Not the Crime Busters?

[DeadWinterSkies]

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I did a quick search and didn't see anything that looked like it related to my question. In the voiveover in the trailer, Rorschach calls the superhero group "The Watchmen"and not "The Crime Busters." Also, later in the trailer John says "Watchmen are over." I figured this was just for the trailer to make it easier for the general public to understand. Both are said offscreen so it would be easy to edit without people knowing. But in one of the recently released clips of the movie, in the scene where he burns the map at the meeting, The Comedian says, "Watchman. Thats the real joke." His mouth matches the words Watchmen. So has the name of the group been changed for the movie or what?

 

[Rezzo]

So has the name of the group been changed for the movie or what?

Yes.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Old news.

 

[Project862006]

asking this 11 days before the film LOL thought this was cleared up many months ago

 

[iDannyR]

They changed it for the stupid movie goers that might get confused,

"Hey, if they're called the Crime busters then why is the movie called Watchmen ?"

Yep

 

[RoboAmish]

Big deal, they changed the name. So what?

 

[Johnichi Chiba]

Ozymandias organizes the "crimebusters" in the movie. I don't think Ozy would choose to name the group "crimebusters" personally as its kind of tacky and not intellectual enough, whereas a group named the "watchmen" seems to fit Ozy's taste. That's just my reasoning for it though.

 

[Temple Fugate]

i thought metropolis thought up the crime busters...

 

[Rezzo]

i thought metropolis thought up the crime busters...

Not in the movie.

 

[Project862006]

they wanted to focus more on the main characters it is ozy's flashback of Blake

 

[BeserkerHilf]

i thought metropolis thought up the crime busters...

I don't think metropolis is in that scene.

 

[Drz]

I don't think Metropolis is in the movie at all. :P But yeah sadly these kinda changes are needed for the normal movie goers. :P

 

[Kane52630]

^^ yea, i guess now we can say after the movie comes out that the GN is better than the movie
just like the other novel to movies

 

[Kane52630]

edit: double post

 

[storyteller]

I don't think Metropolis is in the movie at all. :P But yeah sadly these kinda changes are needed for the normal movie goers. :P

And quite frankly the character has little to do with events. For a movie they gotta pick their stories. Snyder has chosen to separate the older heroes due to them making the film less tight.

 

[Shifty]

Captain Metropolis is still in the 1940s Mintuemen.

 

[chosen1]

Big deal, they changed the name. So what?

Yeah Big Deal. It means Nothing. Zack Snyder is Awesome! and he can do no wrong!....

 

[RoboAmish]

Yeah Big Deal. It means Nothing. Zack Snyder is Awesome! and he can do no wrong!....

exactly

 

[SuperFerret]

The fanboys look up and cry out, "They changed the group's name!" And I'll look down and whisper, "So?"

 

[TheBatman072]

The fanboys look up and cry out, "They changed the group's name!" And I'll look down and whisper, "So?"

Haha! Congratulations. You win the internet for tonight. Enjoy.

 

[SuperFerret]

YAY! I will rule with an iron fist!

 

[LAST CRUSADER]

I don't think its fare to compare a novel to a movie. They're 2 different works of art and each must stand on it's own. If the movie is good i'll like it if its bad i'll hate it. My feeling about the graphic novel changed after each time i read it. At first i loved it but in time i grew less enchanted with it. Now i'm ambivilant.
By the way, the need to see each work of art on it's own is the reason i hated 2001. Everyone tells me the reason it was no good is because you have to have read the book. Well, if thats the case the film didn't stand on it's own and so it sucked out loud and the slurping noises were the only thing that kept me awake.

 

[TheBatman072]

Oh, and this one's for the OP.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

I don't think its fare to compare a novel to a movie. They're 2 different works of art and each must stand on it's own. If the movie is good i'll like it if its bad i'll hate it. My feeling about the graphic novel changed after each time i read it. At first i loved it but in time i grew less enchanted with it. Now i'm ambivilant.
By the way, the need to see each work of art on it's own is the reason i hated 2001. Everyone tells me the reason it was no good is because you have to have read the book. Well, if thats the case the film didn't stand on it's own and so it sucked out loud and the slurping noises were the only thing that kept me awake.

But you don't have to have read the book (2001). They're rather different, and Arthur C. Clarke actually got sort of mad at Kubrick for it. Not Alan Moore mad, mind you, but the book and movie most certainly stand on their own.

 

[Drizzle]

To the OP: Welcome to three months ago.