PDA

View Full Version : Should Veidt live or die?


Motown Marvel
08-01-2007, 01:18 AM
there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film. this is obviously cause for great concern, as i think it's imperative to the story that he lives. if true, i think we need to make our voices and opinions on the matter clear, and hope the right people take note.

so what do you think, should veidt live or die? how important is it he lives? how pissed will you be if he dies?

Tanin
08-01-2007, 01:21 AM
I'd say it's quite important that he lives. The whole semi-moral to the story goes bye bye if they up and kill him at the end.

Comic Book Boy
08-01-2007, 02:52 AM
It would be positively shameful to kill Veidt. He absolutely MUST live and the entire ending needs to be kept intact. I have faith that Snyder will stay true to the greatest piece of fiction of all time.

Qwertyİ
08-01-2007, 03:03 AM
You change the ending, and there is no point in making Watchmen. Anybody who considers killing off Veidt doesn't understand the story.

Captain Carnage
08-01-2007, 03:10 AM
i think we need to make our voices and opinions on the matter clear, and hope the right people take note.


HALLELUJAH!

Motown Marvel
08-01-2007, 03:46 AM
You change the ending, and there is no point in making Watchmen. Anybody who considers killing off Veidt doesn't understand the story.

yeah, i pretty much feel the same. if you rationalize killing veidt in the watchmen story that you're telling...then you're telling your version of watchmen, rather than the version of watchmen that should be told.

the version of watchmen that needs to be told is alan moore's watchmen. the timeless masterpiece. its a story that even warrants a feature film (arguably), because it is what it is. and while translation is unavoidable, to alter/change necessities of the story, such as veidt's mortal destiny, is to unforgivably soil the meaning and purpose of watchmen. in which case, your just missing the point, and that makes it all useless.

Steelsheen
08-01-2007, 04:43 AM
there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film. this is obviously cause for great concern, as i think it's imperative to the story that he lives. if true, i think we need to make our voices and opinions on the matter clear, and hope the right people take note.

so what do you think, should veidt live or die? how important is it he lives? how pissed will you be if he dies?

i still dont know where you guys are getting the idea that Veidt's gonna kick the bucket.

AndrewGilkison
08-01-2007, 06:17 AM
i still dont know where you guys are getting the idea that Veidt's gonna kick the bucket.

Because he did so in Hayter's drafts, and apparently that has been kept in Alex Tse's early drafts thus far. Whether or not it stays that way, remains to be seen.

As for what I think... I think if you kill Veidt, it will turn the movie into a Just Another SuperHero Flick where the villian dies and it gives the audience that instant gratification, and that is NOT retaining the spirit of Watchmen. It's not about a happy ending.

That last scene between Dr. Manhattan and Veidt, with that classic exchange ("It all worked out in the end?" "End? Nothing ever ends, Adrian."), that scene loses its power if you kill Veidt. It wouldn't mean anything anymore. It would be useless.

Because Veidt pays for his crime with his own guilt, and the fact that his World Peace Plan will eventually come undone because in the end, it's based on a lie. That is a slow downfall, and that scene tells you that. That is part of what makes it so powerful.

And following it up with a scene where Veidt and Night Owl have a fight that ends with Veidt dying in James Bond villian-like fashion - would just kill the power and undermine what makes Watchmen so special.

So I hope they don't kill Veidt, because it would be lame as hell.

Qwertyİ
08-01-2007, 06:38 AM
Zack Snyder seems to get everything else, it doesn't seem likely he would misunderstand the main point.

I don't know what to think.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 07:47 AM
You change the ending, and there is no point in making Watchmen. Anybody who considers killing off Veidt doesn't understand the story.
then i guess i don't understand the story. whether Veidt lives or dies at the end is immaterial; what matters is 1) his plan succeeded, and 2) the other heroes remain complicit in the conspiracy.

Darkly Dexter
08-01-2007, 08:53 AM
Snyder wouldn't do that

Steelsheen
08-01-2007, 09:03 AM
Because he did so in Hayter's drafts, and apparently that has been kept in Alex Tse's early drafts thus far. Whether or not it stays that way, remains to be seen.

As for what I think... I think if you kill Veidt, it will turn the movie into a Just Another SuperHero Flick where the villian dies and it gives the audience that instant gratification, and that is NOT retaining the spirit of Watchmen. It's not about a happy ending.

That last scene between Dr. Manhattan and Veidt, with that classic exchange ("It all worked out in the end?" "End? Nothing ever ends, Adrian."), that scene loses its power if you kill Veidt. It wouldn't mean anything anymore. It would be useless.

Because Veidt pays for his crime with his own guilt, and the fact that his World Peace Plan will eventually come undone because in the end, it's based on a lie. That is a slow downfall, and that scene tells you that. That is part of what makes it so powerful.

And following it up with a scene where Veidt and Night Owl have a fight that ends with Veidt dying in James Bond villian-like fashion - would just kill the power and undermine what makes Watchmen so special.

So I hope they don't kill Veidt, because it would be lame as hell.

thanks for the clarrification man.

i dunno, this could still be one of those things that Snyder can still change once they get to filimming this part. maybe he'd even shoot two versions-- one with Veidt dead, one having him live. who knows what we'll really get to see onscreen?

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 09:18 AM
Because Veidt pays for his crime with his own guilt, and the fact that his World Peace Plan will eventually come undone because in the end, it's based on a lie.guilt? he doesn't feel any guilt about what he's done. the plan is peace at any price; the ends justify the means. he doesn't feel guilty about a damn thing.

the amazing fro
08-01-2007, 09:36 AM
^^ He does feel guilt. read the scene where Dr Manhattan and Veidt talk at the end.

Veidt shouldn't die even though i hate his guts. it kinda kills the idea f the greater good and stuff

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 10:10 AM
edit. nevermind

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 10:56 AM
In LOTR at the end Peter Jackson orgianally had Aragon fighting Sauron at the Black Gate....He later realized that this heroic fight actually made our hero less heroic...It was the blind effort of giving Frodo Every last chance he could by distracting Sauron was the valient part of it...it had nothing to do with fighting Sauron.

I hope they they realize that Killing Veidt is the same as have Aragon fighting Sauron in hand to hand combat.

Veidt is supposed to live, and we are supposed to comtemplate the moral complexities of if he was correct or not. Veidt is not necessarily a 'bad guy' in this story. The beauty of Viedt is that you are unsure if he is the ultimate hero or ultimate bad guy.

Killing him leaves this discussion out of it, as it naturally implies he is a bad guy. I sure hope they don't.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 11:00 AM
In LOTR at the end Peter Jackson orgianally had Aragon fighting Sauron at the Black Gate....He later realized that this heroic fight actually made our hero less heroic...It was the blind effort of giving Frodo Every last chance he could by distracting Sauron was the valient part of it...it had nothing to do with fighting Sauron.

I hope they they realize that Killing Veidt is the same as have Aragon fighting Sauron in hand to hand combat.

Veidt is supposed to live, and we are supposed to comtemplate the moral complexities of if he was correct or not. Veidt is not necessarily a 'bad guy' in this story. The beauty of Viedt is that you are unsure if he is the ultimate hero or ultimate bad guy.

Killing him leaves this discussion out of it, as it naturally implies he is a bad guy. I sure hope they don't.the man has committed mass murder and he's not necessarily a "bad guy"?

sad lieutenant
08-01-2007, 11:36 AM
the man has committed mass murder and he's not necessarily a "bad guy"?

Umm, yeah, Fella... This ambivalence/contradiction is sort of the point. This is one of the "layers" of meaning that people frequently allude to when speaking of Watchmen. Hence Rorschach's hypocrisy when his journals exude admiration for Truman, and yet he will not "compromise" by keeping silent about Veidt's plot. Truman = killed millions to end war; Veidt = killed millions for world peace.

Oh, and: Veidt must live!

Lobster Charlie
08-01-2007, 11:48 AM
He's got to live. And they have to make it absolutely clear that at the very end, the audience understands that Rorschach's journal ends up in revealing everything to the world.

One issue with this is that audiences may not be that clever, and ZS will have bash them over the head with the idea that the word gets out, Veidt gets caught, etc. (shown visually, possibly in a montage with voice-over, of course).

But yeah, killing Veidt just ruins everything. And I really, really, really want that scene where Dr. Manhattan says those parting words before vanishing.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 11:55 AM
Umm, yeah, Fella... This ambivalence/contradiction is sort of the point. This is one of the "layers" of meaning that people frequent allude to when referencing Watchmen. Hence Rorschach's hypocrisy when his journals exude admiration for Truman, and yet he will not "compromise" by keeping silent about Veidt's plot. Truman = killed millions to end war; Veidt = killed millions for world peace.

Veidt must live!the only contradiction there in regards to "good guy" versus "bad guy" is that Veidt is/was a costumed superhero. he isn't a good guy. the major theme of the piece is anti-war/anti-nukes/anti-peace at any cost. the authors are clearly not portraying Veidt as a good guy; they are in fierce opposition to what Veidt stands for.

and Rorscach isn't being hypocritical in admiring Truman and not keeping silent about Veidt's plot, but i can see how an anti-war, no nukes person (the authors) would think so.

Qwertyİ
08-01-2007, 12:23 PM
then i guess i don't understand the story. whether Veidt lives or dies at the end is immaterial; what matters is 1) his plan succeeded, and 2) the other heroes remain complicit in the conspiracy.I guess you don't.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 12:30 PM
I guess you don't.that was insightful. would you perhaps care to explain?

Qwertyİ
08-01-2007, 12:37 PM
that was insightful. would you perhaps care to explain?Veidt needs to live because he is the bad guy who ends up being more successful than the good guys at bringing peace, through means that are viewed as evil. If he is killed, then it becomes a standard "bad guy is defeated by the good guy" situation. Part of the impact of the ending is that the bad guy doesn't receive his comeuppance, and that the good guys are unsure of if they should stop him.

Gilpesh
08-01-2007, 12:43 PM
Veidt needs to live because he is the bad guy who ends up being more successful than the good guys at bringing peace, through means that are viewed as evil. If he is killed, then it becomes a standard "bad guy is defeated by the good guy" situation. Part of the impact of the ending is that the bad guy doesn't receive his comeuppance, and that the good guys are unsure of if they should stop him.

Exactly. Those 'heroes' only success would be stopping the 'villain' who was going to stop nuclear wars at least in the short run. He has done bad things for the right reason and who's to say doing the good thing for the wrong reason is any better?

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 12:46 PM
the only contradiction there in regards to "good guy" versus "bad guy" is that Veidt is/was a costumed superhero. he isn't a good guy. the major theme of the piece is anti-war/anti-nukes/anti-peace at any cost. the authors are clearly not portraying Veidt as a good guy; they are in fierce opposition to what Veidt stands for.

and Rorscach isn't being hypocritical in admiring Truman and not keeping silent about Veidt's plot, but i can see how an anti-war, no nukes person (the authors) would think so.

Dude I can't believe you missed that far off....

A) Veidt killed millions, but saved humainity. That's every person on the planet, and every person that will ever live on the planet from that moment on. Every hero, every villian, every lover, every marvel, every advancement, could not go on if there are no humans left.

It is purposely left ambigious whether Viedt is good or bad. It is up to the reader to decide, and debate, and wonder...this is one of the reasons why the character sticks with us so!!!

B) Truman droped 2 nukes on Japan, Killed Millions, and Ended a war, saving lives in the process.
Viedt droped one 'bomb' on NewYork, Killed Millions, and prevented a war, saving lives in the process.

RS counts Truman as a hero, but counts Viedt as a villian. Do you not see the hypocracy? They did basically the same acts, yet he thinks one a hero and the other a villian!!!

Whats awesome about this character analysis is that RS counted Truman as a hero (much like his father), BEFORE he was truely Rorscach. He made that decision before he realized the emptyness of it all, and how he could scrawl his own moral compass on the world. It is a belief he carried over, and now Viedt does the same thing, but Rorscach thinks differently, he thinks that Viedt is a monster, much like his mother thought of truman.

This is done to show that Rorscach's black and white point of view doesn't work in the real world. Rorscach realizes that he is being the hypocrite, and this is why he is crying at the end, just before he dies.

He either has to admit Truman's guilt or Viedt's innocence, he refuses to do either, and is troubled by what this means. It causes him to break down, cry, and have manhatten take his life.

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 12:47 PM
He has done bad things for the right reason and who's to say doing the good thing for the wrong reason is any better?

This is a much shorter and awesomer way of saying it.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 01:20 PM
Veidt needs to live because he is the bad guy who ends up being more successful than the good guys at bringing peace, through means that are viewed as evil. If he is killed, then it becomes a standard "bad guy is defeated by the good guy" situation. Part of the impact of the ending is that the bad guy doesn't receive his comeuppance, and that the good guys are unsure of if they should stop him.but he's done that already whether he lives or not; his plan has already come to fruition. again, all that matters is that his plan has come to pass and that the remaining heroes agree to the conspiracy and not divulge the truth. both of those are not compromised by his death. what if Rorschach is the one who kills Veidt, the audience believes that the other heroes are on Rorschach's side, but then they kill Rorschach? that would be just as powerful.

still, this is not an explanation for "if you don't think he should die then you don't understand the story."

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 01:31 PM
Dude I can't believe you missed that far off....

A) Veidt killed millions, but saved humainity. That's every person on the planet, and every person that will ever live on the planet from that moment on. Every hero, every villian, every lover, every marvel, every advancement, could not go on if there are no humans left. every person on the planet minus the ones he killed (including The Comedian, Moloch, artists, writers, etc.), you mean.

It is purposely left ambigious whether Viedt is good or bad. It is up to the reader to decide, and debate, and wonder...this is one of the reasons why the character sticks with us so!!!i'm sorry, but there's no ambiguity to it. he's not a good guy. none of the heroes are meant to be looked at as good guys. the novel was written at the height of the reagan administration in the midst of the cold war. it's anti-war, anti-nuke, and anti-right wing. the authors are clearly casting the "heroes" - especially Veidt - as representatives of what they view as an incorrect morality. they are turning the genre and the way the public looks at superheroes on its head.


RS counts Truman as a hero, but counts Viedt as a villian. Do you not see the hypocracy? They did basically the same acts, yet he thinks one a hero and the other a villian!!!no, i don't. i feel the exact same way: Truman was a hero and Veidt is a villain. i don't find the two acts or the two moralities comparable at all. again, to someone like the authors who are making an anti-nuke, anti-war statement then yes, i can see that they would view the two things as the same.

Gilpesh
08-01-2007, 01:39 PM
You do know... that scene where an angry mob beats Nite Owl I to death was meant to show that many of those people that were in the New York, are not at the height of innocence.

The Comedian was a mass murderer also and loved killing.

Moloch used to be just as bad as any villain, just cause we see him as an old man with cancer doesn't change that.

The writers and artists would have easily broken the silence of the island and their project to be more famous. But overall, they were the most innocent, even though those two were having an affair at the end.

Not a lot of innocent people in the numbers of Veidt's killings.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 01:44 PM
You do know... that scene where an angry mob beats Nite Owl I to death was meant to show that many of those people that were in the New York, are not at the height of innocence.

The Comedian was a mass murderer also and loved killing.

Moloch used to be just as bad as any villain, just cause we see him as an old man with cancer doesn't change that.

The writers and artists would have easily broken the silence of the island and their project to be more famous. But overall, they were the most innocent, even though those two were having an affair at the end.

Not a lot of innocent people in the numbers of Veidt's killings.a very small sample from a much larger population. there were far more innocents killed by Veidt than non-innocents. regardless, he's a killer despite the deeds or past crimes of his victims.

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 01:45 PM
Mystero, never mind man, I really don't feel like I can explain it to you any differently.

Either you haven't read the story yet, did and are choosing to not understand, or just hopeless.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 01:56 PM
Mystero, never mind man, I really don't feel like I can explain it to you any differently.

Either you haven't read the story yet, did and are choosing to not understand, or just hopeless.because i disagree with you i must not have read it, i don't understand it, or i'm hopeless? so much for a back and forth exchange of ideas.

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 01:59 PM
Actually I suspected you never read Watchmen after I read your post #13 of this thread, when you said that Adrian feels no guilt...He clearly states that he does, If you did read and just glossed over/didn't remember such important details you are probably going to miss some of the depth and themes of this amazing story.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 02:06 PM
Actually I suspected you never read Watchmen after I read your post #13 of this thread, when you said that Adrian feels no guilt...He clearly states that he does, If you did read and just glossed over/didn't remember such important details you are probably going to miss some of the depth and themes of this amazing story.he clearly states he does? he clearly states, "i feel guilty"?

Hellrider
08-01-2007, 02:08 PM
I personally would prefer him live. If he doesnt, it wont distroy the movie experience for me. I understand the purpose of him living(it really angered me the first time I read it), but it wont really ruin the movie for me. Anyways, I think he'll live, I personally think the movie is in good hands with Zack Snyder.

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 02:10 PM
he clearly states he does? he clearly states, "i feel guilty"?

"I've made myself feel each and every one of their deaths..." is a pretty direct statement.

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 02:12 PM
Also, My apolgies for the hopeless comment.

Hellrider
08-01-2007, 02:13 PM
he clearly states he does? he clearly states, "i feel guilty"?

he did feel guitly in the end, he doesnt clearly state it(from what i can remember) but in the end he questions, to Jon, if it was all whether it worked out for the best in the end, and that he made himself feel the deaths of those innocent people, and that someone HAD to do it.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 02:18 PM
"I've made myself feel each and every one of their deaths..." is a pretty direct statement.and is in no way evidence of guilt. to me it comes off the same as kevorkian - an agent of "compassionate" death. so in his mind he isn't heartless, but that doesn't equate to feeling guilty. seeking assurance or reassurance from Dr. Manhattan isn't guilt either; to me he was trying to appeal to a higher form to reach a mutual understanding. obviously, he succeeded.

Overman27pj
08-01-2007, 02:23 PM
and is in no way evidence of guilt. to me it comes off the same as kevorkian - an agent of "compassionate" death. so in his mind he isn't heartless, but that doesn't equate to feeling guilty. seeking assurance or reassurance from Dr. Manhattan isn't guilt either; to me he was trying to appeal to a higher form to reach a mutual understanding. obviously, he succeeded.

For a 'compassionate' death they would have to be suffering.

They were not, they were eating chinese food, and reading the paper, and walking home from work, and getting into a Lesiban induced brawl.

He feels guilty about the deaths, about each and every one. I just don't understand how you could be reading it differently...

They don't reach a mutual understanding either...He is looking for reassurance, but recieves none..."Nothing ever ends Adrian..."

Johnichi Chiba
08-01-2007, 02:32 PM
I hope Adrian lives, because I want people to be having this same discussion that you all are having after watching the movie.

SalaciousVC
08-01-2007, 02:35 PM
die

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 02:43 PM
For a 'compassionate' death they would have to be suffering. and there was; suffering on a humanity level. suffering due to war, conflict, etc. the act itself - in Veidt's mind - was one of compassion.

They don't reach a mutual understanding either...He is looking for reassurance, but recieves none..."Nothing ever ends Adrian..."the mutual understanding was reached when Dr. Mahattan killed Rorschach.

He feels guilty about the deaths, about each and every one. I just don't understand how you could be reading it differently...i disagree that he feels guilty and i think i've adequately explained why.

Motown Marvel
08-01-2007, 03:24 PM
i thought it was obvious there was some degree of guilt in his actions. he clearly questioned whether or not it was the right thing to do. which means he wasnt 100% certain it was the right thing to do. and i think that clearly leaves room for guilt. and i think that was part of the point. yes, essentially, adrian is the "villain", but that doesnt make him a monster. and the others are "heroes" but that doesnt make them angels. and event hough veidt's plan succeeds, if he is killed there is that sense of punishment, that evil was punished, the villain paid a personal price for his actions...and thats totally the opposite of what the novel intended. and if for any other reason to keep him alive....how about for the simple fact thats how it was in the source material and the film should be true to that.

sad lieutenant
08-01-2007, 03:30 PM
the only contradiction there in regards to "good guy" versus "bad guy" is that Veidt is/was a costumed superhero. he isn't a good guy. the major theme of the piece is anti-war/anti-nukes/anti-peace at any cost. the authors are clearly not portraying Veidt as a good guy; they are in fierce opposition to what Veidt stands for.

and Rorscach isn't being hypocritical in admiring Truman and not keeping silent about Veidt's plot, but i can see how an anti-war, no nukes person (the authors) would think so.


Your suggestion that Veidt "isn't a good guy" is one reading of the text -- but I don't think it's a very interesting one. And to suggest that this reading reflects Alan Moore's intentions is a little bit much.

The question is straight from Kierkegaard: Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical? Which is to say (in this case): is it permissible to butcher millions (suspending the ethical) for the greater end of world peace ("teleological" from the Greek telos, meaning "end")? A "guy" is "bad" if he slaughters human beings; a guy is "good" if he brings about world peace. Veidt is both. Herein lies the rub.

And this makes Veidt a bit like Harry Truman, who Rorschach admires. (Truman, you'll recall, is the man responsible for nuking Japan) And this places Rorschach in an ethically tenuous position (I don't like the word "hypocritical"... if I used it earlier, I take it back!)... But it's an interesting question: How can Rorschach praise Truman while vilifying Veidt?

PS - Did you guys read about the huge painting Snyder has in his office depicting the Enola Gay with a mushroom cloud in the background? -- Only it's "the Sally Jupiter"? more evidence that Snyder gets it!

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 03:45 PM
Your suggestion that Veidt "isn't a good guy" is one reading of the text -- but I don't think it's a very interesting one. And to suggest that this reading reflects Alan Moore's intentions is a little bit much. i don't see how you can say that it's a bit much. both Watchmen and V are responses to the american and english conservative governments of the 80s cold war era. the novel is bash-you-over-your-head anti-nuke, and against peace at any price. that is exactly what Veidt's plan is: a peace at any price plan. i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't.

And this makes Veidt a bit like Harry Truman, who Rorschach admires. (Truman, you'll recall, is the man responsible for nuking Japan) And this places Rorschach in an ethically tenuous position (I don't like the word "hypocritical"... if I used it earlier, I take it back!)... But it's an interesting question: How can Rorschach praise Truman while vilifying Veidt?again, i completely disagree with the Truman/Veidt comparison. yes, i believe the authors believe they are comparable, but i believe the two have diametrically opposing morals. Veidt's morality is not cut from the same cloth as Truman's. someone who is anti-war and anti-nuke, though, will see the two as one in the same.

PS - Did you guys read about the huge painting Snyder has in his office depicting the Enola Gay with a mushroom cloud in the background? -- Only it's "the Sally Jupiter"? more evidence that Snyder gets it!how coudln't he? the comic is blatantly anti-nuke.

Gilpesh
08-01-2007, 04:14 PM
i don't see how you can say that it's a bit much. both Watchmen and V are responses to the american and english conservative governments of the 80s cold war era. the novel is bash-you-over-your-head anti-nuke, and against peace at any price. that is exactly what Veidt's plan is: a peace at any price plan. i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't.

Wow. That is a sign of pure not wanting to agree with someone just cause you don't want to.

Nuking Japan and attacking New York are the same exact action. Killing a large number and preventing more war. Truman decided to murder millions to end a war with an atom bomb, Veidt decided to murder millions to prevent a war with a large alien menace. Same thing, only different weapons.

Motown Marvel
08-01-2007, 04:28 PM
i don't see how you can say that it's a bit much. both Watchmen and V are responses to the american and english conservative governments of the 80s cold war era. the novel is bash-you-over-your-head anti-nuke, and against peace at any price. that is exactly what Veidt's plan is: a peace at any price plan. i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't.

again, i completely disagree with the Truman/Veidt comparison. yes, i believe the authors believe they are comparable, but i believe the two have diametrically opposing morals. Veidt's morality is not cut from the same cloth as Truman's. someone who is anti-war and anti-nuke, though, will see the two as one in the same.

how coudln't he? the comic is blatantly anti-nuke.the problem is, you're only looking at one layer of the story (anti nuke/war/etc). the story works on multiple layers, which is one of the things that makes it great. theres more to it than your recognizing or admitting. while veidt being killed might work fine with the layer you're recognizing, it blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen.

sad lieutenant
08-01-2007, 04:42 PM
i don't find a mass murderer to be a good guy. and no, i don't consider Truman to be a murderer. two countries were at war and Truman effectively ended the war - and one he didn't start. Truman's was a legitmate wartime action; Veidt's wasn't... Veidt's morality is not cut from the same cloth as Truman's. someone who is anti-war and anti-nuke, though, will see the two as one in the same. how coudln't he? the comic is blatantly anti-nuke.

I see the point you are trying to make, but you make completely arbitrary distinctions. Truman did, in effect, end World War II in the Pacific theater; Veidt's actions, as described in the comic, would have effectively ended all wars. And, yes, we all know that Harry Truman did not instigate World War II. Adrian Veidt did not instigate the Cold War (or any war, for that matter). Veidt used the same ethical reasoning as Truman -- the only difference is in scale (which is to say, the result of Veidt's "nuking" of Manhattan would yield, in effect, more peace).

And your assertion about the "moral cloth" is so vague as to be rendered nonsensical. That, coupled with your histrionics about those who oppose nuclear war (who doesn't?), make me suspicious that you carry your lunch (to middle school, perhaps?) in a shiny, well-kept O'Reilly Factor lunchbox.
It's as though you imply that Truman was "pro-war" or "pro-nuke" by way of ideological imperative! You have to remember that foreign policy was formed a bit differently before there was Fox News, William Kristol, etc.

And I don't think the comic is "blatantly" anything! As a reader of Watchmen, I find it difficult to either condemn or exonerate Veidt -- and that, I can only imagine, is the sort of effect Moore was going for. Would you kill one person to end all wars for all time? I might. And if I can justify the killing of one innocent for the sake of the greater good, would I make the same argument for two innocents? Three? One million?

Oh, and I assure you that much of the world did and does not consider Truman's decision to deploy nuclear weapons as a "legitmate [sic] wartime action". Whether you agree that it was morally justifiable or not, you have to appreciate that the nuclear attacks on Japan represented a previously unthinkable amount of devastation. And, at the time, many people regarded -- and still do -- Truman's actions as the most egregious war crime in human history.

The Geek Vault
08-01-2007, 05:30 PM
Veidt has to live! that's part of the whole concept is the "villain" first of all isn't quite a villain and does have a good motive for doing what he does and two the other part is he gets away with it.

Souperman
08-01-2007, 06:10 PM
Of course he has to live.

What the hell kind of question is that?

sad lieutenant
08-01-2007, 06:53 PM
Of course he has to live.

What the hell kind of question is that?

Indeed, Soups... The question was asked because I believe both the Hayter and Tse scripts involve killing him off (Dreiberg summons Archie by remote control and crashes it into Veidt or something ludicrous like that). So this thread exists as a minor protest.

Because it's absurd. I mean... it's very Star Trek: Insurrection, isn't it?

StorminNorman
08-01-2007, 07:15 PM
the man has committed mass murder and he's not necessarily a "bad guy"?

I personally see Veidt as the hero of the story :o

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 07:58 PM
Wow. That is a sign of pure not wanting to agree with someone just cause you don't want to.

Nuking Japan and attacking New York are the same exact action. Killing a large number and preventing more war. Truman decided to murder millions to end a war with an atom bomb, Veidt decided to murder millions to prevent a war with a large alien menace. Same thing, only different weapons.Truman's action was not murder. it was a legitimate war-time action meant to bring about defeat of the enemy. to say the two are the exact same thing is naive.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 08:00 PM
while veidt being killed might work fine with the layer you're recognizing, it blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen.and those are?

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 08:04 PM
And your assertion about the "moral cloth" is so vague as to be rendered nonsensical. That, coupled with your histrionics about those who oppose nuclear war (who doesn't?), make me suspicious that you carry your lunch (to middle school, perhaps?) in a shiny, well-kept O'Reilly Factor lunchbox.
It's as though you imply that Truman was "pro-war" or "pro-nuke" by way of ideological imperative! You have to remember that foreign policy was formed a bit differently before there was Fox News, William Kristol, etc.and here we have another case of attacking the poster (and typos) rather than the message. how unfortunate. if you had a point somewhere, it was clouded by your immaturity.

Mysterio
08-01-2007, 08:06 PM
I personally see Veidt as the hero of the story :oi don't see anyone in the story as a hero.

Motown Marvel
08-01-2007, 09:42 PM
and those are?

if you couldnt recognize and understand them when reading the book, then you're not gonna understand them when i lay it out for you. and if you're not intelligent enough to recognize the layers and themes presented in the book, then your opinion in the current discussion is moot, since you're not smart enough to comprehend the material appropriately. so, maybe instead of spending so much time here making closed minded arguments, you should spend that time going back, reading the book, and paying attention this time. seriously. if you dont understand the source material (which you clearly dont), then you're not worth debating this issue with.

Gilpesh
08-01-2007, 09:53 PM
Truman's action was not murder. it was a legitimate war-time action meant to bring about defeat of the enemy. to say the two are the exact same thing is naive.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had civilians in them, and that was the majority of the deaths.

New York was filled with civilians, some less innocent than others.

It was the same f**king thing.

StorminNorman
08-01-2007, 11:18 PM
Truman's action was not murder. it was a legitimate war-time action meant to bring about defeat of the enemy. to say the two are the exact same thing is naive.

Truman decided to bomb civilian cities. Not necessary. Its a very good comparison. Again though, you must understand that I view both actions as necessary for the greater good, and thus justified.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 06:19 AM
if you couldnt recognize and understand them when reading the book, then you're not gonna understand them when i lay it out for you. and if you're not intelligent enough to recognize the layers and themes presented in the book, then your opinion in the current discussion is moot, since you're not smart enough to comprehend the material appropriately. so, maybe instead of spending so much time here making closed minded arguments, you should spend that time going back, reading the book, and paying attention this time. seriously. if you dont understand the source material (which you clearly dont), then you're not worth debating this issue with.so you are unable to say what they are, explain them and your position, and were just talking out your ass. so you cover by resorting to personal attacks.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 06:27 AM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had civilians in them, and that was the majority of the deaths.

New York was filled with civilians, some less innocent than others.

It was the same f**king thing.i strongly disagree; they are not the same thing. this scale of innocence - some less innocent than others - is irrelevant. murder is murder. an individual - not a president, not law enforcement, not the judicial system - has taken it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner - the savior of humanity, and through that salvation he has committed mass murder. he is operating outside the system - outside the law. i don't know how you can look at a president in a time of war making a strategic decision and attack to defeat an enemy and say it's the same thing as some vigilante donning a costume and committing mass murder.

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 07:27 AM
so you are unable to say what they are, explain them and your position, and were just talking out your ass. so you cover by resorting to personal attacks.

Dude, we have explained it. Clearly. Like Crystal! You just don't seem to be understanding.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 08:29 AM
Dude, we have explained it. Clearly. Like Crystal! You just don't seem to be understanding.if someone is going to say, "the story works on multiple layers," and then is asked to state what those layers are and is unable or refuses to do so, then i don't consider that an explanation. call me crazy. as for truman/veidt, i have stated numerous times that i understand the comparisons and how people can see them as similar; however, i believe the differences are more significant than any similarities. the two are not interchangeable.

Gilpesh
08-02-2007, 10:32 AM
i strongly disagree; they are not the same thing. this scale of innocence - some less innocent than others - is irrelevant. murder is murder. an individual - not a president, not law enforcement, not the judicial system - has taken it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner - the savior of humanity, and through that salvation he has committed mass murder. he is operating outside the system - outside the law. i don't know how you can look at a president in a time of war making a strategic decision and attack to defeat an enemy and say it's the same thing as some vigilante donning a costume and committing mass murder.

You're an idiot. The current administration should thank you.

Truman would have been hung at Nuremburg if the US lost WWII. And you say that scale of innocence doesn't matter, yet you gladly disregard the lives of Japanese civilians just cause their country decided to ally with the wrong nation. And, they were planning to drop more. That's right, the 'leader of the free world' was ready to kill as many Japanese civilians. So if anything Truman was worse than Veidt, Truman is just looking to make peace for the US by killing people where Veidt was looking to kill some New Yorkers to SAVE THE WORLD.

But guess what, it is mass murder in both cases. Truman killed and Veidt killed, they have done the exact same thing for the greater good.

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 10:34 AM
But truman was president so it doesn't count!!!

sad lieutenant
08-02-2007, 10:44 AM
and here we have another case of attacking the poster (and typos) rather than the message. how unfortunate. if you had a point somewhere, it was clouded by your immaturity.

Umm... actually, if you read the entirety of my post (as opposed to quoting a few sentences out of their original context), you'll see that I addressed every one of the "points" you made (Veidt v. Truman and the question of the scale of their actions, your limp-wristed "moral cloth" argument, and your brazen -- and nauseating -- assertion that we have to accept a priori that the nuclear attacks on Japan were "legitmate" [sic] wartime actions.).

It is you, Mysterio, who did not address the arguments I made. And what you described as "attacking the poster" I would prefer to describe as "gravy".

So, re-read my post addressed to you above. Note my rather lucid arguments, and address them. Otherwise, quit resorting to the passive-aggressive tactics of O'Reilly and his ilk ("You're attacking ME PERSONALLY, while avoiding the issues!" -- while it's he who is allergic to any real discussion of the issues).

Colossus24
08-02-2007, 10:46 AM
I am so amazed by this thread...just wow.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 11:11 AM
You're an idiot. The current administration should thank you.more personal attacks. :whatever:

Ahura Mazda
08-02-2007, 11:13 AM
Some interesting points are made in this thread. The comparison between Truman and Veidt are valid and an important part of the book. That said.....

I think he should live as he does in the book and Rorasch should die but I would not be surprised if the powers that be decide to kill him off to make this movie more appealing to a larger audience. It would be sad but not improbable.

StorminNorman
08-02-2007, 11:14 AM
I dont understand how Veidt dying makes this movie more appealing. The tragedy of the book is the death of millions - not the survival of Veidt. His death does not change that.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 11:16 AM
Umm... actually, if you read the entirety of my post if you're going to go with namecalling, personal attacks, calling out typos, etc., then i'm not going to bother with your posts. if you are unable to present your views otherwise, then your posts - and you - aren't worth it. with all this talk of layers and themes around here, the dominating theme seems to be "personally attack and insult those who disagree with the prevailing viewpoint."

sad lieutenant
08-02-2007, 11:17 AM
Some interesting points are made in this thread. The comparison between Truman and Veidt are valid and an important part of the book. That said.....

I think he should live as he does in the book and Rorasch should die but I would not be surprised if the powers that be decide to kill him off to make this movie more appealing to a larger audience. It would be sad but not improbable.

I think you're spot-on, with all the pathos it entails...

But if Snyder is so passionate about the Black Freighter sequence, wouldn't he be zealous about Veidt living?

Head spinning.... spots boil before my eyes... I'm going to fawking riot if Veidt gets killed by Dreiberg.

sad lieutenant
08-02-2007, 11:24 AM
if you're going to go with namecalling, personal attacks, calling out typos, etc., then i'm not going to bother with your posts. they - and you - aren't worth it. with all this talk of layers and themes around here, the dominating theme seems to be "personally attack and insult those who disagree with the prevailing viewpoint."

That's it! Stick to your guns! Act like a martyr and avoid any real discussion of the text! I hear the McCain campaign is hiring... And don't worry, I'm done with you, too.... (Until I find myself in some anonymous theater in March of 2009, just as the flickering screen depicts the execution of Rorschach. My attention drifts for a nano-second, and our gazes find each other, a solitary tear running down each of our cheeks...And at last Mysterio and I have attained a sublime, wordless understanding)

Johnichi Chiba
08-02-2007, 11:24 AM
Well, we haven't really heard anything from Snyder regarding Veidt. He can't overlook the importance of having him live if he gets just about everything else.

Gilpesh
08-02-2007, 11:25 AM
You're an idiot. The current administration should thank you.

Truman would have been hung at Nuremburg if the US lost WWII. And you say that scale of innocence doesn't matter, yet you gladly disregard the lives of Japanese civilians just cause their country decided to ally with the wrong nation. And, they were planning to drop more. That's right, the 'leader of the free world' was ready to kill as many Japanese civilians. So if anything Truman was worse than Veidt, Truman is just looking to make peace for the US by killing people where Veidt was looking to kill some New Yorkers to SAVE THE WORLD.

But guess what, it is mass murder in both cases. Truman killed and Veidt killed, they have done the exact same thing for the greater good.

more personal attacks. :whatever:

Funny, you missed a little bit of my post where I clearly explain my point past. "No not listening, la la la la la la, not listening."

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 11:28 AM
what is more important: that Veidt lives, or that the other "heroes" (minus Rorschach) go along with the conspiracy and agree to keep silent? i think it's the latter.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 11:30 AM
Funny, you missed a little bit of my posti didn't miss anything. there was no need to read beyond the word "idiot" in order to see that you don't have anything constructive or intelligent to say. why should i afford you respect that you are unwilling to give others?

Qwertyİ
08-02-2007, 11:39 AM
what is more important: that Veidt lives, or that the other "heroes" (minus Rorschach) go along with the conspiracy and agree to keep silent? i think it's the latter.Veidt dieng cheapens the ending, because the whole point of them keeping it a secret is that it means Veidt gets away with it, this doesn't happen if he gets killed.

You're right, as long as they keep it a secret it still has the same outcome, but it's similar to having Superman teleported to earth as a baby rather than rocketed. Same outcome, but it just isn't as good.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 12:18 PM
Veidt dieng cheapens the ending, because the whole point of them keeping it a secret is that it means Veidt gets away with it, this doesn't happen if he gets killed.

You're right, as long as they keep it a secret it still has the same outcome, but it's similar to having Superman teleported to earth as a baby rather than rocketed. Same outcome, but it just isn't as good.but we're clearly led to believe that he doesn't get away with it, and that the truth will be made public when the kid grabs Rorschach's journal at the end. so really, while his plan has succeeded to a degree, the truth will be revealed.

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 12:18 PM
so you are unable to say what they are, explain them and your position, and were just talking out your ass. so you cover by resorting to personal attacks.

im willing to discuss the story with someone who has a proper understanding of of it. but im not here to play teacher and explain the story to you, just so you can understand it in order for us to discuss it. this story is all about the layers. thats one of the things that makes it the masterpiece it is. if you didnt recognize and understand that yourself when it was laid out by alan moore, then i find it hard to believe you'll recognize and understand it when its laid out by me.

oh, and debate this: how about they keep veidt alive because thats how it is in the book and they should be as true to the source material as reasonably possible?

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 12:32 PM
but we're clearly led to believe that he doesn't get away with it, and that the truth will be made public when the kid grabs Rorschach's journal at the end. so really, while his plan has succeeded to a degree, the truth will be revealed.

You also realize that the New Frontiersman is A conspiracy theory publication and not exactly recognized as the best news source. Think like a more serious weekly world news.

There is no certianity that the truth will be revealed, in fact, I doubt a large portion of the general population would ever even hear of it.

There is also no evidence other than a known psychopath/criminal's journal.

But you didn't get that either...

Lobster Charlie
08-02-2007, 12:33 PM
Keeping Veidt alive shows that there's some hope left in the world, at the end of the story. And it shows that Rorschach's mission, which is really the backbone of this story, is complete. Even though Rorschach fails to best Veidt in physical combat, and even though Doctor Manhattan kills him in order to "shut him up," Rorschach has the last laugh.

I know Alan Moore has stated before that he doesn't like how so many readers have taken a liking to Rorschach's character, but it's inevitable---we all love the anti-hero. Keep Veidt alive, and we all leave the theatre with a slight smile on our faces, and we have something to talk about. Kill him, and it's just another action movie.

Lobster Charlie
08-02-2007, 12:36 PM
You also realize that the New Frontiersman is A conspiracy theory publication and not exactly recognized as the best news source. Think like a more serious weekly world news.

There is no certianity that the truth will be revealed, in fact, I doubt a large portion of the general population would ever even hear of it.

There is also no evidence other than a known psychopath/criminal's journal.

But you didn't get that either...

You make a really good point. But I think it's written to give us a faint glimmer of hope for justice. It also seems to be a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment on Moore's part--like "only the crazy people know the truth." I know there's a more succinct way of saying that, I just forget how it goes. :p

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 12:36 PM
oh, and debate this: how about they keep veidt alive because thats how it is in the book and they should be as true to the source material as reasonably possible?

What makes a good graphic novel and what makes a good movie are different things....I feel like changes can be debateable if they actually help the story or not, but I could care less about keeping something as close to the source material as possible just for the sake of it...

I feel that keeping the integrety of the story, the points that the author are trying to convey to the audience, to be the most important part in translation.

Unfortuneatly, they don't make these movies for the hardcore fans, they make them for the masses...they got $150 mil to recoup...but also fortuneatly, if they do a good enough product it will make more people read this fabulous book!!!

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 12:38 PM
You make a really good point. But I think it's written to give us a faint glimmer of hope for justice. It also seems to be a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment on Moore's part--like "only the crazy people know the truth." I know there's a more succinct way of saying that, I just forget how it goes. :p

Spot on.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 12:39 PM
im willing to discuss the story with someone who has a proper understanding of of it. but im not here to play teacher and explain the story to you, just so you can understand it in order for us to discuss it. this story is all about the layers. thats one of the things that makes it the masterpiece it is. if you didnt recognize and understand that yourself when it was laid out by alan moore, then i find it hard to believe you'll recognize and understand it when its laid out by me. i'm not asking you to explain them; i'm asking you to identify them. you keep going on with "it's all about the layers," but then you are unable to say what these layers are. looks like my assessment was spot on.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 12:43 PM
You also realize that the New Frontiersman is A conspiracy theory publication and not exactly recognized as the best news source. Think like a more serious weekly world news.of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the truth is known and will be made public.

There is no certianity that the truth will be revealed, in fact, I doubt a large portion of the general population would ever even hear of it.that isn't a contradiction. it isn't necessary for a certain percentage of the population to believe it. the fact is, the truth has been made known and will be published. whether people believe it or not and/or what the outcome will be is up in the air, but the truth will be printed. it's right there in the final panels.

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 12:50 PM
Yes it will get printed, but your acting like it will be a 'be all end all' for Viedt! I'm saying barely anyone will read it, and even some of those people wouldn't believe it.

I would hardly be worried/afriad if I was Viedt, and don't you think that he has the recources to discredit the publication further, and even to go as far as killing the editors? A small stretch from what he has done so far!

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 01:07 PM
What makes a good graphic novel and what makes a good movie are different things....I feel like changes can be debateable if they actually help the story or not, but I could care less about keeping something as close to the source material as possible just for the sake of it...

I feel that keeping the integrety of the story, the points that the author are trying to convey to the audience, to be the most important part in translation.

Unfortuneatly, they don't make these movies for the hardcore fans, they make them for the masses...they got $150 mil to recoup...but also fortuneatly, if they do a good enough product it will make more people read this fabulous book!!!
i agree with that. i just figured that was the only point Mysterio's closed mind might be able to go along with. but obviously, keeping veidt alive goes hand in hand with the integrity of the story and the points moore is trying to convey.

i'm not asking you to explain them; i'm asking you to identify them. you keep going on with "it's all about the layers," but then you are unable to say what these layers are. looks like my assessment was spot on.

mmhm, sure thing, pal.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 01:08 PM
Yes it will get printed, but your acting like it will be a 'be all end all' for Viedt! I'm saying barely anyone will read it, and even some of those people wouldn't believe it.lol. "be all end all"...i'm not saying that at all. if the argument is "you can't kill Viedt because he gets away with it," it's untrue - he doesn't completely get away with it. the truth is not covered up. that happens whether he lives or is killed. the journal has been mailed out regardless, and the paper runs with it regardless.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 01:11 PM
i agree with that. i just figured that was the only point Mysterio's closed mind might be able to go along with. but obviously, keeping veidt alive goes hand in hand with the integrity of the story and the points moore is trying to convey.there are a lot of closed minds around here. they're the ones who use phrases like, "you wouldn't understand," "you're hopeless," or "you're an idiot."

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 01:13 PM
there are a lot of closed minds around here. they're the ones who use phrases like, "you wouldn't understand," "you're hopeless," or "you're an idiot."

theres a difference between a closed mind and what seems to be a legit assessment.

Gilpesh
08-02-2007, 01:17 PM
theres a difference between a closed mind and what seems to be a legit assessment.

And losing it after stating the same logical and fact based opinion over and over and over again to the same response. Apparently he didn't read my statement on the other page just cause I called a spade a spade...

Funny how that statement would sink his argument.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 01:23 PM
theres a difference between a closed mind and what seems to be a legit assessment.that difference doesn't exist here. if i had a closed mind, i wouldn't be able - or i'd refuse - to see other's viewpoints. i do, and i understand them; however, i disagree with some of them. that doesn't make one close minded. you're the one preaching about the many layers and it's complexity, etc., and yet, my reading and interpretation can't possibly be one of these layers? what's the point in having a discussion if one side is only interested in shouting down the other side with namecalling, insults, and the like? but then, discussion can't exist anyway when one side refuses to even back up their statements.

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 01:27 PM
that difference doesn't exist here. if i had a closed mind, i wouldn't be able - or i'd refuse - to see other's viewpoints. i do, and i understand them; however, i disagree with some of them. that doesn't make one close minded. you're the one preaching about the many layers and it's complexity, etc., and yet, my reading and interpretation can't possibly be one of these layers? what's the point in having a discussion if one side is only interested in shouting down the other side with namecalling, insults, and the like? but then, discussion can't exist anyway when one side refuses to even back up their statements.
actually, i straight up told you that your recognition of the anti-nuke/war/etc IS one of the layers. but not the only one. i merely stated that there are numerous other and equally important layers involved with the story that you're either ignoring, not understanding, or not recognizing. likewise, im not here to explain that to you. you should go back, read the book, open your mind, and pay closer attention this time.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 01:42 PM
actually, i straight up told you that your recognition of the anti-nuke/war/etc IS one of the layers. but not the only one. i merely stated that there are numerous other and equally important layers involved with the story that you're either ignoring, not understanding, or not recognizing. likewise, im not here to explain that to you. you should go back, read the book, open your mind, and pay closer attention this time.again, i'm not asking you to explain them; i'm asking you to identify them. you said "while veidt being killed might work fine with the layer you're recognizing, it blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen." so which of these other layers that his being killed would "blantantly contrast"? if you're going to make that statement, you should have the ability and willingness to back it up, especially given the title of this thread: "should veidt live or die?" you don't have anything to worry about; i'm not going to call you names or make fun of you.

Gilpesh
08-02-2007, 01:45 PM
One layer, shades of gray.

Aka Truman bombing Japan and Veidt 'bombing' New York. Both morally gray areas.

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 01:47 PM
another layer, the deconstruction of the comic book medium and the archtypes of characters involved.

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 01:52 PM
The book also explores many philosophical themes...

Determinism v. Free will

The merits of Utolatarianism

Morals

The meaning of existance

What is god?

and that is all without deleving into the specific character questions!

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 01:54 PM
another layer, the deconstruction of the comic book medium and the archtypes of characters involved.i've referenced that one earleer in the thread. so how does Veidt's being killed or dying "blatantly contrast" this layer?

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 01:56 PM
i've referenced that one earleer in the thread. so how does Veidt's being killed or dying "blatantly contrast" this layer?

i thought i didnt have to explain these to you? and dont forget the other "layers" being posted by everyone else.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 02:00 PM
i thought i didnt have to explain these to you? and dont forget the other "layers" being posted by everyone else.i'm not asking you to explain the layers/themes. i'm asking you to explain how that layer would be "blatantly contrasted" by Veidt's being killed.

as for the others, yes, i'm aware of and recognized quite a bit of them as i read and digested the book. you've incorrectly assumed i was unaware of or blatantly ignored any other theme beyond anti-war/anti-nuke. i never said i didn't know them; all i've asked of you is to identify the layers that would be blatantly contrasted by Veidt's being killed. that is, after all, the subject of this thread.

Gilpesh
08-02-2007, 02:14 PM
One layer, shades of gray.

Aka Truman bombing Japan and Veidt 'bombing' New York. Both morally gray areas.

i'm not asking you to explain the layers/themes. i'm asking you to explain how that layer would be "blatantly contrasted" by Veidt's being killed.

as for the others, yes, i'm aware of and recognized quite a bit of them as i read and digested the book. you've incorrectly assumed i was unaware of or blatantly ignored any other theme beyond anti-war/anti-nuke. i never said i didn't know them; all i've asked of you is to identify the layers that would be blatantly contrasted by Veidt's being killed. that is, after all, the subject of this thread.

That one. If Veidt were killed it would automatically deem him the bad guy and the few who stood up to him heroes. That's why Rorschach dies. He lives in absolutes, black and white whereas the world is shades of gray.

There's you answer.

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 02:21 PM
i'm not asking you to explain the layers/themes. i'm asking you to explain how that layer would be "blatantly contrasted" by Veidt's being killed.

you're asking me to explain it!!! if i need to explain it, then you clearly dont understand it!

shall we recap our conversation?

-you said the book is about anti-war/nuke/etc. i said theres far more going on than just that.
- you asked what. i said if you didnt understand it when moore presented it, you're not gonna understand it when i present it, so im not gonna play teacher and explain it to you.
-you said i dont have to explain it, just list another layer at work.
- i listed another layer, and now you want me to explain it!!

seriously man, at what point are you going to recognize that you might not have as good of an understanding of this story than you originally thought you did. i mean, im not an expert on the novel, far from it...but come on, man, you're not totally with it here.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 02:31 PM
you're asking me to explain it!!! if i need to explain it, then you clearly dont understand it!christ :whatever: that isn't what that means at all. i'm trying to have a discussion - that's usually a two-way venture. i'm not asking you to explain the theme; i'm asking you to explain how that theme would be ruined if Veidt lives. that's your claim. i'm asking you to explain your position so that we can discuss it. maybe i'll agree, maybe i won't. but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously if they are unable or unwilling to present and discuss it. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. i don't know why you can't do the same for me.

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 02:41 PM
christ :whatever: that isn't what that means at all. i'm trying to have a discussion - that's usually a two-way venture. i'm not asking you to explain the theme; i'm asking you to explain how that theme would be ruined if Veidt lives. that's your claim. i'm asking you to explain your position so that we can discuss it. maybe i'll agree, maybe i won't. but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously if they are unable or unwilling to present and discuss it. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. i don't know why you can't do the same for me.

2 way discussion? man, this discussion has been one way the whole time! its been everyone here telling you that your not fully understanding the story, and you essentially sticking your fingers in your ears like a stubborn child going LA LA LA LA LA LA im not listening!

if you want to have a two way discussion on the themes of the book, then you must read the book, recognize and understand themes, so then you have something to bring to the table to actually discuss. your not bringing anything to the table. this whole "discussion" has been people pandering to your closed minded uninformed superficial take on the book.

and even worse, this thread is being ruined for people who know what they're talking about from even discussing it because you're constantly in here running amuck and distracting proper discussion with your ill informed views.

im off to work.

Mysterio
08-02-2007, 02:50 PM
2 way discussion? man, this discussion has been one way the whole time!it sure has. you keep saying, "i'm not going to explain anything to you." i'm trying to make the effort, but you keep leading me to believe that you don't know a darn thing because you refuse to discuss your opinions. you would rather it just be accepted without question that "you know" or that you "fully understand" the story, but you don't say a damn thing. you're just interested in protecting your opinion from being analyzed, afraid that someone may disagree with it or challenge it.

and even worse, this thread is being ruined for people who know what they're talking about from even discussing it because you're constantly in here running amuck and distracting proper discussion with your ill informed views.ill-informed views. wow. talk about close minded. christ, i'm trying to have a discussion about the topic of this thread and you are refusing to participate! you're the one who started the thread, even asking the question, "how important is it he lives?" if you're asking that question then maybe you don't fully understand the book. you certainly aren't interested in hearing people say it isn't important since you immediately say, "veidt being killed...blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen." so if that's the case, why ask the question or start the thread to begin with?

Lobster Charlie
08-02-2007, 03:03 PM
Way too much drama on these boards.

Overman27pj
08-02-2007, 03:08 PM
http://briancurtin.com/pahc/thisthreaddelivers.jpg

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 08:51 PM
it sure has. you keep saying, "i'm not going to explain anything to you." i'm trying to make the effort, but you keep leading me to believe that you don't know a darn thing because you refuse to discuss your opinions. you would rather it just be accepted without question that "you know" or that you "fully understand" the story, but you don't say a damn thing. you're just interested in protecting your opinion from being analyzed, afraid that someone may disagree with it or challenge it.

ill-informed views. wow. talk about close minded. christ, i'm trying to have a discussion about the topic of this thread and you are refusing to participate! you're the one who started the thread, even asking the question, "how important is it he lives?" if you're asking that question then maybe you don't fully understand the book. you certainly aren't interested in hearing people say it isn't important since you immediately say, "veidt being killed...blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen." so if that's the case, why ask the question or start the thread to begin with?

sigh. fine, you want me to lay it out for you? heres why veidt dying would blatantly constrast the themes of watchmen:

one of the big things about watchmen, is that its a complete deconstruction of the comic book medium. especially in 1986 when the book was published, this was never seen before in comics, which is why it was considered to be a landmark revolutionary book. alan moore completely breaks down all the general comic book stereotypes and archtypes of the medium and characters involved. he broke them down to pieces, analyzed them, self referenced them, and then refined and redefined them.

one of the things that resulted is that theres essentially no "bad guy" in the story. which brings up the question: what does it mean to be a villain? the closest thing that comes to a villain is veidt, who's agenda is to save the world from nuclear armageddon, leaving humanity to live in peace (doesnt sound so bad). plus, veidt gets away with everything scott free. he pays no personal price for his actions. unlike the stereotypical villain, who always pays a price. considering the way veidt goes about doing this brings us to the themes of "shades of grey" and the idea of the cost of the greater good. at what cost should humanity pay in order for it to be saved? what is acceptable?

but there are two important aspects of veidt: his actions, and the result of his actions. his actions are bad, but the results are good. so is he a hero, or villain? this is a shade of grey that is debatable, its a discussion that is meant to be provoked from the text. the book doesn't take any sides, nor does it intend to. there is no intentions to directly imply veidt is one or the other (good or bad). it is up to the audiences personal opinion to decide for themselves what he is.

but, to have the protagonists kill veidt would be to naturally cast him as the villain. good guys live, bad guys die, thats how it works. thats the convention. but watchmen is not conventional, its breaking all the conventional rules purposely in order to provoke these ideas. but if veidt is the villain, then theres is no shades of grey to him or his actions. he is bad, and what he is doing is bad, because thats what a villain is. even if his plan succeeds, by killing him he pays a personal price for his actions, as the villain generally does.

by killing him, he's just another conventional comic book archtype dying from a conventional comic book stereotype, which completely destroys the intentions of deconstructing the medium in the first place. but if he lives, the audience is left with a personal discussion of the themes that spring to the surface: surviving in a word where everything isnt black and white. a hero/villain journey isnt always about good vs. evil. shades of grey complicate things. at what cost are we willing to pay for the greater good. and most importantly, what does it mean to be a hero and what does it mean to be a villain?

alan moore worked the story carefully and deliberately for these themes. it was the purpose of the story. its intentions isnt to tell a yarn about dudes in masks going after a guy trying to blow up new york. that is merely the vehicle to get deeper themes across. it was written to challenge the idea of heroes and villains, good vs. evil. it was written to break those conventions and stereotyped archtypes. it provokes debate, but doesnt take either side of the debate. it merely says, here's an idea, how do YOU feel about it? but if you pander to those conventional stereotypical archtypes of good vs. evil, hero and villain, then everything else unravels and becomes meaningless.

this is just merely the surface of all that, and i totally just spout it off by giving it little thought. things go way deeper than this. but all of this should have been obvious when you read the book, if you paid closer attention to it. which is why i didnt want to sit here and have to explain it to you. i didnt want to have to make up for your shortcomings of recognizing the obvious from a text. but all in all, veidt CANT die. it would completely fly in the face of the story's purpose.

Compi716
08-02-2007, 09:13 PM
AHEM...

http://nyc.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/01/George-Costanza.JPG
To answer the question posed in the first post in the timeless words of George Costanza...

LIVE DAMMIT!

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 10:23 PM
and by the way, anyone else may feel free to jump in and refine/add to what im trying to say above. im not always best when trying to explain these things.

Gilpesh
08-02-2007, 10:37 PM
and by the way, anyone else may feel free to jump in and refine/add to what im trying to say above. im not always best when trying to explain these things.

Heck, you said all I've been trying to say with Ostrich man in the form he wants... it'll be hilarious to see him try and ignore that.

Motown Marvel
08-02-2007, 11:03 PM
Heck, you said all I've been trying to say with Ostrich man in the form he wants... it'll be hilarious to see him try and ignore that.

im sure he'll prove my time to be wasted when he tries to refute its logic...just as i presumed from the beginning. but heres for hoping he'll surprise us all, it'd be greatly appreciated.

logansoldcigar
08-03-2007, 10:21 AM
but we're clearly led to believe that he doesn't get away with it, and that the truth will be made public when the kid grabs Rorschach's journal at the end. so really, while his plan has succeeded to a degree, the truth will be revealed.


Interesting. I dont see that we are led to believe that, simply because Rorschachs journal contains nothing about the world peace plot. it contains details about his belief that Adrian Veidt was behind the "mask Killers" campaign, and that rorscach was heading to Karnak to confront him on the subject.

at best, if people looked on the paper as a respected source of journalism, it wopuld be asking them to believe the ramblings of psycotic murderer and prison escapee. Even if it did contain details of veidts actual plot, it would be the word of the nutbag against the worlds smartest man. One winner.

Its highly important veidt lives.

1) The way that Rorscach refuses to accept the hard line attitude where the ends justified the horrific means, when he has spent the last x amount of years living by just that rule. wants information, breaks some bones till he get it.

whereas the "liberal, possibly homosexual" Veidt was prepared to do whatever it took to gain world peace, even at the cost of his soul (I did the right thing, didnt I? It all worked out in the end?" is clearly the statement of a man IS feeling guilt over what he has just done, and is looking for re-assurance.

2) To kill him accomplishes no purpose from a dramatic POV. He has done what he set out to do. why kill him? it wont make a difference.
If they do Kill Veidt at the end of the film, its for one reason and one reason only:

Hollywood's idea (rightly or wrongly) that its biggest individual market place is so full of morons that they had to release "the Madness of King George 6th" with out the 6th bit: so they didnt wonder what happened to the first 5 parts.
that the first harry Potter book was called Sorcerer's stone (rather than Philosophers stone) as it was everywhere else, cos they might wonder why a Philosopher is in a book about wizards. and that they cant have a movie about Superheroes that is Morally ambiguous, in which we actually have to question whom the villian of the piece actually is.


I personally dont think the people of that country are that stupid. Seems Hollywood does.

Dr. Fate
08-03-2007, 11:02 AM
Killing off Veidt in the film when he lived in the graphic novel would be stupid.

Mysterio
08-03-2007, 11:37 AM
sigh. fine, you want me to lay it out
for you? heres why veidt dying would blatantly constrast the themes of

watchmen:finally. now was that so tough to do? although you still can't refrain from making snarky, insulting comments, i
appreciate that you made the effort. can't expect everything at once i suppose. now...


there is one flaw in your reasoning that particularly stands out: you are assuming that the protagonists - plural - kill veidt. that isn't a necessity. in the comic, Rorschach is opposed to the idea of compromise (as is Laurie initially. she does try to kill Veidt, after all) and refuses to be a part of the conspiracy; he isn't a moral relativist. if Rorschach were the one to kill Veidt and then the others kill Rorschach to protect Veidt's secret (as Dr. Manhattan did), then it basically works out to be the same thing as it does in the comic. especially if the audience believes that the rest are going to side with Rorschach.

i would also disagree about the comic book stereotype of the villain being killed. that's not really the stereotype. i can't think of many comics i read as a kid and teen in which the villain dies. what does happen - usually - is that either the hero bests the villain or the villain bests the hero and gets away, but ultimately, good prevails. what they are deconstructing is the hero, showing us that these people are not heroes, that they have their flaws - and that they are, ultimately, violent, dark people who have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own ideas of justice with their own ideas of morality with no regard to innocents. they aren't working in tandem with a police commissioner or leaving bad guys tied up in webbing for the police. even by killing Vedit, good doesn't prevail. we're not supposed to like or admire or look up to these people. Viedt's living or dying doesn't change that. again, if the "heroes" were to join Rorschach and renounce Veidt's plan, his goal, and his method, then we'd have a serious problem and the entire comic would be undermined; it would be a failure.

the deconstruction of the medium and of the superhero is already there and has been throughout the comic regardless of whether Veidt lives or dies. discussion of the presented themes - and of the Veidt's plan - would not die along with Veidt. again, his plan has already come to fruition: millions of innocents have died and, he believes, war is ended. we know, however, that war will never be eliminated and Jon - the ultimate war deterrent - effectively tells him so. when i read the story, i was immediately reminded of the crossbow, a weapon believed to be so terrible that it would end war forever (i believe it was a pope who said it. don't remember exactly). that was a millennium ago. we've seen how that prediction turned out. Veidt may be successful in the very short term, but not in the long term. like the end of war the crossbow was believed to herald, i doubt Veidt's "success" sticks.

alan moore worked the story carefully and deliberately for these themes. it was the purpose of the story. its intentions isnt to tell a yarn about dudes in masks going after a guy trying to blow up new york. that is merely the vehicle to get deeper themes across. it was written to challenge the idea of heroes and villains, good vs. evil. it was written to break those conventions and stereotyped archtypes. it provokes debate, but doesnt take either side of the debate. it merely says, here's an idea, how do YOU feel about it? but if you pander to those conventional stereotypical archtypes of good vs. evil, hero and villain, then everything else unravels and becomes meaningless.
for the most part, i agree; however, i do feel that they are taking, what is to me, an obvious stand. being a teenager through the majority of the reagan administration and growing up during the Cold War...believe me, nuclear war between the US and USSR was pretty much accepted as inevitable. i think the anti-nuke theme is the largest, strongest, and most pronounced theme in the book. from the constant use of the doomsday clock, which started off each issue, to the nuclear football chained to Nixon's wrist, to Dr. Manhattan's name, to the images of vaporization, etc. that theme is underlined with a companion theme: "who watches the watchmen?"

ultimately, the "heroes" agree with Veidt's decision and agree to keep silent - except for Rorschach, and i think that agreement is more important than whether Veidt lives or dies. your "shades of gray" still exists.

but all in all, veidt CANT die. it would completely fly in the face of the story's purpose.i'll ask you again: if you are adamant that Veidt CAN'T die, then why did you start the thread and why did you ask the question how important is it he lives?

surely you recognize that you are asking people for their opinions on whether or not it's important that he lives. i'm giving you and the board mine and i'm giving my reasoning for it. if you were never interested in hearing a differing view, then why ask the question in the first place?

Mysterio
08-03-2007, 12:16 PM
Interesting. I dont see that we are led to believe that, simply because Rorschachs journal contains nothing about the world peace plot. it contains details about his belief that Adrian Veidt was behind the "mask Killers" campaign, and that rorscach was heading to Karnak to confront him on the subject.but it's a starting point; an entry to discovering the full truth, and one that will be made public.

at best, if people looked on the paper as a respected source of journalism, it wopuld be asking them to believe the ramblings of psycotic murderer and prison escapee. Even if it did contain details of veidts actual plot, it would be the word of the nutbag against the worlds smartest man. One winner.that's very true. Ozymandias is admired, well-respected, and is viewed as a hero, but like his namesake in Shelly's poem, it eventually all crumbles away; it's only temporary.

Its highly important veidt lives.

1) The way that Rorscach refuses to accept the hard line attitude where the ends justified the horrific means, when he has spent the last x amount of years living by just that rule. wants information, breaks some bones till he get it.

whereas the "liberal, possibly homosexual" Veidt was prepared to do whatever it took to gain world peace, even at the cost of his soul (I did the right thing, didnt I? It all worked out in the end?" is clearly the statement of a man IS feeling guilt over what he has just done, and is looking for re-assurance.

2) To kill him accomplishes no purpose from a dramatic POV. He has done what he set out to do. why kill him? it wont make a difference.
If they do Kill Veidt at the end of the film, its for one reason and one reason only:

Hollywood's idea (rightly or wrongly) that its biggest individual market place is so full of morons that they had to release "the Madness of King George 6th" with out the 6th bit: so they didnt wonder what happened to the first 5 parts.
that the first harry Potter book was called Sorcerer's stone (rather than Philosophers stone) as it was everywhere else, cos they might wonder why a Philosopher is in a book about wizards. and that they cant have a movie about Superheroes that is Morally ambiguous, in which we actually have to question whom the villian of the piece actually is.

I personally dont think the people of that country are that stupid. Seems Hollywood does.your points have merit. the reason why i believe that he isn't feeling guilt is because with guilt comes remorse and regret - they're part and parcel, and i don't see Veidt as being remorseful. ah, hell. i can see it both ways. i can see how his appeal to Jon for reassurance could be the pangs of guilt. but to your second point, i agree: he has done what he set out to do, so what difference does it make if he dies as long as it isn't done as an act of justice?

Motown Marvel
08-03-2007, 12:44 PM
there is one flaw in your reasoning that particularly stands out: you are assuming that the protagonists - plural - kill veidt. that isn't a necessity. in the comic, Rorschach is opposed to the idea of compromise (as is Laurie initially. she does try to kill Veidt, after all) and refuses to be a part of the conspiracy; he isn't a moral relativist. if Rorschach were the one to kill Veidt and then the others kill Rorschach to protect Veidt's secret (as Dr. Manhattan did), then it basically works out to be the same thing as it does in the comic. especially if the audience believes that the rest are going to side with Rorschach.
no it doesnt work out. because then it panders to the convention of veidt paying a personal price for his actions, which result in him being painted as a villain.

i would also disagree about the comic book stereotype of the villain being killed. that's not really the stereotype. i can't think of many comics i read as a kid and teen in which the villain dies. what does happen - usually - is that either the hero bests the villain or the villain bests the hero and gets away, but ultimately, good prevails.

yes, the villain doesnt have to die, thats just the case we're talking about. but as mentioned, the villain always pays a price for his actions in some way. but in watchmen, since its not a black and white story, since there are shades of grey, veidt isnt suppose to be a villain, he doesnt pay a price for his actions, he gets away with it scott free.

what they are deconstructing is the hero, showing us that these people are not heroes, that they have their flaws - and that they are, ultimately, violent, dark people who have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own ideas of justice with their own ideas of morality with no regard to innocents. they aren't working in tandem with a police commissioner or leaving bad guys tied up in webbing for the police. even by killing Vedit, good doesn't prevail. we're not supposed to like or admire or look up to these people. Viedt's living or dying doesn't change that. again, if the "heroes" were to join Rorschach and renounce Veidt's plan, his goal, and his method, then we'd have a serious problem and the entire comic would be undermined; it would be a failure.
yes yes, it deconstructs the hero too, i know. but that has less to do with the topic at hand.

the deconstruction of the medium and of the superhero is already there and has been throughout the comic regardless of whether Veidt lives or dies.

but why deconstruct everything only to pander to the most painfully obvious convention at the end?!

discussion of the presented themes - and of the Veidt's plan - would not die along with Veidt.

you're truly hopeless.

again, his plan has already come to fruition: millions of innocents have died and, he believes, war is ended.

it isnt about the plan, its about the man!

we know, however, that war will never be eliminated and Jon - the ultimate war deterrent - effectively tells him so. when i read the story, i was immediately reminded of the crossbow, a weapon believed to be so terrible that it would end war forever (i believe it was a pope who said it. don't remember exactly). that was a millennium ago. we've seen how that prediction turned out. Veidt may be successful in the very short term, but not in the long term. like the end of war the crossbow was believed to herald, i doubt Veidt's "success" sticks.
the success of his plan has little to do with it.

for the most part, i agree; however, i do feel that they are taking, what is to me, an obvious stand. being a teenager through the majority of the reagan administration and growing up during the Cold War...believe me, nuclear war between the US and USSR was pretty much accepted as inevitable. i think the anti-nuke theme is the largest, strongest, and most pronounced theme in the book. from the constant use of the doomsday clock, which started off each issue, to the nuclear football chained to Nixon's wrist, to Dr. Manhattan's name, to the images of vaporization, etc. that theme is underlined with a companion theme: "who watches the watchmen?"
yes, the nuclear thing is a big theme in the book. but its not the only theme. nor is it even the most important. clearly, it stuck out and struck you the most...cool. but theres a lot more going on and it imperative that the other things are properly portrayed.

ultimately, the "heroes" agree with Veidt's decision and agree to keep silent - except for Rorschach, and i think that agreement is more important than whether Veidt lives or dies. your "shades of gray" still exists.
the shades of grey would be highly diluted, in that case. at that point in the story, the heroes would merely be dealing with the results of veidts actions, which they failed to stop. what other choice to they have? its forced on them. but they CHOOSE not to kill or reprimand veidt.

i'll ask you again: if you are adamant that Veidt CAN'T die, then why did you start the thread and why did you ask the question how important is it he lives?
because, theres rumors that he is set to be killed in the script. that cant happen. movie studios, now more than ever, tend to keep an eye on what the fanbases are saying about the projects. this gave the fans reason to vocalize their displeasure with the idea of veidt dying. so, in hopes, if veidt is in fact set to be killed off in the script...theres a slight chance that someone of importance will see this, recognize how upset people would be about that, and do the right thing and remedy that in the script. im all for discussing other views though...but it helps when the person im discussing it with has a more informed opinion of the matter.

surely you recognize that you are asking people for their opinions on whether or not it's important that he lives. i'm giving you and the board mine and i'm giving my reasoning for it. if you were never interested in hearing a differing view, then why ask the question in the first place?
i have no problem hearing a differing view, you just seem so uninformed about it to the point where i had to type a novel to explain the obvious! but you clearly seem hopeless to understand alan moore's intentions and im essentially giving up on you as you refuse to even try to understand.

Mysterio
08-03-2007, 01:08 PM
yes, the villain doesnt have to die, thats just the case we're talking about. but as mentioned, the villain always pays a price for his actions in some way. but in watchmen, since its not a black and white story, since there are shades of grey, veidt isnt suppose to be a villain, he doesnt pay a price for his actions, he gets away with it scott free.hmm. still can't make a post without being a total ass. and i thought we were making progress. if you think that Alan Moore doesn't intend Veidt to be a villain, then i submit that you haven't read the book and that you don't understand it as well as you think you do, despite stamping your foot and puffing out your cheeks. do you not understand the parallels he's making, not just with Veidt but with all of the "heroes"? what do you think "who watches the watchmen" refers to? you think that is supposed to be taken on the literal level? do you have no sense of context for when the piece was written and the political and social climates at the time?

but it helps when the person im discussing it with has a more informed opinion of the matter.read: unequivocally agrees with me :whatever:

i have no problem hearing a differing view, you just seem so uninformed about it to the point where i had to type a novel to explain the obvious! but you clearly seem hopeless to understand alan moore's intentions and im essentially giving up on you as you refuse to even try to understand.you clearly do have a problem with a differing view, and you have throughout this thread. you are the close minded one here who says, "that can't happen." how can you say that i refuse to understand when i constantly have been saying i see the other side's point of view? i'm just presenting another view. on the contrary, you don't acknowledge mine at all. and no, i'm not talking about anti-nukes or anti-war, i'm talking about Veidt dying. you have yet to allow that view into your close-minded little world. you haven't even considered it; you've dismissed it from the start. if all you're looking for are people to parrot back to you your thoughts and opinions, then say so. although, i suppose you already did in your own way a few pages back.

IKnowSomeJudo
08-03-2007, 01:10 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious why MM opened this thread. Every script that was leaked so far contains the godawful scene with Nite Owl killing Ozymandias in that typical, slimy pathetic hollywood-underdog fashion. If said scene remains intact in the current or upcoming draft, we, the fans, intend to make our voices be heard, in case anyone from WB is listening.
Mysterio, on the other hand, pretty much derailed the thread, discussing moot points whether this or that scenario would still work within Watchmen's main plot.

Mysterio
08-03-2007, 01:26 PM
Every script that was leaked so far contains the godawful scene with Nite Owl killing Ozymandias in that typical, slimy pathetic hollywood-underdog fashion. If said scene remains intact in the current or upcoming draft, we, the fans, intend to make our voices be heard, in case anyone from WB is listening.i absolutely agree. i haven't seen or read any leaked scripts and did not know that Nite Owl would kill Ozymandias. the opening post just said "there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film." didn't mention Nite Owl doing it. that would be unacceptable.

Mysterio, on the other hand, pretty much derailed the thread, discussing moot points whether this or that scenario would still work within Watchmen's main plot.since the person who started the thread asked "how important is it he lives?" i don't see how i've derailed the thread. i've been addressing that very question the entire time. if anything has derailed the thread, it's the immature namecalling and insults. this thread wouldn't be half as long without them.

Motown Marvel
08-03-2007, 01:29 PM
hmm. still can't make a post without being a total ass.
i wouldnt want to disappoint your expectations.

and i thought we were making progress.

that would require you to make an effort in logic.

if you think that Alan Moore doesn't intend Veidt to be a villain, then i submit that you haven't read the book and that you don't understand it as well as you think you do, despite stamping your foot and puffing out your cheeks.

thats a cute game your trying to play there.

do you not understand the parallels he's making, not just with Veidt but with all of the "heroes"?

yes, i do. but my focus is on veidt, here. and while the "heroes" play into that, its to a lesser degree than more imperative factors, which are more suited for this discussion.

what do you think "who watches the watchmen" refers to? you think that is supposed to be taken on the literal level? do you have no sense of context for when the piece was written and the political and social climates at the time?

so, now your trying to contradict my point without making a point yourself as you blatantly ignore the numerous points i've made in my previous post?

read: unequivocally agrees with me :whatever:
you know what, yes, that is exactly what i mean here. but its not a matter of agreeing with me, its agreeing with the book itself and alan moore. there is a right and a wrong, here. the right thing is having veidt live, the wrong thing is having him die. this much is obvious to anyone who understands the text. its not to much of a stretch to say if you think veidt can die, then you dont understand the text. and if you dont understand the text, then theres no point in having a discussion about the text with you.

you clearly do have a problem with a differing view, and you have throughout this thread. you are the close minded one here who says, "that can't happen."

i say it cant happen because for the integrity of the book to be upheld...it cant happen!

how can you say that i refuse to understand when i constantly have been saying i see the other side's point of view?

er, but you havent.

i'm just presenting another view. on the contrary, you don't acknowledge mine at all.

because its wrong, has little merit, and shows little understanding of the text. its like your getting frustrated with me because im certain 2+2=4!

and no, i'm not talking about anti-nukes or anti-war,

then why do you constantly bring it up?

i'm talking about Veidt dying.

glad to see we're on the same page.

you have yet to allow that view into your close-minded little world. you haven't even considered it; you've dismissed it from the start.

veidt dying? yeah, i totally dismissed it as a competent idea. because the idea is sheer ignorance. its like saying "come on...does captain hook REALLY need to have a hook for a hand?" of course he does! is it closed minded to insist as much?

if all you're looking for are people to parrot back to you your thoughts and opinions, then say so. although, i suppose you already did in your own way a few pages back.
yeah, it was expected that most people would agree with logic, and if anything, this thread proves as much. look at the poll.

IKnowSomeJudo
08-03-2007, 01:44 PM
i absolutely agree. i haven't seen or read any leaked scripts and did not know that Nite Owl would kill Ozymandias. the opening post just said "there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film." didn't mention Nite Owl doing it. that would be unacceptable.Ah. So this whole discussion resulted from a giant misunderstanding. Fine. That settles it. Enough.
Perhaps the original poster should have been more specific as to what he was reffering to, especially for folks who are not up to date with recent script leaks and rumors, but the point still stands.

Anyway, here's what happens in the scripts; the final confrontation with Veidt, Manhattan and Laurie arriving, Rorschach dying, all that, more or less, happens exactly as in the comic. THEN, the offensive part comes in; Dan, after making love to Laurie by the pool, decides to confront Veidt:

DAN: Adrian, I've changed my mind, I'm gonna make you pay for your crimes anyway, and even though you beat the crap out of me and Rorschach while sipping wine moments ago, not to mention catching a ****ing bullet, with a little help from bad writing, I will somehow manage to kill you with my owlarang... or my owlship, depends on the draft.
ADRIAN: *reads drafts* That's preposterous! Hayter, Tse, you wouldn't do this to me, would you?

TSE & HAYTER: Oh yes. Die, you possibly homosexual liberal, you!

logansoldcigar
08-03-2007, 04:38 PM
but it's a starting point; an entry to discovering the full truth, and one that will be made public.?
you are aassuming that Seymour actually picks up RS's journal. we see him reaching for the pile of contributions, of which the journal is just one. Its left by Moore (and deliberatly, i figure) to let the sense of justice that each reader has to imagine where it goes next

that's very true. Ozymandias is admired, well-respected, and is viewed as a hero, but like his namesake in Shelly's poem, it eventually all crumbles away; it's only temporary

Its more likely to crumble simply because of Human nature. we are incapable of a lasting peace with each other. Since the end of WW2, in what is supposedly a time of peace, how many years to you think there have been with out some form of military conflict?

your points have merit. the reason why i believe that he isn't feeling guilt is because with guilt comes remorse and regret - they're part and parcel, and i don't see Veidt as being remorseful. ah, hell. i can see it both ways. i can see how his appeal to Jon for reassurance could be the pangs of guilt. but to your second point, i agree: he has done what he set out to do, so what difference does it make if he dies as long as it isn't done as an act of justice?

Combining Veidt's questions with the expressions on his face show me that he isnt asure he has done the right thing. thats the essence of guilt, he has second guessed him self after the event.

as i said, to kill veidt at the end serves no dramatic purpose, other than to remove the ambiguity about the ending. it makes it a pretty neat little package, which is one thing watchmen shouldnt be. the whole boook raises quyestions, and to end it with an issue of black and white on a character that is a pure shade of grey, is, IMO, the wrong way to do it. I just dont think it will work from a dramatic POV. though it will work for those that insist on a clear resolution: the implication that Veidt's plot is exposed to the world at large, and the at veidt has died in paymeny for his crimes

Souperman
08-03-2007, 05:39 PM
NO! I shall never die! I am invincible!

Gilpesh
08-04-2007, 01:33 AM
:dry: Looks like he somehow out closed minded us MM.

Veidt is not a villain, and he's not a hero. To kill him at the end of the movie completely and entirely calls him a villain. Let's just go over the comic book movies...

Batman - Joker dies
Batman Returns - Peguin dies, Catwoman dies-ish
Batman Forever - Two-Face dies, Riddler is locked up
Batman & Robin - Every bad guy locked up
Spider-man - GG dead
Spider-man 2 - Doc Ock dead
Spider-man 3 - Venom dead
Punisher - Bad guys, dead

Now the action movies...

Die Hard Series - Bad guys die
Arnold Movies - Bad guys die
Hollywood movies - bad guys die

Etc Etc Etc

You get the point. In movies, the bad guy dies or gets sent to prison for everything they do in the story. The second Veidt gets killed by ANYONE for his actions, he is now the villain... he shoots himself in guilt... villain. Any way he dies, now he is the villain and the story is no longer Watchmen. One entire part of Watchmen was to show that there is no 'heroes' and there are no 'villains' like in Superhero comics or movies. Shades of grey.

Qwertyİ
08-04-2007, 04:51 AM
Veidt dieing is too conclusive for Watchmen.

Sandman138
08-04-2007, 06:56 AM
If he dies, the whole movie is pointless. Watchmen is about the inadequacy of the super hero paradigm in the face of the Nuclear Age, the illegitimacy of authority, and the subversion of America's nuclear policy of the 1980's to bring about world peace through a Star Wars style Armageddon. If Viedt dies, it legitimizes the black and white morality of a system that the story clearly shows to be flawed.

Sandman138
08-04-2007, 07:01 AM
Combining Veidt's questions with the expressions on his face show me that he isnt asure he has done the right thing. thats the essence of guilt, he has second guessed him self after the event.

Clearly. When Jon says that line "In the end? Nothing ever ends, Adrien." and Viedt looks at him horrified, we see it. Alexandria was not eternal, utopia is no place, time moves on and ages come to end while new ones begin. Viedt realizes in that instant that he is mortal and his vision will not last and it is written there all over his face. It is beautifully existential, and honestly, it's one of those things I'm not sure film will ever be able to replicate as powerfully.

Sandman138
08-04-2007, 07:33 AM
i strongly disagree; they are not the same thing. this scale of innocence - some less innocent than others - is irrelevant. murder is murder. an individual - not a president, not law enforcement, not the judicial system - has taken it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner - the savior of humanity, and through that salvation he has committed mass murder. he is operating outside the system - outside the law. i don't know how you can look at a president in a time of war making a strategic decision and attack to defeat an enemy and say it's the same thing as some vigilante donning a costume and committing mass murder.

But what makes the state/president more legitimate of an authority figure than the super hero? Remember that at this time, and to this day to a large extent, the superhero was a paragon of the state.

Motown Marvel
08-04-2007, 08:34 AM
If he dies, the whole movie is pointless. Watchmen is about the inadequacy of the super hero paradigm in the face of the Nuclear Age, the illegitimacy of authority, and the subversion of America's nuclear policy of the 1980's to bring about world peace through a Star Wars style Armageddon. If Viedt dies, it legitimizes the black and white morality of a system that the story clearly shows to be flawed.

snap! :wow:

i bet you get so much pu$$y with $#it like that. i know chicks get all wet over comic book analysis.

Mysterio
08-04-2007, 08:35 AM
you are assuming that Seymour actually picks up RS's journal. we see him reaching for the pile of contributions, of which the journal is just one. Its left by Moore (and deliberatly, i figure) to let the sense of justice that each reader has to imagine where it goes nexttrue.

Its more likely to crumble simply because of Human nature. we are incapable of a lasting peace with each other. Since the end of WW2, in what is supposedly a time of peace, how many years to you think there have been with out some form of military conflict?it doesn't matter what the cause is; the point is that the works and achievements won't last.

Mysterio
08-04-2007, 08:41 AM
But what makes the state/president more legitimate of an authority figure than the super hero? Remember that at this time, and to this day to a large extent, the superhero was a paragon of the state.because the state/president - our system of government, a representative constitutional republic - is given that authority by the will and permission of the governed. that isn't the case for some guy deciding to wear a costume and fight crime - or save humanity in his own twisted way.

Paloogin
08-04-2007, 08:52 AM
Veidt dying would just be another reason why you can understand Alan Moore's anti-Hollywood stance. I mean sure, you're going to have to change the story a bit to make it movie worthy, but killing Veidt would be ruining the whole feeling at the end of it.

Those bloody Hollywood people...

Mysterio
08-04-2007, 08:59 AM
Clearly. When Jon says that line "In the end? Nothing ever ends, Adrien." and Viedt looks at him horrified, we see it. Alexandria was not eternal, utopia is no place, time moves on and ages come to end while new ones begin. Viedt realizes in that instant that he is mortal and his vision will not last and it is written there all over his face. It is beautifully existential, and honestly, it's one of those things I'm not sure film will ever be able to replicate as powerfully.looks at him horrified? we don't see Veidt's facial expression until after Jon disappears, and it isn't one of horror.

Philly Phanboy
08-04-2007, 12:43 PM
Veidt dying would just be another reason why you can understand Alan Moore's anti-Hollywood stance. I mean sure, you're going to have to change the story a bit to make it movie worthy, but killing Veidt would be ruining the whole feeling at the end of it.

Those bloody Hollywood people...

Agreed. At the very least ZS should film the authentic ending as well as the Veidt dies ending and test screen the two to see which is better recieved. :word:

Motown Marvel
08-04-2007, 02:17 PM
because the state/president - our system of government, a representative constitutional republic - is given that authority by the will and permission of the governed. that isn't the case for some guy deciding to wear a costume and fight crime - or save humanity in his own twisted way.
so the difference between right and wrong is dependant on a persons rank and position in society?

looks at him horrified? we don't see Veidt's facial expression until after Jon disappears, and it isn't one of horror.
it is a look of great concern though. clearly what jon tells veidt has him second guessing the righteousness of his actions.

Motown Marvel
08-04-2007, 02:19 PM
Agreed. At the very least ZS should film the authentic ending as well as the Veidt dies ending and test screen the two to see which is better recieved. :word:

even test screening his death would be a bad idea. his death gives comfort and closure to the novel, and audiences generally go for comfort and closure, they'd probably rate it well. but the ending of watchmen isnt suppose to be comforting, nor is there suppose to be definitive closure.

StorminNorman
08-04-2007, 03:30 PM
snap! :wow:

i bet you get so much pu$$y with $#it like that. i know chicks get all wet over comic book analysis.

lol congratulations - you just proved yourself a complete and utter asshat :up:

Gilpesh
08-04-2007, 03:41 PM
because the state/president - our system of government, a representative constitutional republic - is given that authority by the will and permission of the governed. that isn't the case for some guy deciding to wear a costume and fight crime - or save humanity in his own twisted way.

Actually the state/president is just a whole bunch of guys who decided to wear a costume and fight crime - or save humanity in his own twisted way...

They just picked business suits over tights.

Motown Marvel
08-04-2007, 05:05 PM
lol congratulations - you just proved yourself a complete and utter asshat :up:

yes! im living up to my mother's expectations!

Sandman138
08-04-2007, 07:08 PM
looks at him horrified? we don't see Veidt's facial expression until after Jon disappears, and it isn't one of horror.

Okay, just went back and checked. He's looking at where Jon was standing, an orrery. Horrified was too strong a word, but look at his face. Throughout the entire book, he is depicted as either stoic or satisfied with himself. In this one frame, there is tremendous doubt, and grief. He did all of it because he thought he could save the world, only to realize too late that the world will keep turning. It's monumental.

Sandman138
08-04-2007, 07:09 PM
because the state/president - our system of government, a representative constitutional republic - is given that authority by the will and permission of the governed. that isn't the case for some guy deciding to wear a costume and fight crime - or save humanity in his own twisted way.

And what does that matter to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Overman27pj
08-04-2007, 07:27 PM
Sandman, right on. Well said.

brobdingnag
08-04-2007, 07:30 PM
then i guess i don't understand the story. whether Veidt lives or dies at the end is immaterial; what matters is 1) his plan succeeded, and 2) the other heroes remain complicit in the conspiracy.

I can see both sides of it. You are right about the plan and the other heroes cooperation, but its just a hell of a better story with Veidt living, than dying.

brobdingnag
08-04-2007, 07:31 PM
And what does that matter to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It means they are now our ally, because we were smart enough to totally defeat our enemies.

Sandman138
08-04-2007, 07:35 PM
It means they are now our ally, because we were smart enough to totally defeat our enemies.

That didn't even answer the question.

Mysterio
08-04-2007, 10:02 PM
And what does that matter to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?it doesn't. your point?

Sandman138
08-04-2007, 10:39 PM
it doesn't. your point?

That authority does not equal intrinsic virtue.

Gilpesh
08-04-2007, 11:08 PM
That authority does not equal intrinsic virtue.

And the ability to deem civilians in another country a viable target to be murdered to end a war.

Mysterio is acting a lot like Rorschach right now. Deeming Veidt a villain for the exact thing his hero Truman did.

Now where's Manhattan when you need him? :whatever:

waylayer
08-05-2007, 10:42 AM
Clearly. When Jon says that line "In the end? Nothing ever ends, Adrien." and Viedt looks at him horrified, we see it.

Jon leaves Adrian's presence after this line. We don't actually see Adrian's direct reaction to Jon's line, only read what he says. The next and final shot of Adrian is of him turned from where Jon was standing before he disappeared, and Adrian looking back at that spot. The look on his face may be concern, doubt, guilt, or maybe a combination of the three, but in my opinion, it is not horror.

On another note, I'm just going to throw this wacky idea out there. Maybe Veidt's death was included in the final script submitted to the studio to help ensure it would get green-lit and still have their support? The studios had a tough time buying into the idea anyway, so maybe the death was included to help sway them. Perhaps Snyder can either decide to not shoot that scene later, or shoot it and maybe convince the studio later to leave it out of the final film, or include it as an "alternate ending" on the DVD to throw them a bone? Much stranger things have happened in the history of film. If that ends up being the case, we can all have a hardy laugh looking back at this. :yay:

Mysterio
08-05-2007, 11:02 AM
That authority does not equal intrinsic virtue.i gave you an answer regarding our specific government system and how it derives its authority, since that was the question you asked. your coming back with a question of how that matters to citizens of another country who were under a different system of government that had a different system of legitimacy and authority is silly and illogical. the answer is it doesn't matter; it's apples and oranges.

Overman27pj
08-05-2007, 01:54 PM
Mysterio,

Seriously, I have to believe that you are purposely trying to be stupid here or stirring the pot. No one can be this utterly lost on a point. I am in disbelief.

Watson
08-05-2007, 02:00 PM
He's got to live. And they have to make it absolutely clear that at the very end, the audience understands that Rorschach's journal ends up in revealing everything to the world.

One issue with this is that audiences may not be that clever, and ZS will have bash them over the head with the idea that the word gets out, Veidt gets caught, etc. (shown visually, possibly in a montage with voice-over, of course).

But yeah, killing Veidt just ruins everything. And I really, really, really want that scene where Dr. Manhattan says those parting words before vanishing.

Exactly. If he dies nothing in the epilogue of the book makes sense. Not SS and Nite Owl in hiding, not the Journal being at the magazine. Veidt's gotta live...his fate is within the audiences imagination.

Sandman138
08-06-2007, 02:22 AM
i gave you an answer regarding our specific government system and how it derives its authority, since that was the question you asked. your coming back with a question of how that matters to citizens of another country who were under a different system of government that had a different system of legitimacy and authority is silly and illogical. the answer is it doesn't matter; it's apples and oranges.

No it's not because Truman's actions effected a group of people who did not give him the authority to drop a bomb on them. The same way Veidt's did. You're taking a relative scale and treating it like an absolute.

Sandman138
08-06-2007, 02:23 AM
Jon leaves Adrian's presence after this line. We don't actually see Adrian's direct reaction to Jon's line, only read what he says. The next and final shot of Adrian is of him turned from where Jon was standing before he disappeared, and Adrian looking back at that spot. The look on his face may be concern, doubt, guilt, or maybe a combination of the three, but in my opinion, it is not horror.

This has been established.

logansoldcigar
08-06-2007, 02:46 AM
because the state/president - our system of government, a representative constitutional republic - is given that authority by the will and permission of the governed. that isn't the case for some guy deciding to wear a costume and fight crime - or save humanity in his own twisted way.

That isnt always the case though, is it?

Truman was never elected as president(first time round). FDR was. and FDR was elected 3 times with 3 different VP's, suggesting that the people didnt vote for the others on the ticket, but for the man himself

Churchill wasdnt elected by the people: he was appointed by Parliament. John major wasnt elected for his firsat term, the incumbent retired. Our Current PM has never won a general election. he succeeded when the incumbent resigned.

i fully appreciate that these may be within the conditions that are allowed for within the rules. Its not something i agree with (that it should be allowed), but they were not elected as such: and as VP, Truman had so little authority, he didnt even know about the manhatten project, he were only told about that after he got the top job.

StorminNorman
08-06-2007, 01:08 PM
Personally I would rather have Adrien Veidt make such a decision than any elected politician.

Mysterio
08-06-2007, 02:22 PM
That isnt always the case though, is it?

Truman was never elected as president(first time round). FDR was. and FDR was elected 3 times with 3 different VP's, suggesting that the people didnt vote for the others on the ticket, but for the man himselfthat's irrelevant. the office of the president and vice president is established by the constitution and granted by the will and consent of the governed. equally, the line of succession is also established by the constitution (and later clarified through the 25th amendment). presidents are elected via the electoral college anyway, and not by popular vote, so "people didn't vote for the others on the ticket" is immaterial. the offices, our governmental system, the branches of our government, are all granted by the will and consent of the governed, regardless if the holder of the office is appointed or elected.

Motown Marvel
08-06-2007, 02:29 PM
truman nukes japan to stop a war.

veidt nukes NY to prevent an imminent war.

essentially the same actions done for the same purposes.

you cant say one is right and one is wrong simply due to the persons status. status doesnt define right and wrong.

Gilpesh
08-06-2007, 02:36 PM
Mysterio. You need to stop jumping all over the place. First you say the president can do that cause he has the consent of the governed... then you say he can cause he was elected by the electoral college AKA not the governed. And that is still all cool for him to do.

Stop just disagreeing to be a dick and actually join the conversation.

sad lieutenant
08-06-2007, 02:51 PM
truman nukes japan to stop a war.

veidt nukes NY to prevent an imminent war.

essentially the same actions done for the same purposes.

you cant say one is right and one is wrong simply due to the persons status. status doesnt define right and wrong.

It doesn't get much clearer than that!

logansoldcigar
08-06-2007, 02:56 PM
He's got to live. And they have to make it absolutely clear that at the very end, the audience understands that Rorschach's journal ends up in revealing everything to the world.

One issue with this is that audiences may not be that clever, and ZS will have bash them over the head with the idea that the word gets out, Veidt gets caught, etc. (shown visually, possibly in a montage with voice-over, of course).



But that isnt made clear in the book. Its implied that Seymour might pick up RS's journal, no guarantees, then you have the stretch of it being believed.
From there you have to believe that an investigation into a journal that ends with a case about people hunting down the former masked adventurer's leading to them being able to pin all the deaths on the worlds smartest man.

Moore lets us decide for ourselves what we think will happen

sad lieutenant
08-06-2007, 03:57 PM
But that isnt made clear in the book. Its implied that Seymour might pick up RS's journal, no guarantees, then you have the stretch of it being believed.
...

Moore lets us decide for ourselves what we think will happen

Yes... And it is my hope that Snyder (and WB!) will do the same. This is the whole rub, isn't it? Hollywood seems allergic to question marks... Why is that?

logansoldcigar
08-06-2007, 04:16 PM
Ive always pout it down to 2 things:
1) pandering to those that see the world in black and white. "he cant get away with it, he just cant". never mind that in this case, he may spend of thwe rest opf his life feeling guilty as to the cost of whast he did, unless he is clearly seen to be punished, they wont be happy.

2) they simply underestimate the intelligence of the audience in the largest single market

Lobster Charlie
08-06-2007, 04:30 PM
I don't necessarily believe there will be an investigation--but if Seymour DOES put the journal entry into the crank file, the truth will be exposed to a certain degree, albeit to a limited audience.

All the same, Veidt needs to live and we must end with Seymour at least looking like he'll pick up the book. It'll have the audiences talking about this when the lights come back on. :D

WalterKovacs
08-06-2007, 09:34 PM
im not sure if this was asked or not, but if snyder is suoper gung-ho for having it be frame-for-frame from teh book, then it seems that at the very least hed keep in a crucial plot element like veidt living. if the man is as fetishistic as he says he is, to the point where he wants every little detail that the fans love to be in there, it seems like hed let veidt live, and keep the alien in lieu of the laser.

Mysterio
08-07-2007, 10:25 AM
Mysterio. You need to stop jumping all over the place. First you say the president can do that cause he has the consent of the governed... then you say he can cause he was elected by the electoral college AKA not the governed. And that is still all cool for him to do.

Stop just disagreeing to be a dick and actually join the conversation.although i have absolutely no respect for you or your opinion, i'm going to clear up something your tiny mind is unable to grasp. consent of the governed was an answer to how the president has his authority - it is granted and established by the constitution, which was ratified by the states through the representatives elected by the people. our governmental system exists through the will and consent of the governed. that system includes the electoral college. what part of representative constitutional republic do you not understand?

again, the authors are trying to equate Truman's action with Veidt's. that's a simplistic, naive view that apparently many here prescribe to. the differences between the two tower over any base-level similarities that an anti-war, anti-nuke, moral relativist would embrace. it is not an apples to apples comparison.

Gilpesh
08-07-2007, 10:34 AM
I know how are government works. And I don't see where it says the elected 'by the people' politicians are allowed to kill civilians and call it alright.

Oh and you didn't have to put the respect line in there. It was already evident as the fact I have answered your question a million times in this thread and presented the answer...

Which you chose to ignore. So I am just going to call that your way of saying that you are wrong.

Also, funny how you'll go as low to call my mind tiny when I've been able to see a connection that is clear as day and you're trying everything to not see it.

And... your mind has to be tiny to praise an action that saved just American lives... where Veidt saved lives of people all over the globe and you condemn it.

I think the Bill O'Reilly of the Hype would at least be able to agree that there is some similiarity... but you still shove fingers in your ears and yell LA LA LA.

Sandman138
08-07-2007, 11:13 AM
although i have absolutely no respect for you or your opinion, i'm going to clear up something your tiny mind is unable to grasp. consent of the governed was an answer to how the president has his authority - it is granted and established by the constitution, which was ratified by the states through the representatives elected by the people. our governmental system exists through the will and consent of the governed. that system includes the electoral college. what part of representative constitutional republic do you not understand?

again, the authors are trying to equate Truman's action with Veidt's. that's a simplistic, naive view that apparently many here prescribe to. the differences between the two tower over any base-level similarities that an anti-war, anti-nuke, moral relativist would embrace. it is not an apples to apples comparison.

So was The Blitz a heroic action?

brobdingnag
08-07-2007, 05:09 PM
I know how are government works..

Apparently not.

brobdingnag
08-07-2007, 05:20 PM
So was The Blitz a heroic action?

Heroism has nothing to do with war. Either you totally defeat the enemy, or they totally defeat you. You are either willing to do whatever it takes to win or you are not.

Gilpesh
08-07-2007, 06:23 PM
Apparently not.

Yes. Cause two words proves how much you know... no wait it just makes you an ass.

For some reason, this thread just has to attract all the arrogant "LA LA LA, can't hear you" posters.

Sandman138
08-08-2007, 04:27 AM
Heroism has nothing to do with war. Either you totally defeat the enemy, or they totally defeat you. You are either willing to do whatever it takes to win or you are not.

I agree, but Mysterio doesn't seem to. He calls Truman's actions heroic, and given his reasons, I'd have to assume that the Blitz would fit his definition of heroism as well.

brobdingnag
08-08-2007, 07:18 AM
I agree, but Mysterio doesn't seem to. He calls Truman's actions heroic, and given his reasons, I'd have to assume that the Blitz would fit his definition of heroism as well.

Your comparison is flawed. Japan and Germany initiated WWII, while the US bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (two highly important strategic targets by the way) was a response to that agression. By bombing large civilian areas of Britain, the Germans made the response of killing thousands of civilians in Dresden, and Hiroshima a virtual certainty. Their mistake was simply trying to prevent us from entering the war when they should have continued to attack the US on the mainland once they had the advantage. Also, Mysterio, like most people in the world, probably places more importance on the lives of those who are members of his own culture than the lives of those outside his culture. With that in mind, I'm sure that many German people did indeed see the Blitz as heroic. There are plenty of people in the world who see Osama Bin Laden as a Heroic figure (including the American left, one of the few culural sub-groups who value the lives of their enemies more than their own).

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 07:24 AM
So was The Blitz a heroic action?don't be absurd. of course not. you are trying to claim all of these actions, causes, motives, etc., as equal when they are not.

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 07:32 AM
I agree, but Mysterio doesn't seem to. He calls Truman's actions heroic, and given his reasons, I'd have to assume that the Blitz would fit his definition of heroism as well.can you show me where i called Truman's actions heroic, or are you content on making things up?

Sandman138
08-08-2007, 07:32 AM
don't be absurd. of course not. you are trying to claim all of these actions, causes, motives, etc., as equal when they are not.

So then. It has nothing to do with the fact that Truman was elected by a system that gives him authority through the consent of the governed? It has everything to do with cause, motivation, and actions. So then, why are Veidt's actions, causes, and motivations less just than Truman's?

Sandman138
08-08-2007, 07:34 AM
can you show me where i called Truman's actions heroic, or are you content on making things up?
no, i don't. i feel the exact same way: Truman was a hero and Veidt is a villain. i don't find the two acts or the two moralities comparable at all. again, to someone like the authors who are making an anti-nuke, anti-war statement then yes, i can see that they would view the two things as the same.

That clear enough for you? Don't take your lapses of memory out on me.

Sandman138
08-08-2007, 07:55 AM
Your comparison is flawed. Japan and Germany initiated WWII, while the US bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (two highly important strategic targets by the way) was a response to that agression.

Yes and no. It was a response to the aggression of Pearl Harbor. The Blitz was 1940, America didn't confront the Axis until 1941 when we were attacked. America as a nation really could have given a **** about Europe or ethnic cleansing. As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was about ready to surrender before we bombed them, and with the help of Russia, the loss of American lives would probably not have been as bad as conventional US history says. But one big thing happened before we bombed Hiroshima: Potsdam. Truman had trouble dealing with Stalin, and he was using the atomic bomb as leverage at the conference. A few days later we dropped the bomb. I personally believe we did it as a way to keep ourselves out of debt with Stalin and to send a message to the USSR. Regardless of motivations, after Hiroshima, surrender was guaranteed, which makes Nagasaki absolutely abhorrent.

By bombing large civilian areas of Britain, the Germans made the response of killing thousands of civilians in Dresden, and Hiroshima a virtual certainty. Their mistake was simply trying to prevent us from entering the war when they should have continued to attack the US on the mainland once they had the advantage. Also, Mysterio, like most people in the world, probably places more importance on the lives of those who are members of his own culture than the lives of those outside his culture. With that in mind, I'm sure that many German people did indeed see the Blitz as heroic. There are plenty of people in the world who see Osama Bin Laden as a Heroic figure (including the American left, one of the few culural sub-groups who value the lives of their enemies more than their own).

This has kind of been my point. Part of living in a nuclear age, as far as I'm concerned, is the realization of scale. Where once, a country was large, the scale of devastation forces one to pull back and see the effects of actions on a global level. In my mind, what makes Osymandias somewhat heroic, in his own way, was his ability to look beyond his own culture and see the greater good of the world at large. And as part of the American left, I can tell you right now that Osama Bin Laden is a right bastard and I would love to see him wiped off the face of the Earth, but being realistic about how our actions and allegiances in the Middle East are affecting our interests is just as important if not more so. We had a chance to catch the bastard, we blew it in a quest to bring democracy to a region in a way that has resulted in balkanization because we applied western mindset to a foreign area, the follies of absolute morality.

brobdingnag
08-08-2007, 08:59 AM
Well that is where we are going to disagree. I value my own culture FAR more than any other. By extention, I value American lives far more than the lives of non-Americans. I have no problem with the US using nuclear weapons against our enemies rather than invading. Does that mean I think we should immediately start letting the missles fly? No, but a demonstration of just exactly what we are capble of can serve as a good object lesson that even the most deluded religious nut can appreaciate.

Overman27pj
08-08-2007, 09:10 AM
Also, Mysterio, like most people in the world, probably places more importance on the lives of those who are members of his own culture than the lives of those outside his culture. With that in mind, I'm sure that many German people did indeed see the Blitz as heroic.

I believe you would be hard pressed to find rational people who thought the holocaust was heroic.

Overman27pj
08-08-2007, 09:15 AM
Well that is where we are going to disagree. I value my own culture FAR more than any other. By extention, I value American lives far more than the lives of non-Americans. I have no problem with the US using nuclear weapons against our enemies rather than invading. Does that mean I think we should immediately start letting the missles fly? No, but a demonstration of just exactly what we are capble of can serve as a good object lesson that even the most deluded religious nut can appreaciate.

You must also keep in mind that it is not the bombs falling directly on people that is feared...it is the resulting effect on the earth, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter) that is likely to kill most everyone.

brobdingnag
08-08-2007, 09:22 AM
I believe you would be hard pressed to find rational people who thought the holocaust was heroic.

Rational...no, but many MANY muslims believe just that. Of course we all know what happens when you put too much value in spiritual beliefs don't we? Your own messiah failed to deliver on his promise that your sect would be taken from Earth by the Xists on July 5th, 1998. Where is your precious Dobbs Now?!?!!? :cwink:

brobdingnag
08-08-2007, 09:25 AM
You must also keep in mind that it is not the bombs falling directly on people that is feared...it is the resulting effect on the earth, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter) that is likely to kill most everyone.

Oddly, that did not result from the only two examples we have to date of the use of nuclear weapons. I never said "nuke em all and let G'broagfran sort them out." I support the use of tactical nuclear weapons for the teaching of object lessons. Two totally different things.

Sandman138
08-08-2007, 09:41 AM
Rational...no, but many MANY muslims believe just that. Of course we all know what happens when you put too much value in spiritual beliefs don't we? Your own messiah failed to deliver on his promise that your sect would be taken from Earth by the Xists on July 5th, 1998. Where is your precious Dobbs Now?!?!!? :cwink:

It was read upside down. X-Day will occur in the year of 8661. Duh.:o :oldrazz:

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 10:56 AM
So then. It has nothing to do with the fact that Truman was elected by a system that gives him authority through the consent of the governed? It has everything to do with cause, motivation, and actions. So then, why are Veidt's actions, causes, and motivations less just than Truman's?once again, you are comparing apples and oranges. the authority vested in a head of state by the governed (and in a time of war) versus some random person taking it upon himself to be the arbiter, judge, jury, and executioner, without anyone's authority, and existing outside the rule of law. it's a laughable comparison.

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 10:59 AM
That clear enough for you? Don't take your lapses of memory out on me.i said Truman was a hero - that judgment is based on the man and encompasses his entire tenure as president. you claimed I said Truman's action was heroic, which is something i never said.

is that clear enough for you? you'd be better served to not try and put words in my mouth.

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 11:02 AM
I believe you would be hard pressed to find rational people who thought the holocaust was heroic.now, now. you wouldn't want to fall into Rorschach's black and white absolutes, would you? :whatever:

Overman27pj
08-08-2007, 11:26 AM
once again, you are comparing apples and oranges. the authority vested in a head of state by the governed (and in a time of war) versus some random person taking it upon himself to be the arbiter, judge, jury, and executioner, without anyone's authority, and existing outside the rule of law. it's a laughable comparison.

We have been down this same road before. You are talking in circles.

The question from here is how does it matter what a person's authority is to the people who get bombed?

Do you think the citizens of Hiroshima felt better than the citizens of New York simply because Truman had 'authority' to kill them and Viedt did not?

Gilpesh
08-08-2007, 11:27 AM
now, now. you wouldn't want to fall into Rorschach's black and white absolutes, would you? :whatever:

Calling Truman a hero and Veidt a villain is black and white absolutes.

You've proven yourself to be thinking exactly like Rorschach. Funny, at least he saw enough of the good in Veidt's plan to let Manhattan kill him.

Overman27pj
08-08-2007, 11:30 AM
:whatever:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/789746b9ef78d866e.gif

Sandman138
08-08-2007, 12:01 PM
i said Truman was a hero - that judgment is based on the man and encompasses his entire tenure as president. you claimed I said Truman's action was heroic, which is something i never said.

is that clear enough for you? you'd be better served to not try and put words in my mouth.

Yould be better served to clarify your position. The debate was over Truman's authorizing the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in comparison to Veidt's action of destroying New York. You're post had clear implications and everyone here has been arguing under those implications. Instead of clarifying your position - which I'm still not sure of perhaps that Truman's other actions as President outweigh the action of bombing civilians, or that it was okay because Japanese are not Americans, or that it was okay because Truman was president of America instead of just some man, or that it was okay because Truman saved X lives by killing Y while Veidt saved X lives by killing X - you have instead vaguely defended some murky semblance of a position and called anyone who disagreed with you naive, a moral relativist, and anti-war/anti-nuke. I'm happy to debate your premises, if you would be kind enough to actually lay them out in a logical manner and stop with the thinly veiled insults.

Sandman138
08-08-2007, 12:03 PM
once again, you are comparing apples and oranges. the authority vested in a head of state by the governed (and in a time of war) versus some random person taking it upon himself to be the arbiter, judge, jury, and executioner, without anyone's authority, and existing outside the rule of law. it's a laughable comparison.

So once again: what makes the Blitz, a bombing enacted to achieve victory in a war and save German lives that was enacted by Hitler a man who was given authority by a democratic election and the will of the governed, an unheroic act?

Motown Marvel
08-08-2007, 01:23 PM
i said Truman was a hero - that judgment is based on the man and encompasses his entire tenure as president. you claimed I said Truman's action was heroic, which is something i never said.

is that clear enough for you? you'd be better served to not try and put words in my mouth.
so you think truman is a hero but condemn the action that defined his presidency? :huh:

once again, you are comparing apples and oranges. the authority vested in a head of state by the governed (and in a time of war) versus some random person taking it upon himself to be the arbiter, judge, jury, and executioner, without anyone's authority, and existing outside the rule of law. it's a laughable comparison.
so, are you okay with truman's actions because he legaly had the power to do so...or because his actions were the right thing to do?

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 02:45 PM
We have been down this same road before. You are talking in circles.

The question from here is how does it matter what a person's authority is to the people who get bombed?what matters is one has been given the power to make those decisions and to defend a country by any means within his arsenal while the other hasn't.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


the president is sworn by oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and it is the only oath of office included in the Constitution. no one has given that authority to Veidt or any of the other "heroes." you and others on here are trying to equate the two, as well as the authors with their prevalent use of "who watches the watchmen?"

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 02:52 PM
so you think truman is a hero but condemn the action that defined his presidency? :huh:

so, are you okay with truman's actions because he legaly had the power to do so...or because his actions were the right thing to do?i never said i condemned the action. good grief, all of this either/or, black and white from those who are ridicule what they perceive as black and white views. quite ironic. no, i don't condemn the action; it was necessary, and i approve of what he did. the president is charged with the defense and protection of this country. there was no other option than defeating the enemy.

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 03:09 PM
So once again: what makes the Blitz, a bombing enacted to achieve victory in a war and save German lives that was enacted by Hitler a man who was given authority by a democratic election and the will of the governed, an unheroic act?you can't possibly be serious. again, you are trying to go for a base-level comparison, as if everything is equal. let's see...an oppressive, totalitarian government with the goal of world domination and the eradication of an ethnic and religious group(s) through murder, versus delivering defeat to an enemy of liberty and freedom through an act of self-preservation.

what do you think makes them different?

Motown Marvel
08-08-2007, 03:11 PM
i never said i condemned the action. good grief, all of this either/or, black and white from those who are ridicule what they perceive as black and white views. quite ironic. no, i don't condemn the action; it was necessary, and i approve of what he did. the president is charged with the defense and protection of this country. there was no other option than defeating the enemy.

so, you believe the action was necessary, and the right thing to do...is that opinion dependant on the enablers status in society?

Overman27pj
08-08-2007, 04:23 PM
what matters is one has been given the power to make those decisions and to defend a country by any means within his arsenal while the other hasn't.


Adrian Viedt is not acting for or aligned with any paticular country, and is not bound to those rules.

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 08:09 PM
Adrian Viedt is not acting for or aligned with any paticular country, and is not bound to those rules.and therefore the difference between him and Truman. it is what makes him nothing more and nothing less than a mass murderer. although as a citizen, he is most definitely bound by the rules, but has chosen (as have the others) to act outside those rules.

Mysterio
08-08-2007, 08:09 PM
the enablers status in society?explain what you mean.

Motown Marvel
08-08-2007, 08:23 PM
explain what you mean.

you say truman's actions were necessary and the right thing to do. is your opinion of that dependant on the fact that he was the president of the USA and was legally empowered to do so?

Gilpesh
08-08-2007, 08:26 PM
Veidt's actions were necessary to stop a nuclear war that would have destroyed Earth.

Sandman138
08-09-2007, 07:31 AM
you can't possibly be serious. again, you are trying to go for a base-level comparison, as if everything is equal. let's see...an oppressive, totalitarian government with the goal of world domination and the eradication of an ethnic and religious group(s) through murder, versus delivering defeat to an enemy of liberty and freedom through an act of self-preservation.

what do you think makes them different?

Of course I'm not serious. It's an obvious hyperbole, but you have yet to clarify what your position is so I'm kinda forced to debate each premise on its own. You said the system gave Truman authority to do what he did, and the lives and concerns of the Japanese citizens were irrelevant, so I brought up another system that gave Hitler the authority to do what he did, assuming that the lives and concerns of the British people would be equally irrelevant. Or do you think that the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obvious enemies of liberty and freedom?

Sandman138
08-09-2007, 07:36 AM
and therefore the difference between him and Truman. it is what makes him nothing more and nothing less than a mass murderer. although as a citizen, he is most definitely bound by the rules, but has chosen (as have the others) to act outside those rules.

So, if Veidt had been aligned with the US, and done this to make the US the sole authority over all the world, and let's say, instead of New York, it had been Moscow... would that make it heroic?

Mysterio
08-09-2007, 08:14 AM
you say truman's actions were necessary and the right thing to do. is your opinion of that dependant on the fact that he was the president of the USA and was legally empowered to do so?it is partly based on the fact that as president he is empowered and required to defend, protect, and preserve this country and our constitution - the fabric of our government and guaranteer of our freedoms - and the need to defeat and ensure victory over enemies in order to do so.

Sandman138
08-09-2007, 08:23 AM
it is partly based on the fact that as president he is empowered and required to defend, protect, and preserve this country and our constitution - the fabric of our government and guaranteer of our freedoms - and the need to defeat and ensure victory over enemies in order to do so.

And a superhero, by some definition is empowered and required to save the world.

Motown Marvel
08-09-2007, 12:26 PM
it is partly based on the fact that as president he is empowered and required to defend, protect, and preserve this country and our constitution - the fabric of our government and guaranteer of our freedoms - and the need to defeat and ensure victory over enemies in order to do so.

so you would consider it wrong if anyone other than the president took the necessary measures to end the war?

Motown Marvel
08-19-2007, 11:38 PM
well, lets not have mysterio's disappearance ruin our good time....i think there were some good discussions going on before the thread was interrupted....lets keep it going.

newwaveboy87
08-20-2007, 06:32 PM
I dont understand how Veidt dying makes this movie more appealing. The tragedy of the book is the death of millions - not the survival of Veidt. His death does not change that.
because it will give the masses a easily digestible, very obvious villain. and a payment for his crimes in killing so many people. despite the fact that it would completely contradict just about everything leading up to that point.

ugh...nevermind to Mysterio's post i originally had up here. back to the question at hand...i think that Veidt has to live. his dying would be contradictory to the bigger picture of the book.

IKnowSomeJudo
08-21-2007, 07:46 AM
Quoted from the book:
"Can't get away with it?
Will you expose me, undoing the peace millions died for?
Kill me, risking subsequent investigation?"

Mercurius
08-21-2007, 10:03 AM
Veidt must live, of course.

If he dies, what is the point of Doc Manhattan's last lines for him?

Captain Carnage
08-21-2007, 11:22 AM
None whatsoever.

Which is why in the screenplays in which he dies (um... all of 'em, from Hayter thru to Tse), Manhattan never gets to speak those last lines to Veidt.

Gilpesh
08-21-2007, 11:54 AM
There. That's why he can't die.

It makes the movie end. And not in the sense that the credits run when the time is over. It makes the movie's story END, forever. That line is lost and the meaning of it is lost.

Mercurius
08-21-2007, 02:16 PM
Gee, that's disgraceful.

I wasn't aware of such blatant lack of brains in the script. :whatever:

Moore did not kill him because it MAKES NO SENSE punishing the baddy in this kind of story. Manhattan proves the world is more full of surprises than Veidt can expect in his brainy Cartesian schemes.

Man, that's just AWFUL :o .

bored
08-27-2007, 10:02 PM
It would really take away from the punch of the ending if he dies.

Bishop
09-05-2007, 11:13 AM
funny. i, in a shallow way, sort of wanted him to die at the end of watchmen for his crimes, but now i hear they might actually do it i'm fully against it.

StorminNorman
09-05-2007, 03:35 PM
Lets say if Veidt were to die, I have a problem with Dan being the guy to do it. I

If Veidt is to be killed, it should be by Rorschach's hand.

And it should never be by the owl-ship crashing into him. :(

Captain Carnage
09-05-2007, 04:23 PM
Agreed. In the comic, Veidt goes and kicks Dan's girl in the guts right in front of him and when Dan makes a token effort to remonstrate with him, Ozy just blows him off with a condescending Do grow up and casually breezes straight past and strolls away. Dan does s hit.

Him taking on Ozy because he's all upset over his buddy Rorschach having been blown to atoms don't ring right - it's sure not the Dan of the book.

Sandman138
09-13-2007, 11:21 AM
Lets say if Veidt were to die, I have a problem with Dan being the guy to do it. I

If Veidt is to be killed, it should be by Rorschach's hand.

And it should never be by the owl-ship crashing into him. :(

Either one of those two killing Veidt is all levels of wrong. Either one legitimizes their view of the world and what it takes to make it better, something that the entire story has built itself in opposition to. If Veidt absolutely must die, make it suicide. But if he does die, then they are losing my money.

IKnowSomeJudo
09-13-2007, 05:20 PM
Right, and not to mention that it's just ridiculous. Neither Rorschach nor Dan could have killed Veidt. We all saw the "fight". He could have snapped eithers' neck like a twig if he wanted to. Laurie fired a gun at him and he caught the goddamn bullet. Veidt is just that superior in both physical prowess and intelligence.
Veidt buying the farm is moralist revisionism at its worst a la Greedo shooting first.

larryfilmmaker
09-16-2007, 02:22 AM
I think it's very important that Veidt lives. I have a friend, who is relatively cold heart hearted and he bases everything on cold, hard stats and facts... he doesn't seem to understand the open minded, emotional side of life at all. He roots for Veidt the entire time and believes that it's okay to murder 1000 innocents in order to save a billion lives. That's Veidt's idea. Veidt is goign to treat human beings like chess pieces on HIS chessboard and make the world a "better place" in his own eyes. In the end, by all logical... he succeeds. He lives and his plan works, no matter how sadistic it might seem to the heroes. Veidt never "gets what's coming to him" or gets beat up by a hero. That's not how real life works. He gets away with it, scott free. Until one awesome sentence from Dr. Manhattan. "Nothing ever ends".

As Manhattan leaves, never to return... Veidt is driven mad by the powerful lesson. He didn't save the world because the world will go on forever and sooner or later, the same conflicts repeat themselves, get resolved, then repeat themselves again. Veidt didn't truly fix anything, but he gave his humanity and any sense of heroism away when he murdered all those people. Veidt succeeds on a small scale but in the grand scheme of things, it was just a whisper in the wind.

Killing Veidt off completely dumbs down the whole point of the story. To make this into a two dimensional "bad guy bites it at the end" story is completely insulting and unintelligent. Veidt has to live on with no PHYSICAL harm to him. That's the whole damn point.

Laderlappen
09-16-2007, 07:45 AM
If Veidt dies, there is no reason to letting the world know what he has done. And therefor making a great ending lame as hell. I think this rumor is all bull anyway. It seems like Snyder want to change it as little as possible. Only an idiot would change such an ending in that way. Not a professional filmmaker.

Captain Carnage
09-16-2007, 09:50 AM
In that case, Hollywood has hired a succession of idiots to write proposed WATCHMEN scripts:

Sam Hamm - Veidt is killed.
David Hayter - Veidt is killed.
Alex Tse (Draft One, present day setting) - Veidt is killed
Alex Tse (Draft Two, 1985 setting) - Veid... well, you get the point.

I sincerely hope that if his own studio-chosen scriptwriter hasn't got the sense to ensure this doesn't happen on screen, Snyder himself decides to overturn Warners obvious wishes in this regard and gives us a Veidt who's still walkin' 'n' talkin' at the end of the movie.

miltonh
09-16-2007, 01:15 PM
Must live. I dont want to see a typical *****in hollywood end! :cmad:

Fox
09-26-2007, 09:50 PM
Veidt cannot die or this movie will fail.

DoomsdayClock
10-03-2007, 06:54 PM
There is hope that Veidt might live... http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/100307-watchmen-matthew-goode.php
Seems like there's debate at the Snyder camp whether the ending will be changed.

Arkady Rossovich
10-03-2007, 08:56 PM
It's extremly important that Ozmandias lives,it's part of the story.The reason why he lives,gives shock to what he did towards the end of the novel.

Luchastyle
10-03-2007, 09:48 PM
the scene pretty much has to be the fat kid given the choice of what story to print, with rorschach's journal sitting there. it's a great ending. but it DOES sound like goode would want to keep the original ending. things are getting more interesting.

Hole Shot
10-03-2007, 10:11 PM
It's so lame because I know the want to kill him to give the story closure but the real ending so damn good. Why would **** with already great story telling? Rorschach journal looses all its power if Veidt's dead, so does that get cut too?

Luchastyle
10-03-2007, 10:18 PM
most likely. if veidt dies, then maybe rorschach lives. maybe manhatten makes everything go back in time to change history. maybe nite owl gets elected president and...eh i can't think of any other ridiculous stuff.

Motown Marvel
10-03-2007, 10:58 PM
well, i take this as a good sign. before, all previous drafts had him dying. at least now we know theres a chance he'll live and its being taken seriously by the film makers, and they seem to be aware of the fans. im sure they'll shoot two endings and go with whichever one tests better. but seriously...save veidt man. anyone got a link to that petition? we needs to get on that!

Sasso
10-03-2007, 11:40 PM
He has to live. If he dies, that will kill the movie. Pun not intended.

logansoldcigar
10-04-2007, 02:18 AM
well, i take this as a good sign. before, all previous drafts had him dying. at least now we know theres a chance he'll live and its being taken seriously by the film makers, and they seem to be aware of the fans. im sure they'll shoot two endings and go with whichever one tests better. but seriously...save veidt man. anyone got a link to that petition? we needs to get on that!

whichever tests better.
They (the WB) will, no doubt, test it in one those american heartlands who are the cause of the debate in the first place. They will test it somewhere where the locals will no doubt want to see "that pinko homo liberal veidt get some justice"

larryfilmmaker
10-04-2007, 03:25 AM
whichever tests better.
They (the WB) will, no doubt, test it in one those american heartlands who are the cause of the debate in the first place. They will test it somewhere where the locals will no doubt want to see "that pinko homo liberal veidt get some justice"

haha you mean 90% of our country and 99% of Texas

Rust
10-04-2007, 03:39 AM
Seriously, if they keep the ending as is, this could be Oscar-material, no BS. With the Tse-ending... fat chance.

Captain Carnage
10-04-2007, 07:51 AM
But, but... I'm confused. :csad:

Snyder's the guy who carries his copy of WATCHMEN around with him everywhere he goes... isn't he?
He scribbles notes in it. He cuts up spare copies and uses them for storyboards. There are copies of the trade lying around all over the set for all to refer to, so we're told.

He's the guy who loves and respects this work, respects the fans... he wants to please Alan Moore with his adaptation. His WATCHMEN won't be for teenyboppers, people will just have to deal with that. Just like Rorschach... he'll never compromise.

He was so perfect for this gig because of his slavish faithfulness on 300, I read time and time and time and time again.

So why, after all this time has passed since he landed the director's chair back in June 2006, are we hearing that weeks into principal photography he and his valiant band of merry men are STILL apparently debating Veidt's fate?

What was there EVER to debate in the first place, fer chrissakes?

Veidt's been dying in WATCHMEN scripts since the late 80s.
Since Snyder's tenure, at least two Tse scripts have been past him, the second tweaked and returning the setting to 1985 at his insistence... but still conspicuously retaining Veidt's infamous Death-By-Owlship.

I smell Hollywood BS at work here. And I think we all know who's responsible for having been spouting most of it all along.

Don't be a fool, Zack. If only for the sake of your career, don't screw this up. F uck up WATCHMEN... and f uck your fanboy cred and future genre prospects into the bargain. Don't go and learn the hard way that Nothing ever ends only holds true in comic books...

logansoldcigar
10-04-2007, 08:02 AM
But, but... I'm confused. :csad:

Snyder's the guy who carries his copy of WATCHMEN around with him everywhere he goes... isn't he?
He scribbles notes in it. He cuts up spare copies and uses them for storyboards. There are copies of the trade lying around all over the set for all to refer to, so we're told.

He's the guy who loves and respects this work, the fans... he wants to please Alan Moore with his adaptation. His WATCHMEN won't be for teenyboppers, people will just have to deal with that.

He was so perfect for this gig because of his slavish faithfulness on 300, I read time and time and time and time again.

So why, after all this time has passed since he landed the director's chair back in June 2006, are we hearing that weeks into principal photography he and his valiant band of merry men are STILL apparently debating Veidt's fate?

What was there EVER to debate in the first place, fer chrissakes?

Veidt's been dying in WATCHMEN scripts since the late 80s.
Since Snyder's tenure, at least two Tse scripts have been past him, the second tweaked and returning the setting to 1985 at his insistence... but still conspicuously retaining the Veidt's infamous Death-By-Owlship.

I smell Hollywood BS at work here. And I think we all know who's responsible for having been spouting most of it all along.

Don't be a fool, Zack. If only for the sake of your career, don't screw this up. F uck up WATCHMEN... and f uck your fanboy cred and future genre prospects into the bargain. Don't go and learn the hard way that Nothing ever ends only holds true in comic books...

because sometimes the studio can be insistent on something, and need to have it slapped around their face like a wet kipper.

Good example, and Ill spoiler tag it in case their are people here havent seen it, is layer cake.

Sony were insistent on a happy ending, with XXXX and Tammy skiping happily of into the sunset. The ending as planned by Matthew vaughan was the one on the finished film, with XXXX shot on the steps pf the golf club. The Less American one, if you will. Sony told vaughan what they wanted, but on the day the shot the ending Sony wanted, after the studio suits had gone, they filmed the ending vaughan wanted anyway. when Vaughan showed the comnpleted movie to the suits, he attached his ending.(which works better within the narrative of the movie). allegedly, the suits saw his point.

Is it true. I dunno. thats what vaughn claims on the DVD extras. SO maybe (and i stress maybe) this is what Snyder is planning to do if he cant convince the suits to his way of thinking.

Mister Sinister
10-04-2007, 12:55 PM
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/100307-watchmen-matthew-goode.php

Matthew Goode offers his input.

EDIT: Damn, someone beat me to it.

sad lieutenant
10-24-2007, 05:51 PM
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/100307-watchmen-matthew-goode.php

Matthew Goode offers his input.

EDIT: Damn, someone beat me to it.

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/102407-watchmen-starlog-article.php

Veidt lives, says Snyder.

UPDATE:
After months -- nay, years -- of kevetching about Veidt's fate in this film, fidelity to the comic, etc., we finally hear the director flat-out assure geekdom that Veidt lives. And this board goes dead! WTF??!?!!?

Comic Book Boy
10-24-2007, 06:52 PM
EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT!

I have faith in Snyder.

Artos
10-24-2007, 09:50 PM
[URL]After months -- nay, years -- of kevetching about Veidt's fate in this film, fidelity to the comic, etc., we finally hear the director flat-out assure geekdom that Veidt lives. And this board goes dead! WTF??!?!!?

So true. My thoughts exactly. I didn't even see a single thread dedicated to the new article.

sad lieutenant
10-24-2007, 09:54 PM
So true. My thoughts exactly. I didn't even see a single thread dedicated to the new article.

Ah, we need not drown in threads... Besides, everybody's probably busy staring at that fawking candle for the Batman movie, like it's the Shroud of Turin or something.

In any case, the 5 or 6 dudes that post at watchmencomicmovie.com are nerding out like crazy.

larryfilmmaker
10-24-2007, 11:07 PM
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/102407-watchmen-starlog-article.php

Veidt lives, says Snyder.

UPDATE:
After months -- nay, years -- of kevetching about Veidt's fate in this film, fidelity to the comic, etc., we finally hear the director flat-out assure geekdom that Veidt lives. And this board goes dead! WTF??!?!!?


You didn't know? The Hype is for whining and complaining about the colors of capes and boots, not for praising.

sad lieutenant
10-24-2007, 11:24 PM
You didn't know? The Hype is for whining and complaining about the colors of capes and boots, not for praising.

Good point. So, if Snyder's watching these things (as he apparently alluded to in the interview), then he should interpret the lack of activity as heaps of praise? The majority becomes silent... Isn't that how Nixon justified continued involvement in the Vietnam War? It all comes back to Watchmen, motherhumpers!

Sandman138
10-25-2007, 01:51 AM
Snyder now owns the key to my heart.