*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*

It's not in the movie. Here's a report from Zack Snyder and Dave Gibbons speaking about the Watchmen movie in the UK. Many spoilers to follow.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39131

"Greetings from over the pond…

On Friday I was lucky enough to attend what I believe was the first UK publicity event for Watchmen. They screened around 30 minutes of footage… if memory serves me correct this was the same three scenes that Moriarty reported on a while back… but the real points of interest came after the footage, where Zack Snyder & Dave Gibbons took the stage for a Q&A.

Before I dive into what was said & what shown I just thought I’d point out that I’ve read the graphic novel. I only read it for the first time around 12 months ago, but straight away it gripped me & stood out against almost everything else I had read. What struck me most was the sheer depth to it… the characters, the story, the history & the politics. Watchmen really is one of the most outstanding & rewarding novels that I’ve come across.

Zack introduced 3 segments of the film… the opening 10 minutes, Dr Manhattan on Mars & the rescuing of Rorschach. I know this footage has been covered in some detail on here before, but I just have to reiterate just how fantastic it all was.

What struck me the most was the feelings the scenes provoked, especially when you consider that they weren’t being played in order or with context. The segment of Dr Manhattan on Mars was possibly my favourite part of the novel, and the film perfectly captures its poetic rhythm. I had to almost pinch myself that I was actually seeing this on the Cinema… Manhattan narrating his life and considering the notion of time & existence. Everything in this scene worked… the visuals, acting, pacing & sound. I can imagine that in many hands this would have been exorcised from the script, but here it was in all its glory and it literally gave me goosebumps. This section was the perfect companion piece to the jailbreak, which was both exhilarating and exciting, a shot of pure adrenalin.

Best of all though was probably the opening scene, and in particular the title sequence. I know the titles have been lauded on here already, but I cannot stress enough how good they are. For those who don’t know, the titles basically provides a 6 minute history to the minutemen and the watchmen (as they are referred to in the film), all played out to the Bob Dylan classic ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’. I cannot think of a more creatively economical way that they could have done this… and it works perfectly to those who have read the novel as well as to those that are coming in cold. Seeing history being re-written infront of your eyes to fit in with the Watchmen universe is a great experience, and straight away makes you feel like you’re watching something special. I just wish I could watch it again now because there was so much detail to take in & so many bits that you can’t possibly take in on one viewing. And the choice of song… perfect.

After the footage Zack Snyder & Dave Gibbons took questions from the audience on stage, including one brilliantly dim guy who managed to insult 300 (a great way to kick things off). When discussing the film I thought Zack came across really well… quite a dry sense of humor and an obvious passion for the source material. Many of the questions fielded were fairly unremarkable, but there were some interesting bits which I’ve outlined below.

On being offered Watchmen:

Interestingly Zack talked about when he first received the call on Watchmen (I believe as he was editing 300). Apparently during that first conversation Warner Brothers told him about how they were going to modernize the story… no cold war, no 80s setting and no Richard Nixon. I think it’s important to acknowledge this image for a minute, especially when trying to debate the ins & outs of the upcoming adaptation. Now we don’t know what we have on our hands until March ’09 but everything so far strikes the right cord and I truly believe we could have something special… a Watchmen to live up to the novel. But that thought about what it could have been… a diluted imitation of a superior story… well it just makes me glad that Snyder got on board. People can, and probably will, nit pick this thing to death… but we’re going to get a film that is committed to the source material from a director that wants to bring the ‘unfilmable’ to life. The main thing I wanted from this was for it to feel like a Watchmen film. Remember that feeling when you watched Batman & Robin or LOEXG… that feeling like you were watching something you knew, but no longer recognized. Watchmen could have gone down this route… it could have lost it’s complexity, moral ambiguity and its soul… but it hasn’t. When Rorschach is on screen… well damn that’s Rorschach! Snyder has always insisted that he’s a massive fan of the graphic novel, and I really think this shines through in the footage that I saw.

He did also state about the initial pressure to bring this thing in as a PG-13, but that the studio has come around to the fact that it has to be an R (no doubt helped by the performance of 300).

The Squid: (Dave Gibbons reaction… ‘its not a squid, it’s a 5th dimensional being’)

Zack Snyder confirmed that the ending is the one seen in the recent test screenings. The ‘squid’ is definitely not in this thing… its not being hidden in a different ending… its gone… vanished… with the big calamari in the sky.

This has created a fair amount of debate for obvious reasons, but I have to say that I side with the filmmakers on this one. Zack came out with a good summary for its exclusion. He only has a finite amount of time to play this thing out in cinemas… roughly 2.5 hours. Now to include the squid would have meant sacrificing a lot of the character to story, there’s just not enough time to play it both ways. And Watchmen lives and dies by its characters… it’s the dilemmas that they face and the decisions they make… it’s what they come to learn about the world & their place within it… that helps make the novel what it is. The essence of the ending is still intact… the characters still go through more unless the same progressions that they did in the novel. At the end of the day the ‘squid’ is a means to an end… the filmmakers have gone down a slightly different route, but the overall picture is still the same.

Also it might not be something that fans want to consider, but this thing has to have a mass audience appeal and I don’t know if the majority of cinema-goers will buy the third act turning into Cloverfield 2. It sounds like Zack has gone into battle with the studio on a number of different things, and if the ‘squid’ is the sacrifice that needed to be made then so be it. I’d rather have a different mechanic within the films climax, then a PG-13 or modern day Watchmen. Dave Gibbons was in absolute support of this decision as well… he stated how this has been the best film project that he’s worked on to date & that the most important thing was to maintain the integrity of the graphic novel, something that has been done.

Whilst we’re on the ending…. They also confirmed that the final scene is the same as the novel with regards to Rorschach’s journal being found.

Watchmen & mainstream audiences

Zack was asked the question that many people are wondering ‘how will this play to unsuspecting audiences… do you think they are ready for it?’

He came out with something along the lines of…

‘People have got complacent. Sure they like to see something safe like Spiderman, but people are always waiting for it to be taken to new level. The Dark Knight was like a poke in the eye, but this will really shake their shit up’.

Now there’s no denying that Watchmen is a difficult sell, and I’m sure there will be a lot of people who just don’t ‘get it’… but it was reassuring to see how much faith Zack has in the ability of the source material to find an audience. He brought up Superman, saying ‘I always wondered if you had these powers, how far would you take it? I mean it’s all good flying around putting out fires, but wouldn’t you just go & grab all the political leaders, put them In a room, and force them to sort their shit out?’. To Snyder it seemed like Watchmen was all about that question… about how far Veidt was willing to take things & the impact this had on the other characters & their pre-conceptions of heroism. It turned the idea of the villain onto its head & into a moral dilemma. How do you define the term villain? Is someone a villain because of a course of action? Or could inaction, the failure to take responsibility, be just as critical to the world en mass? Zack seems to be hoping that the questions & the ambiguities of Watchmen play well with audiences, that they won’t mind having their intelligence tackled as they eat their popcorn. We will have to wait until next March to see if that happens, but I really hope that he’s right.

The DVD

Snyder also discussed the DVD at some length. As well as the theatrical cut there is to be a 3.5 hour version that incorporates the novels ‘comic within a comic’, The Black Freighter. This will take the form of animated segments ala Kill Bill.

He also noted that they are creating a documentary based around Hollis Mason’s ‘Under The Hood’ memoirs for the DVD release.

In many respects I’m looking forward to the DVD more then the film because it’s going to be such a rewarding experience having the full spectrum of the novel brought to life.

I know you can’t judge a film from 30 minutes of footage and there is a chance that the filmmakers could drop the ball, but from what I saw this thing is in good hands. It really did feel like the pages of the novel were appearing before me on the cinema screen & the emotions that I felt when I read Watchmen were the same ones I experienced in the Cinema on Friday. It doesn’t matter what I or anyone else says… this thing will be debated through & through such is the level of fan-dom. I’ve tried to refrain from too much hyperbole in this write up… but to hell with it… I think Synder’s Watchmen is going to be incredible. In years to come when you’ve watched it umpteen times on DVD I don’t think you’re going to look back and think of things like the ‘squid’… I think you’re just going to remember how much it kicked your arse when you saw it come to life in the Cinema. I can’t wait… roll on March.

If you use this call me Jack Carter"

Thoughts, PTP?

He didn't "sacrifice" anything, in his Newsarama interview he stated that he never saw ANY draft that had the alien in it.

http://www.newsarama.com/film/081110-watchmen-synder-ending.html

to quote:

"The Comedian's breakdown after seeing what was being done on that island is absolutely central to the story. Rorschach visits Moloch (and is later captured) because Blake had been to see Moloch as well. Would Blake have broken down in front of Moloch if he had merely discovered a plot to use Doc Manhattan to destroy New York? Nope, not a chance. So Moloch is just in the story as a foil for Rorschach on his cape-killer quest. As such, Moloch only serves one story beat, which is sloppy storytelling.

The horrors that were being created on the island (the monster design, the cloning from the dead psychic's brain, the mind-rending sounds, and so forth) are central to plot and to Blake's character arc. He needs to break down in front of Moloch, because it's about the only place in the story where we he is humanized (and it is not believable that he breaks down in front of Moloch unless he has witnessed unimaginable horrors). Unless he's humanized, he's just another monster, and we can't care about his death or his relationship with Laurie.

Remove the island of horrors, remove Blake's drunken commiseration with Moloch, remove the horrific, non-partisan alien threat (Manhattan is American; he doesn't work as an alien threat to unite the world) and you've destroyed virtually all of the story's emotional core."

No Comedian breakdown, no Comedian death. No Comedian death, no Rorschach involvement. No Rorschach involvement, no Dreiberg involvement. No Dreiberg involvement, no fucking Watchmen.

What's would they have had to "sacrifice" in terms of character and run-time by leaving the Squid in. They just have the dead squid sit there in NYC. It doesn't "do" anything. It's only in that one scene.

Unless they're talking about remoing Veidt monologue where he talks about the squid/unveils his plan, If so, that's a HUGE ommission which makes the whole movie almost pointless.

...the point about audiences thinking "Cloverfield 2" at the end is valid. It's just really hard to imagine how audiences would respond to something that falls so far out of conventional genre wisdom in a film already breaking free of conventional genre wisdom pretty far as is.

Plus, I'm just not entirely convinced it wouldn't have looked dumb in real life. So I think I'm okay with it. I'll have to see the real ending they replaced it with before I decide tho.

...the idea of a giant blue guy who can take apart tanks and blow people up with his mind, and teleport to Mars is within the realm of reality, but a giant alien squid teleporting to earth is somehow unbelievable? Come on now.

>Plus, I'm just not entirely convinced it wouldn't have looked
>dumb in real life. So I think I'm okay with it. I'll have to
>see the real ending they replaced it with before I decide
>tho.

Also as said in the other post, the idea is that humanity had to be brought together by something from the outside. A united cause that would unite the entire planet. And considering wha tthey come up with instead, the giant squid is a more "believable" means to that end.

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/14/changing-the-end-of-watchmen-the-great-debate/

I’ve read “Watchmen,” I’ve emptied my wallet for the massive “Absolute Edition,” and I still remember my first response when turning the page and seeing the full-page illustration of the giant, psychic squid monster. It was something like, “HOLY MOTHER OF… WHAT THE F’ IS THAT THING?! Wait… What were the characters saying a little while ago??”

Now, if I lost track of the plot and the philosophical debate that everything up to that point had been building to that easily, how do you think the average member of the movie audience — comics rookies, many of them — will react when Ozymandias reveals the grand finale of his diabolical plan to be, well… a big telepathic squid from another dimension? I’m betting that a third of the audience would laugh, a third would be confused and the final third would either be celebrating Snyder’s loyalty to fans or complaining that the version of the squid in the comics had more tentacles.

In my mind, leaving the squid in is a far more dangerous gamble than removing it. Taking the squid out and inserting a series of nuclear explosions — or anything with an equally devastating effect upon the world of “Watchmen,” because in the end, their world is intended to draw comparisons to our own — will make it more likely that the audience will not only grasp the global scope of Ozymandias’ plan, but also see the disturbingly rational basis for what he did and hoped to accomplish. Leaving the squid in makes it a very real possibility that one of the greatest stories ever told in comics will have all of its complexities and themes reduced to a single computer-generated effect.

Snyder’s decision to forego the squid makes it more likely that audiences will be able to identify, understand and hopefully open up a discussion about the moral dilemma Alan Moore presents in “Watchmen” — and not just write it off as “that superhero movie with the big squid.”

>http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/14/changing-the-end-of-watchmen-the-great-debate/
>
>I’ve read “Watchmen,” I’ve emptied my wallet for the massive
>“Absolute Edition,” and I still remember my first response
>when turning the page and seeing the full-page illustration of
>the giant, psychic squid monster. It was something like, “HOLY
>MOTHER OF… WHAT THE F’ IS THAT THING?! Wait… What were the
>characters saying a little while ago??”
>
>Now, if I lost track of the plot and the philosophical debate
>that everything up to that point had been building to that
>easily, how do you think the average member of the movie
>audience — comics rookies, many of them — will react when
>Ozymandias reveals the grand finale of his diabolical plan to
>be, well… a big telepathic squid from another dimension? I’m
>betting that a third of the audience would laugh, a third
>would be confused and the final third would either be
>celebrating Snyder’s loyalty to fans or complaining that the
>version of the squid in the comics had more tentacles.
>
>In my mind, leaving the squid in is a far more dangerous
>gamble than removing it. Taking the squid out and inserting a
>series of nuclear explosions — or anything with an equally
>devastating effect upon the world of “Watchmen,” because in
>the end, their world is intended to draw comparisons to our
>own — will make it more likely that the audience will not only
>grasp the global scope of Ozymandias’ plan, but also see the
>disturbingly rational basis for what he did and hoped to
>accomplish. Leaving the squid in makes it a very real
>possibility that one of the greatest stories ever told in
>comics will have all of its complexities and themes reduced to
>a single computer-generated effect.
>
>Snyder’s decision to forego the squid makes it more likely
>that audiences will be able to identify, understand and
>hopefully open up a discussion about the moral dilemma Alan
>Moore presents in “Watchmen” — and not just write it off as
>“that superhero movie with the big squid.”

It's not just the scientists that freaked Comedian out; he did actually see the squid. And I don't buy the "time constraints" deal. It takes two minutes to add the squid. One minute on the island, and one minute of it sitting there in the middle of Times Square.

And if that threw you off of your comprehension of the plot, guess what? That's what Moore was going for, dumbass. He was trying to make the reader feel the shock that Laurie and Jon felt when they teleported back.

No squid, no ticket.

because the whole thing the makes the squid okay in the book is all the artist/writer island shit, and the long-ass explanation that Veidt gives about it.

because if taking the squid out means losing the "Do it!" exchange, then Snyder Lost.

From what's I've read, Dr. Manhattan is in on it, so that part wouldn't change.

I mean, I know part of Doc's thing is that he just goes along with everything, but taking Laurie off of the planet is, even if he's just doing what he knows he's gonna do anyway, a rogue act, in that he knows that something's going to get fucked up, and he doesn't want her there.

Him KNOWING what that something is completely destroys the character. Manhattan doesn't scheme. For all of his omnipotency and omnisciency, the point is that he's NOT all-powerful and NOT all-knowing because he has, with the exception of protecting Laurie, no free will. Him being in on it eiminates that whole construct.

the reason she's there in the story is to eventually make Doc come back to Earth and help save them and to feel some compassion towards humans. That's the only reason he returns to Earth, stops Rorschach and decides to leave to create human life somewhere else.

>I’ve read “Watchmen,” I’ve emptied my wallet for the massive
>“Absolute Edition,” and I still remember my first response
>when turning the page and seeing the full-page illustration of
>the giant, psychic squid monster. It was something like, “HOLY
>MOTHER OF… WHAT THE F’ IS THAT THING?! Wait… What were the
>characters saying a little while ago??”


Its supposed to be shocking and arresting. Its supposed to be out of the realm of possibility. See the squid as a device that says "other" not of this world and then you get why Moore and Gibbons did it. It wasn't by accident. You think they crafted this layered story and deep story and didn't give any thought of what the visual impact of that silly looking squid would be?

Does it have to be an alien-squid? Absolutely not, but it needs to be something that couldn't have come from this planet. It certainly can't be a nuclear device or some other man made weapon of mass destruction.

Dr. Manhattan, who the rest of the world sees as a damn alien anyways.

plus, Manhattan is, to quote Donald Rumsfeld for the only time ever, a "known unknown." The Soviets were obvs. uneasy with him, and even the US citizenry wasn't quite sure they wanted a weapon like Manhattan. If it's him, the peace that Veidt's been planning for isn't a lasting one,beacuse after a month, too many conspiracy theories would spread. There's too much history with Doc.

The reason it's got to be the squid is that the squid is so totally unknown and other that it couldn't have been deployed by anyone from Earth, thus bringing about a true, unified, lasting peace. Veidt's too smart for it to be Manhattan.

>Snyder’s decision to forego the squid makes it more likely
>that audiences will be able to identify, understand and
>hopefully open up a discussion about the moral dilemma Alan
>Moore presents in “Watchmen” — and not just write it off as
>“that superhero movie with the big squid.”

Certain things work well in comics, but don't in movies.

I don't see how suddenly the whole idea of the world coming together is lost because a space squid is taken out.

If 10 of the worlds cities got Hiroshima'ed, especially in a post 2001 world, your trying to tell me the audience wouldn't get it? Or feel why the would would come together?

But a giant purple alien squid would? LOL

>>Snyder’s decision to forego the squid makes it more likely
>>that audiences will be able to identify, understand and
>>hopefully open up a discussion about the moral dilemma Alan
>>Moore presents in “Watchmen” — and not just write it off as
>>“that superhero movie with the big squid.”
>
>Certain things work well in comics, but don't in movies.
>

I think the argument is "why wouldn't it work". You can't blame an outsider audience because Watchmen is the book that acted as a gateway to hundreds of thousands of people who never read comics.

>I don't see how suddenly the whole idea of the world coming
>together is lost because a space squid is taken out.
>

People unify against the "other". That's what the monster represented.

>If 10 of the worlds cities got Hiroshima'ed, especially in a
>post 2001 world, your trying to tell me the audience wouldn't
>get it? Or feel why the would would come together?
>

Dude's plan was to prevent the nukes from flying. Nuking everything himself kinda...doesn't make sense.

And everything we've seen post 2001 actually shows that the world definitely wouldn't get unite.
>
>But a giant purple alien squid would? LOL
>

But a giant blue man would? LOL

of character development to get you used to the character, he is a major part of the movie The squid was one page in the comic.

It was less about the nukes, and more about stopping humanity from destroying itself, it's an end of the world story. Sacrificing 50 mil or so to save 7 Bil is worth it in Ozzy math

The idea is that they needed to unite against a foreign third party, Manhattan fits the bill perfectly imho because 1)He basically is alien and 2)Something so weird will be easily feared.

Im in the audience, ive watched these fucked up characters deal with their fucked up issues, their powers explained and quickly forgotten because watchmen has very little to do with 'super powers' as far as themes are concerned...

Then suddenly I get my 'Oh Shit!' moment of they took it there...

Then there's a CGI squid rumbling around in Manhattan a la a Godzilla for ten seconds...before they go back to discussing the fate of mankind and the original theme of the movie, lol.

>of character development to get you used to the character, he
>is a major part of the movie The squid was one page in the
>comic.>>>

As long as you don't count the mystery surrounding the island, the disappearing artists and psychics. The alien reveal was the culmination of all that.

>
>It was less about the nukes, and more about stopping humanity
>from destroying itself, it's an end of the world story.
>Sacrificing 50 mil or so to save 7 Bil is worth it in Ozzy
>math
>

Humans were going to destroy each other through the use of nukes. It's the whole part where even if a nuke goes off in NY, there's radioactive fallout that's going to get the rest of the country. If dude can find a way to set off nukes and have no radioactive fall out, then fine. Otherwise...

>The idea is that they needed to unite against a foreign third
>party, Manhattan fits the bill perfectly imho because 1)He
>basically is alien and 2)Something so weird will be easily
>feared.
>

I'm not actually against them using Manhattan as a scapegoat. I do fully believe that even if a US agent goes rogue, then the US would still get blamed. "You should have put down that mad dog when you had a chance!" And, while they did show that he was powerful, they also outlined that he was still able to be killed. I think Ozymandias would foresee that.


>Im in the audience, ive watched these fucked up characters
>deal with their fucked up issues, their powers explained and
>quickly forgotten because watchmen has very little to do with
>'super powers' as far as themes are concerned...
>>>>

Manhattan's power was a big theme. Which would actually help the argument for putting it on him.

>Then suddenly I get my 'Oh Shit!' moment of they took it
>there...
>
>Then there's a CGI squid rumbling around in Manhattan a la a
>Godzilla for ten seconds...before they go back to discussing
>the fate of mankind and the original theme of the movie, lol.
>

Worked for the comic.

Like I've said, I'm not truly against Dr. Manhattan being blames for this. I just find the idea that the using the alien would be too much is laughable.

We bitch and moan about how the studios think we're stupid, then parrot the same excuses whenever something remotely non-reality based happens in a scifi/superhero movie. They won.

It's just that comics struggle against easily falling into camp mode on the big screen, because they have that stereotype going for them. Its why they have to redo their costumes for the big screen, could an audience really take someone wearing skin tight bright spandex seriously even if the tone is deathly serious.

It's like, if we were watching one of the somber Star Trek movies and suddenly a big squid appeared, we would roll with it because it is sci-fi that takes itself seriously, we've had 40+ years of Star Trek to be able to except it's quirks and leaps of faith no questions asked.

A squid appearing in the comic movie is so fantastical, that i think it would mess with an audience expectation of suspension of belief. That's really the fault of mainstream impression of comics themselves and previous movie flops.

Now, we all now comic book movies are hardly believable, lol. But the current 'golden age' of comics movies they have tried its best to humanize the characters. Superman's a deadbead dad. Peter Parker is sooouper nerdy, not as snarky funny. etc.

Like, bringing it back to Spiderman and the organic webslingers. You add the fact that Peter Parker can create military grade personal weapons, I don't think you would be wrong to think you might lose the audience a bit. Good writing, acting, directing will keep them there, but in the back of your mind you might be like 'Wait, he's getting herbed in science class but he can build shit like this in two weeks from trips to the home depot?'.

Thus, organic webslingers were born.

Spiderman series overall was above average, and probably if they added the fact he could whip out such high technology easily might have been a moot point and quickly forgotten. But it's a choice which I can't hate they made, even in hindsight.

you pointed out exactly what i was trying to say. some shit can't be transferred to the big screen cause of the campiness and ludicrous nature of it happening in the "real world".

>It's just that comics struggle against easily falling into
>camp mode on the big screen, because they have that stereotype
>going for them. Its why they have to redo their costumes for
>the big screen, could an audience really take someone wearing
>skin tight bright spandex seriously even if the tone is
>deathly serious.
>

The X-Men franchise assumed that costumes needed to be redone. Spider-Man showed otherwise.



>Now, we all now comic book movies are hardly believable, lol.
>But the current 'golden age' of comics movies they have tried
>its best to humanize the characters. Superman's a deadbead
>dad. Peter Parker is sooouper nerdy, not as snarky funny.
>etc.
>
>Like, bringing it back to Spiderman and the organic
>webslingers. You add the fact that Peter Parker can create
>military grade personal weapons, I don't think you would be
>wrong to think you might lose the audience a bit. Good
>writing, acting, directing will keep them there, but in the
>back of your mind you might be like 'Wait, he's getting herbed
>in science class but he can build shit like this in two weeks
>from trips to the home depot?'.
>
>Thus, organic webslingers were born.>>>

Organic webs really didn't change his story at all though. I must admit that I did want to know where he learned to put together a costume that was more complex than what I had imagined from the comic.

>
>Spiderman series overall was above average, and probably if
>they added the fact he could whip out such high technology
>easily might have been a moot point and quickly forgotten.
>But it's a choice which I can't hate they made, even in
>hindsight.

I get what you're saying, I just think it's a different beast.

note, I've only read the graphic novel once, so maybe I just haven't wrapped my head around it.

To me, it just seemed that Veidt's plan was to create a horror so terrible as to stir people to action or whatever. Whether it's a squid, or a giant UFO, or a nuclear bomb, or an over-sized polar bear, or a horde of man-eating mice or whatever the fuck it is kinda moot. I thought it was just about creating an awe-inducing terror.

Okay -- maybe it's plea copping to say the squid was "sacrificed" to win other concessions, but I really don't see myself being at all put off by the squid's absence as long as the rest of the integrity of the story is still intact.

it's what the Squid does for the plot that's sacred. The squid scene is the gut-punch of the graphic novel. Not only are you seeing a big dead squid, you're seeing all the horror of Veidt's successful plan. I'm not really mad at not having the squid, because as Frank just said, they could've really messed it up effects-wise. But it just can't be a nuclear bomb. If it's a bomb then the idea is that people won't buy into the whole "Earth avoiding WW3" outcome because, obviously, something like a nuclear bomb would trigger a war.

>If it's a bomb then the idea is that people won't buy
>into the whole "Earth avoiding WW3" outcome because,
>obviously, something like a nuclear bomb would trigger a war.

Veidt's whole mission was to prevent the inevitable self-destruction that a nuclear war would spawn

him dropping the first salvo would NOT bring the world together

if it's a nuke, I'm walking out

>if it's a nuke, I'm walking out

2 hours and 10 minutes into the film?

You're already settled in and everything.

Mech

He's gonna frame Dr. Manhattan for it.

Dr. Manhattan, despite his outburst, would be seen as a American operaive/creation

not going to bring the world together...

AFTER he's abandoned the US government...ON LIVE TV? Remember, Doc Manhattan dipping out is what triggered Russia to start moving in on Afghanistan.

well, I guess devastating his own supposed country would have an effect

but I still think it'd be viewed as a problem the US created -- "our strong-arm foreign policy was built around this blue monster, now he's gone crazy...help us please?"

ehhh

Film goers have accepted a lot of unfamiliar ideas over the years. One might say that's why they go to the movies.

Mech

plus, being a person who saw the trailers and then read the book for the first time, and was blown away by it, never expected much of the shit that went on in the novel. How deep the character development was, the subplots, all the intertwining- so much stuff. I think dropping a giant squid in New York would be too big of a mind fuck for the average movie goer.

going for just the hardcore audience is never a smart move, especially in hollywood. cuts had to be made a this being it is something fans should be thankful for. If it wasn't for Synder the movie would have lost a lot more

Cutting out "The Black Pearl." Okay, that's a cut that makes sense. Again, I'm not sitting here pining to see a squid. Cutting out stuff with Nixon (which I assume, but don't know that they do) would make sense too. Ditto the three Asian guys that assist Ozymondias. And other stuff of that nature. I'm not expecting the whole thing here.

But again, it's not that they're cutting out the physical squid, at all. I'm not going to this movie to see a giant squid in NY. It's what the squid represents to the story and its resolution.

>I think dropping a giant squid
>in New York would be too big of a mind fuck for the average
>movie goer.

Again, any more so that a giant naked blue man on Mars?

>going for just the hardcore audience is never a smart move,
>especially in hollywood. cuts had to be made a this being it
>is something fans should be thankful for. If it wasn't for
>Synder the movie would have lost a lot more

Well, since I'm pretty much of the opinion that this didn't need to be made into a movie anyway, and one who believes Snyder is a hack, I'm not going to be surprised if they fuck this up beyond the giant squid. I'd say there's a good chance that the lack of a squid will be the least of the movies problems.

>plus, being a person who saw the trailers and then read the
>book for the first time, and was blown away by it, never
>expected much of the shit that went on in the novel. How deep
>the character development was, the subplots, all the
>intertwining- so much stuff. I think dropping a giant squid
>in New York would be too big of a mind fuck for the average
>movie goer.
>>>>

WHy do we keep saying this? Did everyone up and lose their imagination? Does Harry Potter not move tickets? Lord of the Rings flopped? Since when can the American audience not handle an alien?


>going for just the hardcore audience is never a smart move,
>especially in hollywood. cuts had to be made a this being it
>is something fans should be thankful for. If it wasn't for
>Synder the movie would have lost a lot more

This wasn't a cut Synder made. "Synder tells Dark Horizons that the squid was not in any draft of the screenplay he saw, but that he and the screenwriters found an "elegant solution to the squid problem that I kind of embraced."

>WHy do we keep saying this? Did everyone up and lose their
>imagination? Does Harry Potter not move tickets? Lord of the
>Rings flopped? Since when can the American audience not handle
>an alien?
>

Thank you and Hood for pointing this out. Here's the deal, if you're going to go to a hyper-stylized movie about superheroes one of which is a giant naked blue man but a giant dead alien squid makes you go "they had me up until the squid!", then please stop going to the movies. People are acting like they're going to see the English Patient then at the end it becomes StarWars. Just stop it.

>
>>WHy do we keep saying this? Did everyone up and lose their
>>imagination? Does Harry Potter not move tickets? Lord of the
>>Rings flopped? Since when can the American audience not
>handle
>>an alien?
>>
>
>Thank you and Hood for pointing this out. Here's the deal, if
>you're going to go to a hyper-stylized movie about superheroes
>one of which is a giant naked blue man but a giant dead alien
>squid makes you go "they had me up until the squid!", then
>please stop going to the movies. People are acting like
>they're going to see the English Patient then at the end it
>becomes StarWars. Just stop it.
>

That's the thing that's getting to me. The movie seems 1000x more stylized than the comic. Out of 12 issues, did the comic even have 5 splash pages? The costumes were supposed to look ridiculous, and the characters admitted it. I look at the trailers and I see cool poses, costumes that seem pretty workable, and slow motion.
Now, I got no beef with this stuff, but people are acting like throwing the alien in there would be some kind of pump fake. I'd bet that any of the thousands who saw the trailers and ran out to buy the book were surprised at how serious the subject matter actually was given what the trailers showed.

i was talking about keeping the film in the 80s and keeping Nixon in the story. I heard they were trying to take that out but he had a hand in keeping the story intact.

I'm all for the squid but its not happening. Plenty of stupid people go to the theaters all the time so i could hear people say "that fucking squid was stupid. that was just weird". Even with fucking Dr. Manhattan and all the other shit i could hear people saying it. I don't think it'd be enough for the studio to say "take out the squid" but some fear from the general audience is keeping it out. trust me, i think the same way you and the other posters think. it's stupid and all but we have to roll with the decision. and i agree, with HP and LOTR people would accept it, even if this movie isn't so much magical as it is scientific.

But, I agree with your broad assumption; there's no reason the squid should make it to the trailer or promotional material. It would appeal to a narrow range of the potential audience. But, once you already have customers in the seats, and their money in your pocket, why not give them something new?

When the audience leaves the theater, you want them to look forward to telling their friends; so, would including the squid jeopardize that? If the rest of the film is on point then no super dimensional space squid is going to stop people from talking about the parts they liked.

An artist faces the challenge of communicating unfamiliar ideas to an ignorant audience. With Watchmen the film, I wonder if the creators stepped up to the challenge or walked around it.

Mech

it was the writer of this article.

I know, it was for all the "Sacrifice" talk that I was sure to follow in the thread.

as long as whatever replaces it conveys the same intention (and no, a nuke doesn't work for me -- done too many times before)

the biggest concern remains with Snyder. I'm giving him a pass on 300 since he was faithful to a mediocre book, but....

because that is who they will claim blew up all the cities.

as for the squid... we-ell....

i don't mind losing it, just as long as they replaced it with something credible.

I mean, popular enough to still be fresh in people's minds?

Seems like one of those movies where the statute of limitations is around 3 months.

even if they don't remember the movie itself

because it was everything Cloverfield could never be. Mainly awesome.

The true dealbreaker of Cloverfield were the characters. I wanted them to all bite the dust because they were so stupid.
---------------------------------------
http://i36.tinypic.com/8k5w.jpg

The OKP® King of the Late Pass™
---------------------------------------

and Cloverfield was badass.

V.

dude said they were going to toss is regardless. he'd rather helm it and make the best of it than let it be in someone elses hands

like, i "got" it, but it was still weird.

As long as they use something that has the same effect (something otherworldly, uniting the nations).



WWW.OPENMICSESSION.COM

WWW.PREPTIMEPOSSE.BLOGSPOT.COM

>>Let's forget that Veidt kidnapped scientists and artists and that's what the Comedian happened upon, setting up his death. If you take that away... no biggie. I don't like, it, but okay... do you.

But the new idea is stupid as fuck. Doesn't matter where the planted nukes go off. Manhattan is an agent of the US government. If he were behind shit blowing up across the world.... even if the US was a target, the rest of the world would blame the US.

Fucking stupid. This better be a sleight of hand move to "conceal the ending."<<

Alan Moore is right to fucking hate Hollywood. Why fuck with established brilliance?

>But the new idea is stupid as fuck. Doesn't matter where the
>planted nukes go off. Manhattan is an agent of the US
>government. If he were behind shit blowing up across the
>world.... even if the US was a target, the rest of the world
>would blame the US.

Simply the fact that US cities got murked also. 30 million dead in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. So while Russia can blame the US for the Moscow deaths, and will...a god freak walking around killing millions is a much bigger fish to fry. Because remember, as far as they know Dr. Manhattan isn't finished (same with the squid incident) and can attack a random city at any time in any country. Would Russian politics ramp up the jingoism high and then ask for the US's help to defend against future Dr.Manhattan attacks. They wouldn't...they would be forced to ask for help.

with the Doc Manhattan bomb?

then would that make sense to you guys?

eh you guys above are really nitpicking. there hasnt been a 100% translation from comic to movie in this lifetime.

<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Pretty Eyes

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://www.myspace.com/shinobishaw
http://www.myspace.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.last.fm/user/ShinoShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T510

>with the Doc Manhattan bomb?
>
>then would that make sense to you guys?

No, that would be even worse. Because it's still a U.S. agent/creation that's caused all of the destruction. And ultimately the U.S. would get the blame. The resolution of the story is about brining the whole world together beyond a common threat.

As said in another thread, let's say Godzilla, created by fallout from Japanese nuclear testing, suddenly appeared, destroyed Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, and then Los Angeles. Yes, the world unites to defeat the giant fucking lizard, but when the smoke clears, everyone blames Japan for creating the damn thing in the first place.

>eh you guys above are really nitpicking. there hasnt been a
>100% translation from comic to movie in this lifetime.

Wow, you're missing the point. It's not about accuracy, it's about execution of the story.

>>eh you guys above are really nitpicking. there hasnt been a
>>100% translation from comic to movie in this lifetime.
>
>Wow, you're missing the point. It's not about accuracy, it's
>about execution of the story.


Its not about the Squid! Its about what the squid represents! Having Manhattan be the fall guy or just having nukes go off doesn't work. Even if Manhattan went "rogue" the U.S. still gets the blame for "creating" him. Don't forget DM was a propaganda tool for the U.S., he was the reason other countries didn't mess with the U.S. I don't know how you can have representative of a country go ape shit and still not hold that country accountable.

We made the bomb.
We used the bomb.
History's been relatively kind to us even tho it was 99.9% of innocents that died.

It's everybody's problem now.

nobody is like 'well, it's the US's fault humanity can kill itself'

>We made the bomb.
>We used the bomb.
>History's been relatively kind to us even tho it was 99.9% of
>innocents that died.

U.S. history because we get to write it. The rest of the world thinks we're dicks.




http://www.myspace.com/bski
http://www.myspace.com/livesociety

Explain your analogy. Because we were the first to make and use an atomic bomb, no one blames us for nuclear weapon existing? Huh?

lol, and the logic doesn't hold up since everyone has the bomb now.

But the basic idea is: if something is lethal and scary enough, nobody will care where it came from, just how we are dealing with it now. And since they will never kill or find Dr.Manhattan, it will be a threat for a very long time.

logically, people would trace him to the U.S. It has to be something that the no one on Earth could be traced to. That's the only way to has people unite as a whole through fear and the only way that Rorschach's diary appearing at the end would seem terrible.

You wouldn't care if his diary shows up if you knew people were going to be fighting anyway cause the U.S created Doc.

i really want to see this movie, so should i read the book first to "get it?"

Ive read it.. and didnt get the island part until the second read.. so to hear it all here must be overwhelming.. which is my thought on the movie as well.. there are going to be people who see it just based on it looking cool and will pan it when they leave because they "didnt get it".. That novel was one of the deepest I read and so many years later its the best time for it to come out.. but I agree with most here that the squid mightve been too much for an audience of a movie that they are consistently trying to make shorter.. so i think its more of a dumbing down for the public to get everyone to come out and also "understand"..

All the other stuff is he says about it is true, accept he grew it then beamed it into NYC.

Mech

>All the other stuff is he says about it is true, accept he
>grew it then beamed it into NYC.
>

The kidnapped artists designed what was supposed to be an alien monster, his geneticists built it, and he uses his teleportation machine to beam it into NY where he knew it would be die on arrival.

but I guess it will be moot if they dont have it in the movie at all

<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Pretty Eyes

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://www.myspace.com/shinobishaw
http://www.myspace.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.last.fm/user/ShinoShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T510

I thought Veidt found the squid in another dimension.

I read the book too long ago I guess. I'm also seeing less of a reason to take the quid out.

Mech

First season steals Veidt's plot basically.. Linderman's Group wanted to use Peter as a bomb to get Nathan elected and bring the country together.. its a little bit of a stretch but you can see the similarites in the thinking..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_consequences_of_the_Fire

Mech