a) You definitely think it is the same, or better if Veidt just destroys whatever he can. You think this is more “believable” in terms of uniting people.
Uh, no. I do not "definitely" think it is the same or better than the original plan, and have not said so at any point, as far as I can recall. I've said that the "movie version" sounds a bit more thematically relevant to the other major themes and historical points of reference in Watchmen than a squid does. I think it makes more sense in the bigger picture, given his aims at uniting the entire world, especially if the concurrent "psychic attack" is not utilized in the movie, for Veidt to attack several cities, to "threaten" several cities. If Veidt wants to unite the world, just attacking America might conceivably help, but it makes more sense that more of the world would need to be affected for this happen, in my mind. I don't think believing that makes me stupid.
b) The book version is indeed efficient, whether you admit it or not. And not in a “realistic sense”, ‘cause this is not realistic, by any means. It is eficient in the terms Moore invented and proposed it.
Efficient in what remotely realistic regard? Veidt's book version gets the job done, but you're seriously sitting here trying to tell me that none of those lives could have been spared? That he HAD to do that? I don't think so. And the book never, ever indicates that he HAS to go that route. Just that he does, and that it "works".
The scale is necessary for the general commotion.
Why? Can you explain to me why three million people dead and a world gone mad causes any more relative commotion than 1.5 million people dead and a world gone mad?
c) “Even if he came from Earth”. You miss the point completely, because the point is, in the case of using Manhattan’s powers, to use something people already know in a vast scale; plus: destroying his situation at the end, as I have said before.
So your point is that the threat is unknown. On what level? They know it's capable of psychic attacks, that it's hostile, and that it can be teleported.
To be honest, I could really care less about whether people believe they "know" the details behind the faked threat or not. The scale and nature of the threat concerns me, not how much people "know" about it. And again, the book doesn't exactly phrase it as "We don't know this threat". It phrases it as "The threat exists, and all hostilities must be put aside".
d) This movie-plan is not smart by any definition of the term.
By ANY definition of the term? Again, you just SAY something and expect people to believe your assessment. Despite the fact that, while it may not be AS intelligent as the book's plot, and it may not be AS efficient, it still makes some sense from an intelligent perspective, given Veidt's aims at bringing the world together with this different plan. You can throw as many labels onto the movie plan as you want...that doesn't affect it's validity as a plan.
It is rude in conception. The one place of strike plays the key role.
It's rude in conception? Well, I'll give you that it's not quite as interesting as say, a genetically engineered psychic-attack squid, but "rude", as in "less than creative?" Eh, that's a stretch. It's about a hundred times more creative than most plans I've ever seen.
And even in the book, just one place isn't affected by the attack. The psychic attack reaches far beyond the scene of the incident.
e) It is a cliché of the villain who attacks the whole world.
As opposed to "the villain who attacks the city"? You can reduce ANYTHING to a few words, but that doesn't make it cliche in it's actuality.
And even if it has an element of cliche, not all cliches are bad. Cliches are bad when there's nothing new, interesting, or thematically relevant to it. That's just not the case with the whole "Manhattan frameup".
That’s even beyond cliché. Now, attacking 1 city, with genetic built monster, and shockwaves of psychological effect, that’s something.
Oh, so it's "The villain attacks the world", but the original plan isn't "villain attacks the city", it's "attacking 1 city, with genetic built monster, and shockwaves of psychological effect"? Just because you feel like defining it as such, and not limiting it's definition?
Let's try this: HERO (not villain) attacks multiple cities by creating a genetically engineered system that mimics another, fallen, framed hero's powers, playing on fears of this hero, causing shockwaves of psychological effects, and so on, and so forth...
But hey, you want to label it as a cliche...just because it serves your argument to unfairly just call it "villain attacking the world", you go right ahead. I would ask, however, that you show me where we've ever seen this actual situation on film or in other media before. The one that is featured in the "movie plan".
Not "villain attacking the world". The actual plan. Since it's, you know, so cliche.
I have already explained the disruptions. Veidt becomes a stupid maniac villain, when he’s a calculating genius
Why is he suddenly just a stupid maniac? Because he strikes more than one city? That, in itself, without considering the totality of the movie character and how it relates to the story, is, itself, incredibly stupid logic. I mean, I suppose if we forget his actual plan behind attacking cities, and just focus on the fact that he attacks cities...
No, even then it's still not anything resembling "stupid", anymore than The Joker blowing up two barges is stupid and uninteresting by itself.
Once upon a time, a hero blowing up millions of innocents to bring the world together was a big deal. Apparently not it's just "stupid".
Manhattan framed becomes a silly Oppenheimer metaphor, loses his “absolute judge” position, his last phrase loses meaning, his will to leave the Earth becomes motivated, his killing of Rorschach seems to be under interest of keeping his stupidity in helping Veidt under wraps
1. Oh, you must be one of those people who hate metaphor that ties into the rest of the story. Despite the fact that this is the same damn metaphor Alan Moore utilized with Jon, as the living weapon, the dangerous presence, the atomic bomb, the advances in technology being dangerous, the "watchmaker" paralells, etc.
2. You still have yet to explain how he loses his absolute judge position. You just seem to think he would, because he was involved. Well, he was involved in the squid thing, too, but he didn't lose his absolute judge position there...
3. How does "nothing ever ends" lose meaning? Does everything suddenly end? You do realize that "Nothing ever ends", while having an obvious meaning that Veidt's plan may not succeed and that it may not be lasting peace (none of which the Manhattan frameup changes), is also obviously meant by the writer to be open for interpretation, right?
4. How does his leaving the Earth become motivated any more than it was in the book? Isn't he SUPPOSED to be motivated to leave Earth, or does he just go around being unmotivated yet doing drastic things?
Oh, you think he's leaving becaue he's been framed. Thing is, that makes no sense given what we know about the character at the end of the story.
5. He's still killing Rorschach to silence him. I fail to see the issue. Oh, you think it's dumb that this character, who obviously doesn't particularly care about how Earth sees him, his future on Earth, and the innocents that are dead in the plan as long as the world isn't destroyed and peace is preserved, would be complicit in Veidt's plan. Despite the fact that this is more or less in character.
f) Here you make the greatest of all confusions. Thinking that Veidt is a better villain because he holds complete control of the many destroyed cities is just revealing of how much you get impressed by quantity over quality.
And you think I believe this because...
All I've said is that if you want to unite the world, it makes sense to involve the world.
He is a better villain when Moore depicts how he uses the others like pawns to a single effect that only he himself can picture in its full version.
I agree. And this element is still in the Manhattan being framed version of events.
g) The framing up is not only ridiculous concerning Manhattan, but also a very bad move concerning his role at the end of the novel.
Right. Because he'd suddenly decide characterization wise, to care that Veidt framed him in his plan, even though Veidt also blew him to pieces and he seemed to forgive him that, and he doesn't care in the novel that Veidt killed millions of innocents. Yeah. That makes sense.
Veidt wouldn’t win, because his stupid plan worked exactly like the bomb would. Doubtful peace in a devastated world?
Can you elaborate? You seem to be telling me what would or wouldn't happen in a fictional world...without knowing all the angles involved...and...really, isn't what "might" happen kind of irrelevant, and the many possibilities the whole point of the very end of Watchmen to begin with?
h) Sorry, my dear Guard, but it’s you who’s missing the point completely. If it wasn’t to give the impression of an alien attack, why would this really strangely crafted monster be dropped over NY?
Umm, where did I ever say that using the squid was not designed to give the impression of an alien attack?
And why, nearly every time I have a debate, can you people not just address my arguments? Why do you need to resort to "You seem to not understand", "You seem to be missing the point completely" crap, when clearly I am not stupid, do understand the scenarios and meanings involved, and am capable of discussing them intelligently?
i) Again, another fat mistake: the “hatred against vigilantes” was a distraction created by Veidt in order to get his plan going without his chaps noticing it.
And my mistake is...what, exactly? All I said was, the "hatred against vigilantes" is a theme of the novel that the "new plan" ties into quite well. You have heard the phrase "Who watches the watchmen", yes? And know that the title of the book is not "The common alien threat from another dimension", but WATCHMEN, and that the themes of WATCHMEN, among other things, deal largely with the ideas of corruption of power, use of power, and various notions of control, and not so much with themes of aliens from another universe?
j) Guard, if you don’t like some points of the masterpiece, that’s fine.
Umm...where have I even indicated that I don't like these points?
You said my arguments have no validity to you. You also haven't convinced me. Not even a little.
I'm not trying to. I'd settle for you to actually debate me instead of resorting to this "You must not get it" nonsense.
He doesn't illuminate anything. By framing Manhattan he presents the world with it's greatest ever bully boy with humanity forever living in fear of him. There is no grand scale in this scenario for the world to be humbled by, just a man granted incredible powers by an accident with the mother of all God complexes.
He doesn't illuminate anything? In the book? You realize I was talking about the book, right? So...the pointlessness of humanity's squabbles is not part of Watchmen's narrative?
O...k.
This isn't a world realizing it's need to put aside it's stupid differences to rally against a common threat, this is a world forced through acts of unparalled aggression into bowing to the whim of the one extraordinary man blamed for said acts. So no, for me this is is not similar.
Do I really have to sit here and "By the way guys, SOME themes of each plan are really similar and SOME aren't exactly the same"???
I expect people here, if they're intelligent enough to delve into this story, and into these themes, to realize that an alien squid and a Dr Manhattan frameup are not the same thing. I've never argued that they are the same exact thing.
The important thing to me about the ending of WATCHMEN, and I would think to most people, is that the world, because of history's greatest practical joke, finds a reason to avoid further nuclear aggression because of this common threat, and the uncertainty surrounding it. That is has a common enemy, and must put all former hostilities aside. While I would love to see a faithful rendition of the ending, squid psyhic attack intact, I could give two ****s about whether or not the threat in a DIFFERENT VERSION of this ending is "faked common enemy through blackmail" or "faked common enemy from another universe". Obviously it's already markedly different, so why would more differences concern me? A fake, common enemy is a fake, common enemy. I mean, to me, a threat is a threat. I never said the Manhattan plot is exactly the same as the alien plot. Why people insist on breaking this down into the TINIEST details to discredit everything about the Manhattan plot is beyond me. There's already a HUGE difference. One is a squid. One is Manhattan.
Of course the threat would have to remain, but that threat is not telling man what they must do, they have a choice in how to deal with it. Together or alone, it's still up to them. With Manhattan as the big bad there is no choice. Do as he says or die.
You mean...in two wildly different plans, there are going to be some different elements despite their similarities?
(Gasp)
I'm confused as to how is there "no choice" just because it's Manhattan instead of a squid? The people of the world still have a choice. They don't HAVE to listen to Manhattan any more than they have to listen to anyone who makes a threat, or HAVE to band together because of a perceived alien threat.
But the world is not defending themselves with Manhatten. They know they cant. They are simply bending over for the big blue.
Uh huh. See my comments about how "wildly different plans have different elements". Again, if, in the novel itself, we saw the world actually defending itself and not just banding together over the danger they all face, this might be a relevant point about the differences between the movie and the novel's plan. But we don't see that in the book, and so it's not really all that important. The important and relevant points of the plans are as I've mentioned previously.
Because as I've said, the difference with this ending is it removes the fact the world does make the right decision (with the new ending they dont have a choice), and though loathe to admit it they see that Veidt's ends have justified his means.
Explain to me how, just because someone threatened them, that they don't have a choice. They might be WISE not to keep killing each other since they've been threatened with extinction if they do so, but explain to me how they lack the ability to choose.
But with a humanity oppressed into mutual co-operation that need for them to keep the secret is greatly lessened.
That would make sense, except that you are apparently forgetting that the Manhattan imposed oppression is FAKED, and that the secret is what's holding all that stuff together.
Yes, humanity survives with the new ending, but a 'utopia' that must be protected? Oppression is not utopia.
Umm...true. But being forced to come together to fight aliens is a utopia? I'm not sure why the world being a Utopia after the incident is even at issue here? The world ISN'T a Utopia at the end of the original version of Watchmen. Veidt just WANTS it to be, and talks about helping it get to that point. That's the next phase of his plan.
Viedt's squid emits a psychic pulse, which forces Russia to help the U.S. There's no "choice" involved. Viedt forced them into it, albeit mentally. With the Manhattan frame-up, Viedt's doing the same thing, only not mentally. The only difference is, Russia isn't consciously aware that they have no choice. They only thought they made one.
There's always a choice. There's a path of action that would probably, if threatened, be SAFER, but that doesn't mean choice doesn't exist.
And that's the level of intelligence I'm hoping to see in the movie. But, until now, the news are bad: this is being changed into a very ordinary and dumb destruction of many cities, EXACTLY what Veidt was trying to avoid in the book.
Short of hyperbole, I fail to see how any of these plans can be called "ordinary". Again, I haven't seen this particular set of circumstances anywhere else in literature or on film. And villains (former heroes, in this case) actually succeeding in attacking multiple cities is pretty rare as well. Even rarer is villains or heroes who do so to save the world.
True, but the squid only attacks America. So though the threat may be perceived as originating from US actions, no other country actually suffers because of it. This is another reason why Veidt's plan was so ingenious. One city to save the world, and done in a manner where those who might be seen as responsible have already paid a very heavy price for
Well, I think other countries do suffer, though. There's the whole "many will be driven mad through the sudden flood of grotesque sensation thing" after all.
Anyway...
Adrian Veidt, regardless of how much he wanted to stem the need for bloodshed, was willing to kill millions in WATCHMEN to save the world. He didn't say "Well, I'll just kill as many as I NEED to" and do the math on that, he was willing to kill half a city. For several you to essentially tell me "Well, if he kills any more, he's just a crazy hack" is laughable, given the circumstances. Does he HAVE to kill more? No, but he didn't HAVE to kill half of New York City.
I don't quite understand how attacking several cities is "cliche", but attacking one city is not. I fail to see how that is the case. Neither of the manners of attacks in either version is anything close to "cliche. Is one more involved than the other? Sure, and I won't deny that. And I'd prefer to see that one, because I love almost all of the elements of it. I'm not going to pretend Veidt's original plan isn't amazing. I understand the love for the squid psychic attack, and all it's layers. I would rather see the original plot take place. All I'm saying is that the Manhattan frameup works on several levels, even if it doesn't work as well as the original plot, or in exactly the same manner. It works thematically. It works in the context of the story, an it works in the context of the characters. If you want to scream "No, it doesn't work at all!" because it's not EXACTLY THE SAME, go right ahead.
after all this trouble over this movie and making it so faithful, why wouldn't they keep the ending? This film is as faithful as it is now, all because of the fans. They would be f***ing screwed if they changed the ending.
t:
.
