Discussion in 'Movies & TV' started by LiddyRules, Feb 1, 2012.
I don't know how I feel about this.
No Moore or Gibbons? Booooo. Pass.
This should be in the comic book thread
The Star Wars prequels have probably soured me on a prequel of any kind, but this seems especially pointless, as most of the characters' "origin stories" were told in the original series.
Has there ever been a prequel story made or told that had a point? When you know which characters are going to live and what's going to happen to them, there's nothing on the line - you're just going through the motions from Point A to Point B.
I've read and seen prequels that worked. Sometimes the original doesn't provide enough information about the world it is set in, and how the situation evolved to where it was in the book. Take something like The Matrix, for example. I thought the mini prequels in the Animatrix worked perfectly. In the movie you got one backstory scene that didn't really explain what exactly happened to the world we the audience know, and the Animatrix shorts really fleshed it out well.
The reason I think Watchmen doesn't need a prequel is that in the comic there is PLENTY of backstory about the origin of superheroes in that world, and the chain of historical events that led to the "present." Sure, we didn't have all the info on Ozymandias, for example, but I never felt that Watchmen had some kind of untold story about it that needed telling.
Prequels are an obvious cash grab, even when the creator is involved. The fact that they're doing this without Moore and Gibbons makes it even worse. Doesn't matter, though. They don't care if you pay for it and hate it or pay for it and love it. The important part is that you pay for it, and in this case people will.
The only thing I could see working is if they didn't make them origin stories. With Rorschach, for example, we know his origin story and the end. There could be lots of stories in between that would be worth telling.
The thing about Watchmen is that its past is a dark, depressing place. We never see their glory days, because they didn't matter if they ever existed in the first place. When we look back at what happened to the gangs, it's about the collapse of the teams, the differing philosophies, the emptiness that come with the gig. I don't need to see how they stopped Moloch, because what's important is that they're all dinosaurs.
I don't know if showing the happier times would add "depth" to the original book because it'll make their downfall appear sadder, but I personally don't think it will. One of the strengths of the original novel was not giving us a happier time to fall back on.
Tried to watch the movie. I wanted to like it, I really did. But I never even got to the end.
The end was the only problem I had with the movie. So stupid.
I think the comic book ending would be too weird to the dumb masses. I didn't mind it so much because the point was the same. All they changed was the method of destruction. Comic is still cooler, but I wouldn't consider that a major offense because they didn't change what happened after.
Movie ending was pretty crap. What was the comic ending?
The Writers they have attached to this are all solid, And Darwyne Cooke's New Frontier book was a great take on the DC Golden Age. And to the above post The Comic Ending had a Giant Squid land in the middle of NYC and kill a shit load of people. As Opposed to them getting vaporized by Dr Manhatten like Power.
I liked the movie ending. I thought it fit the story, had the same point as the comic one, and it definitely worked for me. I had no complaints about it.
And I wouldn't necessarily blame the "dumb masses" for the absence of giant squid. You'd need to include the entire kidnapping subplot, which would have been extremely time-consuming and wouldn't have fit them ovie.
I'll pass. To me it's like making a prequel to Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind.
Same thing, except that instead of some energy beam from space, Ozymandias faked an alien invasion by genetically engineering some kind of gigantic monster creature that upon death releases a psychic shockwave that kills every living thing in a big radius and then teleporting it into New York... Or at least that's the general idea.
It's not the same thing at all. It surprises me to see you say that. Yes, the destruction of NY is the same, but in the comic, Ozymandias fakes an alien invasion so that the people of the world will unite to fight off the phony alien invasion. In the movie, Ozymandias destroys multiple cities and fakes it to look like Dr. Manhattan did it. This is stupid because:
1) Dr. Manhattan was shown to be a tool of the United States military. If he were to attack other cities around the world, the response would be automatic full scale nuclear assault on the U.S. The fact that New York was also hit would have been an "oops" afterthought to the nuclear Armageddon. This is especially true because the attacks are shown in the movie to not happen simultaneously, but as a chain reaction, with New York being the last city affected.
2) If the point was for the world to make peace or feel further wrath from Dr. Manhattan, why couldn't the point be "Make peace, or feel further wrath from Ozymandias?" He had just proven that he had the power to level every city in the world, why did the Earth have to be afraid of Dr. Manhattan instead of him?
3) Even if you're ok with there being no counter assault on the US AND Dr. Manhattan agreeing to a pointless frame, it makes absolutely no sense within that story for Dr. Manhattan to kill Rorschach and spare Ozymandias. He would have vaporized Ozymandias to make sure that he never pulled that shit again. Afterwards, he would have easily been able to reason with Rorschach.
So explain to me how framing Dr. Manhattan and attacking multiple foreign cities prior to NYC "the same" as creating a fake alien attack on just NYC? Because it's kind of not at all the same thing. It's fucking stupid.
I thought the ending of the movie worked as well.
Agreed. The theatrical release was already two and half hours. The directors' cut is a little bit over 3. If they would have went with the original ending, I don't even think die hard Watchmen fans could have sat through that.
Why would they have to go with the artist kidnapping subplot? Just have him say "I blowed up NYC and made it look like an Alien attack." There's a million ways to get there that take up no extra time in the movie and don't involve a giant squid. The point was that the world would unite only out of fear of the unknown.
Because Dr. Manhattan was the alien attack. It was the same principal, but a different "alien." Ozy put the blame on Dr. Manhattan as someone who got fed up with humanity (part of the benefit of causing his angry outburst during the interview) and decided to go "rogue" and destroy multiple cities. Manhattan, as someone bored on Earth, accepted it and all of them, save Rorshach, accepted uniting the planet against a singular, super-powerful enemy was the best option even if it was Dr. Manhattan. Why not kill Ozy? What would be the point? He already won.
Regarding point 1 - Meh. Whatever.
Regarding point 2 - I didn't think it was that at all. I think it was "we gotta stick together because it's us against him" in the same sense that it was in the comic. It wasn't a "Dr. Manhattan says 'make peace or die'." It was "Dr. Manhattan is nuts and we can't afford infighting." Unless it was different in one of the Director's Cuts or whatever. And besides, Ozymandias didn't want to rule the world. He wanted to fix it. That is one of the best things about Watchmen. Despite all Ozymandias did, he wasn't a super villain. He was still a super hero. Just a completely fucked up one, as were all the others.
Regarding point 3 - That same exact thing could have happened in the comic as well. Why kill Rorschach and let Ozymandias live in the comic? It's because Dr. Manhattan is not human, and his line of thought is occasionally hyper logical in a way that contradicts common sense.
I really think you are looking too hard into this, however I will not say that you are wrong because I tend to do this stuff myself. Just saying how I feel about it personally.
Also, despite his physical and mental prowess, Ozy is still a man. He couldn't defeat an entire army. Dr. Manhattan, on the other hand, was practically a God. And yes, it would have been counterproductive to the ultimate goal of his plan.
I'll say this again - to me the one big sin in the Watchmen movie is Ozy's reaction to his plan's success. In the comic he is always stoic and never shows a hint of emotion, even in extreme situations, but seeing his plan succeed drives him mad with joy, and he's screaming and crying. In the movie he just stays stoic. I thought it was a great moment that they kind of missed out on creating on screen.
Here's the scene from the movie:
And from the book:
I thought the book humanized him better. In the movie version, it's like he knows he succeeded before turning on the televisions. How would he know that exactly? They made him a bit too confident there.
Only after multiple rewatches could I put into words why the ending was so dumb, but even when I saw it the first time I had an immediate WTF?!? Reaction to the entire ending. It just felt like they took soooo much time and effort to get every character right, then blew most of it up in the final act. I can't recall too mant movies where I enjoyed the first 3/4 so much and hated the last 1/4 with such a passion. Heat and Kill Bill 2 are in the same category.