Poll: Anyone else prefer the Watchmen movie ending?

[Lonely Swordsman]

Saw the movie before I read the book, and I think the squid ending is just silly. I mean, there's no real difference story wise, but... I can take a quantum nuke a lot more serious than a giant psychic squid.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The "movie's ending making much more sense" argument is kind of wrong if you've seen/read both. The movie ending basically was put there to make sales until the ultimate edition came out. I don't know how storing the energy of a man that is a physical impossibility is more plausible than an alien. They both have don't exist. They both are equally implausible. Yet people are willing to accept that the energy of a man made god is more acceptable than a man made alien. Because that makes sense right?

 

[Queen Michael]

The "movie's ending making much more sense" argument is kind of wrong if you've seen/read both. The movie ending basically was put there to make sales until the ultimate edition came out. I don't know how storing the energy of a man that is a physical impossibility is more plausible than an alien. They both have don't exist. They both are equally implausible. Yet people are willing to accept that the energy of a man made god is more acceptable than a man made alien. Because that makes sense right?

I completely agree. Anybody who says that an ending where they did something which seems impossible is an ending that makes sense isn't reasoning logically. At the most I'll admit that the graphic novel ending seems plausible in context. And add this: We're supposed to accept that the way to have nations desire peace with the USA is to put them in a situation where tons of their people are dead and it's because of an American superweapon. If anything it'll make people attack USA in the hopes of making peace with Doc Manhattan.

 

[ReverendJ]

I was really bothered by the way they handled Ozymandias at the end. Where was that shout of triumph? In the comic, Veidt wasn't sure that it was going to work. In the movie, he's just an arrogant prick who engaged in all this morally ambiguous stuff because he KNEW it would work. (Movie version is apparently just that badass, and more confident than his comic counterpart.)

Related note.... Has anybody else noticed that, while a great ride the first time through, the film doesn't have much replay value? It keeps putting people to sleep around here... but only on the second and third viewings...

OK- upon further thought... So the movie ending ends up with everybody banding together over this great tragedy, right? The planet wasn't going to attack the Doc en masse, it was all 9-11 style sympathy for the victims. K, you can't whup on the Doc anyway. However, that sort of sympathy lasts right up until some country does what some country always does, i.e. start meddling in other people's affairs and pissing each other off. Whereas the giant squid is an ENEMY, somebody we can attack, Allies vs. Axis style, and 'we won't come back till it's over over there.'

And for all you 'big squid no make sense' folks.... You're willing to accept Dr. Manhattan, but not a genetically engineered McGuffin. The suspension of disbelief, people, does not come and go. You don't get to say that Peter Parker's spider bite resulted in more than a bad rash but claim Doc Ock is totally unbelievable. We're already through the looking glass here.

 

[Jaranja]

Comic was better, but the movie's ending made far more sense.

I just wish they had of either completely removed OR explained Ozymandias' pet in the movie. It was like.. ok random purple lynx for no reason, in the movie.

Don't forget Rorschach's mask too!

There's a massive director's cut, it might have the things we ask for in there.

I much preferred the movie ending. I mean, come on, Giant Squid? -.-

 

[Brotherofwill]

The comics ending was much more credible to me because it meant that humanity would work together against an outside threat and underlined the comic nature of the story. Didn't like the movie ending all too much, it got the job done but was nothing new.

The pacing of the movie was all of and overall the comic is superior in almost any way.

My problem is that they made Veidt so scrawny and evil-ish (dark clothes/armour and German accent), when he's essentially Captain America meets Bruce Wayne, charming and the most physically impressive human being alive.

Completely agree. In the comic he's a testiment of everything good about humanity and in the film he was delivered like a grumpy old misfit. Really loved the comic book version of him and really hated the film version.

 

[boholikeu]

How?

As I mentioned before, Dr. Manhattan clearly represents God in the story. By putting Dr. Manhattan at the center of the disaster, Veidt is essentially re-instituting humanity's fear of a vengeful God to keep people in order.

That new direction is even more interesting when you look at the development of Dr. Manhattan's character throughout the story. He changes from a disconnected/random God (IE one that helps America in Vietnam, but won't intervene when The Comedian shoots a pregnant woman), to one that finds value in the existence of life and actually takes steps to protect it. What's more, it mirrors the question of whether or not Veidt has a right to "play God" on his own, even if his actions are apparently supported by an "actual" God.

Because the psychic bomb is literally blasting away humanity with its own worst thoughts. Watchmen (and Rorschach in particular) suggests that the world is drowning in its violence, immorality, and darkness. Then as a wave of mutilation, death, despair, anger, and evil thoughts washes over some of the novel's few examples of the goodness of humanity (the lovers trying to work out their differences, the two strangers becoming friends, the shrink who wants to HELP people...) it effects a literal interpretation of this, which in turn adds to the question of whether or not Veidt has done the right thing.

Er, since when is domestic abuse considered to be "two lovers trying to work out their differences"? Not to mention the fake-goods scammer is also featured in the last panels before the explosion, so I think your interpretation falls apart a bit here. I always saw that scene as neither glorifying nor condemning the "daily struggles" of life.

I had forgotten that the psychic bomb was literally blasting away humanity with its own worst thoughts though. That's a pretty good point.

Yes. I know. Manhattan is God. EVERYONE knows this. But he IS Watchmen's version of Superman nevertheless. And you haven't disproved my point at all. Preparing for an imminent attack from an apparently hostile alien race will unify the world. On the other hand, Dr. Manhattan is from America, who will then be blamed for his supposed actions, which will only cause MORE conflict. This is counterproductive to Veidt's goal.

And the alien invasion plan is simply so outlandish that I have trouble believing that no one would investigate into it further. Seriously, there are small holes like that in each ending, so I don't really think you can say one is definitively more plausible than the other.

In the movie ending, Dr. Manhattan is responsible for causing the destruction. But he's also an American superweapon. There's still international tension if the USA can be seen as partially responsible for ushering in the tragedy. It's comparable to all of Russia's stockpiled nukes had detonated and resulting in planetwide nuclear winter - the world's going to band together, but they're not going to invite Russia, 'cause their weapons caused it, the pricks. Same logic. The movie ending removes that key component of unconditional innocence.

The Dr. Manhattan plan removes the key component of American unconditional innocence, but it replaces it with universal guilt. Every country is apparently to blame in the faux-Manhattan's eyes, hence the destruction of major cities around the world.

In that way it's not really comparable to Russia's stockpiled nukes detonating because it's not caused by the mistakes of one nation. Yes, the US created Dr. Manhattan, but they weren't what made him go rogue. All humanity was to blame for that.

What's there to support? I would merely get into a long argument that wouldn't go anywhere.

Heh, fair enough, but then why are you even posting on message boards?

I'm not here to change your mind but that doesn't take away from the fact that Alan Moore wrote the comic so it could not be made into a movie. Zack Snyder just pissed on the source material by changing the ending.

Alan Moore did write the comic so it wouldn't be made into a movie, but in my book he failed because apparently even a hack like Snyder was able to make a fairly passable adaptation of it.

That, and he was able to improve upon Moore's ending. I really think the movie ending would've worked better even in the comic.

It's a damn Tentacle Monster. End of. Enjoy your coherent yet fake ending.

Funny, but I always thought coherency was a quality of GOOD writing. Silly me. I guess ridiculous "mad scientist" explanations coming out of left field are preferable to endings that link the main theme to already established characters.

A lot of people have commmented on how out of the place the space squid was, but that was essentially Veidt's plan, in a world of masked vigilantes and one super powered individual, you have to go completely left field to get their attention. It is also the thing that mentally breaks the Comedian, because it's so ridiculous.

Actually, this is probably one of the better arguments I've seen for the squid ending. The Comedian's mental breakdown definitely makes more sense in that situation.

 

[skylog]

Oh, and why are we calling it a book when it is clearly a comic? I don't say that to imply a comic is in anyway inferior or less academic than a book. Quite the contrary in fact. I hate the term "graphic novel" because it implies that a "comic" must be a less adult, less intelligent product. If more people went around calling Watchemn of V for Vendetta a comic, people would respect the medium a lot more. "Graphic Novel" just sounds like a desperate attempt to get away from the childish image "comic" has, when instead people should refuse to reinforce such a view and treat comics like an adult entity. (well, some comics anyway).

There actually is a difference between a graphic novel and a regular comic, it's just that the term graphic novel is so horrifically misused that it's pretty much lost all meaning.

A graphic novel is a series that has a beginning, middle and end, as opposed to an ongoing series like Spider-Man. Watchmen is a graphic novel, as is V for Vendetta.

If we have comic strips and comic books, maybe we should start calling things like Watchmen comic novels. It shows they're still comics, but also shows what type of comics they are.

 

[Queen Michael]

It's a damn Tentacle Monster. End of. Enjoy your coherent yet fake ending.

Funny, but I always thought coherency was a quality of GOOD writing. Silly me. I guess ridiculous "mad scientist" explanations coming out of left field are preferable to endings that link the main theme to already established characters.

This is an oversimplification. And besides, in the comic it is presented in such a way that we have seen clues of it earlier. So it's not completely out of left field.

 

[Queen Michael]

Oh, and why are we calling it a book when it is clearly a comic? I don't say that to imply a comic is in anyway inferior or less academic than a book. Quite the contrary in fact. I hate the term "graphic novel" because it implies that a "comic" must be a less adult, less intelligent product. If more people went around calling Watchemn of V for Vendetta a comic, people would respect the medium a lot more. "Graphic Novel" just sounds like a desperate attempt to get away from the childish image "comic" has, when instead people should refuse to reinforce such a view and treat comics like an adult entity. (well, some comics anyway).

There actually is a difference between a graphic novel and a regular comic, it's just that the term graphic novel is so horrifically misused that it's pretty much lost all meaning.

A graphic novel is a series that has a beginning, middle and end, as opposed to an ongoing series like Spider-Man. Watchmen is a graphic novel, as is V for Vendetta.

If we have comic strips and comic books, maybe we should start calling things like Watchmen comic novels. It shows they're still comics, but also shows what type of comics they are.

Actually, "comic novel" makes it sound like it's about Jeeves and Bertie Wooster.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

"The movie ending makes more sense."
Yes because a man who's intrinsic field was shredded apart, has the powers of a god, which are containable make much more sense than synthesized aliens.

Just so you know Intrinsic Field don't exist.
But using Doc Manhattan makes more sense right?

...

 

[JaredXE]

Comic ending. The movie's doesn't make sense. So you spend a quarter of the movie convincing Manhatten to return to Earth because it's worth it, then he's framed for the destruction and has to leave again? The hell?

Besides, without the massive amounts of genetic engineering to create the Squid, how the fuck do they explain Bubastis? Oh yeah, they don't.


EDIT: I just got done reading the posts before me, and I wish to expand upon my reasoning for why the movie's ending is weaker. A huge subplot of the story was devoted towards reconnecting Manhatten with humanity. He lost faith in us. He wanted to be alone. They spent a large chunk of time referencing that as well as the time spent trying to convince him to come back. That we needed him.

Then they blow it out the airlock.

The ending blames and villifies Dr. Manhatten in the eyes of humanity, thereby turning back the clock on all that has gone on before and WASTED OUR TIME. If Manhatten then goes back into self exile, then what the fuck was the point of Laurie convincing him to come back? Yes, it makes sense in the story, in the comic, and in the movie up until we then see that instead of the alien squid...INSTEAD OF AN OUTSIDE FORCE, it is instead Manhatten's fault, invalidating the last hour of the movie.

Zack Snyder screwed it up.

 

[boholikeu]

But there is another reason I prefer the ending of the comic and that is the discussion between Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias about the moral implications of their actions. I can't imagine why they cut this scene from the movie. I guess Zack Snyder thought that moral ambiguity is too much for his audience.

Actually I really agree with you here. That was one of my favorite scenes of the book.

I don't know how storing the energy of a man that is a physical impossibility is more plausible than an alien. They both have don't exist. They both are equally implausible. Yet people are willing to accept that the energy of a man made god is more acceptable than a man made alien. Because that makes sense right?

The "Dr. Manhattan energy" ending is more plausible within the confines of the story. I'm much more willing to accept that a man-made God found the source of his own energy than a "really smart human" developed the means to bio-engineer a completely alien psychic creature.

And add this: We're supposed to accept that the way to have nations desire peace with the USA is to put them in a situation where tons of their people are dead and it's because of an American superweapon. If anything it'll make people attack USA in the hopes of making peace with Doc Manhattan.

I don't really follow your logic here. Care to explain further?

OK- upon further thought... So the movie ending ends up with everybody banding together over this great tragedy, right? The planet wasn't going to attack the Doc en masse, it was all 9-11 style sympathy for the victims. K, you can't whup on the Doc anyway. However, that sort of sympathy lasts right up until some country does what some country always does, i.e. start meddling in other people's affairs and pissing each other off. Whereas the giant squid is an ENEMY, somebody we can attack, Allies vs. Axis style, and 'we won't come back till it's over over there.'

Funny I saw it just the opposite. I would assume the in-fighting would begin anew as time went on and no new aliens appeared, but with the "he's always watching" potential of Dr. Manhattan I don't see that happening so quickly.

And for all you 'big squid no make sense' folks.... You're willing to accept Dr. Manhattan, but not a genetically engineered McGuffin. The suspension of disbelief, people, does not come and go. You don't get to say that Peter Parker's spider bite resulted in more than a bad rash but claim Doc Ock is totally unbelievable. We're already through the looking glass here.

It's not so much the alien as it is the "psychic bomb" aspect of it for me. There's a lot plot time spent on Dr. Manhattan, so he seems fairly believable in the world of Watchmen. Even the alien is explained through the prevalence of genetic engineering. However, the whole psychic thing essentially boils down to the "kidnapped fortune tellers" line. We don't really see any evidence that there's a greater understanding of psychic energy, etc in that world.

It's a damn Tentacle Monster. End of. Enjoy your coherent yet fake ending.

Funny, but I always thought coherency was a quality of GOOD writing. Silly me. I guess ridiculous "mad scientist" explanations coming out of left field are preferable to endings that link the main theme to already established characters.

This is an oversimplification. And besides, in the comic it is presented in such a way that we have seen clues of it earlier. So it's not completely out of left field.

Okay, maybe it's not completely out of left field, but the only reason the whole geneticists kidnapping subplot exists is to set up the ending. It has nothing to do with any of the themes of the story, nor does it enrich the meaning in any way. It's just convenient. The movie at least ties the plan to a character that is already essential to the discourse of the work. That's what give it the edge imo.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The comic book ending fits a comic book, but wouldn't have fitted so well in a film. The film ending woulnd't have been as striking in a comic book.

Simples.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Er, since when is domestic abuse considered to be "two lovers trying to work out their differences"? Not to mention the fake-goods scammer is also featured in the last panels before the explosion, so I think your interpretation falls apart a bit here. I always saw that scene as neither glorifying nor condemning the "daily struggles" of life.

I had forgotten that the psychic bomb was literally blasting away humanity with its own worst thoughts though. That's a pretty good point.

They WERE trying, and it didn't go well. I think I failed to make it clear I didn't mean that all these nuggets of humanity worked out for themselves, I just meant that they were there. And when you say the "fake-goods scammer" what the hell are you talking about? The guy who sells watches? So he sells cheap knock-offs, that's hardly a morally reprehensible activity.

And the alien invasion plan is simply so outlandish that I have trouble believing that no one would investigate into it further. Seriously, there are small holes like that in each ending, so I don't really think you can say one is definitively more plausible than the other.

How exactly does one "investigate" psychic teleporting octopus monsters from space? Unless the Necronomicon exists in the world of Watchmen, Cthuloid apparitions are pretty much a rather unheard of phenomenon.

The Dr. Manhattan plan removes the key component of American unconditional innocence, but it replaces it with universal guilt. Every country is apparently to blame in the faux-Manhattan's eyes, hence the destruction of major cities around the world.

In that way it's not really comparable to Russia's stockpiled nukes detonating because it's not caused by the mistakes of one nation. Yes, the US created Dr. Manhattan, but they weren't what made him go rogue. All humanity was to blame for that.

You don't understand how people work then. Think of World War One. Germany did NOT start the war, but because it honored treaties and agreements it made its allies, it was a major player in the war. The tenacity and strong spirit of the German troops caused the war to drag on and when finally DEFEATED, Britain and its allies were PISSED. They stripped Germany of its pride, wealth, and military and sent a war-spent nation into a crippling depression. This is what eventually allowed Hitler to play on German resentment and get elected, eventually leading to the much more brutal combat and situations of World War 2. Germany might not have taken the right course of action, but nothing it did warranted the punitive measures exacted after the war's conclusion. and JUST like that, America would be blamed for CREATING Dr. Manhattan and suffer for it, and in all likelihood it would lead to greater conflict.

That's the other thing to remember: No matter what ending you like, the fact of the matter is that neither one would be the "permanent end to all conflict" Veidt so ardently desires. It is a temporary fix. Humanity can band together only as long as there is a clear and present danger to defend against. Think about how America was never more unified than when we've been attacked on our own soil. Everyone quibbled over involvement in WW2, and then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. EVERYONE wanted in the fight then. If you've never read it, I suggest picking up a copy of Ender's Game and its companion Shadow series. Those are pretty much how the world would break down after years of the non-appearing common threat (minus the superintelligent and homicidal children)

A lot of people have commmented on how out of the place the space squid was, but that was essentially Veidt's plan, in a world of masked vigilantes and one super powered individual, you have to go completely left field to get their attention. It is also the thing that mentally breaks the Comedian, because it's so ridiculous.

This! Thank you! I've been trying to include this exact thing but i get too wrapped up in he other points

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I don't know how storing the energy of a man that is a physical impossibility is more plausible than an alien. They both have don't exist. They both are equally implausible. Yet people are willing to accept that the energy of a man made god is more acceptable than a man made alien. Because that makes sense right?

The "Dr. Manhattan energy" ending is more plausible within the confines of the story. I'm much more willing to accept that a man-made God found the source of his own energy than a "really smart human" developed the means to bio-engineer a completely alien psychic creature.

So one fictitious event is more plausible than another? I find that to be a bit wired state ment and here's why. us "really smart humans" have been cloning animals since the late 1880s. Hell us "really smart humans" have been completed making some man made species of plants since 1925 with the Triticale (hybrid between wheat and rye grains) and genetically fused fruits, (Apruims the hybrid of plums and apricots). WThe way the Doc Manhattan was made is a scientific impossibility due to the fact that "intrinsic fields" don't exist. A "really smart human" making a synthetic creature isn't too far off of what has been done over the past 100 some odd years.

 

[ThatDudeThere]

The comic had a better ending. The squid was there because it looked alien, and it was dead, so humanity would be able to kill them if they would invade. Dr. Manhattan is a GOD. Framing Manhattan would mean nothing, because why would humanity unite against someone who can't be killed? They know what he did in Vietnam, they know what his powers can do. You cannot kill a god.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The comic had a better ending. The squid was there because it looked alien, and it was dead, so humanity would be able to kill them if they would invade. Dr. Manhattan is a GOD. Framing Manhattan would mean nothing, because why would humanity unite against someone who can't be killed? They know what he did in Vietnam, they know what his powers can do. You cannot kill a god.

Thank you for contributing to this "Doc Manhattan ending makes more sense" nonsense.