Not to mention the fact that the motivation is entirely changed, and in a way that makes the characters more difficult to like. In the comic book it’s just bad luck; it’s two people (admittedly, one a hot chick walkign around naked under her coat) who are in the wrong place at teh wrong time, but happily know how to handle it. In the movie they deliberately court an assault so that they have an excuse to get their violence on.
You know, I was going to say I’m pretty sure Laurie is the one who screams during that scene, but based on what I’m seeing in scans of panels online, maybe not. Here’s one. I guess the bubble is pointing toward Dan and his mouth is open. Laurie doesn’t appear to be screaming. If that hotlink doesn’t work, here’s another. It’s in the extended Nov. 21 entry.
On reflection I think the best word for Dan is probably “pathetic.” Based on his characterization in general, not on the fact that maybe he screams when a guy he thought was dead returns as a loud angry blue giant and smashes through the wall.
Snark only works if it’s funny. 
I agree that the psychologist is a good person, although he’s still flawed. As Rorschach says, there are tons of crazy people in that prison, but he’s the only one who could make the guy famous.
As for the lesbians, the truck driver beats up her girlfriend.
–Cliffy
I am deeply relieved to hear you say that. That has been exactly my interpretation for a while:
nitpick - he wasn’t an artist, he was a writer, the genius who created *Tales Of The Black Freighter. *There were a few references to his recent disappearance scattered throughout the comic. His new girlfriend was the artist.
And the nicest minor character was of course Dollar Bill.
The original scene was another example of one of the overall themes of the book - people just trying to do something simple like light a cigarette and facing unforeseen consequences like setting a building on fire because they had too much power.
In a previous thread, I said that Moore basically just took comic book physics as a given so he could take a realistic look at the social and psychological aspects of comic book heroes.
The movie missed the point of all of these characters. They kept re-appearing throughout the series so the readers could see their lives - ordinary but important to them. And then they were all killed along with a million other people like them. It underscored the fatuousness of Ozymandius’ claim that he made himself feel the death of all his victims.
And the movie missed this point because while it showed these characters dying, it had never shown them living.
Another point of showing all those minor characters, it comes as a surprise when one of them turns out to be Rorschach.
Yes - absolutely. It also underscored the repeated comparisons (Rorshach’s school essay on Hiroshima, the graffiti of the burned couple, Dan’s dream and other images) between Oxymandius’ plan and the bombing of Hiroshima. Out of curiosity, have you ever read John Varley’s chilling story “The Manhattan Phone Book (abridged)” It’s online here http://www.varley.net/Pages/Manhattan.htm (legally)
The movie missed the point on pretty much everything, but yes, this was one of the significant points that it missed.
I did look at the book last night and appears Dan is the one who screams.
Damn straight. I have never seen a movie adaptation that was so faithful plotwise but yet missed the soul of the original work. Even Malin Ackerman naked cuold not make up for it.
(Which is not to say I’m complaining about Malin Ackerman being naked.)
True. Snyder said he was a big fan of the story and I believe him, but apparently he flat-out didn’t understand it. At least, he didn’t understand what makes Watchmen interesting and what makes it Watchmen. The main plot, the violence and the action, were untouched and if anything were too painstakingly recreated. It was disappointing to read reviews where Watchmen was discussed in the same terms as any other self-important and un-self aware superhero movie, because that’s what the movie was.
Ackerman was nice to look at, but her performance was pretty bad. Laurie is by far the least interesting of the major characters, I think. Even so, she was very stiff.
So was Dan, but only the second time.
And of course Ozymandias says as much in one of the inter-chapter fillers when he’s talking about how to become a superhero through hard work and dedication: “Or you could just do what Jon did - walk into a nuclear reactor and hope for the best”. 
True, but let’s be reasonable here - if that automatically made someone not a good person, an awful lot of lesbians would be in the same boat. It’s not like she’s habitually violent or goes around looking for reasons to beat her up, and for most of the story she is indeed trying to be good.
Now you have me wondering if it would be possible to do a movie that was mostly based on the lives of the minor characters, with the ‘capes’ only showing here and there as background.
She performed? I don’t even remember any dialogue. I thought she was just there to be hot. That wasn’t acting; it was posing.
Okay, I can’t agree entirely agree here. She’s pretty interesting, but she comes off as unsympathetic at times, particularly early on, because it seems that she is either clueless about Dan’s affection for her, or using that affection to manipulate him, and Dan is very sympathetic. Despite his wealth (whose affect is blunted anyway by Ozymandias’ much greater fortune), he comes off as the most normal of the major characters. I think he would have eventually given up the costume irrespective of the Keane act, for instance; he started it when he was young and idealistic and adventurous, but middle age was always going to smack some sense into him.
BA-dum-CHISSSSS…
See above.
She has her moments as a character, but at times she’s dense and since she never much cares for the whole heroism thing, she can be sort of a wet blanket. She complains throughout Rorschach’s rescue, for example. It makes sense to have a character who’s not so enthusiastic about adventuring, who was pushed into it, and I like her references to the addictiveness of it. But I think she comes off as a bit of a superhero girlfriend, and not just because she dates two of them, and is wholly supported by them in the process. I don’t think her characterization compares favorably with Nite Owl, the Comedian, or Ozymandias, much less Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan, who I think are the most interesting of the group.
I agree.
That’s an interesting idea. The break-up meeting with Rorschach would have been pleasant, I’m sure.
By that time, Rorschach had been mostly been working on his own, according to Dan. I’d guess they began drifting apart in 1975 after the kidnapping case and by the time of the 1977 riots, the partnership was firmly over.
The problem with Laurie is that she’s a character who is defined pretty much solely by her relationships with men. This is a depressingly realistic characterization of many real life women, though.
Hold up a sec - I know fans of the comic have complained that it missed the points, but I could not disagree more. Having never read the comic, but seen the movie, I’ve completely and fully understood every discussion of the comic I’ve heard (or seen online). I’ve living proof the movie fully encompassed the limited, but thorough role it had available. It definitely got the message across, although it did focus a bit more on the concept of humanity and “means/ends” than the “superheroes are real” meta-concept. Seriously, though - it wasn’t possible to do anything better, and it is damn good.
Gee, I don’t know. If I smacked my wife I don’t know how many people would think of me as a good person.