Should Veidt live or die?

[Mysterio]

another layer, the deconstruction of the comic book medium and the archtypes of characters involved.

i've referenced that one earleer in the thread. so how does Veidt's being killed or dying "blatantly contrast" this layer?

 

[Motown Marvel]

i've referenced that one earleer in the thread. so how does Veidt's being killed or dying "blatantly contrast" this layer?

i thought i didnt have to explain these to you? and dont forget the other "layers" being posted by everyone else.

 

[Mysterio]

i thought i didnt have to explain these to you? and dont forget the other "layers" being posted by everyone else.

i'm not asking you to explain the layers/themes. i'm asking you to explain how that layer would be "blatantly contrasted" by Veidt's being killed.

as for the others, yes, i'm aware of and recognized quite a bit of them as i read and digested the book. you've incorrectly assumed i was unaware of or blatantly ignored any other theme beyond anti-war/anti-nuke. i never said i didn't know them; all i've asked of you is to identify the layers that would be blatantly contrasted by Veidt's being killed. that is, after all, the subject of this thread.

 

[Gilpesh]

One layer, shades of gray.

Aka Truman bombing Japan and Veidt 'bombing' New York. Both morally gray areas.

i'm not asking you to explain the layers/themes. i'm asking you to explain how that layer would be "blatantly contrasted" by Veidt's being killed.

as for the others, yes, i'm aware of and recognized quite a bit of them as i read and digested the book. you've incorrectly assumed i was unaware of or blatantly ignored any other theme beyond anti-war/anti-nuke. i never said i didn't know them; all i've asked of you is to identify the layers that would be blatantly contrasted by Veidt's being killed. that is, after all, the subject of this thread.

That one. If Veidt were killed it would automatically deem him the bad guy and the few who stood up to him heroes. That's why Rorschach dies. He lives in absolutes, black and white whereas the world is shades of gray.

There's you answer.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i'm not asking you to explain the layers/themes. i'm asking you to explain how that layer would be "blatantly contrasted" by Veidt's being killed.

you're asking me to explain it!!! if i need to explain it, then you clearly dont understand it!

shall we recap our conversation?

-you said the book is about anti-war/nuke/etc. i said theres far more going on than just that.
- you asked what. i said if you didnt understand it when moore presented it, you're not gonna understand it when i present it, so im not gonna play teacher and explain it to you.
-you said i dont have to explain it, just list another layer at work.
- i listed another layer, and now you want me to explain it!!

seriously man, at what point are you going to recognize that you might not have as good of an understanding of this story than you originally thought you did. i mean, im not an expert on the novel, far from it...but come on, man, you're not totally with it here.

 

[Mysterio]

you're asking me to explain it!!! if i need to explain it, then you clearly dont understand it!

christ that isn't what that means at all. i'm trying to have a discussion - that's usually a two-way venture. i'm not asking you to explain the theme; i'm asking you to explain how that theme would be ruined if Veidt lives. that's your claim. i'm asking you to explain your position so that we can discuss it. maybe i'll agree, maybe i won't. but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously if they are unable or unwilling to present and discuss it. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. i don't know why you can't do the same for me.

 

[Motown Marvel]

christ that isn't what that means at all. i'm trying to have a discussion - that's usually a two-way venture. i'm not asking you to explain the theme; i'm asking you to explain how that theme would be ruined if Veidt lives. that's your claim. i'm asking you to explain your position so that we can discuss it. maybe i'll agree, maybe i won't. but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously if they are unable or unwilling to present and discuss it. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. i don't know why you can't do the same for me.

2 way discussion? man, this discussion has been one way the whole time! its been everyone here telling you that your not fully understanding the story, and you essentially sticking your fingers in your ears like a stubborn child going LA LA LA LA LA LA im not listening!

if you want to have a two way discussion on the themes of the book, then you must read the book, recognize and understand themes, so then you have something to bring to the table to actually discuss. your not bringing anything to the table. this whole "discussion" has been people pandering to your closed minded uninformed superficial take on the book.

and even worse, this thread is being ruined for people who know what they're talking about from even discussing it because you're constantly in here running amuck and distracting proper discussion with your ill informed views.

im off to work.

 

[Mysterio]

2 way discussion? man, this discussion has been one way the whole time!

it sure has. you keep saying, "i'm not going to explain anything to you." i'm trying to make the effort, but you keep leading me to believe that you don't know a darn thing because you refuse to discuss your opinions. you would rather it just be accepted without question that "you know" or that you "fully understand" the story, but you don't say a damn thing. you're just interested in protecting your opinion from being analyzed, afraid that someone may disagree with it or challenge it.

and even worse, this thread is being ruined for people who know what they're talking about from even discussing it because you're constantly in here running amuck and distracting proper discussion with your ill informed views.

ill-informed views. wow. talk about close minded. christ, i'm trying to have a discussion about the topic of this thread and you are refusing to participate! you're the one who started the thread, even asking the question, "how important is it he lives?" if you're asking that question then maybe you don't fully understand the book. you certainly aren't interested in hearing people say it isn't important since you immediately say, "veidt being killed...blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen." so if that's the case, why ask the question or start the thread to begin with?

 

[Lobster Charlie]

Way too much drama on these boards.

 

[Overman27pj]

 

[Motown Marvel]

it sure has. you keep saying, "i'm not going to explain anything to you." i'm trying to make the effort, but you keep leading me to believe that you don't know a darn thing because you refuse to discuss your opinions. you would rather it just be accepted without question that "you know" or that you "fully understand" the story, but you don't say a damn thing. you're just interested in protecting your opinion from being analyzed, afraid that someone may disagree with it or challenge it.

ill-informed views. wow. talk about close minded. christ, i'm trying to have a discussion about the topic of this thread and you are refusing to participate! you're the one who started the thread, even asking the question, "how important is it he lives?" if you're asking that question then maybe you don't fully understand the book. you certainly aren't interested in hearing people say it isn't important since you immediately say, "veidt being killed...blatantly contrasts the other layers at work in watchmen." so if that's the case, why ask the question or start the thread to begin with?

sigh. fine, you want me to lay it out for you? heres why veidt dying would blatantly constrast the themes of watchmen:

one of the big things about watchmen, is that its a complete deconstruction of the comic book medium. especially in 1986 when the book was published, this was never seen before in comics, which is why it was considered to be a landmark revolutionary book. alan moore completely breaks down all the general comic book stereotypes and archtypes of the medium and characters involved. he broke them down to pieces, analyzed them, self referenced them, and then refined and redefined them.

one of the things that resulted is that theres essentially no "bad guy" in the story. which brings up the question: what does it mean to be a villain? the closest thing that comes to a villain is veidt, who's agenda is to save the world from nuclear armageddon, leaving humanity to live in peace (doesnt sound so bad). plus, veidt gets away with everything scott free. he pays no personal price for his actions. unlike the stereotypical villain, who always pays a price. considering the way veidt goes about doing this brings us to the themes of "shades of grey" and the idea of the cost of the greater good. at what cost should humanity pay in order for it to be saved? what is acceptable?

but there are two important aspects of veidt: his actions, and the result of his actions. his actions are bad, but the results are good. so is he a hero, or villain? this is a shade of grey that is debatable, its a discussion that is meant to be provoked from the text. the book doesn't take any sides, nor does it intend to. there is no intentions to directly imply veidt is one or the other (good or bad). it is up to the audiences personal opinion to decide for themselves what he is.

but, to have the protagonists kill veidt would be to naturally cast him as the villain. good guys live, bad guys die, thats how it works. thats the convention. but watchmen is not conventional, its breaking all the conventional rules purposely in order to provoke these ideas. but if veidt is the villain, then theres is no shades of grey to him or his actions. he is bad, and what he is doing is bad, because thats what a villain is. even if his plan succeeds, by killing him he pays a personal price for his actions, as the villain generally does.

by killing him, he's just another conventional comic book archtype dying from a conventional comic book stereotype, which completely destroys the intentions of deconstructing the medium in the first place. but if he lives, the audience is left with a personal discussion of the themes that spring to the surface: surviving in a word where everything isnt black and white. a hero/villain journey isnt always about good vs. evil. shades of grey complicate things. at what cost are we willing to pay for the greater good. and most importantly, what does it mean to be a hero and what does it mean to be a villain?

alan moore worked the story carefully and deliberately for these themes. it was the purpose of the story. its intentions isnt to tell a yarn about dudes in masks going after a guy trying to blow up new york. that is merely the vehicle to get deeper themes across. it was written to challenge the idea of heroes and villains, good vs. evil. it was written to break those conventions and stereotyped archtypes. it provokes debate, but doesnt take either side of the debate. it merely says, here's an idea, how do YOU feel about it? but if you pander to those conventional stereotypical archtypes of good vs. evil, hero and villain, then everything else unravels and becomes meaningless.

this is just merely the surface of all that, and i totally just spout it off by giving it little thought. things go way deeper than this. but all of this should have been obvious when you read the book, if you paid closer attention to it. which is why i didnt want to sit here and have to explain it to you. i didnt want to have to make up for your shortcomings of recognizing the obvious from a text. but all in all, veidt CANT die. it would completely fly in the face of the story's purpose.

 

[Compi716]

AHEM...

To answer the question posed in the first post in the timeless words of George Costanza...

LIVE DAMMIT!

 

[Motown Marvel]

and by the way, anyone else may feel free to jump in and refine/add to what im trying to say above. im not always best when trying to explain these things.

 

[Gilpesh]

and by the way, anyone else may feel free to jump in and refine/add to what im trying to say above. im not always best when trying to explain these things.

Heck, you said all I've been trying to say with Ostrich man in the form he wants... it'll be hilarious to see him try and ignore that.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Heck, you said all I've been trying to say with Ostrich man in the form he wants... it'll be hilarious to see him try and ignore that.

im sure he'll prove my time to be wasted when he tries to refute its logic...just as i presumed from the beginning. but heres for hoping he'll surprise us all, it'd be greatly appreciated.

 

[logansoldcigar]

but we're clearly led to believe that he doesn't get away with it, and that the truth will be made public when the kid grabs Rorschach's journal at the end. so really, while his plan has succeeded to a degree, the truth will be revealed.

Interesting. I dont see that we are led to believe that, simply because Rorschachs journal contains nothing about the world peace plot. it contains details about his belief that Adrian Veidt was behind the "mask Killers" campaign, and that rorscach was heading to Karnak to confront him on the subject.

at best, if people looked on the paper as a respected source of journalism, it wopuld be asking them to believe the ramblings of psycotic murderer and prison escapee. Even if it did contain details of veidts actual plot, it would be the word of the nutbag against the worlds smartest man. One winner.

Its highly important veidt lives.

1) The way that Rorscach refuses to accept the hard line attitude where the ends justified the horrific means, when he has spent the last x amount of years living by just that rule. wants information, breaks some bones till he get it.

whereas the "liberal, possibly homosexual" Veidt was prepared to do whatever it took to gain world peace, even at the cost of his soul (I did the right thing, didnt I? It all worked out in the end?" is clearly the statement of a man IS feeling guilt over what he has just done, and is looking for re-assurance.

2) To kill him accomplishes no purpose from a dramatic POV. He has done what he set out to do. why kill him? it wont make a difference.
If they do Kill Veidt at the end of the film, its for one reason and one reason only:

Hollywood's idea (rightly or wrongly) that its biggest individual market place is so full of morons that they had to release "the Madness of King George 6th" with out the 6th bit: so they didnt wonder what happened to the first 5 parts.
that the first harry Potter book was called Sorcerer's stone (rather than Philosophers stone) as it was everywhere else, cos they might wonder why a Philosopher is in a book about wizards. and that they cant have a movie about Superheroes that is Morally ambiguous, in which we actually have to question whom the villian of the piece actually is.


I personally dont think the people of that country are that stupid. Seems Hollywood does.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Killing off Veidt in the film when he lived in the graphic novel would be stupid.

 

[Mysterio]

sigh. fine, you want me to lay it out
for you? heres why veidt dying would blatantly constrast the themes of

watchmen:

finally. now was that so tough to do? although you still can't refrain from making snarky, insulting comments, i
appreciate that you made the effort. can't expect everything at once i suppose. now...


there is one flaw in your reasoning that particularly stands out: you are assuming that the protagonists - plural - kill veidt. that isn't a necessity. in the comic, Rorschach is opposed to the idea of compromise (as is Laurie initially. she does try to kill Veidt, after all) and refuses to be a part of the conspiracy; he isn't a moral relativist. if Rorschach were the one to kill Veidt and then the others kill Rorschach to protect Veidt's secret (as Dr. Manhattan did), then it basically works out to be the same thing as it does in the comic. especially if the audience believes that the rest are going to side with Rorschach.

i would also disagree about the comic book stereotype of the villain being killed. that's not really the stereotype. i can't think of many comics i read as a kid and teen in which the villain dies. what does happen - usually - is that either the hero bests the villain or the villain bests the hero and gets away, but ultimately, good prevails. what they are deconstructing is the hero, showing us that these people are not heroes, that they have their flaws - and that they are, ultimately, violent, dark people who have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own ideas of justice with their own ideas of morality with no regard to innocents. they aren't working in tandem with a police commissioner or leaving bad guys tied up in webbing for the police. even by killing Vedit, good doesn't prevail. we're not supposed to like or admire or look up to these people. Viedt's living or dying doesn't change that. again, if the "heroes" were to join Rorschach and renounce Veidt's plan, his goal, and his method, then we'd have a serious problem and the entire comic would be undermined; it would be a failure.

the deconstruction of the medium and of the superhero is already there and has been throughout the comic regardless of whether Veidt lives or dies. discussion of the presented themes - and of the Veidt's plan - would not die along with Veidt. again, his plan has already come to fruition: millions of innocents have died and, he believes, war is ended. we know, however, that war will never be eliminated and Jon - the ultimate war deterrent - effectively tells him so. when i read the story, i was immediately reminded of the crossbow, a weapon believed to be so terrible that it would end war forever (i believe it was a pope who said it. don't remember exactly). that was a millennium ago. we've seen how that prediction turned out. Veidt may be successful in the very short term, but not in the long term. like the end of war the crossbow was believed to herald, i doubt Veidt's "success" sticks.

alan moore worked the story carefully and deliberately for these themes. it was the purpose of the story. its intentions isnt to tell a yarn about dudes in masks going after a guy trying to blow up new york. that is merely the vehicle to get deeper themes across. it was written to challenge the idea of heroes and villains, good vs. evil. it was written to break those conventions and stereotyped archtypes. it provokes debate, but doesnt take either side of the debate. it merely says, here's an idea, how do YOU feel about it? but if you pander to those conventional stereotypical archtypes of good vs. evil, hero and villain, then everything else unravels and becomes meaningless.

for the most part, i agree; however, i do feel that they are taking, what is to me, an obvious stand. being a teenager through the majority of the reagan administration and growing up during the Cold War...believe me, nuclear war between the US and USSR was pretty much accepted as inevitable. i think the anti-nuke theme is the largest, strongest, and most pronounced theme in the book. from the constant use of the doomsday clock, which started off each issue, to the nuclear football chained to Nixon's wrist, to Dr. Manhattan's name, to the images of vaporization, etc. that theme is underlined with a companion theme: "who watches the watchmen?"

ultimately, the "heroes" agree with Veidt's decision and agree to keep silent - except for Rorschach, and i think that agreement is more important than whether Veidt lives or dies. your "shades of gray" still exists.

but all in all, veidt CANT die. it would completely fly in the face of the story's purpose.

i'll ask you again: if you are adamant that Veidt CAN'T die, then why did you start the thread and why did you ask the question how important is it he lives?

surely you recognize that you are asking people for their opinions on whether or not it's important that he lives. i'm giving you and the board mine and i'm giving my reasoning for it. if you were never interested in hearing a differing view, then why ask the question in the first place?

 

[Mysterio]

Interesting. I dont see that we are led to believe that, simply because Rorschachs journal contains nothing about the world peace plot. it contains details about his belief that Adrian Veidt was behind the "mask Killers" campaign, and that rorscach was heading to Karnak to confront him on the subject.

but it's a starting point; an entry to discovering the full truth, and one that will be made public.

at best, if people looked on the paper as a respected source of journalism, it wopuld be asking them to believe the ramblings of psycotic murderer and prison escapee. Even if it did contain details of veidts actual plot, it would be the word of the nutbag against the worlds smartest man. One winner.

that's very true. Ozymandias is admired, well-respected, and is viewed as a hero, but like his namesake in Shelly's poem, it eventually all crumbles away; it's only temporary.

Its highly important veidt lives.

1) The way that Rorscach refuses to accept the hard line attitude where the ends justified the horrific means, when he has spent the last x amount of years living by just that rule. wants information, breaks some bones till he get it.

whereas the "liberal, possibly homosexual" Veidt was prepared to do whatever it took to gain world peace, even at the cost of his soul (I did the right thing, didnt I? It all worked out in the end?" is clearly the statement of a man IS feeling guilt over what he has just done, and is looking for re-assurance.

2) To kill him accomplishes no purpose from a dramatic POV. He has done what he set out to do. why kill him? it wont make a difference.
If they do Kill Veidt at the end of the film, its for one reason and one reason only:

Hollywood's idea (rightly or wrongly) that its biggest individual market place is so full of morons that they had to release "the Madness of King George 6th" with out the 6th bit: so they didnt wonder what happened to the first 5 parts.
that the first harry Potter book was called Sorcerer's stone (rather than Philosophers stone) as it was everywhere else, cos they might wonder why a Philosopher is in a book about wizards. and that they cant have a movie about Superheroes that is Morally ambiguous, in which we actually have to question whom the villian of the piece actually is.

I personally dont think the people of that country are that stupid. Seems Hollywood does.

your points have merit. the reason why i believe that he isn't feeling guilt is because with guilt comes remorse and regret - they're part and parcel, and i don't see Veidt as being remorseful. ah, hell. i can see it both ways. i can see how his appeal to Jon for reassurance could be the pangs of guilt. but to your second point, i agree: he has done what he set out to do, so what difference does it make if he dies as long as it isn't done as an act of justice?

 

[Motown Marvel]

there is one flaw in your reasoning that particularly stands out: you are assuming that the protagonists - plural - kill veidt. that isn't a necessity. in the comic, Rorschach is opposed to the idea of compromise (as is Laurie initially. she does try to kill Veidt, after all) and refuses to be a part of the conspiracy; he isn't a moral relativist. if Rorschach were the one to kill Veidt and then the others kill Rorschach to protect Veidt's secret (as Dr. Manhattan did), then it basically works out to be the same thing as it does in the comic. especially if the audience believes that the rest are going to side with Rorschach.

no it doesnt work out. because then it panders to the convention of veidt paying a personal price for his actions, which result in him being painted as a villain.

i would also disagree about the comic book stereotype of the villain being killed. that's not really the stereotype. i can't think of many comics i read as a kid and teen in which the villain dies. what does happen - usually - is that either the hero bests the villain or the villain bests the hero and gets away, but ultimately, good prevails.

yes, the villain doesnt have to die, thats just the case we're talking about. but as mentioned, the villain always pays a price for his actions in some way. but in watchmen, since its not a black and white story, since there are shades of grey, veidt isnt suppose to be a villain, he doesnt pay a price for his actions, he gets away with it scott free.

what they are deconstructing is the hero, showing us that these people are not heroes, that they have their flaws - and that they are, ultimately, violent, dark people who have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own ideas of justice with their own ideas of morality with no regard to innocents. they aren't working in tandem with a police commissioner or leaving bad guys tied up in webbing for the police. even by killing Vedit, good doesn't prevail. we're not supposed to like or admire or look up to these people. Viedt's living or dying doesn't change that. again, if the "heroes" were to join Rorschach and renounce Veidt's plan, his goal, and his method, then we'd have a serious problem and the entire comic would be undermined; it would be a failure.

yes yes, it deconstructs the hero too, i know. but that has less to do with the topic at hand.

the deconstruction of the medium and of the superhero is already there and has been throughout the comic regardless of whether Veidt lives or dies.

but why deconstruct everything only to pander to the most painfully obvious convention at the end?!

discussion of the presented themes - and of the Veidt's plan - would not die along with Veidt.

you're truly hopeless.

again, his plan has already come to fruition: millions of innocents have died and, he believes, war is ended.

it isnt about the plan, its about the man!

we know, however, that war will never be eliminated and Jon - the ultimate war deterrent - effectively tells him so. when i read the story, i was immediately reminded of the crossbow, a weapon believed to be so terrible that it would end war forever (i believe it was a pope who said it. don't remember exactly). that was a millennium ago. we've seen how that prediction turned out. Veidt may be successful in the very short term, but not in the long term. like the end of war the crossbow was believed to herald, i doubt Veidt's "success" sticks.

the success of his plan has little to do with it.

for the most part, i agree; however, i do feel that they are taking, what is to me, an obvious stand. being a teenager through the majority of the reagan administration and growing up during the Cold War...believe me, nuclear war between the US and USSR was pretty much accepted as inevitable. i think the anti-nuke theme is the largest, strongest, and most pronounced theme in the book. from the constant use of the doomsday clock, which started off each issue, to the nuclear football chained to Nixon's wrist, to Dr. Manhattan's name, to the images of vaporization, etc. that theme is underlined with a companion theme: "who watches the watchmen?"

yes, the nuclear thing is a big theme in the book. but its not the only theme. nor is it even the most important. clearly, it stuck out and struck you the most...cool. but theres a lot more going on and it imperative that the other things are properly portrayed.

ultimately, the "heroes" agree with Veidt's decision and agree to keep silent - except for Rorschach, and i think that agreement is more important than whether Veidt lives or dies. your "shades of gray" still exists.

the shades of grey would be highly diluted, in that case. at that point in the story, the heroes would merely be dealing with the results of veidts actions, which they failed to stop. what other choice to they have? its forced on them. but they CHOOSE not to kill or reprimand veidt.

i'll ask you again: if you are adamant that Veidt CAN'T die, then why did you start the thread and why did you ask the question how important is it he lives?

because, theres rumors that he is set to be killed in the script. that cant happen. movie studios, now more than ever, tend to keep an eye on what the fanbases are saying about the projects. this gave the fans reason to vocalize their displeasure with the idea of veidt dying. so, in hopes, if veidt is in fact set to be killed off in the script...theres a slight chance that someone of importance will see this, recognize how upset people would be about that, and do the right thing and remedy that in the script. im all for discussing other views though...but it helps when the person im discussing it with has a more informed opinion of the matter.

surely you recognize that you are asking people for their opinions on whether or not it's important that he lives. i'm giving you and the board mine and i'm giving my reasoning for it. if you were never interested in hearing a differing view, then why ask the question in the first place?

i have no problem hearing a differing view, you just seem so uninformed about it to the point where i had to type a novel to explain the obvious! but you clearly seem hopeless to understand alan moore's intentions and im essentially giving up on you as you refuse to even try to understand.

 

[Mysterio]

yes, the villain doesnt have to die, thats just the case we're talking about. but as mentioned, the villain always pays a price for his actions in some way. but in watchmen, since its not a black and white story, since there are shades of grey, veidt isnt suppose to be a villain, he doesnt pay a price for his actions, he gets away with it scott free.

hmm. still can't make a post without being a total ass. and i thought we were making progress. if you think that Alan Moore doesn't intend Veidt to be a villain, then i submit that you haven't read the book and that you don't understand it as well as you think you do, despite stamping your foot and puffing out your cheeks. do you not understand the parallels he's making, not just with Veidt but with all of the "heroes"? what do you think "who watches the watchmen" refers to? you think that is supposed to be taken on the literal level? do you have no sense of context for when the piece was written and the political and social climates at the time?

but it helps when the person im discussing it with has a more informed opinion of the matter.

read: unequivocally agrees with me

i have no problem hearing a differing view, you just seem so uninformed about it to the point where i had to type a novel to explain the obvious! but you clearly seem hopeless to understand alan moore's intentions and im essentially giving up on you as you refuse to even try to understand.

you clearly do have a problem with a differing view, and you have throughout this thread. you are the close minded one here who says, "that can't happen." how can you say that i refuse to understand when i constantly have been saying i see the other side's point of view? i'm just presenting another view. on the contrary, you don't acknowledge mine at all. and no, i'm not talking about anti-nukes or anti-war, i'm talking about Veidt dying. you have yet to allow that view into your close-minded little world. you haven't even considered it; you've dismissed it from the start. if all you're looking for are people to parrot back to you your thoughts and opinions, then say so. although, i suppose you already did in your own way a few pages back.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

I thought it was pretty obvious why MM opened this thread. Every script that was leaked so far contains the godawful scene with Nite Owl killing Ozymandias in that typical, slimy pathetic hollywood-underdog fashion. If said scene remains intact in the current or upcoming draft, we, the fans, intend to make our voices be heard, in case anyone from WB is listening.
Mysterio, on the other hand, pretty much derailed the thread, discussing moot points whether this or that scenario would still work within Watchmen's main plot.

 

[Mysterio]

Every script that was leaked so far contains the godawful scene with Nite Owl killing Ozymandias in that typical, slimy pathetic hollywood-underdog fashion. If said scene remains intact in the current or upcoming draft, we, the fans, intend to make our voices be heard, in case anyone from WB is listening.

i absolutely agree. i haven't seen or read any leaked scripts and did not know that Nite Owl would kill Ozymandias. the opening post just said "there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film." didn't mention Nite Owl doing it. that would be unacceptable.

Mysterio, on the other hand, pretty much derailed the thread, discussing moot points whether this or that scenario would still work within Watchmen's main plot.

since the person who started the thread asked "how important is it he lives?" i don't see how i've derailed the thread. i've been addressing that very question the entire time. if anything has derailed the thread, it's the immature namecalling and insults. this thread wouldn't be half as long without them.

 

[Motown Marvel]

hmm. still can't make a post without being a total ass.

i wouldnt want to disappoint your expectations.

and i thought we were making progress.

that would require you to make an effort in logic.

if you think that Alan Moore doesn't intend Veidt to be a villain, then i submit that you haven't read the book and that you don't understand it as well as you think you do, despite stamping your foot and puffing out your cheeks.

thats a cute game your trying to play there.

do you not understand the parallels he's making, not just with Veidt but with all of the "heroes"?

yes, i do. but my focus is on veidt, here. and while the "heroes" play into that, its to a lesser degree than more imperative factors, which are more suited for this discussion.

what do you think "who watches the watchmen" refers to? you think that is supposed to be taken on the literal level? do you have no sense of context for when the piece was written and the political and social climates at the time?

so, now your trying to contradict my point without making a point yourself as you blatantly ignore the numerous points i've made in my previous post?

read: unequivocally agrees with me

you know what, yes, that is exactly what i mean here. but its not a matter of agreeing with me, its agreeing with the book itself and alan moore. there is a right and a wrong, here. the right thing is having veidt live, the wrong thing is having him die. this much is obvious to anyone who understands the text. its not to much of a stretch to say if you think veidt can die, then you dont understand the text. and if you dont understand the text, then theres no point in having a discussion about the text with you.

you clearly do have a problem with a differing view, and you have throughout this thread. you are the close minded one here who says, "that can't happen."

i say it cant happen because for the integrity of the book to be upheld...it cant happen!

how can you say that i refuse to understand when i constantly have been saying i see the other side's point of view?

er, but you havent.

i'm just presenting another view. on the contrary, you don't acknowledge mine at all.

because its wrong, has little merit, and shows little understanding of the text. its like your getting frustrated with me because im certain 2+2=4!

and no, i'm not talking about anti-nukes or anti-war,

then why do you constantly bring it up?

i'm talking about Veidt dying.

glad to see we're on the same page.

you have yet to allow that view into your close-minded little world. you haven't even considered it; you've dismissed it from the start.

veidt dying? yeah, i totally dismissed it as a competent idea. because the idea is sheer ignorance. its like saying "come on...does captain hook REALLY need to have a hook for a hand?" of course he does! is it closed minded to insist as much?

if all you're looking for are people to parrot back to you your thoughts and opinions, then say so. although, i suppose you already did in your own way a few pages back.

yeah, it was expected that most people would agree with logic, and if anything, this thread proves as much. look at the poll.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

i absolutely agree. i haven't seen or read any leaked scripts and did not know that Nite Owl would kill Ozymandias. the opening post just said "there's lots of rumors that say veidt is set to get nixed at the end of the film." didn't mention Nite Owl doing it. that would be unacceptable.

Ah. So this whole discussion resulted from a giant misunderstanding. Fine. That settles it. Enough.
Perhaps the original poster should have been more specific as to what he was reffering to, especially for folks who are not up to date with recent script leaks and rumors, but the point still stands.

Anyway, here's what happens in the scripts; the final confrontation with Veidt, Manhattan and Laurie arriving, Rorschach dying, all that, more or less, happens exactly as in the comic. THEN, the offensive part comes in; Dan, after making love to Laurie by the pool, decides to confront Veidt:

DAN: Adrian, I've changed my mind, I'm gonna make you pay for your crimes anyway, and even though you beat the crap out of me and Rorschach while sipping wine moments ago, not to mention catching a ****ing bullet, with a little help from bad writing, I will somehow manage to kill you with my owlarang... or my owlship, depends on the draft.
ADRIAN: *reads drafts* That's preposterous! Hayter, Tse, you wouldn't do this to me, would you?

TSE & HAYTER: Oh yes. Die, you possibly homosexual liberal, you!