Lord_Magmar posted:

She's been super hardcore christian on twitter for ages at this point as far as I can tell. Like deep in the everything christian is good and Jesus saves your soul levels, as opposed to just generically christian because it's there.

Which yeah, puts her in a position to experience, and believe in, these sorts of points of view. Now she herself hasn't actuallys aid anything strictly speaking wrong, but it's not a great look right now or ever, first with the Anti-COVID vaccine thing, and then turning out her source on that is the dude just shown a few posts up.

Mordiceius posted:

I remember going and seeing a midnight showing of Watchmen and when I was walking back to my car there were two very large, angry, neckbeards in the parking lot loudly talking about how the movie was ruined because Zack Snyder refused to do the giant alien squid and how it was basically a crime against humanity because there was no stupid squid..

Necrothatcher posted:

Her agent must be smacking their head against their desk rn.

Basebf555 posted:

The issue people tend to have with the squid not being in the movie is that they substituted something that breaks the plot if you think about it a little bit. If they'd swapped the squid out for another outside force instead of Manhattan himself, I don't think we would've seen those complaints.

Basebf555 posted:

The issue people tend to have with the squid not being in the movie is that they substituted something that breaks the plot if you think about it a little bit. If they'd swapped the squid out for another outside force instead of Manhattan himself, I don't think we would've seen those complaints.

Inzombiac posted:

Yeah, they could have seeded a fake energy signal coming from space and have the same ending with the explosions.

Squid was still better because the absolute weirdness of it is kinda the keystone of it working.

2house2fly posted:

Most of the world already hates and fears Dr Manhattan, so all you've got to do is make the Americans hate him too. I imagine the unspoken next step of the plan would be for all the world's governments to give massive amounts of money and power to the one person on earth who worked most closely with Manhattan and would have the best idea on how to develop weapons to fight him, one Adrian Veidt

Basebf555 posted:

The key is that you need something where there isn't one specific country to blame, so that everyone is united and nobody gets trigger happy and sparks the nuclear apocalypse. Manhattan as a threat doesn't do that, he's too identified as an American weapon so it's hard to see why Veidt would choose that method and risk some other country just saying gently caress it we can't take a chance let's just nuke the Americans.

Veidt actually seems to not care about gaining more money and power. He's perfectly confident that his intellect and ability make money and power a simple thing, he can get them whenever he chooses to. He really does honestly want to prevent the end of the world, he's just incredibly ruthless about accomplishing it.

RBA Starblade posted:

Yeah, he wants to prevent the end of the world, and he also wants to be the one to do it.

Aces High posted:

Wait, I'm confused, I thought the point, regardless of whether it's space squids or Manhattan nuking major cities, was that Ozymandias thinks he's right but he's going to be wrong and he will become like the statue in the poem.

Are people in here claiming he's actually right and the squids would prove him right but the Manhattan project wouldn't?

Basebf555 posted:

The key is that you need something where there isn't one specific country to blame, so that everyone is united and nobody gets trigger happy and sparks the nuclear apocalypse. Manhattan as a threat doesn't do that, he's too identified as an American weapon so it's hard to see why Veidt would choose that method and risk some other country just saying gently caress it we can't take a chance let's just nuke the Americans.

Grendels Dad posted:

Also, I prefer the movie ending because America needed to be humbled for the plan to work.

Grendels Dad posted:

In the movie, every country capable of nuclear strikes just had a taste of what nuclear war actually means. I'd say it is very likely they would be more hesitant to pull triggers than before.

Also, I prefer the movie ending because America needed to be humbled for the plan to work*. Before the squid, international politics consisted of Nixon swinging his big blue dick around, I don't see how the squid would change that mindset for long enough to foster meaningful cooperation.

Or did I miss/forget that the squid finally made Nixon step down somehow?

edit: To clarify, "work" as in put a temporary stop to the immediate threat of nuclear war, not the way Ozy means.

BigglesSWE posted:

Watchmen is a shallow, cynical and boring mess of a movie and the absence of mega squid is not even close to the biggest problem in it.

quote:

“We wrote Robert Redford a letter, describing our intention with his usage in the show. And, also, what our general sense of what Watchmen was to us. And, an incredibly high esteem in which we hold him both as an actor, and a purveyor of the arts. And, also, as a prominent progressive liberal, who shares many of the same ideologies with a number of us, behind the scenes. And, we left the door open in that letter, should he choose to respond to it, that we would invite him to come and play on the show, if he were game. He’s a very busy man, and he has yet to respond to the letter. But, hopefully, one day we will cross paths, and that door will always be open.”

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

It's also worth mentioning that in the Watchmen TV show, Veidt is still following through on the squids. He teleports a bunch of tiny squids that rain from the sky every so often just to keep people on their toes. Otherwise they would just forget over time.

YOLOsubmarine posted:

Watchmen is a very cynical book so it sounds like your problem is with the source material.

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

It's also worth mentioning that in the Watchmen TV show, Veidt is still following through on the squids. He teleports a bunch of tiny squids that rain from the sky every so often just to keep people on their toes. Otherwise they would just forget over time.

BigglesSWE posted:

It’s cynical in the same way it’s shallow: it treats the source material like it’s “cool” and obsesses over visual representation, without giving a moments thought to what the visuals means other than “cool suite, dude!”

teagone posted:

Noticed Letitia Wright is trending on twitter. Apparently she's an anti-vaxxer?

Flying Zamboni posted:

I enjoyed the Watchmen TV show's portrayal of old Ozymandias as someone who, being successful in his life's work, drops any pretence of being altruistic in his goals and is just arrogant and bitter toward people who are not sufficiently grateful to him for killing millions of people.

To me it was a natural place to go with the character given how he's written in the comic.

I had problems with the show and some of the plot around his character but I though they nailed that aspect of it.

josh04 posted:

The comic strongly suggests that Ozymandias is motivated for his mass murder in large part by the Comedian having humiliated him that one time.

multijoe posted:

Veidt's character just immediately does a 180 as soon as the comic ends though, to the point of recording a video confession for the president pretty much just to flex. It just does not seem like the same character in the slightest, who is incredibly cautious and reserved in his actions at every point in his scheme, and then just becomes a vainglorious blowhard who can't bear people not knowing how epicly clever he is.

josh04 posted:

The comic strongly suggests that Ozymandias is motivated for his mass murder in large part by the Comedian having humiliated him that one time.

2house2fly posted:

BigglesSWE posted:

If the movie had an inkling of the cynical depth that the book has then you’d have a point. But it don’t, so you don’t.

It’s cynical in the same way it’s shallow: it treats the source material like it’s “cool” and obsesses over visual representation, without giving a moments thought to what the visuals means other than “cool suite, dude!”

I guess a neater way to put it is: the book has a cynical view on superheroes. The movie, IMO, has a view of superheroes that is cynical in the context of it being an adaptation.

Movie bad. Book good.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Look man, if I wanted io9's take I would just visit the website. You don't have to parrot it back to us.

It's very obvious that Watchmen: the Movie does not think that its source material is exclusively "cool" because otherwise there's no reason to show one of the protagonists getting horny from giving some street thug a horrific gruesome compound fracture. That one scene detonates this whole premise.