The very inclusion of Bubastis was nothing more than fan service, since the new ending throws away the genetic engineering concepts in the book.

And yes, his CG is absolutely awful.

Which is silly, because the fans apparently have an active hostility to the very notion of being serviced.

(Bubastis was already silly-looking as all hell in the books let's not lie)

How is his moral reasoning childish?

Well uh without getting too much into it uh how about the multiple occasions where he summarily executes people

I mean, Kovacs is an understandable character, even a sympathetic one. But he's not a good guy and he's certainly not admirable.

Let's give you an example you might be more willing to bend the idea towards:

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l8...e-movie-07.jpg

Oh I thought we were talking about his scene at the end.

Rorschach doesn't compromise as a product of his worldview. He's not literally a mental child but his reactionary nature and black & white worldview all indicate simple moral reasoning that many people grow out of into adulthood. On Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development he'd be stuck in Stage 4.

Rorschach works on his gut, and his character is supposed to appeal to our instincts. It's natural for us to react to Ozymandias's master plan with revulsion and to instinctively feel like everybody should know.

The movie makes Rorschach seem principled instead of paranoid and simple, so the moral uncertainty that the ending should make us feel is killed because there's little to indicate that Rorschach could very well be wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I heard somewhere that you liked Live Free Green Screen with it's Gerry Anderson hover plane amongst other travesties of pathetic special effects.

I mean, I've not seen Watchmen yet so it's possible that the cg really was as bad as Die Hard or many of the other films to have come out lately with shitty graphics (Indiana Jones and the Narnia films being some of the worst offenders) but is one character worth of bad special effects really that much of a big deal these days? You can't expect Weta to make every film can you.

Do you think Rorschach was wrong? I don't know if his being simple and paranoid has much to do with it. The ends didn't justify the means for him; he viewed the compromise as a total hypocrisy.

Rorschach is right for the wrong reasons in my opinion, but that's a part of the uncertainty that's supposed to make you think about the implications. The movie just sort of accepts that Rorschach is right, though, and even throws in Nite Owl spergin out over Kovacs gettin blowed up for no good reason because I guess we're supposed to feel bad about it? *shrug*

I watched it a second time today, and going into it with this mindset helped me see past some of the hollywood to understand what was driving the less-obvious characters. It's subtle, but I think it's there that the characters have their own ego hangups that cause them to become superheroes. It's just that in the movie, it's more of a "read as much into it as you want to" deal, whereas the graphic novel makes you hit every point to get from A to G.

In general, I think it's acceptable to like the movie for different reasons than the graphic novel. People too close to the source material are still looking for fidelity and overlooking the redemptive parts. (I.E. friendship between partners and the moral anguish at having to give one up for the sake of principles. A punch to the face accomplishes the same feat in this movie as more extraneous sex would have.)

My big problem with the film is its adaptive qualities. For something that attempts such a faithful adaptation, they change so many of the little things for no readily apparent reason that it shifts the tone of the entire theme, and The Watchmen is built on the little things.

It's fun to watch, though, so I'm not gonna say that people just shouldn't see it or that they can't see it without reading the comics.

I read in an interview that Rorschach was inspired by Batman. I think Moore described him as a "murdering socipath." It's so interesting that he is the character people are immediately drawn to.

I would say, however, that the most human character is the new Nite Owl, ED and all.

Rorschach was inspired by Objectivist superhero The Question.

This is something I'm hearing more and more as time passes about this movie. The novel was amazing because of this and the vast majority of people I know who have seen it have complained about this more than anything. I know it's the biggest reason that I don't want see it but then again...

... Vemp said in his blog's radio cast "You have to judge this movie as a movie" and I guess, in the end, it makes sense. Two different mediums = two different end products. One is better than the other. I'll stick with the better one.

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

From wiki-article: "In an interview for the BBC's Comics Britannia, Moore stated that Rorschach was created as a way of exploring how an archetypical Batman-type character—a driven, vengeance-fueled vigilante—would be like in the real world. He concluded that the short answer was "a nutcase.""

How about it, we are both right!