Watchmen's Tweaked Ending (warning spoilers)

[9of9]

Okay, so I've finally seen Watchmen and there were a good number of things about the film that I didn't like - but the changed ending, I reckon, is good proof that Snyder really doesn't know what he's doing with the film.

First off, to those saying the squid would take longer to set up - yes, a little, but I'm completely in agreement with the person above that there's plenty in the movie where to get that time from (ie. the ridiculously pointless overdrawn fight sequences). Moreover, it's not immediately apparent, but there's a good few scenes that are exposition for setting up the Manhattan reactor and all that 'infinite energy' stuff (if Manhattan is working for the government, why is he working for Veidt, anyway?).

But I digress, my main point about the ending is this: what's beautiful about this squid is precisely the fact that it is absurd. The squid is a joke, it's Ozy's big, practical joke on the world. That's the thing, it'd be hilarious if not for the long, slow shots of the hundreds of bodies that died horribly in its wake. Even so, there's a grim hilarity about the concept.

That's why the Comedian broke down in the end - and it's one of the most important, if not the most important themes in the book. I was shaking my head in disbelief when they, then, actually pretended that Manhattan's destruction of the major cities (heh, including Manhattan) would fulfill that role in the script.

This is the problem - Ozy's plan in the film isn't a joke. It's not funny, it's not even incredulous. It's just an evil-villainy plan that involves lots of explosions and, as people pointed out above, there's a whole load of reasons why it's not even guaranteed to work, which makes it a stupid, bland plan.

I thought the film ending worked just was well as the original.... neither are perfect and both resolutions begin to fray at the edges if you examine them too closely.... Ultimately Watchmen, both the film and the book, aren't really about plot or story... They're about characterization, and examining and deconstructing the super-hero archetype.

That's a big part of what the book is about. The film - not so much. Personally, I think Snyder's take on it is going through the motions of retreading through the story word-for-word, panel-by-panel - and then putting on a sheen of Hollywood veneer and slow-motion whereever he can get away with it.

I think that very much misses the point. The book characterises and deconstructs the superhero archetype, as you say, and it also subverts the superhero comic. Snyder isn't doing any of that - all he's doing is 'what the comic did'. Ideally, the movie should be as deconstructing and subverting superhero films as much as the comic did so for comic books, yet it persists in being convinced that it's a comic book, rather than realising it's a movie.

Hrm, going a bit off the thread topic, but ah well.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

...

I think that very much misses the point. The book characterises and deconstructs the superhero archetype, as you say, and it also subverts the superhero comic. Snyder isn't doing any of that - all he's doing is 'what the comic did'. Ideally, the movie should be as deconstructing and subverting superhero films as much as the comic did so for comic books, yet it persists in being convinced that it's a comic book, rather than realising it's a movie.

...

Interesting little contradiction here..... not saying that you're necessarily wrong, mind you... Watchmen the film is only doing what Watchmen the book did, but somehow it looses something in translation... I don't think that I quite agree with that... It's tough for us fans of the source material to be objective about this. We take for granted what the book attempted and accomplished, and revile the film when it starts feeling too slick or too cheesy.... Your assertion that the adaptation should have challenged super-hero films as the book subverted comic books is asking a bit much, I think. It could only have accomplished this if it had been a screenplay from it's inception.

I've spoken with many people who never read the book about their impressions of the film, because I'm interested in what "outsiders" think, and whether or not they "got it". For the most part, I think they did. What would heroes be like in the real world? How would the world react, and how would it treat them? What kind of person would choose to engage in such behavior? These are some of the questions the book put to it's audience, and many of the unitiated film goers managed to take that away from the movie as well. In that, I feel Watchmen the movie was a success.

 

[9of9]

Interesting little contradiction here..... not saying that you're necessarily wrong, mind you... Watchmen the film is only doing what Watchmen the book did, but somehow it looses something in translation... I don't think that I quite agree with that... It's tough for us fans of the source material to be objective about this. We take for granted what the book attempted and accomplished, and revile the film when it starts feeling too slick or too cheesy.... Your assertion that the adaptation should have challenged super-hero films as the book subverted comic books is asking a bit much, I think. It could only have accomplished this if it had been a screenplay from it's inception.

I've spoken with many people who never read the book about their impressions of the film, because I'm interested in what "outsiders" think, and whether or not they "got it". For the most part, I think they did. What would heroes be like in the real world? How would the world react, and how would it treat them? What kind of person would choose to engage in such behavior? These are some of the questions the book put to it's audience, and many of the unitiated film goers managed to take that away from the movie as well. In that, I feel Watchmen the movie was a success.

I'm glad that people who haven't read the comic book have nonetheless taken away some of the book's original message, if a little bit surprised. It seems to me, that amongst those who haven't read Watchmen before, there is a large part of cinema-goers who come out a bit baffled and confused, but I digress once more.

I think that even though some of that in-depth characterisation that makes the book so good comes through in the script - overall the directing of the film works very much against it. Now, you sum up this aspect of the book quite well, "What would heroes be like in the real world? ... What kind of person would choose to engage in such behaviour?" and so forth. These questions, I think, are addressed only in the script - for the most part - which in turn is largely a word-for-word retelling of the book (not necessarily a bad thing). The way it is shot, on the other hand, the director's input to what we see on-screen, I believe goes entirely against the grain of what the script is trying to show.

On the one hand, we have a complicated deconstruction of the superhero going on, trying to make them real people, place them into the real world, analyse them and see how they interact... and on the other hand, we have super-choreographed fight-sequences with slow-motion etc. that wouldn't look out of place in Spiderman or something. It's as if the director went, 'Well, I like what the comic book is trying to do and all, but how can we get some slow-motion there and make it look cool?'

That's probably the best way to sum up my problem there - the movie is obsessed with making the superheroes look cool and glamorous, with their sleek, shiny costumes (what are those even made of?), fighting prowess and saving-the-world etc, when the book goes out of its to way to portray superheroes in the least glamorous light possible - warts and all.

Anyway, that's mostly replying to your second paragraph. To justify what I said initially, let me rephrase.

There is, as you probably know, a Blu-Ray out with the original comics ecranised and narrated, with minimal animation. Really good for anyone who can't be bothered reading the original. Ultimately, I think the actual Watchmen movie is very much the same thing, only with actors instead of cartoons. It's entertaining to watch if you can't be bothered reading the book, but ultimately it doesn't add anything worthwhile to the actual story which... well, if you ask me, makes it kind of pointless. Compare it with V for Vendetta, for instance, which radically departs from the original but, dammit, at least it's a decent movie with its own purpose - which is well thought-out and well put forth.