Gingerbread Man on 18/11/2008 at 22:24
Well, then. See, maybe I'm just a bit too nerd about this whole thing, but the original ending is vital, necessary, way more interesting / ironic / genius / hubris-fuelled stupidity / balls-out important and (paradoxically) believable to me than what they have ended up with.
This new ending sidesteps and ignores as seemingly-irrelevant several exceptionally interesting things, both from the internal standpoint of the story as well as the more abstract meta-narrative.
In short, sir, this ending as conceived of and filmed by Mr Snyder is v. dissapointinged, and will probably end up making me think Cloverfield was a reasonably unstupid film by comparison. And nobody wants that to happen, do they?
In seriousness though, I think rewriting the end was a short-sighted move. It's not quite on par with Hamlet and Ophelia living happily ever after in a wonderfully-redecorated Elsinore, but I'm offended and dismayed all the same.
Mostly dismayed. But part of me thinks they changed the ending because someone didn't understand how fucking classy and awesome and perfect and INEVITABLE that particular mindfuck was to the storyline. Made especially moreso (contrary to other nerds' arguments) by the fact that something as ridiculous and insignificant as a journal mailed to a hole-in-the-wall "newspaper" was basically destined to shred the entire amazing plan into tatters.
ffs, Watchmen is dripping with the triumph of the banal and entropy and mundane bullshit grinding down even the lives of gods. The Smartest Man in the World is supposed to be unable to pull off the greatest and most savage Statesman / Educated Man / (whatever other terms you can think of to denote someone with the plan and the WILL to make it happen*) because of the random, half-bored interference (ultimately) of an uninteresting nobody who can't even keep condiments off his t-shirt.
*which, incidentally, is perhaps the most deeply-woven theme in the whole series, I think... the entire book is filled with people who have a plan but not the power or will, people who have the power but not the will or interest, and people who have the interest / will but lack the necessary power. Think about that next time you read through. From Nite Owl's impotence to the escapism of The Black Freighter, it's a huge theme)
(ps I kept editing this and I think I lost the target entirely sorry :( )
BEAR on 18/11/2008 at 23:10
Maybe they just thought it was going to be impossible to get the whole meaning through? Or maybe they just doubt the ability of the public in general to comprehend it even if they stuff it right down their throats. Still doesn't make much sense though, considering that The Watchmen doesn't seem to have a shortage of fans who want nothing more than an accurate depiction.
Edit: NM, apparently just a time conflict. I've doubted this whole time how they could capture the whole story in a single movie so it makes sense even if its dissapointing.
Gingerbread Man on 18/11/2008 at 23:45
Wait there IS a way to do it. It wouldn't suck, it would make internal sense, and it's kinda cool in its own way.
If Adrian's masterstroke is to frame Manhattan for the destruction of several cities, it would be cool to see Manhattan becoming gradually more and more removed (Mars etc, not really caring about what size he is or whether his blue wang is flapping in the breeze) and for Ozymandias to have capitalised on this fact... If Manhattan is seen by the rest of us regular people as a real goddamn honest-to-god supernatural entity by the end of his estrangement, Ozy can nuke the targets after Manhattan leaves, Manhattan wouldn't give a fig because he already knows anyway, and Planet Earth is now populated by a bunch of shocked humans who think Jon is probably still up there somewhere and will DO random shit like that if we step out of line again.
In effect, Ozymandias creates God so that everyone will behave themselves.
:o
It's the exact same concept, immanentise the eschaton. I think that'd be a perfectly acceptable way to do it.
Scots Taffer on 18/11/2008 at 23:46
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
This new ending sidesteps and ignores as seemingly-irrelevant several exceptionally interesting things, both from the internal standpoint of the story as well as the more abstract meta-narrative.
I'll ask you to try your hardest to clarify what you mean here, sir, though I know I might regret trying to understand the ensuing ramble! :D
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
by the fact that something as ridiculous and insignificant as a journal mailed to a hole-in-the-wall "newspaper" was basically destined to shred the entire amazing plan into tatters.
Haven't we already discussed that conclusion being at best a little optimistic?
I liked the rest of your post though, an interesting take on the internal struggles of the characters that definitely fits without detracting from any other views I've heard expressed about it.
Muzman on 19/11/2008 at 02:40
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Wait there IS a way to do it. It wouldn't suck, it would make internal sense, and it's kinda cool in its own way.
...
Yeah, that could work I guess. Doc could still be complicit and possibly even depart as part of making it all work (sentence bleah). Then do the New Statesman bit and the conspiracy is kinda that there is no god. ooh fun.
Quote:
Immanentise the Eschaton.
T-shirt plz
Fafhrd on 19/11/2008 at 02:54
From what I've read that IS how the ending of the film works. No Squid != No conspiracy resulting in the deaths of millions. And it's been mentioned on another board, but using the 5th dimensional squid monster would actually break the film's deconstruction/meta-commentary on modern superhero films.
Muzman on 19/11/2008 at 02:58
Well quite, but it hinges on how they handle the impression of Doc is all
Aerothorn on 27/11/2008 at 01:19
In the new trailer, the characters refer to THEMSELVES as "Watchmen" - which I don't believe was ever in the novel, and doesn't seem very believable. The title comes from the whole "Who watches the watchmen" line, and so it seems like calling themselves that would be incredibly bad PR. Not a huge deal, but it does indicate a dumbing down.
Aerothorn on 16/12/2008 at 00:50
(
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43640.html)
First video game trailer. It's all beat-em-up gameplay. Not sure what this has to do with Watchmen...I don't recall the novel having that much action.
Snake on 16/12/2008 at 01:47
I'm very confused.
What the fuck is the Watchmen and why has it garnered so much attention here?
