Your Thoughts on Ending being Possibly Changed (The Squid)

[The Guard]

I don’t agree with your hypotesis that a general attack would be better. I prefer Moore’s vision of it, and find the movie version plain dumb for a number of reasons that I won’t repeat, because you can easily find it everywhere in the last posts in two threads.

It's a good thing you don't agree with that, because that's not my hypothesis, and never was. BTW, there's nothing "general" about attacking key cities all over the world. I didn't say it would be better. You keep putting words in my mouth, even after I have said the exact opposite of this.

You keep saying "dumb". You keep saying "stupid". Your reasoning for why it is "stupid" amounts to something that is very shallow, and very biased, and does not take into account any of the "meaning" behind the new plan.

And it seems to be, at this point, you labeling it as such just because you want to say it's stupid. Just because. You want to label Veidt in this movie plan an "average, cliche villain" just because you want to. What it seems to boil down to Mercurius, is that because Alan Moore didn't come up with it, it is suddenly a stupid plan in your eyes. That is absurd, absurd logic.

The plan is not, in itself, stupid, nor, once you honestly consider what it entails, is it anything that begins to resemble a cliche. It does have intelligent elements to it. And it makes sense on several levels.

You just don't want to admit that, either because you just don’t like it, or because you don’t believe it’s true. Fair enough. I won't force you to be logical. No one can.

I get it. You don't like the altered plan because it's not as "efficient", and because it does not have the exact same level of “layering” and the exact same elements as the graphic novel’s does. But you discount that, if one wants to bring the world together, attacking the world makes perfect sense. There's nothing stupid or "cliche" about that. Just because the world came together when New York was attacked in the graphic novel does not mean that is the only possible scenario a writer could use to bring the world together.

And frankly, you can condemn the "new plan" all you want, but I would take that plan over damn near ANYTHING I've seen in a superhero movie in the last 20 years. It's far more interesting, far more relevant, far more powerful an idea, and just a hell of a lot cooler than pretty much any villain plan I've ever seen, barring the graphic novel's version of events. And as I’ve pointed out several times that I’d rather have the squid, so this obviously isn’t just me defending it due to bias I'm not saying it's better than the graphic novel's plot. I'm not saying it's AS interesting. I’m just saying that it works on a very appropriate level, given the context it’s put in.

I find your attempted strategy to defend the bigger number of deaths in various cities wrong. The point is not in a precise number of victims, but a more concise plan that strikes once, in one place.

No, that's just your point. Your point just wants to believe multiple targets is somehow a "cliche" or a bad idea, and disregards the fact that even in the comics, many areas of the world were affected by Veidt's plan. Striking in one place is all well and good. But explain to me why it HAS to be that way. Obviously Veidt’s not THAT interested in keeping the body count low, because he kills half of New York City to accomplish his plan.

NY is one of the most visible cities in the world, and his timing in the book is precise to get that effect that you are so suspicious of.

Uh, yes, and you know what else is visible in the world? Other major cities in other countries. It seems you are of the mindset that because the book shows a certain outcome, that this is the only way it could be. This is fiction, Mercurius. Anything the writers make happen, can happen. There are many appropriate scenarios that could occur.

If you can’t understand it, or won’t agree by any reasons, that’s fine. You also don’t find the alien “unknown” menace important.

"If you can't understand it"...because god knows, me believing something else could work well MUST mean I don't understand or like the original plan.

You keep making assumptions about what I believe or what I understand that seem to be based on...nothing. I implied that there are more important elements to Veidt’s plan than whether the threat is “alien”. I didn’t say it wasn’t important at all in the graphic novel. Where are you getting this nonsense?

I don’t agree again, and admire Moore’s invention. I find the substitute version just a rude crap.

And you feel this way just because it's not AS clever as one of the most clever plans in the history of literature. Yeah, I know. We’ve been over this.

Reasons? I didn’t just gave it labels as you like to say, cause you have this peculiar attitude of “I haven’t seen it. Please explain” no matter what is said to you.

And you seem to think you can just say things that amount to “just because”, and that’s how it is. God forbid I ask you why you think a character would suddenly change his motivations, or why a plan is "rude" or "uninteresting".

You like to apply that Sisyphus torture over your debaters, but I suggest and ask: please read back, you’ll find it. If you insist you don’t, it’s beyond my ability of explaining things to you, and I’m truly sorry for my incompetence.

No, I like to ask for logical reasons why someone’s point of view makes sense. I didn't realize that was torture, except maybe to the very lazy and the ignorant. If they didn’t AVOID giving me logical reasons, I wouldn’t feel like I had to keep asking over and over and over again.

When you write: “And even in the book, just one place isn't affected by the attack. The psychic attack reaches far beyond the scene of the incident.”

That’s the point. The reaching of the psychic attack predisposes people to that cooperation. Many exploded cities are just stupid, IMO, because Veidt wanted to avoid this scenario.

Where in the book does it actually say Veidt wanted to avoid that scenario? He definitely regrets what he did, but he was willing to do what he had to do.

The cliché thing: I know you don’t like it, but it is a cliché. The framing up was even used before in the same story. Sorry, it’s just bad.

I’m not going to argue the cliché thing anymore. You aren't willing to look at this situation fairly, or in a balance manner. You just decide an entire plan is cliche because one small and incredibly broad element of it is (which is also true of Veidt's original plan). Your logic and debate style has devolved into “Just because”.

"Sorry, it just is that way" is a third grade level of debate. I won't engage in that nonsense.

1. That’s not the same metaphor Moore used. Manhattan is the incarnation of the scientists’ nightmare, not an example of the scientist’s situation.

You're talking about the meaning of the metaphor. The actual metaphor, the paralell between Oppenheimer and his weaponized project and Jon Osterman and his nature as a weapon is the same one. I'm curious as to how the scientist's situation and the scientist's nightmare are two mutually different things in this context.

2. Involvement in the squid was rather distant. The connection now suggested is quite strong and evident, serving as a frame up.

Nope. Manhattan’s involvement in genetics made the squid event directly possible in the graphic novel. The connection of Dr. Manhattan and his influence to Veidt's plan was always very evident.

3. What you don’t seem to understand is that I’m not criticising the possible utterance of the phrase in the new context, but it’s fragile situation once Manhattan is double-framed and almost an unconscious henchman for Veidt. His perspective falls down to zero.

See…the problem I have with your points, once again, is that you can SAY these things, and what you think…but you can’t explain it, or how it’s a valid assessment of the situation.

1. WHY does the situation become fragile, why is that an issue in the context of the story, and is that necessarily a bad thing?

2. HOW does his perspective "fall down to zero"?

4. Hahahaha. Oh boy. Ehhhh, look, now he has a reason to leave it. In the book it is a very personal decision.

No, you’re just ASSUMING he would leave because Veidt framed him. There’s nothing to BASE that on, especially given what we know about Manhattan as a character at the end of WATCHMEN, and you won’t show me what you’re basing that on. If Dr. Manhattan has essentially decided to become a God, and leave Earth anyway, despite what Veidt has done, why would he suddenly change his mind in a storyline that involves Veidt framing him?

5. Don’t agree with it is “more or less in the character”, in which I consider you fail to attain a certain point. Only if you stress with great perspicacy the “less in the character”.

I'm sorry...what?

Hey, Guard, don’t get mad with me for some of my remarks. I find you an intelligent debater indeed, but sometimes you are too closed in your own ideas. That’s the impression when I say “you seem not to understand”.

I'm not mad. I'm annoyed. How am I close minded when I am willing to accept both sides, both plans, as appropriate? It is not being close minded to ask for you to back up your statements. “Being closed minded” and “Not understanding” are not the same thing. Can you even begin to show me where I’ve been close minded? Without pointing to me asking you to clarify your answers as being close minded?

Of course you know very well you have some annoying features too, like this mania of “can you elaborate?” Man we’re not writing treatises! Hahahahaha. And you’ll get the movie you want, so relax.

Yes, delving deeper into things, asking for specifics, is always a hell of a debate flaw. I don’t appreciate people who engage me in debates, speak intelligently, an then at a certain point simply resort to childish debate tactics, either because they're bored, or because they cannot defend their statements adequately.

About the vigilante stuff: So, because the theme is that, you suppose they have even to stress it once again in a different ending? I suppose you are thinking about those brainless audiences, right?

Do you understand how themes work in the context of literature?

No, you don’t HAVE to use themes. But using theme and metaphor to draw connections and paralells to various story elements is hardly a bad thing.

 

[Mercurius]

You say the, ah-ham, “plan” is not stupid, but I’ve never read 1 line of yours proving otherwise.

In your words, you’ve adopted the “just because” tactics.

I’ll give one example of how you’re reading poorly what I write, follow me: you said, I quote, “Your point just wants to believe multiple targets is somehow a "cliche" or a bad idea, and disregards the fact that even in the comics, many areas of the world were affected by Veidt's plan.”

You should know, by now, that this isn’t true. I’ve emphasized the shockwaves’ worldwide impact many times.

There is a very clear difference between psychological shockwaves that foster the empathy through the experience of anguish, and bombs falling everywhere.

What’s the difference? A difference in quality, that you insist in ignoring.

When I repeat “you seem not to understand” is not to get you annoyed, for I’m very much your comrade; it’s because you aren’t understanding.

Another example of misreading: “Uh, yes, and you know what else is visible in the world? Other major cities in other countries.”

Uh, of course there are, my dear Guard. That’s the point. From a myriad to choose from, Ozymandias got NY. He focused.

He isn’t, in the book, some sort of lazy creep, who thinks: “What the hell, let’s just bomb the big cities and get done with it!”.

Hahahahaha, I was kiddin’ (slightly) with the Sisyphus torture. But when you get annoyed for your “logical reasons”, I ask myself: “he’s a detail guy, but is he stuck when what is needed is acumen?”

Ehh, Veidt is not just dropping bombs, is he? He’s trying to avoid the worst scenario through the sacrifice of those lives.

Now I think he would be really dumb wow: oh, excuse me, I let it out without noticing) if he would just drop his bombs with this sorry “whatever” attitude.

1. Oppenheimer made a declaration on the sins of the scientists. That’s the metaphor. Manhattan falling for the same kind of thing plus being framed: that’s lack of imagination.

2. Manhattan and his influence on Veidt is clear. The heavy-handed use of it the movie promises, not. Or you can detail that subtlety I haven’t noticed. It will be a pleasure to be illuminated.

3. Too much explanation eludes the fun of discovering.

4. The problem is not Manhattan leaving the Earth, which, I guess, he will do anyway. But getting out without even be seen back, or getting out framed. First one, please.

5. What “what”?

Maybe you want to accept both ends, but your still void defence of such a poor end is rather confusing.

I said “void” because your defence was made with questions.

And: I understand how themes work in literature, but I also understand when a change in the original is poor.

This is a very poor change, and not needed. The underlining of the “vigilante” stuff in the end is unecessary, and, frankly, insistence. It is directed to the mindless multitude.

 

[3dman27]

me too! Either that or..

cowabunga

 

[the_tortel]

regarding talk of no new frontiersman finding the journal, anyone think it might be an end credits scene? like for those who've never read the GN?

I'm hopeful

 

[Katsuro]

regarding talk of no new frontiersman finding the journal, anyone think it might be an end credits scene? like for those who've never read the GN?

I'm hopeful

I actually get the feeling it was just cut from the screening. I mean, the way they describe the ending just sounds... incomplete. Supposedly it ends after Nite Owl sees Rorschach die, then goes back in to bang Laurie. That sounds like a wierd place to end the movie. I cant help but imagine they just didn't show the audience the last few minutes of the movie (Jon leaving Earth, Dan and Laurie visiting Sally, Rorschach's journal being found).

There's just no reason to leave those scenes out of the movie. I'd think even the studio would want those last scenes, instead of some wierd abrupt ending like that.

 

[Cinemaman]

Thanks.

You're Welcome, hope you will stop ignoring changes or even improvements in not only adaptations of your favourite comics and graphic novels, but also in your life

 

[BlackLantern]

This is crap....**** WB.....I wasn't seeing this anyway..I don't agree this is a story tht can be adapted and put in a nice little package for the common movie watching folk

 

[the_tortel]

I actually get the feeling it was just cut from the screening. I mean, the way they describe the ending just sounds... incomplete. Supposedly it ends after Nite Owl sees Rorschach die, then goes back in to bang Laurie. That sounds like a wierd place to end the movie. I cant help but imagine they just didn't show the audience the last few minutes of the movie (Jon leaving Earth, Dan and Laurie visiting Sally, Rorschach's journal being found).

There's just no reason to leave those scenes out of the movie. I'd think even the studio would want those last scenes, instead of some wierd abrupt ending like that.

yeah, I couldn't see them really ending it like that, too weird

This is crap....**** WB.....I wasn't seeing this anyway..I don't agree this is a story tht can be adapted and put in a nice little package for the common movie watching folk

waaaaahhh.......if you're not gonna see it, don't see it, you don't exactly HAVE to come to us for your every gripe

I seriously doubt WB is worried about you not going to see it... frankly, I'd go even if people said it was gonna be crap, it's watchmen, you can't not go

 

[[A]]

cowabunga

Damn you tinypic !! I now wonder what image was that

 

[EmPiiRe x]

This is crap....**** WB.....I wasn't seeing this anyway..I don't agree this is a story tht can be adapted and put in a nice little package for the common movie watching folk

even naysayers are gonna end up going, if only to find things they don't like about it so they can rush back here to tell us all why it sucked.

 

[BlackLantern]

I won't be one of those....I have common sense enough to if I don't like something, I won't waste time on it....be it reading a comic just to ***** about it or watching a movie I know I'm going to hate....

 

[the_tortel]

even naysayers are gonna end up going, if only to find things they don't like about it so they can rush back here to tell us all why it sucked.

haha, exactly

 

[the_tortel]

I won't be one of those....I have common sense enough to if I don't like something, I won't waste time on it....be it reading a comic just to ***** about it or watching a movie I know I'm going to hate....

jesus, dude, talk about being closed minded

no one can seriously honestly say they hate a movie if they haven't seen even ONE minute of it's actual footage

give me a break....

 

[BlackLantern]

I don't agree with it being adapted into a film....that's my basic reason...and I won't be seeing it....I'm sure it'll make a ton of money for WB, but it won't get mine....

 

[the_tortel]

I don't agree with it being adapted into a film....that's my basic reason...and I won't be seeing it....I'm sure it'll make a ton of money for WB, but it won't get mine....

as much as saying you don't agree with it being created truly means, you still can't say you hate every minute detail of the film, because you won't be seeing it, which in turn makes your opinion invalid, as a point of fact

and as I said before WB probably won't be shedding many tears over the loss of you're one admission ticket

peace..

 

[Project862006]

black your statement makes you very ignorant its like people complaining about the president when they did'nt even vote

 

[BlackLantern]

Well I am a registered voter and have voted every opportunity since I was 18....did absentee voting when I was in the USN....I have a great respect for the graphic novel and I don't feel it is something that should be adapted for the masses....it's very simple...

 

[Project862006]

everyone has there opinion i respect that i personally think preacher is gonna be much harder to adapt than watchmen but thats my opinion

 

[the_tortel]

Well I am a registered voter and have voted every opportunity since I was 18....did absentee voting when I was in the USN....I have a great respect for the graphic novel and I don't feel it is something that should be adapted for the masses....it's very simple...

I respect your opinion that you think it shouldn't be adapted into movie form but I cannot take you seriously if you hate a movie which hasn't been released

 

[EmPiiRe x]

Well I am a registered voter and have voted every opportunity since I was 18....did absentee voting when I was in the USN....I have a great respect for the graphic novel and I don't feel it is something that should be adapted for the masses....it's very simple...

Wow. Being a Watchmen fan over, say, a guy who casually goes to the movies on the weekend does not put you into any upper pop-culture class reserved only for the "enlightened". As if anybody who wants to buy and read Watchmen should first be forced through a Watchmen appreciation quiz to determined if they are worthy to gaze upon its pages. Oh, by the way, YOU ARE the masses. Until you're living in the woods, plotting an anarchist revolution from your cave, you're one of those boring normal people just like everybody else.

 

[Luchastyle]

as closed-minded as blacklantern sounds, obviously he can choose to refuse to see the movie. he can stand by his moorist belief that the book is unfilmable. i disagree, and in fact as we all know by now, moore even believed it was filmable at a time. but someone must have made him cry and now he's bitter about it.

and ya know, he has every right to not want to see his works bastardized. but to say watchmen is unfilmable, i think is silly.

sure, it can't be shown in 2 or even 2 and a half hours. probably not in 3 hours, if you wanted to do it justice. it would work best as a 12 part miniseries and possibly even as a cartoon.

but the point is, is that it could be done, and done quite well.

does snyder have the depth, intelligence or ability to do it? that remains to be seen.

i believe as much as anybody that this could be a horrible representation of one of the greatest stories ever written, but i'm going to see it. and if it sucks, which it may, i'll be right there to say "Well holy ****balls. they ****ed that one up nicely."

but ya know, if he does a passable job, keeps the story intact, then this movie might be a passable representation of the book. obviously he can handle the visuals, but that's the least important part when it comes to watchmen. so i have high hopes but low expectations. 369, i'll be there. good, bad or ugly. but it probably won't be ugly because it looks pretty beautiful.

 

[Mercurius]

You're Welcome, hope you will stop ignoring changes or even improvements in not only adaptations of your favourite comics and graphic novels, but also in your life

Oooooooh!

You are into some guru stuff, aren't you? You are one of those whose life has been "transformed" aren't ya?

I knew it! t:

 

[Mercurius]

sure, it can't be shown in 2 or even 2 and a half hours. probably not in 3 hours, if you wanted to do it justice. it would work best as a 12 part miniseries and possibly even as a cartoon.

but the point is, is that it could be done, and done quite well.

does snyder have the depth, intelligence or ability to do it? that remains to be seen.

i believe as much as anybody that this could be a horrible representation of one of the greatest stories ever written, but i'm going to see it. and if it sucks, which it may, i'll be right there to say "Well holy ****balls. they ****ed that one up nicely."

but ya know, if he does a passable job, keeps the story intact, then this movie might be a passable representation of the book. obviously he can handle the visuals, but that's the least important part when it comes to watchmen. so i have high hopes but low expectations. 369, i'll be there. good, bad or ugly. but it probably won't be ugly because it looks pretty beautiful.

Hey, Luchastyle: that was one helluva post. Congrats!

 

[Mercurius]

Until you're living in the woods, plotting an anarchist revolution from your cave...

O zounds. You know me!

It means I have to wipe you off, now. t:

 

[Soulinertia]

*subscribes