This may end up being redundant but about Bubastis...

[haephestus]

I didn't think the throw-away reference to "genetic engineering" during Adrian's interview in his offices was sufficient to "explain" Bubastis' existence.

They could have introduced Bubastis at that moment - Adrian could have used Bubastis as an example of his efforts in genetic engineering and they could have quickly shown a picture of the two of them on his desk or something (if Bubastis couldn't actually be in the interview scene).

That typed, my partner simply thought Adrian had Bubastis because he loved all things Egyptian and the cat seemed Egyptian. I guess that "explanation" may have worked for other general audience membets?

Cheers.

 

[DACrowe]

It was a WTF moment for the audience. One that reinforces the decision to remove the squid as a good one. But I liked seeing her, but anyone who hasn't read the book is just going to roll their eyes. And to be honest it is quite random and silly in the book as well.

 

[The Guard]

It's SUPPOSED to be a WTF moment for the audience.

If someone rolls their eyes at it, so what? It's one of the weirder elements of WATCHMEN. Maybe they don't have an appreciation for fantasy or something.

Bad CGI? No. Not seeing it.

Bubastis is incredibly significant to Egyptian culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubastis

I didnt mind the appearance, i would have liked if they mentioned her name, but in the comic i doubt i'd have really questioned anything if there wasn't an explanation.

They did. As Adrian moves up the stairs, he says "Bubastis...".

 

[deathfromabove]

i loved her inclusion and dont mind the lack of explanation. people who need spoonfeeding should stay away from watchmen. period.

but i do wish she was rendered better. the cgi wasnt seamless there. still no biggie. i do think the reaction some have had to her bodes poorly for the possible reception the squid would have had by the GA.

 

[Camisado]

^Really pretty much summed up right there. If you are gonna need someone to guide you through this movie and haven't give reading a second thought your better off not seeing this movie at all.

I really liked seeing Bubastis and hopefully everyone else did, it was very cool for most of us because we read the book. I don't know why some one should be seeing this movie without seeing the book. I don't reccomend it. Or read the book once you have seen it, don't go bugging the **** out of your friends because they took some time to read a book.

 

[bullets]

It was cool that they kept bubastis . it made everything seem more eccentric.

 

[dsfjr1190]

It should have been left out. It made no sense to those unfamiliar with the graphic novel, as far as the people I know goes.

It added nothing to the story anyway. Who knows, maybe it'll be fleshed out more in the Director's Cut.

 

[CrimsonMist]

I dont think it's too big of a big deal yet. All they need to include in the director's cut is Manhattan's flashback to when he and Laurie visit Viedt at Karnak and he explains the advances in Eugenics. If it even made it into the full cut, i'm sure they toned down some of it so as not to elude to the squid. Just have Viedt casually explain the advances in science due to Manhattan's presence on Earth. Hell, they could even make mention of the S.Q.U.I.D. device that they're working on together and elude to that instead.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Why must you be hatin' on Bubastis? Man...

 

[arman200]

It's SUPPOSED to be a WTF moment for the audience.

If someone rolls their eyes at it, so what? It's one of the weirder elements of WATCHMEN. Maybe they don't have an appreciation for fantasy or something.

Bad CGI? No. Not seeing it.

Bubastis is incredibly significant to Egyptian culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubastis



They did. As Adrian moves up the stairs, he says "Bubastis...".

I must've missed that. But that's definitely much better. t:

 

[Warhammer]

I didn't mind it, but it was random as hell. I didn't bother me because...well...look which website forum I am posting right now, but it still was random.

 

[Leenie]

The presence of Bubastis kind of ticked me off, to be honest ... I'll just leave it at that.

Besides me being peeved about it, I think it should have been left out of the movie. She served zero purpose in the movie, and she wasn't explained. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I would have been so confused!

Has anyone seen the Nostalgia Critic videos? Those who have seen them might get this: I thought that Bubastis was a "Big-Lipped Alligator Moment" in the movie.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

Why must you be hatin' on Bubastis? Man...

Is this directed at me? If so, I'm not at all. I've read the graphic novel twice now, just finished it again today because I wanted to read it again and love Bubastis as a minor chacrater that actually is pretty important to Veidt in the grand scheme of things. All I was saying is that it seemed a bit pointless to just randomly add her to the movie without much explaination and her death seemed not to have as much impact as it did in the book. I'm with everyone else who says that hopefully the DC will have more scenes with her.

 

[keith_v]

Bubastis needs no explanation! If there's anything Bubastis needs, it's her own 4 1/2 hour film. Hell, I'd take a documentary about her. Imagine the first riveting hour with voice over work by Leslie Neilson: "And for roughly one hour each morning, Bubastis carefully cleans and bathes her long, luxorious ears."

 

[BlueLightning]

I blame Chris Nolan for this mindset. People have become more intent on explaining things than finding any real, true emotional depth in them.

A lot of people didn´t understood the subtleties and layers of many of Chris Nolan movies, including TDK, if that was movie that you are talking about. They are very complex films, with real, true emotional depth. I am not saying that Watchmen didn´t had it, but it wasn´t managed as good as Nolan did.

Bubastis wasn´t entirely out of place. The same could be said of Rorschach mask. But then again, even if you didn´t know how the mask worked, you get used to it. Bubastis short appearence was the thing that made this " what the heck" moment. She could be disposed in the movie. Still you could get that if Doc Manhattan existence changed the world, why not a changing mask or mutant monsters(even if Manhattan presence wasn´t involved in the last one). Matter of logic.

This makes clear that Watchmen is directed towards Watchmen fans. If non-fans liked the film, they would investigate and sooner or later find the answers, not a bad thing. Everyody else

 

[Ryudoz]

I think I actually heard my wife say, "WTF is that?" when Bubastis showed up on screen. I'm sure other people did as well. I calmly and simply explained she was Adrian's genetically engineered pet. She said, "Oh okay," as if all was well in the world.

Seriously, Adrian is a former superhero (many of whom are mildly bats*** nuts), he's rich (rich people are inherently bats*** nuts), it's the 80's (a time period in which more people were bats*** nuts than ever before), he has a base in ANTARCTICA (see: bats*** nuts), and he's got a plan to kill MILLIONS OF PEOPLE (Diabolical Villain Syndrome comes with a side of bats*** nuts). So yeah, I don't think Bubastis needed any explaining.

 

[Bren]

I think I actually heard my wife say, "WTF is that?" when Bubastis showed up on screen.

So did mine!

Quite frankly, she was pointless in this film.

I can't see how a director would want a wtf moment in his film. Imo would be a sign he didn't do his job properly. But what do I know, I like being fed apparently.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Bubastis makes sense in light of the final solution in the book. Per the movie, there was no logic behind him. As nice as it was to see him, I would have left him out per the movie's ending.

 

[Chaos Bringer]

i was asked "what kind of animal is that"
seems like it was there simply for the fans. could've been left out...

 

[Angel_Dust]

i'm not sure about this but wasn't there a little throw-away line about Veidt's involvement on genetic-engineering.. when he was being interviewed ?

 

[gwynplaine]

I didn't mind her inclusion. I just thought it looked very fake, just like the wolf in 300.

 

[fallenAngel]

I'm glad she was in it. I always thought she was cool looking and I nice subtle aid to Adrian's underdeveloped (or at least compared to the other characters) character. An explanation isn't really needed, as there isn't really any real satisfying explanation to offer, but she shouldn't have been introduced so late in the movie.

I always took her more as a sacrifice Adrian made. A personal one. He was responsible for the deaths of millions, and it's really the only real sense of humanity we get from him when he sacrifices her. Also it helps show how detatched he is from other humans, that he would shed tears more for his cat than anything else.

Most people asked me about her, Manhattan's flying glass clock (this is more metaphorical so I didn't have such a great answer for people) and Rorschachs shifting mask. Also I got a question about the atom symbol on Jon's head, which really was the only easy question to answer as everything else is kind of weird and specific to the Watchmen world. But Watchmen is weird and more so than anything the weird things help flesh out the world and characters in nice subtle ways. These are the things that make it memorable.

 

[Katsuro]

I have a feeling Bubastis will be explained in the directors cut. All it needs is that flashback to when Laurie and Jon visit Karnak, which was probably/hopefully filmed and cut from the movie.

And of course, if Snyder made the movie with the intention of having that scene, then had to cut it, there probably wasn't much he could do to completely remove Bubastis.

 

[The Guard]

A lot of people didn´t understood the subtleties and layers of many of Chris Nolan movies, including TDK, if that was movie that you are talking about. They are very complex films, with real, true emotional depth. I am not saying that Watchmen didn´t had it, but it wasn´t managed as good as Nolan did.

No. I'm referring to the fact that when Chris Nolan started presenting Batman movies where everything is "explained", people started looking for that element in superhero filmmaking in every facet, and deriding the film and its elements when it doesn't exist, even if the solutions are obvious with just a little thought.

 

[BlueLightning]

You could say a lot of comparisons about filmaking styles, horror movies has their thing, action movies, fantasy movies, etc. You have not mentioned Spider-Man films and their explanations for everything.

I think the necessity of an explanations depends on the filmaker desitions. It would be better or not? Obviously the fact that Watchmen is more directed towards fans of the Graphic Novel is the fact that keep Bubastis and a lot of elements who could be treated as unnecesary. I don´t think so. The fact is Snyder didn´t develop Bubastis relationship with Adrian enough for the mainstream audience to care for it. I am not dissapointed, because I am a fan of Watchmen, I read the novel and I liked it. But I don´t see Watchmen as a movie in its entirety, I see it as a "love letter" to the comic.

Note that I am not saying that is inferior, is one of the best comic book films I have seen, I just say that Snyder took a lot of time to made the movie as accurate as the comic but lacked the ability to traslate that into the film area.