Although it’s implied that Jon had the will, the background and (due to his watchmaking history) the methodical nature to do it.
I just looked. Dan says “AAAAAAAAA!” which strikes me as more of a surprised/shocked sound.
And I like Rorschach. He was a damaged guy from day one (his mom beating him up, ending up in a mental institute where she apparently abandoned him) and he still kept trying to do the right thing. Even when he finally lost it, he never stopped trying to do the right thing. He didn’t have proper boundaries and limits, but…if you think about it, neither did Ozzy. Ozzy was no more than Rorschach on a grander scale, and with less of a sense of ethics than Rorschach had.
And, in the end, Rorschach was right. The phony ‘alien invasion’ story (in the comic–the ‘Dr Manhattan has gone crazy’ story in the movie) won’t hold up to scrutiny (if Rorschach can figure it out, others can (plus Ozzy’s password to all his secret documents is so uber-lame that I’m wondering if all that hash damaged his mind) plus there’s the problem of the Journal) and when the sides realize they’ve been tricked there’s gonna be hell to pay. All the other characters were waaaaay too wishy-washy (Jon’s too abstracted, Laurie has too many daddy issues and Dan’s mostly impotent and indecisive) to see the obvious solution is exactly what Rorschach demanded: TELL THE TRUTH. A super-villain has destroyed New York and it’s going to take the whole world to catch up to him. Ozzy was far too much a preening peacock to ever consider making himself the target of the world, but once he was forced into that position, he’d be perfect as a Dr. Moriarty boogyman for the world to join together to hunt.
*Charleton House. Hee.
smiling bandit, no one is criticizing the movie’s plot. Plotwise it was very faithful to the series, and the one major change it made was actually an improvement (changing Ozymandias’s con from a fake alien invasion to a fake attack by Manhattan). The problem with the movie is that it lacks soul. The comic series made Laurie, Manhattan, Rorshach, and the rest–right down to the wonderfully drawn minor characters–persons whom the reader could empathize with and grieve for–whereas the movie eliminated all the minor characters and turned Rorshach, Laurie, Dan, and Veidt into fairly generic badasses.
I’m not really sure how you can say the movie was an able or adequate of the comic series when you admit to never had read the comic series. That would be like me criticizing first Narnia movie for not being a good adaptation, when I’ve never seen it.
The problem is that Ozymandius is a real threat. And therefore he can be fought and defeated. It’s like how Hitler was able to get the British, the Americans, and the Soviets to work together as long as he was a threat to them. But they fell apart as soon as he was dead. The same would happen with Ozymandius as a threat - he’d be defeated and then the cold war would resume.
The alien menace could never be defeated because it didn’t really exist so it would unite humanity indefinitely.
I can’t agree. Sure, I’d have like to explore the minor characters, but the main figures came across very strongly as complex, human figures fully realized. I think you’re greater knowledge of the comic may actually be preventing you from seeing the subtle interplay of events and actions in the movie. I very quickly picked up the deeper elements of each character, and honestly nothing has yet been described as being in the comic that really conflicts or honestly expands that.
I can’t say it matched the comic - it could be quite different. What I mean is that it deeply explored the concepts and issues and didn’t play around with them like kid stuff. I know the issues it raises from hearing you (plural) and other friends describe it. (Repeatedly. At length. 
) Thus far, there hasn’t been anything mentioned that I felt was fundamental to exploring the story or its philosophical implications.
I wasn’t talking about the major character, bandit. I was talking about the minor characters, the presentation of which is a major factor in the verisimilitude of the story.
My point is that, since you have no first-hand knowledge of the comic series, you cannot reasonably have an opinion of whether the movie is a successful adaptation of the spirit of the series. As I wrote upthread, it would be like me criticizing the first Narnia movie for being unfaithful to Lewis’ novel even though I have seen only about 10 minutes of the movie.
Of course, you **can **certainly form a reasonable opinion as to whether the movie works for you.
Not a movie, but it’s been done as a comic: Marvels, written by Kurt Busiek, art by Alex Ross. ISBN-13: 9780785127840
I agree with you that smiling bandit can’t reasonably say the movie is a good adaptation without being familiar with its source material, but as someone who read the original and then saw the movie, actually agree with him that it is. If anything, I like the movie more, especially since they cut the Black Freighter bits, which I eventually wound up skipping over.
I read the comic when it first came out (I’m mentioned elsewhere that it was the longest year of my life 
) and I loved the movie. I think that, given the fact that you have to boil down a year’s worth of text into a couple hours of film, the movie did a darned good job.
(And I especially liked that they skipped The Black Freighter, which was a club-you-over-the-head-with-the-moral-until-you-want-to-scream waste of paper.)
I originally skipped over the Black Freighter bits. I rather wish I hadn’t, because they are in fact an echo of and precursor to the events of the primary plot, and you miss a lot of commentary on Ozymadias if you don’t read the comic-within-a-comic.
As for my argument with smilingbandit: that was more about his making a logically absurd statement than the movie’s status as a good adaptation. The movie had some good points, and I can see how many people could like it; I was actually pleased and surprised that they kept
The bit about Laurie being the Comedian’s daughter
and I’ll further say that sb is correct that the basic “philosophy” of the story came through. But as a much better writer than I once said, stories aren’t about ideas; they’re about people. I cared about the characters in the comic book series, despite their multiple and deliberate flaws; I did not care much about the characters in the movie, because of the lack of minor, humanizing touches. Things like the psychiatrist’s estrangment from his wife, and Dan’s grief over the elder Nite Owl’s senseless death, and all the little things that gave the comic book world’s texture and kept it from being Gotham City.
Marley23: Regarding the jail break, I don’t think Laurie was reluctant to participate because it was super-heroics, I think it was because she didn’t like Rorshach.
I didn’t see it that way at all. I think it was inadvertent in both comics and movie.
Not to mention that it was insanely dangerous, and more so for her than for Dan.
I understand that. And I don’t blame her for not liking him; he repeatedly suspects her, isn’t friendly with women, and is hygenically deficient. (He’s got an eight-year-old blood stain on his coat!) I said she complained the whole time and it makes her a wet blanket, which I think is true.
Yeah, Laurie is not very sympathetic. One of Moore’s failings; he managed to make everyone else more or less sympathetic, but not Laurie.
You assume the statement is absurd because you assume I cannot compare my comprehension based on the movie to others’ based on the book. Since I can do so, have done so, and found them congruent, the rational and reasonable explanation is that the film does in fact contain depths you cannot see because you are focusing on what you don’t.
This is also illogical, however. I fully understand that those things would have happened, had the full series of events been shown. I fully understood the characters are flawed and human, and what those are.
In short, don’t assume that because you can’t comprehend the film properly that I cannot comprehend it properly.
Incidentally I just now found out that the quote Ozymandias attributes to JFK, from the never-delivered Dallas Trade Mart speech, is real. Very cool.
I don’t believe he did. He said that because you didn’t read the book, you can’t comprehend the book. Which you can’t. By definition, but also about Watchmen in particular, which is a book people don’t even comprehend until they’ve read it two or three times.
–Cliffy
By her relationships with men and her relationship with her mother. Her mother was the whole reason that she became a vigilante. Doing things because someone else wants it is very much her theme.
I didn’t say you couldn’t comprehend the film properly. I said that you couldn’t assess the film as an adaptation of the comic book because you haven’t read the comic book. If you haven’t read the comic book, what is it you’re basing your opinion on–your mutant clairvoyant literary criticism power?