Portland test screening indicates altered ending???

[wobbly]

Well Guard, as oftens happens with matters of opinion I believe we are at an impasse, as when I started replying to your post I found myself repeating things already said, and that's usually time to call it a day.

I will say I have enjoyed our brief debate and have taken on board your points. Though I still disagree with you for the most part, I can at least see why you think what you do.

Here's to hoping the Squid in all its horrendous Technicolor glory does make it to the film, and hoping if it don't I can still enjoy the end regardless.

 

[Katsuro]

I agree for the most part ( I do however think the world would generally have sympathy if such an event ever happened) and never said anything otherwise really.
To clarify my point: having been at ground zero for the attack America has already suffered a very heavy price for whatever folly they might be held responsible for later on. Yes, there are people all over the world affected by it, but it's one thing to have a glimpse of the horror from afar and quite another to have it happen in right in your own backyard.

Think about it, if something like this were to happen for real, would the world berate America, (a country already in mourning for millions of it's citizens) over the matter? It's not like anyone sane could ever think the inter-spacial studies group did it on purpose.

Or would they perhaps realize America has been punished enough and put recriminations behind them to face this threat together? That is the scenario Watchman offers us at it's end and I see no reason to find fault with it.

I still think it's absurd to think that the world would blame America for Manhattan's actions. I haven't read any of the scripts with that ending, but from what i've heard dont they also include some sort of faked warning from Manhattan? If that's the case, and he explicitly states why he's attacking, then America wouldn't be to blame. They would know that Manhattan is attacking for his own reasons, and not under orders from Nixon.

Additionally, even if they wanted to blame American and attack them, the whole idea is that they cant, because that's precisely what Manhattan is telling them not to do. Like I said, I haven't read the scripts, but from the descriptions i've read it's basically Manhattan attacking, then saying "if you keep fighting, i'll attack you again". If that's the case, then Russia can blame America all they like, they still cant go to war.

So again, the Manhattan ending makes just as much sense, it just presents an entirely different theme to the ending. Instead of the world uniting to fight a common enemy, they do so because a god-like being says he'll smite them if they dont. It's not the ending Moore wrote, but it's still interesting in it's own right.

 

[Mercurius]

Only New York was outright attacked, but the whole plan has worldwide implications. If America was really the only one affected then the world wouldn't be uniting in peace, would they? They're not rushing to help America out of sympathy, they're doing so because now they know this threat exists, and they're all in danger.

And let me add "sensitives worldwide will have bad dreams for years to come". The blast may have only killed people in New York, but it affected people on the other side of the world.

But the bad dreams are part of the international cooperation good will.

That's why striking only NY is enough:

a) it calls the attention of the whole world to a tragedy of great proportions;

b) it comes right before a fearsome time in which nuclear war was to start;

c) it is thought to be an alien attack, which helps uniting all Earth on a common issue, leaving differences behind;

d) the psychic shockwaves spread the sensation of drama and helplessness, which foster even more the empathy for the NY destruction.

I don't know how many of you fail to understand those topics above, and how they concur for Veidt's (apparent) victory much beyond the "threat" idea.

It's much more that the threat.

 

[wobbly]

The main thing that annoys me is just how needless this change is.

Seriously, why are they so afraid the audience wont 'get' the squid?
I don't consider this assumption an especially safe bet considering the following: The audience is asked from the off to 'get' an alternate reality where men have been running around in their pajamas for decades, tricky Dicky is still president, the world's only true superhuman is nothing like anything they will have seen before, winning the Viet Nam war and constructing a clockwork palace on Mars...All these things the audience will be required to understand before they even get to the end of the film...but they won't get a genetically engineered instrument of pure terror? Considering how successful the dubious science of cloning dinosaurs was for another property I don't see this as being true at all.

No...I get the feeling this is simply a case of opting for what they think will make for the better 'eye candy' in the finale. Having worldwide devastation offers up the excuse to destroy famous landmarks the world over on film (like we have not seen that before...) and there is no other reason to their motivations for the change than that.

A shame if this is was they do opt for as I don't think anything like the squid has been done before.

 

[The Guard]

Umm...where did anyone ever say they were afraid audiences wouldn't "get" the squid?

 

[wobbly]

Umm...where did anyone ever say they were afraid audiences wouldn't "get" the squid?

It's been brought up in this very thread:

The more I think about it, the more I begin to understand why I could be changed. I think the general public may be like WTF? with the squid.

And from the article posted here about the screening:

The intent is to gauge fan reaction to a squidless ending for Watchmen and see what they can get away with, believing it to be more suitable for a more mainstream audience.

I have to ask too, if you would now have us believe the squid is not a concern to them, how do you account for Snyder, a man willing to nail so many other elements of the book (right down to framing shots to closely match the novel), removing one of the most famous elements of it for the finale?

 

[The Guard]

How does the audience going "WTF" equate them not getting it?

I'm sure the squid was a concern, but I'm going to point out what I feel is obvious here: WB considering leaving the squid and the type of destruction found in the book out was more likely a matter of budget and its impact on the rating of the movie, not a matter of whether or not people would get it.

Thousands of bodies and mass destruction, not to mention either a CGI or a practical squid dummy, requires a ton of money to pull off convincingly. The whole "light taking people to pieces and leaving shadows on the walls instead of thousands of bodies" bit would be much less expensive to render, methinks. Even if it was in multiple cities.

If they have indeed shot and made both versions, I think that speaks volumes about WB's commitment to this project.

We'll see.

 

[wobbly]

How does the audience going "WTF" equate them not getting it?

Well what else would you say the original comment I quoted equates to?
Tell me your interpretation of it, rather than just questioning mine.

And the article stating "more suitable for a more mainstream audience.", What is your interpretation of that?

I'm sure the squid was a concern

In what way?
Since you pulled me up for saying they are afraid of the audience not getting it, why was the squid a concern?

but I'm going to point out what I feel is obvious here: WB considering leaving the squid and the type of destruction found in the book out was more likely a matter of budget and its impact on the rating of the movie, not a matter of whether or not people would get it.

I wouldn't say that is obvious at all. You address the budget again in your next paragraph so I will respond to that there, but regarding the rating consider the following: the film has full frontal nudity, an attempted rape scene, a sex scene, men getting beaten to death, burned alive, etc...and from the footage of the New York ruins it's clear there will be some crispy bodies on show. With that in mind I can't see the rating being at all lowered by choosing charred remains over bloodied, or a sort of nuke over a giant squid.

Thousands of bodies and mass destruction, not to mention either a CGI or a practical squid dummy, requires a ton of money to pull off convincingly.The whole "light taking people to pieces and leaving shadows on the walls instead of thousands of bodies" bit would be much less expensive to render, methinks. Even if it was in multiple cities.

Much less?
My own guess here is that I do not see the squid in New York as being prohibitively more expensive to produce than digitally devastating dozens of different cities (I'm no FX expert though so I stand to be corrected by anyone who is).
Another thing that makes me doubt this reason is that they chose to go CGI with Manahatten, and human CGI is far more difficult and expensive to pull off convincingly than any invented monster, whose screen time will amount to a couple of minutes at the most.
So If budget were a big enough concern to have them alter one of the most memorable moments in the novel, I would imagine the executives would have told them to go paint a muscle man blue rather than very expensively render the good doctors body in all it's naked glory.

If they have indeed shot and made both versions, I think that speaks volumes about WB's commitment to this project.

We'll see.

Well, I would give them credit for not just tossing the original aside, even if they have seriously considered and still might well go against it.

Another thing though ...If this is true then that does contradict one of your reasons for why they went with the change. Shooting both endings obviously increases the budget for those scenes considerably, clearly negating any financial excuse for them shooting the alternate ending.

 

[Steyin]

Additionally, even if they wanted to blame America and attack them, the whole idea is that they cant, because that's precisely what Manhattan is telling them not to do. Like I said, I haven't read the scripts, but from the descriptions i've read it's basically Manhattan attacking, then saying "if you keep fighting, i'll attack you again". If that's the case, then Russia can blame America all they like, they still cant go to war.

The idea yes, but this is what bugs me about this whole ending:

Manhattan is framed, and leaves earth like he does at the end of the novel. Say Russia, or anyone for that matter, decided not to "obey Manhattan" and attack someone, there would be either one of two results:

Nothing happens since Manhattan is gone and he never really would have attacked because this was Veidt's scheme and framing. Manhattan would not return just to attack anyone to keep Veidt's scheme alive. This forces Veidt to see the failure of his scheme, and thus has to come up with another to achieve peace for a period of time or realize that ultimately nothing will work.

or

Since Manhattan is gone, Veidt has to stage another attack and make it appear as though Manhattan was responisble AGAIN.


I think sooner or later people would release Manhattan isn't around and really not responsible for anything, which could also tie to the "nothing ever ends" line.

 

[The Guard]

Well what else would you say the original comment I quoted equates to? Tell me your interpretation of it, rather than just questioning mine.

I did. I'm not allowed to simply ask why you think "What the ****?" equals "I don't get it"?

And the article stating "more suitable for a more mainstream audience.", What is your interpretation of that?

Well, things that are considered more suitable in the context of a warzone in a mainstream movie generally equate to less bodies and less gore. I suppose I could just assume that mainstream audiences wouldn't understand or like a giant squid, but I have nothing from the moviemaking industry to base this on. Toning something down or changing it to be less visceral generally happens because of gore factor, not story points that people won't understand.

Since you pulled me up for saying they are afraid of the audience not getting it, why was the squid a concern?

I didn't "pull you up", I asked a simple question for clarification.

I wouldn't say that is obvious at all.

You don't think it's obvious that the reason they would not show the bodies and gore is not, in part, likely because of the rating and the cost to do so?

You address the budget again in your next paragraph so I will respond to that there, but regarding the rating consider the following: the film has full frontal nudity, an attempted rape scene, a sex scene, men getting beaten to death, burned alive, etc...

There's a bit of a difference between those things...and thousands and thousands of decimated bodies in the middle of New York City.

and from the footage of the New York ruins it's clear there will be some crispy bodies on show.

One would hope. But since every prior script involved a scenario with no bodies, and rather the "shadows" of bodies that had been destroyed, I am speaking in the context of why they would have gone that route VS the squid route with bodies everywhere.

With that in mind I can't see the rating being at all lowered by choosing charred remains over bloodied, or a sort of nuke over a giant squid.

This is my point. In every prior script, there WERE no charred remains from a nuke. There were no bodies, period.

My own guess here is that I do not see the squid in New York as being prohibitively more expensive to produce than digitally devastating dozens of different cities (I'm no FX expert though so I stand to be corrected by anyone who is).

I'm no FX expert either, but consider this.

Scenario one: The effects would have to cover the "event", a destroyed city, a squid, and thousands and thousands of unique looking bodies.

Scenario two: The effects would have to cover the "event", a destroyed city, no squid, and no bodies, but rather "shadow effects". Much easier, and I would imagine, less expensive, than thousands and thousands of bodies, by they CGI or practical effects.

Another thing that makes me doubt this reason is that they chose to go CGI with Manahatten, and human CGI is far more difficult and expensive to pull off convincingly than any invented monster, whose screen time will amount to a couple of minutes at the most.

So If budget were a big enough concern to have them alter one of the most memorable moments in the novel, I would imagine the executives would have told them to go paint a muscle man blue rather than very expensively render the good doctors body in all it's naked glory.

That's possible. I don't know. I'm only speculating. I felt I was pretty clear that it was likely both a matter of budget and rating together.

Another thing though ...If this is true then that does contradict one of your reasons for why they went with the change. Shooting both endings obviously increases the budget for those scenes considerably, clearly negating any financial excuse for them shooting the alternate ending.

Which is why I said clearly in my post that it would show their level of commitment to this project if they shot and rendered both.

Manhattan is framed, and leaves earth like he does at the end of the novel. Say Russia, or anyone for that matter, decided not to "obey Manhattan" and attack someone, there would be either one of two results:

Nothing happens since Manhattan is gone and he never really would have attacked because this was Veidt's scheme and framing. Manhattan would not return just to attack anyone to keep Veidt's scheme alive. This forces Veidt to see the failure of his scheme, and thus has to come up with another to achieve peace for a period of time or realize that ultimately nothing will work.

or

Since Manhattan is gone, Veidt has to stage another attack and make it appear as though Manhattan was responisble AGAIN.

1. This assumes that Veidt is stupid enough not to back up his "plan" and "attack" again.

2. The faked alien plot has the same basic "problems" with it.

 

[wobbly]

I did.

Where?
I asked you for your interpretation of the comment I quoted. All you did is ask me a question back.

I'm not allowed to simply ask why you think "What the ****?" equals "I don't get it"?

And I'm not allowed to ask why you think is doesn't?

See, generally a "WTF" exclamation is an indication of surprise and confusion, especially in the context of the comment I quoted, with the poster saying they could see why the ending might be changed because of this exact reaction.

I don't know why you have a problem with my seeing that as them thinking the audience wont get it, as to me that conclusion is pretty self-evident.

Well, things that are considered more suitable in the context of a warzone in a mainstream movie generally equate to less bodies and less gore. I suppose I could just assume that mainstream audiences wouldn't understand or like a giant squid, but I have nothing from the moviemaking industry to base this on. Toning something down or changing it to be less visceral generally happens because of gore factor, not story points that people won't understand.

Do you have an example? A film with nudity, rape, sex, violent murder etc...Deliberately avoiding gore and getting a lower rating?

I didn't "pull you up", I asked a simple question for clarification.

And I answered you with examples. Now please answer my question: Why was the 'squid a concern'?

You don't think it's obvious that the reason they would not show the bodies and gore is not, in part, likely because of the rating and the cost to do so?

Cost? I can at least see that as a possibility, but I wouldn't call it "likely" for the reasons I stated before. Rating? No (see below).

There's a bit of a difference between those things...and thousands and thousands of decimated bodies in the middle of New York City.

Yes, corpses are generally less likely to screw a rating than nudity, rape or sex is.

One would hope. But since every prior script involved a scenario with no bodies, and rather the "shadows" of bodies that had been destroyed, I am speaking in the context of why they would have gone that route VS the squid route with bodies everywhere.

This is my point. In every prior script, there WERE no charred remains from a nuke. There were no bodies, period.

I'm sorry, I don't know what your point here is.

I'm no FX expert either, but consider this.

Scenario one: The effects would have to cover the "event", a destroyed city, a squid, and thousands and thousands of unique looking bodies.

Scenario two: The effects would have to cover the "event", a destroyed city, no squid, and no bodies, but rather "shadow effects". Much easier, and I would imagine, less expensive, than thousands and thousands of bodies, by they CGI or practical effects.

Quite possibly, but prohibitively so? That is the question - just because something is harder to do does not excuse them from doing it (As we are both guessing here any FX gurus out there have some insight on this?)

That's possible. I don't know. I'm only speculating. I felt I was pretty clear that it was likely both a matter of budget and rating together.

You were. I disagree and stated why.

Which is why I said clearly in my post that it would show their level of commitment to this project if they shot and rendered both.

I did not and am not disputing that.

What remains is this though: If they have indeed shot both endings then the 'obvious' (your word) reason of budget is rendered completely void.

 

[wobbly]

Since the issue of the 'gore factor' has been brought up I thought it might be interesting to see just how gory the Squid really was, so here is the beasties full appearance in all it's glory:

You know, if the bodies were dismembered to buggery with guts and all manner of other bodily parts spilling out over the pages, then citing gore as a reason to avoid all this might have some merit, but as we can see, Moore and Gibbons didn't need to go so over the top to achieve the desired effect.

 

[Armored Avenger]

You know, if the bodies were dismembered to buggery with guts and all manner of other bodily parts spilling out over the pages, then citing gore as a reason to avoid all this might have some merit, but as we can see, Moore and Gibbons didn't need to go so over the top to achieve the desired effect.

The film is going to be R rated anyway, so I dont think the gore of the squid attack will be a reason for the squids removal. If anything, the amount of gore that squid attack causes might be seen as a reason to keep the squid in, after all this is the director who made Dawn of the Dead and 300.

 

[wobbly]

The film is going to be R rated anyway, so I dont think the gore of the squid attack will be a reason for the squids removal. If anything, the amount of gore that squid attack causes might be seen as a reason to keep the squid in, after all this is the director who made Dawn of the Dead and 300.

I agree, I cant see it not being R rated either. If it does manage to get lower, squid or not, I'd be surprised. Would mean they have toned down a few other elements too, and from what we've seen and heard, and with the directors track record, it doesn't look that way.

Thought I'd post the comic pages though as the actual scenes are not really as gory as some might think. The horror lies more in knowing how all those people died (from the shock of the 'terrible information' Veidt coded into the psychic wave) than it does in what condition the squid leaves their bodies in. As such if the squid is out, then it's not for the rating.

 

[EmPiiRe x]

yeah, nobody should think the squid is in jeopardy because it's too violent, it's because the concept might be too abstract and confusing for general audiences.

 

[Hurm...]

I agree, I cant see it not being R rated either. If it does manage to get lower, squid or not, I'd be surprised. Would mean they have toned down a few other elements too, and from what we've seen and heard, and with the directors track record, it doesn't look that way.

It's already not.

Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Sexuality, Nudity, and Language.

 

[wobbly]

It's already not.

Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Sexuality, Nudity, and Language.

Well, that ends that argument

 

[The Guard]

Where?

I asked you for your interpretation of the comment I quoted. All you did is ask me a question back.

I did answer that. I just did it below the part where I indicated that I didn't understand why that would be the public's reaction. We're not talking in real time here, this is a message board. If you have an issue with a statement I have or haven't made, rather than assuming I won't answer it, please finish my post and see if I do. . It's kind of weird when you don't give me a chance to answer, despite the fact that I have already written an answer, and you just haven't read that far yet.

Now, to elaborate, "WTF" may be an exclamation of surprise and confusion, but it can mean many things. I don't generally see it used as "I don't understand that concept at all".

Furthermore, there's really supposed to be something of an element of surprise and confusion to the squid, until Veidt explains it in its entirety to our heroes. That doesn't mean the audience wouldn't get it as a concept, simply because they initially don't know what to make of it. I don't have a problem with you thinking the audience wouldn't get it. I just don't believe that would really be the case. I think it would be less about audiences "getting it", and more about WB feeling it's just a bit too "weird", given the context of the story.

Do you have an example? A film with nudity, rape, sex, violent murder etc...Deliberately avoiding gore and getting a lower rating?

I don't really have a particular example...didn't think I'd need one for such a broad concept. Don't movies with lesser violence, no rape, etc, generally get lower ratings than ones that do have those elements?

At one point, WB pretty much wanted WATCHMEN to be PG-13 if at all possible. This is the script period that began using the "altered plan". These scripts also didn't feature much in the way of nudity, either. Rather, they used implied nudity and rape scenes. Murder and violence is not enough to attain an R-rating anymore. I don't think it's a stretch to say that WB may have wanted to avoid an R rating by using a less bloody ending and toning down some of the events of the story.

Cost? I can at least see that as a possibility, but I wouldn't call it "likely" for the reasons I stated before. Rating? No (see below).

I'm speculating. I don't know for sure, but it seems to be that rendering bodies and a squid would be more expensive than not rendering bodies and a squid.

Yes, corpses are generally less likely to screw a rating than nudity, rape or sex is.

There is implied rape in WATCHMEN, not actual rape. You can find the same thing on LIFETIME or many prime time TV shows, none of which are quite "R" territory. There was no actual nudity in the scripts until Zach Snyder got ahold of it, there was implied nudity (now we all hope to see full nudity). And yes, I'm pretty sure that a street full of realistically rendered bloody bodies are more likely to garner an R rating than partial nudity (with no frontal) or implied rape, and violence are.

I'm sorry, I don't know what your point here is.

My point is that I am basing my statements about the period of time when WB started using this "altered plan" in its script. A period of time when WB obviously wanted to avoid using the squid. A period when WB clearly wanted to make WATCHMEN accessible to the mainstream, and was even considering making it a PG-13 movie. During this period, I believe WB went this route because of a desire to lower the rating, not just because of the blood, but because of the social indications of such a scene (the earliest scripts were turned in not too terribly long after 9-11). I also believe it could be a budgetary concern. WATCHMEN almost didn't get off the ground several times because no one wanted to fork over more than about $80 million. For a while, it was not even developed as a period piece due to the budget issues.

Again, I am only speculating, but I don't think my statements are that far out.

Quite possibly, but prohibitively so? That is the question - just because something is harder to do does not excuse them from doing it (As we are both guessing here any FX gurus out there have some insight on this?)

I don't know. I'm no FX wizard. I'm not saying that's why they went that route. I'm just speculating, to make conversation, and introduce a different viewpoint.

What remains is this though: If they have indeed shot both endings then the 'obvious' (your word) reason of budget is rendered completely void.

Once again, my point of reference is based on where this all originated from, not where it is now (we don't know what's going on now, though we've heard rumors). My statements are based on a time period when we can see that WB wasn't completely commited to WATCHMEN being R-rated, uber-faithful, or in giving the budget to make it so.

Obviously if they have shot both endings, budget is no longer an issue. I am not talking about what "may be going on right now", I'm talking about a period of time when WB was gung ho about changing the ending, and why they may have been taking that approach. I am referring to when budget may have been an issue. To the time when WB may have altered the ending scene for both rating and budgetary reasons.

I will agree that WATCHMEN, in the comic, isn't "that gory", but if you render a live action movie with that much blood and death, it isn't going to look like people covered with paint with no holes in them, etc. You're looking at an obvious R rating if you do it right. I believe, at one time, WB wanted to avoid that to make the movie available to a wider audience, and so they asked David Hayter to alter the ending.

 

[wobbly]

I did answer that. I just did it below the part where I indicated that I didn't understand why that would be the public's reaction.

We're not talking in real time here, this is a message board.

If you have an issue with a statement I have or haven't made, rather than assuming I won't answer it, please finish my post and see if I do.

It's kind of weird when you don't give me a chance to answer, despite the fact that I have already written an answer, and you just haven't read that far yet.

Ok, I think we must be getting our wires crossed or something...
To recap...I made a post stating why I don't think it's right to assume people wont get the squid. Your full reply was this:

Umm...where did anyone ever say they were afraid audiences wouldn't "get" the squid?

Then after being presented with the following example to that question - "The more I think about it, the more I begin to understand why I could be changed. I think the general public may be like WTF? with the squid", your full reply was this:

How does the audience going "WTF" equate them not getting it?

I'm sure the squid was a concern, but I'm going to point out what I feel is obvious here: WB considering leaving the squid and the type of destruction found in the book out was more likely a matter of budget and its impact on the rating of the movie, not a matter of whether or not people would get it.

Thousands of bodies and mass destruction, not to mention either a CGI or a practical squid dummy, requires a ton of money to pull off convincingly. The whole "light taking people to pieces and leaving shadows on the walls instead of thousands of bodies" bit would be much less expensive to render, methinks. Even if it was in multiple cities.

If they have indeed shot and made both versions, I think that speaks volumes about WB's commitment to this project.

We'll see.

And then your third reply when asked to give your interpretation of that original comment, instead of just questioning mine, was:

I did. I'm not allowed to simply ask why you think "What the ****?" equals "I don't get it"?

Show me where in all that you actually offered your interpretation of that example as asked?

Now, to elaborate, "WTF" may be an exclamation of surprise and confusion, but it can mean many things. I don't generally see it used as "I don't understand that concept at all".

Now this is the first time I can see you have actually addressed the question, and maybe this is where we have crossed wires as I can see you still don't really get it. See, what you think the term 'WTF' generally means on it's own is not what you were asked for.

To try and clarify, I wanted your interpretation of this comment: "The more I think about it, the more I begin to understand why I could be changed. I think the general public may be like WTF? with the squid" . And I have asked this as your replies so far have shown you must disagree with how I have read it, so I want to know how you have read it.

I don't think I can be any clearer than this.

Furthermore, there's really supposed to be something of an element of surprise and confusion to the squid, until Veidt explains it in its entirety to our heroes. That doesn't mean the audience wouldn't get it as a concept, simply because they initially don't know what to make of it.

Agree entirely. That surprise element would be a good thing, and with the explanation (which is not that complicated, Veidt even summarizes it in one sentence) I don't see a general audience having any problem with it.

I don't have a problem with you thinking the audience wouldn't get it.

Excuse me, but this exchange only began because I've been very clear I think the opposite is true.

I just don't believe that would really be the case. I think it would be less about audiences "getting it", and more about WB feeling it's just a bit too "weird", given the context of the story.

That I can consider possible. I think they would be wrong given all the other 'weird' stuff this alternate reality offers up (I gave a few examples in my first post on this matter), but history does show studios have been known to bottle it when it comes to comic concepts they don't have much faith in (Doctor Doom & Galactus are prime examples).

I don't really have a particular example...didn't think I'd need one for such a broad concept.

Well, an example is always helpful to back up or better illustrate a point that is being questioned.

Don't movies with lesser violence, no rape, etc, generally get lower ratings than ones that do have those elements?

Obviously, but I didn't ask you about those movies.

At one point, WB pretty much wanted WATCHMEN to be PG-13 if at all possible. This is the script period that began using the "altered plan". These scripts also didn't feature much in the way of nudity, either. Rather, they used implied nudity and rape scenes. Murder and violence is not enough to attain an R-rating anymore. I don't think it's a stretch to say that WB may have wanted to avoid an R rating by using a less bloody ending and toning down some of the events of the story.

Now you are adding stuff to your original stance. You've not mentioned "and toning down some of the events of the story" until now, after I have pointed out some of those events.

I'm speculating. I don't know for sure, but it seems to be that rendering bodies and a squid would be more expensive than not rendering bodies and a squid.

And I've said that is a possibility, but if true I still don't see it as being prohibitive. We are repeating ourselves on this point.

There is implied rape in WATCHMEN, not actual rape. You can find the same thing on LIFETIME or many prime time TV shows, none of which are quite "R" territory.

Well...Seeing Blake viciously punching Sally in the stomach and face, kicking her in the gut while on the floor, then forcing her face down to the ground and pulling his pants down (the rest is implied) is not what I'd call PG-13 territory.

There was no actual nudity in the scripts until Zach Snyder got ahold of it, there was implied nudity (now we all hope to see full nudity).

We do. It may be computer generated, but Manhatten's tackle in loud and proud in the scream footage.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that a street full of realistically rendered bloody bodies are more likely to garner an R rating than partial nudity (with no frontal) or implied rape, and violence are.
My point is that I am basing my statements about the period of time when WB started using this "altered plan" in its script. A period of time when WB obviously wanted to avoid using the squid. A period when WB clearly wanted to make WATCHMEN accessible to the mainstream, and was even considering making it a PG-13 movie. During this period, I believe WB went this route because of a desire to lower the rating, not just because of the blood, but because of the social indications of such a scene (the earliest scripts were turned in not too terribly long after 9-11). I also believe it could be a budgetary concern. WATCHMEN almost didn't get off the ground several times because no one wanted to fork over more than about $80 million. For a while, it was not even developed as a period piece due to the budget issues.

Again, I am only speculating, but I don't think my statements are that far out.

I don't know. I'm no FX wizard. I'm not saying that's why they went that route. I'm just speculating, to make conversation, and introduce a different viewpoint.

Once again, my point of reference is based on where this all originated from, not where it is now (we don't know what's going on now, though we've heard rumors). My statements are based on a time period when we can see that WB wasn't completely commited to WATCHMEN being R-rated, uber-faithful, or in giving the budget to make it so.

Obviously if they have shot both endings, budget is no longer an issue. I am not talking about what "may be going on right now", I'm talking about a period of time when WB was gung ho about changing the ending, and why they may have been taking that approach. I am referring to when budget may have been an issue. To the time when WB may have altered the ending scene for both rating and budgetary reasons.

I will agree that WATCHMEN, in the comic, isn't "that gory", but if you render a live action movie with that much blood and death, it isn't going to look like people covered with paint with no holes in them, etc. You're looking at an obvious R rating if you do it right. I believe, at one time, WB wanted to avoid that to make the movie available to a wider audience, and so they asked David Hayter to alter the ending.

Ok, from all that above I can now see where you have been coming from - you have been basing the rating excuse on the productions overall history, from script to script, rather than the actual production result, which clearly shows they have already accepted the R rating - I get it.

Obviously, the excuse is voided by the fact the film is R rated though - so if rating really was a deciding factor for the alternative ending, then they utterly wasted their time on that front.

 

[the_tortel]

Since the issue of the 'gore factor' has been brought up I thought it might be interesting to see just how gory the Squid really was, so here is the beasties full appearance in all it's glory:

You know, if the bodies were dismembered to buggery with guts and all manner of other bodily parts spilling out over the pages, then citing gore as a reason to avoid all this might have some merit, but as we can see, Moore and Gibbons didn't need to go so over the top to achieve the desired effect.

love the colors, gibbons is awesome

 

[Silk Spectre]

Personally I never like the squid, but this ending is too different.

 

[Mercurius]

Frame up = dumb down

 

[The Guard]

Well what else would you say the original comment I quoted equates to? Tell me your interpretation of it, rather than just questioning mine.

I asked for clarification. I'm not attacking your viewpoint, I'm just making conversation. I basically wanted to know why you would think audiences wouldn't get it, and why WB would think that.

I didn't make the comment that audiences would go "WTF". Why should I be required to put my interpretation of that, when all I asked for was clarification of your point?

Right after I said "How does the audience going WTC mean", etc, I gave my interpretation of why an alternate ending was sought. I have since elaborated on the other points as well.

Then after being presented with the following example to that question - "The more I think about it, the more I begin to understand why I could be changed. I think the general public may be like WTF? with the squid", your full reply was this

Right. A reply that I feel clearly indicated that I do not believe the audience going WTF would be the reason WB avoided the squid.

You keep asking for an example. I'm not interested in discussing my definition of "WTF", wobbly. I'm interesting in pointing out why I think WB sought an alternate ending beyond the studio believing people just wouldn't get it or find it appropriate.

I disagree that WB would omit the squid simply because they think audiences wouldn't get it. I don't believe that confusion and surprise related to the squid is a bad thing. And I believe WB originally omitted the squid and the bodies from the script for rating reasons, as well as potential budget reasons, because frankly, I would imagine that rendering hundreds of bodies and a giant squid is more expensive than not rendering them.

I believe the ratings thing because all indications point to WB trying, at one time, to make a PG-13 WATCHMEN. I have read the scripts from this period, as well as nearly every draft since, and I have seen the scripts get "edgier" and more violent and less toned down over the last year and a half or so.

Excuse me, but this exchange only began because I've been very clear I think the opposite is true.

I understand that. I also don't believe WB seek to change the ending because they thought audiences wouldn't get it. I don't really think WB would think it was too "weird" either.

Well, an example is always helpful to back up or better illustrate a point that is being questioned.

Ohhh, come on. You, with what I assume is a decent knowledge of Hollywood, are really going to ask for an example of a film that cut something so it could have a lower rating?

Obviously, but I didn't ask you about those movies.

But you do apparently want an example...

It's pretty straightforward. Ratings are likely to be higher with a body and gore filled ending than a bodyless and goreless one, right?

Now you are adding stuff to your original stance. You've not mentioned "and toning down some of the events of the story" until now, after I have pointed out some of those events.

...

I fail to see where I said "This is my entire argument and everything I know about the project" in my initial statement. What, pray tell, is your issue with me adding or fleshing out my original vague statements?

My "additional statements" are still directly related to my initial statement. I'm still talking about ratings impact, etc. I'm just talking more in depth.

Well...Seeing Blake viciously punching Sally in the stomach and face, kicking her in the gut while on the floor, then forcing her face down to the ground and pulling his pants down (the rest is implied) is not what I'd call PG-13 territory.

True. But this is my point. That is not how that scene was represented in the scripts until the most recent. I'm talking about before Zach Snyder came aboard, when an R-rated WATCHMEN was not a sure thing. I'm talking about scripts that changed the ending, toned down the violence and the nudity and the rape scene. I’m reasonably sure that while the idea that The Comedian tried to rape Sally is in every draft (as it is integral to his arc with Laurie), the actual scene isn't even in David Hayter's original draft, and in subsequent scenes it's played as an “echo of the past” until the most recent drafts, when the violence and darker aspects became less toned down, and the scene was put back in.

But this is all irrelevant now, because it seems you get where I’m coming from. And yes, the film is R rated now, to our delight.

 

[wobbly]

I asked for clarification. I'm not attacking your viewpoint, I'm just making conversation. I basically wanted to know why you would think audiences wouldn't get it, and why WB would think that.

As was made more than sufficiently clear in my first post on the matter, before we even began this exchange, that is not what I think. The example I posted, that original comment I asked your interpretation of, was stating, as I read it, that the audience would not get it, hence why they could understand the change.

It was that comment (along with the 'mainstream' line from the article) that prompted my first post, the purpose of which was to illustrate why I believe no-one should think this, and even then I added how I don't think WB have been thinking this too (I stated I feel the real reason to be more of an 'eye candy' nature).

So where did you get this notion I thought audiences wouldn't get it, or that WB would think that, when I had already made it abundantly clear in my first post that I don't?

I didn't make the comment that audiences would go "WTF".Why should I be required to put my interpretation of that

Well first, thanks for finally admitting you have not offered your interpretation after all (so I'm not going blind or mad or both) in spite of insisting twice that you had.

Secondly...Whoa!...apart from the hypocrisy, What on earth are you afraid of?

See, the reason you should feel 'required' is this: When you directly questioned me on that example, when by simply posting it I'd already made it clear what I think it means, is it not only fair you offer your reasons for thinking that example means something else?

And Seriously Guard, for someone so fond of requiring clarification, exposition and elaboration from others, it is a wee bit rich for you to cry foul when asked to do the same.

when all I asked for was clarification of your point?

Oh, was that what all you were doing? Well, isn't that 'all I was doing' by asking for your interpretation?

But anyway, let's see if that is indeed all you were doing...
After my first post you said this: "Umm...where did anyone ever say they were afraid audiences wouldn't "get" the squid?"

And when given this example: "The more I think about it, the more I begin to understand why I could be changed. I think the general public may be like WTF? with the squid" (What I think it means is surely self-evident)
Your reply, with this as it's first line, was this:
"How does the audience going "WTF" equate them not getting it?"
and made no other mention to the example afterwards in that post.

So how was I supposed to see that?
Someone asking for clarification on an obvious point? or someone questioning how I have read the example in the first place?

As the latter is indeed how I did see it, you were asked for your interpretation, since it seemed to me you must have read it differently.

As you have still failed to provide one, and now refuse to provide one, I am left wondering if you read the example the same way I did all along, but are simply loathe to admit it.

I understand that. I also don't believe WB seek to change the ending because they thought audiences wouldn't get it. I don't really think WB would think it was too "weird" either.

Ah, so you have changed your mind on that one (you had previously said "I think it would be less about audiences "getting it", and more about WB feeling it's just a bit too "weird", given the context of the story", so I assume you must have)

I do agree btw. The motivation for the change, if it sticks, likely lies elsewhere.

Ohhh, come on. You, with what I assume is a decent knowledge of Hollywood, are really going to ask for an example of a film that cut something so it could have a lower rating?

Nope, I'm not, and did nothing to suggest I would, now did I?
To refresh your memory, I asked you for an example of a film with nudity, rape, sex, violent murder etc, deliberately avoiding gore to get a lower rating.
This was before you amended your argument to cover the production history and scripts which apparently toned all these things down.

Where are you getting this odd notion I asked for something else from?

But you do apparently want an example...

Lol. See above....

It's pretty straightforward. Ratings are likely to be higher with a body and gore filled ending than a bodyless and goreless one, right?

Right. Never said anything otherwise. Again though, see above...

Ok, on this we are gonna get nowhere fast: When you first put up your excuses the overall production history was not apparent in your reasoning, so whilst you were arguing on the back of old scripts that are no longer valid, I was arguing on what I could see was the actual result, which is valid. As such the ground in which our first exchange took place has been altered with some of the points and questions put forth then no longer applicable to things being said now.

I fail to see where I said "This is my entire argument and everything I know about the project" in my initial statement.

And I fail to see where I've said anything like that.

What, pray tell, is your issue with me adding or fleshing out my original vague statements?

None (see below)

My "additional statements" are still directly related to my initial statement. I'm still talking about ratings impact, etc. I'm just talking more in depth.

Obviously. I just thought it should be noted, specifically, that you added the 'toning down of some other stuff' to the mix after I had used that same stuff against your rating argument. It's no big deal to me, but it was worth noting all the same for the reasons I gave above.
Why, pray tell, do you have an issue with me pointing that fact out?

True. But this is my point. That is not how that scene was represented in the scripts until the most recent. I'm talking about before Zach Snyder came aboard, when an R-rated WATCHMEN was not a sure thing. I'm talking about scripts that changed the ending, toned down the violence and the nudity and the rape scene. I’m reasonably sure that while the idea that The Comedian tried to rape Sally is in every draft (as it is integral to his arc with Laurie), the actual scene isn't even in David Hayter's original draft, and in subsequent scenes it's played as an “echo of the past” until the most recent drafts, when the violence and darker aspects became less toned down, and the scene was put back in.

But this is all irrelevant now, because it seems you get where I’m coming from. And yes, the film is R rated now, to our delight.

Ok then.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

**** on a cracker.

The “Squid” is Out.

Zack Snyder confirms that the creature at the end of the original comic series will not be in his movie adaptation


I know — that sucks. We’ve all been hearing conflicting reports over the past several months on whether the “squid” — what fans call the monster at the end of Watchmen — would make it into the film, but now it seems that it definitely will not be making an appearance.
How do we know? Well, Watchmen movie director Zack Snyder said so in a recent interview with Dark Horizons.

The squid was not in the movie when I got the script, the squid was never in any draft that I saw. My point is only that there was this elegant solution to the squid problem that I kind of embraced. I'm a fan of the thing as much as anyone, I was saying what are we going to do about this before I even read the script.
​

The details on what he has specifically changed in the film in regards to the ending are not known at this time, but it seems like he’s going with the “Dr. Manhattan energy beam” disaster that appeared in both the David Hayter and Alex Tse drafts of the script. When asked about details of the film’s climactic disaster, Snyder explained…

I won't say exactly but... Dr. Manhattan has a certain energy signature, it's clearly his thing...so you know.
​

So, at this point some of you might be thinking, “no problem. Maybe we’ll get the squid in one of those multiple endings we heard about a few weeks ago.” Sorry. Snyder also confirmed that there was only one ending shot for his film.

How are fans taking this news? Well, very few fans are happy about it. Their reactions range from outright rage to cautious optimism. One one side there are fans who are absolutely pissed off that Snyder had opted for an ending they feel completely undermines the climax of the story and creates plot holes so deep that rewrites to earlier scenes would likely not even be able to fill them.

Other fans, citing all of the previous reports on how faithful Snyder and his team have been to the source so far, are worried, but are giving Snyder the benefit of the doubt that he’s filled these holes neatly and carefully so that the film would still make sense and maintain virtually all of the themes of the original comic series. Some of the more hopeful fans even cite that if Watchmen co-creator Dave Gibbons seems happy with the ending, how bad can it be?

Now, for some of the fans it wasn’t just the news of the changed ending that got them upset, but also the tone Snyder took toward them in this interview as well.

The fans, god love 'em, they're all up in arms about the squid. What they should be up in arms about are things like shooting the pregnant woman, 'God is real and he's American', whether THAT's in the movie. That's my point of view, maybe I'm crazy.
​

What seemed to irritate fans about this quote the most was not that Snyder came off as being condescending toward them, but that it amped up their fears that even though Synder was painstakingly including lots of the little details of Watchmen into his film, he was perhaps missing the big picture and creating a movie whose ending will fall flat and ultimately makes little to no sense.

So what’s my take on all of this? To be honest, I haven’t seen fan morale toward the movie so low. Many of the die-hard fans were against this adaptation from the beginning, but as news from the film began to surface each week many of them started to come around; warming up to Snyder and feeling that the film was going to be good — perhaps even epic. Now, many of those converts are back in the “Snyder-hate” camp again.
Am I angry that Snyder took that “tone” in the interview toward us fans? Well, I don’t think it was the best thing he could have said, but I understand why he said it. Let’s face it - as fans we have been extremely critical of Snyder since day one. We’ve put every decision of his under the microscope and picked out any possible flaw we could see. Sometimes, our points are valid, sometimes, we’ve gotten a bit nit picky. In fairness we’re no different than any fandom. The point is, whether we're right or wrong about the decisions he’s made, there were times we lashed out at him. It makes sense that some of that anger would come back to us.
As far as the new ending goes, I’d put myself in the cautiously optimistic camp. You see, I’ve been to the set, met and spoke with Zack and Debbie Snyder, many of the cast, crew as well as Dave Gibbons. I honestly believe Watchmen is in good hands and that the source material is being treated with respect. I understand that the “squid” ending could be very difficult to adapt and that the way the ending unfolds in the comic may not work well on screen.

But, to be honest, I’m not entirely sure how a “Dr. Manhattan energy beam” ending will work well either, especially if it's identical to what has been written in previous leaked screenplay drafts. A new ending does create many plot holes — how does the Comedian find out about the plot if there’s no more “squid” island for him to fly over? If Dr. Manhattan is framed for the destruction why would the Russians believe he was not still working for the US?

I have faith that Snyder and company have thought about and worked out all of these issues to make a new ending work, but I’m still worried. In the interview Snyder explained that at the test screening anyone who saw the film who read the graphic novel rated the film as “excellent” and that as far as Snyder was concerned the film is “done.” However, one source of mine who claimed to be at the Portland screening told me he was a big fan of the comic and definitely did not rate the film as “excellent” and reported the problems he had with the ending in his questionnaire.

No matter what we hear It always seems to come down to a “he said, they said” situation with conflicting information and reports. So what is a fan to do? All we can do is wait until March 6th… and pray.

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/111008-watchmen-movie-zack-snyder-ending-changed.php