Watchmen (HBO) TV Show • Page 26

snyder being painfully faithful to the graphic novel but deciding to change that scene in particular is the definition of sucking ass

 

my favorite thing about the Watchmen movie was Snyder said something like "I didn't want to direct a Watchmen movie but I knew hollywood was gonna make it anyways and it would suck so I made it to save the movie." or some bullshit to that effect.

 

lmao of course he did. what a hero.

 

I never understood why people thought the Dr. Manhattan bomb ending was better. Like Manhattan is the most powerful being in existence, the only guy with actual superpowers. How could the world unite and fight him? Doesn’t make sense, does it?

 

The squid is great because it’s the exact kind of absurd solution to a problem that only a supervillain would think up

 

Batman had his contingencies against all superpowered members of the Justice League. Similar to the giant squid, nobody knows how to solve the problem, but working together might be the only hope of figuring out how because they believe their lives depend on it.

It makes sense to a degree. The main flaw that I see is that Dr. Manhattan is seen as America's creation, therefore, the rest of the world may blame the US instead of working with them.

 

This as well. It’s just not a good ending.

 

I need the second volume of Reznor & Ross's soundtrack like, literally right now

 

Not only this, but how believable is it that the famously emotionless Dr. Manhattan would suddenly decide he hates humanity enough to do that?

 

also: "squid quo pro" lmfao

 

Fucking died.

 

He did have a very human outburst over him being cornered about the cancer he caused other people that aired on television. He had seemingly absolute power and that’s what scared people and that made it easy for Veidt to mobilize the world against him by framing him.

I love the film ending because of the ever-present fear of complete anhilation we’re left with at the end has a human form and American origin which makes the narrative’s critique of MAD and American imperialism all the more immediate. Also that it makes what happened to Manhattan all the more tragic.

 

His outburst was that he just wanted to be left alone, not that he was angry or hated people. But regardless this was just a side-point I was bringing up, the main point about it not making sense how humanity would ever believe they could fight Dr. Manhattan still stands. With the squid, it's immediately clear that the thing is immensely powerful but can in fact be killed. With the Dr. Manhattan ending, he's invulnerable, omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal. It would be more likely that the Earth would devolve into, like, rampant hedonism with nobody knowing how long they had left before Manhattan just snaps his fingers and reduces the entire human race to ash.

The original message that nothing of Earth or from Earth could possibly unite humanity is also a powerful one. In fact, it's even more powerful because it further reinforces the bleak view of humanity in the 1980s that the book has. Also, turning Dr. Manhattan into a Christ-like figure who selflessly sacrifices his ability to stay on Earth for the greater good of humanity kind of takes away the nuance of whether or not his character is truly good. It makes him Superman instead of a critique of Superman, essentially. That harms the book's criticism of superheroism, whereas the actual ending (where he helps cover up an act of mass murder and then fucks off to play God who-knows-where) is more in keeping with that aspect of the book's messaging. Just further proof that Snyder is a hack who doesn't understand the source material.

 

The original message is that nothing that appears to be of or from Earth is capable of uniting humanity. That is still honored here as Dr. Manhattan, at first blush to those who don't know him, appears to be otherworldly or inhuman despite showing human characteristics.

Manhattan being complicit with Veidt's mass murder plot and maintaining the secret with more murder retains the moral ambiguity of his character from the original which would retain a critique of superheroism. If humanity would fail to bond together against a threat they stand no chance against and instead devolve into hedonism in the long run, then we're invited to think how Manhattan playing the saint and doing what he thinks is right does not actually help. Though, it's believable that initially there would be a consensus because as humans we like to save face - just like with MAD.

 

I enjoyed the movie but I also was not a comic books/graphic novels person and never read the novel, so.

 

I think everyone in the world of Watchmen knows where Dr. Manhattan came from and how, at least everyone who would be involved in the decision to cease all Cold War hostilities (i.e. the leaders of the USSR and the United States).

Being selfless and leaving the Earth for non-God complex reasons at the end completely destroys the critique of superheroism. It makes him a martyr to us as viewers. It rehabilitates his image and undoes the work of setting him up as a more cynical response to the all-powerful superhero-as-boy scout persona of Superman. It also absolves him of a lot of the responsibility for the cover-up because it makes it seem like Veidt has backed him into a corner and he has no choice but to go along with it. In the book, the decision to help cover up the truth is entirely on his shoulders.

Also you can't take my own hypothetical and use it to prove your point lol, the movie makes it clear that my more logical scenario isn't what's happening and that it otherwise is going to end up the same way the book did in terms of humanity uniting and casting aside hostility for the greater good. My whole point is that that scenario isn't as believable if Manhattan is the perceived threat.

 

You really should, it's like maybe 4 hours of reading total and it absolutely kicks ass

 

Is it that short? I always got the impression it was a longer read than that from the way people talked about it

 

It's honestly one of the great works of 20th century literature. It should be taught in schools, imo.

 

It's just 12 issues of a comic book, not too bad a read. 4 hours seems pretty quick though if you want to really take in the details. Maybe 6-7 hours if you take your time?

 

The changes in the narrative do not absolve him of his sins, because he is still a symbol of absolute power unchecked. He still could have chosen to expose Veidt but he chooses not to. If he is being framed it makes his decisions more complex and the morality of his actions more unclear. I didn't take film Manhattan to get away unscathed, I thought the narrative was clear in assigning blame to all actors making it a downer ending still, leaving us to question the nature of human action itself.

When I was using your hypothetical against you, I'm taking issue with your hedonism scenario but attempting to show that even if that was to be the outcome, it is still consistent with the multifaceted characterization of Manhattan I think is present in the film that you disagree exists.

 

For what its worth, I agree with this hard and think the book is superior to the film.

 

Hmm...I may have to do it. The comic style has never really been my thing (I still haven't started The Walking Dead despite having a desire to do so), but it seems like so many good stories are being made into TV shows/movies so I feel like I'm gonna be drawn to reading them even more in the future.

 

yeah maybe this is more accurate

 

In the movie, the act of making it a frame job removes the complexity of his decision because it paints him as having no other real choice. Even if he tried to expose what Veidt did at that point, who would believe him? He realizes he's been bested and decides to go along with the already-done destruction of his public image for the greater good of humanity. In the book, he could very credibly expose what Veidt did but instead chooses not to, kills the only person who wants to expose the truth, and then decides to abandon the human race entirely to go create life somewhere in space. That is much more in keeping with the message of the story and has way more complex implications than the movie ending. That's what Alan Moore was trying to convey, and Snyder/the movie don't understand why changing the ending that way ruins that entirely.

The movie pays lip service to portraying Manhattan in a complex way by going through the motions of a lot of what happens in the book, but like I've been saying the ending undoes all that by removing the important context surrounding his final choice about Veidt's plan.