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

[Figs]

Bubastis was fine. People expect the rich to be eccentric, and rich superheroes moreso. Veidt having a weird "tiger-thing" as a pet isn't that big a "WTF?"

Although, and this is an issue I have with her design in general, why does she have a long tail? She's a lynx, which have short tails. Sure, she's a mutant, but I think she should've had a shorter tail.

You have to remember she is genetically altered. The book never says how but looking at the animal I instantly assumed that Adrian genetically added a bit of tiger to the lynx. To me her face as well as body structure has always been more tiger like.

I know she's bigger than a real lynx obviously but the body structure reminded me more of a tiger than a super furry lynx.

Just my opinion but that's what always came to mind when I read the book.

What I have to ask is this.

For all of you saying she was better left out since there was no alien and there was no explanation via scene with Dr. Manhattan and Laurie visiting Adrian, how did it really hurt the film by keeping her in?

Personally, the people who have never read the novel are obviously the ones that will think WTF? but from the sounds of it most of them don't even understand this story/movie anyways. So really it's not like it matters since a lot of the GA were confused by the story itself.

 

[The Guard]

Sigh...

Bubastis isn't terribly interesting or developed in the book, either. People who didn't care about her in the movie would really have little reason to care about her in the book. It's the same basic concept.

 

[Figs]

Sigh...

Bubastis isn't terribly interesting or developed in the book, either. People who didn't care about her in the movie would really have little reason to care about her in the book. It's the same basic concept.

Is the 'sigh' about my post?

 

[SuperFerret]

You have to remember she is genetically altered. The book never says how but looking at the animal I instantly assumed that Adrian genetically added a bit of tiger to the lynx. To me her face as well as body structure has always been more tiger like.

I know she's bigger than a real lynx obviously but the body structure reminded me more of a tiger than a super furry lynx.

Just my opinion but that's what always came to mind when I read the book.

Good point. I just like how lynxes have shorter tails, and I guess I can accept her being purple more than her having a long tail. It's a trivial concern though.

 

[The Guard]

Is the 'sigh' about my post?

No, just in general.

 

[Bubastis]

Man, posting in this thread is weird...

I think the difference between the movie and the book lies entirely in the difference of the interpretations of Ozymandias. He's Alan Moore's favorite character, if not because of his philosophy or the psychology of the character then because of the fun he clearly had with Ozy's style, word choice, visuals, and yes, his pet. In the book Ozy is god-like in a much more natural and Egyptian way. The Squid seems to click with that. In the movie, he's got the intentions and actions of a mad scientist who speaks eloquently and is incredibly handsome.
Now Bubastis, who has Moore written all over her, is out of place in the movie. If not because of the fact that her existance is unexplained and makes no sense, than because she doesn't fit. The visual image doesn't fit the new tone of Ozymandias' environents and personality, and she doesn't look like part of the scene because the CG was terrible.

She feels like she would've been at home in Xerxes' sex tent.

 

[Star]

Hahah well, you ARE Bubastis. Your word is the LAW in this thread.

 

[Figs]

I want to see the movie again since I've only seen it once but from what I remember the CGI for Bubastis wasn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

I don't remember looking at her at all while thinking how cartoony or fake she looked. I could tell it was CGI but you always can...even with some of the best out there.

Once again though, Snyder said he made this for the fans so if anything it was a nod for us. Like I said in my previous post...it wouldn't have really made the movie better by leaving her out so where is the harm in keeping her in?

I'm actually really curious if Snyder filmed the scene with Dr. Manhattan and Luarie visiting Veidt where he explains that Bubastis is a genetically altered Lynx.

 

[TheVileOne]

Lord of the Rings kept Bill the Pony in Fellowship. But at least for Bill the pony's cameo, Bill still served a purpose.

 

[The_Joker7895]

See, the problem is that you all insist on reducing Bubastis to what she is...instead of what she means.

"Giant mutant cat?"

Sure, like Batman is "some vigilante".

The whole freaking point is that it is almost insanely random. Even after it's been explained it's eerie and just weird as hell. The genetic engineering line in the book is simply to make Bubastis slightly more palpable as an existing entity, and the idea of Veidt's ongoing genetic engineering more apparent.

It is NOT the reason that Bubastis exists as a character. If it was, Bubastis would have simply been mentioned in Jon's flashback, and then abandoned. She wouldn't have been following Adrian around throughout the entire final chapters, he wouldn't have been treating her as a pet, and he would not have felt bad he had to sacrifice her. Because the man built himself a genetically enginnered giant squid. Bubastis is called "an early success" by Veidt. But Bubastis isn't just another "animal" to Veidt, she's part of his very image (pay attention to the end chapter materials for this) and he loves her as a man loves his dog (or in this case, cat). That's the true point of her use in the novel.

The fact that people cannot see what purpose Bubastis really and truly serves tells me that most do not fully understand the character (not it's origins) to begin with.

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

OK, to put my opinion to rest I think that while Bubastis an important little detail that adds a bit of humanity to Adrian in the end despite the atrocities he committed, I think that Bubastis may have made a little more sense if she had appeared a bit earlier in the film rather than just out of nowhere and only getting a few minutes of screen time before dying. The problem I had with her inclusion has really nothing to do with the squid not being there. I agree that her purpose is several things: to at once make Adrian seem that much more exotic and wierd but also add some humanity to him because he actually cares about her, showing that he at least gives a damn about life of some sort. Also, her randomness is crucial because its like a sort of Citizen Kane deep focus trick.

Anyone who has seen Citizen Kane remembers the flashback scene where Kane's parents are talking to the man who is informing them of his massive inheritance and need to come with them, all the while in the background through the cabin window we see young Kane playing on his sled in the snow. Most people I know who have seen the film can't remember much of anything that the adults were saying because due to the deep focus, you see a completely visible in focus boy playing around and it's all you can pay attention to. The same kind of trick was used in the graphic novel when Adrian is in his tropical rainforest greenhouse explaining his whole outlook on life in great philosophical detail to his henchmen. During this whole monologue, Bubastis is running around playing in the greenhouse. I don't know about the rest of you, but I had a hard time focusing on readin Adrian's monologue because in another sort of deep focus trick, all I could really pay attention to was Bubastis running around the greenhouse chasing frogs and whatnot.

However, I feel that if she had been given a couple of more brief appearances throughout the film her death and her purpose of giving a bit of humanity to Adrian might have made more sense. Even just brief glimpses of them together more than just at the end would have made the whole inclusion of Bubastis a bit more logical and impactful. However, I had no real problem with her inclusion, I just felt that she wasn't properly used to give her death a real sense of pain.

Your post makes sense until the Christopher Nolan part. What on earth does Christopher Nolan have to do with this discussion? I take it you didn't like The Dark Knight. I'm not sure why you think that Christopher Nolan's films involve nothing but exposition. In fact, most of his films find their true emotional resonance within the thematic backbone of the film rather than the plot. Have you seen Memento or The Prestige? Both of which have very complex and non-linear narratives that while requiring some thought and possibly explanation, are deeply rooted in the themes they tackle rather than the actual plot. Memento dealt with themes of needing something to drive you, as did the Prestige. The theme of obsession with an ideal or goal is a common thread within Nolan's films and I dare you to tell me it wasn't prevelant in Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. You may not have cared for The Dark Knight much, but you can't argue the film's merits. I think that is the main problem with film criticism these days is that people confuse the idea of enjoying a film with the quality of a film. Any film on earth can be picked apart to death and you can find flaws with any of them. However, it all really boils down to what works for you. Citizen Kane may be considered the greatest film of all time by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean everyone likes it. Likewise, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't good. Bottom line, bringing up Christopher Nolan in a debate about the inclusion of Bubastis in Watchmen is a clear indicator of several things. You either didn't like The Dark Knight or simply preferred Watchmen to it. Either way, I am getting tired of these Watchmen vs TDK arguments. How is one like the other? Trying to compare the two is apples and oranges. It's pointless and idiotic.

 

[BlueLightning]

OK, to put my opinion to rest I think that while Bubastis an important little detail that adds a bit of humanity to Adrian in the end despite the atrocities he committed, I think that Bubastis may have made a little more sense if she had appeared a bit earlier in the film rather than just out of nowhere and only getting a few minutes of screen time before dying. The problem I had with her inclusion has really nothing to do with the squid not being there. I agree that her purpose is several things: to at once make Adrian seem that much more exotic and wierd but also add some humanity to him because he actually cares about her, showing that he at least gives a damn about life of some sort. Also, her randomness is crucial because its like a sort of Citizen Kane deep focus trick.

Anyone who has seen Citizen Kane remembers the flashback scene where Kane's parents are talking to the man who is informing them of his massive inheritance and need to come with them, all the while in the background through the cabin window we see young Kane playing on his sled in the snow. Most people I know who have seen the film can't remember much of anything that the adults were saying because due to the deep focus, you see a completely visible in focus boy playing around and it's all you can pay attention to. The same kind of trick was used in the graphic novel when Adrian is in his tropical rainforest greenhouse explaining his whole outlook on life in great philosophical detail to his henchmen. During this whole monologue, Bubastis is running around playing in the greenhouse. I don't know about the rest of you, but I had a hard time focusing on readin Adrian's monologue because in another sort of deep focus trick, all I could really pay attention to was Bubastis running around the greenhouse chasing frogs and whatnot.

However, I feel that if she had been given a couple of more brief appearances throughout the film her death and her purpose of giving a bit of humanity to Adrian might have made more sense. Even just brief glimpses of them together more than just at the end would have made the whole inclusion of Bubastis a bit more logical and impactful. However, I had no real problem with her inclusion, I just felt that she wasn't properly used to give her death a real sense of pain.

Your post makes sense until the Christopher Nolan part. What on earth does Christopher Nolan have to do with this discussion? I take it you didn't like The Dark Knight. I'm not sure why you think that Christopher Nolan's films involve nothing but exposition. In fact, most of his films find their true emotional resonance within the thematic backbone of the film rather than the plot. Have you seen Memento or The Prestige? Both of which have very complex and non-linear narratives that while requiring some thought and possibly explanation, are deeply rooted in the themes they tackle rather than the actual plot. Memento dealt with themes of needing something to drive you, as did the Prestige. The theme of obsession with an ideal or goal is a common thread within Nolan's films and I dare you to tell me it wasn't prevelant in Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. You may not have cared for The Dark Knight much, but you can't argue the film's merits. I think that is the main problem with film criticism these days is that people confuse the idea of enjoying a film with the quality of a film. Any film on earth can be picked apart to death and you can find flaws with any of them. However, it all really boils down to what works for you. Citizen Kane may be considered the greatest film of all time by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean everyone likes it. Likewise, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't good. Bottom line, bringing up Christopher Nolan in a debate about the inclusion of Bubastis in Watchmen is a clear indicator of several things. You either didn't like The Dark Knight or simply preferred Watchmen to it. Either way, I am getting tired of these Watchmen vs TDK arguments. How is one like the other? Trying to compare the two is apples and oranges. It's pointless and idiotic.

Bravo. I hope this ends this debate.

 

[The Guard]

It will, in fact, not.

Making a little more sense by introducting it early on would have probably defeated the effect of said cat showing up out of almost nowhere, which is kind of the whole point. It's weird. It's not normal. It's pure Veidt.

To suggest that the "Bubastis here was an early success" somehow gives Veidt's emotional ties to Bubastis more emotion is absurd.

I don't really know what you think "properly used" would be, other than every single one of her relevant book elements, which yes, we'd all like to see.

How is Bubastis chasing butterflies while Veidt ignores her supposed to give his reaction to her death more weight again?

Your Nolan rant is all well and good, but my statement about Christopher Nolan means exactly this: Before BATMAN BEGINS, comic book fans were intelligent, and able to rationalize things. Now many of them are apparently effectively crippled by Nolan's "tell three times, show once" style of filmmaking, and unable to rationalize or reason out anything for themselves. Instead of enjoying movies and thinking logically about the events and elements on film, everyone has begun to look for overt, obvious "explanations", and when they don't find it, even if it's obvious, it becomes a glaring flaw.

I find this troublesome, from a film analysis standpoint.

 

[The_Joker7895]

It will, in fact, not.

Making a little more sense by introducting it early on would have probably defeated the effect of said cat showing up out of almost nowhere, which is kind of the whole point. It's weird. It's not normal. It's pure Veidt.

To suggest that the "Bubastis here was an early success" somehow gives Veidt's emotional ties to Bubastis more emotion is absurd.

I don't really know what you think "properly used" would be, other than every single one of her relevant book elements, which yes, we'd all like to see.

How is Bubastis chasing butterflies while Veidt ignores her supposed to give his reaction to her death more weight again?

Your Nolan rant is all well and good, but my statement about Christopher Nolan means exactly this: Before BATMAN BEGINS, comic book fans were intelligent, and able to rationalize things. Now many of them are apparently effectively crippled by Nolan's "tell three times, show once" style of filmmaking, and unable to rationalize or reason out anything for themselves. Instead of enjoying movies and thinking logically about the events and elements on film, everyone has begun to look for overt, obvious "explanations", and when they don't find it, even if it's obvious, it becomes a glaring flaw.

I find this troublesome, from a film analysis standpoint.

So what you're saying is because YOU didn't like Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, therefore they must be bad films and have ruined cinema forever. Yeah, that just made my hyperbole detector explode by the way. Since when were comic book fans made irrational by a different style of filmmaking being introduced to a comic book based film. To be honest, I don't really view Batman Begins or The Dark Knight to be comic book films, but rather crime thrillers. Also, I don't understand where you are getting your whole "Nolan made everything ever have to be explained to death" hyperbole from. At this point, I think we can put the Bubastis thing aside and agree to disagree on our interpretations of an element of Watchmen. But diving into hyperbole and opinionated attacks on Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker just because you didn't care for his Batman films and then to basically accuse him of ruining cinema is utterly ridiculous. Perhaps if you would explain where you are getting evidence for your attacks against him your hyperbole may be more credible.

 

[The Guard]

I didn't attack Chris Nolan as a filmmaker, I attacked fans reaction to his style of exposition.

Did you comprehend a word I said? Where did I say that I didn't like BATMAN BEGINS or THE DARK KNIGHT?

I said:

Before BATMAN BEGINS, comic book fans were intelligent, and able to rationalize things. Now many of them are apparently effectively crippled by Nolan's "tell three times, show once" style of filmmaking, and unable to rationalize or reason out anything for themselves. Instead of enjoying movies and thinking logically about the events and elements on film, everyone has begun to look for overt, obvious "explanations", and when they don't find it, even if it's obvious, it becomes a glaring flaw.

I find this troublesome, from a film analysis standpoint

Also, I don't understand where you are getting your whole "Nolan made everything ever have to be explained to death" hyperbole from.

That's because apparently you weren't here on the boards before BATMAN BEGINS came out, and haven't seen the absurd change in people's analysis style where they suddenly forgot how to rationalize story and film elements.

Perhaps if you would explain where you are getting evidence for your attacks against him your hyperbole may be more credible.

Hmm...I don't know...maybe from people who go "Wow, a giant purple cat...duh...where did it come from? How's something that come into being?"

Crime thrillers. Right.

With superheroes, multiple supervillains, massive action sequences and secret identity issues, a city in peril...

 

[iDannyR]

Loved seeing her in the movie, but she wasnt neccessary..

 

[-The Rider-]

I loved seeing Bubastis on screen, but a bit explanation to what she was would have been useful for people who have not read the novel.

Agreed. As another poster explained though, it'd be quite a conflict to giive an explanation since her existence depended on the squid research.

 

[The_Joker7895]

I didn't attack Chris Nolan as a filmmaker, I attacked fans reaction to his style of exposition.

Did you comprehend a word I said? Where did I say that I didn't like BATMAN BEGINS or THE DARK KNIGHT?

I said:

Before BATMAN BEGINS, comic book fans were intelligent, and able to rationalize things. Now many of them are apparently effectively crippled by Nolan's "tell three times, show once" style of filmmaking, and unable to rationalize or reason out anything for themselves. Instead of enjoying movies and thinking logically about the events and elements on film, everyone has begun to look for overt, obvious "explanations", and when they don't find it, even if it's obvious, it becomes a glaring flaw.

I find this troublesome, from a film analysis standpoint



That's because apparently you weren't here on the boards before BATMAN BEGINS came out, and haven't seen the absurd change in people's analysis style where they suddenly forgot how to rationalize story and film elements.



Hmm...I don't know...maybe from people who go "Wow, a giant purple cat...duh...where did it come from? How's something that come into being?"

Crime thrillers. Right.

With superheroes, multiple supervillains, massive action sequences and secret identity issues, a city in peril...

You're right, I wasn't on the boards before Batman Begins. So I didn't witness this tragic and oh so troublesome change in behaviors.

As for the crime thrillers thing, look into the history of the genre, as well as Nolan's own resume, and you will see a TON of thematic, stylistic, aesthetic, and otherwise general similarities in TDK and crime thrillers.

But on to my final point that will hopefully put this whole thing to rest.

Dude, lighten up. It's a bunch of people on the internet you don't know and you're acting like it's the end of the world that people adapted to a different style of storytelling being introduced. Plus, you're taking this whole Bubastis thing WAY too seriously. Asking if she was really needed is not like attacking the whole film or anything.

In all honesty, at this point, you've made the thread more about the film and the graphic novels as wholes rather than one simple aspect, and it's pointless and redundant. Some people didn't think Bubastis was needed, you disagreed. Those of us who thought she wasn't needed have offered our reasons, and you have offered yours. The difference is that you aren't willing to just let it go and move on. We aren't suggesting that she ruined the whole film or anything. Lighten up, move on, and let it go.

 

[Fox]

The thing about Bubastis to me was her purpose. I didn't feel I needed an explanation for HER existance, but rather that the explanation they did give me in the comics at the time very strategically gave me the information I needed to know about the state of Eugenics, and Ozymandais' access to it, which later explained the giant squid.

Don't get me wrong I didn't hate the movie. I personally enjoyed it. but at the same time this is one of those areas (regarding the ending) that I wished they hadn't changed. Alan Moore had very craftily placed all the pieces together in the book, so that by the end it made complete sense. The movie 'worked' for me but at the same time there were little things here and there that just felt like loose ends that wouldn't have been there if the studios had allowed for a longer film, or if Snyder had tried to make it into two films (ala Kill Bill).

Bubastis was, in my eyes, one of these many loose threads. So while I did enjoy seeing the cat on a visual level, I felt that she was uneccsary to the film. And as one final comment, because she was introduced so late into the film I felt no attachment to her when she died.