Watchmen movie ending blows...

[Agent Richard07]

All I'm going to say without seeing the movie is that if you just see the movie and don't read the book or don't plan on reading the book, SHAME ON YOU!

I've never read it, but I just got it. It doesn't look like I'll get through it by Thursday though.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Fuck the Squid. Moore's ending is lifted from at least two other places anyway.

 

[bigdaddy]

How about we WATCH the movie first before bashing it to pieces?

 

[Davros]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

 

[Lowdarzz]

Not really surprising. Hollywood lives to make things "gritty" and more "realistic" these days. Hell a gigantic genetically designed creature capable of sending out a psionic wave that kills most of the people in New York could never fit in a film with a blue naked dude that has the power to do about anything.

 

[Thrall]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

Tell that to Alan Moore when he turned characters from classic works of literature into sexual and social deviants and had the audacity to try and pretend it was art.

 

[Norrin Radd]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

Tell that to Alan Moore when he turned characters from classic works of literature into sexual and social deviants and had the audacity to try and pretend it was art.

You might have a case if Moore was adapting "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", or "Wizard of Oz". He wasn't. He came out with an entirely new story with an entirely different title that featured the characters.

Countless authors have done this. I mean, does every crazy book that features the character of Dracula somehow detract from the original Bram Stoker novel?

 

[dkehler]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

Ridiculous. And from what I've heard, the spirit of the story remains intact. Probably more so than just about any comic adaptation to date.

 

[dkehler]

Not really surprising. Hollywood lives to make things "gritty" and more "realistic" these days. Hell a gigantic genetically designed creature capable of sending out a psionic wave that kills most of the people in New York could never fit in a film with a blue naked dude that has the power to do about anything.

That's just it. I think the big, blue, naked demigod that vacations on Mars is more than enough of a fantastic element for moviegoers. Piling on a gigantic alien squid with psionic powers would be too much. In fact, I thought it was too much in the graphic novel and I couldn't be happier with what they came up with instead.

 

[Thrall]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

Tell that to Alan Moore when he turned characters from classic works of literature into sexual and social deviants and had the audacity to try and pretend it was art.

You might have a case if Moore was adapting "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", or "Wizard of Oz". He wasn't. He came out with an entirely new story with an entirely different title that featured the characters.

Countless authors have done this. I mean, does every crazy book that features the character of Dracula somehow detract from the original Bram Stoker novel?

I wouldn't normally bitch about it, but Moore is the biggest hypocrite in the world for constantly saying how Hollywood rapes is characters and stories. And then he goes and writes LOEG, in which he literally and figuratively does that to much beloved characters written by authors who would no doubt disapprove of the filth he drags their characters into. He has no right to bitch about The LOEG movie. Because they weren't his characters to begin with. And if anything, they came across better then when he was writing them.

 

[Skywalker]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

Ridiculous. And from what I've heard, the spirit of the story remains intact. Probably more so than just about any comic adaptation to date.

And that's really the only thing that matters.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Tell that to Alan Moore when he turned characters from classic works of literature into sexual and social deviants and had the audacity to try and pretend it was art.

You might have a case if Moore was adapting "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", or "Wizard of Oz". He wasn't. He came out with an entirely new story with an entirely different title that featured the characters.

Countless authors have done this. I mean, does every crazy book that features the character of Dracula somehow detract from the original Bram Stoker novel?

I wouldn't normally bitch about it, but Moore is the biggest hypocrite in the world for constantly saying how Hollywood rapes is characters and stories. And then he goes and writes LOEG, in which he literally and figuratively does that to much beloved characters written by authors who would no doubt disapprove of the filth he drags their characters into. He has no right to bitch about The LOEG movie. Because they weren't his characters to begin with. And if anything, they came across better then when he was writing them.

But it's the same as with LOEG. He used the characters but he never purported to adapt the actual books "The Invisible Man", "King Solomon's Mines", "Dr. Jekyll", etc. He just used the characters. Many authors do this. I don't see the hypocrisy here.

If he was complaining about WB or Fox using some of his characters in some other movie that wasn't based on his work, then yes, I would see that as hypocritical.

 

[RJDiogenes]

What?! They ditched the homage to The Outer Limits?

 

[Thrall]

But it's the same as with LOEG. He used the characters but he never purported to adapt the actual books "The Invisible Man", "King Solomon's Mines", "Dr. Jekyll", etc. He just used the characters. Many authors do this. I don't see the hypocrisy here.

He kind of was adapting it. He'll just never admit to it. LOEG is presented as being very pseudo-sequelish in terms of tone, content, homages, and in terms of continuity. This was not Billy The Kid vs Dracula. This was a deliberate attempt to try and recreate the world, personalities, and themes of these characters with a contemporary flair. Except his flair almost always involves deviant behavior. The book prides itself on being as authentic and true to form as possible, and that right there is the difference.

If he was complaining about WB or Fox using some of his characters in some other movie that wasn't based on his work, then yes, I would see that as hypocritical.

He was complaining non-stop about the movie and how it was butchering his work. It could be aruged he did the same thing to Robert Louis Stevenson, Brahm Stoker, and Jules Verne. If you don't see the hypocricay then I'm sorry.

 

[Canadave]

What?! They ditched the homage to The Outer Limits?

I very nearly missed the winking smilie here and was just about to write a rebuttal...

 

[Daosx]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

(Sheldon) But... This is my spot... (/Sheldon)

 

[RJDiogenes]

What?! They ditched the homage to The Outer Limits?

I very nearly missed the winking smilie here and was just about to write a rebuttal...

 

[Locutus of Bored]

When translating a work from page to screen there should be an obligation to be true to the original work.

If you want to change the story, then don't use the same title because you are not telling the same tale.

They make the same basic point and accomplish the same goals in a way that's consistent with already established characters and events in the story without introducing a completely new (and bizarre to the uninitiated) element out of the blue.

Plus, they improve on the dramatic weight of the ending by having Dr. Manhattan make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of mankind.

I'm not seeing the big issue here, beyond a demand for ridiculous levels of faithfulness to the story that simply can't always be done when translating to film.

I think this ending is a vast improvement over the original, and frankly makes more sense within the context of the story. Much of the story is about Manhattan's alienation from humankind and eventual decision that they are worth saving, and instead of capitalizing on that more, they bring in the Squid. This actually ties in better with what came before, and gives a plausible reason for the actual cause of the escalation between the US and USSR to leave forever.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

So if the squid is no longer in the film what did Edward Blake ("The Comedian") discover on the uncharted island that gets him thrown through the window of his highrise apartment as per the trailers?

TGT

 

[Anwar]

Their plans for the satellite weapons or whatever it was they used to fake the Manhattan attacks, possible future projections of how the scheme would work, etc.