I feel like Snyder is saying the right things, so I'm trusting that he's done a good job. Hopefully it doesn't backfire.

i am as excited i as well trust him the squid would not of been a mass audience appeal he is in movie buisness to make money

I trust him. One of my favorite comic films is The Crow and not only did they change the ending. But the whole god damn world.

And I'm a huge retarded fan of the original O'Barr graphic novel.

synder seems like kind of a douche to me

there are always compromises to be expected when adapting things. especially something as massive as the watchmen. i feel snyder has done all he can to please us. yes, i'm slightly bummed, but at the same time i welcome snyders film with eager eyes and hyper anticipation.

i think when we get the dvd, we'll be able to see just how much zack broke his back to give us the best watchmen film possible.

I suppose this could make it more accessible to non-comic book fans and also keep the intrigue of comic book fans. The problem I found with comnic book adaptations is that if I read the comic, I knew to some extent what the ending was. Now I wont.

My main concern is that it still fits in thematically with the book.


***slightly spoilerish i suppose***

For example, if Dr. Manhattan is responsible (at the hand of Ozymandias), as some people have been saying, wouldn't that just make everyone else in the world more pissed at the U.S. rather than achieving some sort of global unity in wake of the disaster?

Squid, no squid, who gives a shit. I love Watchmen, but if the squid wouldn't have worked out, then so be it. I'm looking forward to seeing how the new ending ties the story together.

I'm kind of sad that the only thing people are saying about this movie involves the squid. It kind of dampens the experience so far, for me at least. Usually, when people talk about the brilliance of this book, the squid never enters the conversation. It just doesn't matter. The outcome is what's important. If you're too stubborn to accept compromise, if you think any changed detail will ruin this movie, then I feel sorry for you. Stay home and read the book again. Those of us looking forward to this movie would surely benefit from your absence.

Never compromise!

I'm fine with the the changed ending, but they have to change a few things to make it work. Like I hope they give a good reason/same reason why Veidt kills the Comedian and other vigilanties etc. Im still siked for this as long as it isnt under 2 hours and 40 minutes.

squidy is out?!?!?!

f' that. was excited to see it until now. grow some balls mr. synder. i love how he tried to talk all tough a few months ago about staying true to the ending. what a cop out. maybe i'll rent it or grab it offline at some point, but seriously... i remember being blown away by a comic for the first time when i flipped the page over to the interdimensional creature that had destroyed NYC. wow.

now i'm kinda back to feeling like it should've have been made into a feature film. peeps who buy the comic after seeing the film are going to be in for a laugh, huh?

way to grab your ankles for the big bucks, mr. synder

if no squid does this mean most of new york isn't killed? i am ok with the squid not being in there as long as new york is destroyed, because that is what gets to the heart of the moral conundrum of the book. but if they cop out on the massacre of an entire city then the movie is going to suck.

To Jackson:

No one ever talks about the squid because it gives the ending away :P to me the squid was a big surprise, and the slight hints given kept you guessing on wtf Moore was talking about in the book. Look, the Comedian wouldn't of freaked out over a machine that emulated Dr. Manhattan's powers... Thats not a sick joke at all... its lame... elegant my ass. and I agree with "OMG It's Russell Crowe" That the world would focus on the US as the enemy for "creating" and using Dr. Manhattan.

To Zack Snyder:

I was looking forward to seeing this obscene alien creature come to life. If Men in Black could do it, how is it such a problem to get around. Its the final chapter! I care because the whole story revolves around this one plot, and the book kept you guessing the entire way. Honestly you wonder why Alan Moore has nothing to do with your movie... That's a valid reason

I think more than New York is hit. So the disaster is "more global" or something. Which honestly doesn't sound like a bad idea. Think about the book, before the event occurs Manhattan had already forsaken humanity and was on Mars. If they blame Manhattan for this deed (IF) if seems pretty reasonable for the entire world to come together against him and whatever forces he has at his disposal.

@ OMGrant

I really don't think the squid would have worked on screen.

sure, they could made it with CG, but it doesn't mean it would work.

To me, it was already a big enough stretch in the comic to make the ending a squid.

It didn't bother me in the comic, i LOVE watchmen. I've read it twice this year alone, I read "watching the watchmen", and i even made my own Rorschach poster that's framed on my wall right now, and it doesn't bother me one bit that they're changing the ending so it works on film.

Dave Gibbons said the changes they made were necessary and kept with the whole theme and mood of Watchmen, so to me as long as it still has the same impact (maybe even more if it is the doc manahattan energy crisis) then it should be fantastic.

i think its the biggest insult to take somebodies idea and change the ending like this.

why not just make up you own original concept...this movie is not the watchmen, its a ripoff as far as im concerned...

i wouldn't mind any of this shit if they would just change the name of the movie.

"If you’re too stubborn to accept compromise, if you think any changed detail will ruin this movie, then I feel sorry for you. Stay home and read the book again. Those of us looking forward to this movie would surely benefit from your absence."

Idiotic comments like this are foound in times of national crisis: "If you hate the country, leave it," and "Love it or leave it" are such examples. This is the idiotic approach to criticism. People who actually think about these things are critisized for thinking critically about the issue, and a flood of "I trust him"--whoever "him" is--carries the narrative of the time. People, think about these things logaically rather than emotionally.

If Snyder is telling the truth about the ending, he is doing a great disservice to the original story. The ending ties everything together. Change that, and the whole story has to change to reflect that change. That is not Watchmen as Moore intended. Amazingly, Snyder can get Frank Miller's work on screen successfully, but he can't make Watchmen as it was intended: go figure.

This is not to say that the movie will not be good. As a film, it can be good. But when it is so distant from the original text, what ya get is a Watchmen-esque story, not Watchmen. Snyder is funny when he says, "The fans, god love 'em, they're all up in arms about the squid. What they should be up in arms about are things like shooting the pregnant woman, 'God is real and he's American', whether THAT's in the movie. That's my point of view, maybe I'm crazy." A red herring does not make the problem of the ending change go away. I hope this is all just a ruse to surprise audiences with the real ending.

But, again, people, think about the changes this would bring upon the story. It matters very little if Snyder, Gibbons, or regular fans accept this major change: the story was presented in a specific way for a specific purpose and is set up around an ending that is supposed to affect readers in a very shocking manner. The entire story is tied around an external threat (the alien), not an internal one (Dr. Manhattan). Testimonials are still forms of propaganda, regardless of who uses them. The story is as it should be, and changing it for "modern audiences" is another way of saying someone didn't have the guts to go with Moore's successful, original vision.

If you guys do not think that the squid is important you have basically missed the whole point of the entire novel. There are so many reasons why it is everything the novel stands for. The reason I think it does not come up in conversation is because most people do not get how important it is. Do not get me wrong. I am still looking forward to this movie and will be seeing on opening day and I except to be giggling with pleasure the entire time (up to the end), but the squid is what makes the story brilliant. Without the squid it is just an ok story.

Well said, arthera.

***Spoilers Ahead***

No.

The squid itself is not important in the least bit. It's what the squid DOES that is. The only thing that matters in regards to the squid is that it massacres New York City, thus averting the nuclear crisis and bringing about global unity.

I have mixed feelings about the lack of the squid in the film. When reading the Watchmen, I felt that the fact that it was tacked on and could easily have been replaced with any other weapon of mass destruction. However, the panels it was featured in were incredible and I wanted to see how it would translate to film.

"No" what?

The manufactured alien matters. Storylines throughout the text are inextricably tied to it. Removing it means changing more than just that one plot element. As well, its importance comes from the fact that it is an external source, not an internal one, that humanity must face. Dr. Manhattan, unless his story is changed to meet the ending, is an internal force in the world. Changing that requires more unnecessary changes.

If the alien is not important, any number of things could replace it:
* bombs
* lasers
* biological/chemical agents
* bears
* robots
* sharks with lasers on their heads
* a red balloon

Yes, not all of these are serious, but the point is that the exchange makes a big difference. Hence, the alien is very important for the type of effect Moore wanted.

Unless Moore claimed this, there is no evidence to prove that "the fact that it was tacked on and could easily have been replaced with any other weapon of mass destruction." Sure, one can replace any element in any story with any other thing, but that changes the story, sometimes dramatically. This would be one such change. There is not much "fact" about it actually.

Yet you do say that "the panels it was featured in were incredible and I wanted to see how it would translate to film," which shows you are concerned about how the film is represented on screen. That scene was fairly shocking, which gave it its value and "surprise."

****KIND OF SPOILER NOT REALLY******
ok ok ok. the whole point of the squid at the end of the watchmen novel was to introduce a whole new different threat to the world. when the squid was released the whole world stopped its wars and joined together to face this new threat. that is why the squid is so important to the watchmen movie and novel. the fact snyder mayhave replaced the squid with some nuclear weapon of mass destgructioon doesnt really make sense because the u.s. and the soviet union were in the most tense moment at the time and if the u.s. were to be attacked like that by some weapon of mass destruction then they would just attack back causing a nuclear fallout. great pre-planning snyder!

"I’m fine with the the changed ending, but they have to change a few things to make it work. Like I hope they give a good reason/same reason why Veidt kills the Comedian and other vigilanties etc."

And this is the problem. Not only "a few things" will change to "make it work" but also many more alterations.

Again, the film can be good. But if the changes are too much, it will not be Watchmen as many readers have seen and imagined it all of these years.

If they replaced the squid with "atomic explosions" in various cities, then it is an epic fail because the whole point of Ozymandias's scheme was to avoid nuclear war.

To OMGrant, Dee, and others:

Okay, fair enough. The squid ties the story together, I understand that. Call me naive if you want, but I just don't think that Snyder, Warner Bros., and everyone else involved with the creation of this film would inexplicably decide to cut the squid for no good reason. Obviously it ties in with their vision. We've all read the book. We know what happens. Most film adaptations stray from the source. Snyder is the filmmaker here, this is his interpretation of the source material. We don't even know what the ending will be officially, but barring any major mistakes, it will fit with the continuity of the story that he tells.

The point that I was trying to make in the first place is that so much about this movie could be amazing, but nobody is talking about it. Everyone is hung up on the god damned squid.

Apparently, I am not as much of a hardcore fan as some of you, but when I read Watchmen for the first time, I fell in love with the thing long before I reached the end. It is the unfolding of the story that amazed me. The characters. Rorschach. The Comedian. Dr. Manhattan. Maybe I'm looking at it from the standpoint of being entertained rather than literary analysis, but I'm fucking excited for this movie, squid or no squid.

This reminds me of some friends who refused to see The Lord of the Rings movies because they strayed from the books. Obviously, that was their loss.

"I just don’t think that Snyder, Warner Bros., and everyone else involved with the creation of this film would inexplicably decide to cut the squid for no good reason. Obviously it ties in with their vision. We’ve all read the book. We know what happens. Most film adaptations stray from the source. "

Yes, they do stray, not always as much as they could. This would be a big enough "stray" to warrant it being something other than Watchmen as so many people have understood it for so long (since the mid-80s). It is "their vision" that could be (and if this is all true, it is) at variance with readers of this text. Yes, since they are paying for it and putting in the time to make this a film, they can legally retell the story as they want: yet "legally" does not equate to fairness of accurate representation or even equate to doing anything for what readers/audiences would want. And regardless of how many times we have "read the book" or "know what happens," seeing it accurately translated to the screen is expected, especially since the claim made by Snyder is that he wanted to be true to the text.

"Snyder is the filmmaker here, this is his interpretation of the source material. We don’t even know what the ending will be officially, but barring any major mistakes, it will fit with the continuity of the story that he tells."

Yeah, it is his telling of the story, influenced however much by those who have financially backed him. The film, of course, can be quite good. I will still see it and will probably buy it if it is good. Yet if I have the expectation to see Watchmen on the screen, I am expecting Moore's story, not Snyder's (for the most part, expecting some changes that would be a natural part of the translation process). I want to see Moore's story on screen. So do most fans of the book. Regardless of who Snyder is as a person, I do not trust him to put Watchmen on screen without questioning the changes: it is important for people concerned about this to scrutinize the problems with any major change like this.

The same goes for The Lord of the Rings: Jackson's film series differed quite a lot from Tolkien's sotry, but it was a good film series by itself pretty much. The translation of these great stories happens so rarely, though, that when expectations are not met, the frustration expressed should be understandable, given the impact the story, unaltered, has on the reader.

That all said, you highlight an important point that Watchmen (Snyder's vision) is going to become a film, which has not been done before. That is a great thing, I agree. The unfolding story was very interesting and changed the way comics would be thought of by people of varying ages. I am glad that it is becoming a film, showing that it can be done. I'll take a guess here, though, that the reason why there is dissention among the fans of this film (where previously there was a lot more) is because of the change in storyline. And that comes from the point that it doesn't matter if the story is going to become a film but that it is a story done well and true.

Still, your message seems hopeful for the film, and I hope the film works out too.

Look, I really like Snyder, but I just don't understand how he -- and much of the crew -- can make all these claims about how much they are honoring the vision of this magnificent milestone in graphic storytelling...with the one, you know, smallish exception of, oh, the ending. Because it apparently was a "problem."

Yeah, brilliant story and all, except for the conclusion? Can we completely change that? Thanks!

Whatever. I'm not going to pretend I won't see the film, but any serious enthusiasm I have for this project has been extinguished. I held out hope that we'd at least get a "director's cut" with the actual ending on DVD, but apparently no such luck.

"Apparently, I am not as much of a hardcore fan as some of you, but when I read Watchmen for the first time, I fell in love with the thing long before I reached the end. It is the unfolding of the story that amazed me."

The unfolding of the story is amazing; it is the ending that resonates long after the story is done.

"This reminds me of some friends who refused to see The Lord of the Rings movies because they strayed from the books. Obviously, that was their loss."

This isn't what I'd call "straying." This is more analagous to Peter Jackson deciding that Frodo needed to defeat Sauron in an epic sword duel a the climax.

all i know is that we must understand that the movie business is trying to make the movie seem realistic i mean even though ozymandias is the smartest man in the whole world if he were to just blatantly say at the end while all of the non readers of the book are on the edge of their seats watching rorschach and nite owl following him and listening to them speak as bubastis follows them from behind and veidt just goes " i killed half of new york with a squid and a psychics brain" it would totally ruin the movie for them

now, dont get me wrong as being a follower of watchmen from day one if i were to see that type of ending i would start rooting and hollaring and crying and getting so excited i might just piss myself. But sadly there is not that many people who have ever heard of watchmen and that means watchmen would be a bomb at the box office if snyder and friends dont aim for the non reader audience. Now do i think snyder is just trying to receive income for the movie? yes. But who knows maybe a year from now when the glorious blu-ray comes out he'll provide a fanboy movie version where itstays completely true to heart to the graphic novel.

I am very familiar with the process required to adapt stories from one medium to another.

However, I am rather incredulous that people who are supposedly fans of the original graphic novel think that the ending as written would somehow not translate to film, particularly seeing as how it was one of the most cinematic moments in all of comics.

I just find it funny how at other times Snyder talks about the film in the context of the story and how awesome it will be, but when the squid came up he immediately passes it onto the scriptwriters.

EPIC FAIL.

I read the entire Watchmen saga as soon as I heard about the movie.

It was one of the stupidest things I've ever read. A giant fucking space squid, seriously?! I felt like the whole thing was an elaborate joke. How the fuck can that be the best comics have to offer?! The movie will be better off without it.

"I read the entire Watchmen saga as soon as I heard about the movie.

It was one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. A giant fucking space squid, seriously?! I felt like the whole thing was an elaborate joke. How the fuck can that be the best comics have to offer?! The movie will be better off without it."

Then the point of the graphic novel was lost on you, and this is an issue that does not concern you. However, please imagine your favorite book changed in a huge way to "fit a modern audience" and understand why people are upset with this nonsensical change.

"all i know is that we must understand that the movie business is trying to make the movie seem realistic"

1) Moore's point is this is what could happen in an alternate world where superheroes are real--the key phrase being "alternate." By its nature, this story is not realistic becasue it is imagined. Trying to "quanitfy" it differently leads to meddling with an already excellent story.

2) This sounds like you're making an excuse for the film, studio, and director. There is no need to defend these changes and excuses that lead to them. They are not needed, and if this is supposed to be faithful to the story, they must not be made. Some changes are acceptable for the translation from book to film, but gross change is not.

"i mean even though ozymandias is the smartest man in the whole world if he were to just blatantly say at the end while all of the non readers of the book are on the edge of their seats watching rorschach and nite owl following him and listening to them speak as bubastis follows them from behind and veidt just goes ” i killed half of new york with a squid and a psychics brain” it would totally ruin the movie for them"

1) It would "totally ruin the movie for them"? You know, it is the end of the story you refer to. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "ruin the movie" when the film is at its end.

2) Your generalization takes for granted that what you say will happen. However, if you think about the many ways that the "real story" could be presented, that generalization falls short of validity.

"now, dont get me wrong as being a follower of watchmen from day one if i were to see that type of ending i would start rooting and hollaring and crying and getting so excited i might just piss myself. But sadly there is not that many people who have ever heard of watchmen and that means watchmen would be a bomb at the box office if snyder and friends dont aim for the non reader audience."

Again, Synder knows better than Moore about telling the story Moore created: that's cute...inaccurate but cute. Rather, one would wonder why make this story into a film in the first place if the story as it was written was not good enough for film (which it more than is). And that analysis would smack of stupidity when compared to the responses from readers, largely, regarding the ending.

"Now do i think snyder is just trying to receive income for the movie? yes. But who knows maybe a year from now when the glorious blu-ray comes out he’ll provide a fanboy movie version where itstays completely true to heart to the graphic novel."

"Fan boy" is just a term to degrade and dounounce criticism and debate about a topic, much like "conspiracy theorist" and "bleeding-heart liberal." Note that when you read reviews about this elsewhere.

That is a hope against logic really and is still a way to say, "The original story wasn't good enough for the big screen, but it is good enough for the DVD crack we'll sell afterward to appease all the little nerdlings out there." In other words, it is not realistic to assume that would happen.

"This isn’t what I’d call “straying.” This is more analagous to Peter Jackson deciding that Frodo needed to defeat Sauron in an epic sword duel a the climax."

Exactly. And that example is funny since Jackson filmed Mortinsen's character fighting Sauron. Despite the success of Jackson's trilogy, people should recognize that he constantly claimed that he was holding true to Tolkien's vision and wanted to represent "the spirit of the text." As time went on and in recording on the DVD Special Editions, he watered down his claims to the point where he said, "Well, maybe he wouldn't be happy with all the changes we made, but..." So just because a director says he is being faithful to a text does not mean he will be.

The general uproar about the removal of the squid reminds me of the removal of the sacking of the Shire in LOTR. I did miss that part of the books, but I understand the reasoning behind this (though I can't see why it didn't make the extended versions) and I still applaud Jackson for taking this on and doing a fantastic job overall.

Its been about 8-10 years since I read The Watchmen so forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole idea of the giant alien squid that its what unites the world? And this is referenced throughout the graphic novel yes?

Well is it possible that they can use something other than a giant alien squid to serve this point and still have all references made throughout the novel to be relevant?

I watched the movie few days ago, I never before read the novel. My impression is that for non novel reader a giant squid would be well very disappointing ending. IMHO movie loses its momentum at the end with or without squid. But I also think that this ending is better. Why? Well isn't it obvious? We can clearly see a resemblance between dr. Manhattan and Osama bin Laden. Booth were servants of American government and big allays and at the end both are turned in No. 1 threat to the world. In both cases establishment is satisfied for it will have someone to fight with and the threat of the cold war is averted.