Watchmen. [SPOILERS!]

[Ford Prefect]

The notion that it was done for realism is bankrupt. That scene is directed in such a way that Dan and Laurie are in no danger at all. They have not been pushed to kill someone in self-defense, they are simply brutalising a bunch of dudes who clearly pose no threat whatsoever. You can say it's injecting some 'realism' into the action, even though there's nothing at all realistic about the way they casually demolish an entire armed gang with no injury to themselves, with enemies who take it in turns to get maimed.

[Anguirus]

To clarify: I don't agree with the way Snyder chose to shoot that scene, I don't think it adds anything, and we certainly didn't need anymore slow-mo gore. The only thing I'm really disputing is the idea that it destroys Dan's or Laurie's character, and I simply don't think it's as big a deal. The film did an adequate job showing that Comedian and Rorschach were much greater nutbars than Dan or Laurie. In fact, in general (the gore in alley scene didn't really add to or detract from this) I think Dan and Laurie come off a little bit stronger as characters in the film than in the book. This is a good thing in Laurie's case IMO...in Dan's case, it's important that his character be kinda pathetic but I think his helplessness before Ozy's plot still comes across in the end.

[Oskuro]

A little gear change here, but I've been suprised by the prevalence of the "oh noes! a glowing blue penis!" reaction on the net. Are people really that immature? I do remember taking notice of Dr. Manhattan's privates, but I also noticed that in the scenes where you got to see it, it was out of the way and you had to actually be looking for it. On scenes where it would have been too obvious, it was either not seen (via obstacles or him looking away from the camera), or he was wearing his hero-briefs.

[Stormbringer]

LOL, which is why it works dramatically that they're casual murderers who never even mention it again and yet revile other, similar murderers and maniacs. Your hilariuos attempt to paint it as 'kill them all or get murdered' is great, though.

Again, we're supposed to believe that a gang wielding lethal weapons against a pair of folks they've trapped in an alley are absolutely not going to kill? Ninety nine times out of a hundred, that's a set up for murder. You just want to distort that situation just to continue your rant because they changed something and now you think it sucks.

As for murder, it's a pretty clear cut case of justified homicide. The gang attacked them and they lost. Too bad for them but it's not murder.

Savage beatings != multiple murder. They kicked the shit out of them in the book - they killed them casually and in outrageous ways in the movie. Poor Comedian - he only kills POLITICIANS and REPORTERS!

Savage beatings don't necessarily equate to murder but it's entirely possible to kill unintentionally. Violence doesn't get sorted into neat little columns of lethal and non-lethal in the real life. And when you're talking about extremely skilled martial artists and fights doing it to random people, it's damned likely to killed via unintended consequences like internal organ damage or broken blood vessels.

Simply because the funny books tell you it's okay, doesn't make it reality.

This is what's ironic; the Comedian's brutality towards protesters is supposed to be outrageous and evil, but he WAS LESS BRUTAL THAN DREIBERG. It's arguable that he knew he was in no danger from largely unarmed protesters with a laser hovership behind him, but he didn't kill anyone and simply acted with typical gross disregard for public safety. To be consistent he should have at least snapped A FEW protestor's necks, to keep the Comedian's bodycount higher than Dreibergs!

It's not just that act which should inform you about the Comedians character. He's a would be rapist, he's murdered an innocent woman, was the gunman on the grass knoll, and performed political hits for the government. And enjoyed ever minute of it. The riot scene was probably the most subdued behavior we see out of him.

And he probably did kill or maim as many people as Dreiburg and Laurie did in that ally. At least if we drop the double standards. There's at least as much reason to believe the Comedian killed people as you have for the whole "they massacred the gang" angle as you keep bringing up. And never mind that all that was because he charged in and deliberately started it rather than reacting to a situation other initiated.

You mean in that scene where Snyder makes it plainly obvious the kidnapper is guilty, has him confess, and then has Kovacs just chop him up instead of leaving it unclear and having Kovacs burn him alive and watch as his own humanity burns away because now he is the judge?

Hey way to ignore that I was talking about Rorschach murdering a guy because Kovac's a prude and the guy is has issues with sex. Because heaven forbid I should talk about the case that's far more relevant! The murder-kidnapper is probably the most justified of all Rorschach's killings and that's why you're so focuses in on that. Never mind that others

It's actually pretty sad that you're so incapable of seeing how the wide distinction between the characters in the book is almost non-existent in the confused movie. Kovacs kills people because he's a loon; Dreiberg kills people with similar brutality and then forgets about it. Character breakage aside, this also wastes screen time that should have been used to make other scenes (like the totally flat Blake Is My Father scene) actually work. Turns out Snyder's a hack?

You've got problems with what they've done in the movie adaptation. Fine, I get that.

But it's pretty damn clear the movie is doing things differently than the comics. There's not supposed to the same clear cut difference and dare I say that Snyder deliberately chose to play up the fact that these "heroes" are all meant to be dysfunctional. If that makes Dreiburg a bit more of a hypocrite in your eyes, so be it. It's not unjustified and is hardly inconsistent with the comic book you're so worked up about.

But it's okay because we're wanking to American justifiable homicide instead of looking at the characters.

[Anguirus]

Dan not being normal doesn't mean his character survives casually killing anyone who gets in his way and then throwing a giant hissy fit at Veidt.

This is just a bizarre statement. Veidt destroyed a city for every thug Dan maimed.

But hey, me not being a moral absolutist and saying that killing one guy with a knife is not necessarily the same as killing a helpless murderer, killing fleeing rioters, killing a president with a sniper rifle, and killing millions means I'm wanking.

You mean in that scene where Snyder makes it plainly obvious the kidnapper is guilty, has him confess, and then has Kovacs just chop him up instead of leaving it unclear and having Kovacs burn him alive and watch as his own humanity burns away because now he is the judge?

I'm not sure how you could read the book and think there was actual doubt as to whether the guy killed the little girl.

I thought the altered scene was interesting because it played with another superhero trope. The guy was counting on Rorschach's "hero code" to save his life. "You can't touch me! I confess! You're not allowed to kill me, right?" I think I prefer the way the book handled it, but both scenes work fine.

[Pablo Sanchez]

You mean in that scene where Snyder makes it plainly obvious the kidnapper is guilty, has him confess, and then has Kovacs just chop him up instead of leaving it unclear and having Kovacs burn him alive and watch as his own humanity burns away because now he is the judge?

I didn't think it was "unclear" in the graphic novel whether the guy was guilty. Just put it together the same way Rorschach did. First clue: partially burned children's clothing in the stove. The jerry can nearby indicates that he used gasoline, which makes no sense for heating (especially since it was obviously a disused room) but some sense for disposing of evidence. In the kitchen, everything is absolutely filthy, with dirt and cobwebs over everything... except the cutting board, which is clean and covered with distinct (thus probably new) cuts that are also extremely deep to indicate that a lot of force was used, and the set of knives, which are so clean that they are actually gleaming. Then look at the tools that are actually hanging as part of the knife set, in the kitchen cabinet: cleaver, carving knife, butcher knife, sharpening steel, and a hacksaw. One of these things does not belong!

Then the dogs are playing with something that is probably a human femur--just compare Gibbons's art with a medical diagram of a femur and it's pretty obviously the same bone. Then, Grice's first impulse upon seeing his dead dog thrown through a window with it's head chopped open is to go "Holy Shit!" and then say "I didn't do anything!" Then when he sees Rorschach in person, he denies having anything to do with the "little girl", apropos of absolutely nothing. Rorschach doesn't say word one to the guy, but he still knows why Rorschach is there.

Seriously, there's really no ambiguity in that story in the comic book about whether Grice was guilty. I think the difference was that Moore and Gibbons knew that the readers would figure out what the clues meant, while Snyder decided to just have the kitchen soaked in blood and the dogs playing with a legbone that still had a fuckin' foot on it, because people who go to movies are retarded.

As for the scene where Rorschach holds onto Dreiberg's hand for too long, the real context of that is that it is a repeated motif, because the same thing happens between Laurie and Dreiberg in an earlier chapter, also in the Owlship (Ch.7, page six). You can read into this, with Rorschach's repeatedly stated disgust with the female form, that Rorschach is actually gay. But really it's hard to say, because of how profoundly dysfunctional he is.

[Stark]

Pablo, that's what I thought was effective - it wasn't really 'ambiguous', but Kovacs didn't conduct testing or have any real evidence beyond the shocked realisation of what happened by putting the clues together as you say. That's a lot different from 'yes I did it please take me in argh you've stabbed me because my gods were eating a leg complete with shoe'. It's subtlety vs absolute bluntness (and Snyder's addiction to 'gore = gritty').

How anyone can see this killing as 'justified' is beyond me; it's clearly and explicitly the moment Kovacs goes full bonkers and becomes a violent maniac who doesn't 'let them live'... the implication being most heroes do... except they don't anymore because Snyder is in love with slomo and gore. All that shit in the intro with tied-up heroes being arrested? Nah. That's a different book!

That people think Laurie even HAS a character in the movie is bizarre; people saying the acting was 'great' is strange enough, but I thought Laurie was almost totally flat (lol she is flat too geddit) and her one big scene was a complete failure because they dropped the direction from the book and decided 'Manhattan Mind Meld' was better.

[SylasGaunt]

I watched close on the gang vs. Nite-owl/Silk Spectre scene when I saw it again today.. uhm, where's this whole slaughter thing coming from? The only one who for sure is dead is the guy who was shot multiple times by one of his own gang friends.

The knife in the neck went in far enough back it should have missed the jugular, carotid artery, and windpipe if the medical diagrams I'm finding are to be believed.

Then there's the guy who seemed to have his neck snapped by Laurie but then he was yelling when she kicked him into the dumpster so he wouldn't appear to be dead.

[Anguirus]

That people think Laurie even HAS a character in the movie is bizarre; people saying the acting was 'great' is strange enough, but I thought Laurie was almost totally flat (lol she is flat too geddit) and her one big scene was a complete failure because they dropped the direction from the book and decided 'Manhattan Mind Meld' was better.

Well, she doesn't have that much of one in the book, either. At least in the movie she's rather useful, she's a bit more fun, and I thought that her acting, while not amazing, certainly sold me on the character.

The "mind meld" was cheesy, but it's a way to speed up her realization process, as well as emphasize the "Manhattan doesn't see time like we do" idea. (Plus, a large number of characters already have been embarking on lengthy reveries...in comics that is fine, but for a film it was nice to justify a couple of the flashbacks.) I agree that compared to the book Laurie's arc is weakened, but the scene in which she breaks down and Manhattan is convinced of the value of life made up for it. I thought that was an excellent scene.

[Gil Hamilton]

I just got back from seeing it and I really enjoyed it. I thought though, that the movie needed to be dialed down some.

For example, Dan and Laurie AREN'T the ones that are supposed to be doling out the ultraviolence. That's Rorschach and Comedian's job. Then them smiling to each other, going out heroing, and then getting it on for some hot superfucking complete with the flamethrower. ALL those things were in the comic, but they were all alot more subdued, and in that way, you got the point more.

One of the big themes of Watchmen is "What sort of human being puts on a costume and goes out to beat up criminals?" Laurie has spent her entire adult life largely being an accessory to Dr. Manhattan after having her life chosen for her by her oppressive mother. She NEEDED Dan for human contact, and has some what of a superhero lust to her. Dan is normally a geeky nerd who likes birds and costumes, who puts on a superhero costume so he can feel like a man. He can't feel like a man unless he's Nite Owl. It makes SENSE in the comic. They only devoted a few panels to Dan and Laurie hooking up in the book. Then in the movie... extended fucking scene following brutal, crippling assbeatings. Well done, Snyder, way to be subtle without giving the whys.

That said, it succeeded in being a Watchman adaption alot more than I hoped. It did a REALLY good job of summing up the back history of the story in the opening montage and with flash backs and really trimmed the fat in alot of places.

[weemadando]

Saw it today, was really impressed - I much prefer this ending, I felt it translated to screen really well.

I too was disappointed with the addition of uber-violence for Nite Owl and Silkie, which was just plain unnecessary and completely diluted their characters to the point of being just another pair of murderers.

The Times They Are A Changin' montage wins for the best credits sequence that I've ever seen. It tells the story of the past heroes beautifully and was greatly entertaining.

Overall I was slightly let down - I feel it was too slavish an adaption. And the sex scenes were just over-played. They could have been shorter and still served their purpose perfectly well.

Jackie Earle Haley fucking ruled as Rorschach, he owned that character all the way to breakfast.

Final note - is this actually going to be a commercial success? When I saw it today there were maybe 20-30 people in an cinema that seats hundreds. I know that the faithful would have seen it already, but it was a goddamn public holiday in Australia today and the cinema was barren.

[Ford Prefect]

When I saw it today there were maybe 20-30 people in an cinema that seats hundreds.

When I went to see it on Sunday, three days after release, the place was packed.

[JointStrikeFighter]

It was packed late on a Friday night where I went also.

[Stark]

I saw it in Brisbane city in the biggest cinemas at 1345 on the Friday after release and there were 30 people tops in the cinema, more than half fatty nerd idiots.

Angurius, the meld itself wasn't a problem; it was the way they turned a swirling series of echoes and memories revealing something that had been obvious for years but Laurie had hid from into 'press mind button, oh dear Blake is my dad, I fell down'. I was disappointed in everything about the scene because they changed the direction for no reason, there was essentially no music, and it had no impact whereas in the book it's one of the most powerful scenes in the book and directly addresses on of it's major themes - a theme pretty much absent from the movie.

[Anguirus]

^ That's fair. I don't know how else to handle it without increasing the running time, though. Making that scene any longer would have robbed the building climax of all momentum, and I can't think of another natural place to put some Laurie flashbacks.

[SylasGaunt]

Saw it today, was really impressed - I much prefer this ending, I felt it translated to screen really well.

I too was disappointed with the addition of uber-violence for Nite Owl and Silkie, which was just plain unnecessary and completely diluted their characters to the point of being just another pair of murderers.

Eh, as I mentioned the only guy who's really for certain dead is the one who was shot, but that was by one of his own people not Dan or Laurie. The rest just seemed to have six kinds of hell kicked out of them.

There's a world of difference between that and Rorsach who at this point basically defaults to 'kill the bastard' even for a relatively harmless perv like Captain Carnage.

[Starglider]

I too was disappointed with the addition of uber-violence for Nite Owl and Silkie... the sex scenes were just over-played... I feel it was too slavish an adaption.

Perhaps you'd prefer this adaptation?

[ray245]

The solution is fucked up beyond words. For the whole movie, it keep telling us the message that how humanity is violent and cannot be stopped, your solution is to kill millions of lives for something that is not achievable to begin with? Tell, me how on earth are you going to stop something that almost every single species is prone to do, the desire to fight and dominate against each other?

World peace? Sure, Humanity will bond together for a short while, but once they realise they are afraid of someone that might not even come back to Earth, wars and fighting will start once again.

Hell, you don't need the conspiracy to be revealed to ensure people will start fighting against each other once over again. So there is no morality issue in regards to blowing up Million of lives.

[Big Orange]

If only the comic and movie ended like this.

[fgalkin]

The motivation is different; in the new version it isn't 'lets band together to defeat the evil aliens', it's 'if we don't play nice Dr M will kill us'. At least that's what I got from Night Owl's line 'you haven't improved the human condition, you've twised and distorted it' (or similar) - Ozzy is forcing everyone to play nice through fear, which is unnatural and unsustainable.

Yeah, and why would this mean the sudden emergence of the CoDominium? People just don't work like that, they need an Other to hate. Banding against Evil Scary Aliens is believable to an extent, but why should they band together now? They might do that for the reconstruction, and then just go right back to kicking each other under the table, except now they're being sneakier about it so that the Big Blue Naked Man in the Sky doesn't notice and kill them all.

Free energy would not eliminate the cold war, and Ozzy knows that, or he wouldn't need his 'blow shit up' plan in the first place. The roots of the conflict are in ideology and superpower politics, not lack of energy (that would've been more plausible in the 70s but the 80s was awash with energy). If he really is the 'smartest man on earth' he probably knows that the USSR is going to collapse under its own weight in a decade or so and just wants to hold off nuclear armageddon until then - that or he has a plan for space colonisation or some other way to make nuclear warfare survivable (e.g. replicating Dr M's 'energy shields' on a large scale should do it).

This is a man who thinks he can gauge current opinion by watching snippets of tv shows and commercials and makes decisions based on that. If he's the smartest man in the world, the rest of the people are retards.

Ultimately that's pretty much it.

Whether you go with the original or the movie ending it isn't a long term solution. Movie-wise it's Adrian trying to pull things back from the brink, despite helping push them to it in the first place, and hoping that in the aftermath they may have a "god, what did we almost do" reaction. The comic book version is similar with the hope that force cooperation might avert future trouble.

Of course, like the ending of V for Vendetta is really doesn't make sense as a rational plan. It won't work but it's typical of the characters in question to think so.

Yeah, none of them make sense, that is the whole point of the story, but at least the Giant Squid doesn't fail Evolutionary Psychology 101. It fails Worldbuilding 101, Plotting 101, and especially Internal Consistency 101, but at least it makes sense logically. The new plan doesn't.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

If only the comic and movie ended like this.

It doesn't have Dr. Manhattan eaten by a giant blue Bubastis at the end, so it sucks.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ford Prefect]

World peace? Sure, Humanity will bond together for a short while, but once they realise they are afraid of someone that might not even come back to Earth, wars and fighting will start once again.

The movie doesn't address it, but Veidt actually has plans for world domination in the book. He doesn't just kill ten million people and leave it at that, he uses it as a catalyst to allow him to lead the world to his vision of utopia. Veidt's plan only starts with some wild and implausible way of pulling back humanity from the brink of total annhilation. Exactly what he plans to do is essentially unimportant, mind.

This is a man who thinks he can gauge current opinion by watching snippets of tv shows and commercials and makes decisions based on that.

I hear television doesn't reflect society or culture at all? While how Veidt is doing it is implausible because he is at best glancing at everything and the information is oddly specific and apparently so rapidly changing, the fact that trends in society are reflected in its mass media isn't outlandish.

[fgalkin]

Yeah, but he's gauging current trends.

I hear they had 9/11 commercials and stuff on 9/12. They totally did.

It takes months to make a commercial, a year plus to make a TV show season. What Veidt is seeing is not a response to the current crisis, it's months to years old! And he's basing his judements on that?

Not to mention that randomly flipping channels to do that is the height of inefficiency. Just use a clipping service that will actually analyze it for you, too, but I guess Ozzy is far too brilliant to do that, da?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ford Prefect]

I am aware of that, but the television which is showing today does actually reflect today's culture. It has to, otherwise no one would watch it.

[fgalkin]

I am aware of that, but the television which is showing today does actually reflect today's culture. It has to, otherwise no one would watch it.

Yeah, but he was going all "oh, there's more sex on TV because of the war, invest in porn". That may be true, and investing in porn might even be the correct choice, but it has nothing to do with the current crisis, and Veidt is stupid if he thinks that is the case.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin