Portland test screening indicates altered ending???

[Juggernaut33]

Frankly, I think you're all overreacting. It's not like they made Nite Owl II and Rorschach stop Veidt before he could execute his plan. if it's just a question of replacing a huge monster by a space laser, I don't give a f***. As long as they don't change the substance of the ending...

You guys remind me of al the LOTR fans. "OMG The Elves are coming to Helm's Deep, OMG this is going to be one piece of crap. GO TO HELL PETER JACKSON!!!!"

 

[Compi716]

I guess Tales From the Black Frieghter is pretty ****ing pointless then, eh?

I mean, one of the biggest recurring themes of the GN is how interconnected many of these characters lives are. Max Shea wrote the book that comments on the overall story. Why leave him out? If Max is cut out, TFBF becomes this dangling thing in the story without a purpose.

The GN shows us that as a society, our lives are interconnected, and when you plead that case via the little characters at ground zero (the bernies, the cops, malcom and his wife, joey and her girlfriend, the black watch vendor) a devestating alien attack goes from sounding utterly ******ed and riddiculous to being very poignant and emotionally powerful. It's also cool in the book because we see the final moments played out from 5 different perspectives. Sooooo I guess it must be important eh?

One of my favorite moments in the book is when Bernie clutches Bernard to his chest as the destruction hits. It's the last thing he ever does. This moment isn't in the script and that sucks--flat out. The bodies for sure won't be in the film:

Spoiler

Everyone is burned up or their shadows are burned into the walls. No blood, no guts.

I think that considerably lessens the impact of the devestation, and internationalizing the incident, along with making it so bloodless, really speaks to how bad they may have ****ed the story up.

Centering it around a group of people we see throughout the book adds to the tragedy.

Agreed 100%.

Also, none of these "reviews" have stated whether or not [BLACKOUT]VEIDT DIES[/BLACKOUT]. That is one of the more important factors to me.

 

[Hurm...]

EDITps, sorry wrong thread

 

[The Denialist]

Also, none of these "reviews" have stated whether or not [blackout]VEIDT DIES[/blackout]. That is one of the more important factors to me.

Snyder has stated in several interviews that [blackout]Veidt does die[/blackout].

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

oh my...

 

[Armored Avenger]

Snyder has stated in several interviews that [blackout]Veidt does die[/blackout].

Veidt DOES NOT DIE. Snyder has said this in several interviews and reports from this preview screening also say that Veidt does survive.

 

[Solidus]

Frankly, I think you're all overreacting. It's not like they made Nite Owl II and Rorschach stop Veidt before he could execute his plan. if it's just a question of replacing a huge monster by a space laser, I don't give a f***. As long as they don't change the substance of the ending...

You guys remind me of al the LOTR fans. "OMG The Elves are coming to Helm's Deep, OMG this is going to be one piece of crap. GO TO HELL PETER JACKSON!!!!"

Yea no doubt. I tried to explain that earlier on these boards. That at TheOneRing.net, before the movies came out, man there was uproars, about no Tom, the Elves coming to Helms deep ect ect. I loved the books too, but what Jackson did for the movie it worked just as well. So I think people should just relax. Remember. Kevin Smith said the film was outstanding.

Also yea Veidt does not die. I think thats what Snyder did say.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

Agreed 100%.

Also, none of these "reviews" have stated whether or not [blackout]VEIDT DIES[/blackout]. That is one of the more important factors to me.

Don't worry--he doesn't die.

Snyder has stated in several interviews that [blackout]Veidt does die[/blackout].

Wait a minute there, man. That is totally wrong. As I said before, always go back to the scripts and you will find your answer. I'm sure many of us have been following this matter for a long time. In the Tse Script, Veidt does in fact, die--the same thing happens in the Hayter script. Keep in mind that neither of these scripts have a squid in them, unfortunately. Now for a while, this was a source of huge concern from the fanbase (Dan killing Adrian with the owlship), but Snyder did fight to keep Adrian alive in the final film. When people were coming at him a few month ago with "did you change the ending" he responded repeatedly that he did indeed keep the "moral checkpoint" ending, but remained unresponsive in regards to the squid.

Here is his response to angry fans regarding the reports of the non-squid ending posted yesterday at watchmencomicmovie.com:

Snyder, however, maintains that, all changes aside, the “meat” of the end of his Watchmen movie remains faithful to the graphic novel.

The ending does not puss out, I will assure you of that… Basically, the moral checkmate that's [at] the end of the graphic novel -- to me that's the point of the graphic novel. The question about whether or not it was the right thing to do -- and the way all the characters have to react to that -- is really beautifully constructed, so that the question it poses is really the crux of what the graphic novel is, I think. And that's the movie.
​

In the end, we will all have to wait until March 6th to see if he got it right.
Snyder, however, maintains that, all changes aside, the “meat” of the end of his Watchmen movie remains faithful to the graphic novel.

And here is the rest of the article for everyone's enjoyment:

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/101808-watchmen-movie-zack-snyder.php

Snyder’s Watchmen Secrets
Director gives some insight on how he adapted the comic from page to screen, what he left out, and what he fought to keep in


In the wake of a recent test screening in Portland where early unofficial reports claim the ending has been drastically changed from its comic counterpart, some recent interviews with Zack Snyder explain the director’s method of adapting the revered comic book to the screen.
In the interviews, Snyder talks about his coy manipulation of bringing the film away from a modern day version that the studio originally wanted which focuses on the War on Terror, and getting them to keep the film’s alternate 1985 Cold War time period.

You know, the big thing is Nixon, right, 'cause Nixon's in the graphic novel. I thought, Nixon is so cool, it's just really not Watchmen without Nixon. So that just started this process of me just kind of taking little chips off of the War on Terror concept until I ended up going, 'You know, maybe 1985 is cool, and maybe Nixon's cool, and maybe we just oughtta leave it the way it is.'
​

Snyder also discussed that during the process of storyboarding all of the scenes for his film adaptation what took place in the graphic novel was more important to him than what was written in the shooting script.

'The script says this, the graphic novel says this. Hmm, that's a problem if they don't say the same thing, right?' So then in that process of drawing what we would shoot, I would say, 'You know, the dialogue's just better here, in the graphic novel. Let's just do that instead.' Or I'd say, 'That picture's better than what we have written.' And not to say that we completely threw the script away, but in pre-production, people would say, 'Don't look at the script, look at the drawings and look at the graphic novel, because that's what the movie is.'
​

Snyder also talked about having to restructure the story a little to make the vast material that can be found within the pages of Watchmen flow correctly on screen. He decided to keep some of the stories brought to life in the comic’s supplemental material — such as the mock autobiography of retired masked hero Hollis Mason — and place those scenes into the film’s opening credits. He even combined characters like Jon Osterman’s co-worker Wally Weaver with Milton Glass, whose writings on Dr. Manhattan appear as supplemental material in the comic as well.
According to Snyder, some of the hardest scenes to keep in the film were The Comedian’s funeral, Dr. Manhattan on Mars, and some of the Rorschach flashbacks.

Those [cornerstones] are kind of the 'why's of the movie for me. When I was struggling with whether I would do the movie or not, I thought about those things -- I would think about the Comedian's funeral, Manhattan on Mars, Rorschach talking to the psychiatrist -- and would think, 'Okay, I gotta do it.' Those things for me are as awesome and cool as it gets.
​

Snyder explained that the flashbacks that occur during The Comedian’s funeral were so integral to character development in the story there was no way he could have eliminated all of them and still kept the story of Watchmen intact.

…the Comedian’s funeral… he is buried an HOUR into the movie, and that’s like a long time for a movie! A Hollywood version of Watchmen would have it done by the first 15 minutes and then got on with the investigation… But to me, when those characters are standing by that graveside, I felt that there was a lot of work to be done with all of them.
​

But Snyder admits that with a film adaptation there are scenes that need to be changed, and even cut out of the film entirely. It’s easy to tell that he’s hoping the comic’s die-hard fans are willing to cut him a little slack with some of the edits and changes he felt needed to be made to bring the story of Watchmen to the screen.

There's a rabid fan base for the graphic novel that maybe are against the motion picture or are maybe against the concept of the motion picture or the changes you might make to the book itself. But look, No Country for Old Men I guarantee you is changed twice as much or three times as much as we changed Watchmen. But there's no vocal group of anti-No Country for Old Men purists that are gonna kill the Coens because their movie isn't frame-for-frame, or line-for-line, accurate… I just treated [Watchmen] like a great book that you're making into a movie.
​

That's not to say he doesn’t respect the fans a great deal. With all that he has shown on the faithfulness scale so far, it seems like he really wants to make a film that the die-hard fan will enjoy — and possibly even rave about.

When I started out, I knew I had to be true to the graphic novel, not least for the fans. I believe that each of those hardcore fans is worth 20 ordinary people, maybe more… They are the ones who would drag the ones who aren’t clued in to watch the movie. So if the movie sucks… then the ones who don’t know anything about it would be saying, ‘Hey, no one is talking about it’, and it’s screwed.
​

But lately many die-hard Watchmen fans are getting concerned that Snyder may have messed up the one aspect of the film adaptation that they hoped he would keep intact — the ending. What happened? Just a few days ago, news leaked of a test screening in Portland of the Watchmen movie. Unconfirmed reports by alleged audience members from that screening are saying that even though the same characters live and die at the end of the film, the violent climax has been completely revised.
Snyder, however, maintains that, all changes aside, the “meat” of the end of his Watchmen movie remains faithful to the graphic novel.

The ending does not puss out, I will assure you of that… Basically, the moral checkmate that's [at] the end of the graphic novel -- to me that's the point of the graphic novel. The question about whether or not it was the right thing to do -- and the way all the characters have to react to that -- is really beautifully constructed, so that the question it poses is really the crux of what the graphic novel is, I think. And that's the movie.
​

In the end, we will all have to wait until March 6th to see if he got it right.

 

[The Denialist]

Veidt DOES NOT DIE. Snyder has said this in several interviews and reports from this preview screening also say that Veidt does survive.

Wow, my bad. That's what I meant to say. Wound up making a rather big typo.

 

[DDS]

Wow, my bad. That's what I meant to say. Wound up making a rather big typo.

Oh, thank God.

You gave me a heartattack...

 

[Jakk]

Oh, thank God.

You gave me a heartattack...

Yeah, THAT.

Seriously dude. Please, please PLEASE proofread next time, I was about to crucify someone.

 

[Bubastis]

I guess Tales From the Black Frieghter is pretty ****ing pointless then, eh?

I mean, one of the biggest recurring themes of the GN is how interconnected many of these characters lives are. Max Shea wrote the book that comments on the overall story. Why leave him out? If Max is cut out, TFBF becomes this dangling thing in the story without a purpose.

The GN shows us that as a society, our lives are interconnected, and when you plead that case via the little characters at ground zero (the bernies, the cops, malcom and his wife, joey and her girlfriend, the black watch vendor) a devestating alien attack goes from sounding utterly ******ed and riddiculous to being very poignant and emotionally powerful. It's also cool in the book because we see the final moments played out from 5 different perspectives. Sooooo I guess it must be important eh?

One of my favorite moments in the book is when Bernie clutches Bernard to his chest as the destruction hits. It's the last thing he ever does. This moment isn't in the script and that sucks--flat out. The bodies for sure won't be in the film:

Spoiler

Everyone is burned up or their shadows are burned into the walls. No blood, no guts.

I think that considerably lessens the impact of the devestation, and internationalizing the incident, along with making it so bloodless, really speaks to how bad they may have ****ed the story up.

Centering it around a group of people we see throughout the book adds to the tragedy.

You win

 

[the_tortel]

Don't worry--he doesn't die.



Wait a minute there, man. That is totally wrong. As I said before, always go back to the scripts and you will find your answer. I'm sure many of us have been following this matter for a long time. In the Tse Script, Veidt does in fact, die--the same thing happens in the Hayter script. Keep in mind that neither of these scripts have a squid in them, unfortunately. Now for a while, this was a source of huge concern from the fanbase (Dan killing Adrian with the owlship), but Snyder did fight to keep Adrian alive in the final film. When people were coming at him a few month ago with "did you change the ending" he responded repeatedly that he did indeed keep the "moral checkpoint" ending, but remained unresponsive in regards to the squid.

Here is his response to angry fans regarding the reports of the non-squid ending posted yesterday at watchmencomicmovie.com:

Snyder, however, maintains that, all changes aside, the “meat” of the end of his Watchmen movie remains faithful to the graphic novel.

The ending does not puss out, I will assure you of that… Basically, the moral checkmate that's [at] the end of the graphic novel -- to me that's the point of the graphic novel. The question about whether or not it was the right thing to do -- and the way all the characters have to react to that -- is really beautifully constructed, so that the question it poses is really the crux of what the graphic novel is, I think. And that's the movie.
​

In the end, we will all have to wait until March 6th to see if he got it right.
Snyder, however, maintains that, all changes aside, the “meat” of the end of his Watchmen movie remains faithful to the graphic novel.

And here is the rest of the article for everyone's enjoyment:

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/101808-watchmen-movie-zack-snyder.php

Snyder’s Watchmen Secrets
Director gives some insight on how he adapted the comic from page to screen, what he left out, and what he fought to keep in


In the wake of a recent test screening in Portland where early unofficial reports claim the ending has been drastically changed from its comic counterpart, some recent interviews with Zack Snyder explain the director’s method of adapting the revered comic book to the screen.
In the interviews, Snyder talks about his coy manipulation of bringing the film away from a modern day version that the studio originally wanted which focuses on the War on Terror, and getting them to keep the film’s alternate 1985 Cold War time period.

You know, the big thing is Nixon, right, 'cause Nixon's in the graphic novel. I thought, Nixon is so cool, it's just really not Watchmen without Nixon. So that just started this process of me just kind of taking little chips off of the War on Terror concept until I ended up going, 'You know, maybe 1985 is cool, and maybe Nixon's cool, and maybe we just oughtta leave it the way it is.'
​

Snyder also discussed that during the process of storyboarding all of the scenes for his film adaptation what took place in the graphic novel was more important to him than what was written in the shooting script.

'The script says this, the graphic novel says this. Hmm, that's a problem if they don't say the same thing, right?' So then in that process of drawing what we would shoot, I would say, 'You know, the dialogue's just better here, in the graphic novel. Let's just do that instead.' Or I'd say, 'That picture's better than what we have written.' And not to say that we completely threw the script away, but in pre-production, people would say, 'Don't look at the script, look at the drawings and look at the graphic novel, because that's what the movie is.'
​

Snyder also talked about having to restructure the story a little to make the vast material that can be found within the pages of Watchmen flow correctly on screen. He decided to keep some of the stories brought to life in the comic’s supplemental material — such as the mock autobiography of retired masked hero Hollis Mason — and place those scenes into the film’s opening credits. He even combined characters like Jon Osterman’s co-worker Wally Weaver with Milton Glass, whose writings on Dr. Manhattan appear as supplemental material in the comic as well.
According to Snyder, some of the hardest scenes to keep in the film were The Comedian’s funeral, Dr. Manhattan on Mars, and some of the Rorschach flashbacks.

Those [cornerstones] are kind of the 'why's of the movie for me. When I was struggling with whether I would do the movie or not, I thought about those things -- I would think about the Comedian's funeral, Manhattan on Mars, Rorschach talking to the psychiatrist -- and would think, 'Okay, I gotta do it.' Those things for me are as awesome and cool as it gets.
​

Snyder explained that the flashbacks that occur during The Comedian’s funeral were so integral to character development in the story there was no way he could have eliminated all of them and still kept the story of Watchmen intact.

…the Comedian’s funeral… he is buried an HOUR into the movie, and that’s like a long time for a movie! A Hollywood version of Watchmen would have it done by the first 15 minutes and then got on with the investigation… But to me, when those characters are standing by that graveside, I felt that there was a lot of work to be done with all of them.
​

But Snyder admits that with a film adaptation there are scenes that need to be changed, and even cut out of the film entirely. It’s easy to tell that he’s hoping the comic’s die-hard fans are willing to cut him a little slack with some of the edits and changes he felt needed to be made to bring the story of Watchmen to the screen.

There's a rabid fan base for the graphic novel that maybe are against the motion picture or are maybe against the concept of the motion picture or the changes you might make to the book itself. But look, No Country for Old Men I guarantee you is changed twice as much or three times as much as we changed Watchmen. But there's no vocal group of anti-No Country for Old Men purists that are gonna kill the Coens because their movie isn't frame-for-frame, or line-for-line, accurate… I just treated [Watchmen] like a great book that you're making into a movie.
​

That's not to say he doesn’t respect the fans a great deal. With all that he has shown on the faithfulness scale so far, it seems like he really wants to make a film that the die-hard fan will enjoy — and possibly even rave about.

When I started out, I knew I had to be true to the graphic novel, not least for the fans. I believe that each of those hardcore fans is worth 20 ordinary people, maybe more… They are the ones who would drag the ones who aren’t clued in to watch the movie. So if the movie sucks… then the ones who don’t know anything about it would be saying, ‘Hey, no one is talking about it’, and it’s screwed.
​

But lately many die-hard Watchmen fans are getting concerned that Snyder may have messed up the one aspect of the film adaptation that they hoped he would keep intact — the ending. What happened? Just a few days ago, news leaked of a test screening in Portland of the Watchmen movie. Unconfirmed reports by alleged audience members from that screening are saying that even though the same characters live and die at the end of the film, the violent climax has been completely revised.
Snyder, however, maintains that, all changes aside, the “meat” of the end of his Watchmen movie remains faithful to the graphic novel.

The ending does not puss out, I will assure you of that… Basically, the moral checkmate that's [at] the end of the graphic novel -- to me that's the point of the graphic novel. The question about whether or not it was the right thing to do -- and the way all the characters have to react to that -- is really beautifully constructed, so that the question it poses is really the crux of what the graphic novel is, I think. And that's the movie.
​

In the end, we will all have to wait until March 6th to see if he got it right.

is it weak that I almost cried because this all sounds so amazing?

it feels weak...

 

[Watson]

I am not happy about the squid being gone. Not so much becuase of the squid in particular, but what they have replaced it with.

Spoiler

Why Manhattan? His threat is not as terrifying IMO as an alien attack since Manhattan is already known to the world. And he would literally have to attack cities all over the world for the world to bar against him. Otherwise it could still be cast in a political light. Part of the reason the alien attack was moving in the GN was that it only had to attack one city-a major American metropolis at that-for the global superpowers to stop thier fighting because the threat was so terrifying.

Additionally, the GN makes clear the many motivations for Manhattan leaving and they are his original fear that he is causing cancer, and then his desire to learn more about life. I don't klnow what can be gained, or worse what will be lost, by making his reason to leave that he is now blamed for attacks on the world.

 

[CrimsonMist]

I guess Tales From the Black Frieghter is pretty ****ing pointless then, eh?

I mean, one of the biggest recurring themes of the GN is how interconnected many of these characters lives are. Max Shea wrote the book that comments on the overall story. Why leave him out? If Max is cut out, TFBF becomes this dangling thing in the story without a purpose.

The GN shows us that as a society, our lives are interconnected, and when you plead that case via the little characters at ground zero (the bernies, the cops, malcom and his wife, joey and her girlfriend, the black watch vendor) a devestating alien attack goes from sounding utterly ******ed and riddiculous to being very poignant and emotionally powerful. It's also cool in the book because we see the final moments played out from 5 different perspectives. Sooooo I guess it must be important eh?

One of my favorite moments in the book is when Bernie clutches Bernard to his chest as the destruction hits. It's the last thing he ever does. This moment isn't in the script and that sucks--flat out. The bodies for sure won't be in the film:

Spoiler

Everyone is burned up or their shadows are burned into the walls. No blood, no guts.

I think that considerably lessens the impact of the devestation, and internationalizing the incident, along with making it so bloodless, really speaks to how bad they may have ****ed the story up.

Centering it around a group of people we see throughout the book adds to the tragedy.

well, TFTBF is being cut from the theatrical print, and being released separately on DVD a week after the theatrical release. I think Max Shea is gonna be cut, mostly, from the theatrical cut, except in passing references. He'll probably be referenced more in the director's cut.

and as for the supporting characters, you can have all that emotion WITHOUT the squid. They're all about to be killed. It'll still be the same, only the manner of their destruction is different. It can still be equally effective.

And just knowing Snyder's thing for violence, i doubt they will be incinerated. They'll probably combust or something equally gruesome. Remember, Viedt is using Manhattan's powers on a large scale. Remember that scene in Vietnam where he blows up the one Vietnamese soldier? I'd imagine the results would be the same on a MUCH larger scale.

You'll get the same violence, just dished out differently, while achieving the same effects.

at the end of it all though, the DVD will probably be MUCH better.

Until it's officially confirmed, i'm content with this Manhattan powers ending, as it keeps in line with "nothing ever ends", albeit making it rather obvious.

 

[Katsuro]

The only problem I see with framing Manhattan is that he's not something the world can really try to fight against, is he? I mean, it's one thing for the world to ally to combat giant squid monsters, that they at least know can die (since it shows up dead), but how would they even concieve of fighting Dr. Manhattan? Or would it be that he blackmails them into cooperation? As in, "get along or i'll attack again". I dont think i'd like that.

Of course, I remain unconvinced that will be the case. I'm fairly confident the squid is out, but that doesn't mean Manhattan will be blamed. These bombs could just be considered some kind of unknown alien attack or something.

Yeah, i'm not gonna rush to any crazy judgements and start screaming for Snyder's blood like some of this boards more... unbalanced members. I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

 

[CrimsonMist]

The only problem I see with framing Manhattan is that he's not something the world can really try to fight against, is he? I mean, it's one thing for the world to ally to combat giant squid monsters, that they at least know can die (since it shows up dead), but how would they even concieve of fighting Dr. Manhattan? Or would it be that he blackmails them into cooperation? As in, "get along or i'll attack again". I dont think i'd like that.

Of course, I remain unconvinced that will be the case. I'm fairly confident the squid is out, but that doesn't mean Manhattan will be blamed. These bombs could just be considered some kind of unknown alien attack or something.

Yeah, i'm not gonna rush to any crazy judgements and start screaming for Snyder's blood like some of this boards more... unbalanced members. I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

Like some posters have pointed out, other countries might start blaming America for Manhattan's existence. And where they might not join forces to try to destroy Manhattan(which they can't, because he's on Mars, having given up on humanity), turmoil might start to brew between countries.

As i said on the previous page, in a way, Viedt framing Manhattan is almost an extension of Moore's Miracleman run. Miracleman, a God, takes over the world and puts it under a benevolent totalitarian rule, but eventually realizes that this is ultimately harmful to mankind. As i see it, Viedt frames a God, tries to impersonate a God, but fails to see his actions as a God would, thus never really seeing how harmful this will actually be to the world.

The basic idea of it WORKS. It's how it's executed that will make the difference.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

well, TFTBF is being cut from the theatrical print, and being released separately on DVD a week after the theatrical release. I think Max Shea is gonna be cut, mostly, from the theatrical cut, except in passing references. He'll probably be referenced more in the director's cut.

As an ex-Star Wars cultist, I am well trained to recognise the "bull-**** cash grab" and will be avoiding said, 'separately released' dvd.

and as for the supporting characters, you can have all that emotion WITHOUT the squid. They're all about to be killed. It'll still be the same, only the manner of their destruction is different. It can still be equally effective.

I get the basic point of what you are trying to say, but I have to tell you that you are wrong here. The reason the squid attack is effective is that it is a centralized attack/tragedy and he see it through a small group of people. In the film, it strikes 9 different locations around the world. There is no fight between Joey and her girlfriend that brings every one of these minor characters together so they can die together. It mentions the bernards looking up at the sky and that's all.

And just knowing Snyder's thing for violence, i doubt they will be incinerated. They'll probably combust or something equally gruesome. Remember, Viedt is using Manhattan's powers on a large scale. Remember that scene in Vietnam where he blows up the one Vietnamese soldier? I'd imagine the results would be the same on a MUCH larger scale.You'll get the same violence, just dished out differently, while achieving the same effects.

This is a possiblity, but still-we have NO bodies and besides, what's the emotional impact of people exploding into meat? That's isn't emotional--that's gratuitous ********, and Snyder's already made 300. When Laurie and Jon arrive in new york, it is much more tragic to see bloody corpses in the streets, still smoking, people that we as an audience recognise from their many appearances in the book. I'm telling you:
[blackout]

NO BODIES. JUST HIROSHIMA SHADOWS.
[/blackout]

The script makes it sound very, very clean. The aftermath is nothing like in the GN and anyways many of these characters have been trimmed out considerably, or left out altogether.

at the end of it all though, the DVD will probably be MUCH better.

Until it's officially confirmed, i'm content with this Manhattan powers ending, as it keeps in line with "nothing ever ends", albeit making it rather obvious.

You're probably right about the DVD, but I don't know. I have a feeling that even at a 4 hour plus cut (which is what they have been touting). I still don't think all of the pieces will fit together. I don't give people that many chances anyways. I know when I as a fan am being patronized or taken advantage of.

You don't need official confirmation on this ending. Find the scripts, read them yourself, and read the recent reports from this screening. What else do we need to hear?

I hate this ending--but the squid isn't the most important part of that--it's the mistake of making the attack bigger thinking you'll make the impact on the audience bigger, and that's a huge misstep. People can relate more to localized stories, something small and personal, something they actually know and identify with. The tragedy fails here because these small characters have been left out so we aren't invested. How many times have we seen widespread CGI annihilation of large groups of people on the big screen? Do we ever really care that much? No.

We are shown tragedy (Hey look at all the destruction? Pretty tragic huh? Nine cities all destroyed! Wow-wee!). We see it in the film, rather than actually feel it as we do in the GN.

Why compromise when the original work and ideas are so ****ing good? To change it is to assume that you can think better than giants like Moore and Gibbons. It's all so riddiculous.

And to those people comparing this with Lord of the Rings, shove it. You know the weak conclusion and quadtripple endings of ROTK totally screwed the pooch for the whole series. t:

 

[CrimsonMist]

As an ex-Star Wars cultist, I am well trained to recognise the "bull-**** cash grab" and will be avoiding said, 'separately released' dvd.

Lol, suit yourself. For the record, if it makes a difference, i prefer the director's cut of Sin City over the theatrical cut. There's more in the DC that adds to characters(Like Marv's mom). But i digress.

I get the basic point of what you are trying to say, but I have to tell you that you are wrong here. The reason the squid attack is effective is that it is a centralized attack/tragedy and he see it through a small group of people. In the film, it strikes 9 different locations around the world. There is no fight between Joey and her girlfriend that brings every one of these minor characters together so they can die together. It mentions the bernards looking up at the sky and that's all.

I see what you're saying, but i think it may have the same effect as the squid regardless of multiple locations. The story focuses on Joey and her girlfriend, Bernard, the comic kid, Dr. Long and his wife. We'll see more of them than anyone in Japan or Russia. We'll still get attached. What the report fails to mention is if WE see the destruction of multiple cities. Do we see different cities being destroyed through montage? Or do we learn about these cities through the TV reports?

We don't know how it's executed. It still might capture the emotion.

This is a possiblity, but still-we have NO bodies and besides, what's the emotional impact of people exploding into meat? That's isn't emotional--that's gratuitous ********, and Snyder's already made 300. When Laurie and Jon arrive in new york, it is much more tragic to see bloody corpses in the streets, still smoking, people that we as an audience recognise from their many appearances in the book. I'm telling you:
[blackout]

NO BODIES. JUST HIROSHIMA SHADOWS.
[/blackout]

You have a point that i didn't think about: it being gratuitous. Who knows how this might play off. Manhattan's cloned powers might cause the same destruction the squid does, in the same ways. The way the script does this is creepy. A city going from very populated to empty. But we'll see.

The script makes it sound very, very clean. The aftermath is nothing like in the GN and anyways many of these characters have been trimmed out considerably, or left out altogether.

Scripts change. Snyder himself said that he'd go back to the novel when the script and book differed and tried to balance things out. Not to mention, there was another draft written that ISN'T available online. So who knows what was removed and what was left in?

You don't need official confirmation on this ending. Find the scripts, read them yourself, and read the recent reports from this screening. What else do we need to hear?

I hate this ending--but the squid isn't the most important part of that--it's the mistake of making the attack bigger thinking you'll make the impact on the audience bigger, and that's a huge misstep. People can relate more to localized stories, something small and personal, something they actually know and identify with. The tragedy fails here because these small characters have been left out so we aren't invested. How many times have we seen widespread CGI annihilation of large groups of people on the big screen? Do we ever really care that much? No.

We are shown tragedy (Hey look at all the destruction? Pretty tragic huh? Nine cities all destroyed! Wow-wee!). We see it in the film, rather than actually feel it as we do in the GN.

Why compromise when the original work and ideas are so ****ing good? To change it is to assume that you can think better than giants like Moore and Gibbons. It's all so riddiculous.

As i said, scripts change and there was another draft written that we DON'T have, not to mention the changes that occur during shooting. I know The Guard has read it. Not sure if he has it though. Maybe he can spare some details?

What we need to hear is a more detailed description of this ending. What we have is rather scant: "Yea, this happend and that happened. The end." We need details. Spoil the damn thing.

The emotional impact of the death of certain characters may be lost, but the moral crux of the story still exists. And that's more important to me(as ignorant as that sounds). Then again, the emotional impact may STILL be intact as well as the moral crux. Again, we need more details.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

CM, very nice discourse thus far, and cheers to you sir.

Lol, suit yourself. For the record, if it makes a difference, i prefer the director's cut of Sin City over the theatrical cut. There's more in the DC that adds to characters(Like Marv's mom). But i digress.

Don't get me started on Sin City. I thought it largely missed the mark. No REAL nudity (a clothed Nancy? are we ****ing kidding ourselves?), less characterization, some of the best scenes and dialogue were gone altogether. The film pulled it's punches and made needless changes to a great dirty, sleezy, noir-y story. But I'll give you that DC's are almost always better and I find the theatrical cut of Sin City to be unwatchable. The DC is actually pretty ok and scenes like the one with Marv's mom do make a huge difference.

I see what you're saying, but i think it may have the same effect as the squid regardless of multiple locations. The story focuses on Joey and her girlfriend, Bernard, the comic kid, Dr. Long and his wife. We'll see more of them than anyone in Japan or Russia. We'll still get attached. What the report fails to mention is if WE see the destruction of multiple cities. Do we see different cities being destroyed through montage? Or do we learn about these cities through the TV reports?

That's what I'm telling you. All of these characters are trimmed. Malcom is in (extremely brief), his wife is not. The whole interaction between he and Rorscach happens over a single meeting! (this includes his orgin, the dogs, everything!) As far as I can see, Joey has been cut, and so has her girlfriend. The watch vendor is gone. All that is left is the Bernies (The kid and the vendor have the same name) and the closest thing we get to what we see in the book is that in one of the drafts, the kid while looking up in horror at the sky unconsciously grasps the vendors hand. So I guess that's something, but to me, it still falls short of how well the disaster comes together in the GN.

Scripts change. Snyder himself said that he'd go back to the novel when the script and book differed and tried to balance things out. Not to mention, there was another draft written that ISN'T available online. So who knows what was removed and what was left in?

This is true, but what we are essentially dealing with for a shooting script is a cross between Hayter and Tse's scripts (both currently available the updated Tse script only moves the story up to 1985) and the book when they feel like using it, so we know enough to make very educated guesses, especially when the altered ending has surfaced from this screening.

 

[CrimsonMist]

CM, very nice discourse thus far, and cheers to you sir.

Thank you. Likewise, good sir.

Don't get me started on Sin City. I thought it largely missed the mark. No REAL nudity (a clothed Nancy? are we ****ing kidding ourselves?), less characterization, some of the best scenes and dialogue were gone altogether. The film pulled it's punches and made needless changes to a great dirty, sleezy, noir-y story. But I'll give you that DC's are almost always better and I find the theatrical cut of Sin City to be unwatchable. The DC is actually pretty ok and scenes like the one with Marv's mom do make a huge difference.

i agree with you about Nancy and some scenes that weren't in any cut at all, but my point was that the Director's Cut added enough footage back in, to make it alot better. and it's possible this can happen with Watchmen.

That's what I'm telling you. All of these characters are trimmed. Malcom is in (extremely brief), his wife is not. The whole interaction between he and Rorscach happens over a single meeting! (this includes his orgin, the dogs, everything!) As far as I can see, Joey has been cut, and so has her girlfriend. The watch vendor is gone. All that is left is the Bernies (The kid and the vendor have the same name) and the closest thing we get to what we see in the book is that in one of the drafts, the kid while looking up in horror at the sky unconsciously grasps the vendors hand. So I guess that's something, but to me, it still falls short of how well the disaster comes together in the GN.

It's disappointing yes, but what gives me reason not to give up hope yet is that this is a test screening. From this, WB and Snyder are gonna see what jives and what doesn't. And from that, they'll add footage in, and remove footage. Maybe this'll show WB that this film needs to be longer.

Of course, if the DC keeps most of these changes for a 4 hour movie, i'm going to be pissed because then it's proven to me that Snyder didn't need 4 hours to cram in worthless crap and could have told the full story with all the correct details in under that. So hopefully because this is a test screening, things will get sorted out and all will be well come March. As reviews come in closer to the release date, i'll make my final judgment.

This is true, but what we are essentially dealing with for a shooting script is a cross between Hayter and Tse's scripts (both currently available the updated Tse script only moves the story up to 1985) and the book when they feel like using it, so we know enough to make very educated guesses, especially when the altered ending has surfaced from this screening.

We're dealing with a script that Snyder seemed unenthusiastic about when it was first written, which is what i believe is the script we all have under Tse's name. Several more scripts were written. We know enough to make educated guesses about things available to us. All we've received is word that the ending is different, due to Viedt cloning Manhattan's powers. We didn't get more details.

Again, this was a test screening. There's still hope. Come March 6th, the only thing i want to ***** about is the inclusion of My Chemical Romance!t:

 

[Kanon]

I'm not liking this changed ending... It kinda makes sense in the way that it makes Ozymandias' plans for Doc Manhattan more relevant (I don't remember, but in the GN I think the war doesn't become such an urgent posibility until Dr Manhattan leaves Earth)

But I'm not liking it for the reasons exposed... and maybe the destruction in the film (9 atomic explosions in cities?) is way too much to compromise... in the GN, I understood Rorscharch, but also could see the others' POW about letting one city go, to save the world. It's not like it's ok just one city, but 9 atomized cities is a pretty ugly genocide...

Where can I get the old script?

 

[luke1234]

It all depends on how this ending reacts with the rest of the film. The film is not shot for shot like 300 was (thank god, shows that synder at least has some creativity) and i believe a few minor changes would have to be in order to bring this novel into the medium of film and the present time. I dont know if I like this ending or not but im just going to have to wait and see. I really love the whole concept of the squid but I could of seen this coming from a mile away. No doubt that Moore is gonna be pissed, hell hes already pissed but theres something that tells me that this may just pay off. I like how Dan does witness Rorshachs death will give the scene more depth and emotionality. Im just hoping to god that they keep the last scene of the novel in this film. Its one of my fav parts

 

[Mercurius]

The point is that, if Manhattan is involved in any level, the final checkmate is ruined.

Now, I suppose (and hope) people making this movie can't be that stupid. Can they?

 

[Evil Twin]

Where in the spy report, which should be regarded with dubious authenticity, does it state that there's an explicit link people make between Dr. Manhattan and the destruction at the end? If the destruction is massive and from an unknown source, isn't that in the spirit of what Alan Moore created in the first place?

I agree with Snyder that the important thing is not the squid but the moral dilemma. And that as long as the disaster makes sense, it's fine to substitute something else for it. Especially if the squid ending may just be too complicated to film within the budget of the movie.

Honestly, I'm less interested in WHAT the actual climax of Veidt's plan is, than whether it works and preserves the moral conundrum and fallout. It's amazing to me how often spy reports/reviews read like little more than 5th grade book reports, "this happened, then this happened, then this happened, it ruled/sucked." Where's the analysis?