WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Wed May 27, 2020 3:48 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:35 am 
Offline
Drinking a toast to absent friends.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:16 am
Posts: 1246
I highly HIGHLY doubt that he will die. Snyder has all but said that he lives... and there is no way in hell that Snyder could say the "morally ambiguous ending is in tact even if the squid is out" if he kills off Veidt. No chance in hell.

_________________
" Funny STORY. Sounds UNBELIEVABLE. Probably TRUE."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:45 am 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:17 pm
Posts: 1028
This may be a moot point, but...

The moral ambiguity in WATCHMEN should revolve around Veidt's plot, and whether that was right, or wrong, or neccessary, given the situation on Earth, and the heroes reactions to this, in terms of whether they will keep Veidt's secret, or expose him. It's not so much about Veidt's survival or death, per se. At least, it shouldn't be.

Do I want to see Veidt die? No, as I believe it would be a mistake to shoehorn any sort of large, irrelevant story change into this film, and because I have yet to see it executed very well.

But as much as people like to pretend that Veidt's death would impact this element because of some "the creators are showing you he is good or evil" nonsense, Veidt's final fate really has little to do with the idea of ambiguous morality compared to the larger picture of the event. It's the nature of the plot and the moral issues therein that provide the ambiguity, not whether or not Veidt survives. Whether or not Veidt survives is a story element more than a theme. The villain escaping punishment, which is a major change from the traditional superhero story. But he's not escaping punishment because the author wants you to believe his actions were right, and that he's not a villain. His survival or death does not affect the ambiguity of the situation he found himself in. Let's face it. What Veidt does in WATCHMEN, on the surface, is considered by many to be evil, and wrong. WHY he does it...that's an entirely different matter.

Veidt could die, and the moral ambiguity of his actions and plot would still remain, wouldn't they? Unless you can argue that when someone dies that assessment of their actions and the scenario for these actions loses all meaning and ambiguity. Let's face it, even if Dan decides Veidt was wrong and wants to kill him...and even if he does...does that make Dan right? Does that make Veidt's plan any less ambiguous? You could argue that Dan killing Veidt does alter the heroes "reaction", but wouldn't it, in essence, almost add a second layer of ambiguity to the whole situation, since now Dan faces a morally ambiguous situation in terms of whether to punish Veidt for his actions?

Would EITHER of them be right or wrong? Veidt, guided by his logic, Dan, guided by his emotion, are either of them making the right, or appropriate, choice?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:09 am 
Offline
Genetically-Altered Lynx
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:13 am
Posts: 2512
Location: San Fran
It's a fascinating narrative, Veidt being killed for doing something that is, in the end, a "good deed" simply because he did it in such a garish and cosmetically horrific way.

But it's not Watchmen. It's a new message they'd be conveying, a new narrative. Let's face it -- neither Alex Tse or David Hayter are people I would trust to improve upon or add to Alan Moore's story. It's veering dangerously into V for Vendetta territory, with writers losing their reverence for Moore's work and regarding it as dated or quaint, something that's not perfectly fine as it is and needs to be updated to better fit people's pallet. People like Tse and Hayter are fine for streamlining Moore's story, tweaking it, but not for re-imagining or reinterpreting it's psychology, it's mythology, it's motifs, or any of the truly deep aspects of the story. They'd simply be out of their league if they tried to compete with Moore on that level. They need to let Moore's story do that stuff for them.

_________________
He did it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:28 am 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:17 pm
Posts: 1028
It'd be a story alteration, yes. But how would Veidt's death send a new message?

What, that would be the filmmakers saying "he was wrong to do what he did"?

On what planet does that logic hold up?

Either people get the moral ambiguity of what Veidt did...or they don't. Those who don't get it outright, likely wouldn't understand anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:45 am 
Offline
Genetically-Altered Lynx
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:13 am
Posts: 2512
Location: San Fran
First off, it'd be a different Dan Dreiberg, and, if Laurie and Dr. Manhattan then let Dreiberg get away with straight-up murder in the first, it'd say something different about those characters. Dreiberg doesn't just get the logical aspect of Veidt's plot, but then abhors Veidt himself and feels a burning hatred towards him. He completely resigns to Veidt's success, and accepts it wholesale. He takes stock of the horror of the "attacks", but he can't help but see the good that's going to come from this and the good that Veidt's done. Not only that, there's the logical aspect that Veidt touches on in the book; killing him would immediately spark an investigation into the circumstances of his murder, and that would take away from the ending's ambiguity if there was the lingering possibility that Veidt's death would shine a light on his plot. Bottom line, killing Veidt doesn't have any positive other than it would give an audience the good, visceral feeling off seeing a man who's done horrible things get what he apparently deserves, but it does detract from the neutral tone of the ending. The "moral ambiguity" doesn't just exist in their acceptance of the plot, but in their resignation to Veidt. The "good guys" go along with the "bad guy", and that concept can't really be fully realized if they go along with him but also kill him. Again, Moore felt Veidt living was needed to add to the ambiguity, but if the guy who co-wrote Transformers thinks he knows better than Moore about how to convey that same ambiguity, God bless his little heart.

_________________
He did it.


Last edited by EmPiiRe x on Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:47 am 
Offline
Genetically-Altered Lynx

Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2817
yeah he couldn't die it totally ruins deconstruction of superheroes because villains die all the time you never see one live and win in the end


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:50 am 
Offline
Drinking a toast to absent friends.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:16 am
Posts: 1246
What I'm saying is...
that if Dan kills him, a lot of the impact would be lost. Average Joe would walk out of the theater thinking... alright, good. The bad guy got what was coming to him.

If they let him live.... average Joe will be like... hey wtf? Why didn't they kill him! ... hey wait... should they have killed him? Hmm...

_________________
" Funny STORY. Sounds UNBELIEVABLE. Probably TRUE."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:01 am 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:25 pm
Posts: 1442
Location: Washington, DC
Dog Carcass wrote:
What I'm saying is...
that if Dan kills him, a lot of the impact would be lost. Average Joe would walk out of the theater thinking... alright, good. The bad guy got what was coming to him.

If they let him live.... average Joe will be like... hey wtf? Why didn't they kill him! ... hey wait... should they have killed him? Hmm...


Unfortunately, I tend to agree with this. I understand the message can still stay intact, the impact would minimized horribly if Veidt gets killed.

Let's hope that's not the case. If Snyder does end up killing him, he probably will be expecting a shitstorm of epic proportions from the GN fans, even bigger than our dearly departed squid.

_________________
"When someone asks if you're a god, you say YES!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:29 am 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:17 pm
Posts: 1028
Dan, in WATCHMEN, seems to be so stunned by what's happened that he's almost incapable of clear rational thought on the matter, or making a choice on how to handle it. Even after he's made the choice, he still can't wrap his mind around it. It'd be a different element of Dan that we didn't see in the graphic novel, sure. Would it be any less valid an exploration of themes and character? This is an emotion he might very well experience, one that Moore never explored, the very real element of heroes meting out justice. Granted, Dan staying silent may indicate he doesn't believe Veidt deserves to be punished, but it's hardly explored that deeply in the novel.

Veidt does say "Kill me, risking subsequent investigation?" in the novel. He does not say that in the movie scripts that have him dying. Now, it's possible that because he does not say this, Dan, in an offshoot of an offshoot of reality might still be angry, and attempt to kill him, if that element is explored.

And "Kill me, risking subsequent investigation" means there is a risk it may occur. It means it might, not that it will, or that it will uncover anything major. Remember, Veidt's plan was carried out by Veidt, and by killers who killed each other, and he's covered his tracks as far as the scientists goes, and likely most of his research, etc. I doubt he's left much evidence lying around. What's an investigation going to dig up, especially if Veidt is dead?

We can't say it affects the ambiguity of whether the plot will be uncovered in a concrete manner, because Rorschach's journal does that already, making whether Veidt's death would lead to an investigation somewhat irrelevant.

Quote:
Bottom line, killing Veidt doesn't have any positive other than it would give an audience the good, visceral feeling off seeing a man who's done horrible things get what he apparently deserves.


I'd agree, to a point. But it does provide another layer of ambiguity in terms of Dan's actions. It makes Veidt's actions into more of a "sacrifice" for the world, and it does throw his former friendship with Dan into sharp relief.

Quote:
but it does detract from the neutral tone of the ending.


To a point. Or maybe it balances out the conflicting ideologies there.

Quote:
The "moral ambiguity" doesn't just exist in their acceptance of the plot, but in their resignation to Veidt.


Then there's no real moral ambiguity there. They've made a decision and a distinct choice, based on their moral beliefs. If they accept his plan and his logic, but punish him...then things become a bit more ambiguous, wouldn't you say?

There's ambiguity in Veidt's plan, but not in the heroes actions in reaction to it.

Quote:
The "good guys" go along with the "bad guy", and that concept can't really be fully realized if they go along with him but also kill him.


As long as they go along with his plan, the concept could still be realized.

Quote:
Again, Moore felt Veidt living was needed to add to the ambiguity, but if the guy who co-wrote Transformers thinks he knows better than Moore about how to convey that same ambiguity, God bless his little heart.


Moore shows us that things are resolved for the moment, and that Dan is more concerned with Laurie and celebrating life than seeking vengeance (which he never even delved into), and that "Nothing ever ends". He never explicity shows Veidt surviving. Maybe Dan did kill him. :)

Quote:
yeah he couldn't die it totally ruins deconstruction of superheroes because villains die all the time you never see one live and win in the end


You rarely see the hero kill the villain, either, especially after agreeing their plot is "right". I wouldn't say Veidt "wins" in the novel, given the ambiguous nature of the ending. The real "desconstruction" is that the villain isn't punished, not neccessarily that he "wins". And that's the only reason I can think of that Veidt absolutely must survive. To maintain that element of WATCHMEN.

Quote:
that if Dan kills him, a lot of the impact would be lost. Average Joe would walk out of the theater thinking... alright, good. The bad guy got what was coming to him.


Then, methinks Average Joe was never smart enough to understand the themes and concepts of WATCHMEN in the first place, and it's Average Joe's loss. And maybe Average Joe, if it didn't such an obvious concept as "Was what Veidt did right or wrong?", enjoyed the action in WATCHMEN.

Quote:
Unfortunately, I tend to agree with this. I understand the message can still stay intact, the impact would minimized horribly if Veidt gets killed.


How would the impact be minimized, exactly? The impact of the ideas of ambiguity and the heroes complacency in his plan are still intact. The idea that he'd not be punished would not be. That, again, is probably the best reason not to have him die. Not because what he did was wrong, or because "punishing him" implies it was wrong, but because the villain being punished and meeting justice on any level is a stable of comics, and WATCHMEN turns this on its head with its ending.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:55 am 
Offline
Genetically-Altered Lynx
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:13 am
Posts: 2512
Location: San Fran
The Guard wrote:
Dan, in WATCHMEN, seems to be so stunned by what's happened that he's almost incapable of clear rational thought on the matter, or making a choice on how to handle it. Even after he's made the choice, he still can't wrap his mind around it. It'd be a different element of Dan that we didn't see in the graphic novel, sure. Would it be any less valid an exploration of themes and character? This is an emotion he might very well experience, one that Moore never explored, the very real element of heroes meting out justice. Granted, Dan staying silent may indicate he doesn't believe Veidt deserves to be punished, but it's hardly explored that deeply in the novel.


If Moore thought it best to keep it unexplored and unsaid, it should stay that way if the filmmakers want to keep being able to say it's a "faithful adaptation".

Quote:
Veidt does say "Kill me, risking subsequent investigation?" in the novel. He does not say that in the movie scripts that have him dying. Now, it's possible that because he does not say this, Dan, in an offshoot of an offshoot of reality might still be angry, and attempt to kill him, if that element is explored.

And "Kill me, risking subsequent investigation" means there is a risk it may occur. It means it might, not that it will, or that it will uncover anything major. Remember, Veidt's plan was carried out by Veidt, and by killers who killed each other, and he's covered his tracks as far as the scientists goes, and likely most of his research, etc. I doubt he's left much evidence lying around. What's an investigation going to dig up, especially if Veidt is dead?

We can't say it affects the ambiguity of whether the plot will be uncovered in a concrete manner, because Rorschach's journal does that already, making whether Veidt's death would lead to an investigation somewhat irrelevant.


Rorschach's journal and Veidt's death would not cancel each other out. It would be two against one, in terms of neutrality. You'd have Rorschach's journal possibly being printed and a murder investigation that could uncover the plot weighed only against Laurie and Dan's silence. There'd be two things out there that could sabotage the new utopia, and, whereas Rorschach's journal could be discredited, a full-fledged investigation into the murder of one of the most powerful and high-profile men in the world could not be. And, with Veidt dead and all of his assistants dead, Karnak would be open to anybody who wanted to take a peak. In the film, it's the source of the explosions that wreak havoc on Earth, and the machine used to generate them would be there. It wouldn't take much more than that to open the floodgates of doubt.

Quote:
I'd agree, to a point. But it does provide another layer of ambiguity in terms of Dan's actions. It makes Veidt's actions into more of a "sacrifice" for the world, and it does throw his former friendship with Dan into sharp relief.


I said earlier it's a good narrative and interesting dynamic, but it's not something I want to see injected into anything that wants to pass itself off as faithful. It's too important a subject to leave to anybody but Moore, and Moore had his say on whether Veidt should live or die.

Quote:
To a point. Or maybe it balances out the conflicting ideologies there.


It throws it out of balance, really, because, again, you know have two things going against the utopia versus the one sustaining it.

Quote:
Then there's no real moral ambiguity there. They've made a decision and a distinct choice, based on their moral beliefs. If they accept his plan and his logic, but punish him...then things become a bit more ambiguous, wouldn't you say?


Ambiguous does need to mean murky. Not everything needs to be conflicting for the paradigm to function. They, the "heroes", make a choice to go along with the "villain". Another added level of moral vagueness would be possible, but not necessary.

Quote:
There's ambiguity in Veidt's plan, but not in the heroes actions in reaction to it.


There needn't be, because their reaction goes against the grain of what you think a "hero" ought to do, which is sufficient.

Quote:
As long as they go along with his plan, the concept could still be realized.


Not really, because there would be a feeling of them having defeated an evil man and his evil plot, and then just living with the positive aspects of his actions. They'd get their cake and eat it, too. You get the bad guy being punished and world peace. Release the doves! But that's not what Watchmen should feel like.

Quote:
Moore shows us that things are resolved for the moment, and that Dan is more concerned with Laurie and celebrating life than seeking vengeance (which he never even delved into), and that "Nothing ever ends". He never explicity shows Veidt surviving. Maybe Dan did kill him. :)


And maybe Veidt dies of internal bleeding from catching the bullet as soon as Manhattan leaves. Nobody should want anything not in the book to be explored or added. That'd be a watered-down sequel, in principle.

_________________
He did it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:21 am 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:57 pm
Posts: 195
I don't buy that ambiguous ending crap. I'm talking about the book. Sure, you are left to think what will happen next, will he publish it or not... blah blah blah, it's all just a spark of hope for those to weak to see the truth. Even if they published Rorschach's journal, NOTHING would change. People publish groundbreaking shit all the time and what happens to them? They become conspiracy theorists, crazy people, hippies, someone you can't listen to, someone who has been 'debunked' by the mainstream media. This is what will happen if it gets published. The paper will be considered an extreme left (or right) propaganda machine. Veidt will get the Nova Express to run a story 'debunking' him and everyone will move along. Maybe it will create a tiny movement of 'crazy people' who nobody listens to.

But seriously, think about it, Rorschach is a psychopath, the media made his landlady say he approached him sexually, he is a known killer, known vigilante. All Viedt had to do was make Nova run a story with Malcolm Long's notes from the sessions and he loses his credibility in a second. Nobody cares about all the evidence, the pictures, the hard facts, nothing. There is no ambiguous ending. Veidt won and nobody can stop him, except Dr Manhattan who doesn't give a fuck.

Just like the real world elite. They do whatever they want, they control everything, justice never gets to them and god doesn't give a fuck.

_________________
brb, gonna stop a nuclear war between russians an americans by faking a nuclear attack and blaming it on an american weapon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:38 am 
Offline
Genetically-Altered Lynx
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:13 am
Posts: 2512
Location: San Fran
Congratulations, you've wasted your time being a fan of something you'll never get.

Go tell Alan Moore he sucks at writing comics, now.

It's like a Star Wars fan who thinks the point is to root for the Imperials . . .

_________________
He did it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:20 am 
Offline
Vigilante
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:44 pm
Posts: 82
Location: Dan's Kitchen
The Guard wrote:
Quote:
There seems to be a lot of things that don't appear in the script that Guard has that still seem to be showing up in the film. Rorschach in Happy Harry's, Kovacs buying a newspaper from Bernie . . . And, of course, Veidt not dying. With so many versions and rewrites floating around, we probably won't know what's in and what's not until the sixth of March.


Actually, the first two of those are in the script. Others have said this as well. We've seen actual footage of Happy Harry's, and Rorschach purchasing the newspaper. It's a safe bet those will be in the film.


I'm just saying that appearing in the script and being filmed is one thing, actually showing up onscreen after the editing is another. I have a feeling a LOT of the stuff we're expecting to see will be cut for time.

_________________
No need. Fine like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:26 am 
Offline
...I am Pagliacci.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 473
Location: North Carolina
Actually, whenever I play Star Wars: Battlefront I like to be the Imperials... :oops:

But anyway, I think 4d669 has a good point. There is very little chance anyone would take the word of someone with a reputation such as Rorschach's seriously. While I'm sure someone would believe the journal if it were published, it's unlikely they would have the resources or skill to take on Veidt successfully. In this way the novel's ending is quite bleak. This, of course, means that the only real threat to Veidt's plan would be an investigation - because, say, he was killed by an angry vigilante who learned about his plan. Just another argument to keeping the "Veidt lives" plot strand intact. Otherwise, the plot's ambiguity is destroyed, if not the themes.

_________________
We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:49 am 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:57 pm
Posts: 195
EmPiiRe x wrote:
Congratulations, you've wasted your time being a fan of something you'll never get.

Go tell Alan Moore he sucks at writing comics, now.

It's like a Star Wars fan who thinks the point is to root for the Imperials . . .


This is not Star Wars. This is a realistic portrayal of human society.

Believing that Rorschach's journal being published would change anything is like believing that Bush would be impeached and put in prison when they discovered that they forged military intelligence in order to go into Iraq for no reason.

_________________
brb, gonna stop a nuclear war between russians an americans by faking a nuclear attack and blaming it on an american weapon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:06 am 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:56 pm
Posts: 193
4d669 wrote:
EmPiiRe x wrote:
Congratulations, you've wasted your time being a fan of something you'll never get.

Go tell Alan Moore he sucks at writing comics, now.

It's like a Star Wars fan who thinks the point is to root for the Imperials . . .


This is not Star Wars. This is a realistic portrayal of human society.

Believing that Rorschach's journal being published would change anything is like believing that Bush would be impeached and put in prison when they discovered that they forged military intelligence in order to go into Iraq for no reason.


I agree with 4d669. It happens all the time. Someone would come in and say "Unless I see it on the BBC or NPR it cant possibly be true", and continue happily down their path of ignorance. Besides, who has time in their day to read about what some wacknut conspiracy theorist has to say about some wacknut conspiracy theorist ex-superhero ... there's a new world to build!

Veidt 1 Rorschach 0

_________________
You did it, Zack. Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:18 am 
Offline
...look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:58 am
Posts: 2158
Location: Stockholm
Fourdeesixsixnine wrote:
Nobody cares about all the evidence, the pictures, the hard facts, nothing.


Hang on a moment. If the amount of people being eradicated is as large as is hinted, then there will be a lot of people very interested in exactly how that went down.

Rorschach may be a weird, unpopular nut-job, but people don't like being hoodwinked. At least where I come form. You may be used to it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:02 am 
Offline
New Frontiersman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:07 pm
Posts: 396
Veidt cannot die. There is absolutely no point in making this movie if he dies. The Guard has been very generous with us on this board, but I have to disagree 100% with his/her assertion that Veidt's death would not be the travesty that we think it is.

There are several elements of moral ambiguity within the ending. The primary one involves whether or not what Veidt did was right, but a secondary (yet still very important) one involves the dilemma faced by Dan, Laurie, Jon and Walter. Veidt is a major public figure, and even if the script fails to mention it, his death would spark an investigation that could lead to the reversal of what he achieved. We need to see that the characters' hands are tied in this moment.

Then, there is the deconstruction element. Veidt may or may not be a villain; that's up for the audience members to decide. But, in general, he fills the stereotypical villain role. He's the one who commits the atrocity at the end. And he needs to get away with it. He can't die. That ruins the ending.

Remember, Veidt was not going to stop. He stated that he would continue working towards bringing the world together. I forget the exact lines, I don't have the comic on me, but he made it clear that he was not finished.

And killing Veidt is the last thing that Dan would do. It's not his character, at all.

I've been extremely supportive of this project, but man, if word got out that Veidt died, I would say that everyone involved needs to rebuild the sets and reshoot those scenes, or don't bother releasing the movie.

P.S. The little jokes about "maybe Dan did kill Veidt, we just didn't see it" can't be right. All of the Millenium signs in the last few panels prove that Veidt is alive, well, and working.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:28 am 
Offline
...I am Pagliacci.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 473
Location: North Carolina
I've already commented on how important it is to keep Veidt alive, so I won't recap that here, but I thought of another question for The Guard that I think is kind of important.

Veidt stipulates that the war is over resources. Why, then, doesn't he just create the clean cheap energy and reveal it to the world, thus allowing conflicts to be settled without having to blow up every major city on the planet? Does the script elaborate on the source of the conflict? Because if only resources are involved his entire plan seems kind of pointless.

_________________
We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WATCHMEN TRANSFORMED
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:31 pm 
Offline
Genetically-Altered Lynx
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:13 am
Posts: 2512
Location: San Fran
If Rorschach's journal is not able to unravel Veidt's plot, the entire point of the ending falls apart. Moore did not go through all the trouble of setting up the end's ambiguity and uncertainty if his goal was to make the ending known the whole time. As for the logical points in your argument: Rorschach being a nut-job who nobody would take seriously is a lop-sided view. Moore makes it clear that there are two ways that society could look at Rorschach, one of them being as a patriot being set up by "coked-out commies". He makes it clear that there are people in society ready to legitimize him. And, Rorschach is not just some random dude with a journal. His word counts more than some conspiracy theorist. He is somebody in a unique position, somebody's who's known Veidt for 20+ years, and somebody that society, now matter their opinion of him, knows is in a position to be aware of things they are not. If Moore did not intend for the ending to be uncertain or undetermined, then, again, he must really suck at writing after all the pains he went through to make it seem like it was. Your opinion is what could happen, it's 50% of the equation, and it's fine if you think Veidt's utopia will hold up, but it's stupid to ignore the other 50%. One superhero pointing the finger at another superhero would open the floodgates, and be enough for further doubt and suspicion to be cast on Veidt. The point is not that Rorschach's journal alone could reveal the whole plot, Rorschach makes it very clear that he doesn't have all the details, but it raises that initial doubt that would get people asking questions, and get publications like the New Frontiersman investigating further, and, from there, it could only go downhill for Veidt's new world order. That's the point.

_________________
He did it.


Last edited by EmPiiRe x on Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.139s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]