Watchmen

"You miss my point. It's not that aliens can't be created reasonably viscerally on-screen - it's that we've already been told that this alien is a cinematic-mock-up, in story. Hence our suspension of disbelief is being stretched on several levels: We're being reminded of the cinematic-trickery on display at the worst possible time IE just when we're expected to buy into a horrifically destroyed vision of New York (which will require lots of cinematic trickery in itself). It risks undermining the effectiveness of both elements. I just think it's a huge technical & 'narrative' challenge when done on film."

I do not miss your point. I'd better respond to your point if I knew what you meant by "cinematic-mock-up" or "cinematic-trickery" though. However, you are saying that it would not work in the film. Yet it works visually in the book--quite well. My point is that Moore's story as he tells it would work on screen. Changing the ending is just another unnecessary change that has been a planned deception since Snyder claimed the ending was the same. This is set up just like Peter Jackson's "faithful" portrayal of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The same things that are happening here happened then. Again, that is not to say the movie would not work well, but it is to say that said changes would be enough to warrant the story as Watchmen related but not Watchmen. Thus, you can understand why fans of the book--the people Snyder was believed to be addressing as well as modern audiences unfamiliar with the material--would be upset by this change of direction, an unecessary directional change.

"You miss my point. It's not that aliens can't be created reasonably viscerally on-screen - it's that we've already been told that this alien is a cinematic-mock-up, in story. Hence our suspension of disbelief is being stretched on several levels: We're being reminded of the cinematic-trickery on display at the worst possible time IE just when we're expected to buy into a horrifically destroyed vision of New York (which will require lots of cinematic trickery in itself). It risks undermining the effectiveness of both elements. I just think it's a huge technical & 'narrative' challenge when done on film."

I do not miss your point. I'd better respond to your point if I knew what you meant by "cinematic-mock-up" or "cinematic-trickery" though. However, you are saying that it would not work in the film. Yet it works visually in the book--quite well. My point is that Moore's story as he tells it would work on screen. Changing the ending is just another unnecessary change that has been a planned deception since Snyder claimed the ending was the same. This is set up just like Peter Jackson's "faithful" portrayal of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The same things that are happening here happened then. Again, that is not to say the movie would not work well, but it is to say that said changes would be enough to warrant the story as Watchmen related but not Watchmen. Thus, you can understand why fans of the book--the people Snyder was believed to be addressing as well as modern audiences unfamiliar with the material--would be upset by this change of direction, an unecessary directional change.

"In the book only the US is attacked, and it would make a lot of sense if they stuck with that, to at least alleviate his previous associations. (But hell, if he attacked everyone, that would also be convincing as an 'outside threat' - especially with his base being on Mars and what have you)

I agree his previous affiliation is a sticking point - but he has already been painted as so inhumanly 'objective' in personality & physically freaky in nature that everyone finds being near him an 'alien' experience. That much is already ingrained in his public image. To have him then 'transcend' to Mars surely gives him all your major qualities of an alien being. Freaky talking, matter-moulding, giant glowing blue guy on Mars. Who starts attacking everyone. = Alien bastard. "

The problem with this point and others--in parts, not in whole--is that it at least seems to serve to justify the changes in the film at the expense of the original story. Without the original text, there is no film. Yet what is one of the most memorable elements of the book, as many readers will attest to, has supposedly been changed for ____ reasons. I am sure some fans will overlook this--they have--and others will not. Regardless, fans of the book should let their enthusiasm for Moore's story justify changes to the story for the whims of movie makers: rather, they should think about how their favored story is being told on screen and what that means in the larger scope of things. They should think about said changes critically and not make excuses for film alterations that are unnecessary to what is already a fantastic story.

"In the book only the US is attacked, and it would make a lot of sense if they stuck with that, to at least alleviate his previous associations. (But hell, if he attacked everyone, that would also be convincing as an 'outside threat' - especially with his base being on Mars and what have you)

I agree his previous affiliation is a sticking point - but he has already been painted as so inhumanly 'objective' in personality & physically freaky in nature that everyone finds being near him an 'alien' experience. That much is already ingrained in his public image. To have him then 'transcend' to Mars surely gives him all your major qualities of an alien being. Freaky talking, matter-moulding, giant glowing blue guy on Mars. Who starts attacking everyone. = Alien bastard. "

The problem with this point and others--in parts, not in whole--is that it at least seems to serve to justify the changes in the film at the expense of the original story. Without the original text, there is no film. Yet what is one of the most memorable elements of the book, as many readers will attest to, has supposedly been changed for ____ reasons. I am sure some fans will overlook this--they have--and others will not. Regardless, fans of the book should let their enthusiasm for Moore's story justify changes to the story for the whims of movie makers: rather, they should think about how their favored story is being told on screen and what that means in the larger scope of things. They should think about said changes critically and not make excuses for film alterations that are unnecessary to what is already a fantastic story.