Watchmen

[thecolorsblend]

Not a bad cast! I love Heston as Mason! But I've got some reservations about Redford as Veidt. He's basically got the look right. But the issue is Redford is so all-American and Veidt should have a distinctly European aristocrat flavor. Basically, Matthew Goode by other means.

Otherwise, that's a solid cast. Esp Roddy McDowell as Moloch, which is absolutely inspired.

I would love to see a Watchmen movie with this cast.

(Not sure about Caruso as Rorschach tho.)

[The Laughing Fish]

FLASHBACK 1996:

Wizard Magazine casts Watchmen

I'm impressed, this casting call is way better than the one they did for The Dark Knight Returns. William Hurt as Dan Dreiberg would've been great, he certainly had that everyman charm. Dennis Farina always had that cynical edge that would've suited him as the Comedian.

(Not sure about Caruso as Rorschach tho.)

Yeah, I agree with you there. David Caruso never came across as somebody with great acting range. Jackie Earle Haley, on the other hand, nailed it. I was always impressed by how he could emote, in and out of that mask.

[Silver Nemesis]

FLASHBACK 1996:

Wizard Magazine casts Watchmen

Ha! William Hurt was our top pick for Dreiberg when we discussed this subject last year, J. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus on the casting of that particular character.

Not a bad cast! I love Heston as Mason! But I've got some reservations about Redford as Veidt. He's basically got the look right. But the issue is Redford is so all-American and Veidt should have a distinctly European aristocrat flavor. Basically, Matthew Goode by other means.

I always thought Rutger Hauer would have been great as Veidt. He had the right Aryan features and athletic physicality, and he exuded an air of quiet intelligence that would have been perfect for Ozymandias.

[thecolorsblend]

Hauer as Veidt basically addresses all my concerns. Part of me is tempted to counter with Dolph Lundgren... except the guy is MASSIVE. Yes, Veidt is supposed to be in top shape. But something about Lundgren still seems physically off to me. So, Hauer fits the bill.

Also, I want to take a moment to call shenanigans on Dennis Farina as The Comedian. Seriously? The Wizard staff was fancasting a Watchmen movie made in the Nineties and it somehow never occurred to anybody to cast Tom Berenger as The Comedian?

Nothing against Farina. But if it's the Nineties and you need to cast an American gun-toting soldier comic book character and you ignore Tom Berenger, I have to question if you even know what your job is.

Anyway, not trying to rant or anything here, just saying...

[The Dark Knight]

In this instance I prefer the film ending rather than the comic version. The squid ultimately serves the same function, but it feels more like a random McGuffin in comparison. I think it's better and cleaner to make use of an existing character that should and would be feared, much like Snyder's later use of Superman in Dawn of Justice. It makes sense that Doctor Manhattan, who is the most coldly logical man in existence, would see the reasoning in this endgame, and go along with it. The comic has Manhattan leaving Earth, which in my opinion is only given added meaning in the film version when he does the same thing.

Revisiting this a couple of years later and I think a little differently about it now.

I like the movie ending for what it is and can see why it was done. Manhattan is already a scary, life threatening character that makes anyone bow in fear. So I see the logic in utilizing him. But if I really had to choose I'm going with the squid. It allows the threat to be seperate from humanity and not originating from America. Yes, the strike only targets New York and not various other locations around the world - which is a positive from the movie. But there's a degree of realism to the New York only hit which I like. The special effects team on the island have a huge task in making the squid, both in terms of resources and time. Veidt is wealthy, but even he would have his limits. One big strike is what he can muster, with humanity walking on eggshells in anticipation of more which could happen anywhere. Which will never happen, but they don't know that.

A big factor for me is how the disappearance of the author ties in with the Black Freighter story that's narrated throughout the book. It gives that tale more reason for existing other than just being a morality lesson. It all serves as a prologue to the conclusion. He's someone well known and wrote a story in which nearly everyone in it dies - and he himself dies after unwittingly assisting in the squid project. It also allows Veidt more ruthlessness when he destroys the boat. As a piece of literature I think this ties together nicely.

The Black Freighter wasn't intended to be inserted into the film, thus the author component has much less meaning, and therefore little reason for being there. Which is why I'm in the Director's Cut camp.

[The Joker]

The Minutemen entry from DC's "Who's Who".

[The Dark Knight]

I've been thinking about one of Moore's other big works, V For Vendetta, and its comparison to Watchmen.

V wears the face of a historical villain, who actually carries out the acts Guy Fawkes only dreamed of. That alone makes him seem like another villain by default. Veidt's destruction of New York City can paint him in a villainous light as well.

I believe there's this idea Norsefire is some exclusively right wing regime nightmare, but I push back on that. Moore himself, speaking of the movie adaption, said it was a "largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives – which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England." When you look at what Norsefire actually do it has a lot in common with our modern existence.

We do have a surveillance state with government and big corporations aligning with each other for power. Media outlets have been taken over by 'the message' and are essentially State run propaganda. Traffickers and pedophiles (Saville, Epstein, etc) are abetted by those in authority, and people are financially desperate. In resisting that, V seems to take on the role of a real hero, despite destroying key iconic infrastructure like a terrorist, which he also is. Not to mention the civilian casualties those incidents would bring.

In Watchmen, Veidt used large scale destruction to persuade government to step away from Armageddon, not to outright remove it. By cleansing structure altogether you are bringing about lawlessness and the eventual rise of some other ruling force that could be even worse.

If a ruling force is past being reasoned with or scared into compliance it's a question of what other real options V has to bring about serious change from the street level, even if anarchy is not your chosen political persuasion. Both stories end with an uncertain future, but I'm sure either outcome (Norsefire or V's legacy of anarchy) isn't great and brings about their own set of problems.