Ozy Movie Version or Ozy comic Version?

[Mercurius]

Movie Ozy all the way. Ozy in the book seemed like far too much of a pansy. When i was watching the movie, esspecially the assassin scene, when Adrian was talking to the old guy, and said "No. YOU listen." you got the sense of "There's something about this guy you don't wanna **** with." and that made him seem much more better. I esspecially liked how when Ozy cought the bullet, and Dan shouted "IF YOU HURT HER!" and Ozy went "Dan...grow up." I thought that was great. Dan was like a little kid, and it sorta seemed like Ozy woke him up. And on a side note, I LOVE Ozy's costume in the movie much more. He looked like a complete homo in the book, with the pink and gold, the hairband, the blonde hair, etc etc. In the movie he looked dangerous. It just looks far better imo.

You should avoid writing in prejudiced terms: it shows you think in those terms, and thinking through prejudices is almost the opposite of thinking.

As for the differences you sort out: it was their intention to make Adrian look aloof and kinda sad in the book, and not menacing. He is admired by the ordinary people, in the book.

In the movie, they went for a much more edgy Veidt, bringing David Bowie's features to him, and that accent. He is menacing and cool.

If you consider things well, you'll see both work nicely.

 

[Longshot777]

I still did not read the comic bookYET but the movie Ozy is cool.

I was just a little disappointed that he was the only one out of the 6 without a flashback except the one when The Comedian ridicules him for starting a team.

ANd if I did not go to Wikipedia, I would have never known that The Comedian bested him earlier in their careers.

And that the GA did not seem to know about the Keane act and that costumed vigilantes were outlawed. It was in the movie but it zipped past through the GA heads coz it was too fast.

 

[Shadow-Guardian]

By "homo" i meant like he seems too weak. His costume in the book seemed as if he just got back from a gay parade. not that theres anything wrong with that.

 

[Mercurius]

By "homo" i meant like he seems too weak. His costume in the book seemed as if he just got back from a gay parade. not that theres anything wrong with that.

That's the very definition of prejudice, with an example.

 

[04nbod]

By "homo" i meant like he seems too weak. His costume in the book seemed as if he just got back from a gay parade. not that theres anything wrong with that.

A gay man gonna come and beat you for calling him weak and insinuating he was camp

 

[bullets]

I'll have to go with the comic because he was better fleshed out and looked better. I still enjoy the movie though.

 

[November Rain]

A gay man gonna come and beat you for calling him weak and insinuating he was camp

yeah, i wouldn't want an ass whooping from hooded justice...

 

[Darthkush]

Went with movie Ozy. Comic Ozy is kind of dull other than the fact that he's surprisingly the villain. Movie Ozy is interesting throughout(though I do concur that he's an bit of an mustache twirler). And his fight scene at the end with Nite Owl and Rorscach was badasst:

 

[Duppy]

I never really got behind Ozy in the comic, but thought it was great how he plotted everything. Seeing him on the screen made me really appreciate him and what he did even though it was cold and calculating, it helped the world. Matthew Goode played him VERY well

 

[Dark Phantom]

For some reason the New York Daily News said Matthew Goode was amazingly bad. I highly disagree with that statement

 

[Capt Throbberson]

Well he did only have 1 facial expression, Smug Villain Smirk

 

[Sloth7d]

Comic Ozy. How anyone can like the movie version more is beyond me. He's less fleshed out and two one-dimensional in the movie. Not to mention he's heavily painted as the "villain".
I also like how he handled Nite-Owl and Rorschach in the comic better. Smacking Rorschach and busting Dan's nose, then non-chalantly pouring a glass of wine while asking them what they wanted. Not to mention, Telling Dan he would have just caught the bullet and the reaction he got from it was just priceless. Even when he delivers his back story to the three corpses, you can tell that this man is trully a king among commoners.

 

[Sloth7d]

You should avoid writing in prejudiced terms: it shows you think in those terms, and thinking through prejudices is almost the opposite of thinking.

As for the differences you sort out: it was their intention to make Adrian look aloof and kinda sad in the book, and not menacing. He is admired by the ordinary people, in the book.

In the movie, they went for a much more edgy Veidt, bringing David Bowie's features to him, and that accent. He is menacing and cool.

If you consider things well, you'll see both work nicely.

Not to mention the "Do grow up' line is in the book, which further shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[The Guard]

Comic Ozymandias. There's more to him simply because more material exists.

However...

Comic Ozy. How anyone can like the movie version more is beyond me. He's less fleshed out and two one-dimensional in the movie. Not to mention he's heavily painted as the "villain".

In terms of "painted as the villain", how so?

Is it because he's quiet, detached, a little angry?

 

[DACrowe]

I have to say I am not one for comparing literature interpretations to film strictly, for example I don't judge the squid vs. Dr. Manhattan-is-bad. But really, after two viewings I have to go with Matthew Goode's Ozy.

In the book I didn't think much of Ozy the first time I read through and then learned to like him more upon revisiting. And I was thus really shocked and worried when I saw Matthew Goode was cast in what was supposed to be the "square-jawed" all-American superhero role.

Then I saw his performance and I'll eat my crow. The first viewing I was thrown off that he is indeed more sinister with an accent and being so corporate, but he brings so much more to it. While I do enjoy the much more expansive and in-depth backstory he gives to his (dead) men at the end of the book, that is 3/4 THROUGH THE NOVEL! At that point I just didn't care about Ozy because he was a non-factor.

But that is why I suspected and figured out it was him from the get-go. He was just too-perfect and did nothing for most of the book. Goode brings a presence to him immediately and while it is more menacing, he at least has a relationship with Dan on screen and has a scene that develops him before the "twist."

Either way he is the obvious choice for the Comedian's killer and at least this way he is developed and featured as a player in the film. And then the ending, I thought the way he wasn't exubrant and excited his plan succeeded, but mournful. The faux-saddness and martyrdom he displayed, like when he said "I feel all their deaths" and prepares himself to be beaten by Dan as a token and hollow symbol of his sacrifice...he just was so much more narcisstic and interesting.

So movie-version, easily.

 

[Motown Marvel]

so far, everyone i talked to who has seen the movie and not read the comic didnt realize veidt was the "villain" until the film revealed it. just sayin....

and i'd go with comic veidt at the better. its the most pure and fully fleshed out representation of the character.

 

[Beanjuice]

I can honestly say i dont se a difference...I thin Goode nailed Ozy(please no possibly homosexual puns lol)

 

[The Guard]

What's just great about the movie version...you think he's playing "dark and evil" the first time you see it...and the second time, he seems more thoughtful, and troubled, but he won't let on. I don't even see his performance as overtly villanous anymore. He's just Adrian Veidt...quiet and intense, but incredibly calm all the while.

 

[nickyg641]

There are elements of both that I like. I enjoyed Matthew Goode's characterization immensely (as I did with everyone in the film, really) and he exceeded my expectations of him (which were rather low). But one thing I miss is his triumphant "I did it" after he detonates the Dr. Manhattan Bomb/Giant Squid. That was a great moment in the book, when there's the flood of news reports saying that the US and Russia have halted war efforts, and he gets that teary-eyed look and you can see he really believes that what he did was the right thing.

Goode's Veidt was colder and more distant, and, although, to me, that played up his great intelligence, it seemed like he did it, at least somewhat, out of bitterness.

 

[Doc Samson]

I must say this was the one character I was most surprised with. In the trailers I thought he looked way too weak, but in the movie, especially when he started whupping a**, I thought he was incredibly effective.

 

[TNC9852002]

Every time I looked at GN Ozy, I always think of Aaron Eckhart.

http://timothyzhu.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/aaron-eckhart.jpg

 

[shigsy2003]

Movie Ozy easily. He had so much more character than in the book (he actually looked a little guilty about having to kill millions of people to save billions and the fact he let Dan batter him).

The problem with movie Ozy is the fact that not enough detail was given about him. My mate who had never read the GN asked me how can he batter Dan and Kovak so easily. A fair question seeing how it is not explained in the film.

 

[Sloth7d]

In terms of "painted as the villain", how so?

Is it because he's quiet, detached, a little angry?

The constant scowl he has on his face through out most of the movie. The way he talked and his mannerisms throughout most of the movie, he reminded me of a Bond villain. Not to mention the end, where Dan goes beserk and announces that he's "changing people", not saving them.

 

[The Guard]

The constant scowl he has on his face through out most of the movie. The way he talked and his mannerisms throughout most of the movie, he reminded me of a Bond villain. Not to mention the end, where Dan goes beserk and announces that he's "changing people", not saving them.

The graphic novel has very similar elements. Veidt looks miserable through most of it. He talks in monologues, for goodness sake.

 

[pyromaniac]

By "homo" i meant like he seems too weak. His costume in the book seemed as if he just got back from a gay parade. not that theres anything wrong with that.

You could also argue that the Comedian's getup could have come from the gay wardrobe too. But that is perpetuating that stereotype on the other end of the scale, and I digress.

I prefer both versions but while Goode's appearance did bug me in several instances because though I can't yet see why they intended the look, I almost understand that when he goes head to head at the end, it throws you off because he is a classic example of 'never judge the book by its cover.'