Jessica, we totally agree on that point. If you R CURMUDGEON KITTEH, then I am SLIGHTLY GRUMPY BASSET HOUND right next to you.

Don't get me wrong, folks, I didn't hate the movie. I wasn't sorely disappointed, but I was mildly disappointed. I just run up against the "Okay, but what would you do then, hotshot? Huh? What?" and I can only answer "Give me a quajillion dollars and a lot of time and I'll show you. But I need the quajillion dollars first."

Well, the book really is akin to a meaty novel. And films do much better with novellas or short stories, as the structure is much simpler. Even at three hours, there's only so much story you can tell in a film. Blade Runner is an excellent film that tells a very different story from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (though I would be curious to see a more faithful adaptation of DADoES). Same with Fight Club. Both films keep only a small handful of key elements from their respective source materials, and wind up keeping the right themes and ideas. They essentially tell the same story by telling a completely different one.

They essentially tell the same story by telling a completely different one.

I would put V For Vendetta in this category too.

I don't think anything is unfilmable. (look at Tristram Shandy ) I think it's a question of undertsanding the original work and I'm beginning to see what you guys are talking about in that Snyder maybe didn't. I still haven't seen it from start to finish. Perhaps the parts I'm really going to hate are the ones I missed the first time through.

I thought the best part was when the projection system in the theatre went out for ten minutes.

amych, for me the worst part was when my blue icee ran out and I had nothing else to concentrate on.

best part was

I'm trying to think of any scenes that blew me away.

Give me a minute....

Ailleann, so you would have preferred

le_n pretty much summed it up for me, which is handy because I was at work.

Really, I think my issue is not so much the identity of the monster, but rather what Veidt's methods mean. What I took from the novel is this: Veidt thought he was a god, he thought he was so brilliant that he could fix the world's problems all himself. So he engineers a monster, an extra-human force to unite people against a common, horrific enemy (that wasn't nuclear power, and in fact no nuke would have saved the day when it comes to the squid). There are six full pages of bloody human carnage lining the streets of New York, including pretty much every teritary character we've met up until this point. Laurie's so appalled that she begs Manhattan to take her away. To me, it's that carnage that wakes people up, that convinces them to find peace.

But instead, Veidt uses the power of Dr. Manhattan, a power not unlike the power of a nuclear weapon, to attack not one but several world cities. Veidt doesn't just make himself a god, he overthrows one too, by turning Manhattan into the enemy. (Or... perhaps he turns Manhattan into a wrothful god, a god who will punish us for our mistakes? It's maybe kind of the same thing...) When Manhattan and Laurie arrive at the blast site, there's no human carnage to be seen, only the massive destruction of physical property. The visual is completely different, and I think it sends a different message. Like le_n said, I don't think the change in the ending earns the peace that follows. The people of the world are not inspired to put aside their differences in the face of tragedy, they put aside their differences so that Manhattan won't smite them again.

Oh, and also, Mr. Snyder, I don't care if you do put the WTC on the horizon of your NYC destruction scene, I'm not going to let you off the hook for your use of 9/11 imagery. (Which then makes me wonder what the ending would have been like if this movie had been made before 2001...)

I... should have probably done an LJ entry.

That, or somehow he thinks Alan Moore is exactly the same person as Frank Miller

This this this. I was so -- I guess charmed is the word -- to see so much of the look reconstructed. But you're right, this is not Sin City.

In short, I R CURMUDGEON KITTEH.

::sits in this corner, despite only having read the novel this week::

Finished the graphic novel this morning and WANT to see the movie NOW, but pressing obligations say no. Having finished it, I don't understand why the squid was removed. It was really so very brief, that if the lead-up and reveal was filmed, would have been maybe 15 minutes of movie time? Shoot, if the squidness was so ridiculous, just change the shape, it just has to be alienesque. What was the reasoning? (I'm all het up without having seen the movie yet, but apartment hunting makes me stressed and cranky). Too much the end of Signs? Too left field/out of the blue?

Juliebird, I think the reasoning was, at least partially that including the monster squid means including *how* it was built, which means inserting the storyline of the artists and scientists that "disappeared" and all that. Even at nearly three hours there just wasn't time for that. Though I don't think the "end of the world" MacGuffin was the perfect replacement, I thought it was an acceptable one to get rid of a storyline that would've eaten a shitload of screen time that non-fans would not have appreciated, necessarily. And, frankly, I'm okay with the "overthrowing the old god" interpretation (the Zeus v. Kronos interpretation), but would have been happier if they'd elaborated on *that* theme more with Ozy.