Portland test screening indicates altered ending???

[Raiden]

By "average movie viewer" I was implying someone who has never picked up the graphic novel or a comic book for that matter. Dr. Manhattan's framing works on so many more levels on the account that in both the novel and film he's exiled. So in a movie viewers mind it would make more sense for the villain to frame the isolated hero so that he is both in a predicament that if he explains that he had no role in the plot than the world will fall into chaos, than just like in the novel he feels to have no purpose on Earth anymore. So with being framed it furthers his reasoning for leaving.

My problem with framing Dr. Manhattan is that, if that indeed is the case I don't really think he'd side with Ozzy in the end; he'd probably be more enraged that he was used in Ozzy's scheme. That's the way I see it.

 

[Motown Marvel]

also, im willing to bet the blue lighting explosion thingy wont be nearly as yonic as the squid. bummer.

 

[Shivsguy616]

also, im willing to bet the blue lighting explosion thingy wont be nearly as yonic as the squid. bummer.

The squid's only iconic because it's stupid. Most people I know who've read Watchmen get to the squid and think; christ, this book was nearly perfect until this thing!

 

[I Am The Knight]

The Guard rules.

 

[Kanon]

To me, the main difference is, that in the graphic novel, the alien threat brings the world together at heart, it was an honest sympathy that ended the war. With Manhattan not being truely foreign, but US (or former US) resident, and a tool of the US during war, the peace comes from sheer fear of another attack, nothing more. There has to be resentment towads America, and as soon as the people feel that Doc M could be gone, the threat of war is back... It's kind of a stupid plan not meant to last to frame Manhattan.

 

[Mercurius]

The squid's only iconic because it's stupid. Most people I know who've read Watchmen get to the squid and think; christ, this book was nearly perfect until this thing!

t:t:t:

You know a serious bunch of peanutbrains, now don't you?

And expecting a peanut brain should rule what's be done with one of the most intelligent comicbooks' movie version is a tad...how would I say that?... unusual, let's put it that way.

 

[Mercurius]

To me, the main difference is, that in the graphic novel, the alien threat brings the world together at heart, it was an honest sympathy that ended the war. With Manhattan not being truely foreign, but US (or former US) resident, and a tool of the US during war, the peace comes from sheer fear of another attack, nothing more. There has to be resentment towads America, and as soon as the people feel that Doc M could be gone, the threat of war is back... It's kind of a stupid plan not meant to last to frame Manhattan.

It's good to know that these threads still have people thinking about what is the book's meanings.

That's was great, Kanon.

 

[Evil Twin]

My problem with framing Dr. Manhattan is that, if that indeed is the case I don't really think he'd side with Ozzy in the end; he'd probably be more enraged that he was used in Ozzy's scheme. That's the way I see it.

Enraged is not a word I associate with Dr. Manhattan. The one honest burst of emotion he has in the story is when he's accused of giving all his friends (and former lover) cancer. The character is remote and unemotional.

Manhattan may have a renewed interested in "life" by the end of the book, but there's no indication he has any renewed interest in Earth. Quite the opposite actually. Why should he care what Earth thinks of him? Heck, he leaves Earth in the book when he was framed for causing cancer and never stops to clear that up either.

The main problem with the squid subplot is that all the buildup is uncinematic. The island takes up all of 2 and 2/3rds pages in comic narrative and the rest of the clues are handled in the prose pieces. Why should anyone care about Max Shea without the Black Freighter and history of pirate comics? Especially since it's completely out of place with the main storyline. You'd have to construct entirely new scenes for that to make sense, and nobody wants that.

I also think people are forgetting that Ozymandias's plan ISN'T supposed to be flawless. Rorschach's journal, for example, could lead people to investigate Veidt. Even beyond that, there's a drawing that washes up on an island. Along with Dr. Manhattan's warning that "Nothing ever ends." Not to mention, we've all seen how being united by an outside threat can be merely temporary if mishandled. The only one that thinks Veidt's plan is flawless is apparently Veidt himself, who's blinded by his own hubris.

 

[Motown Marvel]

The squid's only iconic because it's stupid. Most people I know who've read Watchmen get to the squid and think; christ, this book was nearly perfect until this thing!

i said yonic,not iconic.

 

[Raiden]

Enraged is not a word I associate with Dr. Manhattan. The one honest burst of emotion he has in the story is when he's accused of giving all his friends (and former lover) cancer. The character is remote and unemotional.

Manhattan may have a renewed interested in "life" by the end of the book, but there's no indication he has any renewed interest in Earth. Quite the opposite actually. Why should he care what Earth thinks of him? Heck, he leaves Earth in the book when he was framed for causing cancer and never stops to clear that up either.

The main problem with the squid subplot is that all the buildup is uncinematic. The island takes up all of 2 and 2/3rds pages in comic narrative and the rest of the clues are handled in the prose pieces. Why should anyone care about Max Shea without the Black Freighter and history of pirate comics? Especially since it's completely out of place with the main storyline. You'd have to construct entirely new scenes for that to make sense, and nobody wants that.

I also think people are forgetting that Ozymandias's plan ISN'T supposed to be flawless. Rorschach's journal, for example, could lead people to investigate Veidt. Even beyond that, there's a drawing that washes up on an island. Along with Dr. Manhattan's warning that "Nothing ever ends." Not to mention, we've all seen how being united by an outside threat can be merely temporary if mishandled. The only one that thinks Veidt's plan is flawless is apparently Veidt himself, who's blinded by his own hubris.

You may have a point, but even if Dr. Manhattan is devoid of emotions, that doesn't mean he won't resent Ozzy since he was set-up as the fall guy in Ozzy's master plan, and thus he might not have killed Rorschach in order to preserve Ozzy's plan.

 

[Evil Twin]

You may have a point, but even if Dr. Manhattan is devoid of emotions, that doesn't mean he won't resent Ozzy since he was set-up as the fall guy in Ozzy's master plan, and thus he might not have killed Rorschach in order to preserve Ozzy's plan.

Or he might have seen the cold logic of Ozy's plan, as well as felt no resentment because he was planning on leaving Earth anyways, and killed Rorschach.

People need to stop treating Dr. Manhattan like he's a normal human being. That's a huge flaw in any analysis of his character.

 

[Batman1018]

I enjoy the rebuttle and see what you say about "visionary." Simply put, directors do however have a say in the trailer because if not then any footage could go into it. My point is, before any trailer gets released, Snyder must be presented with it and have to agree it is okay to show. Why would he allow "visionary" and not something like previously mentioned, "The team that brought you..." or "From the director of."
As far as DM goes.. Yes I can see the reasoning for it working and it very well could, but why? Why change it? Someone mentioned realism in an earlier post, stating that this is more realistic. Well what is realistic about Doc Manhattan? I'm not saying I'm right, I just want to know. How is he more realistic than the Squid??

 

[The Guard]

He's not more realistic. But he is a bit more relevant to the themes of Watchmen, abuse of power, etc.

 

[Mercurius]

He's not more realistic. But he is a bit more relevant to the themes of Watchmen, abuse of power, etc.

In the very, very least, this opinion is absolutely debatable.

If I were strict, I'd simply say BS.

 

[The Guard]

Ok, Mercurius.

Explain to me how the appearance of an alien squid illustrates the idea of abuse of a "watchman's" power and "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" better than a man who once watched over the people appearing to have abused his power and turned on them does.

And I'm not talking about Veidt's abuse of power, which is inherent in both the novel and the movie's plot.

Go.

 

[Mercurius]

Ok, Mercurius.

Explain to me how the appearance of an alien squid illustrates the idea of abuse of a "watchman's" power and "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" better than a man who once watched over the people appearing to have abused his power and turned on them does.

And I'm not talking about Veidt's abuse of power, which is inherent in both the novel and the movie's plot.

Go.

Far better, because:

a) it’s not an obvious attempt to make it “relevant”: it takes a better writer to avoid being obvious;

b) it collects in one single image the whole distortion produced by vigilante in that fictional world;

c) as a metaphor, it applies in many senses to the characters (many of these I’ve already discussed here, and at lenght);

d) it doesn’t mess up with the whole story; also, it doesn’t stress fear, but the collaboration;

e) it fills the same idea of “abuse”, ‘cause Veidt not only lies, puts the other heroes out of reach, and drives the two most powerful countries to the brinks of war, but also disposes of every single one in that plot, including the whole bunch of scientists, artists, writers, etc. to that bizarre last effect, which is the crown jewel of abuse;

f) it has a reaaally big eye, if you’re so worried with Juvenal’s verse “quis custodiet ipsos custodes”.

g) and more: doesn’t make Veidt an idiot with “mad bomber tactics”.

 

[Figs]

LOL @ mad bomber tactics.

When are people going to learn that multiple targets is in Fact more complicated and would need to be thought out more than a single simple target?

There are certain fans on here that think him only attacking New York makes it smarter and far more intelligent in terms of plan/execution. This is bull ****, he's not closing his eyes and moving his fingers on a globe to randomly pick towns/cities to just huck bombs at in the film version.

The planning and critical timing he would need to do and have, to attack multiple Major cities all at the same time is far more tactical and difficult.

If you don't like the change from just New York being bombed like in the book...at least don't exaggerate in your arguments.

IF(key word is if) he was just shooting off nukes at random cities/towns then your argument could hold water, but as far as we know he isn't being random and sloppy like that with his attacks.

 

[TheBatman072]

LOL @ mad bomber tactics.

When are people going to learn that multiple targets is in Fact more complicated and would need to be thought out more than a single simple target?

There are certain fans on here that think him only attacking New York makes it smarter and far more intelligent in terms of plan/execution. This is bull ****, he's not closing his eyes and moving his fingers on a globe to randomly pick towns/cities to just huck bombs at in the film version.

The planning and critical timing he would need to do and have, to attack multiple Major cities all at the same time is far more tactical and difficult.

If you don't like the change from just New York being bombed like in the book...at least don't exaggerate in your arguments.

IF(key word is if) he was just shooting off nukes at random cities/towns then your argument could hold water, but as far as we know he isn't being random and sloppy like that with his attacks.

When you're mimicking the actions and powers of a GOD, you better damn well know what you're doing.

 

[The Guard]

a) it’s not an obvious attempt to make it “relevant”: it takes a better writer to avoid being obvious

Whereas stuff like peopel spraypainting "Who watches the watchmen" everywhere is oh-so-subtle.

Alan Moore tends to be incredibly obvious and transparent with his key themes. I can provide examples if you wish. WATCHMEN is no exception.

So...the obvious element that already exists in the book is not allowed to continue to be obvious? Yeah, that makes sense.

I guess we should have Jon say "She thinks I am...not human now...like something greater than human..."

Can't have him say the obvious, now.

So, it's not ok for the Manhattan element to be obvious (even though it already is) as opposed to the squid not really even, on its own, being relevant to "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" at all. Unless you count the random squid eye image...which, let's face it, isn't half as clever as the elements the Manhattan plot brings to the table, where a trusted watchmen now turns to an object of fear.

Thematic elements.

A picture of an eye.

Thematic elements.

A picture of an eye.

Hmm...

This is really your argument?

b) it collects in one single image the whole distortion produced by vigilante in that fictional world;

So does Dr. Manhattan's attack. That image is "Rogue Dr. Manhattan".

I know, I know, we won't get giant tentacles.

Alas.

c) as a metaphor, it applies in many senses to the characters (many of these I’ve already discussed here, and at lenght);

Oh, thrill us again with the metaphorical significance you personally have found that you simply cannot prove was ever meant to be there.

The monster is metaphorically significant because it means "Monster?"

Wow, that's clever Mercurius.

The monster is significant because it's Veidt's monster side surfacing?

But wait...I thought you said being obvious was a bad thing.

Seems to be that showing Veidt do evil things to illustrate his "monster" element (which may have never been intended, but is cool nontheless) is a lot less obvious than dropping a tangible monster in New York City to do so.

And don't you like things that are less obvious?

d) it doesn’t mess up with the whole story; also, it doesn’t stress fear, but the collaboration;

Using Dr. Manhattan doesn't mess up the whole story.

Collaboration?

Tell me Mercurius, do you think, logically, that the world bands together because they've suddenly discovered they have no differences?

Or because they FEAR THE ALIEN SQUIDS WITH BEE REFLEXES THAT MAY ANNIHILATE THEM ALL?

Hmm...

e) it fills the same idea of “abuse”, ‘cause Veidt not only lies, puts the other heroes out of reach, and drives the two most powerful countries to the brinks of war, but also disposes of every single one in that plot, including the whole bunch of scientists, artists, writers, etc. to that bizarre last effect, which is the crown jewel of abuse

So does the movie story and plot. On essentially the same level. Keep reaching.

f) it has a reaaally big eye, if you’re so worried with Juvenal’s verse “quis custodiet ipsos custodes”.

So..."squid watches the watchmen"?

g) and more: doesn’t make Veidt an idiot with “mad bomber tactics”.

As opposed to "mad squid bomber tactics"?

How does using lightning instead of the squid inherently make him an idiot?

 

[deathfromabove]

t:t:t:

You know a serious bunch of peanutbrains, now don't you?

And expecting a peanut brain should rule what's be done with one of the most intelligent comicbooks' movie version is a tad...how would I say that?... unusual, let's put it that way.

you know your whole " im smarter than everyone" shtick falls flat on its face when you keep insulting your oppositions smarts.

that seems to be par for the course for you and i just want to point out it isnt having the effect you desire (unless you are trying to make yourself look like an insecure twit.)

 

[Mercurius]

you know your whole " im smarter than everyone" shtick falls flat on its face when you keep insulting your oppositions smarts.

that seems to be par for the course for you and i just want to point out it isnt having the effect you desire (unless you are trying to make yourself look like an insecure twit.)

deadfromabovetobelow:

I don't think I'm smarter than anyone, if you're under that mistaken impression.

Even if I think, for instance, that Guard is wrong, and that he is stubborn in defending bad writing, he is truly smart and well-articulated. Many others around here, with whom I do not agree, are also indeed smart and give me something to think.

But that miserable opinion of Shivsguy's multitude had to be addressed, don't you think?

Maybe you don't. Well, I think that when one calls "stupid" a device one doesn't comprehend (and clearly isn't willing to) one must at least be open to a bit of criticism, or expect it.

What about this version? Does it look any better? t:

 

[Mercurius]

Whereas stuff like peopel spraypainting "Who watches the watchmen" everywhere is oh-so-subtle.

Alan Moore tends to be incredibly obvious and transparent with his key themes. I can provide examples if you wish. WATCHMEN is no exception.

So...the obvious element that already exists in the book is not allowed to continue to be obvious? Yeah, that makes sense.

I guess we should have Jon say "She thinks I am...not human now...like something greater than human..."

Can't have him say the obvious, now.

So, it's not ok for the Manhattan element to be obvious (even though it already is) as opposed to the squid not really even, on its own, being relevant to "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" at all. Unless you count the random squid eye image...which, let's face it, isn't half as clever as the elements the Manhattan plot brings to the table, where a trusted watchmen now turns to an object of fear.

Thematic elements.

A picture of an eye.

Thematic elements.

A picture of an eye.

Hmm...

This is really your argument?



So does Dr. Manhattan's attack. That image is "Rogue Dr. Manhattan".

I know, I know, we won't get giant tentacles.

Alas.



Oh, thrill us again with the metaphorical significance you personally have found that you simply cannot prove was ever meant to be there.

The monster is metaphorically significant because it means "Monster?"

Wow, that's clever Mercurius.

The monster is significant because it's Veidt's monster side surfacing?

But wait...I thought you said being obvious was a bad thing.

Seems to be that showing Veidt do evil things to illustrate his "monster" element (which may have never been intended, but is cool nontheless) is a lot less obvious than dropping a tangible monster in New York City to do so.

And don't you like things that are less obvious?



Using Dr. Manhattan doesn't mess up the whole story.

Collaboration?

Tell me Mercurius, do you think, logically, that the world bands together because they've suddenly discovered they have no differences?

Or because they FEAR THE ALIEN SQUIDS WITH BEE REFLEXES THAT MAY ANNIHILATE THEM ALL?

Hmm...



So does the movie story and plot. On essentially the same level. Keep reaching.



So..."squid watches the watchmen"?



As opposed to "mad squid bomber tactics"?

How does using lightning instead of the squid inherently make him an idiot?

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

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

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

But with that I’ll disagree, and insist, and answer. It’s annoying, but that was your choice.

c) Of course I can’t prove, and don’t even want to. I leave it to people who knows how to read more than a tagline. If truth were only those things we can prove, life would be a joyride.

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

You don’t think so? Of course. How could you defend that piece of bad writing without simply insisting on the contrary?

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

You like the novel (so you said), but seems to agree in every word with those nice chaps Shivsguy chatted with, deriding Moore’s version in the book.

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

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

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

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

 

[Agentsands77]

The whole idea that the squid is some kind of richer contribution to WATCHMEN is a bit laughable. The squid wasn't too significant, either in and of itself or metaphorically. It was what it was - a creepy, bizarre element of the story that brought in some interesting ideas.

But for a cinematic adaptation, the movie version of Ozy's plot is much more effective. The story progression is now a bit more natural, and allows for a more concise, cinematic retelling of events. I'm also fond of how it underscores some of the novel's themes... maybe in an obvious way, but it's still pretty effective.

 

[Agentsands77]

b) The Dr. Manhattan nuisance doesn’t collect anything (or only in your dreams) : it doesn’t have the joke aspect to link with Comedian, which is lost in a bad joke now

Sure it does.

it doesn’t offer the icon

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

it doesn’t have Veidt’s “true face” aspect

Which isn't too important, given that this nature is already pretty obvious at that point.

it doesn’t make Veidt the smart man that can strike it only once, in one place, but the “mad bomber” of Nixon’s words; it creates problems with all characters, above all, Manhattan and Veidt.

I don't think it creates any character problems. So what if Veidt's plan is now bigger? It's still pretty smart, and in some ways, is more likely to be effective than Ozy's plan in the graphic novel.

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

 

[Mercurius]

LOL @ mad bomber tactics.

When are people going to learn that multiple targets is in Fact more complicated and would need to be thought out more than a single simple target?

There are certain fans on here that think him only attacking New York makes it smarter and far more intelligent in terms of plan/execution. This is bull ****, he's not closing his eyes and moving his fingers on a globe to randomly pick towns/cities to just huck bombs at in the film version.

The planning and critical timing he would need to do and have, to attack multiple Major cities all at the same time is far more tactical and difficult.

If you don't like the change from just New York being bombed like in the book...at least don't exaggerate in your arguments.

IF(key word is if) he was just shooting off nukes at random cities/towns then your argument could hold water, but as far as we know he isn't being random and sloppy like that with his attacks.

Oh, sure.

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

I see.

The whole plot and creation of the monster, his tactical choice of place and the psychic effect are indeed easier to think, develop and apply, of course.