Watchmen internet hype = Snakes On A Plane.

Just asking...

But the whole thing is curious because I'm not sure how much of an appeal the marketing campaign has had on the regular movie-goer vs. the comic book/internet movie website person. Hence the "damage control".

Love the book all you want. This movie will not change it. On top of that the percentage of movie going public who has even READ the book is low. Then only a percentage of that small number even cares about the squid. To me, the image of people dead in the streets everywhere overwhelmed the audacity of a squid.

And let's not discount society just yet. Just because "we" understand the movie and the book and what the trailers are all about doesn't mean "they" won't. Let's give the marketing people a chance to actually work their stuff before we start calling this movie unappealing to moviegoers.

That said, keep in mind that there was probably a legion of producers and studio execs saying "Does Dr. Manhattan HAVE to be blue? We've found red tests better with 18-24 year old males" and "Can we make Ozymandius sassy and gay? We're thinking Chris Tucker could play him" and "We'd like you to set the action scene to that new song by Pink" and that Snyder had to make SOME compromises or they'd can his ass in favor of some pushover yes-man.

I have an inkling in my mind that Warner wants the squid out - or they don't want to pay to make it look legitimately good looking - so Snyder can't have it.

Their articles are laugh-inducing in how much they try to latch on to controversy. And the titles are always really vague, so they make you want to click on them. And then when you actually read the article, half of the time the title turned out to be really misleading. Yahoo! sucks.

There is so much more to the graphic novel than the squid. It's incredibly dense, why is this the only thing that gets talked about? This is such a massive film for geeks like us and there should be so much to discuss. Hopefully the new trailer will remind everyone of that.I'm not saying the ending isn't a big deal, I'm just saying we don't have to turn every Watchmen talkback into a facsimile of the last.

I predict this will do ok business but it will be torn apart by the critics so the regular filmgoer will stay away.

By the way, I wish they kept the squid. Just so I could see how freaky it could be.

Because we have already seen the context in which he films that line, right? Give me a break - there's no indication of whether he "gets" it or not.

. It's 8pm. Pacific or Eastern standard? The pieces are all falling in place.

. It's 5:17. I'm on my laptop, disappointed in my iPhone. I'm not seeing a squid.

. It's 6:09. I'm considering changing my handle to Dr. Brooklyn.

Its July 2009. The Watchmen DVD is on the shelf. "Alternate Directors Cut Ending!". I walk by, glad I never changed my handle.

sigh, yes, in this case my username is apt

\ I won't DL watchmen if there is no Squid, ain't gettin my bandwith fucking Snyder!!!!

And the anti-heroism theme and Moore’s deconstruction of heroes, showing heroes as not having any noble purpose but instead doing it for ego, vanity, profit, anger and a million other reasons save for virtue. Well after 9-11, we did see men sacrifice themselves to help others trapped in a burning building, merely for the fact that it was their duty and the right thing to do. And since than, we have seen other acts of heroism (as well as villainy). Are their motives not so pure after all, or is Moore’s theme that we are better off without heroes still valid?

Like I said before, I am not trying to put down the Watchmen, but I am curious if it really holds up as the best comic ever. And I am open to either side of the argument.

The quote I have from watchmen says nothing about God. It's "the SUPERMAN exists and he's American". The closest I can remember it coming to God is Janey telling Manhattan "they say you're like God now." to which Manhattan replies "I don't think there is a God Janey. If there is I'm not him."

Does it matter ? In the context of the story, Yes it does. The point being this is now a world in which SUPERMAN exists not just in a comic book but in reality. So all that flows from that revelation including public perception flows from an awareness that the Comic book world has just become reality. And from this Ozymandias creates his "solution". **SPOILER** That is to say, he solves the problem of an impending holocaust in a world in which a comic book superman is real with a comic book supervillian creature. (squiddy) So in that world, if you have a Giant Blue Demi-God striding across Vietnam and solving America's foreign Policy then it really isn't such a huge leap to be confronted with a Massive abomination from Dimension X teleporting in and ****SPOILER** destroying half of New York.

Would I have preferred the original ending ? Yep. but we ain't getting that in the Movie. (We MIGHT get it in a special edition DVD perhaps..)

Would I have preferred a FAR better and more accurate Ozy ? Yep.

Would I prefer it if Snyder DOESN'T overuse the fast/slo-mo thus reducing it to a Movie "gimmick" and not a nice framing device for iconic panels used SPARINGLY. Yep.

Am I going to boycott the Movie and curse Snyders name to hell because of all this and BEFORE I see the Movie ? Nope.

I'll see how it turns out. It will still have all the Rorschach and Manhattan Gold and a great deal more than that even without the original ending and Snyders "eccentric" Ozy.

For the record I thought The Dark Knight lost much of it's earlier pace and focus at the Movies Climax but I still enjoyed it.

And it saddens me to hear Snyder will not attempt the original ending but to be fair he'd have to do a hell of a lot of pickups and reshooting because Squiddy doesn't just appear from nowhere he's foreshadowed heavily and set up with the Island and a few other scenes.

Of course if the alternate ending turned out to be BETTER than Snyders version then that might not exactly say much for Snyders judgement.

The emotional and cognitive murder and crippling of millions of people is supposed to kick into everyone's heads the fragility of our lives. The people of the world and their governments are supposed to realize that this could have happened anywhere dimensional research was happening and possibly anywhere at all, and beyond such issues that we're all just people, dammit. It doesn't matter if it had been in NYC or Chicago or LA, but it had to be somewhere Veidt could have research facilities as a beard for the squid's appearance; NYC was handy because that's his North American base of operations. What matters is that as a contained event the squid's appearance draws aid from the world. It must draw aid from the USSR because the USSR must learn the importance of working with the USA for world peace. Without that, with nuclear explosions or death rays shooting from the clouds across the world, there is no drawing-in of the great angry powers to aid the USA and the learning that Veidt will steer into a post-squid world of international cooperation.

Here endeth the lesson.

AICn may need a billion dolaar bail out.

Wino!

Also if I remember right the Superpowers section tells us that Manhattan DOES have some limitations and why he couldn't prevent a complete Holocaust even with his powers.

So Brians Life is quite correct the text sections are pretty crucial to a complete understanding of the Comic.

Things like the fate and identity of Hooded justice, the tales and fates of the first generation of the Superheroes in Under the Hood and more Rorschach backstory to name just a few of the text pieces revelations.

As for the anti-heroism angle, Ian Thomson wrote about this in his essay “Deconstructing the Hero”, saying that Moore wrote the story so it “develops its heroes precisely in order to ask us if we would not in fact be better off without heroes.” In all fairness, other people have said that Moore didn’t deconstruct the hero but instead did a revisionist story.

By the way, kudos to bacci40 for such a well thought out rebuttal. ☺

http:// movies.yahoo.com/ feature/ watchmen.html?showVideo=1

and now I guess there will be even MORE whining about the lack of squid? Will any of you ever get the fuck over it? It's pretty much been made official now that there wont be a fucking squid in the movie. And even if there was, do you all seriously think that they would show it in the goddamn trailer 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE FUCKING MOVIE COMES OUT????

please shut the fuck up about the squid people, at least until the movie hits theatree...

The question of whether Watchmen is a great piece of art is different than whether Alan Moore was correct. Alan's a bit of an extremist, and his views about politics are pretty much as daft as any college freshman. But that doesn't take away from the intricate craft that went into construction of the book.

The worst thing about Watchmen is that it screwed up comics for decades, as lesser talents tried to emulate Moore, and copied managed to wipe all fun and idealism out of comics, while simultaneously making them even more juvenile.

So it is better to let it go and move on.

I'm not goign to debate the squid, but merely reiterate the question that if there's no squid things, then there's no island where Comedian catches a glimpse of this "master plan" and then why would "you know who" need to off Comedian?

I'm not sayin gyou can't still have those thigns happen without the squid, but Snyder must have concoctyed SOMETHING else for Comedian to accidentally have seen which costs him his life.

My only complaint is that I hope that they remove all the slow-mo.

My advice is to stop by you local mega-bookstore this weekend and spend some time flipping through Watchmen for free. If you like it, buy it (or, heck, my public library has two copies. Check yours.) and read it before seeing the movie. The comic is the masterpiece. The movie should be fun,. but if you really want to get into what Watchmen is, like that asshole form the 1980's Time-Life commercial said: Read the book. It's worth it and wil probably just get you more geared up for the film.

Still don't have much faith in this project though, and changing the squid seems like a stupid move also. Kinda changes the meaning of the ending...

And more importantly, even if they were, the 'Watchmen' title is supposed to be sinister and worrying in it's implications about superheroes and their role and effect on society, not a positive thing they would use to name themselves. It derives from the quote 'Who watches the watchmen?', which has obvious overtones of distrust for those with authority or power. It's the title of the book to give a thematic sense of what the story is about, rather than to be a snazzy name for a group of heroes. *If* indeed it was used in the film in that way it *would* tend to imply first of all that Snyder didn't 'get it', which I don't believe, and also wouldn't make sense for the characters unless they were suspicious of their own role and motives! Hitler didn't name his party the 'Racist Power-mad Fascist' party now did he?

Hey not as much slow mo bullet time in this trailer. So I like it a tad bit more. Still I'm a big Philip Glass fan so I hate seeing his music used for the temp track. It's not like they will use it in the film and if they did all I'd be thinking about is why the fuck are they using Koyaanisqatsi's music!!!! Sure I'm not in the 99.9999999999999 percent of the world who wont know what the fuck that song is. but still. It would ruin it for me. I hate temp tracks!

If it is, then please stop calling it Watchmen, because Watchmen is not about blowing shit up...

So it's possible a few more people are aware of the song now.;)

Cardboard characters, thin plots, no subtext what so ever etc. I won't even mention the slow-mo stuff...

First of all, and with regards to my reference to 9-11, I mention it in order to draw attention to how it was co-opted (as Dr. Manhattan was by the U.S. through a sense of patriotism, and then by Veidt through a sense of humanism) not only to legitimize the ‘war on Terror’, but more fundamentally as a means to 'end history' by taking advantage of the global solidarity that these attacks had provoked.

By the 'end of history' I refer to the phrase reappropriated by Fukuyama (supporter of the Iraq war at the time and co-signatory to the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton urging him to remove Hussein by military means; http://www.newamericancentury. org/iraqclintonletter.htm) which suggested that human historical process -- the primary concern of Enlightenment thought – had ultimately rejected communism and embraced liberal democracy as the highest, and thus final (i.e. best alternative under the circumstances), form of political and social order.

Unfortunately, this reading obscures the real challenges that was at play in Hegel’s original concept of history, and subsequently what Nietzsche, Marx, and Kojève struggled with, though all in their individual and highly distinctive ways. Therefore putting Hegel’s thought aside, it was the continuing problem of the best political order (desire for utopia) that troubled thinkers in the wake of WWII (particularly many of the French thinkers influenced by Kojève’s lectures on Hegel in the late 30’s). Having lost faith in the Enlightenment project of modern, rational, and enlightened people governing in peace - free from ideologies and moral dogmas – there came a pronounced aversion (particularly among the intellectual class) to all grand ‘narratives’ about the human spirit, seeing that these could easily be used as ideological propaganda on the ignorant masses by the tyrannical few (hence their anti-humanist critique).

Unfortunately, as many critics of postmodernism have observed, particularly those usually referred to as neo-conservatives (many of whom were originally Trotskyists, but quickly lost faith and instead adopted an anti-communist and anti-progressivist - or what they called bourgeois liberalism - defense of liberalism), this rejection of any claims to Truth or meaning – often associated with dogmatic theology or scientism – produced a culture of irony and relativism. The political dilemma was that modern western democracies, having lost faith in the universal validity of their fundamental principles (and caught up in internal debates about how to actualize so-called ‘rights’ to freedom and equality without making them seem too reliant on any universalist claims), were increasingly less prepared to intervene militarily in order to secure its national interests.

Of course, it was the U.S. that most exemplified this dilemma, having assumed its position as superpower after WWII (cf. the article “Dr. Manhattan: Super-Powers and the Superpowers”), and even more so after the fall of the Berlin Wall. As most political leaders - whose claim to power is sanctioned by collective approval - know, a nation’s foreign policy is always constrained by the moral or ideological sentiments of the public, despite the fact that the public is not always aware (and in many cases cannot be made aware) of the dangers that it faces. It is this precisely this dilemma that many in the White House sought to override by making use of 9-11 and implement the Bush doctrine of pre-emption without international approval (it merits mentioning that the Bush doctrine actually expresses a fundamental principle of power that any nation will adopt under given circumstances in order to retain control over its security interests, though none more than the dominant power, who has no choice but to attempt to maintain order and not jeopardize both its interests and the dominance upon which those interests in turn depend).

The squid – being both grotesque and ridiculous, and a remnant of the fears as they were expressed in those b-movies of the 50’s and 60’s whose posters are depicted throughout the comic (off the top of my head: ‘This Island Earth’ [ch.3, p.11] and ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’) – is meant not only to represent the external threat that Veidt believed would bring the world together, but I think that it is also meant to draw our (i.e. the reader’s) attention to the ‘monsters’ – war, social decadence, alienation, etc. – that our culture produces (but also the graphic novel we, like the black kid sitting on the curb, are holding in our hands), and which continues to hurt us all (look not only at the ending of the novel, but the ending of the novel-within-the novel ‘Marooned’). For this reason, I think that the squid is meant to feel ‘out of place’ within the context of the story (just as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, like Vietnam in the novel, all feel out of place in comparison to the rhetoric of idealism, as well as respect for human rights and the rule of law).

In other words, it is meant to provoke a ‘wtf?’ reaction from the reader; as if to make us realize how contrived not only this solution is (and thus anti-climatic), but also to juxtapose our desire for some form of resolution with the other desires depicted throughout the story, namely: The comedian’s ironic and nihilistic cynicism, and how it depends on perpetual conflict, which is why it was the absence of conflict - the actualization of utopia itself, not the means by which Veidt planned to bring this about - that scared him the most; The U.S. desire to achieve and maintain global supremacy, albeit for purposes of international order, which ended up escalating global tension and anti-Americanism by those unwilling to acquiesce to their dominance; Veidt’s desire for global peace and stability, based on a misunderstanding of the paradox of human wisdom, which in fact represents the next step to this tyrannical desire for ‘good’, while Dr. Manhattan’s ultimate indifference likewise embodies the moral emptiness (i.e. inhuman, mechanical, watchlike) of reason when it sees itself as separate from the very human predicament – no matter how imperfect – that produced it (in his case, scientific intellectual curiosity).

And then there’s the ‘general’ public depicted in the book, which just wants to be entertained, consumes products that satiate their various desires, such as security (during the golden era of heroes the U.S. is at the height of its popularity), freedom (when heroes are seen as vigilantes, and tensions grow inside the U.S. due to Vietnam and the Cold war, and fears about the significance of Dr. Manhattan as a god that judges unscrupulously), comfort and individualistic narcissism (Veidt’s ‘Nostalgia’ perfumes; Veidt method), consumerism (Ozymandias action figure line and cartoons), escapism (sci-fi b-movies), hope in technological utopia (“Millenium” line), but most importantly our fascination with horror and ‘metaphysical terrors’ (see the end of ch. 5, part. ‘p. 61’on ‘Tales of the Black Freighter’ and the ‘Marooned’ story that is interspersed throughout the novel) and the ease with which our egos identify themselves with depictions of heroism notions about ‘saving the earth and mankind.’

Finally, precisely because it is these fears and desires that ‘Watchmen’ is, at its core, meant to depict, and regardless of whether the squid is used or not, I think that the movie will have failed if it does not incite some form of cognitive dissonance from the viewer (similar to what Fight Club was intended to do as well). Hence, to the question “who watches the Watchmen?,” the answer, both metaphorically and literally, should be: we do. With our books, our movies, our songs.. we watch the unfolding of mankind.

The Watchmen… that is us. And we’re responsible for what we do.

And I don't see why people consider the squid silly in a world that supports a man that can bend time/space with powers that are godlike. In my opinion an attack by "squid from alternate dimension" would push the world in global unity much easier than anything from this world (including Dr. Manhattan).

I'm digging the aesthetics, but this trailer is making me feel a bit skeptical about the actual content.

I really wish Snyder had been as intent on being as faithful to the STORY as he was to the visuals, but I guess that wasn't a priority. Which is why this trailer and the (seemingly confirmed) rumors of a drastic change to the plot of the comics is such a damn let-down, because it's the STORY, not the visuals, (no offense to Gibbons) that is the real reason Watchmen was so amazing and is still so revered. Framing Doc is such a half-assed, story changing cop out that I have honestly lost the motivation to pay money to see this.

I guess Snyder proved Gilliam was right.

You know "Thinking" it's a bad thing. We shouldn't make them do that... It might fuck something up.

Cause these fucking trailers promise them an action flick! And Watchmen is not an action peace.

Rorschach's voice is modelled on ALAN MOORE who has done previously done readings from Rorschach's journal in Rorschach's "voice". It has fuck all to do with Batman. Try again.

"Watchmen". It does jar. Watchmen means ALL the Superheroes first and second generation but it won't kill the film.

Manhattan's voice. Perfect in the LEAVE ME ALONE! Perhaps too emotional on Mars with Silk Spectre.. too little to judge yet.

This movie is going to be a commentary on the current state of superhero movies, for sure, just not in the way that Snyder ham-handedly intended it to be.

That's exactly what's wrong if you ask me. Snyder seems to think that the "moral imperative" of Watchmen is nothing but dark cynicism. He's utterly missed the point. Watchmen is not slow motion or shocking violence that seems extreme for a comic book. It's a novel, like Gravity's Rainbow or War and Peace, in which here is never clear cut good or bad, only the moral complexity of the universe itself.

Alan Moore was right all along.

Reading about the credits sequence with the Watchmen / Forrest Gump stuff just furthers this for me... It sounds like a commercials director took Watchmen and replicated cool beats visually without any sense of a coherent whole. I don't need to see Ozy hanging with David Bowie photorealistically, for fuck's sake.

And the fact that he blames this on the script drafts he read not having the squid is just a total pussy cop out excuse.

Any uncultured wank out here on the untamed asshole farm that is the internet who thinks that "the squid" (ah, so simply put, li'l tardbabies) is unnecessary to the story (1) probably didn't finish "reading" it (just looking at the pictures while seated in a Barnes & Noble easychair DOES NOT count) until five minutes ago, if ever, (2) probably didn't adequately comprehend or even care about 50-75% of the book, and (3) vocally supports the sort of 'hack & slash' approach to adaptation that has ruined, violated and shat upon so many promising properties before this one.

You bastards raped Christ and killed someone's childhood.

And fuck the Smashing Pumpkins a full decade ago. What fucking timewarp-for-douches did you people just fall out of?

And the weekend Watchmen comes out is my birthday, actually. I may not have jack shit to do tonight, but I promise you I'll have better things to do than suffer through a theater of people like, well, yourself, just to see some onscreen CGI cosplay in yet another underwhelming Hollywood bastardization of an otherwise enjoyable Alan Moore scripted comic book. I might see it after that, who knows, but rarely do I even see a movie anymore in enough time to actually talkback about it afterward here. That obsessive opening night shit is a young fanboy's game. Dark Knight was the exception.

But, heck, they've got Rorschach down pat, a pretty dead-on Nite Owl and a hot Silk Spectre, so I should count my blessings. :)

If this movie is their first exposure to the work and it has no depth, then the general public is going to think that all of us who have been urging that the graphic novel format deserves respect just as much as any other form of literature will were right, and it will continue to be a marginalized, looked down upon artform that you have to love defensively.

Also, RELEASE THE KRAKEN SNYDER!

What part do you think he'll play as a cameo? The cranky newsletter editor?

(Yeah, I'm just pullin' your leg, true believers.)

I'm going to make a bet that you haven't seen this film. So how the fuck would you KNOW if the work "has no depth"?

They have to sell this movie to shitheaded fratboys who just want to see a "hawt" chick in a skimpy outfit and superheroes running around for 2 hours. Do you think they'd be interested in a movie if the trailer made the film LOOK like a weighty drama?

WHY can't people seem to make this distinction?

Consider how at the end of the book a newspaper article reads "NY Survivors Reveal Nightmare Under Hypnosis", and a tag on the wall warns to "watch the skies" ... as if collective amnesia has started to dissipate the sense of urgency and apocalyptic horror (Apokálypsis is Greek for "lifting of the veil," or revelation) to a low-level awareness of threats residing outside the planet (and thus out of our control... what a relief, eh?). At least with the nuclear threat, and the watchmen, the danger, albeit externalized as 'other' enemies, was at least recognized to be a threat inherent to humans in general. However, the semblance of hope -- the revelation of the true nature of their so-called peace -- lies within a book... Rorsach's diary (and maybe in art in general, since a sign promoting a 'Tarkovsky' season implies the importance of art, in this case a more mature and complex form of sci-fi, as the mirror of the human soul; Stalker, for example, which takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, is about the essence of our desires, but also of the desire to control, if not destroy, these desires out of fear of what they may unleash - a squid perhaps?)

The notion of the book, in this case the graphic novel, as a means of apocalyptic revelation is best demonstrated in Moore's 'Promethea', which literally ends in an Apokálypsis.

If you answer "Yes," then he might shrug and wait for the DVD...why pay top dollar for a foregone conclusion. If you say "Almost, but the ending's a LITTLE different, but I won't ruin it for you," you just sold a ticket on behalf of the movie studio.

Then he gets out of it, and goes crying to another friend about his beloved squid that's MIA. Now that guy goes to see it just because of the fuss.

And so on.

So why the fuck are they suddenly a super-group called Watchmen? Aw man, I'm starting to get a bit worried here...

PS: Multiple squiddies around the world is a better solution than Doc blowing shit up.

Well, someone listed for once and it GOT MADE.

Now, because there's NO SQUID, it seems like most of the "big fans" are complaining and saying they WON'T go see this film. They say they won't see the film they've been wanting to see but never thought would happen.

So, guess what happens: They stop making movies based on graphic novels. No "Maus", no, "Astro City", no "Love & Rockets". The studios won't see "Watchmen" doing shitty as a result of there being NO SQUID. They'll see it as lesser-known properties not being worth the risk.

The best thing to happen would be for "Watchmen" to do well- but not as good as say, "Dark Knight". This might make the studio ask why it DIDN'T do as well, and they might figure out that people want more respect given to the source.

Said my peace, done.

Still, that's pretty damn stupid. They're supposed to be loners except for Ror and Owl.

That sorta implies Talkbackers might procreate. Which is funny.

*drops microphone*

Patrick Wilson should totally play Job in Arrested Development: The Movie Based on the Tv Show.

Nevermind that the writers are changing shit up and probably screwing with the overall story. (ho hum, it always happens, right?)

Nevermind that the director has exhibited that he's more aptly suited to directing really eye-catching automobile commercials than great movies.

Nevermind all of that, I'll definitely go see Sack Znyder's Watchmen movie and buy the inevitable horrible videogame adaptation (thanks, tolomey), all because, as GENIUS SAGE OF OUR TIME PLAYKINS put it, if I don't Hollywood'll never EVER make another comic book adaptation again.

Gosh, I'm glad I had this miraculous conversion.

Also, "Preacher and James O'Barr's Crow are better" than Watchmen?

I enjoyed all of the above, but I think that statement tellingly nails where you're coming from with regard to style VS substance, so kindly fuck off.

Oh fickle TB.

So what's the encore, are you going to complain about how shitty CG is next?

Now this is an example here... but I remember... REMEMBER... way back in '97(?) when everyone was bitching on THIS SITE about how bad "Starship Troopers" was.....

About a month ago "Troopers" came up in talkback and about SEVENTY-FIVE percent of the people were talking about, "oh, that was a classic.... a mistunderstood masterpiece.... wonderful satirical cinema...." blahblahblah. I nearly laughed myself silly.

People (like you) refuse to accept that the movies you cherish from your past are significant TO YOU. THAT is why you remember them so fondly. They were no better (in most cases). It is all about what they mean to your life.

I'll bet money that you are the kind of person that gripes about how MUCH BETTER the music from your childhood was, right? Well, it wasn't. There was tripe, vacant bubblegum pop and one-hit-wonders then, too.

Get off your fucking soap-box and stop complaining, you pompous toerag.

Fuck off.

I'm sure that you know everybody and the way they are, right?

Keep swearing your rightness, one of us will be proven wrong. I'll gladly admit it if I am, will you?

For the record, and at risk of totally going off the rails, Starship Troopers sucked ass then and still does.

Nostalgia.

If you don't like what you're seeing then don't pay the money to see this film, don't download illegal copies, in fact ignore the film completely and simply re-read your copy of Moore's original. That never changes: that will never let you down.

Either shit or get off the toilet but don't sit by your computers assuming the moral high ground and then go grovelling like the little whiney bitches you are to the IMAX premiere.

Of course, you'll say that you are allowed to criticise and then watch the film, but that's what pussies always say. They bleat, simper and stamp their little feet then go blithely wandering into the cinema and support that which they stood against.

How can I write this? Well, Lucas got none of my cash for the last three Star Wars movies because I knew they would be a compromise for me and if you can't be true to yourself then who the hell are you?

I have lower expectations about The Watchmen so I'll be there, not minding the lack of calamari. Grow some balls, all you carpers.

If you're trying to make some misguided point about the relative worth of Watchmen being decided in retrospect, either comic or movie, you should probably try to clarify.

Or not. You could always just keep making asinine presumptuous statements unencumbered by minor annoyances like facts or even an informed opinion.

... and just watch The Dark Knight again (on Blu-Ray™).

If there's one unadulteratedly good thing about this movie, in my opinion, it would have to be that hope, that even more readers have sought out the source material and enjoyed it as much as I did.

Those who wish for some very amusing entertainment should look in the AICN search box for "The Dark Knight". Now go look at one of those talkbacks preceding the Movie. The further back the better. Read the exact same style of prophecies of CERTAIN fucking Doom.

Am I saying this will be another Dark Knight ? Nope. But we simply DON'T fucking know yet. So the hysteria on both sides is a bit much.

Could the ending and Ozy and the excecssive slo/fast-mo totally fuck this Movie up ? YES. Yes it COULD.

Has it ? We simply don't know yet.

But so far even with those obvious misgivings it still looks far better than many thought it ever would. And until I see the actual whole Movie I'm not gonna be satisfied or arrogant or 100% CERTAIN based solely on trailers and rumour thanks very much.

Yes, yes they fucking have.

And though I'd like it to be slightly more monotone than we have yet heard the Rorschach voice is going to be all over this Movie and so far it certainly isn't as forced as Bales voicing was to my ears.(which again hardly killed TDK to be fair)

That voice also has some absolutely SUPERB dialogue to speak. So whether it is the precise pitch or decibell some would like won't seem quite so crucial if those lines are delivered well.

The actors in this film still have to act so they need some room to move behind Rorschach's and Manhattans voice.

And if Manhattan can deliver "I am disappointed viedt. VERY disappointed" and the speech that follows as well as it should be then job fucking done.

"The Bad News: The world is turning into a sewer." "The good news: We're learning to love the smell of shit."

You were talking about films, right? Being that this is primarily a FILM site? Or... were you "totally going off the rails"? God I hope you aren't one of those pessimistic douchebags that goes on about how crappy everything is nowadays.

And don't tell me about being presumptuous... go back and read your first post.

"Any uncultured wank out here on the untamed asshole farm that is the internet who thinks that "the squid" (ah, so simply put, li'l tardbabies) is unnecessary to the story"

If you really want to know (or if it even matters you ELITIST ASS)- I bought the copy of Watchmen that I'm staring at right now in 1992. It was highly recommended by the owner of the comic shop I frequented in high school. The corner of the book was chewed by my dog, there are loose pages, I wrote notes in the margins when I did a paper on it in college, and it's been read at least 20 times.

"WAAAAAH, THEY NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES WATCHMEN IN THE COMIC, WAAAAAAAH"

Fucking hell, and this doesn't sound so much like reading a funny book as doing homework "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH, You're not a real fan unless you read all 9,324 text extracts as well as the comic, and you don;t understand unless you've researched"

"WAAAAAH, SNYDER JUST DOESN'T GET IT, WAAAAAAAH, HE'S CLEARLY NOT READ ALL 9,321 ESSAYS ON THE SUBJECT"

You should be more concerned that the main villain looks like a candidate for prison rape ("That's a real purty mouth you've got there Ozy") than the fact that the vagina faced appetizer isn't in it.

I just want to know the what to what to expect from this trailer. Is there any special FX stuff done to Cruddup's voice at all? What are Rorshach's lines? Throw me a bone, people!

The point also stands that you don't NEED to know EVERYTHING and every characters backstory in a Movie before watching it to want to watch it.

As has been said "average cinema goers" didn't have a clue what the fuck Star Wars was or more recently Lord of the Rings huge cast. (again those are examples of "brand" I'm NOT saying Watchmen is going to replicate either of those)

Do I think WB is doin the best job possible for watchmen ? Probably not. But they ARE getting it out there and talked about which is a start.

And rest assured the Hollywood moneymen noticed TDK's gigantic boxoffice so Watchmen certainly won't be the last comic book adaptation regardless of how well it is realised or indeed, not.

At the end of the day the comic is still going to be there whatever happens as well. So to repeat what others have said for raising awareness of the original comic alone this Movie is a good thing.

(even if it does ultimately disappoint or EVEN, who knows ? turns out to be good.)

So, then we have Snyder and Hollywood's "Watchmen", which FROM VIEWING THE TRAILER, Philip Glass music aside, looks like a typical super hero action movie, complete with slow motion cinematography and pretty composition. I know I should hold off until I see the movie in whole, but, especially since I'm aware there won't really be any Philip Glass music in the film and also being aware of the kind of movie Snyder made in "300", I'm expecting a different yet typical super-hero movie, which is not, in my mind, what Alan Moore created back in 1985.

My having referred to users of the nomenclature "the squid" as tardbabies speaks more to those who use it derisively, never even having read the damned thing, in some cases, as opposed to those who actually coined use of the term affectionately.

Now, Jarv, I don't actually give a shit whether they call themselves Watchmen, although it does for some reason remind me of the old Upright Citizens Brigade 'titular line' sketch. I care slightly more about squiddy, and most about whether or not the source is given some respect. Unfortunately, I gave up caring about the fact that Veidt looks gay as hell months ago, when that first batch of images hit.

My sandy vag is largely due to the fact that I think Zack Snyder is a ill-suited choice for directing anything but car advertisements and/or some really futuristic-looking porno. If you guys don't mind him, fine whatever, but I thought his DotD remake was a derivative piece of shit that totally missed the point, and 300 didn't do a whole lot for me either, and I'm just bummed that assembly-line filmmaking won out over some reasoned arguments, by arguably more talented artists, as to why this should or shouldn't be done.

If Snyder pulls off what to me would appear as a coup and makes a great movie, I will henceforth and forever STFU about it.

But seriously all, if AICN TB is not the place for potentially inlammatory, mindlessly indulgent geek rhetoric - where, then, is?

The book is a study of the entire society NOT a determined detective POV hunt with the "thrills" of Jack the Ripper horror.

Likewise I understand the point you make about Watchmen and the fact that some of the action sequences have clearly been expanded, points to a more action oriented Movie.

But it will STILL (unless it is a complete fuckup) have some of the superb scenes and dialogue that made Watchmen not just a dry dissertation on the contradictions and commonalities and philosophies of the Superhero myths BUT (as with most of Moores best work) it manages to still BE a great example of the very thing he is scrutinizing.

So the watchmen comic HAS some solid comic book action in it. It has some truly memorable characters and it has a fascinating and complex story. Just taken as a "standard" comic book adventure watchmen works and works beautifully. Even without all the layers of subtext and irnoic reflection.

I think some of that action and story and character IS probably going to translate into rock solid Movie entertainment. I certainly don't know how much but we will at least see some of these characters and scenes brought to life and that could and should be quite a sight. *IF* it's not a complete disaster.

It's not on the video release.

INCOMPATIBLE! DOES NOT COMPUTE!

suppose if Rorshach was wearing a tiara instead of a fedora, that would would just wash over you, as long as the marketing was good? Just kidding, I see your point - it's just that I have no interest whether the wider world, its dog and her mother ever go and see the movie -as long as it gives us a solid, captivating, standalone experience... or at least doesn't make us cringe too much.

Which means: OZY'S PLAN DOES NOT WORK.

Getting rid of the squid = invalidating the entire underlying premise of what WATCHMEN is about, and what Ozy's plan was all along. It's not about it being a fucking squid - it's about faking an ALIEN INVASION THAT UNITES HUMANITY AGAINST A COMMON ENEMY! Which this shitty fucking new ending DOES NOT DO!!!

Jesus. I thought people understood this novel! And conspiracy theorists have lived on Reagan's comments about an alien invasion for YEARS...

Manhattan frame-up = Entire world gangs up on US for (a) creating Manhattan in the first place, and (b) for not preventing him doing what he supposedly did. Probably the world then nukes America in retribution.

I'd say in the Manhattan frame-up ending, Ozy's plan pretty much doesn't fucking work - unless his plan was to unite the entire world against the US! Is Ozy actually Dubya in disguise?!?!?

Reboot!

... and then rape him to death IN IMAX.

"Zack Snyder was in London today with his travelling Watchmen show, and as well as screening almost 30 minutes of footage for us (one word: AWESOME), he also told us a little bit more about the current state of the film.

First, and spoiler-free, he talked running time. "It's a little over two-and-a-half hours right now," which is unlikely to change a whole heck of a lot. That said, "There is a three hour cut" which may appear on the DVD, and "if you include the Black Freighter, that's three-and-a-half hours".

Secondly, and more spoilerifically, there has been a change to the book's "squid ending", as one questioner put it. Snyder was asked what he has against squid, and had this to say: "Well, I had a horrible calamari incident as a child."

But seriously, folks. "I have nothing against it. But the squid represents something that would have had to have been illuminated through extra story. We would have had to sacrifice character to story and character is more important to me."

What they've come up with, said Watchmen co-creator Dave Gibbons, is something that is true to "the tone, the moral ambiguity of the book". Just not involving, y'know, big squidy-looking things. And in any case Gibbons says, "It's not a squid; it's a fifth-dimensional cephalopod". So there.

In other news, Snyder also talked a little about Under The Hood, another DVD extra chronicling 1940s costumed adventurers The Minutemen. "Eric Matthews did that; it's a mock documentary. The complicated thing is that it's done as a 1985 [when the film is set] TV retrospective looking back at the publication of a book that's supposed to have come out in 1972. That's very cool."

Snyder also talked more generally about Watchmen. "They offered it to me on the phone, and they were talking about setting it in the present day and changing the ending. I thought, well, if I don't do this, someone else will, and they'll mess it up and it'll be my fault. So I might as well do it and try to do it right, and if I mess it up it'll still be my fault but at least it'll be my fault on purpose."

And does he think the world is ready for this? "Pop culture's ready to have their shit shaken up a little bit. Watchmen hopefully will get under the comic-book movie mythology a little bit. I mean, my mum now knows that Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider; she has no business knowing that! So I think the knowledge is mainstream enough to get this."

But is there a superior mainstream film magazine out there?

However, Empire is basically hello! magazine with a few dismally over-rating reviews in it. It isn't good and being the least shit isn't an excuse.

In its detonation it is destruction as inverted creation, taken to the extremes of the giant squid...

Then again, I'm also talking a lot of shit. Maybe.

Anyway, if you radically change the ending (like they are) then the whole theme of the peace changes and you delete a vital sub-plot to the story (missing artist + island). Also, the squid and Ozy's plan are foreshadowed through the whole book, and anyone who says that the squid comes completely left-field needs to reread the damn book.

A blue emotionless god is just as ridiculous IMO. Isn't that one of the points of the book?

If it does great numbers, then superhero fans will also continue to get more of what they want at the movies.

Hate to use this corporate term, but to me it looks like win-win either way.

If it's a shitty adaptation (like LXG for example) I'd just shun it off as garbage, but this looks to have potential, and if it's just a mediocre film then I'll just fume over all the missed opportunities, both adaptation-wise and from the filmmaking standpoint.

On the other hand, Fom Hell and V for Vendetta, both got similar attention that Watchmen are getting now (at least from the "geek community"). Went saw them, both where rather mediocre (From Hell was crap actually), and didn't follow the books much.

Now when I look back at those viewings, the LXG was the most pleasant one. It was never a "could-have-been", it was garbage, while V was a huge disappointment full of missed opportunities.

Trailer seemed a little uneven and (dare I say) gives the impression of a dull film. I don't know...as someone who has never really been interested in WATCHMEN, I'm still indifferent.

This whole argument reminds me of the scouring of the shire debate that had been raging around here for years. The answer then is much the same as it is now, too. Frodo embodied the notion that war changes everything and that there was no going back, and, for the sake of brevity, it wasn't that much of a leap in combining the sentiments of scouring of the shire with the emotional scars of Frodo.

Here, in Snyder's Watchmen, it isn't that much of a stretch to combine Manhattan's severing of all ties to humanity with that of the alien menace. It really can work, gents, and is logical, so long as you are willing to have an open mind.

What's so tough to understand about that?

Even with Orsen Wells 's radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds' actually had people on the verge of suicide. Aliens invade we go bugnuts. All of us! No question. To change the threat to Manhattan changes so much subplot that it will take a lot more than just saying "Oh, yeah...this Doc Manhattan guy is gonna kill us all. We need to unite to stop the American, man-made God (accident or not) from killing us all!" or having him working with Ozymandias to create this "enforced peace". You guys seem to think it's stupid to harp on this oversight but will you admit to the failure of the third act of Watchmen when it occurs? Ok...if it occurs?

And can someone explain to me how a squid as pictured in the GN would be stupid on screen? How, after a giant ape beating a giant rattan wall to get to his blonde human girlfriend...or how giant alien tripods incinerate people, running down the street, into ashes versus laying waste to the entire town with a wider death ray or how a giant albino bat-like creature pulverizes NYC or how Hellboy regretfully fights of a giant plant (elemental) but yet ending the Watchmen movie like the GN is somehow stupid? Why, exactly? And please try to answer without Nostradomusing people saying "People will laugh at the screen!!" um...and you know this how exactly? Telekinesis? Or just bullshit conjecture? I would argue that if Snyder does it right, NO one would laugh at it so why don't you say this: "Because this guy Snyder is not capable of doing the original ending without it being stupid" because otherwise, it occurs to me you're actually lambasting the end of the GN itself. I think a few people might disagree with the ending of the Watchmen GN as being stupid. But that's just me.

As for the ominous theme of an impending attack that runs throughout the GN, again, just change it to the ominous theme of an impending attack by something from Mars, ony to reveal, in the end, that it is in fact Dr. Manhattan. Again, this isn't really that hard to condense the squid and GN Manhattan into one character.

By the looks of the trailer, Watchmen doesn't feel lived-in enough to carry the requisite weight of the commentary - be it the political commentary or the superheroes-in-the-real-world thing ... I mean the X Men movie were slick as hell but they seemed a lot more organic. I'll give Watchmen a shot, but I'm not too enthused by what I'm seeing.

(René Descartes was one of the first philosophers to posit that thesis - an element of his strict dualistic view of the distinction between mind and body - though its influence also made more apparent the growing divergence between scientific positivism and genuine philosophical enquiry.)

Would it just let people kill themselves indicriminately? Obviously, this possibility is meant to make us question our own theological and philsophical questions, but the point is that, in the character of Dr. Manhattan, we have a clear warning of not allowing delusions of scientific objectivity cloud our view of humanity, otherwise we too may be tempted to distance ourselves from that which makes us distinctly human.

Without even knowing that Alan Moore agreed telling EW that 300 was racist, homophobic, and stupid.

To me, someone who appreciates Frank Miller's Ayn Randian masturbatory political ideas and Victor Davis Hanson adapting Watchmen is, frankly, like the people behind Fox News adapting The Audacity of Hope into a movie.

"The bad reviews are so fun. Stuff they say, like, 'Zack Snyder has made homoeroticism safe for homophobes,' is priceless. As soon as I hear 'neocon' or 'homophobic' in the review, I laugh to myself and say, 'OK, this person has lost their inner child somewhere along the way, too much time in film school.' " 4. He really didn't mean to make a political statement. "I'm pretty obvious. It's not like: 'Zack Snyder weaves his web so subtly. He's the most subtle filmmaker of our time.' I mean, come on! The Watchmen will be political!"

Zack Snyder: “In the Making Of book there’s a guy named Victor Davis Hanson who is a…” Frank Miller: “We’re his fan club.” Zack Snyder: “He’s a frickin genius.

The genius of VDH himself, hater of multiculturalism:

"Instead, multiculturalism insisted that Western culture was the culprit for global inequality and the cosmic unhappiness of the individual. We all are to embrace distinct and different cultures, none of them inferior to any other, all meriting equal consideration and worth. No one dare suggest a foreign practice inferior, another country less successful than our own—especially given our supposed history of assorted sins."

That's right, a man who believes that Western civilization can do wrong is considered a genius by Zack Snyder. That's the thinking behind this Watchmen adaptation.

--------------

Oh, it's awesome! [laughs] Best thing ever! [laughs] When someone says I'm a "homophobic neocon," I think to myself and think, "Oh My God! How awesome is it that they care that much!" That's a lot of caring! [laughs]

It's really genuinely puzzling to me. Moore's work is completely anti authoritarian and attacks all the institutions of Western civilization on every possible angle. It cares VERY much about the power of storytelling - in fact, believes that it can actually create a psychic schism between reader author and the wider world.

I mean, look, I don't give a flying fuck if Snyder watches Sean Hannity, I really don't. More power to him. I just still can't conceive, and going back and finding these quotes, what it would be about Watchmen that would resonate with someone with attitudes like that.... Especially when they start mucking about the adpatation.

If you remove the original climax due to time constraints, then I'm thinking your priorities are a bit off. Instead of skipping daily $10 lunches and going with homemade sandwiches, you instead stop using electricity in your house/apartment, as a cheesy analogy. Sacrifice something major in lieu of a bunch of minor sacrifices?

In all honesty, I'd love for the absence of the 'squid' to make no difference to the quality of the movie/story. I'm not looking to watch only what Moore approves of nor do I care about this whole 'squid' argument nor anything else other than simply enjoying the story. My concern is, with the specific change to the climax and the buildup changes necessary to predicate it, is it not reasonable to question Snyder and team's process? Is he capable of coming up with the original filler remotely on par with Moore's work? I think the answer is obvious and since it's a done deal basically, I'll just hope I'm wrong!

Fingers crossed.

but the alan moore who picks on nixon and our involvement in vietnam and the insanity of nuclear superpowers and by god look at the most American of all the heroes - the Comedian - raping and shooting pregnant women in the stomach while storming around the world doing the will unquestionably of the US govt. Furthermore, V for Vendetta contains the most unsubtle depictions of the horror of a society that is racist and homophobic to such an extreme as to send those people to death camps.

I mean, I don't know, I tend to think of that as not the ideas of those who believed the Iraq war was justified and proper.

Also, you have to be prepared for the idea that none of those subjects you listed are as simple as you make it. Our involvement in Vietnam was brought about by LBJ, JFK, and Ike. Hardly a partisan effort, wo

I understand and consider LBJ to be a failed president and some of JFKs foreign policy interventions thank God didn't wipe us off the face of the planet... But by no means can you say that all that turmoil was the fault of the liberal left alone.

I would ask you though as a conservative what your stance on immigration, terrorism, homosexual civil rights, drug legalization, religion and state, etc are... And I'd say that they are pretty much the opposite of Alan Moore's.

Ain't that the truth.

What I was trying to say was that Vietnam was hardly a PARTISAN effort. Both sides of the political fence made monumental errors. As for Nuclear power, it was FDR who approved of the manhattan project and Truman who dropped the bomb. As for Nixon...well, everybody hates Nixon ;)

Now, I am not trying to say that the problems you brought up are democrat/liberal problems. What I AM saying is that there is pretty much equal involvment in Nuclear warfare, the Vietnam fiasco, and the like. I could just as easily bring up a slew of republican/conservative missteps and blunders but I really don't have that kind of time. I'm simply saying, again, that none of those issues are as simple as Democrat v. Republican, Conservative v. Liberal, or even Western society v. everybody else.

In a nutshell, authoritarianism can be born from ANY idealogy.

Maybe, just maybe, a studio rep played the rumor of Zombie getting Conan and the resultant apeshit-fest changed their minds? We may not be representative of the movie going audience at large nor the geek universe in total but I think we actually do have influence as a highly vocal, somewhat obnoxious film-fan community. Shit, just the fact that Moriarty is (or was) banned from Skywalker Ranch tells us quite a bit about certain bigwig views on AICN (If AICN were a part of town and Lucas got a flat tire, he'd have a small group of jackasses dressed in robes protecting him from the rabid masses of furious TB'ers! It'd be quite the battle royale! Even if over quicker than mice fucking).

Everybody always assume it comes from hate...it doesn't. It comes from perhaps a slightly obsessive love of these stories...some of them we've grown up with over decades and to see arbitrary approaches to the creative content can be annoying. To an extent, we sometimes feel the material "belongs" to us, not in the Lucas way, "It's MY movie asshole! Not the fans!" but in the sense of identification with the story and the characters. People like Zakk Snyder and his political views are meaningless in the larger context. Moore only gets a break cause he created this particular world. But if it's about too long a movie or too many subplots, that's one thing. But we're talking about changing the climax of the entire story and most of you guys are busy equivocating it away and justifying why it doesn't matter. Why it's stupid to put it on screen in the first place. Why? And try not to simply profess opinion. Cause if what we're talking about is Snyder's opinion, than fuck him and his 'opinions' when it comes to properties he should be HONORED to bring to the screen...not get testy or defensive about the changes. Or act detached and psuedo-critical of people's reactions to the big changes when he thinks they should be concerned about the little ones.

Again, I'm referring not so much to the change itself but to the defenders of it and their insistence that to follow the GN as written is somehow a bad thing? And, I think it's going to be an excellent movie and I hope their manufactured and contrived ending works but to me, it won't be the same cause it ISN'T the same. Therefore, it's not a true translation. Why not call Manhattan Atomo-Man then? Why not have them all have actual superpowers instead of just one of them? Why have it in the alternate 80's universe? Why bother having the mini-story within the story? Why bother being remotely true to the original material at all? We may as well get Bay and Emerich to do it eh?

And, yes, I understand why you feel it is important to have the squid. I also agree that if Snyder is simply changing it for change's sake, then yes, he deserves to rot in Hell, but it could also be that he really feels the story needs to be condensed and that from his perspective, the squid is a weak link. Dunno, really, but since he is the director, it is ultimately his call. If it works for most, then its a good call. If not, well, he better start to change his address. We won't know till we see the finished product, though, will we?

Because if it's the latter, then based on that trailer, no-one unfamiliar with Watchmen is going to be stoked into a frenzy of wanting to go see it. It's too vague, too 'weird' for Joe Shmoe to buy into.

If the movie was made solely for the fanboys, however...well, again, it falls down because we all know now that the ending is a meaningless, irrelevant (and irreverant) compromise which fans of the book will utterly despise.

So the question you really need to be asking yourself, Zach, is "Who, if anyone - will actually BE watching the Watchmen?"

Sad, but I think we're talking 'Speed Racer' box-office come March...

Biggus out.

Whew, glad we cleared that up. 'Cos obviously no-one on earth is capable of making a movie where a giant fucking alien beast can be strange to look at and yet still terrifying.

Have you watched ANY genre movies in the last decade? Are you even aware of what they can do these days with SFX?

**shakes head in disbelief**

This encapsulates EVERYTHING that is great about Watchmen the GN. IT DOESN'T FUCKING COMPROMISE. NEVER! Not fucking once. That story works on its own terms because Alan Moore doesn't give a fuck what you think. It's HIS vision and HIS story and HIS fucking masterpiece.

What seems to have happened here, with former darling-of-the-geek-fraternity Zach "Sell-out" Snyder here, is that after getting acclaim regarding his first two movies - both of which I liked (though 300 is the gayest straight movie since TOP GUN) - he's sold out on arguably the greatest graphic novel ever written - in order to keep his place at the table. This should have been the point where NO-ONE got to interfere - Zach does it all Moore's way or not at all. But hey, if he has to compromise in order to make the inevitable fuck-up HIS fuck-up, then whatever.

Those of you who agree with compromising this unique and fucking flawless vision - not only have you fundamentally missed the entire premise of the fucking graphic novel, you're buying into the idea that compromise is GOOD - that compromise between the GN and the movie can be a good thing. Compromise, in this case, means fucking up the entire point of the graphic novel - meaning Zach just doesn't get it. I mean, fundamentally doesn't GET IT.

And if that's where compromise on this project leads you - WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT AT ALL?

Hey, enjoy your new LXG, peeps. I'm making like Moore and giving this shit a wiiiiiiiiiide berth. 100% or nothing at all - that's what this project deserved. It got 90%, and that's just not good enough.

One things for sure whether there is enough interest in the general Moviegoing public about watchmen yet, there clearly is here. ;-)

So is it such a massive let down that they use another man-made creation - the bomb - in its stead?

So the artists got together and had their indivual plans corrupted to form the pretence of an alien invasion. And they made a fucking squid. The greatest artist in the world get together and they formulate...A GIANT FUCKING SQUID?

Let's put the greatest writers, poets, sculptors, dramatists and whoever the fuck else can hold a pen and think outside the box together in a room and leave them alone for a while.

(Waits a week.)

"Whaddya got boys and girls?"

(Embarassed Pause) "Ermmm...it's a squid.

"A fucking what?"

"A squid."

"I'm sorry, I thought you said it was a squid."

"Ummm...well, it's a celaphopod, to be precise. And it's really big. And it's thoughts can kill."

"Oh thank god for that because for a moment I thought you'd said you came up with a mental octopus.

It dies on contact...some fucking 'invasion'.

"Oh shit! Oh shit! It's a giant fucking telepathy octopus and it's coming this way! And it's coming this...oh...no it isn't. The fucker's dead."

Whoooo...that's a brillaint invasion plan. Let's die when we get there.

Why don't we have the most powerful man on the planet 'turn' against its people ("Yeah!" scream the executives, "We've been trying to make a Superman movie like that for years!")

Even if he is being framed that's just as fucking plausible as a giant squid, all things being equal.

If you make a movie about the Bible, you have Jesus Christ crucified. You don't have him shot to death and then pop up later as a genie from a bottle.

I'm not comparing Watchmen to the Bible but they're both sacred items that you don't fuck around with if you're using them as source material. This is the best graphic novel EVER. And they've changed it!

You wait all these years for it to reach the big screen and they've fucked it up! THAT's why people are saying they will boycott this movie.

Fucking hell. Did I really have to explain it to some of you, simpletons?

Does the original ending work in the Comic ? Yes, yes it does.

Does Snyders alternate ending work in the Movie ? WE. DON'T. FUCKING. KNOW. YET. clear ?

But before some people attempt to trash the originals ending for fear that Snyders ending may turn out to be shit, at least understand that there are REASONS for the original ending and it wasn't pulled out of thin air.

Firstly, "It's a squid!" Nooooo. It's from another fucking demension, is enormous and ***SPOILER*** teleports into the centre of New York killing hundreds of thousands of people in unimaginably bloody carnage.

Don't THINK there will be too many who survive that will say "fuck me! it were only a squid. Doh!"

It has tentacles and RESEMBLES a gigantic single eyed sea creature with a beak BUT it ain't no fucking squid it's ALIEN it clearly LOOKS fucking Alien (what with the GIGANTIC bizzarrely colored tentacles and single eye and teleporting into SOLID buildings and ground)

Other problem is framing Manhattan. Simply put if you read the comic you are under no doubt that Manhattan's greatest weakness was ALWAYS (even when he was Osterman) that he was a PASSIVE observer. He was pushed into his job by his father, Janey took the riegns of the relationship and later Manhattan looks on as *SPOILER** the Comedian shoots his pregnant Vietnamese squeeze.

The famous "GOD HELP US ALL!" line is BECAUSE the Comedian can see how completely out of touch and uncaring about humanity Manhattan is getting. But "supposedly" Snyder turns him into a Vengefull antagonist ???? Sorry but that is the complete OPPOSITE of what Manhattan is. He simply doesn't care. Laurie brings him back a little but ultimately not enough for him to actually ***SPOILER** stay on earth.

Having said all this we'll have to see how Snyders "version" fares. But don't pretend the original ending was throwaway. It's foreshadowed and is consistant with the characters actions.

Snyders problem is he is changing more than just one scene but a fairly crucial setpiece that was what it was for a reason. Who knows ? Perhaps he'll succeed and it will make sense and seem O.K. in the context of his version of the story. We'll see.

But don't try to fucking trash Moores ending pre-emptively out of fear of how Snyders ending will fare because Moores ending WORKS. And it is what it is for GOOD reasons.

Here's what he ACTUALLY said recently.

Can you tell us anything about the movie's supposedly changed ending? The version they screened a couple of weeks ago didn't have a squid…

I saw an early cut of the movie, and there was a nondisclosure agreement involved. I have read on the Internet that people suspect that there are multiple endings that they're going to market test, and that they have an ending with the squid and an ending without it. I certainly feel that if all you want to do is a literal adaptation of the book, then I guess you must have the squid. But I do think it's possible to have the same message as the book and have basically the same ending without the squid. So, that's something that I don't have insider knowledge about, but it's something that frankly isn't of huge concern to me.

*And brilliant as Gibbons is he was the ILLUSTRATOR not the driving force behind the story. So if the story called for and he wanted to simply draw a fucking squid (and NOT a genetically engineered creature from another dimension) something tells me as an extremely accomplished illustrator he could have managed it.

The creature is NEVER named. People just refer to is as squid or squiddy as shorthand after the fact. Instead of the generic "engineered monster" or "creature". It obviously doesn't mean it IS a squid FFS.

I also don't get Brians Life's argument about how having Dr Manhattan set off explosions around the world/wherever remotely fits in which his character arc. Isn't his arc that he turns his back on humanity and then realises humans have intrinsic value after all? How does him being perceived as, but not actually being, a murderous threat relate to this in any way? Also, I assume that in the film he ends up accepting this villain role for the 'greater good' meaning, once again, the theme of him having turned against humanity would be an erroneous perception on the part of the fictional populace rather than an actual, real theme. Finally, there is a difference between turning your back on humanity and becoming hellbent on destroying it and I think Brians Life may have picked up on this somewhere in a post where he wrote, if I'm not mistaken, that the Doc has 'reasoned' that humanity must be destroyed. The ongoing 'frame-up' involving Manhattan had him *involuntarily* inducing cancer in people who were exposed to him. It posited him as dangerous but indifferent rather than actively wicked. Now, fair enough the one (alienation) can lead to the other (destructive impulses) but I think that the progression (the ‘reasoning’) or, more relevantly, why the public would come to believe that Manhattan had come to this conclusion, would have to be put onscreen at some point (along with some resolution involving, presumably, his destruction). The ‘Terrorist Manhattan’ plot is going to end up having more dimensions (I believe another TBer has pointed out that Earth would effectively have to resolve to take up arms against a god), and ramifications than the squid plot and I don't believe that this is a good thing *precisely* because I don't think that the squid's role is all that important. The nature of the catastrophic event being worked towards is, IMO, one of the least important aspects of the whole story (I don’t think that ‘Big Ideas’ are Moore’s strong suite, as I’ve said).

I thought that the squid thing was pretty dumb in the graphic novel nevertheless I have misgiving about this change simply because of what the squid has been replaced with. The squid was dumb but it was also a discrete idea which didn’t really impact on what I perceive to be the actual arcs/journeys of the characters. And I can’t really see what would have been so difficult about creating the effect or why one might consider it too ‘out there’ to film—- one needn’t devote more than a minute of screentime to the damn thing. I’ve come to appreciate the graphic novel enormously and that appreciation has zero to do with the squid which I accepted because the buildup and everything else around it was so brilliant. I find the reveals of most film noir type stories to be pretty random and utterly ridiculous and it’s obviously the getting there which is most important thing as far as some stories are concerned. I guess what I’m trying to say is by replacing the squid with the Dr Manhattan the makers of this new movie have conceivably turned what I would almost consider a Maguffin into a weighty plot point.

And why sell it as a superhero movie? That’s a mistake. I see this more as an ‘LA Confidential’ type murder mystery and I think that the public will be more appreciative to it in the end if that was how it was being sold. Also, since this story is set in a post Cold War world what is Ozymandias’ imperative now? What is the Doomsday clock ticking down to, in this movie…?

As a Movie he seems happy with what Snyder has done but that certainly doesn't mean he thinks it's BETTER than the original comics ending. It means it's different and until I see how it's handled myself I'm not going to be definitive. nor am I going to take Gibbons approval as 100% "proof" Snyders ending has worked.

A Giant tentacled/many limbed, one eyed, Alien/sea creature with Telepathic powers called Starro the Conqueror.

THAT'S a bit of a fucking co-incidence isn't it ? No it ain't. Moore knows exactly what he is doing.

The fact that Starro and many, MANY of these "Supervillain" entities the Superhero Teams go up against are pretty fucking silly is not lost on Moore.

**SPOILERS** So he embraces this and TELLS the reader "look, something this wierd we'd have to invent" which is exactly what Ozy and his team of Artists does. The creature is impossibly strange and Alien because it was MADE that way.

****SPOILERS**** It's accepted for two big reasons. Firstly, because Manhattan is accepted in that world. So the conceptual leap isn't that huge from having Manhattan as a god-LIKE Superhero striding about the world to then having a classic Comic book antagonist appearing. A supremely strange and evil Alien creature that threatens the entire world.

Secondly. The DEAD. The death and mutilation and bloody corpses and hundreds of thousands killed by squiddy is an instant and incredibly effective counterpoint to any inherent ridiculousness we feel about squiddy. That's crucial. Without all the blood and carnage and subsequent shocked reaction by Laurie Squiddy would topple under the weight of it's strangeness into merely the absurd. But the World sees the death and destruction and so do we. It "roots" squiddy into being something far more sinister and deadly.

I never said Gibbons shitted upon anything - brobdingnag said "Theres no point in trying to explain why the squid is more than just a squid to the people who don't care that it's meaning has been totally changed because they never got Watchmen in the first place, and aren't capable of getting it."

So I said "Explain why the squid is more than a squid to Dave Gibbons. I guess he didn't "get" Watchmen in the first place either?"

No, that doesn't mean he's literally saying it's just a squid - but close enough. He said the ending works, that's the point, and I have this suspicion that he understands the comic. The idea here is that just cause someone is okay with replacing the squid doesn't mean they don't understand the goddamn thing.

And everyone should quit calling it a graphic novel. It's a mini series comic book.

Joking, Zack & co, heh.

(But I) Wasn´t too crazy about some stuff. Calling themselves "Watchmen". Yep, sorry. I know, is for the masses. But we´re talking about an RATED-R MOVIE FOR ADULTS. "I loooved the movie, but why Watchmen?", "Something to do with all those wall graffitis, but hey, who cares? The movie was great!" The crimebusters photo shot with everyone smiling. And a shorty-like-a-puppy Ror, rar rar. The "Watchmen is over" voice over...over a hot-&-sexy chick? How about something more...properly right? The climax of the Muse song is a scene we know wasn´t that super-duper important in the novel (the rescue from the fire). Should have been the last frames of Bernie and the comic book kid (also called Bernie) embracing together before the very end. Or something dramatic like that. Ozzy´s german accent. This gonna be...weird. A nazi villain triumphing at the end, "I zaved ze worrrld!!" Even the last cinematic Red Skull was a italian...

(And) Loved some stuff. The shadowy mannequin-like-Veidt entry...with a real mannequin at his side. Ror going up with the Blade-Runnerian whatever-craft above the building. Old Laurie´s voice. You can see she´s a mature doll just by the way she talks. Finally, a great water effects on Archie´s rising from the river shot. Nice to be patient. Ror running through the corridor. Can´t wait for the after shots. "Hey, this ugly little zero is the terror of the underworld!?" And Doc shouting "Leave me alone!!" Imagine this screaming with...sound effects. So wrong, man. No human drama at all.

(And there were some) Middle stuff. Hated at first the Night Owl´s voice. But, on a second though. He sounded like a nerd. Just like one of us nerds, heh. About Rorschach, still don´t like his horse-like-face (sorry, twenty years of rounded-face Ror). But he´s dead on perfect. And sometimes, he reminds me of...Inspector Clouseau! A psycho little runt Clouseau, heh. The kicking in the door at the end? "Bang! Well Cato, I´m back on the case...Ah-ha!!"

(And last but not the least) The glimpse of the new end. The New York bombing reminded me of what the end of Season One of Heroes (from Tim "Never heard of Watchmen before cough cough" Kring) was supposed to be. Now this is what I call a f****** irony!

But, I know, I know. Some of the best stuff is still in the can. Waiting for us. Except the squid. No Squid for Old Geeks, heh.

On the other hand, I can imagine a really great and terrifying image there. Anyway in the end the Comedian can still run across the secret plot - for that purpose it doesn't matter what the plot is really. And yes you are losing something by changing it, but you are also gaining something, and that something is concision ... If this were a mini series on HBO or something - which I think they should have done really - it would make sense; they could keep the island and the squid (personally I think the island is the most important part, not what they come up with. Because it's really the best and the brightest that perpetrate this horror on the world). But even then, honestly, what Moore says is correct - that Watchmen is very comic-booky, and a film could never replicate it in total.

So things will be left out, no matter how you slice it. Watchmen has a lot of great stuff in it, overrated though it is, and if Snyder and co are concentrating on the character aspect of it, then I think that's probably a wise choice, since the characters are pretty effective.