Kevin Smith
Superhero
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
edit
Last edited:
Its not the story that people dont get. Its pretty clear that most people dont understand what the movie is doing, in terms of its deconstruction of superhero lore. They simply dont grasp it. They should, but many didnt, including critics.
Many people dont understand the concept of deconstruction to begin with, so how would they recognize it when it happens? WATCHMEN clearly went over a lot of people's heads, or at least, they missed half the point of it upon viewing. And that's reasonable. Most people aren't attuned to that kind of literary/film analysis. Most people go to movies to be entertained.
The first time we meet Veidt in the book, its raining. The color palette is somber blues, subdued purples, and grays, etc. It appears to be dark inside his office. He himself is portrayed in shadow a lot, and hes brooding like, the whole time.
The next time we meet him, hes talking about death to his assistant.
Dark may be the wrong word to use, but hes certainly portrayed as a somewhat somber and contemplative fellow, which is how the film portrays him as well.
Im not sure what you mean by the book handled the sequence better with the panel layout its a different media to begin with.
Still, the movie handles the cyanide capsule sequence about the same as the book did. Its certainly not very obvious that Veidt gives him the capsule in either version.
Veidt is angry with the guy, and Veidt appears to try to prevent the guy from biting down on the poison. In the book, Veidts fingers are shown inside the guys mouth, where in the film, hes got his hand sort of shoved sideways between the guys upper and lower jaw preventing him from biting down.
The movie actually handles it with less dialogue and less action. So if anything, the film is more subtle in its handling of this element than the book was. You must not recall the graphic novels portrayal of the dying man. He looks terrified there, too. And he should. He's dying of cyanide.
You could definitely make an argument that the overall assassination sequence in the book is more subtle, at least up until the part with the capsule, but then a lot of the elements in the films version of the assassination are clearly drawn from the layout of the event in the book (the spraying blood and the choice to use slo-mo here are clearly influenced by whats in the book).
Of course it portrayed him with less dimension. Its a movie adaption. It doesnt have the luxury of having Veidt ramble on about who he is for page after page. Even the book had to put that stuff in appendixes to the main story. However, the key aspects of Veidts personality and character are intact in the film.
I think its pretty clear that by the end of the movie, youre meant to question whether Veidt may be playing with a full deck before he reveals his motivations, as are his former fellow heroes, though the film handles it a bit more subtlety, and doesn't have them actually say "What if he's gone crazy?". He plays the character with a subtle detachment in the scene with his scientists, and the scene where Rorschach and Nite Owl confront him, and his actions certainly do not appear to be those of a completely sane man. Its obvious the others dont understand why hes done what hes done or what hes doing until he explains his plan to them.
Yes, theyre that important. And many of them are in the film.
Ok...........great discussion.
Question: Would any of you want to see a sequel? See how this faux peace plays out??
I was so hyped for this movie. It's one of only 2 movies for which I've ever channeled my excitement into a making fan trailer, as Watchmen was, at the time, my favorite comic ever (it's still pretty high up there). But I just walked out of the theater so colossally disappointed. I hated how Snyder ratcheted up the violence to the point that gives the impression they all had some kind of super-strength, I hated most of the acting, the make-up, half of the music choices, the pacing....I just didn't like it. I loved exactly two parts: The opening credits and the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence. And ironically, one of the few things I didn't mind was the changed ending. The biggest change from the comic and I thought that worked fine. It was just, aside from those couple of inspired sequences, the whole affair felt totally stiff and soulless to me. After I walked out, so let down by such a slavishly faithful (for the most part) adaptation, I couldn't help but think, "maybe Terry Gilliam was right and it truly was unfilmable." I don't know, it just didn't work as a whole for me.
Ok...........great discussion.
Question: Would any of you want to see a sequel? See how this faux peace plays out??
I was saying it wasn't there for them to understand. Not in the way it should have been at least.
I feel like Veidt in the movie and Veidt in the book are two different animals. The movie Veidt even has a psuedo german accent when he speaks. "Yeah, he's not the bad guy at all."
The reason it worked for me (and I can't believe I'm actually defending this movie right after posting about how much I don't care for it, lol), is because at that point, Dr. Manhattan had become an alien threat to most. He stopped representing America and left the planet in anger, which the whole world saw on live television. It was clear that America had lost control of him. So the idea was that Ozymandias was deliberately painting him as this American weapon that had evolved into an alien threat to the entire world, America included. Even if the rest of the world would blame America for creating him in the first place, they'd still recognize that they would need to ally themselves against a common enemy when the entire world was at stake. That was enough for me. Not ideal, but it didn't bother me like I'd thought it would.The changed ending didn't work for me because the whole point of the giant squid creature in the comic was that it was a totally alien threat that the world could unite and stand against. Dr. Manhattan is not that foreign threat, in fact, he's an American. He could and probably would be used to incriminate the US even if he appeared to attack American soul. For all his power and detachment he was not the foreign enemy that was needed for Ozymandias' plan to work.
The reason it worked for me (and I can't believe I'm actually defending this movie right after posting about how much I don't care for it, lol), is because at that point, Dr. Manhattan had become an alien threat to most. He stopped representing America and left the planet in anger, which the whole world saw on live television. It was clear that America had lost control of him. So the idea was that Ozymandias was deliberately painting him as this American weapon that had evolved into an alien threat to the entire world, America included. Even if the rest of the world would blame America for creating him in the first place, they'd still recognize that they would need to ally themselves against a common enemy when the entire world was at stake. That was enough for me. Not ideal, but it didn't bother me like I'd thought it would.
How so?
There are some differences. He's obviously not as built in the movie. Though a pseudo German accent does not make someone a villain. It makes them somehow foreign.
Great point!
Because it did not speak to superhero movies the way the series spoke to superhero books.
This is movies, Veidt is the villain, the use of a semi "german" accent is obviously a reference to Nazis.
One more way of outlining Veidt as a boogeyman, IMO. They're basically saying Veidt is like Hitler with his view of a "transformed" humanity.
And maybe rightfully so, but here it's bombastic, again, like most of the movie, it isn't subtle and nuanced like the book.
Because it did not speak to superhero movies the way the series spoke to superhero books.