criterionforum.org

skeets kelly wrote:also, i don't like the idea that the ending is changed.

If you mean the tentacle thing, it's just a plot device, and one that is easily made ridiculous. You lose nothing by replacing it.

Mr_sausage wrote:

skeets kelly wrote:also, i don't like the idea that the ending is changed.

If you mean the tentacle thing, it's just a plot device, and one that is easily made ridiculous. You lose nothing by replacing it.

I agree that you can replace it without losing anything, but it depends on what you replace it with.

Spoiler

Making Manhattan the replacement seriously changes the dynamic of the ending, and not in a good way. They could just as easily have made Ozymandias drop some bomb, rather than having Manhattan do it.

Mr_sausage wrote:

skeets kelly wrote:also, i don't like the idea that the ending is changed.

If you mean the tentacle thing, it's just a plot device, and one that is easily made ridiculous. You lose nothing by replacing it.

i don't think i entirely agree with you. and it's not "just a plot device", it's a plot device that has an impact on the end of the story and a rather dramatic one at that.

i mean, if they can come up with something better, that's fine but...what would be less ridiculous?

straying from the path only gives them more room to screw it up.

kaujot wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:

skeets kelly wrote:also, i don't like the idea that the ending is changed.

If you mean the tentacle thing, it's just a plot device, and one that is easily made ridiculous. You lose nothing by replacing it.

I agree that you can replace it without losing anything, but it depends on what you replace it with.

Spoiler

Making Manhattan the replacement seriously changes the dynamic of the ending, and not in a good way. They could just as easily have made Ozymandias drop some bomb, rather than having Manhattan do it.

I agree with what kaujot says, but the point of the squid goes beyond a mere plot device.

Spoiler

The squid represented a threat the world had never seen before, one that suddenly appears and instantly kills millions of people. Ozymandius wanted to create something so unknown that the world's governments would have to join together in order to fight it because it represents something far more dangerous than the effects of a nuclear bomb, and since the unknown frightens people it would frighten world leaders so profoundly that they would push aside their squabbles to fight something much worse, something that, as they see it, could bring about the end of civilization.

Also, and to a much lesser extent, the squid worked as a satire of the entire comic medium in how it uses the stereotypical bad-guy-wants-to-kill-a-lot-of-people storyline, and puts a political spin on it with Ozymandius using the deaths of millions in a sort of "the ends justify the means" way, that he may be killing millions, but he thinks he's saving the world from war. Also the squid was purposely ridiculous so as to mirror the ridiculousness of Ozy's actions, at least that's how I took it.

I think getting rid of the tentacle thing defeats the purpose of the ending, unless they can think up something equally fitting. And with what I've heard this is becoming more unlikely with each new article.

I think maybe you're all misunderstanding what I mean by plot device: the tentacle thing, as an entity, has no relevence to the plot; it's only there as a representation of some "major catastrophe" necessary for the plot to keep moving and to explain certain character motivations. It would probably seem a bit out of place in a movie adaptation (you can get away with that sort of thing better in a comic book/graphic novel), and you only need to replace it with some other, similar "major catastrophe" to keep the movie working.

Murdoch wrote:

Spoiler

The squid represented a threat the world had never seen before, one that suddenly appears and instantly kills millions of people. Ozymandius wanted to create something so unknown that the world's governments would have to join together in order to fight it because it represents something far more dangerous than the effects of a nuclear bomb, and since the unknown frightens people it would frighten world leaders so profoundly that they would push aside their squabbles to fight something much worse, something that, as they see it, could bring about the end of civilization.

Then the tentacle thing just represents an unknown quantity, and that's it. If you replaced it with another, similarly destructive unknown quantity everything in Watchmen would stay the same. Again I must stress that the tentacle thing as an entity is a plot device, and not the character motivations that brought about its unleashing.

Mr_sausage wrote:I think maybe you're all misunderstanding what I mean by plot device: the tentacle thing, as an entity, has no relevence to the plot; it's only there as a representation of some "major catastrophe" necessary for the plot to keep moving and to explain certain character motivations. It would probably seem a bit out of place in a movie adaptation (you can get away with that sort of thing better in a comic book/graphic novel), and you only need to replace it with some other, similar "major catastrophe" to keep the movie working.

Murdoch wrote:

Spoiler

The squid represented a threat the world had never seen before, one that suddenly appears and instantly kills millions of people. Ozymandius wanted to create something so unknown that the world's governments would have to join together in order to fight it because it represents something far more dangerous than the effects of a nuclear bomb, and since the unknown frightens people it would frighten world leaders so profoundly that they would push aside their squabbles to fight something much worse, something that, as they see it, could bring about the end of civilization.

Then the tentacle thing just represents an unknown quantity, and that's it. If you replaced it with another, similarly destructive unknown quantity everything in Watchmen would stay the same. Again I must stress that the tentacle thing as an entity is a plot device, and not the character motivations that brought about its unleashing.

I don't disagree with you, I do think that it can be replaced, but I just don't feel what has been hinted at through articles as replacing it will work with the story.

I also want to point out (again) that this is not just changing the ending. Changing the ending in this way requires changing a variety of things throughout the story. Most crucially, it is the fact that the Comedian stumbles onto the squid project that causes his, shall we say, troubles that begin the story, which in turn prompt Rorschach's investigation, etc, etc, etc. In order to keep this structure, it seems like the Comedian is going to have to stumble on something else, or they're going to have to invent some other reason for his ... troubles. And Mr. Sausage, I'm not saying this is an impossible task, but it is not as simple as just tweaking the end. It involves making a number of changes in the narrative. And I think the more changes they have to make, the harder it is going to be for them to do it coherently & gracefully.

But, all that said, even if they did the story verbatim, I still think this is a terrible idea & want nothing to do with it in any case.

I suppose there is the plus that more people will now read the comic book. So there's that. I pity the fool that just sees the film & never bothers with the comic, and I'm sure there will be plenty of those.

Max von Mayerling wrote:I also want to point out (again) that this is not just changing the ending. Changing the ending in this way requires changing a variety of things throughout the story. Most crucially, it is the fact that the Comedian stumbles onto the squid project that causes his, shall we say, troubles that begin the story, which in turn prompt Rorschach's investigation, etc, etc, etc. In order to keep this structure, it seems like the Comedian is going to have to stumble on something else, or they're going to have to invent some other reason for his ... troubles. And Mr. Sausage, I'm not saying this is an impossible task, but it is not as simple as just tweaking the end. It involves making a number of changes in the narrative. And I think the more changes they have to make, the harder it is going to be for them to do it coherently & gracefully.

Exactly! The plot of Watchmen is so intricately constructed that if you remove one crucial element, the rest potentially falls apart. As you say, the Comedian will have to stumble upon something else to justify his death at the beginning of the film.

Video game screengrabs

and lets not forget what the new ending will do for the character of Dr. Manhattan. It will change it completely.

There are always repercussions and from what I have read, Snyder is not sympathetic toward lovers of the graphic novel. "fans, god love them" and stuff like that.

the squid is needed to hold that project accountable for such an amazing graphic novel. without it, what is holding snyder back from sacrificing characters to use his new "ending"?

Snyder has recut the film, and it's now 2 hours and 35 minutes. He says the director's cut will run 3 hours and 10 minutes.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Snyder has recut the film, and it's now 2 hours and 35 minutes. He says the director's cut will run 3 hours and 10 minutes.

The director's cut is probably the same cut as the theatrical, but with more slow motion.

In case you've ever wanted to hear My Chemical Romance cover Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row", the Watchmen will not only give you that chance, but Snyder will place it over a crucial portion of the ending.

Why in the hell does it say that a My Chemical Romance song is integral to the ending? Actually, I don't want to know. This is another step closer to having Dr. Manhattan break into dance at a jazz club, which could only help the movie at this point.

And a Bob Dylan cover none the less.

Has anyone thumbed through that Chemical Romance kid's comic? I guess it's supposed to be very Grant Morrison.

“My Chemical Romance is absolutely awesome,” the “300” director revealed. “And Gerard [Way] is a huge fan of ‘Watchmen’.”

good god.

A pantload of new footage.

Production values are out the wazoo on this. I guess 300 bought him intense license. Wow.
(I don't like the trinity homage at the end. The Matrix is over. Let it be.)

somnambulating wrote:Has anyone thumbed through that Chemical Romance kid's comic? I guess it's supposed to be very Grant Morrison.

Umbrella Academy? Apocalypse Suite was one of my favorite comic-book reads last year, much to my surprise since I hold Chemical Romance in contempt. That said, I think it was a mistake to turn it into a sort of franchise with continuing titles (like the new Dallas miniseries) since much of the reading pleasure inherent consisted on the reader getting only a brief glimpse of the Academy's history, forcing us to fill in the blanks. It is in this last aspect that the Grant Morrison comparisons bleed into, I think.

moviscop wrote:and lets not forget what the new ending will do for the character of Dr. Manhattan. It will change it completely.

A very good point.

You know, I also think that the graphic novel has a very Taxi Driver kind of feeling. Very 70s, very dirty, sexy, but in a kind of sordid way. And I also think that the characters come across as very "human" physically, just wearing funny suits et al. (This goes for Dr. Manhattan in a way as well - his physicality is very "human" even if his, shall we say, "existence" is not.) I also think the violence in the comic book is very banal and it is perhaps more unpleasant because of this. I find the idea of this getting a 2008 superhero movie treatment, with the slow motion action scenes and the rock music soundtrack backing up the ass kicking is more than a little depressing and disturbing. I think it has the potential to both undermine the tone of the comic and, really, to undermine one of the points of the comic, which I think was to be a kind of critique of superhero comics in general and their conventions. It looks like Snyder is simply perpetuating some of the conventions of the superhero film genre, and it seems to me that this is somewhat antithetical to the spirit of the comic.

Wired asks the tough questions.

Max von Mayerling wrote:

moviscop wrote:and lets not forget what the new ending will do for the character of Dr. Manhattan. It will change it completely.

A very good point.

You know, I also think that the graphic novel has a very Taxi Driver kind of feeling. Very 70s, very dirty, sexy, but in a kind of sordid way. And I also think that the characters come across as very "human" physically, just wearing funny suits et al. (This goes for Dr. Manhattan in a way as well - his physicality is very "human" even if his, shall we say, "existence" is not.) I also think the violence in the comic book is very banal and it is perhaps more unpleasant because of this. I find the idea of this getting a 2008 superhero movie treatment, with the slow motion action scenes and the rock music soundtrack backing up the ass kicking is more than a little depressing and disturbing. I think it has the potential to both undermine the tone of the comic and, really, to undermine one of the points of the comic, which I think was to be a kind of critique of superhero comics in general and their conventions. It looks like Snyder is simply perpetuating some of the conventions of the superhero film genre, and it seems to me that this is somewhat antithetical to the spirit of the comic.

I think it is safe to say that Snyder can transfer illustrations to a screen, but not much else. We can expect the heart of WATCHMEN to be lost when he buries it in our pop-culture.

As for Snyder's style, he found one, Eyegasm filmmaking. It will look great for a while, but people will start to delve into the substance of his work only to find a green screen in place of it.

moviscop wrote:We can expect the heart of WATCHMEN to be lost when he buries it in our pop-culture.

Are not comic books part of pop-culture?

Mr_sausage wrote:

moviscop wrote:We can expect the heart of WATCHMEN to be lost when he buries it in our pop-culture.

Are not comic books part of pop-culture?

"in OUR" was key to what i was saying. Context will most certainly be lost will it not? WATCHMEN was more than a graphic novel. Shakespeare is often lost in context in the same way. In order to correctly understand key elements, one must be well versed in the climate of that time period. In the case of WATCHMEN, Snyder doesn't seem to show any motivation for bringing context into the picture. He represented such a blatant disregard when he allowed My Chemical Romance to cover Bob Dylan, but that is only a small piece of the problem.

...and you don't see any problem in comparing the over 400 year culture gap between sixteenth-century England and twentieth century America with the twenty-or-so years between the publication of Watchmen and now?

moviscop wrote:Shakespeare is often lost in context in the same way. In order to correctly understand key elements, one must be well versed in the climate of that time period

I find most people with no understanding of the climate of Renaissance England are able to understand the "key elements" of Shakespeare without problem, and that Shakespeare transcends any context (good examples: Ran and Throne of Blood, in which Shakespeare survives the complete loss of his context not only intact, but brilliantly). The point being this: if Watchmen cannot survive a certain loss of context, could it ever be anything more than a product of, and monument to, its own time?