaps giving thanks for what we DO have will be more appropriate come March, whatever we get, than lamenting what might have been...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Excellent post right back...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    I have no time to respond in turn, but those are provoking thoughts indeed. Personally, I see the alien *not-necessarily*-invasion as being of paramount importance to WATCHMEN's climax. <BR><BR>As you correctly stated, the Jon-frame up job necessitates the world somehow buying that Doc M is not simply an American tool (which he clearly has been for decades of his own accord). The Jon incident would--at best--lead the peoples of the world to lay down their arms to come together against a common foe: Doc M. And I don't buy that even this would occur. The peace--if the Soviets didn't push the button assuming that an attack by Jon was an attack by America--would be a brief, sullen one. At any rate, it would be a terrible gamble which at best would propel the world into another cold peace, war held back by fear of an angry god figure.<BR><BR>You're also absolutely right as well that fear is not enough to hold the world together. There needs to be a true epiphany--a new awakening: in this case the knowledge that we are not alone as sentient beings in the universe and not even all that important in the bif scheme of things. If something as alien and horribly non-anthropomorphic were to zap into our reality, destroying millions by its mere dying presence, the world *would* come together--and not just out of fear (which would certainly be present) but with a new sense of kinship as *human beings* with each other. <BR><BR>Honestly, I don't think the psychic blast would even be necessary in the film as long as the world bought that half of NYC was literally taken out by the accidental transportation of an extra-dimensional creature to our dimension. That stated, psychics and psychic powers are so well known as an element in contemporary media of all sorts, I don't think it would be a hard sell (especially not with Doc M present). Remember that even in WATCHMEN itself, Veidt almost off-handedly makes the remark about sensitives and the psychic element of the squid's brain.<BR><BR>The biggest problem I've had with the whole squid concept is the problem of human DNA being found in the squid. That would need to be addressed in the film.<BR><BR>At any rate--again--I hope you're right that Snyder & Co can replicate the meaning of the story's original (and--to my mind--staggering) climax through the squid-proxy. <BR><BR>The original ending (or some variation thereof) would work best to my mind, but I will go into the movie with an open mind regardless.<BR><BR>I COMPLETELY agree that the six points you cited are of utmost importance to the film's integrity. I know one script draft had Dreiberg personally bringing Veidt to justice (which would be OUTRAGEOUS and completely absurd as Veidt outclasses Dreiberg in every sense). I was a little concerned since the same draft had the Doc M frame job in it (as well as Dreiberg witnessing Rorschach's death (which we know is in from the clips).<BR><BR>I am very much looking forward to March.<BR><BR>Hey, that reminds me: have you and G100 (I think we're the last three here) seen any of the 30 minute or so long chapters from WATCHMEN produced with pseudo-animation, a score, sound effects and one talented audiobook actor? They're available from iTunes and are VERY good (if you can get over the male actor voicing the female parts which I have no problem with personally). Watching them reminds me how cinematic the frames in WATCHMEN are! It really is like the best storyboard EVER. If this were a miniseries or a trilogy of movies this could be filmed and cut in its entirety easily at under six hours. And it could work beautifully. <BR><BR>That stated, I know that ain't gonna happen and changes must be made in a film that is less than half as long as an unedited version would need to be. Damn--wrote more than I thought I would!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:42 p.m. CST

    G100 - madness depicted

    by drturing

    A girlfriend of mine once wandered into the room while I was watching the movie End of Evangelion. She was raised Catholic and as the movie went full tilt into sci fi apocalypse eschatology with crucified genetically engineered monsters causing people's souls to melt into puddles it made her bawl. She said the imagery alone felt like some kind of violation of sacred ideas.<p> I've also seen Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain and El Topo incite nearly hallucinatory fugue states in people.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Yes indeed the psychic angle is crucial

    by G100

    As Fishus has pointed out and you have rightly restated the carnage and death is not primarily physical but Psychic.<p> <p>But not to belittle this fact it is the brain of one psychic that is used in the cloning procedure and then amplified through Veidts genius to the resulting death throes shockwave.<p. <p>Is that unfilmable ? I would still have to say no. But certainly concede that it would take great skill to make it work effectively.<p> <p>The transition from Blue Teleport light blast to aftermath carnage is, in the comic at least instantaneous, and left to the reader to conjure up the psychic images described.<p> <p>However in a Movie the transition from the beginning of the Teleport to the creatures death throes need not be so quick.<p> <p>It could be a more gradual process whereafter the initial blue light and Teleport effect there is an eerie period of semidarkness where the creature forms and we begin to see the outlines of the tentacles. And simultaneously we would see, perhaps from a bystander POV, this "fade in" of the creature accompanied by a stream of at first poorly defined images of horror (described in the comic)that grew in srength as the creature became more "substantial and real.<p> <p>This POV could be repeated quickly from person to person as the images of horror emananated more and more powerfully from the still resolving centre of the creaure. And as the images strengthen more of the bystanders would die as well as "seeing" the stream of images (which I concede would require a special effect to warp the images from the centre of the creature into the surrounding populace joining hundreds then thousands in "ribbons" of images or even tentacles of images ;-)) And as we pulled back further and further and the images became clearer (though they would by necessity by fast yet horrific enough for the audience to grasp) we would begin to see the full extent of squiddy seen still dimly but ever more clearly through a "smoky haze" of the images of horror, a bloody ever increasing number of corpses accompanied by the incredible the chaotic sounds of both. And I'd add an overlay of Alien sounding death cry from squiddys beak as it's "reality" solidifies into the surrounding building and NY streets. eventually leaving a deathly calm and a transition to black then... (I would guess) Jon and Laurie Teleporting in and we see the aftermath in all it's bloody insanity from their POV.<p> <p>To be honest I can "see" this scene in my mind far more clearly than I can describe it. But it's not impossible and using flashed imagery to convey psycich ability need not be quite so hokey as it sounds or sometimes is. Particularly with the incredible array of transition and distorting and special effects that can be applied to images these days. It would take, in a word, artistry to make such a scene possible.<p> <p>But they key thing is the horror as that always counterbalances the incongruous appearance of a trandimensional creature Teleporting into the centre of New York.<p> <p>You make other good points which deserve addressing yiannis though I will briefly add that, in my opinion at least it is FEAR that Ozy uses as the uniter. (and Moore does indeed pay homage to "The Architects of Fear" who's plot it has much in common with.)

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Fishus (but also last part to G100)

    by yiannis

    Again very good points. We are not really as far apart in our opinions of this as we BOTH might perhaps have thought.<br><br>Your points about the Jon ending bringing in a 2nd Cold War are a serious danger and obviously one that must be avoided. I would defnitely say that this cannot be achieved if Jon is still around, however Jon MUSTN'T be around anyway - 1 of my six points! Therefore my gut instinct tells me that, in order for the Jon ending to work, he must not only be framed but made to appear as though he has left for good. This can potentially give humanity its epiphany as a "what if?" moment: humanity created Jon, humaniy thought they could control Jon and humanity was very nearly wiped out by Jon. If the world leaders in the film were perceived to take this message on board with regards to ALL WMDs, then I believe the same result is achieved.<br><br>You are also right that psychics are well known in popular fiction, but then so are werewolves. You couldn't have a werewolf pop up in, say, Spiderman, just as you couldn't have a robot pop up in Dracula (at least a faithful period adaptation), although you COULD have them the other way round. This is because the PARTICULAR fantasy worlds in which these stories are set do not allow for ALL types of fantasy. The Watchmen universe does not specifically preclude the notion of any particular type of fantasy, but my take on it has always been as an alternative but essentially mundane and realistic world, with the SOLE exception of Jon - precisely why he is so exceptional. Moore clearly thought psychics were not a stretch, possibly because psychics are one of the more scientifically accepted forms of fantasy. I personally agree, but not everyone would by a long stretch. Again this creates a problem with audience perception, which, if it CAN be avoided, SHOULD be avoided.<br><br>To be honest, I had forgotten the whole "human DNA" bit, or at least the ramifications of it. However, in comparison to everything else we've been discussing, I think this is a very minor problem. If you can solve the rest of the problems inherent in the squid, this is small fry (yes, I know! bad pun!). The filmmakers obviously believe they can't solve the other problems, so this is probably a moot point. I doubt very much if it was the deal-breaker in the "to squid or not to squid" discussions amoung the filmmakers.<br><br>I have not seen the animation you describe, but it sounds interesting. I've never really used ITunes before, but my understanding is that it is a pay service only. If that's the case, it'll be a while before I can afford it as I am literally penniless right now. I'll bear it in mind for the future though...<br><br>Nice to see you are also aware of the TRAVESTY of a script that existed in previous incarnations. Are you also aware of the Time-travelling-Doc script I mentioned to G100, which I believe is a re-write of that one (or perhaps the other way round)? An even worse travesty, at least at the end...<br><br>To both of you, it's a shame we've only managed to have this debate just as the talkback as a whole is dying down. To me this is why I come to talkback and I am so VERY frequently disappointed with what is on offer here. Too many damn 13 year olds spouting nonsense and good posts get lost in the mix or flamed to oblivion. Unfortunately, this is true on almost every message board, irrespective of topic. The sports boards I frequent have the same issue.<br><br>However, we can still continue this debate and I sincerely hope you both do, as it is not exactly a hardship to track down older articles.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Good discussion

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Really these kinds of TB conversations are typically only possible when the fires have died down. As you rightly stated, the thirteen year olds (and--even more frequent I believe) the thirteen year olds in maturity are all gone now.<BR><BR>That stated, it's sometimes fun to throw shit with a roomful of monkeys (and I certainly have been guilty of that embarrassing pleasure). But it is short-lived. I like good, mature discussions of this nature much better!<BR><BR>I suppose I should thank the powers that be that one of the earlier drafts wasn't used. The Doc M back through time draft I had heard of, but I never really got an explanation as to what craziness ensues. Can you give a brief synopsis? <BR><BR>Yes, the human DNA problem isn't a big deal, though it has bothered me in the course of the story itself for years. Talk about leaving the evidence at the scene of the crime! That squid's body would be pored over more than any corpse in history! Moore should've made it dissolve into untraceable substances or something of that nature. Even geniuses make mistakes...<BR><BR>The Chapters (each running nearly 30 minutes a piece) cost $1.50US each. Not bad. I watched the first one for free a while back, and just paid for Chapter 2 tonight. The art is from the Gibbons' source material (complete with word balloons), but it all moves with a kind of slight to moderate animation. An eerie effect, but GOOD!<BR><BR>Regarding psychics: I would argue that psychic powers show up in sci-fi (e.g., Babylon 5, SCANNERS) a good bit in contemporary times--at least as much as in fantasy these days. I agree that it is the one stretch in the story aside from Doc M, but Moore so skillfully and casually throws it in that the readers take it for granted that it exists in the world of WATCHMEN.<BR><BR>Carry on, my good folks!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:13 p.m. CST

    G100

    by yiannis

    Sory, but I don't quite understand what you are getting at with your post. Perhaps you could expand your answer a little.<br><br>Are you saying that having only one psychic would lessen the impact of introducing psychic abilities as a whole into the movie? If so, I don't really buy that, as surely all the same questions would still be in everyone's mind, except now they would have yet another question: why is there only one?<br><br>Or are you saying that the real key is Veidt's genius in applying this technology? If so I agree with you wholeheartedly that Veidt's genius IS essential, but that applies no matter what the ending of the movie is. Veidt's masterplan must be so good that the audience believes that only the smartest man on the planet could have thought it up. Whether the movie pulls this off remains to be seen, but it still does not address the problem with introducing psychics (damn! I really am making too much out of this!)<br><br>Or have I missed the point entirely?<br><br>Please let me know. I don't know where you guys are in the world (would guess America based on the usual sorts of times you post), but where I am it is silly o'clock in the morning so I'm off to bed. I'll catch any replies, new posts or sleep-deprived ramblings tomorrow.<br><br>TTFN

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Damn it Fishus! I need sleep!

    by yiannis

    I'll get back to you on the rest of your points tomorrow, but that script was available in PDF on the internet. Type in "Watchmen Sam Hamm Script" on Google and go to the scifiscripts.com link to view it.<br><br>I can't really give you a synopsis as I didn't read all of it. I just skipped to the end and almost spat out my lungs in disgust!<br><br>Maybe this could be a little bit of fun for all of us. Read this script in its entirety, then spend a pleasant afternoon/evening in the next few days ripping it to shreds in talkback...<br><br>Now, sleeeeeeeeep!!!!!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:20 p.m. CST

    GODDAMITT! I lost 90% of my post there >:(

    by G100

    Fucking Internets! Right I'll try again.<p> <p>I think it could be done and here's what I "see".<p> <p>Firstly in the comic the transition from initial Blue Teleport effect blinding light to the aftermath is instantaneous and it is the reader who is left to "fill in" the time gap with the described imagery.<p> <p>But in a Movie that process, as I see it, would be gradual with the blinding Blue shockwave being replaced by a dark "twighlight" in which we begin to see the tentacles of squiddy slowly materialise while at the same time images also begin to form and appear more and more substantial.<p> <p>Perhaps we would jump from the POV of one bystander then the next along with a broader view of the emerging chaos.<p> <p>The images (as described in the comic) would appear to emanate from the still unresolved dark centre of squiddy but these images would warp our vision of the still materialising squiddy and the increasing number of bloody coorpses the images had struck.<p> <p>We would see the images (through a special effect of some kind admittedly) speed into steady translucent "ribbons" (or possibly tentacles ;-)) emanating from Squiddy into hundreds then thousands of the bystanders as more and more of them dropped dead as the ribbons touched their heads.<p> <p>This would culminate with squiddy almost totally "soldifying" into the building and the surrounding streets seen more and more clearly through the smoky haze of the corpses and images. All accompanied by a crescendo of chaotic sound from the images themselves, the surrounding dying populace and an increasingly loud overlay of an alien scream from the beak of squiddy.<p> <p>As we reached the peak and squiddy was almost completely solid we would then go to black and an awful silence.<p> <p>Then we would switch to Jon and Laurie Teleporting in and we would see from their POV the resultant horrific aftermath.<p> <p>Actually I can "see" this scene in my head far easier than I can describe it to be honest and it's only how I see it as it were.<p> <p>Anyway the important thing is the HORROR as that counterbalances the incongrous appearance of a transdimensional creature Teleporting in to a solid New York and dying in the process.<p> <p>drturing, well said indeed. Those three are excellent examples of how to do depict the incredible and insane but are perhaps a touch too esoteric for a Blockbuster to depict (as yet) ;-)

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Ialso lost the point I was coming to about Psychics

    by G100

    And it was indeed both the things you mentioned yiannis.<p> <p>Simply that Veidt through his Genius found the most powerfull latent psychic on the planet and "ampified" it's dead brain with technology.<p> <p>But remember the populace at large in the watchmen world doesn't think it was a human (and it wasn't) that had these incredible Telepathic powers but a transdimensional malignant alien creature.<p> <p>It introduces nightmares into "sensitives" for decades to come so the world of watchmen, again just IMO, isn't REALLY saying there are full blown psychics walking about the streets, just that Ozy found the most powerfully "latent" human example and boosted it to incredible levels with technology.<p> <p>And again a World which sees Manhattan Teleporting about the place, messing with the molecular structure of things, wouldn't be quite so incredulous of a psychic creature or even suddenly appearing in their midst.<p> <p>Indeed our world has a surprising amount of people who seem quite convinced psychic abilities are real.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Let's hear what Allan Moore thinks on the subject.

    by kirttrik

    Don't need the squid...yeah right. If it's still alien, but no squid...fine. But if it's Doc Manhattan... the film fails.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 7:25 a.m. CST

    G100

    by yiannis

    Good points again. I especially like your visual description of the squid's arrival. Pretty much as I would have envisioned it. I also think you're right on the money by saying a lot of people accept psychics as I'm one of them. At least, I frmly believe that the human brain is capable of greater things than it is normally used for (the whole 10% argument).<br><br>My whole approach to this has not been that I don't want to see the squid on screen or that I don't think the ending works. It has been more a case of saying to myself "Ok. These filmmakers have decided not to include the squid. What could their reasons be?"<br><br>In the end, I imagine we're all going to have to wait for the Special Edition DVD to find that out for certain (a fair assumption that the subject will be covered in some documentary or other), but for now it's fun to speculate and my feeling is that the decision was primarily motivated by storytelling requirements.<br><br>All the questions I posed about psychics (and a fair few I didn't) might not necessarily come to the mind of EVERY viewer when watching the original ending on screen, but I bet they came to the filmmakers. It would seem a fair assumption on their part that if they are asking these questions, a fair amount of their audience might as well. I would consider these to be "unwanted" questions in the mind of the viewer. There are normally questions that you DO want the viewer to be asking themselves, especially in a film whose themes are as deep and resonant as Watchmen's, so you want the audience to have THOSE questions on their mind, rather than asking things that really don't have any bearing on the film's themes. Again, if you can avoid this problem, avoid it.<br><br>The second problem to me would be one of audience perception. These talkbacks are a wonderful way of demonstrating all the various ways that the squid has been interpreted, even among multiple time readers of the GN. Alien invasion vs Disaster, Psychic Damage vs Physical Damage, World uniting in defence vs World uniting in compassion. The ending provokes debate, but ALSO misunderstanding, even among intelligent "geeks". As protective as we might be of our sacred cows, not everyone who watches this film will be a geek and not everyone who watches this film will be intelligent. The potential for misunderstanding when viewing these events for the first time on screen will be even greater. In particular, any misunderstanding would have a real danger of detracting from the notion that ALL of this is Veidt's masterplan to bring about world peace, which must resonate as clearly as possible. Sure, it might be easy for some people to say "So what if they don't get it? Fuck 'em!", but that is not a responsible attitute for the filmmakers to take. It is their responsibility to ensure that the ending is as clear as possible to the ENTIRE audience, not just the geeks who know and love the GN, and that the real themes of the movie carry through.<br><br>This need for clear and elegant storytelling is obviously best solved, in the minds of the filmmakers, with the Jon ending. You don't have the added burden of explaining a brand new creature, much less explaining that said creature is not actually REAL but a man-made genetic anomaly of latent psychic DNA created by a brand new group of characters you would otherwise not need to include in the film. You also don't have to explain complicated notions of psychic damage felt across the world, as the destructive power of Jon will at this point have been hammered home again and again - you can just SHOW the damage. All you need to explain is the most important point of all, the point that outweighs ALL others - Veidt's masterplan. Considering all of this explanation can only ever occur in Veidt's monologue (he is the only character who could POSSIBLY explain it to the audience), it places far less burden on this scene to only have to explain ONE important, complicated point rather than THREE.<br><br>I nearly forgot that you would still have to explain Veidt reverse engineering technology based on Jon's power, but you would still have to do that anyway in the squid ending (teleportaton), so make that TWO things instead of FOUR.<br><br>This would still leave the debate as to whether the plan WOULD actually unite the world, however my opinion is that that debate is one you WANT the audience to be having as they walk out of the cinema. Some GN lovers will inevitably hold this debate on a GN vs film level (which plan worked better), but a lot of "virgin" moviegoers (and some GN readers) will be able to debate this purely on the merits of the film itself. This is a good debate to have.<br><br>... and, I would argue, ultimately pointless!<br><br>The journal is the key. Some people read more into it, some less, but for me the journal represents Veidt's grand plan FAILING due to the truth getting out. Let's face it, if it was even SUGGESTED to the world that an American hero in Veidt was behind these attacks, no matter how reputable - or otherwise - the source, the suspicion and accusation this would provoke would quickly undo any unity that had been built. In the end, the real victor is NOT Veidt, it's Rorsharch!<br><br>This is what has always struck me as amusing about the whole squid debate. The squid is a tool with which Veidt carries out his plan, not THE plan itself as some have erroneously said, therefore people are arguing over the exclusion of a TOOL used to carry out a plan than FAILS ANYWAY!!<br><br>This to me is one of the darkest and most downbeat endings in history, saying that EVEN IF one perfect human being managed to bring about world peace, there would be a psycho waiting round the corner to destroy it. Heavy stuff indeed on the human condition! THIS, to me, is what Watchmen is ultimately all about, not some damn calamari! We as a race simply aren't ABLE to achieve peace with ourselves, because peace is a COMPROMISE and some of us...<br><br>"Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon!"<br><br>This is the real reason why Watchmen is so popular. Not because it deconstructs the comic book heroes of old, not because it has giant psychic calamari at the end, but because it says some very deep - and very UNCOMFORTABLE - things about the human race. The inclusion of the journal in the movie (confirmed) says to me quite clearly that the movie will have the same message, which is why I am so confident about its quality. What does it matter in the end if a few images from the comic aren't repliated on screen, as long as the MESSAGE is?<br><br>On a lighter note (and to Fishus as well if you're reading) I found the first 4 parts of that animation on torrent, so will be watching them this afternoon and letting you know what I think when I'm back on later. I will also be reading that Sam Hamm script for a laugh, so will give you my appraisal of the mess Watchmen MIGHT HAVE BEEN.<br><br>Laters!

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 8:02 a.m. CST

    First thoughts on the animation...

    by yiannis

    Just watched the first part.<br><br>Incredibly well written and done. Whoever did it put a lot of love into it.<br><br>It's also not an amateur production either. It had a proper mini-crew, even a full original score, produced by Warner Brothers, even had Dan Gibbons himself credited as a "consultant".<br><br>Would it be SO difficult or expensive, then, to pay some actress for one day's work to read the female lines? The guy doing the reading has got good variety in his voice, so up til now no two characters have sounded so alike as to be confusing, but his voice is simply too deep and obviously masculine to do a woman's voice!<br><br>A minor quibble, though. Roll on part 2!<br><br>Just out of curiosity, though, how do you guys think "Veidt" should be pronounced? I've always read it as "V-ee-dt", but in the animation they're pronouncing it as "V-ay-dt". I guess on reflection the second is probably accurate - after all, it is a germanic name - and I assume this is how we will hear it pronounced come March. It just threw me a little...

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Doh!

    by yiannis

    "Incredibly well written"...<br><br>Of course it bloody is, Yiannis! They're reading the comic book word for word.<br><br>Never mind...

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 8:57 a.m. CST

    First thoughts on the Sam Hamm script...

    by yiannis

    And I thought my jokes were bad...<br><br>I've just read the pre-credits sequence of the script, a large action set piece that is totally fabricated (i.e. not part of the comic). To read on almost seems pointless (though I will anyway), as this would be about the time I would be WALKING OUT OF THE FUCKING CINEMA IN DISGUST!!!!!!!<br><br>I have never, EVER, walked out of a cinema, by the way. No matter how shitty a film was, I've always gritted my teeth and sat it out til the bitter end. That should give you some idea of the level of "bad" we're talking about...<br><br>Words simply CANNOT convey quite how off-the-mark this opening truly is. I now find it truly laughable that people complained about such trivial things as the costumes, the odd lines of dialogue here and there and even the squid when THIS ABOMINATION could have been crammed down our throats instead!!!<br><br>Every talkback from now on, I'm going to post links to this script. Not once, but over and over again, just so that every geek on these boards TRULY realises the magnitude of the fuck up we very nearly witnessed!<br><br>I probably won't, as I'm naturally lazy. I really should, though. I really should...<br><br>Oh well, here's to more reading. If you never hear back from me again, it means I've either imploded from sheer incredulity and anger, or I've gone underground in order to carry out the assassination of Sam Hamm for the good of mankind...

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST

    the circle jerk of english majors continues...

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Correction: I have my Masters in Art...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    specifically English Literature. That moves me up to a higher level of nerditude.<BR><BR>Seriously though, you should try rational literary/film discussion and analysis, irrelevntelefant. Communication without mutually hurled insults can be rewarding. G100, yiannis and I can even [gasp] disagree without "hating" on one another. And you're welcome to put down your weapons and join us.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Great posts continue

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    and I have no time to answer yet.<BR><BR>Have any of you read the online "Annotated WATCHMEN"? It's a fascinating read if you have the GN handy: http://tinyurl.com/5l3o3j

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 9:55 a.m. CST

    I've been browsing the 2003 Hayter Script

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    and what I'm finding isn't reassuring. This is the one with the death ray and *SPOILER--as if that's needed* Dreiberg killing Veidt--hardee-har har. I know it's gone through a couple of drafts since then, but Hayter's manufactured dialogue is simply AWFUL. Example:<BR><BR>ADRIAN<BR>Will you expose me, undoing the peace so many have just died for? Imagine the leaders of the world, anxiously awaiting instructions from the newest, and only remaining world power!<BR><BR>LAURIE<BR>How are you in any way qualified to run the world?<BR><BR>ADRIAN<BR>[Snip vaudevillian-stlye explanation]<BR><BR>DAN<BR>And anyone who disobeys gets their cities destroyed.<BR><BR>ADRIAN<BR>Sure, that's implied. But after today, no-one will disobey.<BR><BR>---<BR><BR>Ugh. So after this draft, Alex Tse wrote a draft drawing from "the best elements from two of the project’s previous drafts written by David Hayter" (which--let me tell you--look few and far between). <BR><BR>Here's the really potentially depressing part (to me): "As a favor to Tse and Zack Snyder, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (The Island, Transformers) devoted four weeks to an uncredited last-minute polish of the screenplay. The changes they made are unknown."<BR><BR>Color me pessimistic, but the brains behind TRANSFORMERS don't fill me with hope that Moore's basic vision will be respected.<BR><BR>That stated, thank the powers that be that the original Hayter script never saw the light of day.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Hayter script worse than I thought

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    I'd say 90% brand new dialogue so far. And it has many invented, non-canonical and senseless scenes. Laurie has super powers apparently, and Doc M creates a kind of scrying mirror. Garbage.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Le Vic- there were "brains " behind Transformers?

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 11:13 a.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    LOL. I use the term "brains" VERY loosely.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    For the record, I don't hate... I just goof....

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    there needs to be a font for sarcasm

    by irrelevntelefant

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST

    SAM HAMM MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by yiannis

    Trust me, Fishus, no horrors that you might have witnessed in the Hayter script come close to the abortion I have just finished reading!<br><br>It is so impossibly bad I am honestly going to find it hard to convey just how bad it truly is. It's like looking at a picture of your wife or best friend as drawn by Picasso. Some of the recogniseable elements are there, but overall it looks nothing like them. You MUST read this! It was so bad I was honest-to-god CRYING at some points!!<br><br>Where to begin?<br><br>First of all, the "Watchmen" of the script are Veidt, Dan, Laurie, Rorsharch, Jon, Blake and Cpt. Metropolis, who are a FULLY FLEDGED crime fighting unit a la Avengers, brought together by Veidt!<br><br>In a hackneyed and jaw-droppingly cliched opening set in 1976, the group take down a group of terrorists holding people hostage in the Statue of Liberty, but not before the terrorists set off a bomb that destroys the statue, killing Metropolis in the process. This event leads to the disbanding of costumed superheroes, forcing them to either work for the CTU (Civil Terrorist Unit - a "Gestapo" American secret police apparently - not to be confused with Jack Bauer) or go to jail.<br><br>Cut to 10 years later (shouldn't that be NINE years?) and the Comedian is killed, kinda like in the book at least. He, like Jon, Veidt and Laurie, chose to work for the government, while Dan and Rorsharch went underground rather than go to jail.<br><br>Rorsharch investigates the death and finds a photo, except this is of the aforementioned "Watchmen" as, naturally, the Minutemen and all that unnecessary, boring backstory don't exist in this genius piece of work.<br><br>Rorsharch goes to see Dan to warn him of the possible hunt for the Watchmen, greeting him by saying "Hiya, pardner."<br><br>Yep, that's a direct quote from the script...<br><br>Veidt is warned next, except that it is DAN who warns him, not Rorsharch - still can't quite figure out why. The chain then continues with VEIDT going to warn Jon and Laurie with some cringeworthy dialogue (sample: VEIDT:- Who's your decorator - Edward Teller?), as well as a pair of black trunks materialising on Jon to "preserve his modesty" (!), before Veidt and Laurie have a nice cozy chat about how distant Jon is, during which Veidt offers Laurie a cigarette (this is important later).<br><br>Rorsharch, meanwhile, is busy torturing the patrons of Happy Harry's, except now they have "cool" gangland names like Johnny Gobs and Nicky the Jap. After an overtly action-filled scene, Rorsharch leaves without information. I might as well add at this point that there is no Rorsharch voiceover, not that a little thing like THAT being missing matters...<br><br>Several recogniseable scenes follow, including the multiple-Jons-in-bed-with-Laurie scene and Laurie having dinner with Dan. Some of the ideas still survive, like the masochistic Captain Carnage (not named), but the dialogue is awful, peppered with unnecessary swearing, obviously to make these people seem tough (example: DREIBERG:- The pisser is, nobody ever remembers all the good shit we did), with a healthy degree of forced paranoia to match the supposedly paranoid times they are meant to be living in. Blake's funeral is also there, except without any of the flashbacks that give it its depth and meaning. It's just "here's a funeral - now onto the next scene"!<br><br>Ah, the next scene, the next scene...<br><br>Laurie arrives back on base from her date with Dan to be immediately rushed into quarantine because they think Dr Manhattan has given her cancer. So far so good, right? Except she ACTUALLY HAS CANCER!!!! There is a lengthy interrogation scene where she refuses to give up the names of the other Watchmen, but I don't really care enough to dissect it. Don't worry, this whole "cancer" plotline gets worse later on...<br><br>Dr Manhattan's interview where he finds out his colleagues (several incidental scientists plus Laurie) have cancer is there, kinda intact and after that he goes off into space. He flashes back to when he was simply Jon Osterman, a scientist in love with Janey Slater, but there is none of the poetry of the GN in this section. No flashing back and forth, no reliving the early days of his time as Dr Manhattan. It's just a straight flashback "this is how Dr Manhattan was created" then he's off to Mars. No voiceover, no commentary, just images.<br><br>After a couple of incidental scenes, we go to Rorsharch questioning Moloch. Apart from Moloch not being alone at the time (there's a whore with him) and, more importantly, NOT HAVING CANCER, he doesn't actually know anything at first and Rorsharch makes him fetch information like a faithful little snitch. No hint of the former mastermind who holds important information without realising it here...<br><br>After a brief "political" scene in the war room (one of the few things taken faithfully from the GN) and Laurie moving in with Dan (platonically at first), our faithful little snitch Moloch is back to give Rorsharch his information. Mind you, all the information says is that Blake was investigating missing scientists and it's supposed to be "something big involving Dr Manhattan". By the way, Moloch is also a coke fiend...<br><br>A fairly pointless scene between Veidt and Rorsharch follows, in which Hamm seems to suggest that being attacked by Bubastis made Rorsharch shit himself.<br><br>Yes, you read that right!<br><br>Dan and Laurie do their kinda-get-together-except-Dan's-impotent scene, complete with cliched "world going to shit" stuff on the TV. This is intercut with Rorsharch getting arrested after going to the junkie snitch's house - sorry, former criminal mastermind Moloch's house - and finding him dead before being ambushed by cops. Fairly faithful, apart from maybe a little to much action.<br><br>Now my favourite bit of the whole script! After a brief scene with Dan and Laurie finding out from the news that Rorsharch was arrested, we cut to the familiar news vendor (who's already popped up). The familiar kid is there, reading the familiar comic.<br><br>... except the comic book is not called "The Black Freighter"...<br><br>It's called...<br><br>- are you ready for this?<br><br><br><br><br>"COLONEL NORTH AND HIS HOWLING COMMANDOS"<br><br>That's just fucking beautiful, isn't it? Hell, if you're not using any of the themes from the book to which The Black Freighter relates, why keep the name? Why not call it "Doctor Shit and the Excrement People"? Needless to say, the script doesn't bother with any excepts from said masterpiece of comic book literature...<br><br>We then go into the whole Dr Long interviewing Kovacs scenes from the book. A surprising amount of detail survives intact, including the kidnapper who fed the kid to his dogs. Naturally this still has to be fucked with, though, so Rorsharch feeds HIM to his own dogs rather than watching him burn alive. Also needless to say, there is none of the depth or subtlety to these scenes that Moore put in there.<br><br>During this sequence, the assassination attempt on Veidt happens almost exactly as in the GN. No one really cares by this point. Veidt breaks the news to Dan over the phone, then tells him he is off to Karnak TO HIDE!! That's right, Adrian Veidt, Ozymandias, the smartest man on the planet, runs to Antarctica like a little bitch!<br><br>Rorsharch kills some prisoners in the mess hall, again done as a kick-ass action scene with Rorsharch levelling 5-6 of them rather than just one, but hey! What does that matter?<br><br>Dan and Laurie go to retrieve the Owlship, which is in a BARN IN THE COUNTRYSIDE (geddit? coz Owls come from the countryside don't they?). Dan handily has spare costumes for everyone, including Laurie, there. Initially they plan to scurry to Karnak like little bitches too (Veidt invited them), until they see the gestapo-esque CTU attacking a crowd of protesters on the monitors (where do they get the camera feed from, exactly? It's not a news report!). They quickly go off and ATTACK THE POLICE HOVERCRAFT (this replaces the building rescue, obviously), to much cheering from the crowd of "The Watchmen are back!" A big action/chase/dogfight ensues with the yadda yadda yadda chasing the blah blah blah untileverythinggoesup400mphtunnelmissilesclevermanouvreand BOOM! Our heroes save the day! Cue applause!<br><br>Dan and Laurie make love finally, then decide to bust Rorsharch out (DREIBERG:- I know he's totally bugfuck, but he saved my life a half a dozen times). The riot, the midget (Little Bigger!) and the breakout are fairly faithful, as you can probably guess. After all, the credo seems to be "keep the set pieces intact and fuck the story that links them all together".<br><br>Dan, Rorsharch and Laurie speed off, discussing the plot in boring style. Laurie admits she has cancer, before Jon magically reappears to take Laurie to Mars. Dan and Rorsharch head to Karnak. Not to confront Veidt because they know he's behind the plan, of course. They're running there to hide and save their own skins as the world falls to shit around them.<br><br>Jon and Laurie on Mars is typically soulless. There is a bit of confused "Jon can see the future" stuff and Laurie's big request is not "save the world" but "cure my cancer", which Jon refuses to do, but Laurie makes him do anyway by grabbing his hand and plunging it into her chest in a blinding flash (corporeal AND incorporeal at once!). She then asks Jon to take her back to Earth (now that she's cured!), just so she can DIE with the rest of humanity.<br><br>Because, you see, World War III has broken out!<br><br>All the countries are launching nukes at each other, "artfully" depicted by Veidt watching his bank of screens, which go blank one by one. Dan and Rorsharch arrive at Karnak and bang on the door. Veidt doesn't answer.<br><br>I repeat, Veidt doesn't answer the door. That's all.<br><br>Yet suddenly, Rorsharch KNOWS that Veidt is behind all of this, despite originally coming here to hide with their friend. Now we're even abandoning plot logic! Remember kids, always answer the door, or else you'll be blamed for World War III and the Apolcalypse by your best mates!<br><br>Rorsharch and Dan confront Veidt, who beats them easily before monologuing his plan. You see, he's managed to perfect the ability to see the whole space-time continuum and the reason the world's blowing up is because of Dr Manhattan being born. Something about all the futures with mankind surviving are the ones where the doc was never created. So Veidt's got a sniper rifle set up next to the time portal and he's going to fire a bullet back in time to kill Jon Osterman in the nuclear chamber thingy before he becomes Dr Manhattan...<br><br>You look confused! Don't see why, makes perfect sense to me!<br><br>Anyway, Veidt drove Jon away by giving everyone cancer with these special cigarettes he invented (see?). The Comedian investigated and found out the truth, so he had to be killed (he's a good guy now?). It should hardly surprise you that Veidt at this point couldn't be more "cackling Bond villan" if his dialogue was "Muahahahaha!!".<br><br>Just as he's about to pull the trigger on his time-defying sniper rifle, Jon comes back with Laurie to save the day. Jon MELTS Veidt, so that only his shoes remain, then admits that Veidt was right anyway. Jon (as in Dr Manhattan) goes back in time himself and shields Jon Osterman from the blast, thereby killing Dr Manhattan and saving Jon Osterman's life so he can marry Janey Slater and live happily ever after.<br><br>Dan, Laurie and Rorsharch watch through the time portal. The scientists in the past get a look at them as well through the same portal, before space, time and reality fold in on themselves (much like the audience's will to live) and the three heroes suddenly find themselves in modern, present day NYC. OUR NYC, not the alternate one. In OUR NYC, of course, Watchmen is nothing but a silly comic book (the kid at the news vendor's stand is reading it! I shit you not!), so the gathering crowd laugh and think this is some kind of publicity stunt for the movie they're making (SERIOUSLY!). After some "hilarious" time-travel "where the fuck are we?" dialogue, Laurie says "We'll tell them what happened. They'll listen to reason, won't they?", Rorsharch growls "They'd better." and we fade to black, no doubt to a credit sequence with a Kenny Loggins song playing over it.<br><br>I really have not been shitting you this whole time, that is the ACTUAL 1988 unproduced script that would have starred Arnie as Jon. Suddenly, NOTHING Snyder and his crew could possibly do seems to matter anymore, does it?

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Fishus

    by yiannis

    I've downloaded the 2003 Hayter script as well now. As soon as I'm sure that sufficient time has passed after witnessing the last abomination that this one won't induce suicide, I'll read and return my verdict (shorter and won't be a plot summary, obviously!).<br><br>Got to dash for now as dinner awaits. Catch ya'all laters!

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 12:37 p.m. CST

    We need Danny G's Dick Blood here, cause...

    by irrelevntelefant

    someone needs to tell Sam Hamm to suck a bag of dicks whilst he gets pissed upon. <P> Holy shit that was awful. <P> did it end with a freeze frame of laurie, dan and rorshe doing the "toyota jump"?

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Too much too address in one post

    by G100

    However the conclusion that Rorscach won is one that I hold myself BUT it's open ended as is so much in the comic which is of course part of it's greatness.<p> <p>I think Manhattan's final declaration to Veidt (I always thought it was more like the pronunciation Viite myself) the "NOTHING ends Adrian. Nothing EVER ends" is a pretty clear shove by Moore to the Audience that Veidts masterplan and new utopia will of course sooner or later fall apart.<p> <p>Anyway, I've been thinking about the "Blue Bomb" and one of the main problems I have with it is it's just not STRANGE or Impactful enough.<p> <p>Sure it's a Big fucking Blue explosion of some sort but to totally implicate Manhattan and convince the World that something unbelievably awful has occured, which must necessitate the ending of cold world hostilities on the brink of Armaggedon, it has to be MORE than that. And it also has to show Veidts Genius as has been said.<p> <p>Like what ? Well... how about this. Veidt builds the Technology to Teleport in a Gigantic Intrinsic Field subtractor that is activated on arrival. This has the advantage of being Visually powerfull and Impactfull (after all the two panels which show the efects of the Field on Osterman then Manhattan and Babastis are utter brilliance, and Snyder HAS captured that effect pretty damn well) so we see humans getting ripped to shreds like Osterman was AND buildings would presumably disintigrate in the same strange manner, and there could be no mistake this was not any "standard" attack by any other country.<p> <p>Course you lose the bodies and most of the bloody aftermath horror too, however you DO get a consolation prize of another nice little "twist in the ending.<p> <p>Namely that just before Seymour reaches for the crank file he could add (after the very funny cowboy actor joke) that there was a story in the crank file about a growing number of people claiming to see "ghosts" in NY after the intrinsic field bomb.<p> <p>Skeletons walking about the place and strange "apparitions" of floating brains and nervous systems etc.<p> <p>Yeah I know, it would lessen the impact of Manhattan leaving but it amuses me to think of Veidts "Bomb" instead of heralding a new utopian age actually creating quite a few new Manhattans and probably dooming the planet in the process.<p> <p>It won't happen of course but I thought it was a fairly amusing "what if?" idea. ;-)<p> <p>Oh and P.S. the other idea I ws mulling over for the "Blue Bomb" was some kind of horrific "effect" like warping space and all the humans and buildings in the Bombs epicentre would be horribly twisted or just subtly "shifted" so we had buildings and people half merged and pieces of them completely "dropped" out of normal space. Just a thought.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 1:18 p.m. CST

    "COLONEL NORTH AND HIS HOWLING COMMANDOS"

    by G100

    I DEMAND someone make that into a Movie! It could even top "The Happening" for sheer hilarity.<p> <p>Actually it sounds suspicously like a future Michael Bay project waiting to happen.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Course I still prefer Squiddy

    by G100

    I'm just trying throw out some ideas about the non-squiddy Big Blue Bomb.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Samhain

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Great Caesar's Ghost!<BR><BR>So--I'm pretty sure Hayter's 2003 script is poetry next to Hamm's.<BR><BR>That stated, the script--as you will see-is none too good, and some dialogue peculiar to the trailers and not the actual comic (e.g., "maybe it was a political killing") survives from it. Also, notably, they apparently kept Dreiberg's witness of Rorschach's murder at the hands of Jon. I'm truly perplexed as to why this was necessary. In Hayter's original script, it was meant as one of the motivating factors behind Nite Owl's just killing (haw haw) of Ozy. BTW, that's a really foul moment. Check it out, just after the fight between Dan and Adrian (and just after Dan hurls an "owl wing" at Adrian which Adrian dodges easily:<BR><BR>ADRIAN<BR>Before I do this... One last thing [i.e., killing Dreiberg). There's something I've always been curious about.<BR><BR>DAN<BR>What's that.<BR><BR>Adrian bursts out in sudden laughter.<BR><BR>ADRIAN<BR>Why an owl? I mean, assuming your intention is to intimidate the criminal element... What's so frightening about an owl.<BR><BR>DAN<BR>I don't know really. I gues it's because... No matter how hard you listen, you never hear them coming.<BR><BR>Dan DUCKS. Having circled the room, the OWL-WING ZOOMS OUT OF THE DARKNESS, OWL-FACE SCREECHING INTO FRAME --<BR><BR>-- and STRIKES ADRIAN IN THE CHEST, KNOCKING HIM OFF HIS FEET. Adrian SLAMS into the ground, THE BOOMERANG'S LEFT WING IMBEDDED IN HIS SOLAR PLEXUS. He wheezes blood.<BR><BR>---<BR><BR>Yuck. Please tell me that travesty is gone from the script now.<BR><BR>Before leaving with Laurie, Dan literally types on one of Ozy's keyboards "to all the world's powerful: 'And in the end: the love you take... Is equal to the love you make."<BR><BR>Isn't this the script Greengrass was working off of? Holy shit on stick! It could be SO much worse, though I'm not fully confident that all the ridiculous things I've read in Hayter's script aren't gone from the final draft--which after all was a revision rather than a rewrite of the 2003 Hayter script.<BR><BR>G100: I concur that the Blue bomb just doesn't have the visual, visceral impact it should from what I see and what I can imagine. I hope Snyder's saving some really terrific secret that will make it spectacular (if not--imo--sensible).

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 2:07 p.m. CST

    "COLONEL NORTH AND HIS HOWLING COMMANDOS"

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Is this a response to the Oliver North/Iran Contra debacle?

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Veidt rhymes with white...nuff said

    by NudeGobblin

    and Rorschach sounds like raw shark maybe Moore shoulda phonetically spelled em all out for the really dumb readers..

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Yiannis

    by spud mcspud

    I commiserate with you upon your reading the Sam Hamm script. I had the misfortune to buy and read a copy of this about 6 or 7 years ago... and the mind-melting horror I felt has stayed with me to this day. It does put the Snyder changes a little in the shade with the sheer epic inanity of it - it is, without a doubt, the most divorced-from-its-original-source-material adaptation I have EVER read, for sure.<P> I'm sure we'll always agree to disagree on the importance of a Jon frame-up ending vs Squid ending - I think the epic scope is lost with the Jon ending, as is the ability to unite the world (try as I might, I cannot see how the world WOULDN'T blame the whole thing on the US for creating Jon - as I'm sure a country that has just been nuked would blame the country who they think nuked them) and just the sheer visual poetry of a proper EC horror-style apocalypse, accompanied by the after-effects of the psychic shockwave (excellently described by someone earlier, though I would add people randomly wandering around drooling, weeping, talking to themselves, generally showing that EVERYONE in the area has been driven insane by the shockwave). I also think we'll disagree about the use of the alexander the Great allegory in the script - while I take your excellent (and illuminating!) points of how the Alexander story is changed to fit the journey of Veidt in the GN, couldn't it be a case of Moore's Veidt being a man who would isolate the elements of Alexander's story (such as the Gordian knot incident) that he felt best related to him and his quest, and inflate their importance in regard to how important HE felt they were? Though the Gordian knot may be but a footnote in the Alexander story, the equivalent in Veidt's story (the squid plan) has become the entire means to the end Veidt is planning, and thus planning thopse means has taken on epic importance to Veidt - hence HIS placing of more importance than is necessary on the Gordian knot allegory. Might that not be the case?<P> But I shall graciously agree to disagree, as it should be on these TBs, and who knows, I may be one of those hypocritical bitches who bitches and moans and goes to see the movie anyway - I am utterly opposed to what Snyder et al have done to the ending, but how can I complain about it after the fact with full knowledge of what has been done if I DON'T see it? I see that I'll probably end up going anyway, and very much hope that there's enough good stuff in there to soften the blow of the loss of the essential squid event.<P> And as to the studio weighing a need to get the widest possible audience vs doing the most faithful adaptation - this is in no way going to cross over like THE DARK KNIGHT did, and all the studios - if they employ even one fully-witted person - must have an inkling of this. The average leave-brain-at-door filmgoer (the likes of whom loved DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR? and anything with Adam Sandler in it) will not enjoy WATCHMEN as originally written - but even with the Jon frame-up ending included, this movie is still very niche. They'd have to change much, MUCH more to get it in the range of all the moviegoers that saw TDK - and I think those changes (for the dumber, mostly) would make the switch from squiddy to Jon-frame-up actually look KIND.<P> I just think that out of any comic or novel I can think of that could be adapted to the screen, WATCHMEN is the one that most deserved to have been left exactly INTACT on transition to the big screen. It would be the challenge for the film-makers to make that squid ending work - not to make it more palatable for an audience who want to make a complex work less complex.<P> Sleep tight, Yiannis, and try to forget Sam Hamm's draft ever existed. And I thought Hayter's Dreiberg-kills-Veidt-at-the-end was bad...

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 4:51 p.m. CST

    So much to say, so little time!

    by yiannis

    First of all, there seems to be a lot of love for "Colonel North and his Howling Commandos". Come on, people! Let's not just talk about it, lets get this made! I'll write the script. Someone get on the phone to Michael Bay! Matthew McConnehey is wooden enough to play Colonel North, surely!<br><br>irrelevntelefant<br><br>I appreciate the sentiment, but no user on this board has enough vitriol for this abomination - and that's just the writer! Remember, this is the genius who was perfectly happy for Batman to indiscriminately murder nameless goons in Burton's first Batman movie.<br><br>G100,<br><br>Like the good points about the potential visuals for the ending, however, not to knock you I think it's fairly moot at this point in time. Whatever the ending (i.e. even IF the squid was still in), I would consider it rather stupid marketing to reveal details of your biggest "money shots", effects-wise, in the big climax of your movie, before the movie itself comes out. How many shots of the destruction of Barad-Dur and the Black Gate did we see in the build up to Return of the King?<br><br>Oh, and nothing can top The Happening! Well, maybe ONE film: Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark - a masterpiece of how NOT to make a movie!<br><br>Fishus,<br><br>At least we seem to be improving from script to script, which has to be a plus. Also I'm pretty sure you're right in that this was the Greengrass script. To think people were saying that Greengrass should still be making this film!!!<br><br>NudeGobblin,<br><br>Your superiority to all of us mere mortals is suitably proved and we all bow down to it. Naturally, you are the only person in history who has NEVER made a single mistake of interpretation when reading a book, or watching a movie, right?<br><br>In case you hadn't noticed, we were having a fun holding an informed and reasoned debate and didn't feel the need to lower ourselves to insults, despite disagreeing with each other PLENTY of times. There's always got to be one to lower the tone, though. Thanks for volunteering!<br><br>Ok then, Mister Hayter. It's just you and me now!

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 5:10 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by yiannis

    Agree to disagree is how it sould always be done, otherwise one of us would be insisting the other MUST agree with them! I still say Veidt's shunning of Alexander and his whole legacy is pretty cut and dried, but the Gordian Knot episode is hardly the key on which the squid ending rests, so I don't think it affects your reasoning on that issue on way or the other.<br><br>I agree that the Adam Sandler brigade will not enjoy Watchmen necessarily, but they might still watch it. This, of course, is not a reason to pander to them unnecessarily, but a big budget movie has to AT LEAST be accessible to a wide audience. Just because TDK was dark and complex and morally ambigious does NOT mean it's unaccessible. The filmmakers made the decision that the squid was not sufficiently accessible. You may disagree, but that's still the decision that was made.<br><br>As things stand, The Squid is the ONLY ending of Watchmen. Come March, it might be (and in all likelihood will PROBABLY be) the BEST ending of Watchmen, but it will NOT be the only one, no matter how much fans complain. Or SUPPORT, for that matter. Or Debate.<br><br>Finally, dude, you have my sympathies! You SERIOUSLY paid to read that abortion? Man! You know you can get therapy to help forget traumas in your past...

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 9:18 p.m. CST

    The Hayter Script (And Beyond)

    by yiannis

    Damn! This has turned out to be a long post after all, but here goes...<br><br>Reading the 2003 draft almost makes me wonder whether Hammy boy actually read the comic or simply had it summarised to him by a retard! The difference is very clear.<br><br>Is Hayter's script the film I would want to see come March? No, it's not. There are still problems, but we all know it's been worked on since then. And it's close - it's very close - to what we all want. What we all NEED.<br><br>First, let's deal with the magical elephant in the room, otherwise known as Laurie's superpowers and name change to Slingshot. This, perhaps, is what the term "What the fuck?!" was invented for. It is crazy! It is illogical! It makes no sense! It's like having Sam Gamgee say the same lines and fulfill the same purpose as he does in the book, yet somehow making him a ninja! I have no idea what was going through Hayter's mind at this point. All I can think of as an answer to that is Drugs. Lots and lots of drugs.<br><br>Very obviously, this silly concept has now been thoroughly removed, so there's no need to harp on about it. Let's just move on and forget it ever happened, just like that dream about purple monkeys when I had too much cheese before bed...<br><br>The vast majority of the rest of the script works surprisingly well in my opinion, at least up until the ending (which we'll get to, predictably, at the end). The excise of the Black Freighter is logical and we are already well aware of how Snyder and co are handling this. The removal of a lot of the old Minutemen material is a shame, but understandable from a need to keep the length manageable. The "Under the Hood" mockumentary Snyder is making can take up a lot of the slack in this area, so I'm not too worried if much of this stuff STAYS missing come March. It would seem necessary, perhaps, to at least show the attempted rape, as I felt that Hayter's script did not make the sexual nature of the assault clear enough (which makes their subsequent reunion all the more unlikely), but perhaps even this scene is not STRICTLY necessary to see on screen as long as it is explained better.<br><br>The greatest loss for me was that much of Rorsharch's voiceover went missing. Ok, you can easily argue that much of it does not add anything to the plot, except to establish Rorsharch's state of mind better, but there are still some key explanations of how the world is that went missing there, plus his words are some of the most poetic musings I've ever read in a novel (not just the graphic kind, either!). Just from the first trailer (... and I'll whisper "no"), some of it has clearly found its way BACK into the film, which can only be a good thing.<br><br>Apart from that, I was very impressed with this script. The modern setting is gone now anyway, so we'll be sticking faithfully to the book there, but it honestly didn't make much difference - just different countries named in the same political sitution. After all, we're still as "on the brink of Armageddon" now as we were in 1985. All the key scenes were there, with the meaning they were always meant to have and enough of the detail from the book to get the message across without bogging them down or overly extending them. Mars was poetic, the Pyramid/cancer plot was back to how it should be, including revealing Veidt to Dan and Rorsharch at the right time (if not strictly in the right way, but that is serious nitpicking), Dan and Laurie's relationship hit all the right notes and Rorsharch's mask-killer hunt took in everything that was necessary.<br><br>Then we get to the ending, and the two really key issues: the "death ray" and Dan killing Veidt...<br><br>I think at this point I might do well to repost my "six key points the ending must contain", which seem to have been fairly universally agreed upon (or at least not disputed), as I think this will better show just how close we are. They are:<br><br>There HAS to be destruction on a massive scale at the end of the film.<br><br>This destruction HAS to be masterminded by Adrian Veidt in order to unite the world.<br><br>Jon HAS to choose, or his own accord, to leave all us stupid humans to our own devices.<br><br>Dan and Laurie HAVE to choose world peace over bringing Veidt to justice and leave to seek happiness together.<br><br>Rorsharch HAS to die rather than compromise (Never, even in the face of Armageddon).<br><br>Rorsharch's journal HAS to be sent to New Frontiersman at the end.<br><br>By my reckoning, four of these points are completely fulfilled and even the other two are half-fulfilled. 2 half-points! Five out of six on the scorecard! That's how close we are!<br><br>First of all, the destruction is clearly there, even if it is by death ray. Point one fulfilled in its entirety.<br><br>Secondly, despite some dodgy dialogue (easy enough to fix), Veidt IS still planning to bring about world peace. You could argue (quite persuasively and ultimately quite correctly) that the "death ray" idea is not enough to bring humanity together, but I've noted before that this is a GOOD debate to have. You WANT people coming out of the cinema debating this point, because people come away from the GN debating the squid on the exact same point. The death ray is clearly an inferior option and has since been dropped, but that isn't why this only scores half a point. Simply put, Veidt does NOT want to control the world himself. He wants the world to control ITSELF. The black boxes for world leaders mean we are not there on this point yet, but remove the boxes and explain properly how the atrocity leads to world peace and we are definitely within reach of a full point here.<br><br>Jon leaving humanity is a clear full point, as it is taken almost word for word from the GN.<br><br>Dan and Laurie's decision is obviously where the second half point gets taken off, due to Dan killing Veidt. Revenge is not a Dan Dreiberg characteristic, nor is his "it's what Rorsharch would do" reasoning. Beyond that, however, they DO attempt to live happily ever after and DON'T reveal the truth about Veidt to the world, so simply having Veidt survive until the end of the movie equals a full point here. Admittedly, I am now possessed with a horrible fear that Veidt's death may somehow have survived to the finished film and ultimately I'm afraid that is unlikely to be settled until March, but I would sincerely hope that Snyder and co realise how UNNECESSARY it is and have already long since dropped it.<br><br>To end on a happier note, though, points five and six, Rorsharch's death and ultimate victory by way of his journal, are both intact. Two full points.<br><br>Do you see what I mean about how close we are? Hamm's script was so ludicrously off the mark that "rewrites" would have a literal meaning - as in, rewriting the whole thing from scratch! Hayter's script is not perfect, but the basic framework is already in place and all that is truly needed are "tweaks" to bring it back to something closer to the GN.<br><br>I have a great deal of faith in this "tweaking" process. After all, this is what Jackson and co went through for LOTR. They made plenty of changes, some of which obviously remained right through until the finished product, but each draft and each revision brought them back nearer and nearer to Tolkien as they realised he knew what he was doing all along. If Snyder and co come to this same realisation with regards to Moore, we should be in safe hands, squid or no squid. <br><br>After all, Jackson had hardly made anything of note to suggest he was capable of the LOTR job pror to landing it and now he's hailed as the best director on the planet. This is clearly Snyder's LOTR, the film where all the pressure is on him to show the world what he is truly capable of. If he fucks it up, the world will quickly forget him, but Watchmen will still exist and someone someday will attempt to make a film of it again. If he succeeds, all the "Snyder haters" will owe him an apology.<br><br>I know people are probably flagging by now (and thinking "Jesus! This guy likes his long posts doesn't he?") and I apologise for that, but the one problem I still have is the missing link in this chain: Alex Tse's rewrite of Hayter's script. It was available on the internet once, but has since been taken down. However, I have found a couple of online reviews and they didn't exactly fill me with warm feelings of joy...<br><br>First of all, while most of it is virtually plagarised from Hayter (hence the dual credit for the final film), Tse seems to have added a number of "action" scenes not in the GN, including Jon fighting some Iranian terrorists(!). This is clearly the sort of thing that a studio exec of the "brainless" variety would insist on (MORE ACTION!) and is instantly a little worrying.<br><br>Secondly, the whole "Jon" ending appears to have come from Tse. While I feel it is an improvement on the "death ray" idea of Hayter, as did the reviewer, it still needs careful handling to fully work. Jury, by necessity, remains out until March...<br><br>Thirdly and most damningly, while the most detailed review I read was frustratingly restrained on spoilers (why post an online review of an unmade script in the first place, then? Especially one already based on previous material!), it strongly hinted that Veidt's death was STILL in the movie. The review seems to say this is handled "better" than in Hayter's script, but I feel we are all agreed in this instance that the only "better" possible is "FUCKING NOT AT ALL!!!"<br><br>All in all, the review I read made it very clear that Tse's script was a step BACK from Hayter's rather than a step forward, moving farther away from Moore's GN rather than nearer to it. This is not what is needed at all and is extremely worrying.<br><br>Tse has subsequently left the project and further changes have very obviously been made. We can only hope they are for the better. It is a sad state of affairs, but all the Watchmen lovers on these boards might actually have to rely on the "brains behind Transformers" to save the movie...<br><br>God help us all!

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 9:49 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud (and a message to you all)

    by yiannis

    I couldn't leave for the night without extending to you an apology I think you deserve. Re-reading my previous posts to you makes me feel I have been condascending towards someone who was not deserving of it. I am sorry.<br><br>So often in life, let alone talkbacks, it is easy to be critical of a person just because you don't agree with their opinion. When you get slapped in the face by this approach time and time again, it becomes easy to lash out in kind. I was wrong to do so and will not make that mistake again.<br><br>We seem to have come to a nice understanding anyway, but I'm an honourable chap and couldn't let that lie, even if you were happy to.<br><br>This debate has taken us to some good places (and some miserable ones too!). There seems to be a good group on here (you, me, Fishus, G100) who can respect each other's opinions. I look forward to more discussions in the future.<br><br>In all honestly, I will probably not post again about Watchmen until after it is released, as there is little more I could possibly say - unless some major details become known to us between now and March. I'll keep an eye out for any replies and respond if response is required or requested, though.<br><br>You won't see me too often on these boards, as I won't comment unless I am truly passionate about something. For example, you won't be seeing me on any Star Trek or Terminator talkbacks, as I will watch these films, but just as cool summer action films. Once the Avatar articles start properly coming in though, I'm sure you'll see me again.<br><br>Farewell for now!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:51 a.m. CST

    Yiannis

    by spud mcspud

    Insightful and courteous as always!<P> Apologies of sorts to you and any other TBers I may have surprised with a fair amount of vitriol in this TB - I'm aware I got a bit passionate about it, but then I think passion is a GOOD THING in the movie-making sense, and it's good to see a fair amount of passion all around on this TB! A lot of good points have been made from ALL angles, be it pro or anti squid, pro or anti Jon-frame-up ending, pro or anti Snyder, and all the other subjects. If there's one good thing about AICN TBs, it's the way that eventually - if you hang in there long enough (see the LOST TB from last year!) you'll eventually get to see a particular subject from EVERYONE'S point of view. I think possibly the UN and the G8 summits could learn from this - solving worldy problems by Talkback! Though I do foresee such things as Sarkozyposting about the Irish decision not to sign up to the Lisbon Treaty:<P> ZOMG I can't believe you're that fucking stupid! GO SUCK A BAG OF DICKS!!!<P> Hey, at least it would be honest.<P> So cheers, Yiannis, it'll be good to cross metaphorical debating foils about this movie cl;oser to its release date. At least they seem to have got Rorscach to a point we can ALL agree on - BADASS!!!<P> Cheers Yiannis, and everyone else. I'm audi for now.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Thanks, yiannis

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Damned good script review. Moriarty felt similarly when he read it way back when. <BR><BR>Mind you, I do strongly disagree that Hayter's script is by in large agood one (e.g., all the dialogue COMPLETE rewrites were unnecessary and a big jump down in quality imo). Compared the the Hamm shitfest, certainly, Hayter's script was gold, but there was nowhere to go from there but up anyway.<BR><BR>The characters are more on target in the Hayter script, but there are still big problems (not the least, to me, being Rorschach, who has lost all his depth and complexity--what's with his repeated attacks [like the needless detective cutting] against cops?). <BR><BR>Simply put, I don't believe Hayter is a good enough writer to adapt Moore's work. I know that translations must be made (a la LOTR) when moving to film, but the script seems hollow at best, and--at worst--laughably bad.<BR><BR>I *AM*, however, heartened by the fact that Snyder insisted on several script points that no script I'm aware of came close to fulfilling (e.g., 80s setting, which actually is a bigger issue than it seems on first glance). I could swear, also, that I read an interview in which Snyder stated unequivocally that the original ending and lead up to the ending were in. Of course, this led me to believe that the squid was in, but--as I recall--he EXPLICITLY says that Veidt is NOT punished for his sins. And the journal is in. Those two points are crucial.<BR><BR>I'm going to read the Hayter script more carefully when I have a chance. I often feel like these scriptwriters feel the need to piss on great stories as if marking their territory. Feels like shitty graffiti sprayed on the Coliseum walls to me. Lesser writers (and by lesser I mean less than the likes of Moore) should NEVER do this. Adaptation for time and pacing is one thing, but what Hayter did is something else. It's puzzling when these writers bitch and moan that they of course MUST make changes in the interest of time, and then turn around and create scene after non-canonical scene with their inferior plot ideas and dialogue.<BR><BR>More later.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:09 a.m. CST

    A bit more about Hayter's Rorschach

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Verbally, he has lost his clipped, sociopathic weirdness in the script. Changes in an adaptation are a necessary evil, but why change Rorschach's verbal fragments into full sentences. STUPID!

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Repetition

    by DarthChimay

    Just to repeat something that should be obvious from every other post on the subject... if it must be a squid, then you're missing the point.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Who stated "it must be a squid?"

    by Le Vicious Fishus