Portland test screening indicates altered ending???

[Mercurius]

Of a single squid in the middle of the city? No. But if I remember correctly, it does offer a bunch of ash-silhouettes, ala Hiroshima. Quite a nice touch, if I say so, especially given the nuclear themes of the novel.

Oh, no.

You must remember that what you call "a nice touch" is just the most obvious thing one could ever think of.

Explosions, the nuclear war going on, Hiroshima. Not good, very poor.

(Not to say that, if Veidt wanted to avoid that nuclear destruction everywhere, well, it seems he will go "oops", in the movie version).

On the rest, it seems you're in quite a loss for words.

 

[The Guard]

a) That was just a toy for you to play with (and I’m happy you did play with it) , because I knew you would, as you have been doing, ignore what I said before, and ignore the rest I was saying then

Oh, I ignored something? Apologies. What have I ignored that was relevant. We'll discuss that as well.

b) The Dr. Manhattan nuisance doesn’t collect anything (or only in your dreams) : it doesn’t have the joke aspect to link with Comedian, which is lost in a bad joke now; it doesn’t offer the icon; it doesn’t have Veidt’s “true face” aspect; it doesn’t make Veidt the smart man that can strike it only once, in one place, but the “mad bomber” of Nixon’s words; it creates problems with all characters, above all, Manhattan and Veidt.

You don't think that "faking" something like a godlike being turning on the people he once watched over has a "dark practical joke" element to it that is similar to the "fake alien squid" element? Fair enough, I guess.

The joke, Mercurius, can of course be anything we want to interpret it to be, but in the context of Veidt's plan, it is that the governments of the world band together over a faked event. The joke on The Comedian is that this will alter his violent world.

You don’t want to see it, nor accept it. This will be always walking in circles. I was willing to let it go (my take on it, at that point: whatever suits him), in case you didn’t come with the cheap “more relevant” bragging.

The use of Dr. Manhattan in Veidt's movie plot is far more relevant in terms of the specific theme that I mentioned than the squid is to that key theme, that of "abuse of power/watchmen".

I'm just going to ignore your nonsense about truth being relative. You wouldn't argue your points at all if that was your viewpoint, you'd admit that many truths can exist, as others have done.

And the non-imaginative solution is far more obvious, that in which you serve people some explosions around the world, and that’s all.

More obvious, and it makes more sense, to boot, given what he's trying to accomplish globally. Yeah, it's not as efficient, and it's not presented in the same fashion as it is in the book, but Veidt attacking several areas of the world physically has a similar effect politically as when he attacks the world mentally in the book.

d) The cheap device of attacking everywhere is way below Veidt, and way below Moore’s writing.

That's true. How about that? No one has denied this. No one is deriding Moore's vision, they're pointing out the obvious. It is not, in any sense, flawless as a plot.

Of course it is your own right, but your vain attempts into diminishing it are telling more of your very personal efforts to attack the work as it is, than about the work itself.

I haven't tried to diminish it at all. You're seeing things that aren't there. I love the squid. But I do that a picture of an eye...is not as compelling as an entire movie full of themes that builds to the realization of the theme.

e) Not at all. Make a better effort next time to explain why you think it does.

I'm not going to "count paragraphs". I didn't number my paragraph E, and as such, I have no idea what you're referring to. What do I need to explain better exactly?

g) Easily: he now shows he has no sense of humour (not even for a lunatic); that he can’t have the accuracy of only one strike in one place to have the same result.

Squids exploding and killing millons of innocents is not funny. His "accuracy" killed half New York. I'm pretty sure that Veidt would do what he had to in order to save the world. Had he been worried about keeping the body count low, he likely wouldn't have killed half a city full of people. He would have come up with an even smaller scale plan.

“Mad bomber tactics” are for lesser crooks. You know it, even if you can’t admit. But I understand.

I like how you just reduce this to "mad bomber", but apparently when you disguise a "mad bomb" as an alien squid, it's somehow eighteen times better.

But I guess disguising it as lightning from the heavens isn't...

Hmm.

 

[Agentsands77]

So he's is smarter, according to you, when he knows how to pick important places around the world in a map, and apply his vanishing ray on them?

No, I think that the overall elements of the story indicate that he's smarter, though. It's more effective. It might cause more destruction - thereby being a little less surgical - but in the larger picture, I think the Dr. Manhattan plot makes more sense than plopping a random fake alien squid into the middle of Manhattan and hopes the world suddenly gets along.

You must remember that what you call "a nice touch" is just the most obvious thing one could ever think of.

It is an obvious parallel, for sure. But obvious isn't always bad, as long as it's effective. Moore's WATCHMEN has its fair share of obvious visual images and references.

On the rest, it seems you're in quite a loss for words.

I don't feel the need to respond to every idea I disagree with.

 

[The Guard]

And it can't be forgotten...even in the novel, Adrian Veidt didn't do all the work anyway.

If Veidt had designed and done all the scienfitic work on the squid...I'd say it was less intelligent to have Dr. Manhattan and scientists replicate his power and for Veidt to use that. As, however, Veidt has ALWAYS had other people doing the work for with him, I just don't care as much.

 

[Mercurius]

Oh, I ignored something? Apologies. What have I ignored that was relevant. We'll discuss that as well.



You don't think that "faking" something like a godlike being turning on the people he once watched over has a "dark practical joke" element to it that is similar to the "fake alien squid" element? Fair enough, I guess.

The joke, Mercurius, can of course be anything we want to interpret it to be, but in the context of Veidt's plan, it is that the governments of the world band together over a faked event. The joke on The Comedian is that this will alter his violent world.



The use of Dr. Manhattan in Veidt's movie plot is far more relevant in terms of the specific theme that I mentioned than the squid is to that key theme, that of "abuse of power/watchmen".

I'm just going to ignore your nonsense about truth being relative. You wouldn't argue your points at all if that was your viewpoint, you'd admit that many truths can exist, as others have done.



More obvious, and it makes more sense, to boot, given what he's trying to accomplish globally. Yeah, it's not as efficient, and it's not presented in the same fashion as it is in the book, but Veidt attacking several areas of the world physically has a similar effect politically as when he attacks the world mentally in the book.



That's true. How about that? No one has denied this. No one is deriding Moore's vision, they're pointing out the obvious. It is not, in any sense, flawless as a plot.



I haven't tried to diminish it at all. You're seeing things that aren't there. I love the squid. But I do that a picture of an eye...is not as compelling as an entire movie full of themes that builds to the realization of the theme.



I'm not going to "count paragraphs". I didn't number my paragraph E, and as such, I have no idea what you're referring to. What do I need to explain better exactly?



Squids exploding and killing millons of innocents is not funny. His "accuracy" killed half New York. I'm pretty sure that Veidt would do what he had to in order to save the world. Had he been worried about keeping the body count low, he likely wouldn't have killed half a city full of people. He would have come up with an even smaller scale plan.



I like how you just reduce this to "mad bomber", but apparently when you disguise a "mad bomb" as an alien squid, it's somehow eighteen times better.

But I guess disguising it as lightning from the heavens isn't...

Hmm.

1) I ignored your “the joke is not the squid” because it’s just so wrong we’d take precious and useful days discussing it without reaching agreement.

Just apply my recent answers to it and you get the picture.

The joke is not that "that this will alter his (the Comedian's) violent world". That's not even a joke. Read again the Comedian/ Moloch conversation and go to the point where he says about what they're doing in the island.

As to the “godlike turning against people he watched over”: it is good enough for Kingdom Come, but is quite poor for Watchmen.

2) Really sorry, but your “more relevant” keeps being BS nonetheless. And contradictory, now (see number 3). It’s poorer, and not more relevant. And about the truth: I mean every word. And you know that as well as I do.

3) “Yeah, it's not as efficient”. Your words. My perspective t:. I agree. And you also agree about it being lesser than the original. That’s what I’m saying, too, and we agree again.

4) Not about “funny”, and we’ve been there too. Humour can be cruel, nasty, fanatical. The ugliness of it is the point.

5) I’m not reducing it to “mad bomber”. The new version did it. Not me.

 

[Mercurius]

No, I think that the overall elements of the story indicate that he's smarter, though. It's more effective. It might cause more destruction - thereby being a little less surgical - but in the larger picture, I think the Dr. Manhattan plot makes more sense than plopping a random fake alien squid into the middle of Manhattan and hopes the world suddenly gets along.


It is an obvious parallel, for sure. But obvious isn't always bad, as long as it's effective. Moore's WATCHMEN has its fair share of obvious visual images and references.


I don't feel the need to respond to every idea I disagree with.

Your definition of "effective" is puzzling: how can changing 1 strike in 1 place to many everywhere be more "effective"?

You like it best, it's your taste and that's fine, but that new version clearly shows a sloppy Veidt.

And what is even more puzzling for me is: you all come here and say how brilliant the book is, but you cherish so much the idea of it being filmed that you find the guts to go out of your way and say nutsy stuff against the amazing idea of the ending. It just wipes off all bits of criticism you may have.

That's priceless. And an impressive sociological experiment, too. t:

 

[Mercurius]

Listen, if you like the squid more than what you think will happen in the movie, fine. But come on, don't be crass about it. I just don't understand how striking at major cities around the world with highly advanced technology can be scoffed at and called 'stupid.' Lemme see you do that? Give me a break.

He makes a self-destructing squid monster and attacks New York City.
He makes Manhattan Bombs and triggers them in major cities around the world.

I just can't see how one is so much more genius than the other. 'The cheap tactic of attacking everyone everywhere is below Veidt." What? I mean, seriously, kid. I'll counter and say ... the tactic of attacking everyone in one city is way below Veidt. BAM!

There's something fishy about your post. And you know what it is? You haven't stop to think about it.

You ask me how the moron Veidt in the movie is less smart than the smart Veidt of the book. But you already know the answer.

Everybody who's learned how to add knows it.

And "high technology"? What is it? Advertisement for cars?

Come on, kid. And I'm being crass?

 

[Agentsands77]

Your definition of "effective" is puzzling: how can changing 1 strike in 1 place to many everywhere be more "effective"?

Well, for one, because many nations are attacked at once, it's more likely that they would all share in that feeling of fear.

But what I really suggest is that the threat of Dr. Manhattan is more likely to bring the world together in peace than the vague, undefined threat of some alien creature plopping down in the middle of New York City. Hence, "more effective."

And what is even more puzzling for me is: you all come here and say how brilliant the book is, but you cherish so much the idea of it being filmed that you find the guts to go out of your way and say nutsy stuff against the amazing idea of the ending.

Well, I don't. Not really. I love the squid. I just think that the Dr. Manhattan bit is an elegant solution for a film adaptation.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, for one, because many nations are attacked at once, it's more likely that they would all share in that feeling of fear.

But what I really suggest is that the threat of Dr. Manhattan is more likely to bring the world together in peace than the vague, undefined threat of some alien creature plopping down in the middle of New York City. Hence, "more effective."


Well, I don't. Not really. I love the squid. I just think that the Dr. Manhattan bit is an elegant solution for a film adaptation.

Exactly: because "it's more likely" that it's not Veidt at all. You should know that.

That's not more "effective": you say "effective" but in the place of "believable". Read your post again.

That's exaclty the same fear producers and Snyder have. That the squid plot is not believable enough for the audiences.

Now, saying you "love the squid" but prefer it out of the movie is much more than empty rhetoric can stand, now isn't it?

 

[Agentsands77]

Exactly: because "it's more likely" that it's not Veidt at all. You should know that.

What the hell are you going on about? Given the two, Veidt would choose the plan less likely to achieve his goals?

That's not more "effective": you say "effective" but in the place of "believable". Read your post again.

No, I mean effective. As in likely to produce the results Ozymandias wants.

That's exaclty the same fear producers and Snyder have. That the squid plot is not believable enough for the audiences.

No, I think they fear that it's too bizarre, too "out of left field" for most audiences, especially since it would be stripped of what little set-up it had in the graphic novel.

Now, saying you "love the squid" but prefer it out of the movie is much more than empty rhetoric can stand, now isn't it?

I don't see how. Naturally the film and comic have to be different from each other, given the distance between the mediums and allotted time for storytelling. Just because I love something on the page doesn't at all mean I'd love it in a film version.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Ugh, too much debating, too much multi responding in one post!

 

[The Guard]

1) I ignored your “the joke is not the squid” because it’s just so wrong we’d take precious and useful days discussing it without reaching agreement.

Just apply my recent answers to it and you get the picture.

The joke is not that "that this will alter his (the Comedian's) violent world". That's not even a joke. Read again the Comedian/ Moloch conversation and go to the point where he says about what they're doing in the island.

Why the hell do you think it's implied that Blake is unhappy despite being The Comedian when he dies, in the context of clowns, jokes, etc?

Veidt flat out spells it out in his discussion with Dan and Rorschach.

It's really sad that you're so set in your ways that you're missing out on one of the best elements of WATCHMEN. Anyone else think that's really sad?

As to the “godlike turning against people he watched over”: it is good enough for Kingdom Come, but is quite poor for Watchmen.

Nice try. Superman breaks a roof in KINGDOM COME. And he actually does it. He isn't framed to make people believe he killed MILLIONS OF PEOPLE with blue lightning.

Gotta be honest...I've had enough of your debate style and there are more interesting things to discuss at this point. I prefer to debate with people who can be civil, not treat everything as a pun or a semantic crap, and who are at least vaguely open minded. Someone else will have to carry the torch.

Alas.

 

[deathfromabove]

"deadfromabovetobelow"

i see you again are mistaking sophmorics for cleverness. thanks for making my point for me. keep it up.

and as far as the "practical joke" thing goes. i completely disagree with your interpretation. there is little to no evidence to support your theory in the book. i do however think your conclusions are valid but what you do not seem to realize is that art is subjective and open to many different readings by many different people. this is just one of the reasons watchmen is so beloved by so many. if you think moore only wants you to think one way about his work, you need to do everyone a favor and stop reading him altogether, because you are clearly missing something.

one thing most have not discussed is the fact that we now know an attack on new york by a common threat would not unite the planet. sadly moore didnt know this when he wrote the book. i also think by changing this "device" the filmakers are avoiding unintentional comparisons to 9/11. we live in far more global and connected world than even moore dreamed back in 1985 and a more global attack will have far more impact to the viewer.

besides i honestly think the squid would be a headscratcher for alot of folks. as it stands now the only supernatural element in the script is dr manhatten. this serves two functions. it allows manhatten's feats to seem even more fantastic. and it requires a bit less suspension of disbelief from the GA. i think the filmakers will already be working hard to get the audience to accept alot in under three hours. the squid might just be one thing too many.

and i really dont see how this new plan requires any less thought, planning, or precision.

 

[Mercurius]

"deadfromabovetobelow"

i see you again are mistaking sophmorics for cleverness. thanks for making my point for me. keep it up.

and as far as the "practical joke" thing goes. i completely disagree with your interpretation. there is little to no evidence to support your theory in the book. i do however think your conclusions are valid but what you do not seem to realize is that art is subjective and open to many different readings by many different people. this is just one of the reasons watchmen is so beloved by so many. if you think moore only wants you to think one way about his work, you need to do everyone a favor and stop reading him altogether, because you are clearly missing something.

one thing most have not discussed is the fact that we now know an attack on new york by a common threat would not unite the planet. sadly moore didnt know this when he wrote the book. i also think by changing this "device" the filmakers are avoiding unintentional comparisons to 9/11. we live in far more global and connected world than even moore dreamed back in 1985 and a more global attack will have far more impact to the viewer.

besides i honestly think the squid would be a headscratcher for alot of folks. as it stands now the only supernatural element in the script is dr manhatten. this serves two functions. it allows manhatten's feats to seem even more fantastic. and it requires a bit less suspension of disbelief from the GA. i think the filmakers will already be working hard to get the audience to accept alot in under three hours. the squid might just be one thing too many.

and i really dont see how this new plan requires any less thought, planning, or precision.

We agree on a good deal of things, maybe differently. Let's see:

a) I do realize art has a good deal of subjective stuff, and that's exactly what is so boring about them choosing a change that has much less options of interpretation than the original one: it is blunt;

b) You have a very fine point about 9/11. I bet it went into serious consideration during the process.

But Moore wasn't mistaken in retrospect: his story puts Veidt pushing the Armaggedon in order to have that perfect timing for his coup. Also, the psychic waves, and the alien menace. That's all too different from what happened in 9/11. His ending is still nothing but perfect;

c) I agree that they have changed it because of GA. That's my argument here, and why I find it so annoying: one should never presume. The audiences are usually stupid, but mostly because they are treated like that: "they won't understand it, let's get them an easier story".

 

[Mercurius]

What the hell are you going on about? Given the two, Veidt would choose the plan less likely to achieve his goals?


No, I mean effective. As in likely to produce the results Ozymandias wants.


No, I think they fear that it's too bizarre, too "out of left field" for most audiences, especially since it would be stripped of what little set-up it had in the graphic novel.


I don't see how. Naturally the film and comic have to be different from each other, given the distance between the mediums and allotted time for storytelling. Just because I love something on the page doesn't at all mean I'd love it in a film version.

a) No, Veidt would choose the most unexpected, bizarre, and resonant thing. A thing that, for instance, everybody in a thread of discussion would find "not likely".

b) No. Change "effective" for "believable" in your sentence there, and you'll see. You just do not believe it would bring the "peace" that Veidt imagined. Thus your "likely" word above.

c) Yes, they're afraid of the audiences. That's my whole point. A writer who has fear in the forefront of his ideas is simply a bad one.

d) A movie must be different from a book because the media are different. It happens that comicbook and cinema are twin arts. You do not debate the need of changing, nor the quality of it in a comparison to the source material. You agree with their fear of the audiences, and agree with their tiny runtime. Both are just bad excuses.

 

[Kanon]

Here is how the new plan is less effective:

In the book, the war ends because people is brought together on his own choice

In the movie, the war ends because people is forced to end it

the second plan requires the threat to be constant, Once is over, they think Manhattan is gone or not vigilant, they can go back and do what they want. In the book, the feeling of brotherhood is honest, and if the threat is gone, people still realize that we are all fellow human beings, and while the threat is gone, the feeling is there, and it was our idea.

One of the essential rules of mind control is making people believe that what you are forcing them to do is their ideas, not yours

 

[Agentsands77]

a) No, Veidt would choose the most unexpected, bizarre, and resonant thing.

Really? Effectiveness over originality (nor that framing Dr. Manhattan necessarily, ahem, "expected"; it's just less expected than a weird alien squid).

You just do not believe it would bring the "peace" that Veidt imagined.

I think it would be better at achieving that so-called peace than Ozy's alien/squiddy thing. Neither plan is perfect - nor should they be - but I think between the two, the cinematic version is more likely to achieve Veidt's goal of a new utopia.

c) Yes, they're afraid of the audiences.

The execs are. I'm not convinced that Snyder and the writing staff are, though.

You do not debate the need of changing, nor the quality of it in a comparison to the source material.

I've discussed and debated as much before, and implied it here in a number of my own comments. I shouldn't have to restate myself again and again.

You agree with their fear of the audiences, and agree with their tiny runtime. Both are just bad excuses.

Their runtime is hardly "tiny."

Furthermore, I don't really fear the audiences; I think the studio does. I like the film's plan not because of how it panders to the audience, but because of how it streamlines the cinematic narrative in an elegant way.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Here is how the new plan is less effective:

In the book, the war ends because people is brought together on his own choice

In the movie, the war ends because people is forced to end it

the second plan requires the threat to be constant, Once is over, they think Manhattan is gone or not vigilant, they can go back and do what they want. In the book, the feeling of brotherhood is honest, and if the threat is gone, people still realize that we are all fellow human beings, and while the threat is gone, the feeling is there, and it was our idea.

One of the essential rules of mind control is making people believe that what you are forcing them to do is their ideas, not yours

Not quite.

One could argue that actually, the people of the earth were still forced in into uniting. Because the alien squid wasn't a real alien. It was fake. Veidt created it. He forced people into unifying.

The film's plan doesn't require the attack to be constant because there is a message with the initial strike: "Quit the ****. Or else." You could argue the same thing with the book's ending. If aliens don't continue to attack the earth, the earth could potentially revert back to it's old ways.

One of the essential rules of mind control is making people believe that what you are forcing them to do is their idea, not yours. This applies to the book. Viedt uses the psychic waves to convince people that the threat is serious. People aren't thinking for themselves. They've been forced into a certain mindset by someone else. They're doing something because Veidt convinced them using outside sources. Just like Viedt is doing in the film.

and besides, once Veidt begins his campaign to utopia(if he gets that far), i'm of the belief that he will point out the errors of our ways. He can still make people realize that we are all human beings.

Hell, that might even be incorporated into the attack part of the film anyways.


and on a semi-related note, i noticed in some arguments the use of "the practical joke". Here's my take. Framing a superhero for attacking the world, thus solving world peace is merely one aspect of the joke. Another interpretation of the ending is that Veidt is doing exactly what he feels will destroy the world(albeit on a smaller, less powerful scale) and winds up saving it. That's pretty amusing.

and by smaller and less powerful, i mean that there isn't any nuclear fallout from the Manhattan attacks.

and another thing: The world is pretty much getting slapped by Manhattan's giant blue dong. That's pretty funny, too!

 

[Pablo Parker]

Here is how the new plan is less effective:

In the book, the war ends because people is brought together on his own choice

actually, they aren´t.
if you re-read page 19 of issue 12, it´s pretty clear the war ends because they think there could be more alien attacks...


"..are we looking at an alien invasion...?"
"...threatening us all.´ He went on to suggest end of hostilities until...
"...immediate end to hostilities until we´ve evaluated this new threat to..."

it´s not that they realize they can be friends forever, it´s just that governments are afraid of another alien attack.

actually, the last pages with the editor of the news frontiersman talking **** about the ruskies shows that despite the "change" the world has expirienced, the average guy may not have changed his mind so much.

 

[deathfromabove]

actually, they aren´t.
if you re-read page 19 of issue 12, it´s pretty clear the war ends because they think there could be more alien attacks...


"..are we looking at an alien invasion...?"
"...threatening us all.´ He went on to suggest end of hostilities until...
"...immediate end to hostilities until we´ve evaluated this new threat to..."

it´s not that they realize they can be friends forever, it´s just that governments are afraid of another alien attack.

actually, the last pages with the editor of the news frontiersman talking **** about the ruskies shows that despite the "change" the world has expirienced, the average guy may not have changed his mind so much.

i think you hit the nail on the head.

but the squid has the added benefit of the psychic shockwave to enhance the fear mongering.

but maybe half a dozen attacks help to accomplish this.

i do think its interesting that they have changed the threat from an unknown supernatural force to a known supernatural force. i do think this ending offers as much opportunity for interpretation as the squidy.