Portland test screening indicates altered ending???

[Watson]

I don't know why folks are saying the "general public" will not get the squid. Is the squid something that only comic book fans will get? Were you all sitting around reading Watchmen thinking "Well naturally a giant alien squid will show up at the end and motivate the world powers to end hostilities. It just makes sense!" No, probably you were very suprised. However because of the way book set up the ending, and because of the explanation of the end the squid seemed as if it fit in the story line and made sense for the ending. If the movie is sucessful in doing the same, then there is no reason to change the ending. What could Manhattan being blamed possibly do to improve it or make it more accesible for the movie viewer? It's not to say it won't work. Many posters have shown that it could make a good ending. But why fix what isn't broken?

 

[Figs]

Pretty much, yeah.

The door swings both ways.

How are your knees and jaw holding up? Maybe Moore needs to give you a break for an hour.

 

[The Guard]

If Adrian is the guy who plans with abnormal cunning, he would strike once, in 1 place, with perfect timing.

Why? Why is striking once any more "abnormally cunning", when one is trying to rally the world (Not just New York)?

He sends his "extraterrestrial" monster and destroys one city, and it sends psychological turmoil around the world, arousing pity and compassion among enemy nations around a common unknown threat.

Maybe. Or maybe it makes them go "Thank God it wasn't us, the US is on it's own".

If Adrian is a careless, common and a bit idiotic maniac, he would strike all the most important cities around the world. That's an obvious "plan", with a duh!

You're going to have to elaborate on how it being obvious makes it any less intelligent in the grand scheme of things.

Plus: it messes with Doc Manhattan's personal (if we are allowed to use "personal" in relation to him) decision of leaving Earth.

Why? Does Dr. Manhattan's reason for leaving Earth change?

 

[Figs]

Why? Why is striking once any more "abnormally cunning", when one is trying to rally the world (Not just New York)?



Maybe. Or maybe it makes them go "Thank God it wasn't us, the US is on it's own".

Thank you!

I highly doubt the enemies of the USA who also have their finger near the nuke button are just going to become peace loving and compassionate. If anything they would be breathing a sigh of relief that it wasn't them(as The Guard stated) and be glad that one of our greatest and most powerfull cities just got devastated.

It would give us another problem to worry about than fighting with some other countries over power.

 

[Mercurius]

so striking a single target requires more intellect that striking numerous targets simultaneously around the world?

Obviously.

If you are able to get the same effect with one strike, you would just be clumsy clown hitting 20. t:

And that's rather emphasized in Adrian's meticulously detailed plan.

 

[Octoberist]

I prefer it to be multiple cities than just one

 

[Mercurius]

Why? Why is striking once any more "abnormally cunning", when one is trying to rally the world (Not just New York)?



Maybe. Or maybe it makes them go "Thank God it wasn't us, the US is on it's own".



You're going to have to elaborate on how it being obvious makes it any less intelligent in the grand scheme of things.



Why? Does Dr. Manhattan's reason for leaving Earth change?

1) To get the desired effect with a single strike is immense ability. Striking many is a careless plan (if that’s a plan).

2) Your “Thank God” hypothesis is possible and arguable (much more commonplace, though) but then again, that’s not Moore’s idea or proposition. His text suggests that humankind, to fight a common enemy, and disturbed by the waves of psychological energy from the creature, get together and over the different views.

3) To keep it simple and concise are virtues of high intelligence. To organize a showdown may be complicated, but is really vulgar and not a tad elegant. The squid scheme is the most unusual idea, with a singular blast and exact effect. The mark of high intelligence.

4) In that case, it changes. He is framed. Moore’s idea has nothing to do with Manhattan, because he knew Manhattan has had his quota with the accusations that drew him to Mars. In the end, he must be kept the omniscient judge, indifferent, deciding the fate as if it was a game of chess.

 

[Mercurius]

I prefer it to be multiple cities than just one

The single asset has its motivation in the book.

Personal preferences apart.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

The door swings both ways.

How are your knees and jaw holding up? Maybe Moore needs to give you a break for an hour.

The count is now 30 to five senor *****ebag.

and by the way, you don't deserve a Lee Van Cleef Avy. That man has more "macho" in the lint on his balls than you do on your entire person, sir.

*****ucker.

 

[the_tortel]

The count is now 30 to five senor *****ebag.

and by the way, you don't deserve a Lee Van Cleef Avy. That man has more "macho" in the lint on his balls than you do on your entire person, sir.

*****ucker.

[Commish.J.Gordon]Nothing in his balls but macho and lint...[/Commish.J.Gordon]

 

[S.D. Plissken]

[Commish.J.Gordon]Nothing in his balls but macho and lint...[/Commish.J.Gordon]

html ****up here?

If it worked though, you'd be much more than right.

 

[the_tortel]

html ****up here?

nah, haha, small joke, just switching up pockets for balls, and knives for macho

from TDK of course

 

[deathfromabove]

The count is now 30 to five senor *****ebag.

and by the way, you don't deserve a Lee Van Cleef Avy. That man has more "macho" in the lint on his balls than you do on your entire person, sir.

*****ucker.

thats funny, i was just talking about how intelligently everyone was discussing in here.

oh well.

 

[redhawk23]

i honestly think this is a fake ending, a few posts say the effects aren't done, so its very possible this is an ending they never truly entended on finishing. For all his talk of wanting to stay as true to the book as possible, snyder would lose a lot of face if he went with this supposed ending. I think he knows a lot of people would lose all faith in his work if they have any at all. I don't know i'd like to think he would be more truthful than that, but i really don't actually like his films all that much.

 

[Figs]

The count is now 30 to five senor *****ebag.

and by the way, you don't deserve a Lee Van Cleef Avy. That man has more "macho" in the lint on his balls than you do on your entire person, sir.

*****ucker.

LOL.

I guess I hit a nerve.

Hey man, I just don't like being thought of as a sheep just because I think this change isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

I'm a huge Batman fan and didn't mind that Dent wasn't scarred by acid in TDK. What they did worked for that film just fine.

Most of the time I do want these films to be as accurate as possible but I realize that changes will be made, it's just not all of the time will they be for the worse.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

LOL.

I guess I hit a nerve.

Hey man, I just don't like being thought of as a sheep just because I think this change isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

I'm a huge Batman fan and didn't mind that Dent wasn't scarred by acid in TDK. What they did worked for that film just fine.

Most of the time I do want these films to be as accurate as possible but I realize that changes will be made, it's just not all of the time will they be for the worse.

t: Yeah, I'm a big Lee Van Cleef fan.

Ok, here's how I look at it and this is the last I'll say on all of this "changes" BS:

The Nolan-verse is a mix, a gumbo, if you will, of the best aspects of Batman and his comic universe. I laughed at people who were *****ing about a non-permawhite Joker and a fire-burn two face. I laughed at them on these boards and I laughed when I saw them sadly leaving the theater complaining (with absolute conviction and authority) " That was NOT two-face". These people were idiots, because if they had seen Batman Begins, they should have known what they were in for. These films are a reinterpretation of several stories and with that long of a publication history there is a lot of great stuff to choose for story material. They (the films) aren't nor have they ever claimed to be HARD-LINE comic book loyal. There were no lazarus pits in Batman Begins--oh well no one really noticed anyways.

This however is a different situation. This is one story--it does not have a variety of interpretations studded on its nearly century long publication history. It's a little over 20 years old. It is one story created by two guys.

When you have a Director who is talented as an action director--but not as a deeply cerebral storyteller (like Chris Nolan) claiming he is going to be as loyal as possible to the original deeply cerebral story, and then all you see from him and this film of his is action setpieces in slo-mo, I think it's right to call BS, BS. You can't claim Hardline loyalty to a long running beloved story and then turn around and betray what you've promised fans.

What I'm saying is, sometimes changes are ok, and sometimes they aren't. Watchmen is of the latter case.

Omissions piss me off, but it's fair to expect that from a huge book being funneled into a 2 and a half hour time block. I can understand that, and in that context omissions suck--but I can accept them.

What I cannot accept is changes, because there is no reason for them in the case of Watchmen. If this same story has served people well for over 20 years then just ****ing go with it. How many times are we going to see film versions of Watchmen. I say do it right the first time--and by "right" I mean be faithful to the source because that is what a majority of fans want.

One last thing on this possible changed ending: In movies I have seen cities destroyed by bombs/explosions and people vaporized or burnt up. It's something that has been done. I've seen it a few times and it's a relatively played idea. People have seen it before.

What I've never seen is a giant alien squid monster crushed into a buiding oozing green blood with bloodied bodies literally pouring out of Madison Square Garden and bloody mutilated smoking carnage in city streets. I've never seen that in a film and I've wanted to see it since I read the book. This is an ending that audiences would not expect from a superhero movie--and that's a good thing.

I hope there are multiple endings, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. All I can say for myself is that I cannot accept a diversion from the squid ending. To me, any other option is a soft one.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

What I cannot accept is changes, because there is no reason for them in the case of Watchmen. If this same story has served people well for over 20 years then just ****ing go with it. How many times are we going to see film versions of Watchmen. I say do it right the first time--and by "right" I mean be faithful to the source because that is what a majority of fans want.

One last thing on this possible changed ending: In movies I have seen cities destroyed by bombs/explosions and people vaporized or burnt up. It's something that has been done. I've seen it a few times and it's a relatively played idea. People have seen it before.

What I've never seen is a giant alien squid monster crushed into a buiding oozing green blood with bloodied bodies literally pouring out of Madison Square Garden and bloody mutilated smoking carnage in city streets. I've never seen that in a film and I've wanted to see it since I read the book. This is an ending that audiences would not expect from a superhero movie--and that's a good thing.

I hope there are multiple endings, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. All I can say for myself is that I cannot accept a diversion from the squid ending. To me, any other option is a soft one.

Great points, I agree. I really do hope as well mulitple endings were shot but I don't even understand why Snyder and/or the studio would have to go to those lengths. Because of fear that the GA may not understand the appearance of a giant squid and what it is being used for? BS. Give the audience more credit than that. Trust the material and film it as is, there is a reason why this story is as highly regarded as it is.

 

[The Guard]

1) To get the desired effect with a single strike is immense ability. Striking many is a careless plan (if that’s a plan).

As far as I can tell, this IS a "single strike". It's one plan, one incident, etc. It's no different than me saying "How come Veidt had to kill half New York to accomplish his plan? Why couldn't he only affect a few thousand people"?

You have yet to explain to me how this plan is "careless". This isn't destruction for the sake of destruction, it's Veidt realizing that the world needs to be in this together for this plan to be remotely passable.

You seem to have an issue with Veidt's efficiency here...fair enough. I ask you, then:

Why, if this man is so all-fired efficient, does he have to kill half New York in the original to accomplish his goal? Why couldn't he kill a few thousand? Or ten? Or none?

2) Your “Thank God” hypothesis is possible and arguable (much more commonplace, though) but then again, that’s not Moore’s idea or proposition. His text suggests that humankind, to fight a common enemy, and disturbed by the waves of psychological energy from the creature, get together and over the different views.

Point taken, but I'm simply responding to the idea that has been introduced here that Russia would somehow believe America was responsible for all this and attack them, or that things "have" to be a certain way.

3) To keep it simple and concise are virtues of high intelligence.

True. Are you really trying to tell me that teleporting a massive, genetically engineered supersquid that releases shockwaves of specific psychic imagery into New York that then affects much of the world is "simple and concise"?

I would argue that the Manhattan frameup is indeed simple, concise, and very relevant. The scale of the attack changing does not alter the relative simplicity of it.

To organize a showdown may be complicated, but is really vulgar and not a tad elegant.

You're throwing around words that could easily apply to the squid scheme as well, like "vulgar", "not elegant". Where exactly were you headed with that?

The squid scheme is the most unusual idea, with a singular blast and exact effect. The mark of high intelligence.

The squid scheme is singular. But it happening once in New York is no more "brilliant" than it happening once in many cities. I will give you that the squid scheme is unusual compared to framing Dr. Manhattan. But I would also argue that in the book, it would seem that Veidt himself did not appear to come up with the truly "intelligent" portions of it. Rather, he hired other people to do it for him, to come up with the creature, the imagery, etc.

Again, it's six of one, half dozen of another. Both plans have their merits. I love the squid. However, you still haven't shown me how his "Dr Manhattan plan" is less intelligent, or unintelligent, or any of that.

4) In that case, it changes. He is framed. Moore’s idea has nothing to do with Manhattan, because he knew Manhattan has had his quota with the accusations that drew him to Mars. In the end, he must be kept the omniscient judge, indifferent, deciding the fate as if it was a game of chess.

And he is obviously still that. Dr. Manhattan doesn't actually take part in this event. Veidt uses his work, which was conducted when Dr. Manhattan cared about humanity and Earthly affairs, and he frames him.

4) In that case, it changes. He is framed. Moore’s idea has nothing to do with Manhattan, because he knew Manhattan has had his quota with the accusations that drew him to Mars. In the end, he must be kept the omniscient judge, indifferent, deciding the fate as if it was a game of chess.
"It" changes?

What changes specifically? The scheme? Yes, but none of the character elements surrounding it do. It certainly makes Dr. Manhattan's apathy toward human matters more powerful, when not only does he recognize the moral checkmate they're in, but he also knows that he himself will be blamed for it all, and he's to the point where he almost doesn't even care.

 

[Mercurius]

As far as I can tell, this IS a "single strike". It's one plan, one incident, etc. It's no different than me saying "How come Veidt had to kill half New York to accomplish his plan? Why couldn't he only affect a few thousand people"?

You have yet to explain to me how this plan is "careless". This isn't destruction for the sake of destruction, it's Veidt realizing that the world needs to be in this together for this plan to be remotely passable.

You seem to have an issue with Veidt's efficiency here...fair enough. I ask you, then:

Why, if this man is so all-fired efficient, does he have to kill half New York in the original to accomplish his goal? Why couldn't he kill a few thousand? Or ten? Or none?



Point taken, but I'm simply responding to the idea that has been introduced here that Russia would somehow believe America was responsible for all this and attack them, or that things "have" to be a certain way.



True. Are you really trying to tell me that teleporting a massive, genetically engineered supersquid that releases shockwaves of specific psychic imagery into New York that then affects much of the world is "simple and concise"?

I would argue that the Manhattan frameup is indeed simple, concise, and very relevant. The scale of the attack changing does not alter the relative simplicity of it.



You're throwing around words that could easily apply to the squid scheme as well, like "vulgar", "not elegant". Where exactly were you headed with that?



The squid scheme is singular. But it happening once in New York is no more "brilliant" than it happening once in many cities. I will give you that the squid scheme is unusual compared to framing Dr. Manhattan. But I would also argue that in the book, it would seem that Veidt himself did not appear to come up with the truly "intelligent" portions of it. Rather, he hired other people to do it for him, to come up with the creature, the imagery, etc.

Again, it's six of one, half dozen of another. Both plans have their merits. I love the squid. However, you still haven't shown me how his "Dr Manhattan plan" is less intelligent, or unintelligent, or any of that.



And he is obviously still that. Dr. Manhattan doesn't actually take part in this event. Veidt uses his work, which was conducted when Dr. Manhattan cared about humanity and Earthly affairs, and he frames him.



What changes specifically? The scheme? Yes, but none of the character elements surrounding it do. It certainly makes Dr. Manhattan's apathy toward human matters more powerful, when not only does he recognize the moral checkmate they're in, but he also knows that he himself will be blamed for it all, and he's to the point where he almost doesn't even care.

1) I don’t have to explain anything. I wasn’t hired as an explainer.

If you don't want to understand that striking a single city in a single country is a single strike comparing to striking a good amount of cities around the world, well, there’s nothing I can do. And half a big city is efficiency. The number is high sounding to be repeated everywhere (as we see in the GN’ multiple TVs) and frightening enough.


3) It’s so simple and concise that you could sum it up in two lines, including everything. t:

And it’s strange enough not to blame any Earth-based power for it. He brought the worst fears in without any chance of humans being blamed for it.

The frame-up of Manhattan isn’t concise, nor ingenious. It is a cliché, that disrupts all functions of the character at the ending, and also his relation to Veidt. And also disrupts Veidt, making him much less than he is in the comickbook. It’s a disaster.

About simplicity and elegance in this huge crime of Veidt:

a) it means that he had the extraordinary power of anticipation;

b)the intelligence to strike once, and a singular worldwide known place;

c) in the right time, just before an incident of worse proportions;

d) and with a weapon that no one would ever think of.

Plus: this weapon can’t be recognized as having human origin. Plus: it discharges shockwaves of calculated psychological impact. Intelligence doesn’t mean you personally make everything in a plan. But that you can calculate what others will do for ya.

Again: if you can’t oppose the brilliance of this against the stupid commonplace of the other option, it’s beyond me to explain that to you.

4) And that is change for Manhattan: stressing his indifference is heavy-handed. Subtlety comes in just here. He must not be a kind of Oppenheimer metaphor. That’s silly.

He must be a character that everybody thinks indifferent, but his memories and certain aspects of his character point otherwise.

The point is having him out of Veidt’s process and have his perspective changed by Laurie. To have him judging Veidt’s plan: to keep it as he thought, or to turn him in. His “absolute judge” position is not compromised by any attachment to earthly doings or misgivings.

He comes back from Mars with new perspective and is confronted with a mind even colder than his. Thus his last words to Veidt, thus his idea of “creating life-forms”.

 

[Darknightnomis]

I always felt the the first 4 pages of the last issue of Watchmen was one of the most memorable in comic history with the squid killing all the secondary characters (and the other people of New York) that kinda symbolizes what veidt was trying to convey that our differences don't mean anything under a common threat.

The "squid" ended up killing all impartially.

It's a shame it won't be on the big screen.

 

[wobbly]

Oh dear...I do hope this one isn't true. Any change should at least make sense to the story and this doesn't to me.
What I mean is the 'Alien' threat of the original story would be a wake up call to all the worlds super-powers. After all, though the creature that destroys NY is dead, there are, in the minds of all those not privy to Veidt's plan, more of the beasties out there waiting to attack Earth again at any time (In the novel they made a point out of the psychic shockwave affecting every sensitive on the planet so no country would have any doubts it was an attack on the Earth as a whole and not just the USA).

But making Manhattan the patsy fails on a couple of levels. For one, how do they explain his defeat? If they don't offer an explanation for this then the world is to assume what? The guy goes nuts, single handedly destroys cities all over the world then just leaves? And with his departure what point is there for all the world's powers to suddenly decide they must get along? And let's not forget that Manhattan is an American, serving as part of their armed forces in Viet-Nam, and being used as the ultimate deterrent against the Soviets for a couple of decades. So even if the world sees his attacks as being global that fact he is American will bring no small amount of resentment aimed at the US. Hardly a good start to encouraging world unity.

No...For me they should stick with the Alien threat. It's a much smarter plan for Veidt to have devised and makes much more sense for the story in general.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

According to Rich Johnston, they're preparing also the Squid ending.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18583

 

[I Am The Knight]

According to Rich Johnston, they're preparing also the Squid ending.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18583

Viva La Squid if true.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Here's a thought: Everyone(or most of them) who doesn't like this new ending are saying that by putting the blame on Manhattan won't work because Manhattan is American and Russia will then find reason to blame America. And the immediate peace that is made by Manhattan will no longer hold. Isn't that kind of the point? Even in the book? We don't know what happens AFTER the book.

Framing Manhattan gives the illusion that he's gone rogue. Therefore, no one wants to mess around after a God has told them to stop. Now, i'm sure there will be some form of resentment that Russia will hold towards America, but they won't say anything. They won't do anything.

Not until Rorschach's journal is published. The whole point of the ending is that YOU DONT KNOW what happens after the book ends. You NEVER get Russia's point of view on what happens, except that they offer to help. But in the long run, would this peace actually hold? Whose to say that at the end of the book, while the guy is about to pick up Rorschach's journal, that Russia, at that same time, was going "Wait a minute! Something's not right"?

Manhattan's cloned power destroying several cities or Viedt's squid destroying half of New York brings about IMMEDIATE peace to the world. Just like dropping the Atom Bomb on Japan ending World War 2, but that led to Korea, and then to Vietnam, etc. See the pattern? Immediate peace that never holds up in the long run. Nothing ever ends.

but my point is, WE DON'T KNOW that Russia will blame America for Manhattan's attacks at the end of the movie. Just like we don't know Russia will eventually blame America for the squid attack. All we know that a devastating attack occurred in this world and peace came about. We also only know that this peace MIGHT be undone by Rorschach's journal. We don't know what comes after.

 

[Darknightnomis]

According to Rich Johnston, they're preparing also the Squid ending.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18583

MAn I hope this is true.