WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

In the Tse draft of the screenplay (now available for download here at WCM.Com), the Minutemen and the Crimebusters were renamed the Watchmen and the New Watchmen, respectively. What's more, Captain Metropolis and Mothman are never mentioned. Instead, Hollis and Sally are listed as the only "Watchmen" alive after the Comedian's death, and the "New Watchmen" meeting is led by Ozymandias.

Of course, neither group was even referenced in the Hamm draft, but let's not go there.

So, is the name change for the better, for the worse, or does it really make a difference? If Mothman and Metropolis don't make the final cut, would you miss them?

Discuss.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

I don't like the name changes. It doesn't seem necessary. I guess they think the audience isn't smart enough to keep track of the names. Merhaps the studio wanted a clearer connection to the title and they forced the issue.

As far as Ozymandias leading the "New Watchmen" meeting. I think that's a mistake as well. If Veidt came up with the idea of starting that team, would he have let The Comedian get away with making him look like a fool? Two steps toward that map boad with his lighter and Vedit would have tried to hand Blake his teeth. Nobody rains on Veidt's parade.

Also, its to far a journey for Vedit's character to plan the meeting, be the one pushing the crimefighting team, and then have The Comedian's tirade resonate with him as much as it did.

Also, Let's never mention the Hamm draft again. Each time its mentioned I have to go wash my hands 6 or 7 times.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin

It would be perfectly reasonable to keep the name "Minutemen" intact, and to keep characters like Mothman, Cpt. Metropolis, Silhouette, Dollar Bill, etc, in the film, even if the don't appear anywhere beyond old memorabilia and photographs. They don't have to be referenced in dialogue or appear as "live" characters, but to even appear briefly onscreen solidifies the world these characters live(d) in without taking any extra screen time or verbal exposition.

There's an annoying habit in series like Star Wars and Star Trek where the writers really overreached to make the stories keep coming back to the same characters. Having these peripheral team member appear in SOME form also illustrates their absence in 1985.

_________________
"HEY, man, I ain't buyin' THIS! Ripoff story ain't go no ENDIN'!"

First of all, I agree with the points made about Ozymandias leading the "New Watchmen." The Hayter draft, however, has Nite Owl leading them. This makes more sense to me, especially since he didn't have much to do in that scene to begin with. Besides, can you really see Ozymandias whimpering "My display..."?

As for the rape scene thing, I don't think that Nite Owl will be the one to interrupt it. Stephen McHattie is simply too old to play himself that young, and casting a younger actor for the flashback violates every statement Snyder has made on the subject. However, Vynson seems to be implying that if Nite Owl -- already an established character -- rescues Sally instead of Hooded Justice, it would give the impression that the superhero trend only extends to a half-dozen people. Not true. We already have the "Watchmen" portrait to prove that the team had no less than eight members.

As for Mothman, Sally could at least acknowledge that he's still alive and in the Maine nuthouse. It would only take up about five more seconds of screentime.

Now for the big one...

I actually don't have a problem with the name change. To be honest, I think it adds another layer onto the running "Who Watches the Watchmen" theme. Also, Vynson, Ozymandias didn't come up with the name -- he was never in the "Watchmen," just the "New Watchmen." The latter name was clearly chosen for nostalgic value.

Also, Doomsday, I don't think this is a matter of audience stupidity. It's more a matter of tying them into the title, which seems okay to me. And why does everyone pin the bad decisions on the studio? What if it was an inept producer? Maybe Tse came up with it. You can't pin all the bad decisions on the studio. Sometimes they actually make a good decision.

Finally, regarding Juvenal's quotation. The phrase itself, "Who Watches the Watchmen?" is unkind, but the title itself "Watchmen" is not necessarily unkind. The revolting masses took the title and put it into a talking point that fit their purposes. What's wrong with that?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.