Watchmen. [SPOILERS!]

[Stormbringer]

Sure. And all the world is going to unite against him and...do what, exactly? Pray he won't swat them like flies?

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.

Of course, then there is the fact that his Way Out is also the Dr. Manhattan Power Replicator. Congratulations, Ozzy, you jusrt gave mankind another toy to kill each other with, and a damn strong urge to use it!.

And that's where Nite Owl's remark about deforming and mutilating human nature comes from. Veidt is a lunatic, same as the rest of them, and it's his king-sized ego that makes him think this will work. It, as you say, quite probably won't (witness Rorschach's journal) and he knows it. But Veidt is crazy enough to try anyway because he has a messiah complex; that's his dysfunction. That's kind of the point of all this and the reader/movie goer should clearly be able to grasp that. If Viedt's plan was viable, especially in the long term, then Watchmen wouldn't be Watchmen. I wouldn't have thought people would need that explained.


EDIT: I posted this prior to finishing the rest of the thread. It looks like Starglider has said most of what I have and done a better job of it.

[Stark]

C'mon, the funniest part was that they changed Manhattan's confusion so he collaborated in the plan out of stupidity - here, Adrian, have this giant WMD ... I mean generator. Let's pontificate in a hamfisted way about non-80s issues with Evil Oil Men now. I didn't think this version was that much worse than the book, but similarly the only way it's 'better' is that it makes it about OMG TEH TOPICAL ENERGYZ instead of woot psychics.

However, I think people identify two much with Dreiberg; in the movie he's a complete lunatic, a shy retiring nerd who multiple-murders at a whim and then complains that Kovacs is 'a lunatic', tells Veidt he's a bad man for perverting human nature and then flies into an incoherent childish rage to demonstrate his impotency (and that Comedian was right). It's just a shame that the movie distorts the narrative so that it's not as clear that the Russians were going to attack anyway, thus making the whole crisis simply one of Veidt's making.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I saw it at the IMAX at 0245 Saturday and greatly enjoyed it. I can't add anything that hasn't already been said, and of course I need to see this again and re-read the novel which will always be superior, but I don't think we could ask for a better adaptation. The music, visuals and acting are all top notch, and kudos to Solid Snake in adapting the screenplay. The opening and credits and Doctor Manhattan's origin story are all beautifully done and make up for any omissions or other flaws the comic doesn't have (although still iffy on the ending).

I see the Daily Wail loves it too.

[Stormbringer]

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).

I think you made some excellent points. But I disagree with on the notion that Veidt had the sort of contingency plan you are saying he did. For one thing, this was written in the 80s, and by Alan Moore who is so far left he's practically created a new dimension, and the fear of nuclear annihilation ran pretty high. It certainly wasn't a forgone conclusion that there wouldn't be a nuclear WW3. And Moore for his part wrote it as an anti-Reagan, anti-Thatcher piece and he certainly thought it could, maybe even would, happen. So saying that's even a possibility is had to reconcile, even with out the far more polarized and aggressive tendencies of the alternate universe of Watchmen.

On top of that, it assumes that Veidt isn't as screwed up as the rest of the Watchmen. Personally, I think its pretty obvious that he is at least as messed up. His behavior wreaks of a messiah complex and would be entirely in keeping with that for him to have no logical follow up. He has good intentions, as much as any of them, but the way he's not really any saner than the rest of the team.

[Big Orange]

The plan made sense since Veidt publically humiliated Dr. Manhattan and Manhattan left Earth in a enraged state in front of the international media, so he could be easily framed as a feasible world threatening aggressor. Veidt's plan certainly worked in the short term and he was snidely capitalizing on its success by winning the contract to rebuild the destroyed downtown Manhattan.

I was really won over by the set design - Veidt Enterprises' corporate tower was more imaginatively designed than in the graphic novel and fitted better in the alternative Manhattan skyline (where it was quite close to the Empire State Building and was a similar height to it). Some people thought Karnak was OTT when I actually thought it was slightly more realistic with the place surrounded by support structures similar to what you get in real Antarctic base camps and with a less ostentatious interior.

And in the assassination attempt I found it too convenient that Ozy's rather conservative business rival gets shot squarely in chest and head.

[Anguirus]

Saw it, liked it. It wasn't perfect, but it was "Lord of the Rings" good, if you follow me. A few things I would have done differently, but also a number of masterstrokes that I wouldn't have thought of myself.

One complaint I don't understand: I heard many times that Manhattan's junk is so large and prominent as to be "distracting." It's *really* not. I think that we're just not used to seeing penises on screen...or perhaps people just weren't expecting the tweaking Manhattan got so that he actually looks like he could exist in a "real" world instead of a comics panel. I did not find myself distracted by the dick at all. From what I've heard I was expecting freaking close-ups.

Ozymandias' plot makes much more sense, frankly. Moore's Squid was intentionally nonsensical and outrageous, yet another of his commentaries on the genre. It wouldn't have flown here. You can't pull psychics and space aliens out of absolutely nowhere and expect people who aren't fans of the book to buy it. They barely even had time to fit the simplified plot into the film and have it all make sense. If the film had one flaw, it was the number of expository scenes anyway...adding more would have been deadly.

I also didn't like how viciously the thugs in the alley were beaten/killed, but self-defense is a pretty far cry from "multiple murders at a whim." The K-Ts simply picked the wrong two people to try and murder and loot in an alley...if they hadn't been "superheroes" and the two used lethal force to defend themselves no one would have batted an eye. So while it does make Rorschach seem less unique and Dan seem more dangerous, it certainly doesn't destroy anyone's character.

Anyway, I went in a group with the friend who introduced me to the book and two people who hadn't read the book, and everyone enjoyed it a great deal. I'm not sure my one friend was expecting the level of gore/sex that there was, but she said she was surprised by how easily she followed the story and how well everything fit together.

Other things I liked: the closeness between Veidt and Manhattan was emphasized more in the film, which is good, as I find them a very interesting pairing. The last scene between them was eliminated/rejiggered, but I was actually glad he delivered that last line to Laurie instead.

And in the assassination attempt I found it too convenient that Ozy's rather conservative business rival gets shot squarely in chest and head.

Oh, you KNOW he planned that. Yeah, that was an odd change but not totally inappropriate...I thought that was a very effective use of slo-mo to increase the tension in a scene. Not all the slow-mo was as effective...but hey, that's what you get with Zack Snyder apparently.

[Stark]

No, they brutally murdered them. American 'they asked for it' thinking aside, it destroys all the 'outrage' over Kovacs being 'extreme' and make Dreiberg and Jupiter look like fucking maniacs. Pure Synder-ism, like the worthless punch up scene he invented instead of making pivotal scenes work.

I'm going to mope in my basement cause I miss the old days. If I have to kill a dozen people on the way to have a beer with my mate Mason, so be it!

Giving the pivotal line of the novel to Jupiter totally of of context was hilarious. No doubting Veidt begging for absolution before god and being left ashamed and afraid of the future here! Those 20 seconds were better spent on slow motion elsewhere.

[Big Orange]

I also didn't like how viciously the thugs in the alley were beaten/killed, but self-defense is a pretty far cry from "multiple murders at a whim." The K-Ts simply picked the wrong two people to try and murder and loot in an alley...if they hadn't been "superheroes" and the two used lethal force to defend themselves no one would have batted an eye. So while it does make Rorschach seem less unique and Dan seem more dangerous, it certainly doesn't destroy anyone's character.

They weren't multiple-murders for shits and giggles as Stark makes them out to be, but it was contrived and clumsy of Snyder to show them killing people like Veidt and Rorschach did, even if they were defending themselves. In the graphic novel they incapacitated the "Knot-Tops" thugs instead of ripping off their limbs, snapping their necks, and pushing them into the gunfire.

[Ford Prefect]

The fact that they were brutal didn't bother me, even if it was ridiculously more so than the book, but it did bother me that Laurie would literally snap a guy's neck or stab another in the neck with his own knife. I could understand them using lethal force if necessary, because they don't want to die (for example, Laurie moving the guy she had stabbed in the way of the guy with the gun), but it's not like they actually needed to kill anyone in that scene. They probably would have been mourdered, except they so massively outclassed their attackers that it was unnecessary. The fact that Dan is willing to halfway snap off limbs or gouge out someone's eyes but thinks Rawshark 'goes too far' is actually kind of interesting, but Snyder is stupid. I'm actually astounded that the movie was actually as enjoyable as it was given that he was at the helm. I mean, I liked 300, but in the same sort of way people like They Live.

[Nephtys]

So in other news, I just found this awesome trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

[Stark]

That's it, Ford. Indeed it makes them NORE crazy than Kovscs because he's a loon and lives like one - they murder after dinner then forget about it entirely.

In the novel Kovacs killing the kidnapper (who may have been innocent because Moore understands subtlety) drives him over the edge into a dark crazy place. Laurie does it on the way home from burgers.

[Anguirus]

No, they brutally murdered them. American 'they asked for it' thinking aside, it destroys all the 'outrage' over Kovacs being 'extreme' and make Dreiberg and Jupiter look like fucking maniacs.

So breaking someone's arm is not an appropriate response to attempted murder?

"Comic book escapism" thinking aside, if you are insanely well-trained and you are surprised by thugs with deadly weapons, some of them might be killed by your response. I seem to remember a great deal of satisfaction on this board the last time a bunch of thugs in the UK were dumb enough to hold up a retired SAS guy.

Only one guy was killed for sure anyway. And none of them ran away...all of them charged right in. It's not like they chased them down, or they let one beg for his life and then executed him (aka Rorschach).

Giving the pivotal line of the novel to Jupiter totally of of context was hilarious. No doubting Veidt begging for absolution before god and being left ashamed and afraid of the future here! Those 20 seconds were better spent on slow motion elsewhere.

Veidt did beg for absolution. The scene fell a little flat but it did happen.

The line about creating life is much better delivered to Laurie. (In the graphic novel, Laurie and Dan have already fallen asleep naked in the five minutes it took Manhattan to kill Rorschach, and then Manhattan talks to Veidt and Veidt somehow knows that Dr. M is interested in life again. It makes no fucking sense in the novel.)

[Stark]

Don't insult yourself. They brutally murdered half a dozen people. In the novel they just comic-book kung-fu them, and are left panting for breath and with the need to PUNCH BADGUYS reawakened within them. It's a bonding scene that pushes them both back into the saddle.

In the movie is shows them butchering a bunch of muggers using super-powers and then just wandering off, never thinknig of it again. Did they report it? Call an ambulance? Remember, we're supposed to care that they were banned and that the public rioted against them - how ridiculous does the Dreiberg/Blake riot seen appear in retrospect? Oh noes Comedian, so violent! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DREAM MAN??? Nevermind I'll go murder some people lol. It isn't about American FUCK EM UP revenge killings and justified homicide - it's about how the plot and characters now DON'T WORK because Dan the retiring nerd is a massive hypocrite and possibly insane. Amusingly this just makes his pathetic crybaby display at the climax even more amusing.

And the pivotal line I refer to is 'Nothing ever ends, Adrian'. Veidt wanted to know if it was all good 'in the end', that now he'd 'fixed' the world and that problems were gone (problems that haunted him since the Crimebusters meet). Jon tells him it's not that simple and life goes on, in a way that echoes Spectre and Blake's relationship. This breaks through Veidt's arrogance and he's left shamed and doubting. This is totally lacking in the movie and the line becomes a throwaway Jupiter line for pure fanservice. Changing the god-imagery from the novel to the hilarious OMG VEIDT YOU BAD I PUNCH YOU outburst in the movie is hardly an improvement (although personally I enjoyed that it shows Blake and Veidt are right about people all along and Dan is just a retard).

It's hardly a stretch from 'Manhattan returns' to 'Manhattan cares about life again or he'd never have come back', it's so obvious even NOT the smartest man in the world who has detailed psych data me can make that connection.

[Ford Prefect]

I mean, let's look at it here - the actual killings don't occur because they're pushed to it. Laurie stabs a guy in the throat despite the fact that she could clearly just disarm him. She has him entirely under control. He poses no further threat to her, but instead of just breaking his hand or punching him in the throat, she sees fit to stab him. It's the same thing when she callously snaps another dude's neck. She has control of his head, so he's totally at her mercy, but instead of just disabling him (as she is clearly capable of), she twists his head almost all the way around. It's not 'oh shit, we're pushed into a corner and people died' it's 'we have systematically destroyed this entire gang nearly effortlessly and brutally executed a couple of dudes in the process'.

[Big Orange]

They were cornered by twenty plus thugs armed with guns and knives who intended to kill them, so they did what they had to do, even if they should've held back with the lethal force and I wonder why they strolled into such obvious danger. It was clusmy directing that made the battle's violence seem random and the Silk Spectre II/Night Owl II not referencing the incident again. Snyder was mechanically following a scene from the comic book and tastelessly sexing it up.

And look another lame review from Christopher Tookey of the Daily Fail.

[Stark]

Twenty plus? Get your eyes checked. I'd be uncertain it was more than 7.

How do you know they intended to kill them?

How did they 'do what they had to do' (by which you mean murder them all) when as Ford points out they TOTALLY OUTCLASSED THEM and casually defeated the lot of them? Snyder just likes slow motion and gore, and this negatively impacted things like 'characters' and 'motivations'.

Kovacs and the Comedian are the extreme, violent ones, remember? Oh wait, even the Comedian didn't kill any rioters! Dreiberg is WORSE THAN THE COMEDIAN!

[Ford Prefect]

There is actually a shitload of Top Knots who follow them into an alley, easily more than ten or twelve, but they basically all disappear once the fight starts. It's difficult to justify them killing in 'self defense' when there's obviously no threat to them at all. Even the book had more threat in that scene and there were only three or four guys. And in the book while it's clear that Dan and Laurie fucked them up pretty badly, they didn't kill them. It was brutal, showing the nature of 'superheroics' in that universe, and what sort of people Dan and Laurie could be when pushed, but it still separated them from Kovacs.

[Stark]

Oh, I thought it was 3-4 at the entrance and 3-4 at the other end. I only remember them killing about half a dozen guys though, so ... movie magic?

[Anguirus]

Don't insult yourself.

Huh?

Is this some sort of obnoxious "concession accepted" kind of BS?

Did they report it? Call an ambulance? Remember, we're supposed to care that they were banned and that the public rioted against them - how ridiculous does the Dreiberg/Blake riot seen appear in retrospect?

Did they report it or call an ambulance in the book? I suppose it's not "superpowers" when you dispatch a number of armed attackers without badly hurting them whatsoever (book), but it is when you just fight them off.

The whole fight is clearly supposed to last a few seconds in real time. They're not in costume--they're acting on instinct.

how ridiculous does the Dreiberg/Blake riot seen appear in retrospect? Oh noes Comedian, so violent! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DREAM MAN??? Nevermind I'll go murder some people lol.

Not very? In that circumstance Dreiberg and Blake were uniformed agents of the law, and Dreiberg was upset by the fact that they were "protecting" the people by violently dispersing them. In the film the force used by the Comedian is more excessive, as he takes out a firearm and blasts retreating civilians.

In the real world, an off-duty cop killing a guy who tries to murder him in an alley and a cop in uniform shooting into fleeing rioters are two different things.

And the pivotal line I refer to is 'Nothing ever ends, Adrian'. Veidt wanted to know if it was all good 'in the end', that now he'd 'fixed' the world and that problems were gone (problems that haunted him since the Crimebusters meet). Jon tells him it's not that simple and life goes on, in a way that echoes Spectre and Blake's relationship. This breaks through Veidt's arrogance and he's left shamed and doubting. This is totally lacking in the movie and the line becomes a throwaway Jupiter line for pure fanservice.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I think that this message still gets across...witness Veidt standing in the ruins of his sanctum.

As for why it was changed...fanservice would have been Malin Ackerman taking out her tits again, not having a line directed at her.

[Big Orange]

Twenty plus? Get your eyes checked. I'd be uncertain it was more than 7.

Either way they were outnumbered, there seemed to be more than just seven thugs.

How do you know they intended to kill them?

Because they carried lethal weapons including firearms, while blocking their escape. I wouldn't second guess their intent.

How did they 'do what they had to do' (by which you mean murder them all) when as Ford points out they TOTALLY OUTCLASSED THEM and casually defeated the lot of them?

They had to defend themselves, but not to the extreme that they did. They didn't seem to kill every last one of them, but they seemed to be enjoying killing the ones they did kill when they could've simply incapacitated them considering their experience of bagging street crims.

Snyder just likes slow motion and gore, and this negatively impacted things like 'characters' and 'motivations'.

I agree. It was clumsly sexed up at the expense of the characters, but at the same time it was not completely random.

Kovacs and the Comedian are the extreme, violent ones, remember? Oh wait, even the Comedian didn't kill any rioters! Dreiberg is WORSE THAN THE COMEDIAN!

The Comedian probably killed the guy defacing official government wall art, if he gleefully walked off the screen into the direction of the already seriously maimed guy.

[Stark]

Either way they were outnumbered, there seemed to be more than just seven thugs.

Outnumbered, and yet they casually defeated all of them. That's why it's okay that they killed them and doesn't damage the characters at all.

Because they carried lethal weapons including firearms, while blocking their escape. I wouldn't second guess their intent.

Have you heard of the concept of 'mugging'? Frankly, they could have killed ONE guy and then simply FLED; the thugs had amazing morale and Dan simply stuck around for maximum casualities. Just like the fat middle-aged guy he is! In the novel they avoid fighting long enough to actually be boxed in by the 4-5 guys, then break out into an orgy of nose-breaking, ninja-throwing action and walk away. This had threat, and not 'in this scene the heros brutally murder a squad of jobbers to facilitate some gore for no reason'. The movie didn't even set up the K-Ts, so it's even context-free.

They had to defend themselves, but not to the extreme that they did. They didn't seem to kill every last one of them, but they seemed to be enjoying killing the ones they did kill when they could've simply incapacitated them considering their experience of bagging street crims.

This is why the adults are talking about characters and plot. This is why Snyder's change is unnecesary and hurts the movie.

I agree. It was clumsly sexed up at the expense of the characters, but at the same time it was not completely random.

There was sex in that scene?

The Comedian probably killed the guy defacing official government wall art, if he gleefully walked off the screen into the direction of the already seriously maimed guy.

The Comedian was brutal, but even he didn't kill any of them when surrounded. He fucked up a bunch of guys because he's a brutal maniac, but didn't go as far as Dreiberg did ten years later and Dan is supposed to be 'normal' or 'good'. This kind of makes the whole OMG SO VIOLENT thing complete horseshit.

Oh but he 'probably' (read; didn't) kill one guy!

[Stormbringer]

Twenty plus? Get your eyes checked. I'd be uncertain it was more than 7.

How do you know they intended to kill them?

I'm sure they cornered them in a dark back alley in the ghetto to ask them kindly for a donation for their church group's fund for poor starving orphans and maybe ask Laurie to go a a-courting on Friday night. Yeah, I'm sure that's what it was.

It's pathetically obvious from their demeanor and actions that they were at best going to commit armed robbery and it's hardly impossible to think that, being armed, that they didn't have murder and rape in their plans as well. They didn't attack a Cub Scout troup here, they were attacked by an obvious street gang with obviously unsavory motives. Why exactly give the would be murderer's such a benefit of the doubt?

How did they 'do what they had to do' (by which you mean murder them all) when as Ford points out they TOTALLY OUTCLASSED THEM and casually defeated the lot of them? Snyder just likes slow motion and gore, and this negatively impacted things like 'characters' and 'motivations'.

Because only in "comic" books and fucking fairyland do you stand off a gang of probably murderous attackers with out maiming and probably killing. Why in a movie trying to emphasize some realism in the caped crime fighter/super hero genre should we pretend savage beatings of criminals by highly trained vigilantes should be bloodless. If anything, it makes a hello of a lot of sense in showing exactly why the public turned against these heroes!

As for why they get back into crime fighting, it's painfully obvious that both of them are dysfunctional as all hell. I wasn't aware that Dan or Laurie were supposed to be more mentally adjusted or right. Both Moore and Snyder have said that none of the characters are meant to be clearly in the right and none of meant to be well adjusted. It does change the complexion of it but not really the motivation. Neither one of them is capable of doing much else than being a masked vigilante and the attack still remains as a potential catalyst for them to take it up again.

Kovacs and the Comedian are the extreme, violent ones, remember? Oh wait, even the Comedian didn't kill any rioters! Dreiberg is WORSE THAN THE COMEDIAN!

Are you fucking kidding me? The Comedian was, at best, blasting rubber bullets into protesters at close range; personally I'm not even sure he was actually using rubber bullets. He was also lobbing gas grenades into people at equally short range. Both acts are incredibly lethal and police are trained to avoid for just that reason. He certainly could have killed and quite probably did so. If you're assuming the gang all died at Dan and Laurie's hands, it hardly seems like the Comedians rampage there should be assumed to have been bloodless. And that's leaving aside things like Vietnam where he murdered a woman pregnant with his child. Or the other murders he committed. Sure, the Comedian is a great guy because he maybe didn't kill some people even though he probably did when he was supposed to be keeping the peace.

As for Rorschach, did you miss the part where he brutally murdered the masochist that hounded the Watchmen, in all probability because of his extreme sex-phobias and insane personality. Or the fact that he's in general portrayed as killing with out restraint and enjoying it immensely. Yeah, that's clearly no different than killing would be murderers.

[Stark]

I'm sure they cornered them in a dark back alley in the ghetto to ask them kindly for a donation for their church group's fund for poor starving orphans and maybe ask Laurie to go a a-courting on Friday night. Yeah, I'm sure that's what it was.

It's pathetically obvious from their demeanor and actions that they were at best going to commit armed robbery and it's hardly impossible to think that, being armed, that they didn't have murder and rape in their plans as well. They didn't attack a Cub Scout troup here, they were attacked by an obvious street gang with obviously unsavory motives. Why exactly give the would be murderer's such a benefit of the doubt?

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.

Because only in "comic" books and fucking fairyland do you stand off a gang of probably murderous attackers with out maiming and probably killing. Why in a movie trying to emphasize some realism in the caped crime fighter/super hero genre should we pretend savage beatings of criminals by highly trained vigilantes should be bloodless. If anything, it makes a hello of a lot of sense in showing exactly why the public turned against these heroes!

As for why they get back into crime fighting, it's painfully obvious that both of them are dysfunctional as all hell. I wasn't aware that Dan or Laurie were supposed to be more mentally adjusted or right. Both Moore and Snyder have said that none of the characters are meant to be clearly in the right and none of meant to be well adjusted. It does change the complexion of it but not really the motivation. Neither one of them is capable of doing much else than being a masked vigilante and the attack still remains as a potential catalyst for them to take it up again.

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!

Are you fucking kidding me? The Comedian was, at best, blasting rubber bullets into protesters at close range; personally I'm not even sure he was actually using rubber bullets. He was also lobbing gas grenades into people at equally short range. Both acts are incredibly lethal and police are trained to avoid for just that reason. He certainly could have killed and quite probably did so. If you're assuming the gang all died at Dan and Laurie's hands, it hardly seems like the Comedians rampage there should be assumed to have been bloodless. And that's leaving aside things like Vietnam where he murdered a woman pregnant with his child. Or the other murders he committed. Sure, the Comedian is a great guy because he maybe didn't kill some people even though he probably did when he was supposed to be keeping the peace.

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!

As for Rorschach, did you miss the part where he brutally murdered the masochist that hounded the Watchmen, in all probability because of his extreme sex-phobias and insane personality. Or the fact that he's in general portrayed as killing with out restraint and enjoying it immensely. Yeah, that's clearly no different than killing would be murderers.

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?

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?

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

[Stormbringer]

Either way they were outnumbered, there seemed to be more than just seven thugs.

Outnumbered, and yet they casually defeated all of them. That's why it's okay that they killed them and doesn't damage the characters at all.

Again, why the hell should a movie shooting for gritty (oh so gritty) realism sanitize brutal beatings? You can't just brutally beat the hell out of people and magically have people survive with out serious injury just by the magic of not meaning to kill them.

Because they carried lethal weapons including firearms, while blocking their escape. I wouldn't second guess their intent.

Have you heard of the concept of 'mugging'? Frankly, they could have killed ONE guy and then simply FLED; the thugs had amazing morale and Dan simply stuck around for maximum casualities. Just like the fat middle-aged guy he is! In the novel they avoid fighting long enough to actually be boxed in by the 4-5 guys, then break out into an orgy of nose-breaking, ninja-throwing action and walk away. This had threat, and not 'in this scene the heros brutally murder a squad of jobbers to facilitate some gore for no reason'. The movie didn't even set up the K-Ts, so it's even context-free.

This wasn't a purse snatching, the K-Ts were armed with a knife and gun and their attention to Laurie hardly bodes well. But hey, let's all give the street gang the benefit of the doubt. As for running, it may have been possible but it isn't exactly a brilliant course of action. It would be courting a knife or bullet in the back if the gang did try to finish off the witnesses. Better to actually finish the fight, even if it does result in additional casualties on the gang's side. It's a little thing called realism.

As for motives, it still functions as a motives in that it does show them criminals are still out there and give them a taste of the life they obviously still miss. They aren't pure as the drive snow, they're deeply screwed up people. It doesn't have to match the motives in the comic book. But it still fits and is hardly as problematic as you make it out to be.

The Comedian was brutal, but even he didn't kill any of them when surrounded. He fucked up a bunch of guys because he's a brutal maniac, but didn't go as far as Dreiberg did ten years later and Dan is supposed to be 'normal' or 'good'. This kind of makes the whole OMG SO VIOLENT thing complete horseshit.

Oh but he 'probably' (read; didn't) kill one guy!

Again he was beating them and firing rubber bullets (which may well kill) and was clearly following the fleeings ex-rioters with the intention of continuing the carnage. That's a little more unnecessary than decisively finishing a fight against a gang of would be murderers.

As for Dan being normal, he's less prone to being a gleeful maniac but he's still a guy that goes out and beats on people in a bird suit. Normal he isn't and the extent to which he is "good" is supposed to be highly subject in the book and movie.

[Stark]

Again, why the hell should a movie shooting for gritty (oh so gritty) realism sanitize brutal beatings? You can't just brutally beat the hell out of people and magically have people survive with out serious injury just by the magic of not meaning to kill them.

It's not about 'sanitising' the violence you so crave; it's about maintaining character consistency. They could have beaten the shit out of those guys with amazing gore and slowmo, leaving them in puddles of their own blood where they'd probably die without medical attention, and it wouldn't have broken the characters in this way.

Remember, the main cast is super-durable. It's unlikely being stabbed would even have slowed them down.

This wasn't a purse snatching, the K-Ts were armed with a knife and gun and their attention to Laurie hardly bodes well. But hey, let's all give the street gang the benefit of the doubt. As for running, it may have been possible but it isn't exactly a brilliant course of action. It would be courting a knife or bullet in the back if the gang did try to finish off the witnesses. Better to actually finish the fight, even if it does result in additional casualties on the gang's side. It's a little thing called realism.

Sorry, they didn't know about the gun until they'd killed a bunch of people. Ooops.

As for motives, it still functions as a motives in that it does show them criminals are still out there and give them a taste of the life they obviously still miss. They aren't pure as the drive snow, they're deeply screwed up people. It doesn't have to match the motives in the comic book. But it still fits and is hardly as problematic as you make it out to be.

That's what it was for in the book, and it worked with the brutality shown in the book. Making them murderers as well is just hilarious since they didn't change other scenes to 'match'.

Again he was beating them and firing rubber bullets (which may well kill) and was clearly following the fleeings ex-rioters with the intention of continuing the carnage. That's a little more unnecessary than decisively finishing a fight against a gang of would be murderers.

As for Dan being normal, he's less prone to being a gleeful maniac but he's still a guy that goes out and beats on people in a bird suit. Normal he isn't and the extent to which he is "good" is supposed to be highly subject in the book and movie.

Sorry, nobody knows what the Comedian was doing. He was never going to catch anyone with his strolling gait, he just Exits, Stage Left. That you even conmpare firing rubber bullets and inappropriate use of gas to STABBING SOMEONE IN THE SPINE and SNAPPING SOMEONE'S NECK is great stuff, though.

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. I think it works from the perspective that he's a massive hypocrite, but he's far less of a typical hero-figure than in the book (where he's just a violent fetishist).