I have to disagree with that. By that point in the novel, Doc was so detached that I don't think he would have cared if humans thought he was a mass murderer. The world's opinion wouldn't mean anything to him. He would have never done it, so if the producers had tried putting that on him then it would have been entirely wrong, but as far as taking the blame for it I really don't think he would care.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Watchmen!!!!
- Thread starter Barkless Dog
- Start date
I have to disagree with that. By that point in the novel, Doc was so detached that I don't think he would have cared if humans thought he was a mass murderer. The world's opinion wouldn't mean anything to him. He would have never done it, so if the producers had tried putting that on him then it would have been entirely wrong, but as far as taking the blame for it I really don't think he would care.
I dont know what movie you watched, but in the one i watched the brightest spot was that blue wang.
I hated that, for 6€, i was forced to see blue wang and got no boobies at all...
Yup, seriously, how did you miss the boobies? Quite fine pair of them to boot!
It was during the love scene in that flying thingimajic.
in the book Rorshack handcuffed the child killer to the stove and left him a saw (and a choice), then set his house on fire. he did not chop the mans face open with the cleaver. He killed the dogs. wrong.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
except, by that same logic, he would have been way more likely to kill veidt than rorshach. there was no reason for him to kill rorshach in the first place unless he felt some level of moral attachment to this world. given that premise, he still would have felt more outrage (or whatever passes for outrage for him) at veidt than at rorshach.
frankly i thought the original ending was a bit deus ex anyway (not the game, the original meaning) but at least that didn't have the added caveat of doc having been used by veidt. doc had been used all his life, "turned into something gaudy", and by the time he went to mars he had had it. laurie might have been able to convince him that humanity was worth his assistance, but i seriously doubt she'd be able to convince him to going back to being someone's tool again, which was exactly what he was in the movie.
The black freighter/under the hood DVD is released soon (April 6th in the UK I think it's different elsewhere) looks like it might be pretty cool (only £7!)
John: I think you need to add something to your 'tar lol.
John: I think you need to add something to your 'tar lol.
I didn't say he didn't care about the human race's existence, that would be nullified by that whole "life is a miracle" speech he gave on Mars. He just wouldn't give a damn what we thought about him. In both the book and movie, he condoned Veidt's actions as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good, that part remains consistent. If it weren't true, he wouldn't have left Veidt alive.
As for Rorschach's killing, I don't believe that was done out of anger, it was simply another necessary evil, a means to the end of keeping the peace. I really saw that whole scene as one of mutual respect and understanding between the two. Jon knew that Rorschach would never compromise, and Rorschach knew that Jon wouldn't allow him to disturb the peace by exposing Veidt. The only possible outcome of that situation was Rorschach's death, and they both realized that and accepted it. It was the only way for both characters to remain authentic.
OK, but why is this being questioned? That's what happened in the book. Jon killed Rorschach.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
the discussion is about why.
i am saying that, in the movie, it would have been more true to jon's character to kill veidt instead of rorshach. jon had been used his whole life, even before he was doc M. the reason he left this world was because he was sick of it, sick of being used, sick of being manipulated, sick of being a part of humanity's "little lives".
there is no doubt in my mind that, if he had been written true to his character in the movie, he would have obliterated veidt when he found out that he had been used by him, that veidt had killed the people he cared about, to manipulate him. he was already "Disappointed" in veidt for trying to disintegrate him again.
JT is officially the modern day philosopher. Everything is says is correct, Im in awe.
But Jon has no need for revenge. What good would it do him? He was already on his way out back to Mars up until he saw in his future that he was going to kill Rorschach out of a mutual understanding between the two.
All IMO FWIW.
Subscribed. Watched the movie (totally awesome), now reading the book (also totally awesome).
IMO, most of the changes make the movie better, tho Nite Owl screaming "NOOOOO!!!!" was a little unnecessary IMHO. I sorta skimmed thru the book when I got it and I like the Jon/Rorschach ending without the Owl. Its more solemn, and less "soap opera".
Im of the view that Jon killing Rorschach is more about Jon making sure that something good (world peace) comes out of his being used. Killing Veidt wouldn't solve or change anything at that point.
IMO, most of the changes make the movie better, tho Nite Owl screaming "NOOOOO!!!!" was a little unnecessary IMHO. I sorta skimmed thru the book when I got it and I like the Jon/Rorschach ending without the Owl. Its more solemn, and less "soap opera".
Im of the view that Jon killing Rorschach is more about Jon making sure that something good (world peace) comes out of his being used. Killing Veidt wouldn't solve or change anything at that point.
