Should Veidt live or die?

[Motown Marvel]

there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film. this is obviously cause for great concern, as i think it's imperative to the story that he lives. if true, i think we need to make our voices and opinions on the matter clear, and hope the right people take note.

so what do you think, should veidt live or die? how important is it he lives? how pissed will you be if he dies?

 

[Tanin]

I'd say it's quite important that he lives. The whole semi-moral to the story goes bye bye if they up and kill him at the end.

 

[Comic Book Boy]

It would be positively shameful to kill Veidt. He absolutely MUST live and the entire ending needs to be kept intact. I have faith that Snyder will stay true to the greatest piece of fiction of all time.

 

[Qwerty©]

You change the ending, and there is no point in making Watchmen. Anybody who considers killing off Veidt doesn't understand the story.

 

[Captain Carnage]

i think we need to make our voices and opinions on the matter clear, and hope the right people take note.

HALLELUJAH!

 

[Motown Marvel]

You change the ending, and there is no point in making Watchmen. Anybody who considers killing off Veidt doesn't understand the story.

yeah, i pretty much feel the same. if you rationalize killing veidt in the watchmen story that you're telling...then you're telling your version of watchmen, rather than the version of watchmen that should be told.

the version of watchmen that needs to be told is alan moore's watchmen. the timeless masterpiece. its a story that even warrants a feature film (arguably), because it is what it is. and while translation is unavoidable, to alter/change necessities of the story, such as veidt's mortal destiny, is to unforgivably soil the meaning and purpose of watchmen. in which case, your just missing the point, and that makes it all useless.

 

[Steelsheen]

there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film. this is obviously cause for great concern, as i think it's imperative to the story that he lives. if true, i think we need to make our voices and opinions on the matter clear, and hope the right people take note.

so what do you think, should veidt live or die? how important is it he lives? how pissed will you be if he dies?

i still dont know where you guys are getting the idea that Veidt's gonna kick the bucket.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

i still dont know where you guys are getting the idea that Veidt's gonna kick the bucket.

Because he did so in Hayter's drafts, and apparently that has been kept in Alex Tse's early drafts thus far. Whether or not it stays that way, remains to be seen.

As for what I think... I think if you kill Veidt, it will turn the movie into a Just Another SuperHero Flick where the villian dies and it gives the audience that instant gratification, and that is NOT retaining the spirit of Watchmen. It's not about a happy ending.

That last scene between Dr. Manhattan and Veidt, with that classic exchange ("It all worked out in the end?" "End? Nothing ever ends, Adrian."), that scene loses its power if you kill Veidt. It wouldn't mean anything anymore. It would be useless.

Because Veidt pays for his crime with his own guilt, and the fact that his World Peace Plan will eventually come undone because in the end, it's based on a lie. That is a slow downfall, and that scene tells you that. That is part of what makes it so powerful.

And following it up with a scene where Veidt and Night Owl have a fight that ends with Veidt dying in James Bond villian-like fashion - would just kill the power and undermine what makes Watchmen so special.

So I hope they don't kill Veidt, because it would be lame as hell.

 

[Qwerty©]

Zack Snyder seems to get everything else, it doesn't seem likely he would misunderstand the main point.

I don't know what to think.

 

[Mysterio]

You change the ending, and there is no point in making Watchmen. Anybody who considers killing off Veidt doesn't understand the story.

then i guess i don't understand the story. whether Veidt lives or dies at the end is immaterial; what matters is 1) his plan succeeded, and 2) the other heroes remain complicit in the conspiracy.

 

[Darkly Dexter]

Snyder wouldn't do that

 

[Steelsheen]

Because he did so in Hayter's drafts, and apparently that has been kept in Alex Tse's early drafts thus far. Whether or not it stays that way, remains to be seen.

As for what I think... I think if you kill Veidt, it will turn the movie into a Just Another SuperHero Flick where the villian dies and it gives the audience that instant gratification, and that is NOT retaining the spirit of Watchmen. It's not about a happy ending.

That last scene between Dr. Manhattan and Veidt, with that classic exchange ("It all worked out in the end?" "End? Nothing ever ends, Adrian."), that scene loses its power if you kill Veidt. It wouldn't mean anything anymore. It would be useless.

Because Veidt pays for his crime with his own guilt, and the fact that his World Peace Plan will eventually come undone because in the end, it's based on a lie. That is a slow downfall, and that scene tells you that. That is part of what makes it so powerful.

And following it up with a scene where Veidt and Night Owl have a fight that ends with Veidt dying in James Bond villian-like fashion - would just kill the power and undermine what makes Watchmen so special.

So I hope they don't kill Veidt, because it would be lame as hell.

thanks for the clarrification man.

i dunno, this could still be one of those things that Snyder can still change once they get to filimming this part. maybe he'd even shoot two versions-- one with Veidt dead, one having him live. who knows what we'll really get to see onscreen?

 

[Mysterio]

Because Veidt pays for his crime with his own guilt, and the fact that his World Peace Plan will eventually come undone because in the end, it's based on a lie.

guilt? he doesn't feel any guilt about what he's done. the plan is peace at any price; the ends justify the means. he doesn't feel guilty about a damn thing.

 

[the amazing fro]

^^ He does feel guilt. read the scene where Dr Manhattan and Veidt talk at the end.

Veidt shouldn't die even though i hate his guts. it kinda kills the idea f the greater good and stuff

 

[Mysterio]

edit. nevermind

 

[Overman27pj]

In LOTR at the end Peter Jackson orgianally had Aragon fighting Sauron at the Black Gate....He later realized that this heroic fight actually made our hero less heroic...It was the blind effort of giving Frodo Every last chance he could by distracting Sauron was the valient part of it...it had nothing to do with fighting Sauron.

I hope they they realize that Killing Veidt is the same as have Aragon fighting Sauron in hand to hand combat.

Veidt is supposed to live, and we are supposed to comtemplate the moral complexities of if he was correct or not. Veidt is not necessarily a 'bad guy' in this story. The beauty of Viedt is that you are unsure if he is the ultimate hero or ultimate bad guy.

Killing him leaves this discussion out of it, as it naturally implies he is a bad guy. I sure hope they don't.

 

[Mysterio]

In LOTR at the end Peter Jackson orgianally had Aragon fighting Sauron at the Black Gate....He later realized that this heroic fight actually made our hero less heroic...It was the blind effort of giving Frodo Every last chance he could by distracting Sauron was the valient part of it...it had nothing to do with fighting Sauron.

I hope they they realize that Killing Veidt is the same as have Aragon fighting Sauron in hand to hand combat.

Veidt is supposed to live, and we are supposed to comtemplate the moral complexities of if he was correct or not. Veidt is not necessarily a 'bad guy' in this story. The beauty of Viedt is that you are unsure if he is the ultimate hero or ultimate bad guy.

Killing him leaves this discussion out of it, as it naturally implies he is a bad guy. I sure hope they don't.

the man has committed mass murder and he's not necessarily a "bad guy"?

 

[sad lieutenant]

the man has committed mass murder and he's not necessarily a "bad guy"?

Umm, yeah, Fella... This ambivalence/contradiction is sort of the point. This is one of the "layers" of meaning that people frequently allude to when speaking of Watchmen. Hence Rorschach's hypocrisy when his journals exude admiration for Truman, and yet he will not "compromise" by keeping silent about Veidt's plot. Truman = killed millions to end war; Veidt = killed millions for world peace.

Oh, and: Veidt must live!

 

[Lobster Charlie]

He's got to live. And they have to make it absolutely clear that at the very end, the audience understands that Rorschach's journal ends up in revealing everything to the world.

One issue with this is that audiences may not be that clever, and ZS will have bash them over the head with the idea that the word gets out, Veidt gets caught, etc. (shown visually, possibly in a montage with voice-over, of course).

But yeah, killing Veidt just ruins everything. And I really, really, really want that scene where Dr. Manhattan says those parting words before vanishing.

 

[Mysterio]

Umm, yeah, Fella... This ambivalence/contradiction is sort of the point. This is one of the "layers" of meaning that people frequent allude to when referencing Watchmen. Hence Rorschach's hypocrisy when his journals exude admiration for Truman, and yet he will not "compromise" by keeping silent about Veidt's plot. Truman = killed millions to end war; Veidt = killed millions for world peace.

Veidt must live!

the only contradiction there in regards to "good guy" versus "bad guy" is that Veidt is/was a costumed superhero. he isn't a good guy. the major theme of the piece is anti-war/anti-nukes/anti-peace at any cost. the authors are clearly not portraying Veidt as a good guy; they are in fierce opposition to what Veidt stands for.

and Rorscach isn't being hypocritical in admiring Truman and not keeping silent about Veidt's plot, but i can see how an anti-war, no nukes person (the authors) would think so.

 

[Qwerty©]

then i guess i don't understand the story. whether Veidt lives or dies at the end is immaterial; what matters is 1) his plan succeeded, and 2) the other heroes remain complicit in the conspiracy.

I guess you don't.

 

[Mysterio]

I guess you don't.

that was insightful. would you perhaps care to explain?

 

[Qwerty©]

that was insightful. would you perhaps care to explain?

Veidt needs to live because he is the bad guy who ends up being more successful than the good guys at bringing peace, through means that are viewed as evil. If he is killed, then it becomes a standard "bad guy is defeated by the good guy" situation. Part of the impact of the ending is that the bad guy doesn't receive his comeuppance, and that the good guys are unsure of if they should stop him.

 

[Gilpesh]

Veidt needs to live because he is the bad guy who ends up being more successful than the good guys at bringing peace, through means that are viewed as evil. If he is killed, then it becomes a standard "bad guy is defeated by the good guy" situation. Part of the impact of the ending is that the bad guy doesn't receive his comeuppance, and that the good guys are unsure of if they should stop him.

Exactly. Those 'heroes' only success would be stopping the 'villain' who was going to stop nuclear wars at least in the short run. He has done bad things for the right reason and who's to say doing the good thing for the wrong reason is any better?

 

[Overman27pj]

the only contradiction there in regards to "good guy" versus "bad guy" is that Veidt is/was a costumed superhero. he isn't a good guy. the major theme of the piece is anti-war/anti-nukes/anti-peace at any cost. the authors are clearly not portraying Veidt as a good guy; they are in fierce opposition to what Veidt stands for.

and Rorscach isn't being hypocritical in admiring Truman and not keeping silent about Veidt's plot, but i can see how an anti-war, no nukes person (the authors) would think so.

Dude I can't believe you missed that far off....

A) Veidt killed millions, but saved humainity. That's every person on the planet, and every person that will ever live on the planet from that moment on. Every hero, every villian, every lover, every marvel, every advancement, could not go on if there are no humans left.

It is purposely left ambigious whether Viedt is good or bad. It is up to the reader to decide, and debate, and wonder...this is one of the reasons why the character sticks with us so!!!

B) Truman droped 2 nukes on Japan, Killed Millions, and Ended a war, saving lives in the process.
Viedt droped one 'bomb' on NewYork, Killed Millions, and prevented a war, saving lives in the process.

RS counts Truman as a hero, but counts Viedt as a villian. Do you not see the hypocracy? They did basically the same acts, yet he thinks one a hero and the other a villian!!!

Whats awesome about this character analysis is that RS counted Truman as a hero (much like his father), BEFORE he was truely Rorscach. He made that decision before he realized the emptyness of it all, and how he could scrawl his own moral compass on the world. It is a belief he carried over, and now Viedt does the same thing, but Rorscach thinks differently, he thinks that Viedt is a monster, much like his mother thought of truman.

This is done to show that Rorscach's black and white point of view doesn't work in the real world. Rorscach realizes that he is being the hypocrite, and this is why he is crying at the end, just before he dies.

He either has to admit Truman's guilt or Viedt's innocence, he refuses to do either, and is troubled by what this means. It causes him to break down, cry, and have manhatten take his life.