It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suspicious changes in story and imagery in the Watchmen movie

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
**********SPOILER ALERT***********SPOILER ALERT******************

Ok, so I'm a big fan of Alan Moore and his much celebrated graphic novel Watchmen, so of course I had to go see the movie. I'll leave my opinion on the movie out of this, since you can read plenty of opinions and reviews elsewhere, but I noticed a few suspicious changes to the script and the imagery I'd like to share here:

1 - The scene where Dan (Night Owl) is in Veidt's (Ozymandius) office while Veidt is being interviewed, we see a Zeppelin flying straight towards the twin towers. Not so much in the original comic, so why add it to the movie? (It's really hard to see in the pic so I outlined it in red, but in the movie it's clearly the twin towers)



2 - The logo for Veidt Industries is very similar to the symbol of Freemasonry, yet in the movie it isn't as close...



3 - In the original comic Veidt wore a big "All Seeing Eye/Pyramid" on his chest, but in the movie it is nowhere to be seen...



4 - Last but not least, why omit the false flag Alien invasion??? Considering the loyalty to the story and artwork throughout the rest of the movie, I couldn't help but wonder why they drastically changed the ending. Maybe because some other forces have the fake Alien invasion in their script already?


Last but not least here's an interesting link on occult symbolism in the original comic:
thefishshow.com...

Anyone else catch anything suspicious? I'll gladly photoshop them and edit to add them to this OP.

Cheers!




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Great observations! Ive yet to see the movie, but will deff look out for these and other possible anomolies.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
There was still a false-flag attack, and I think that everyone who saw it (those with a critical awareness of the societal implications of such an act) could put aside giant blue schlong and come up with their own opinion about who the heroes really are in the story. I do believe that they should have shown the scenes in the book where Jon and Silk Specter II walked among the thousand of corpses. This may have shown the impact of the decision made better. I am surprised that Zack Snyder missed an opportunity to show some gore.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
okay man your overboard a bit don't you think? I just finished watching the "Watchmen". It was good, but long with tons of info to absorb. I totally think they took a huge stab at the "NWO". They touched base on everything from history to molecular physics and relativity. I really didn't see too much symbolism, but I was obviously waiting to see the trade center in the movie blow up. Never saw it, but there was deffinately a ground zero type location where the trade towers should have been. Funny how that works, and the best part was the Corporation was responsible for the giant explosion that brings everyone together in common unity. I guess the symbolism was there, but it didn't amount to a lot.
Good eye, but in that movie there is a lot deeper things going on!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Overboard? I don't get it, I just posted some curiosities.


Anyway, the thing that always stuck with me ever since I read the comic was the motivation of Veidt. Many people think the people behind a NWO are conscious satanists and pure evil, but what if they have 'noble' aspirations like Veidt?
What if they have some secret info about our future that makes them want to create a NWO for our benefit?

It could explain how someone like Obama, who looks like a nice guy and good hubby/father could be convinced to help 'them' out, and stay the course.

Would you sacrifice 1 child to save 10 children? Tough one, but I think I'm with Rorschach there.

(Edit to add: There was more occult symbolism in the original comic, check that link in the OP for some of them...)

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Psynarchist]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Veidt's company is also called Pyramid International



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psynarchist


1 - The scene where Dan (Night Owl) is in Veidt's (Ozymandius) office while Veidt is being interviewed, we see a Zeppelin flying straight towards the twin towers. Not so much in the original comic, so why add it to the movie? (It's really hard to see in the pic so I outlined it in red, but in the movie it's clearly the twin towers)


I'm not convinced the blimp is actually 'aimed' directly at the buildings. The blimps just appear to be at a low altitude near the buildings.


2 - The logo for Veidt Industries is very similar to the symbol of Freemasonry, yet in the movie it isn't as close...


It's not as close, but it's still close. Also, the way the pyramid is outlined referencing 'atoms', it actually fits in more with what Veidt's aim is regarding Manhattan's power, and kind of matches with Manhattan's hydrogen logo.


3 - In the original comic Veidt wore a big "All Seeing Eye/Pyramid" on his chest, but in the movie it is nowhere to be seen...


Well, they altered the Silk Spectre and Nite Owl's costumes too. It's not as if they just focused on Veidt or removed all references to the Eye of Providence and pyramids. That Veidt has made himself see all those sacrificed lives on his massive bank of screens taps into the 'all seeing' - the array of monitor screens don't let you forget who's eye it is. You can't get away from the general Pyramid references either.

To be honest, I always thought the Ozymandias costume was awful anyway and glad to see it not make an appearance in the film.


4 - Last but not least, why omit the false flag Alien invasion??? Considering the loyalty to the story and artwork throughout the rest of the movie, I couldn't help but wonder why they drastically changed the ending. Maybe because some other forces have the fake Alien invasion in their script already?


They kept the false flag element, which was the actual important 'twist' in the story anyway. The reasoning behind the removal of the Squid is actually fairly well covered in interviews and so on. Firstly, it would have tacked on a good 15 minutes to a film that's already pretty long to start off with. Secondly, it would have meant keeping a subplot in a film that had already had to remove several other subplots like the Black Freighter, Rorscharch's mask and Kitty Genovese, the breakdown of the marriage of Malcolm and Gloria Long.

Also, apparently it was felt that in a film that was already crammed with special effects and 'eye candy', the Squid reveal would have just been seen as 'just' another big special effect and would have lost a lot of impact.

Personally, I think the film ending made a lot more sense for a film audience.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   


I'm not convinced the blimp is actually 'aimed' directly at the buildings. The blimps just appear to be at a low altitude near the buildings.


I agree the zeppelin would pass in front of the towers if the scene would continue, but it cuts before then. Visually it looks like it's heading for the twin towers, which is drastically different from the original comic.




It's not as close, but it's still close. Also, the way the pyramid is outlined referencing 'atoms', it actually fits in more with what Veidt's aim is regarding Manhattan's power, and kind of matches with Manhattan's hydrogen logo.


But Veidt Industries is not based on Dr Manhatten, or on atoms. He build his empire with toys and selling merchandise, and the pyramid is referencing a delivery company. The original logo I think is an A and a V, the initials for Adrian Veidt. I think it may even be the reason why Alan Moore picked that name, considering his interests in magick and the occult.




Well, they altered the Silk Spectre and Nite Owl's costumes too. It's not as if they just focused on Veidt or removed all references to the Eye of Providence and pyramids. That Veidt has made himself see all those sacrificed lives on his massive bank of screens taps into the 'all seeing' - the array of monitor screens don't let you forget who's eye it is. You can't get away from the general Pyramid references either.


True, but that's the kinda stuff you realize when you read it again, or watch it again. I didn't catch half the symbolism when I first read it, and taking out the All-Seeing Eye and freemason symbolism doesn't make much sense since they add a lot of depth to the novel. I doubt my little sister will realize Veidt is the All Seeing Eye just because of those tv's; since there are tv walls like that in every electronics store. However, a big pyramid with the eye in it would be glaring you in the face in every scene Veidt would be in, giving the story the depth and mystery it's known for.



To be honest, I always thought the Ozymandias costume was awful anyway and glad to see it not make an appearance in the film.


This has not much to do with replacing the all seeing eye pyramid on his chest with the eye of horus on his belt. In the original comic they made sure you would see it in many instances...

I understand it would have been hard to implement the squid and the other subplots, which is why many directors said it's the unfilmable comic. To me, the movie plot was much weaker than the comic: no reference to an island, no mysterious creature under a tarp, no cover-up murders, etc. etc.
They didn't just rewrite the ending, the whole story got jambled up. In that respect Zack Snyder totally failed to 'bring it to the big screen'.

The 'not another big special effect' excuse is not very strong either since the blue energy balls that mysteriously appeared everywhere were a massive special effect as well.

Of course this watered down version is much better to comprehend for a film audience, and that could very well be the reason for these choices.

They sure rewrote history and diminished the original comic's power and message. How many people will ever go back to read the real story in all it's occult and alien glory?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psynarchist
I agree the zeppelin would pass in front of the towers if the scene would continue, but it cuts before then. Visually it looks like it's heading for the twin towers, which is drastically different from the original comic.


When the DVD comes out, I'm sure I could pick similar faults with the placements of cars and litter in the street or buildings not in the same places and so on. Whilst there's a fantastic attention to detail in some places, the film was never meant to render the comic 'frame for frame'.


But Veidt Industries is not based on Dr Manhatten, or on atoms. He build his empire with toys and selling merchandise, and the pyramid is referencing a delivery company. The original logo I think is an A and a V, the initials for Adrian Veidt. I think it may even be the reason why Alan Moore picked that name, considering his interests in magick and the occult.


I think the original logo was as much to represent a pyramid as as it was A for Adrian, and probably more so, with the V for Veidt (LOL) the main signifier for his name. After all, 'Veidt' is the name adorned on all the advertising not 'Adrian Veidt'.

Think of the changing with the ending, how Veidt's whole scheming is now purely based on him duping and using Manhattan's powers. The atomic reference now is literally the basis of Veidt's enterprise: the V placed on top of a pyramid outlined by a psuedo-atomic symbol.


True, but that's the kinda stuff you realize when you read it again, or watch it again.


I think what you've done is just noticed a relatively minor deviation from the book rather than found any kind of suspicious conspiracy.


I didn't catch half the symbolism when I first read it, and taking out the All-Seeing Eye and freemason symbolism doesn't make much sense since they add a lot of depth to the novel.


Well, there is no 'freemason symbol' per se, just something that's a bit similar.


I doubt my little sister will realize Veidt is the All Seeing Eye just because of those tv's; since there are tv walls like that in every electronics store. However, a big pyramid with the eye in it would be glaring you in the face in every scene Veidt would be in, giving the story the depth and mystery it's known for.


Your little sister wouldn't pick up on the fact that Veidt is all-seeing despite the prolonged scene where he's actually sat in front of the monitors watching news and CCTV footage from all over the world? A scene that culminates in him saying he made himself literally watch the lives and deaths of millions? The only way this could have been more obvious is if a closed caption ran across the bottom saying 'VEIDT SEES ALL'.

Also, no offence, but you probably won't realise it but you're pushing an incredibly Ameri-centric view here. The 'Eye of Providence' really isn't that familiar to the rest of the world. You possibly think American money and the Great Seal of the U.S. has universal significance, but I can guarantee that for the rest of the world it has far, far less of cache than it does in America. I myself, at 41-years-old have never handled or seen American money or seen the Great Seal on anything but the internet &c.

Yes, the comic and film are set in America and yes, your little sister is familiar with the symbol, but it doesn't have the same kind of cache internationally.



This has not much to do with replacing the all seeing eye pyramid on his chest with the eye of horus on his belt. In the original comic they made sure you would see it in many instances...


Although the Eye of Providence is the point you've been going on about? The Eye of Horus fits in as much of the Eye of Providence in that its authentically Egyptian and ties in with Veidt's obsession with Pharoahs &c and has elements of 'all-seeing', protection as well as the funerary aspect. All these things fit perfectly with a man watching the rest of the world, is out to save the world as a whole but sends millions to their death in the process. I'd say the Eye of Horus is incredibly apt.


I understand it would have been hard to implement the squid and the other subplots, which is why many directors said it's the unfilmable comic. To me, the movie plot was much weaker than the comic: no reference to an island, no mysterious creature under a tarp, no cover-up murders, etc. etc.
They didn't just rewrite the ending, the whole story got jambled up. In that respect Zack Snyder totally failed to 'bring it to the big screen'.


I don't think it was weaker, just not as broad in scope. I don't think it was weaker because the 'island colony' and the squid (there were several cover-up murders in the film). Just because there's more of something doesn't mean it's better or stronger because of it.


The 'not another big special effect' excuse is not very strong either since the blue energy balls that mysteriously appeared everywhere were a massive special effect as well.


Not on the scale of creating a massive giant quid. It would have also needed to introduce a new visual vocabulary to the film that would have in turn needed signposting much earlier on in the film and relied on 'the island colony' subplot to gradually introduce it.

The actual squid itself means nothing, it's the false flag itself that's what is important, whether it's in the comic of the film. There's no point actually focusing on the squid itself as it was just about a faked external threat. Manhattan fitted the bill as much as the squid did and was already in the story. Why introduce new elements for the sake of it when you're already struggling with the length of the film and having to cut, compress and conflate various story elements as it is? It makes no sense at all.

How do squids or aliens tie in with what Veidt is about anyway? There's nothing inherently alien or tentacle-ish about his beliefs or the symbolism he's chosen for himself. He's just a (very smart) man with a plan, and the plan was a 'false flag' operation. There's nothing about his character that screams 'alien squid'! If the squid wasn't in the book, there's no way on earth you'd be sat thinking, what that ending really needed was an alien squid.


Of course this watered down version is much better to comprehend for a film audience, and that could very well be the reason for these choices.


Which, funnily enough, is what I said earlier. A comic audience isn't the same as a film audience and expectations from a comic aren't the same as a film - very different mediums.


They sure rewrote history and diminished the original comic's power and message. How many people will ever go back to read the real story in all it's occult and alien glory?


The comics message? The comics message(s) isn't reliant on the squid or relatively minor details.

Governments and big corporations are corrupt, 'evil' organisations but it's never quite as black and white as it often appears. Even superheroes and people we generally look up to or just look to (which may include the government) are complicated things with foibles with many shades of grey' we're relying on broken things and people. Surely that's the real crux of the story?

How many people really see any comic-based films and then pick-up the comic? It's really, really very few. Comic sales should be through the roof these days given the amount of comic-related films that have come out since the 1990s. Even after V for Vendetta I was coming across people who go as far as wearing the masks and using quotes from the film in their signatures and avatars &c, yet had 'never got round to reading the book'.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


The original comic didn't have the Zeppelin going towards the twin towers though, so why add something so sickening as that into the film? Does the director not have any remorse and want people to have to remember thousands of loved ones dying for no good reason what so ever?

That is so disturbing how the director of the film(not the comic book creator), would add something in like that. They like to play with our unconscious thats for sure.

You dont seem to know what a story crux really is, your over analyzing the story and missing the point Psynarchist is making.

" You come any closer, you're gonna get this in your goddamn squidgy face !"

- Roy Chess

[edit on 16-3-2009 by unknown known]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by unknown known]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by unknown known]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
In the end manhatten looks like the biggest idiot of them all. Kills the only person there with the brains and the balls to really change the world for the better. Id punch him in his blue face.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Yes, I was really mad about the ending too. Killed my favorite character


But did anyone pick up on the similarities of theme Watchmen has with the Dark Knight (Batman?) I was shocked at how similar the endings were. *SPOILER* Both end with someone argreeing to take the blame for some horrible atrocity they did not do, and both endings really make a huge point of how it was really for the best for mankind. Also, both have a major character that is not a nice guy who thinks that life is a joke.

I kept thinking as I watched that it was the most blatant outing of the NWO stuff I'd ever seen in a major movie, and that includes Eyes Wide Shut. I mean, the bad guy has a huge Pharoh complex. Also, I thought that the cover-up theme in both of those movies may be trying to rationalize the lies surrounding 9/11. Just a thought, but I really think someone was trying to tell us something with Watchmen.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   


but I really think someone was trying to tell us something with Watchmen.


Yes, his name is Alan Moore:


In 1963, JFK was assassinated by a man who claimed to be a patsy before being shot himself. The term Conspiracy Theorist was coined at that time as a designation for anyone who did not accept the official explanation of this. A schism formed in society between people who accepted the explanation and those who didn't. Those who did continued to cut their hair square and support the war in Southeast Asia. Those who didn't said # this, we reject you, we reject your frightened, lying society, your docile, sheep-like culture. We will make our own world and live in it. These people were called the hippies. Alan Moore strikes me as both a hippy and a conspiracy theorist, although maybe I'm reading too much into his work. But probably, like the rest of his generation, he has spent his life obsessing over the mystery of JFK's murder, and those that followed. When I was young the hippies were everywhere, it seemed; they were were smart, they were angry, they were still young and they were very, very, beautiful. The media has spent the entire intervening time teaching you that the hippies were all some witless "oh wow, dude" stereotype, but Alan Moore is more like the hippies I remember. Watchmen is very much a hippy's view of the society they rejected.







...and he tried to tell us that at some point some folks may try to to install global government with a fake global threat, and that the truth behind such a scheme could be very sinister.

Zack Snyder didn't seem to care too much about that aspect of the story and frames Doc Manhatten, giving the whole thing a soap opera spin.
One blog commenter put it nicely:


My biggest concern is that this new ending might take out the "other worldly" threat that the giant "alien" squid presented. One reason that Watchmen hit me so hard when I read it is how it ties in to "real world" conspiracy theories. The story goes that Wernher von Braun (famous German/American rocket scientist) was quoted in the sixties that their were forces orchestrating various threats in order to bring the world together under one government. They started with Communism, then went to Global Terrorism, then to an extra terrestrial threat. He supposedly said this in the 1960s. I just don't see how a "Manhattan Machine" is going to work to incorporate that threat and keep that otherworldly element in place.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Psynarchist]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Thank you, that is a great reason why the ending should not have been changed, the comic should've been presented EXACTLY how moore wanted it...

too bad everythings corrupted and there are no Rorschachs



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join