Are fans right or wrong to criticise the direction of this movie?

[The Battousai]

Weak.



The truth comes out. He didn't think the originals were good enough. He's a hollywood director, he speaks politically.

Again, I think the visual adaptation of the costumes could have been more successful, and most definately not divide the fan base

Ah - I see we have a selective listener...

 

[The Guard]

Weak

Weak how? It's a valid point. A lot of people simply wouldn't see the metaphorical significance of the simpler, less protective costume, and would dismiss them as silly or stupid looking, rather than impractical.

The truth comes out. He didn't think the originals were good enough. He's a hollywood director, he speaks politically.

You act like this is a secret. It's no secret that Snyder thought the costumes needed to be updated for the big screen. Obviously he didn't think the originals were good enough for a movie. I don't know many people that did.

Again, I think the visual adaptation of the costumes could have been more successful, and most definately not divide the fan base

That's just not likely to happen regardless of how faithful the designs were.

Ah - I see we have a selective listener...

Well, to Mr. Clay's credit, I didn't properly use the "bold" quotations.

Lastly and possibly most important, I wanted to be sure that they comment directly on many of today’s modern masked vigilantes — who shall remain nameless…

 

[hemeanswell]

personally for me I am willing to give directors some, mind you SOME, freedom on making minor changes to aspects of the look and feel of costumes as long as the essence of the book is still there and the story is faithful.

The reason is that despite how much a director may love a series, or character, or even if he is a fanboy, he has a job to do.

And that job is to earn more money at the box office than the movie cost to make. And although you and I may go see it without the more flashy costumes we make up a small majority of the consuming public. And the consuming public needs to want to pay money to see this. The more success Snyder has making graphic novel's into movies, the more studios will want to pay to make graphic novels into movies and recognizing his success they may be more willing to stick to most of the aspects of the books in their interepretations.

Based on 300 I believe that Snyder will stay as true as he can to the book.

It's going to be amazing.

 

[The Battousai]

Well, to Mr. Clay's credit, I didn't properly use the "bold" quotations.

Lastly and possibly most important, I wanted to be sure that they comment directly on many of today’s modern masked vigilantes — who shall remain nameless…

I don't know how he missed that - it was the last part of the selection...

 

[Mr.Clay]

I didn't miss that, but as I stated in the other thread, I don't think it's necessary. And there's no need to condescend.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

And that opening is missed, but again, this is film. Dialogue, especially long drawn out dialogue, takes up precious screentime.

In my opinion, that screentime could be saved up by not wasting it on stuff that wasn't in the graphic novel in the first place. If you take out the scene where Blake is watching 'The McLaughlin Group' on his TV, that would buy us 1.5-2 minutes of screentime. 'Dog Carcass in alley...' would take 1 minute tops, 'Existence is random...' only a couple of seconds.

I don't mind the fight scene, because let's face it, if we're going to see Rorschach fighting to stay up and relishing the encounter, why not see him fighting and relishing the encounter?

It just kills the drama and realism of that scene for me. What I loved about the original scene is that our 'hero' goes out like a punk, but here, it's just so typically... American, you know? An Irish midget jumps from the second floor, lands on concrete and breaks his leg... but no, we gotta see him get up on his feet, say a corny one-liner and pull a few punches before he ever so stoically falls to the ground.

Veidt has always talked like he belongs in high society, and he's always displayed a bit of an ego. Maybe he believes Chilean Spanish is a bastardization of the language. Maybe that's relevant to the movie and it's setting.
He screams "villain" because of his attitude, or because Pinochet is calling him?

He's also someone who gave away his fortune and spent his youth peniless, travelling the world and learning about foreign cultures.
To answer your question, I think both his prickish attitude and shady liasons, as shown in that scene, make him look highly suspicious.

The plot twist you refer to is, quite simply, not that impressive. There, I said it. It wasn't a cliche in 1986, but now, decades later, "good guy turning out to be the villain" has been done to death. People should see it coming from a mile away, really.

I agree to a point, but then why even bother presenting it as a mistery in the movie? If Adrian is made out to be a bad guy from the get-go, what's the point? Why not just reveal Blake's killer in the first scene of the movie?

What Veidt DOES and the fact that it could concievably work is shocking. You have a character who is really, if you think about it, only barely in the movie and story, not developed too much, ending up being the villain. And that's supposed to shock people? Thank goodness Moloch is in this to throw people off, but come on, does anyone ever buy that Moloch might be the person behind it all?

That is why Hooded Justice would make an excellent suspect, if they somehow figured out how to include his scenes and the tidbit about Rolf Mueller.

Yes, especially those random shots of Jon shaking hands with Kennedy, Nixon, Nixon just showing up as the President still...random "names" that Alan Moore liked and wanted to include.
They're placing WATCHMEN in our world, and a few name drops or references are needed to do something like that.

Come on, that part with Kennedy was pretty sublime, "He NODS, laughing", followed by "two years later in Dallas, his head snaps FORWARD and then BACK."
And both Kennedy's assasination and Nixon still being in power hint at the of one of the main Watchmen characters direct involvement.

Badly written how?

Take the previously mentioned McLaughlin Group segment for example. It's just there, there's no real point to it, no punchline like News reports in Robocop, other than to provide lot of unnecessary expository dialogue and probably demonstrate the wonders of modern Hollywood make-up. It's basically just "Hello, I am John McLaughlin and I am 20 years younger. Blah blah blah." and "Hello, I am Pat Buchanan and I am also 20 years younger. Blah blah DIRTY COMMIES blah."

Then maybe the reasoning for him calling isn't to show Veidt is a member of an international conglomerate of villains. I mean, I don't know, I'm just speculating. I can't remember if it comes up again later on in the script.

It is never adressed in the script again. The whole scene seemed pretty gratuitous to me and, in my opinion, wrong way to establish him as a character.

It means in the context of a film script. You don't just write everything that is happening visually into a script. That's the job of storyboards, art departments, and the Director.
Again, what elements do you feel are "missing", based on the script?

Oh. My bad.
Well, off the top of my head, most of the juxtaposition between Dr Manhattan's interview and Laurie and Dan's fight in the alley is not present. Stuff like "let's try and keep it snappy", "whatever is it you super-people do" and "the mob's getting aroused", "the show's over". Without the overlapping dialogue, intercutting of these two scenes seems pointless.
Similar case being the scene with Nixon intercut with Dr Manhattan on Mars, only that it's been completely replaced with random chatter between Nixon, Schlesinger, Kissinger and HR Haldeman that doesn't really go anywhere.
The part where Dan and Laurie attempt to have sex while Veidt does acrobatics on TV. There's quite a bit more, but I just don't feel like re-reading it right now.

 

[The Guard]

In my opinion, that screentime could be saved up by not wasting it on stuff that wasn't in the graphic novel in the first place. If you take out the scene where Blake is watching 'The McLaughlin Group' on his TV, that would buy us 1.5-2 minutes of screentime. 'Dog Carcass in alley...' would take 1 minute tops, 'Existence is random...' only a couple of seconds.

But again, if you remove that, then you have to put what that scene refers to back in. I'm not saying those lines couldn't be fit in somewhere, I'm just saying in general...those things have to be cut down. That time has got to come from somewhere.

It just kills the drama and realism of that scene for me. What I loved about the original scene is that our 'hero' goes out like a punk, but here, it's just so typically... American, you know? An Irish midget jumps from the second floor, lands on concrete and breaks his leg... but no, we gotta see him get up on his feet, say a corny one-liner and pull a few punches before he ever so stoically falls to the ground.

He gets his butt kicked. Just like in the comic. Except that they show his dangerous side. One assumes he has one, since he's, you know, a successful vigilante.

He's also someone who gave away his fortune and spent his youth peniless, travelling the world and learning about foreign cultures. To answer your question, I think both his prickish attitude and shady liasons, as shown in that scene, make him look highly suspicious.

Humble beginnings don't mean he's humble later on. There's just very little that actually humble about Adrian Veidt, despite his attempts to appear so. He's pretty much holier-than-thou at times throughout most of the graphic novel. I mean, I still wonder how I didn't figure out he'd be the villain when I first read the book.

I agree to a point, but then why even bother presenting it as a mistery in the movie? If Adrian is made out to be a bad guy from the get-go, what's the point? Why not just reveal Blake's killer in the first scene of the movie?

Where is he made out to be a bad guy? He's made out to have an ego, and to be someone who feels the need to comment on one or two things.

That is why Hooded Justice would make an excellent suspect, if they somehow figured out how to include his scenes and the tidbit about Rolf Mueller.

Right, but wasn't he long dead?

Come on, that part with Kennedy was pretty sublime, "He NODS, laughing", followed by "two years later in Dallas, his head snaps FORWARD and then BACK."

I like it well enough, but it was a random shout out to the historical moment. An attempt to place WATCHMEN into that world, and to make changes to the world because of the heroes' existence.

And both Kennedy's assasination and Nixon still being in power hint at the of one of the main Watchmen characters direct involvement.

And it works well enough, but it's still a "name drop" scenario.

Take the previously McLaughlin Group for example. It's just there, there's no real point to it, no punchline like News reports in Robocop, other than to provide lot of unnecessary expository dialogue and probably demonstrate the wonders of modern Hollywood make-up. It's basically just "Hello, I am John McLaughlin and I am 20 years younger. Blah blah blah." and "Hello, I am Pat Buchanan and I am also 20 years younger. Blah blah DIRTY COMMIES blah."

I can't remember the exact scenario. But if it serves a purpose, it serves a purpose.

It is never adressed in the script again. The whole scene seemed pretty gratuitous to me and, in my opinion, wrong way to establish him as a character.

Doesn't the scene itself establish him as a character?

Well, off the top of my head, most of the juxtaposition between Dr Manhattan's interview and Laurie and Dan's fight in the alley is not present. Stuff like "let's try and keep it snappy", "whatever is it you super-people do" and "the mob's getting aroused", "the show's over". Without the overlapping dialogue, intercutting of these two scenes seems pointless.

I thought most of that was intact.

Similar case being the scene with Nixon intercut with Dr Manhattan on Mars, only that it's been completely replaced with random chatter between Nixon, Schlesinger, Kissinger and HR Haldeman that doesn't really go anywhere. There's quite a bit more, but I just don't feel like re-reading right now.

Random chatter...I don't remember that at all. Do you have a copy of it still? I'd like to read it again.

 

[Hellrider]

I think were making too much of a big deal on the costumes here. Seriously, its not like they look completely different from their comic counterparts. The costumes are not the most important thing in the movie. I don't mind the costumes, in fact I like the costumes. I love the comic, its an amazing graphic novel, but I get what Snyder is trying to do, unlike some fan boys, who can never be pleased, I don't fear change as long as it isn't straying away from the point. The watchmen look was due to the era of that time and how the superheros looked like at that time of the comic book era. Now what is wrong with modernizing the look of the characters in the movie, similar to the aesthetic feel of the modern movie superheroes? Is that really straying from the point of the film? No not at all.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

I think were making too much of a big deal on the costumes here. Seriously, its not like they look completely different from their comic counterparts. The costumes are not the most important thing in the movie. I don't mind the costumes, in fact I like the costumes. I love the comic, its an amazing graphic novel, but I get what Snyder is trying to do, unlike some fan boys, who can never be pleased, I don't fear change as long as it isn't straying away from the point. The watchmen look was due to the era of that time and how the superheros looked like at that time of the comic book era. Now what is wrong with modernizing the look of the characters in the movie, similar to the aesthetic feel of the modern movie superheroes? Is that really straying from the point of the film? No not at all.

I wish I were as succinct as you. Nicely said.

 

[Octoberist]

hell, they don't get the wear the costume until the end of the novel (besides Rorchshach and the flashbacks)

 

[NEWAGE]

Weak.



The truth comes out. He didn't think the originals were good enough. He's a hollywood director, he speaks politically.

Again, I think the visual adaptation of the costumes could have been more successful, and most definately not divide the fan base

These comments downright DISGUST me. naivete? and appeal to the moviegoer? WOW...not good.

 

[The Guard]

Do you even understand his comments, specifically in regard to the naivete of the costumes? I mean, what about a simple observation would disgust you?

 

[Katsuro]

We’ve approached each character individually regarding the design of their costume. In most cases, we have remained very close to the graphic novel. Although in some cases, we’ve made adjustments. I think Nite Owl and Silk Spectre have probably been changed the most from the original designs. We felt these changes were necessary because we live in a comic-book cinema world where costumes have been fetishized to a huge degree. The costumes, as they’re drawn, might not be accessible to many of today’s audiences. I also felt that audiences might not appreciate the naiveté of the original costumes. So, there has been some effort to give them a slightly more… I would say modern look — and not modern in the sense of 2007, but modern in terms of the superhero aesthetic. It was also important to me that they appealed to my own taste as a moviegoer. Lastly and possibly most important, I wanted to be sure that they comment directly on many of today’s modern masked vigilantes — who shall remain nameless…

Wow. I dont remember reading that interview, and yet that's EXACTLY what we've been saying the changes to the costumers were for. It's the exact reason we gave, that Newage claimed was something we made up on Snyder's behalf. Apparently not. It's nice to see that the effect Snyder was going for was pretty much instantly recognized by those of us with an open mind who aren't just immediatley screaming "but it's not like the comic!!!!!1111"

The costumes are meant to evoke images of the modern superhero, since sculpted armor is the kind of thing people associate with superheroes nowadays. Just like female heroes today are often seen in skimpy PVC-type outfits. People wouldn't recognize Laurie as a female superhero in her comic book outfit. It's as simple as that. The costumes of the Wathcmen movie should relate to modern movie costumes as the costumes of the Watchmen book relate to comic book costumes.

 

[Prefix]

These comments downright DISGUST me. naivete? and appeal to the moviegoer? WOW...not good.

It is downright absurd for a movie director to appeal to the moviegoer!

 

[Sandman138]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

[Sandman138]

A name change certainly doesn't ruin anything overtly. Because god knows, the proposed group-that-never-exists being called "Watchmen" VS "The Crimebusters" makes a world of difference.

It takes the political power away from the phrase Who Watches the Watchmen. Not entirely, but by making the referent so obvious it makes you think less about the general theme of the phrase and the history of the phrase itself. Now it just refers to the plot instead of also referring to The Investigator's Song and Pistol Poem No. 2, never mind all the uses that have come since Watchmen was first published. However, it is something I can live with.

 

[Katsuro]

It takes the political power away from the phrase Who Watches the Watchmen. Not entirely, but by making the referent so obvious it makes you think less about the general theme of the phrase and the history of the phrase itself. Now it just refers to the plot instead of also referring to The Investigator's Song and Pistol Poem No. 2, never mind all the uses that have come since Watchmen was first published. However, it is something I can live with.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that may have been changed as well. I know in a recent interview Snyder used the terms "Minutemen" and "Crimebusters" in relationship to the plot of the film, so that just leads me to believe he may have switched them back. I hope so.

 

[Sandman138]

That would be loverly.

 

[The Guard]

It takes the political power away from the phrase Who Watches the Watchmen. Not entirely, but by making the referent so obvious it makes you think less about the general theme of the phrase and the history of the phrase itself. Now it just refers to the plot instead of also referring to The Investigator's Song and Pistol Poem No. 2, never mind all the uses that have come since Watchmen was first published. However, it is something I can live with.

It doesn't take anything away from anything. A quote is a quote, and a meaning of a concept is a meaning of a concept. If anything, the heroes not seeing the word "watchmen" in the same light ads more to the significance of the concept. If you know the historical significance of the word "watchman", it adds so much more relevance to it's usage in the graphic novel. Yes, there's the quote. But that's not where the word ends it's significance. People can still graffiti it up everywhere, and frankly, it makes more sense for people to graffiti that particular quote up everywhere if there was a group called watchmen at some point.

Explain to me how it cannot still reference The Investigator's Song and Pistol Poet No. 2. The quote was born out of an old roman poem. And Plato first posed the issue. So it's not like it doesn't predate everything in the movie, and those other cultural references. If other sources can use it, why can't Dan or Captain Metropolis?

And regardless, the movie is called WATCHMEN. When the graffiti is seen, people will get the obvious reference, to the heroes. The ones who want to see the deeper meaning will see it. It would help if the movie began with the quote "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" and it's translation.

 

[Sandman138]

Ugh. A quote is a qoute, sure. However, the context of that quote has been changed. Whereas, in the novel, it is an obvious allusion to Plato and the 1947 meeting of the Proggressive Citizens of America, now, in the movie, it is first and foremost an allusion to the name of their group.

You keep pulling this argument that these changes aren't big (and I'll grant you that this particular change, while not exactly palatable to me, is not major) but they are. Rorschach's "overly wordy" diatrabes against the urban jungle he hunts in and his degrading syntax speak volumes for his character's regression into his own world of absolutes. Veidt living (remember when you tried to write that off as not impacting the point of the story at all? Because I do) is a major facet of the whole story's polemic on the skewed cops and robbers morality of superheroes. Nixon being in power has nothing to do with name dropping. It is a commentary about Dr. Manhattan and by extension the A-Bomb and America's foriegn policy. Or did you somehow miss that, in this world, the man who argued that he was an elected monarch and above the law during Watergate (which he didn't have to do this time around because America's favorite super hero solider had no qualms about assassinating Woodward and Bernstein) is serving his fifth term in office and now the Mad Bomber is the one who is in chare when the Cold War is at its hottest in years. All of this because we had the better weapon and were able to win Vietnam. You write all this off as us being on Moore's nuts, but I'm sitting here wondering what you thought the point of Watchmen was.

 

[The Guard]

Ugh. A quote is a qoute, sure. However, the context of that quote has been changed.

No, it most certainly hasn't. The inherent meaning of "Who watches the watchmen", I.E, "who watches those that are supposed to watch over us" remains the same. It remains the same even if there was a group called Watchmen. One's existence does not diminish the other's meaning.

The concept of "Who watches those who are supposed to watch over us" is still present, and so the meaning remains the same.

Whereas, in the novel, it is an obvious allusion to Plato and the 1947 meeting of the Proggressive Citizens of America, now, in the movie, it is first and foremost an allusion to the name of their group.

You seem to be limiting the meaning of "Who watches the Watchmen" now. That phrase, that concept, has been used throughout history. It is not limited to a song, or to a single poem, or to a work of literature. It is an idea.

The graphic novel AND the movie are called "Watchmen". The heroes and politicians and worldmakers in that world are clearly meant to be the watchmen that the title refers to the most, as well as the group that the graffiti refers to, yes? Now, if the audience is smart enough to understand that, and the significance of the word "watchmen" to begin with, then they will get the meaning of the quote, regardless of whether or not there was a group of the same name conceived.

You keep pulling this argument that these changes aren't big (and I'll grant you that this particular change, while not exactly palatable to me, is not major) but they are.

Rorschach's "overly wordy" diatrabes against the urban jungle he hunts in and his degrading syntax speak volumes for his character's regression into his own world of absolutes.

That theme can still exist without it being overly wordy. The wordiness is a screentime issue, not a quality one. I've written three WATCHMEN scripts and read several more, including every movie one. I know exactly what "has" to be trimmed to fit this into a two and a half hour timeframe.

Veidt living (remember when you tried to write that off as not impacting the point of the story at all? Because I do) is a major facet of the whole story's polemic on the skewed cops and robbers morality of superheroes.

The point of the story is whether Veidt's actions were right or wrong, and appropriate, given the situation. Whether he lives or dies doesn't impact this, or this point, unless a person is dumb enough to think that if the hero kills the villain that automatically makes the hero "right" and serves as a commentary on Veidt's actions, which most people would consider evil anyway, even in context.

Nixon being in power has nothing to do with name dropping. It is a commentary about Dr. Manhattan and by extension the A-Bomb and America's foriegn policy.

Those themes could easily exist without Nixon. It had to be Nixon because...

Or did you somehow miss that, in this world, the man who argued that he was an elected monarch and above the law during Watergate (which he didn't have to do this time around because America's favorite super hero solider had no qualms about assassinating Woodward and Bernstein) is serving his fifth term in office and now the Mad Bomber is the one who is in chare when the Cold War is at its hottest in years. All of this because we had the better weapon and were able to win Vietnam. You write all this off as us being on Moore's nuts, but I'm sitting here wondering what you thought the point of Watchmen was.

The overlapping point of Watchmen, or the point of Dr. Manhattan in the context of the unfolding story? The point of Watchmen, the main overarcing point, I don't think it's about being responsible with power or relying on said power, I'll tell you that much. Though that is an important theme, there is a much broader point to be found in the work.

 

[Sandman138]

No, it most certainly hasn't. The inherent meaning of "Who watches the watchmen", I.E, "who watches those that are supposed to watch over us" remains the same. It remains the same even if there was a group called Watchmen. One's existence does not diminish the other's meaning.

The concept of "Who watches those who are supposed to watch over us" is still present, and so the meaning remains the same.

You seem to be limiting the meaning of "Who watches the Watchmen" now. That phrase, that concept, has been used throughout history. It is not limited to a song, or to a single poem, or to a work of literature. It is an idea.

Okay. Fair enough.

The graphic novel AND the movie are called "Watchmen". The heroes and politicians and worldmakers in that world are clearly meant to be the watchmen that the title refers to the most, as well as the group that the graffiti refers to, yes? Now, if the audience is smart enough to understand that, and the significance of the word "watchmen" to begin with, then they will get the meaning of the quote, regardless of whether or not there was a group of the same name conceived.

I don't think people are going to be as apt to connect all the dots when Watchmen now refers, not to the idea, but to an actual group of costumed vigilantes.

That theme can still exist without it being overly wordy. The wordiness is a screentime issue, not a quality one. I've written three WATCHMEN scripts and read several more, including every movie one. I know exactly what "has" to be trimmed to fit this into a two and a half hour timeframe.

See, this is where screenwriters always screw up: they automatically associate page count with the number of minutes. Action takes up much more screen time than dialog most of the time, and here the dialog that we are talking about is mostly of the voice over variety. If Taxi Driver could pull it off this movie should be able to.

The point of the story is whether Veidt's actions were right or wrong, and appropriate, given the situation. Whether he lives or dies doesn't impact this, or this point, unless a person is dumb enough to think that if the hero kills the villain that automatically makes the hero "right" and serves as a commentary on Veidt's actions, which most people would consider evil anyway, even in context.

It does exactly that by convention alone. Name one superhero movie where you can't tell who the hero is by who ends up getting their just comeuppence. Viedt dying at Nite Owl's hand is the continuation of the black hat/white hat showdown morality that goes against everything Watchmen is about. I can't believe your even trying to argue this still.

Those themes could easily exist without Nixon. It had to be Nixon because...

No, they couldn't. Unless you know any other President who resigned in the face of impeachment and said these famous words "I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war" because in Watchmen, he follows through on that.

The overlapping point of Watchmen, or the point of Dr. Manhattan in the context of the unfolding story? The point of Watchmen, the main overarcing point, I don't think it's about being responsible with power or relying on said power, I'll tell you that much. Though that is an important theme, there is a much broader point to be found in the work.

If you are going to say something like that, you really should elaborate.

 

[The Guard]

See, this is where screenwriters always screw up: they automatically associate page count with the number of minutes. Action takes up much more screen time than dialog most of the time, and here the dialog that we are talking about is mostly of the voice over variety. If Taxi Driver could pull it off this movie should be able to.

I've always seen action run shorter than dialogue. I'm not saying there isn't time for some of the wordiness. But there are a number of long, very wordy passages in WATCHMEN. There simply isn't time for them all.

It does exactly that by convention alone. Name one superhero movie where you can't tell who the hero is by who ends up getting their just comeuppence.

Name a superhero movie where you can't tell who the villain is right off the bat.

Viedt dying at Nite Owl's hand is the continuation of the black hat/white hat showdown morality that goes against everything Watchmen is about. I can't believe your even trying to argue this still.

Veidt dying at Nite Owl's hand means that Veidt died at Nite Owl's hand. Nite Owl has his motivations, and Veidt has his. You have got to explain to me how him dying erases the question of whether or not what Veidt did was right or wrong, and appropriate, given the situation.

No, they couldn't. Unless you know any other President who resigned in the face of impeachment and said these famous words "I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war" because in Watchmen, he follows through on that

Question. Where is that line or that reference found in WATCHMEN? The concept of wielding amazing weapons against America's enemies is there, but its likened to the Atom bomb or the threat of nuclear warfare, not a particular quote Nixon used. Nixon just happens to be the President because Moore wanted to show Dr. Manhattan's impact on US politics, and through that, to world politics. It could easily have been someone else who used Dr. Manhattan against the Vietnamese, and the themes would have been the same.

If you are going to say something like that, you really should elaborate.

Don't need to. You already have.

 

[Sandman138]

I've always seen action run shorter than dialogue. I'm not saying there isn't time for some of the wordiness. But there are a number of long, very wordy passages in WATCHMEN. There simply isn't time for them all.

Rorschach, this argument is about Rorschach's journals and his degrading syntax. Both of which were entirely bastardized in Tse's scripts.

Name a superhero movie where you can't tell who the villain is right off the bat

.

Batman Begins, Liam Neeson. The train showdown lets us know who was morally in the right.

Veidt dying at Nite Owl's hand means that Veidt died at Nite Owl's hand. Nite Owl has his motivations, and Veidt has his. You have got to explain to me how him dying erases the question of whether or not what Veidt did was right or wrong, and appropriate, given the situation.

Because, by convention, Veidt dying is justice for his crimes. It is that simple.

Question. Where is that line or that reference found in WATCHMEN?

1) It doesn't have to be. The quote is famous and we all know who Nixon was. The man is infamous.

2) They directly reference Nixon's image as the mad bomber in the scene in the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center.

The concept of wielding amazing weapons against America's enemies is there, but its likened to the Atom bomb or the threat of nuclear warfare, not a particular quote Nixon used. Nixon just happens to be the President because Moore wanted to show Dr. Manhattan's impact on US politics, and through that, to world politics. It could easily have been someone else who used Dr. Manhattan against the Vietnamese, and the themes would have been the same.

No, they wouldn't. The themes would not be the same if Manhattan had been able to get Kennedy reelected five times. The world they inhabit would be entirely different. A fictional president would be even worse because then the politics of the story have no real weight.

Don't need to. You already have.

No I haven't. What, to you, is the point of Watchmen?

 

[The Guard]

Rorschach, this argument is about Rorschach's journals and his degrading syntax. Both of which were entirely bastardized in Tse's scripts.

Won't argue that. But I will argue that at least in terms of the journals, there is a reason for their omission. Their obvious impact on screentime.

Batman Begins, Liam Neeson. The train showdown lets us know who was morally in the right.

Hardly, as the scene where Ra's Al Ghul asks Bruce to kill a man and then go back to Gotham and destroy and "Ducard's" obedience to Ra's lets us know who was morally in the right.

Because, by convention, Veidt dying is justice for his crimes. It is that simple.

Only because you are thinking simply. A man dying does not erase the issues surrounding his actions.

Because again, if Nite Owl kills Veidt, not only can we argue over whether or not Veidt was right or wrong, you can argue over whether Nite Owl was right or wrong.

1) It doesn't have to be. The quote is famous and we all know who Nixon was. The man is infamous.

Unfortunately, not everyone who sees the movie is going to know the significance of Richard Nixon still being President.

2) They directly reference Nixon's image as the mad bomber in the scene in the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center.

Again, I understand the overt "historical significance", but this could be any character fitting this theme. Does Nixon fit it? Yes. But it could be any presidential character acting as such, and the theme's relevance would remain intact.

No, they wouldn't. The themes would not be the same if Manhattan had been able to get Kennedy reelected five times. The world they inhabit would be entirely different. A fictional president would be even worse because then the politics of the story have no real weight.

You're missing the point. It need not be JFK. It need not by ANY real President, and they wouldn't even have to be reelected time after time after time, as long as the themes of Dr. Manhattan being America's secret weapon and The Comedian being a darker reflection of that are kept intact.

Why couldn't a fictional President work in the same context? How does a theme have no real weight in relation to politics?

This isn't the real world, so you can't cite real world relevance. In the real world, Nixon didn't have a Dr. Manhattan, and even if he did, he wouldn't neccessarily have sicced him on all of America's enemies.

No I haven't. What, to you, is the point of Watchmen?

Yes, you have:

Viedt dying at Nite Owl's hand is the continuation of the black hat/white hat showdown morality that goes against everything Watchmen is about.

What WATCHMEN is about, at least the encompassing theme, is the interpretive nature of meaning. It has everything to do with interpretation of things, and situationality, and our points of view in relation to the meanings we derive. The entire graphic novel makes allusions to this. The plot fits into it.