WATCHMEN Movie Discussion (SPOILERS allowed)!

[barbelith]

From what I have read and seen we are getting about a 90%-95% conversion, that is more than enough for me!

It seems to be a very "missing the forest for the trees" conversion though, especially since it's pulling a V for Vendetta with a rewrite of the climax that completely undermines the entire point of the book.

 

[plasmid303]

No squid? No problem. Perhaps it's just another creature instead? Or are they rewriting the entire ending?

 

[barbelith]

No squid? No problem.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

No squid. Veidt frames Manhattan for a 9/11 style event. This is incredibly retarded for several reasons. The point of the squid is to present an external and incomprehensible threat that forces the world to unite in global peace (and it's important to remember everyone on Earth experiences the squid because of a psychic link; it literally becomes everyone's shared pain). Manhattan is a US agent and fought in Vietnam; people would associate him with US military action and so any frame would only cast the US in a questionable light at best. We've had 9/11 and nuclear events in real life and they did not result in the world uniting in global peace. On top of that the book only happens because of the squid; remove the island and deaths of the designers and the Comedian has no discovery, which means Veidt has no motive to kill him, which means Rorshach has nothing to investigate. Worse than that, framing Manhattan is already irrelevant because of the Keene Act stuff and the way costumed heroes were hounded out of operation through the years! And that's just the surface. Removing the squid isn't removing a prop - it's removing the entire engine of the book. As if there wasn't a reason Alan Moore is a genius.

It sounds like we're getting a movie like V for Vendetta. A decent film, well shot, slavishly frame for frame in some respects but with extraneous "bad ass" moments added in others to keep the kids awake, and ultimately missing the entire point because the screenwriters decide they're cleverer than Alan Moore and rewrite the climax. Because seriously? Anyone who reads V for Vendetta and thinks an army of people dressed up just like V makes any sense whatsoever in the context of the book needs to go back to remedial English.

It's just very frustrating, because it looks like Snyder got so much right. But not the one thing that actually mattered, which was the point of it all.

 

[Kabukiman]

barbelith stated my feelings on the subject perfectly. However, I'm hoping against hope that they get it right.

I can deal with no squid, but they *need* to convey the feelings that ending brought forth. If not, then why adapt the story at all?

Doc Manhatten and/or nuclear annihilation will not get the job done (for reasons stated above by barbelith).

I'm still super excited about the movie, because it looks like it's pretty damn faithful and they're not done cutting it yet.

 

[Scar]

Wow, a lot happens when you go away for a weekend and miss the flood of posts...

Eh, I'll retain my reservations about the ending until I see how it is handled in the film. The point of the ending is to unite the world against a common threat so that world peace - as close to its actual realization as can probably be conceived - can come to fruition. If the rest of the movie and scenes are accordingly adapted so as to achieve that, I'll be satisfied, squid or no squid.

As to extraneous action, one of the things that makes Watchmen so groundbreaking is that it portrays superheroes as fallible and flawed: potential rapists, murderers, torturers, lechers, and add erectile dysfunction atop the heap for good measure. All of these things considered... they are still superheroes. They are capable of the extraordinary and the film has a duty to be true to the story - to capture both the extraordinary and the ordinary.

Also, I want to echo what others have said about these possibly being career-making roles for JDM and JEH. Just seeing how their portrayals of my two favorite characters appear to be like my dreams come to tangible reality... well, seeing them in the trailers makes me anticipate the movie even more than I was already; which says a lot with it being the 2009 film I'm most looking forward to seeing.

 

[barbelith]

The point of the ending is to unite the world against a common threat so that world peace - as close to its actual realization as can probably be conceived - can come to fruition.

That's half of it. The other half is who concocts the scheme and how he sets it in motion. We're meant to question whether Veidt is a hero or a villain. Do the ends justify the means? It's fascinating that the only character who hews to his moral compass in the end is the sociopath. Dan and Laurie and Manhattan do nothing. Are they complicit? Telling the truth would destroy the peace; would doing so make them villains? IMO all of this is why the book was written in the first place; it's the entire point. I can live without the squid as long as the stuff around it is in place.

Unfortunately what appears to be the replacement climax not only undermines most of this stuff but also makes next to no sense within the context of Watchmen. We'll see.

As to extraneous action, one of the things that makes Watchmen so groundbreaking is that it portrays superheroes as fallible and flawed: potential rapists, murderers, torturers, lechers, and add erectile dysfunction atop the heap for good measure. All of these things considered... they are still superheroes.

This is the other thing ... they're not. In fact even the ostensibly "good" characters really only do one thing, which is to bust a cop killer sociopath out of prison. Unless by superheroes you mean they wear costumes.

Just seeing how their portrayals of my two favorite characters appear to be like my dreams come to tangible reality...

I've always found this interesting as well. Everyone's favorite characters seem to be the two psychopaths - both of whom are murderers and one of whom is a rapist. Whereas the most obviously heroic character (Dan) is constantly overlooked.

 

[CelticPredator]

The point is, we humans decided to stop fighting each other and face a otherworldy threat. Squid, Dr. Manhatten, whatever it may be. The idea is still the same.

And V for Vendetta is amazing, and makes some fantastic well thought out points.

We dont live in the 1980's...and we dont all live in England, or knew who Thatcher was.

 

[IrishJedi]

It's way too early to proclaim with certainty that the film has either succeeded or failed as an adaptation of the book (even though so much of it looks and feels so right at this point). The comparison to V For Vendetta is a bit silly and premature, because it's based almost entirely on speculation and supposition.

And a big reason why The Comedian and Rorschach are so popular is because their characters are the most complex and deconstructive of the lot. In other words, they are the farthest from the one-dimensional (and utterly unrealistic) heroes of most comic books. Blake reflects the narcissism and cold vanity that would surely be inherent in many heroes, though he's ultimately revealed to have a heart as well. And Rorschach? Well, he illustrates why characters like Batman are pretty unrealistic. Real human can't delve into the madness of dealing with killers like that without losing themselves. He's Nietzsche's theory done as a fully-dimensional fictional character.

 

[CelticPredator]

Also...Dan is fat, and boring. Great character sure...but from both an artistic standpoint...and just an all around fun standpoint...he's quite boring.

 

[IrishJedi]

Dan is the complete mirror image of Blake, and works perfectly from that standpoint.

 

[Scar]

That's half of it. The other half is who concocts the scheme and how he sets it in motion. We're meant to question whether Veidt is a hero or a villain. Do the ends justify the means? It's fascinating that the only character who hews to his moral compass in the end is the sociopath. Dan and Laurie and Manhattan do nothing. Are they complicit? Telling the truth would destroy the peace; would doing so make them villains? IMO all of this is why the book was written in the first place; it's the entire point. I can live without the squid as long as the stuff around it is in place.

Unfortunately what appears to be the replacement climax not only undermines most of this stuff but also makes next to no sense within the context of Watchmen. We'll see.

It's a hallmark of some of the greatest villains of all time that they are able to jusity their actions "for the greater good." It is precisely what Veidt achieves. Does this make him a villain? Well, considering the collateral damage his plan reaps, the answer is simple and straighforward from a deontological standpoint, not to mention the volume. From a utilitarian view, one can't help but see the elegance of Viedt's plan, nor the nobility of its aim. It's a grey area that we're asked to delve into in order to see which characters we end up sympathizing with when the chips finally fall.

This is the other thing ... they're not. In fact even the ostensibly "good" characters really only do one thing, which is to bust a cop killer sociopath out of prison. Unless by superheroes you mean they wear costumes.

Exactly. They are "superheroes" in the sense that they are all costumed, often powerful individuals who are crusading towards an end that they are capable of justifying as that which is in society's benefit. Still, like I mentioned above, just the ability to say it is in everyone's best interest doesn't make one irrefutably right. One man's hero is another man's villain. That's part of the magnificent appeal of Watchmen; we have to confront that "hero" is not a black and white concept. I tend to overlook Blake being an attempted rapist, considering the relationship he had with Sally Jupiter, and the fact that it has been left so murky. Still, the two sociopaths remain the most popular; telling of our culture isn't it? Perhaps that's part of the point the Comedian and Rorschach were both trying to make in their own ways.

 

[CelticPredator]

Dan is the complete mirror image of Blake, and works perfectly from that standpoint.

Sure....whatever...but Ror and Blake are ten times more fun to read.....

Dan just mopes and has sex with Laurie.

Rorscach throws people off elevator shafts for being annoying.


(no I'm not being serious at all.)

 

[barbelith]

The point is, we humans decided to stop fighting each other and face a otherworldy threat. Squid, Dr. Manhatten, whatever it may be. The idea is still the same.

It's not actually the same at all. Manhattan isn't an external threat. He's an authorized extension of US military policy and more to the point, people have been preaching hate against the costumed heroes for decades in the Watchmen universe. So using Manhattan as the climactic pivot serves no purpose re: bringing the world together.

And V for Vendetta is amazing, and makes some fantastic well thought out points.

And the point of V in the film is directly at odds with the point of V in the book. That's my worry with changing the climax of Watchmen. We might get a good film that bears an uncanny resemblance to key parts of the book while missing the point altogether. I hope I'm wrong. But then we already have a buff Dan and a group called The Watchmen and the driving engine of the novel's plot admittedly removed by the director. So we'll see.

It's way too early to proclaim with certainty that the film has either succeeded or failed as an adaptation of the book (even though so much of it looks and feels so right at this point).

I agree. But I do think it's fun to discuss the bits and pieces.

The comparison to V For Vendetta is a bit silly and premature, because it's based almost entirely on speculation and supposition.

Not really. It's based on an admission by the director and reading drafts of the script (the latter is something I've avoided incidentally). It may well be that Snyder found a way to incorporate his alternate ending while not undermining the entire point of Veidt's scheme and thus the book itself. But on the face of it, the climax doesn't appear to make any sense. That's worth talking about on a provisional basis. And the V for Vendetta comparison is especially apt because it was an adaptation that got so much right, including entire scenes verbatim, and yet still somehow wound up missing the entire point of the V character because the filmmakers decided they knew better than Alan Moore, and labored under the illusion that perfectly recreated page 42 was somehow more important than ensuring the theme of the book remained intact. Of course we don't know if this will happen with Watchmen, but I don't see the harm in chatting about things.

And a big reason why The Comedian and Rorschach are so popular is because their characters are the most complex and deconstructive of the lot. In other words, they are the farthest from the one-dimensional (and utterly unrealistic) heroes of most comic books.

I can see where you're coming from, but I actually think they're the most simplistic characters in the book. Dan and Laurie are the most complex deconstructions of the lot - especially Dan, with whom Moore eviscerates the typical hero with surgical precision.

It's a hallmark of some of the greatest villains of all time that they are able to jusity their actions "for the greater good." It is precisely what Veidt achieves. Does this make him a villain? Well, considering the collateral damage his plan reaps, the answer is simple and straighforward from a deontological standpoint, not to mention the volume.

This is what makes it such a fascinating plan. Surely our current president is a villain because of the collateral damage his plan reaped? Suddenly things look a lot different, don't they? I submit the answer is not so simple and straightforward at all, and that in fact by having Dan and Laurie forced into complicity by keeping the secret he is destroying the childish notion that there can even be heroes and villains altogether. In many ways there was no need to ever write another superhero comic after Watchmen. I think Moore sees the heroes as villains, which is why his Batman and Captain America analogs are monsters and why the only decent people in the book are the people who sit on the sidelines. This is what the film needs to capture for me, far more than the details of Rorshach being captured or what the owl ship looks like.

(I'm not arguing with you by the way - just thinking aloud.)

 

[Scar]

This is what makes it such a fascinating plan. Surely our current president is a villain because of the collateral damage his plan reaped? Suddenly things look a lot different, don't they? I submit the answer is not so simple and straightforward at all, and that in fact by having Dan and Laurie forced into complicity by keeping the secret he is destroying the childish notion that there can even be heroes and villains altogether. In many ways there was no need to ever write another superhero comic after Watchmen. I think Moore sees the heroes as villains, which is why his Batman and Captain America analogs are monsters and why the only decent people in the book are the people who sit on the sidelines. This is what the film needs to capture for me, far more than the details of Rorshach being captured or what the owl ship looks like.

(I'm not arguing with you by the way - just thinking aloud.)

Not at all. Rather I would contend that we are on the same page (graphic novel joke), it's what I meant with the "'hero' is not a black and white concept" comment as well as the discussion as to what often characterizes villainy. What Ozy does is not an intentional destruction of the heroism/villainy dynamic. Doubtless he does achieve as much through the resultant activities of every major character knowledgeable of his plan at the end with the exception of Rorschach with his approach to "never compromise". Still, one can't help but comprehend that what Ozymandias has done is something he considers to be the paradigm of heroism... again, as I said, one of the most common characteristics of some of the most infamous villains.

The people who often sit on the sidelines are the only characters who don't end up being morally tarnished usually because they don't play prominent roles in the key situation(s); Does the silence of Dan and Laurie characterize them as bad people? I wouldn't say so at all; they were utterly horrified with what Veidt had done, but they couldn't argue that he had been successful. While all peace is indisputably temporary, Veidt had taken the world from the cusp of nuclear war and achieved peace. To call out Veidt for his wanton murder of millions would mean undoing what he had done and likely catalizing the deaths of millions more still as this sense of common purpose dissolves back into the ether of distrust.

 

[IrishJedi]

Pretty cool fan-edited trailer:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/OK3KEREDLQc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/OK3KEREDLQc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[barbelith]

Does the silence of Dan and Laurie characterize them as bad people?

I don't know that it's so much about them being bad people as raising the question of whether Veidt is vindicated in his action.

 

[IrishJedi]

It's ambiguous and infinitely debatable. That's what Moral Checkmate means.

 

[barbelith]

That's what Moral Checkmate means.

That's the key thing for me. The film has to end in a genuine moral checkmate and Veidt's plan has to actually make sense in the context of the story. From what I understand of the new ending they've botched both of these, but of course there's no way to know for sure until March.

 

[Scar]

I don't know that it's so much about them being bad people as raising the question of whether Veidt is vindicated in his action.

I think your own comment above was more precise, but perhaps a little extreme. I don't think that Moore sees heroes as villains necessarily, but simply that even those who profess to be seeking a noble end may have ignoble means, or even selfish motivations.

While I'm not sure everyone here, if anyone, is familiar with deontology, but from that standpoint, yes, it would certainly make our President a villain as you mentioned above. Reason being that he entered into an activity to take life, knowing that lives would be lost in combination with the fact that deontologists hold certain truths to be everlasting and immutable (such as knowingly taking life is always wrong under any circumstances); that's deontology, utilitarianism has yet to ascertain whether or not he can be judged, because it looks at the greatest net good for the greatest number of people and minimizing that which would be considered undesirable; so as you can see, it's rare that conclusions based on utility can be reached in the short-term, if ever. Just a philosophical diatribe, but it does show that things are most assuredly not cut and dry. Oh, and I had better head off everyone by adding this myself:

It's ambiguous and infinitely debatable. That's what Moral Checkmate means.

Yea, I think that's more what we're all kind of dancing around as the central issue here. Veidt forced complicity from everyone else via the obvious cconsequences that would result from exposing him as a mass murderer of epic proportions. It's tough trying to find a hole in a plan engineered by the smartest man alive.

That's the key thing for me. The film has to end in a genuine moral checkmate and Veidt's plan has to actually make sense in the context of the story. From what I understand of the new ending they've botched both of these, but of course there's no way to know for sure until March.

Well, I'm not sure how much credibility people but by Kevin Smith, but he usually tells it like it is when it comes to comics and movies. He said that there were some minor changes to the film and one "major change" (which we know by now is the ending), but that the rest is essentially the graphic novel brought to life. Having seen an early cut of the film, he said that every change made sense in the context and even helped the work be brought to film (and still conceding that, as I think IJ said as well, the movie is 90-95% graphic novel).

We can all agree if the changes made alter the ending in such as a way as to subvert the "moral checkmate", then it is a failure. However, from what people have been saying, the movie is anything but, so I am inclined to believe that they pull it off. Considering it is the key fulcrum around which the rest of the story revolves, I imagine they would have plotted such a change very carefully so as to still remain faithful to the inherent plot dynamic. Also, it's probably a wise move for such a widely-anticipated release, to replace the squid with something else. I guarantee people unfamiliar with the story, upon seeing the squid, would utter a resounding "WTF" and be somewhat disenchanted with a film that already asked them to suspend a great measure of disbelief. It is pushing the envelope for the average movie-goer, and I'm not sure how they would all take the ending as we know it.

 

[barbelith]

Well, I'm not sure how much credibility people but by Kevin Smith, but he usually tells it like it is when it comes to comics and movies.

I have to confess I don't look at his work and see someone who really understands story. And I think we're in a situation where nailing 95% of the trees is enough for most people even if the forest is completely different. Look at the reaction to V for Vendetta. For many fans it will be enough that the movie "looks like the comic" even if the story winds up quite different.

We can all agree if the changes made alter the ending in such as a way as to subvert the "moral checkmate", then it is a failure. However, from what people have been saying, the movie is anything but, so I am inclined to believe that they pull it off. Considering it is the key fulcrum around which the rest of the story revolves, I imagine they would have plotted such a change very carefully so as to still remain faithful to the inherent plot dynamic.

There has to be something else going on we don't know. I've been going over the "framing Manhattan" thing and still can't figure out the way it works. Not only for all the reasons listed previously, but because it completely removes the moral checkmate of having Dan and Laurie complicit in the secret and Rorshach insisting he's going to tell the world. You'd just be swapping one costumed hero for another.

I guarantee people unfamiliar with the story, upon seeing the squid, would utter a resounding "WTF" and be somewhat disenchanted with a film that already asked them to suspend a great measure of disbelief.

I don't get this attitude at all. People are walking in to a superhero movie with a giant blue genie and tons of people in ridiculous costumes, including a magic mask, to say nothing of Bubastis (and of course Bubastis is a clue in the squid plot). But then again I suppose we're supposed to be thinking The Dark Knight was even vaguely realistic these days. How boring we've become.

But to me it boils down to this: Alan Moore is a genius and Zack Snyder is not. Time lists Watchmen as one of the hundred greatest novels of the 20th century. Not graphic novels. Novels full stop. There's nothing to change.