CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Damon Lindelof's WATCHMEN, Coming to HBO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Damon Lindelof's WATCHMEN, Coming to HBO - Page 3

post #101 of 142

En route.

 

Destination: Fuck

post #102 of 142

I'm also not sure what motive would be given for Jon attacking the world. This isn't a "Day the Earth Stool Still" scenario where there's just the threat of global annihilation. This is as if a nuclear war had happened anyway. The death toll is way too catastrophic.  

post #103 of 142
Motivation is kind of irrelevant when, apparently, he DID. And that Jon sees the logic in the plan and goes along with it (well...chooses not to stop it anyway) just makes it more damning. In the end, it doesn't matter why he would do it..
post #104 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

But we still have the show of Dr. Manhattan leaving Earth after his TV appearance, which should serve as notice, to powers (and their intelligence services) paying attention, that he's no longer working as America's weapon. Then Veidt uses the Manhattan Effect to hit several targets, including-- and, yes, this is key-- New York City.

That places Dr. Manhattan as a looming threat over the entire world, regardless of his origins as the US "walking deterrent". How is that less likely to spur international cooperation than a one-off alien incursion that only destroyed a US city, and that doesn't turn out to presage some ongoing threat? (Witness how long the era of solidarity lasted after 11 September 2001.)

And, again, movie Veidt retains the ability to use the Manhattan Effect against other targets, to keep everyone in line-- it's not as though he has to go and clone a whole new giant squid with a telepathic brain again in that scenario.

And Fafrd: as far as Veidt's scheme being perhaps-- and ironically-- unnecessary given the US/Soviet intentions over the conflict, that's never been my reading. It's always seemed to me that Veidt's immediate goal to avoid nuclear war is premised by Moore in that interstitial Professor Glass article, that says Dr. Manhattan's existence has pushed the superpowers closer to that conflict than they otherwise would have been (a notion I find rather dubious, but hey, it's Moore's story).

If a US militia group takes control of our nuclear arsenal and launches a first strike against targets all over the world including one major American city, it would still be viewed as our fault for A. Having that many nukes in the first place, and B. not having adequate measures in place to prevent such a thing from happening. Just because Dr. Manhattan blew up New York, too, it would still be America's fault for both creating him, and much more importantly, not being able to control him.

 

As far as the Professor Glass article. It is, I think intentionally, echoing a lot of real world thought regarding the inevitability of a nuclear exchange with Russia and how Reagan's Star Wars program was going to make those tensions worse (especially with the assertions in the article that Manhattan wouldn't be able to stop all the nukes. He's literally omnipotent and could turn all the plutonium and uranium on Earth into lead with a thought. Of course he could stop all the nukes.) And we all know that a nuclear exchange never happened. The point of the interstitial is that we know that this is something that Veidt has read, and it's informing his thought processes going forward.

 

Or I could be wrong. After all, Moore didn't extrapolate that in a world where the West is completely off oil (which it already is in the book) that the U.S. doesn't have any interests in the Middle East any more and wouldn't care enough about Russia invading Afghanistan to consider going to war over it. But I choose death of the author.


Edited by Fafhrd - 6/24/17 at 2:20pm
post #105 of 142
You fool! Don't you know that invoking death-of-the-author in regards to the works of Alan Moore will only result in him catching you in the act in his pool of scrying and placing a hex on you?
post #106 of 142

As much as I like the idea of a Watchmen series in principle, my reservations are neatly summarised thus:

 

 

post #107 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

If a US militia group takes control of our nuclear arsenal and launches a first strike against targets all over the world including one major American city, it would still be viewed as our fault for A. Having that many nukes in the first place, and B. not having adequate measures in place to prevent such a thing from happening. Just because Dr. Manhattan blew up New York, too, it would still be America's fault for both creating him, and much more importantly, not being able to control him.

As far as the Professor Glass article. It is, I think intentionally, echoing a lot of real world thought regarding the inevitability of a nuclear exchange with Russia and how Reagan's Star Wars program was going to make those tensions worse (especially with the assertions in the article that Manhattan wouldn't be able to stop all the nukes. He's literally omnipotent and could turn all the plutonium and uranium on Earth into lead with a though. Of course he could stop all the nukes.) And we all know that a nuclear exchange never happened. The point of the interstitial is that we know that this is something that Veidt has read, and it's informing his thought processes going forward.

Or I could be wrong. After all, Moore didn't extrapolate that in a world where the West is completely off oil (which it already is in the book) that the U.S. doesn't have any interests in the Middle East any more and wouldn't care enough about Russia invading Afghanistan to consider going to war over it. But I choose death of the author.

I guess I don't think it's quite correct, though, to view Manhattan as if he were just an American weapon that fell into the wrong hands. In the scenario Veidt devises he is a God-like being with a consciousness who suddenly wants everyone to play nice, or else-- whether God hails from Brooklyn is kinda beside the point. And again, it's a looming threat that Veidt can back up with another strike if he wants.

I'm not much of a "death of the author" guy. And I more or less accept the premise in the Professor Glass article as Moore's premise, and go along with it, because the narrative pretty much depends on it to work. In real life, I've never bought notion that such a stategic advantage over Soviet Russia (be it Dr. Manhattan or SDI) would actually increasethe probability of war. It didn't when the US enjoyed a monopoly on the Bomb after WWII and it (so far) hasn't in the unipolar moment following the Soviet breakup... It's been a while since I read the book, but I remember Glass's thesis being that the Russians would be so chagrined by American global dominance, that it would spur them to suicidal action. And that's just a strange view to me, to credit them with so little rationality.

Your points are well taken, though. It's hard to game out these silly sci-fi concepts, especially when certain implications aren't explored in the text. Part of the problem here is that Moore himself kinda treats Dr. Manhattan-- the strategic asset, that is-- as though he were only a Bomb/defensive weapon, and not a guy who could teleport into Moscow and disintegrate the entire Politburo in a second, and appear in several other places at the same time besides. I think such a creature would have the world looking even more radically different than what the book gives us-- but again, it's Moore and Gibbons's incredible (in several senses) story, so their view takes priority over mine.

But look, I just the the squid is sorta fucking goofy, okay?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

That's a point of comparison that never would have occurred to me, but I think it works well.  I don't think the script for the movie is really a problem, or could be drastically improved while still cramming the story into a 2.5 hour movie.  It just looks all wrong, which is a big deal but can't be "fixed" without feeling largely redundant.  

Yeah, and part of this is a function of time. I think a stab at faithfully adapting Stoker's book may be in order now-- that is, if someone insists on making yet another Dracula movie. Coppola's version (which I'll hasten to add that I really like, warts and all) has enough distance that I wouldn't mind a little redunancy if a new version avoided some of the problems with his.

But Watchmen? On the one hand-- holy shit has it already been eight years? But on the other--
it's only been eight years. Zack Snyder's got a career doing comics adaptations that still looms large, regardless of what we think of the results. How do proceed with that millstone around your neck? Do you reinvent the wheel on the stuff the feature actually got right? Is it still a period piece? Etc., etc.

Hell, maybe Lindelhof has some kind of unique vision for it. I want this to happen just because I'm so damned curious.
post #108 of 142

So nobody likes the squid particularly.  But the Loose Cannon Dr M. has problems.  But a manufactured external threat has even more resonance today than it did back then (as does the whole underground conspiracy scene).  Isn't 'the squid is goofy' largely a part of a reservation about allowing comic book excess into the mainstream, for fear it will be embarrassing or rejected?

Seems like a big part of it to me, most of the time.  Could be wrong, but there doesn't seem to be anything essentially wrong with it.  In a post 'Asgardian Aliens in brightly coloured rainbow world with giants' movie culture I think that aspect seems less of a concern.

 

I was never that thrilled about it in the book.  But that was mainly because they botched a certain amount of the set up.  Aside from maybe the clue that something big is up with someone painting something weird looking (that and the plot itself, of course), we get a big one panel infodump about how there's telepaths and animal familiars now, by the way, and couple that with Veidt's animal and teleportation experiments and voila,  Giant Giant Psionic Squid comes outa nowhere! 

(a lot of that I think tells you a fair bit about where Moore was at at the time. Of course there's telepaths and sympathetics and you would create this creature with some sort of Galt's Gulch of psychedelic artistes!  Of course!  Just as going to the crime scene and dropping a lot of datura or whatever and seeing the truth that way isn't at all out of place in your 1984-ish dystopia.  That's how police do stuff isn't it? It requires no explanation)

 

You do a better job setting that up, maybe even change what it is if you must (and maybe make it more than one squid.  I don;t know), and I think the whole thing works fine.

post #109 of 142
I liked the squid. Dropping it was bullshit. Especially for sixty seconds of CGI kabooms viewed from 20,000 feet. Boring.
post #110 of 142

The main reason the squid was dropped is probably not so much that it's goofy but because of the whole subplot about the island setting the squid up. Making it Doctor Manhattan streamlines the plot.

 

But a TV show could have the island subplot. So sure, get on with it.

post #111 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

I liked the squid. Dropping it was bullshit. Especially for sixty seconds of CGI kabooms viewed from 20,000 feet. Boring.

 

Yeah!

 

I think one tricky element to the squid is the "human sensitive" angle. It's very briefly set up in a New Frontiersman article, but it's probably the strangest element to the plan, and it comes out of nowhere. At least with Bubastis, genetic engineering had been set up.

 

One thing I don't think anyone mentioned yet is that prequel Watchmen series than came out a few years back. That (unfortunately) could provide material for the new series.

post #112 of 142
Watchmen Babies is still unadapted.
post #113 of 142

Ugh... Lindeloff, like Snyder, just doesn't have the chops to translate on the screen what makes The Watchmen special.  Alan Moore took a "shlocky" genre and made bona fide literature out of it. I have no such faith in Lindeloff.

Of course, I'll check it out like the sucker I am and I'll hope with all sincerity that I'm wrong....

post #114 of 142
Imagine if Kevin Feige got bored and was all like, "let's show WB we can make a better Watchmen then they can at this point" and attempted a version of it in the MCU with all the existing characters. I know, too hard to imagine (or too hard to imagine it being good) with what already exists (maybe make it some theoretical Days of Future Past alternate universe or something. But I remember reading the first Civil War in the floppies way back when (ugh) and it seemed to me Millar basically turned Stark in to Ozymandias in a way (even his offices had that Greco-Egyptian look iirc).
Edited by Duhrick - 6/26/17 at 7:10am
post #115 of 142
Thread Starter 
post #116 of 142
I have officially greenlit my indifference!
post #117 of 142

I forgot this was even a thing. 

post #118 of 142

Would watch. 

 

Someone suggested Jon Hamm for the Comedian. Yes. 

post #119 of 142

HBO's gotta call The Diceman for The Comedian. 

post #120 of 142
Not a fan of Clay, but that's actually not a bad idea.
post #121 of 142

If there's one thing they could do to make me not watch the Watchmen (heh) TV series, it's put Damon Lindelof in charge of it. Boy howdy.

post #122 of 142

I'm basing this on absolutely nothing but intuition, but I feel as if this Watchmen thing isn't so much a GoT placeholder as it is an insurance policy on Westworld

post #123 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post

HBO's gotta call The Diceman for The Comedian.

I remember misreading Patrick Wilson as Patrick Warburton for Nite Owl when that whole thing was starting up. It was awhile before I realized the mistake . . . long enough that I came around to it. There's a certain sadness in his voice that I think works if he were able modulate out any goofiness.
post #124 of 142

I hope they do something crazy with this. Just retelling Watchmen again... ug.

post #125 of 142
Have you guys seen the first six pages of the new "Doomsday Clock" sequel to "Watchmen?" DC released them digitally. Rorschach lives!
post #126 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Have you guys seen the first six pages of the new "Doomsday Clock" sequel to "Watchmen?" DC released them digitally. Rorschach lives!

As what, a scented fragrance? Fucker was aerosolized.
post #127 of 142
That doesn't necessarily kill someone.
post #128 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

That doesn't necessarily kill someone.

Boy am I gonna be out of a job!
post #129 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

Would watch. 

Someone suggested Jon Hamm for the Comedian. Yes. 

Jon Hamm as Manhattan, obviously. Hamm's cock is already almost as famous as he is. By the end of season one, it'll be doing talk show appearances without him.
post #130 of 142
Olmos is killing people (or trying to) for a living by turning them to aerosol, I think. Let's not piss him off.
post #131 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Olmos is killing people (or trying to) for a living by turning them to aerosol, I think. Let's not piss him off.

I was more thinking how if folks can come back from being turned into a scented fragrance (we call it "Human Flesh," by DrM), why they'd need an old fashioned doc is beyond me.

But I like the Perfume approach for a second career.
post #132 of 142
I mean, I assume that he's either A) Rorschach, reconstituted by Dr. Manhattan or B) an imposter.
post #133 of 142
Wait, are we talking literally brought the character back from the dead?

When the very exact last goddamn panel of the original already sets things up for someone else to take up his crusade?

Fuck am I glad I never bothered with that shit.
post #134 of 142

A terrible Watchmen spin off? Say it ain't so!

post #135 of 142

I've read Watchmen maybe a bamillion times since it came out. Never once in all those decades did I think to myself, "Wow, I really wish I could see Dr. Manhattan fight Superman."

post #136 of 142
Damon Lindelof producing Watchmen before watching The Leftovers: Hell No.

After watching The Leftovers: I'll give him a shot.
post #137 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephremogaster View Post

I've read Watchmen maybe a bamillion times since it came out. Never once in all those decades did I think to myself, "Wow, I really wish I could see Dr. Manhattan fight Superman."

Some comic book fan you are!
post #138 of 142

post #139 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I mean, I assume that he's either A) Rorschach, reconstituted by Dr. Manhattan or B) an imposter.

It's a new guy, apparently.
post #140 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post


It's a new guy, apparently.

In the upcoming comic, Rorschach is called upon to prove whether or not he is the original and

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
removes a glove, revealing himself to be African American.  
post #141 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Not a fan of Clay, but that's actually not a bad idea.

Maybe 20 / 30 years ago.  He's not middle aged anymore .. he's fucking old. 

 

I'm a huge fan (my PSN ID is Dice Man), but it's over.  He's a menacing, unstable person in real life - he's too much of a liability to cast for a real work, which is why he strives in bit parts for guys like Scorsese and Woody Allen where he's only on set a few days.

post #142 of 142
I saw Dice live a couple years ago. He's in the "I have long balls" phase of his standup career.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Damon Lindelof's WATCHMEN, Coming to HBO