Watchmen - Spoilers like a Psychic Undersea Gargant!

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

Stabable Offense
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:57 am UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Stabable Offense » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:41 am UTC

smw543 wrote: My perception of the situation was likely influenced by all the excessively Dr. Strangelove-ly imagery in the War Room scenes. (Which, according to Wikipedia, was intentional.)


haha the first thing I thought when I saw those scenes was "Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!"

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Malice » Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:03 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Also, I think the most fair to really evaluate the movie is to look at Snyder's reason for making it: To stop other people from making it really terrible.


A really bad movie could have at least been ignored. A movie that is really good in some parts and really terrible in others has me watching it and enjoying most of it and then having to pretend that, say, Malin Ackerman can act, until the next awesome part comes along. The fact that it is just a little bit terrible is, in that way, more frustrating than if they'd just raped the novel like they had intended.

--

Jack Saladin wrote:But yeah, I just made that logical jump and assumed Veidt was like "so yeah basically Manhattan said y'alls was being dicks" to the media and we just didn't happen to see it.


I just think that's a weird assumption to make. "Yeah, the plot makes sense, if you assume there was this other scene that wasn't in the movie."

Besides, I think if Veidt had said that, the world would have been pissed at him, too. Sort-of like if you were the guy who filmed Bin Laden going "ha ha ha we just fucked up your towers". And Veidt didn't want any investigation... and ends up getting the contracts for reconstruction. So I feel like it would have been odd for him to stick his hand in like that.
Image

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jessica » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:13 pm UTC

Again, I thought the whole plan was to make a new them for the supposed "biological imperitive" of us vs them. It seems they talk a lot about how humans will always go to war, as we're alone on this earth and need to have a them to fight, and the squid (Aside: I don't think the squid should have been in the movie. It doesn't make sense with the narritive they went with. I'm just annoyed that I can't logically wrap my head around the subsitute. Then again, maybe that's the point, that Veidt's plan is insane/bad...) is the mythical "them" which can unite "us" on earth.

Again, I don't see how Manhattan can be a them to unite us, in the same way that the world doesn't unite because of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. In the movie, Manhattan is the ultimate natural disaster. Randomly destroying large sections of the world. Sure, for a week, we might have a cessation of hosilities (as disasters do that, they make people sympathetic) but then they would start up again, when they realized that there was nothing they could have done to stop it. After a few months of donations, it'd be done, and we'd be back to fighting. Maybe that was the plan to have that week long peace, where Veidt can come in and say "Wow! Look at this peace, lets work together guys!" Or allow people to realize that Manhattan isn't the superweapon, and now the two big players are more equal and less likely to destroy the world. But, I don't believe that Manhattan can become the important them to unite the us of earth.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
rrwoods
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:57 pm UTC
Location: US

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby rrwoods » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 pm UTC

Malice wrote:I just think that's a weird assumption to make. "Yeah, the plot makes sense, if you assume there was this other scene that wasn't in the movie."

People did it with Donnie Darko, why not this? :roll:

Jessica wrote:Veidt's plan is insane/bad...

I really like this idea, because I didn't think Veidt came off as being at all smart in the movie.
31/M/taken/US
age/gender/interest/country

Belial wrote:The sex card is tournament legal. And I am tapping it for, like, six mana.

User avatar
Briareos
Posts: 1940
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm UTC
Location: Town of the Big House

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Briareos » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:00 pm UTC

rrwoods wrote:I really like this idea, because I didn't think Veidt came off as being at all smart in the movie.
That's because they left out any scene where he ever did anything smart. The example that comes to mind is watching a hundred TV screens at once in Antarctica and making observations to his servants, telling them how to direct his investments.

Or was he being smart in that meeting with the Senators? I don't know.
Sandry wrote:Bless you, Briareos.

Blriaraisghaasghoasufdpt.
Oregonaut wrote:Briareos is my new bestest friend.

User avatar
rrwoods
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:57 pm UTC
Location: US

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby rrwoods » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:24 pm UTC

Briareos wrote:
rrwoods wrote:I really like this idea, because I didn't think Veidt came off as being at all smart in the movie.
That's because they left out any scene where he ever did anything smart. The example that comes to mind is watching a hundred TV screens at once in Antarctica and making observations to his servants, telling them how to direct his investments.

Or was he being smart in that meeting with the Senators? I don't know.

I don't know either. I just really hated Veidt's portrayal in the movie... it's the one really blaring thing I didn't like. (Lots of other little stuff too.)

If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, then this movie had very many chances of being really, really bad. Keanu Reeves or Arnold Schwarzenegger as Manhattan? Jude Law as Veidt (would have been even worse than it already was)? Massive budget cuts? *shudder* I don't even want to think about the numerous films this could have been.
31/M/taken/US
age/gender/interest/country

Belial wrote:The sex card is tournament legal. And I am tapping it for, like, six mana.

User avatar
Mr. Lostman
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:21 am UTC
Location: karma police station
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Mr. Lostman » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:30 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
Mr. Lostwalrus wrote:That’s [...] just plain petty.
Excedingly, which is why it amuses me.
What's annoying is not that you're presenting someone else's ideas, it's that you seem to be flaunting and defending them on the basis of how bad you want me/everyone else here to look at his website.

Screw the fact that all I did was casually link to PolkOut, albeit relevantly. Suddenly linking is a crime! Oh noesss! So does that mean I'm not allowed to defend something people are trying to find faults with (failing to do so, I might add)?
Have I mentioned it was a positive review or haven't you read it?
ImageImage
^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW ^NSFW

User avatar
jerdak
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:07 pm UTC
Location: MA.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby jerdak » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:55 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:Again, I thought the whole plan was to make a new them for the supposed "biological imperitive" of us vs them. It seems they talk a lot about how humans will always go to war, as we're alone on this earth and need to have a them to fight, and the squid (Aside: I don't think the squid should have been in the movie. It doesn't make sense with the narritive they went with. I'm just annoyed that I can't logically wrap my head around the subsitute. Then again, maybe that's the point, that Veidt's plan is insane/bad...) is the mythical "them" which can unite "us" on earth.

Again, I don't see how Manhattan can be a them to unite us, in the same way that the world doesn't unite because of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. In the movie, Manhattan is the ultimate natural disaster. Randomly destroying large sections of the world. Sure, for a week, we might have a cessation of hosilities (as disasters do that, they make people sympathetic) but then they would start up again, when they realized that there was nothing they could have done to stop it. After a few months of donations, it'd be done, and we'd be back to fighting. Maybe that was the plan to have that week long peace, where Veidt can come in and say "Wow! Look at this peace, lets work together guys!" Or allow people to realize that Manhattan isn't the superweapon, and now the two big players are more equal and less likely to destroy the world. But, I don't believe that Manhattan can become the important them to unite the us of earth.


Yeah good point, I had troubles with the ending as well. As you say the whole squid thing would have been a bit off in the narrative and for another I think audiences would find it a tad cheesy. (On a side note: Did anyone see the video review that included an "interview" with a psyonic cephalopod farmer? It was kinda funny. The idea was that by changing the movie's ending the studio put people out of business, like the farmer. I think the other one was pirate actors.)

I never saw Dr. Manhattan as a force of nature though as he had the ability to reason. I agree with you that he was a poor choice for a "them" to fight. It actually felt more like they were creating some sort of dystopian society in which everyone lives in fear of the invisible hand of a demi-god. Would "we" work together knowing there isn't a way to stop such a being? I kinda think not. We'd just continue to "live" and eventually hostilities would increase again. But I guess that argument could be made against the original ending too.
"Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write it should be hard to read."

User avatar
rrwoods
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:57 pm UTC
Location: US

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby rrwoods » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:22 pm UTC

jerdak wrote:But I guess that argument could be made against the original ending too.

See, I think that's kind of what makes both endings work at all -- As smart as Veidt is, he's still got no concept of things on that grand a scale.
31/M/taken/US
age/gender/interest/country

Belial wrote:The sex card is tournament legal. And I am tapping it for, like, six mana.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby mosc » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

I agree with the earlier statement that the comic's ending would be even less believable in a post 9/11 world. Using Dr. Manhattan seemed like the smallest change possible. If the comic's ending is far fetched and you don't want to change much, you have very few options. I like what they came up with. As was said before, this particular interpretation of watchmen focused a lot on John as God so it seems in keeping.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Clumpy » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Man, the more I read you guys the more I prefer Squiddy myself. I wish they'd done it for the movie - it'd be much more interesting after a movie already full of CGI-heavy, gratuitous bits. Actually makes me wish that things had been just a little more crazy and surreal and a little less serious and gritty (except for Rorschach's noir stuff, of course).

If I ever need to destroy a city, I'll do it with a giant exploding genetically-engineered psychic teleporting space squid. That is now officially the way to go. Would have made the Cold War more interesting if we were stocking those things up instead of nukes.

Spoiler:
Mr. Lostman wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:
Mr. Lostwalrus wrote:That’s [...] just plain petty.
Excedingly, which is why it amuses me.
What's annoying is not that you're presenting someone else's ideas, it's that you seem to be flaunting and defending them on the basis of how bad you want me/everyone else here to look at his website.

Screw the fact that all I did was casually link to PolkOut, albeit relevantly. Suddenly linking is a crime! Oh noesss! So does that mean I'm not allowed to defend something people are trying to find faults with (failing to do so, I might add)?
Have I mentioned it was a positive review or haven't you read it?


I'll admit I don't understand this whole deal. Polkster signs up for the forum, posts mainly in one thread promoting his webcomic (but not in a trollish or spammer sort of way) then fades away. Then this other guy comes along, posts and behaves normally in the forum but also makes a point to promote Polkout with banner ads and occasional links. Google confirms that you guys are buddies all over the Internet. Nothing wrong with any of this, but are you just a huge fan of Polkout or did he give you a kidney or what? :)
Last edited by Clumpy on Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:16 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Nomic » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:27 pm UTC

I think replacing the Squid with dr.Manhattan sorta makes sence. With the Squid, people would after a while wonder when's that alien invasion supposed to be coming, and when it isn't, they'd just start fighting again. But as long as they think Manhattan's watching them and is gonna smite their asses if they don't play nice, they'd probably refer from starting world war 3. However, I agree that Veid's plan doesn't make as much sence and he doesn't really come off as "the smartest man in the world". For some reason I kept thinking him as Nyarlathotep's white and less malevolent cousin (who'se just as big a dick, tho).

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Malice » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:43 pm UTC

rrwoods wrote:
Malice wrote:I just think that's a weird assumption to make. "Yeah, the plot makes sense, if you assume there was this other scene that wasn't in the movie."

People did it with Donnie Darko, why not this? :roll:


DId they? Which part?

Seriously, though, it's absurd rationalization for a failing in the movie. It'd be like saying, "Oh, Silk Specter II is a very good, well-acted character, if you assume there was a scene we didn't see where they developed her better."
Image

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:37 am UTC

Not really. If we see a couple all over each others faces as they kick in a hotel room door, we don't actually need to see the rest of the scene to figure out what happened. We can just cut to the morning. It's a fairly reasonable plot assumption (and what I thought naturally and instantly as I watched it), so, uh, yeah, no. Even if you don't like it your comparison is a little asinine.

User avatar
mikek
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:25 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby mikek » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:17 am UTC

Maybe Veidt/"Dr. Mannhattan" could have blown up all of the nuclear silos. How would that play out?
everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby headprogrammingczar » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:55 pm UTC

He would have no method of delivery because of security around the silos. He basically hid the NY bomb underground.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:39 pm UTC

I'm surprised people are still defending the squid. It changes the tone, to be sure, but was highly unbelievable and non-sequitor'd in the comic. Putting the blame on Dr. Manhattan, while paying more attention to his rise to, or acceptance of, his 'Godhood', shows that Adrian, by saving the world, has done nothing more then put us back to a state of fear. He has recreated religion as a catch, and this, I feel, is a far more sobering of a message.

1. If you act out, God will smite you. He's right there, we're not kidding. or,
2. Watch out, evil space squids are coming. They sent one... thing... that kinda mucked stuff up then vanished. No, we're serious.

The notion that man is incapable of living together without a common check, be it fear of God or fear of Invasion, is a pretty brutal lesson. Frankly, given the state of America today, I find the fear of God route to be a more compelling story to tell.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Endless Mike » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:10 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm surprised people are still defending the squid. It changes the tone, to be sure, but was highly unbelievable and non-sequitor'd in the comic.

No it wasn't. There's the entire subplot involving the missing writer and the island where they're creating the squid. It makes far more sense than "Oh hey great enemy America your creation went bad let's join hands to stop him!"

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Klapaucius » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:28 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I'm surprised people are still defending the squid. It changes the tone, to be sure, but was highly unbelievable and non-sequitor'd in the comic.

No it wasn't. There's the entire subplot involving the missing writer and the island where they're creating the squid. It makes far more sense than "Oh hey great enemy America your creation went bad let's join hands to stop him!"
Missing writer and artist (and other people, I think.) And I assumed that the Institute of Extraspatial Studies was involved--possibly owned by Veidt , though I don't think it was stated.

And wasn't the Comedian killed in the first place because he discovered the island?
500%!

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Clumpy » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:06 pm UTC

Klapaucius wrote:
Endless Mike wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I'm surprised people are still defending the squid. It changes the tone, to be sure, but was highly unbelievable and non-sequitor'd in the comic.

No it wasn't. There's the entire subplot involving the missing writer and the island where they're creating the squid. It makes far more sense than "Oh hey great enemy America your creation went bad let's join hands to stop him!"
Missing writer and artist (and other people, I think.) And I assumed that the Institute of Extraspatial Studies was involved--possibly owned by Veidt , though I don't think it was stated.

And wasn't the Comedian killed in the first place because he discovered the island?


Yup. More specifically because he rambled about it in Moloch's bugged apartment. That cancerized crimegoblin didn't get much out of it, but Veidt definitely caught the references.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:59 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:No it wasn't. There's the entire subplot involving the missing writer and the island where they're creating the squid. It makes far more sense than "Oh hey great enemy America your creation went bad let's join hands to stop him!"


Tossing a few notes about writers and an island does not make up for the shoddy insertion of the squid. Anymore perhaps, then not explaining where Bubastis came from/who she was hindered the movie. It's still a stupid device, and the point of uniting everyone in fear against space invaders seems a lot less in line with the Watchmen universe then uniting everyone in fear of an already existent potential thread (Dr. Manhattan)

But yeah, it makes way LESS sense to say "Zomg, giant space invaders, and they're gone, quick, everyone be friends!" then to say "Yeah, you know that Godlike being that we had zero control over? He went apeshit. Clearly, he represents a threat to everyone. Lets put aside our differences and rebuild, with the technology we gained from him and a unified front, maybe he'll leave us alone"
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Endless Mike » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:43 pm UTC

There's panels SHOWING the creature being drawn on the island. There's TONS of clues throughout. It's only a non-sequiter if you're not actually paying attention to the story. But yeah, I can see how you might think "We're being invade by psychic aliens of unknown origin" is less likely to unite enemies on the verge of nuclear war than "Your creation attacked us."

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:But yeah, I can see how you might think "We're being invade by psychic aliens of unknown origin" is less likely to unite enemies on the verge of nuclear war than "Your creation attacked us."


Because prior to Dr. Manhattan's alleged world wide city bombing, there was a televised broadcast of him freaking out and shouting "LEAVE ME ALONE!" and teleporting to Mars. If that doesn't set the stage for him being out of US control, I dunno what else would. I think it also serves as a comment on religion, which I enjoyed.

Endless Mike wrote:There's panels SHOWING the creature being drawn on the island. There's TONS of clues throughout. It's only a non-sequiter if you're not actually paying attention to the story.


This doesn't make giant space squid sensible, it just means Moore put some build up to it.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Endless Mike » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:36 pm UTC

It means it's not a non-sequiter, though.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:41 pm UTC

In regards to a book commenting on the psychological aspects of non-super, masked vigilantes, yes, it rather is. It's a story about humans and society and history, and to toss a giant space squid in a tale that already has a God walking among us is off putting and doesn't fit the storyline as a whole.

The movie has Adrian plotting and using the tools at his disposal for a masterful plan. The comic has Adrian (a human!) calling in/creating space monsters to seal his deal. Which do you think fits best with the story?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Endless Mike » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:48 pm UTC

He used the tools at his disposal (creative types, genetic engineering, teleportation technology, etc.) to create a psychic space squid. It's no different, and actually allows the reader to figure it out themself. It also makes Bubastis make sense (genetic engineering) instead of some random cat-thing. Dr. Manhatten bombs are a much greater non-sequiter since it requires you to assume that Veidt is lying about what Dr. Manhatten's working on.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Malice » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:In regards to a book commenting on the psychological aspects of non-super, masked vigilantes, yes, it rather is. It's a story about humans and society and history, and to toss a giant space squid in a tale that already has a God walking among us is off putting and doesn't fit the storyline as a whole.


At what point is Watchmen supposed to be about realism? It's science fiction. and the squid was a subversion of the kind of thing that goes on in normal superhero comics all the damn time.

Besides, both endings are fucked; the truth is even more cynical than Moore imagined: a common enemy (terrorism!) only creates further infighting (war, creeping totalitarianism, partisan politics, etc).

The value of the squid is that it was alien. Manhattan was just a guy (and a US guy, and there's no way the Russian's wouldn't regard that as a trick). But if the human race found out it wasn't alone in the universe, THEN maybe it could have worked. Maybe.

But seriously, there's all kinds of fucked up shit in Watchmen, and it's not any more irrational to introduce a genetically engineered squid than it is to pretend you can duplicate Manhattan's powers with a machine and teleport giant vaporizing bombs around. It's all just hand-waving and science-babble.
Image

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Klapaucius » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:31 pm UTC

Clumpy wrote:
Klapaucius wrote:
Endless Mike wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I'm surprised people are still defending the squid. It changes the tone, to be sure, but was highly unbelievable and non-sequitor'd in the comic.

No it wasn't. There's the entire subplot involving the missing writer and the island where they're creating the squid. It makes far more sense than "Oh hey great enemy America your creation went bad let's join hands to stop him!"
Missing writer and artist (and other people, I think.) And I assumed that the Institute of Extraspatial Studies was involved--possibly owned by Veidt , though I don't think it was stated.

And wasn't the Comedian killed in the first place because he discovered the island?


Yup. More specifically because he rambled about it in Moloch's bugged apartment. That cancerized crimegoblin didn't get much out of it, but Veidt definitely caught the references.
Then... why was the movie version of the Comedian killed?
500%!

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby headprogrammingczar » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:37 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:In regards to a book commenting on the psychological aspects of non-super, masked vigilantes, yes, it rather is. It's a story about humans and society and history, and to toss a giant space squid in a tale that already has a God walking among us is off putting and doesn't fit the storyline as a whole.


At what point is Watchmen supposed to be about realism? It's science fiction. and the squid was a subversion of the kind of thing that goes on in normal superhero comics all the damn time.

Besides, both endings are fucked; the truth is even more cynical than Moore imagined: a common enemy (terrorism!) only creates further infighting (war, creeping totalitarianism, partisan politics, etc).

The value of the squid is that it was alien. Manhattan was just a guy (and a US guy, and there's no way the Russian's wouldn't regard that as a trick). But if the human race found out it wasn't alone in the universe, THEN maybe it could have worked. Maybe.

But seriously, there's all kinds of fucked up shit in Watchmen, and it's not any more irrational to introduce a genetically engineered squid than it is to pretend you can duplicate Manhattan's powers with a machine and teleport giant vaporizing bombs around. It's all just hand-waving and science-babble.

Take a look at what you posted again, and count the number of times he says "realistic" or synonyms. He said the Manhattan ending made for a more poetic ending than the squid.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Malice » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:50 pm UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:Take a look at what you posted again, and count the number of times he says "realistic" or synonyms. He said the Manhattan ending made for a more poetic ending than the squid.


"Take a look at what you posted again, and count the number of times he says 'poetic' or synonyms."

In the context of this discussion, I assumed that when he said (I paraphrase) "the squid is not believable," "this about the psychology of non-super vigilantes," and "this is about people and society, not giant alien monsters", that these were all synonymous with "This story is too realistic for a squid to make sense". My response to that was "There's a lot in this story that isn't believable, why would you balk at the squid but not a magic mask or a 'quantum person' or a flying hovercraft or goggles that can identify people instantly by scanning their fingerprints and a laser gun and a genetically engineered tiger thing and..."

Actually, I think the squid would have worked better in the movie*, because of the movie's visual style. It was intensely weird seeing this alien creature rendered in the same staid desaturated soap-op-comic style that Gibbons used to render normal human conversations. The film is much more slick and computer generated and surreal, and the squid would have fit right in.

*than it does in the comic, not necessarily better than what the movie currently is
Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:59 am UTC

No Mal, he's right. I am not questioning the 'validity' of using a Squid vs. Dr. Manhattan deathbombs, I think both are highly sci-fi, I'm questioning the thematic use of one over the other. Putting blame on Dr. Manhattan wrapped the story more neatly in my mind, as it removed the sci-fi, and somewhat gimmicky by itself element (Dr. Manhattans 'God on Earthness', US's military delicate Cold War supremacy) in the same swoop as Dr. Manhattans stage exit. It gives new fuel to Dr. Manhattan leaving, which I thought was slightly unfitting in the comic, and furthers his 'Godness', giving whole new depth to his comment "I neither condemn nor condone, merely comprehend what you have done" or such.

I'm kind of surprised at the responses, still, to the change of nixing the Space Squid in lieu of Dr. Manhattans blame. It is a rather large departure from the original scheme and a radically different twist on the plot line, one I think is far more elegant, and ultimately (in terms of social impact) more believable. Most of the comments here seem to be about believability (Squid showing Adrians genius and explaining Busbastis for example) or possibility (Humans uniting against Alien menace/terrorism for example), but seem to completely ignore the fact that there is historical (clutch word here) precedent of religion being used to politically bind disparate factions together in 'peace'. I think Snyders concluding twist was really quite brilliant, and even if it was a departure from the original, I think it marked a significant improvement over the comics conclusion.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:03 am UTC

Eh, it may be that I'm reading too much philosophy on humanism, but I like the message that humans can only get along through a fear of God. That's why I liked the movie ending better, because Manhattan was already set up as a godlike figure to the world.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:06 am UTC

That's exactly the perspective I was holding, and I thought we were discussing. That sobering message left me cringing but really really impressed.

Jesse wrote:Eh, it may be that I'm reading too much philosophy on humanism


Reading too much into a film? But... but... You can't OVER analyze cinema!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:08 am UTC

No, I'm not saying I'm overanalysing the film, just that I'm reading books on humanism lately, which has me seeing humanist/conservative messages in everything.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Clumpy » Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:40 am UTC

Spoiler'd for length:
Spoiler:
Klapaucius wrote:
Clumpy wrote:
Klapaucius wrote:
Endless Mike wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I'm surprised people are still defending the squid. It changes the tone, to be sure, but was highly unbelievable and non-sequitor'd in the comic.

No it wasn't. There's the entire subplot involving the missing writer and the island where they're creating the squid. It makes far more sense than "Oh hey great enemy America your creation went bad let's join hands to stop him!"
Missing writer and artist (and other people, I think.) And I assumed that the Institute of Extraspatial Studies was involved--possibly owned by Veidt , though I don't think it was stated.

And wasn't the Comedian killed in the first place because he discovered the island?


Yup. More specifically because he rambled about it in Moloch's bugged apartment. That cancerized crimegoblin didn't get much out of it, but Veidt definitely caught the references.
Then... why was the movie version of the Comedian killed?


Well, we're expected to take it for granted that The Comedian discovered Veidt's plan, regardless of what it was, and had to go. I believe Veidt has a line in the movie like: "Would have never expected that guy to have a change of heart." It's possible that he was in on the plan originally or just discovered it - either way the basics of the story are unchanged.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Malice » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:44 am UTC

Clumpy wrote:Well, we're expected to take it for granted that The Comedian discovered Veidt's plan, regardless of what it was, and had to go. I believe Veidt has a line in the movie like: "Would have never expected that guy to have a change of heart." It's possible that he was in on the plan originally or just discovered it - either way the basics of the story are unchanged.


In other words, it's another one of those things that is completely unexplained. They didn't even freaking try. I can't even think of a way off the top of my head--even if the Comedian flew over Antarctica he wouldn't have found anything. He literally would have had to stumble into the room where Veidt was building the thing and gone, "What's S.Q.U.I.D.? Oh, crap, it must stand for 'Veidt is going to kill a bunch of people.'"

And the fact that he was able to do whatever the hell he did doesn't speak very well to Veidt being the smartest man in the world.

Considering that this event is what touches off half the plot (no Comedian dying means no Rorschach theory means no movie, essentially), it's really really sloppy of them to just go, "Eh, you get the idea. Discovered his plan or somethin', whatevs. I'm sure you read the comic, right?"
Image

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:03 pm UTC

Erm, didn't Veidt specifically say in the film that The Comedian was the one who figured Oz's plan out. I remember it being quite explicit.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:45 pm UTC

Jesse wrote:Erm, didn't Veidt specifically say in the film that The Comedian was the one who figured Oz's plan out. I remember it being quite explicit.
He definitely did. While that doesn't answer the question of how he found out (all things considered, a spy would be much better suited for the job,) I don't think it was a big deal. The movie had more than it's fair share of plot holes, but this one was easily small enough to jump across (they were even kind enough to supply a makeshift bridge, though it disappears if you look directly at it.) I doubt the vast majority of people even noticed it; it didn't occur to me until long after I had left the theater.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby bigglesworth » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:59 pm UTC

The film directly says that Eddie had been working for the government, and that the government intel he had access to allowed him to work it out.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Watchmen - Spoilers like a Psychic Undersea Gargant!

Postby Jack Saladin » Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:13 am UTC

So apparently Tales of the Black Freighter is out. Anyone seen it?

Edit: I just started watching it when a thought struck me - what the fuck? What does this even have to do with anything now? Since the squids gone, so is the writer of the comic, along with any mention of the Black Freighter comic at all... So what exactly does this have to do with the Watchmen movie? Nothing, really, that I can think of. So it's a straight up adaptation of that part of the original Watchmen comic, except totally divorced from all context within the Watchmen story, which was kind of the point. So now it's just a really boring pirate story (as opposed to a really boring pirate story that was slightly played in tune with a bigger, better story), that we can only really judge as just that: A standalone animated short film about pirates.

And, well, honestly, I'm not really interested in that. Also this animation is really fucking terrible. Who made this? Fire them. Close down that studio. This shit would look OK on Newgrounds. It would get like a 4. But it does not go down well as something they're expecting people to buy.

Yeah, so I'm not going to watch this. Incredibly boring, generic tale, which I already know, animated badly over 25 minutes. Nothx.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests