Tse's script

[sad lieutenant]

I think its because of Alan Moore essentially saying that Hayter made the best **** sandwich he ever tasted (paraphrasing, of course). I think some fans are misconstruing that as meaning that Alan wants Hayter to be his personal chef at home, but I think its more of a case of "In the world of **** sandwiches, Hayter is the man!"

Yeah, that's the sense I got from Moore's remarks, as well... And that they somehow got misconstrued on the net as a chummy, back-slapping endorsement.

 

[toddly6666]

I just want to remind everyone that the main villain in 300 - Xerxes - did not get killed off. For such a killing-fueled movie, not killing off the main villain did not really upset the audience. Regardless of Tse's script which will probably not get followed to a T, I think rumors are just fueling this idea that Veidt will get killed off. I bet that Veidt will live and Rorschach will die, just like in the graphic novel.

Most complex action movies anyway usually have the hero die and the villain live - just better that way.

 

[echostation]

i wished i shared your optimism there toddly mc todlerson

 

[Porygon]

I just want to remind everyone that the main villain in 300 - Xerxes - did not get killed off. For such a killing-fueled movie, not killing off the main villain did not really upset the audience. Regardless of Tse's script which will probably not get followed to a T, I think rumors are just fueling this idea that Veidt will get killed off. I bet that Veidt will live and Rorschach will die, just like in the graphic novel.

Most complex action movies anyway usually have the hero die and the villain live - just better that way.

You know, I could actually see Zach Snyder use that as a way to persuade execs to let Veidt live.

 

[toddly6666]

Furthermore, the theme about war in Watchmen is that wars will never end, from either extreme - whether it be Veidt or a Moonraker villain killing the world off in order to start fresh/clean up the world, or politicians (Bush) invading countries to impose their friendly fascism on other countries supposedly thinking it's worth it for the long run - it would be one thing if this was a typical action movie, but killing off Veidt totally makes no sense with the whole theme of the graphic novel. Veidt is not Saddam Hussain or Osama Bin Laden. Even killing off Hussain or killing off a Osama Bin Laden didn't or wouldn't change anything or make anyone feel better. The whole point of killing off a bad guy in a smart political action movie is to show that someone else will still follow in his path. If the movie kills off Veidt, who is supposed to follow in the footsteps of Veidt? Dr. Manhattan? Is the movie going to imply that Dr. Manhattan will go wacky and be the next one killing everyone to clean up the world? I hope not. Watchmen is not about "oh, maybe there is hope in the world and peace in the world." It's about everything will continue just as it has in the past. I always thought that the happy endings in Watchmen was that Dr. Manhattan gained back some of his humanity by the end of the graphic novel - he handled the Veidt problem very humanely and he was happy to see Laurie and Dan become a happy couple. They got that love theme in which is always nice. As long as wars continue, so will love continue no matter how messed up things get in the world. And the death of Kovacs is another happy ending. He too gains his humanity back by the end of the book. Producers want to ruin one of the most original protagonist deaths in a movie? And Killing off "bad guys"? this isn't a Stallone or Arnold film, jeez!

There's no way that they can give this movie a hollywood ending. Is there a way of killing off Veidt and not making it a hollywood ending?

Speaking of Hollywood endings, actually the new "Hollywood ending" trend is for good guys to die, and bad guys to live. So why would they want to go back to an old dated-Hollywood trend of killing off the bad guys?