Watchmen: What’s different?

I just saw an early screening of Watchmen. To sum up: This is one of the best movies ever made. And I say that as a huge fan of the graphic novel.


While it’s still fresh in my mind, I’ve flipped through my copy of the book and made what I hope is a fairly comprehensive list of differences — stuff that either got cut or abbreviated for the film. I figure it’d be interesting for Watchmen fans who are wondering what did and didn’t make it in. I will say, though, that nothing felt missing or unceremoniously/arbitrarily changed. The abbreviations were made in the name of pacing, and what works in a comic book doesn’t always work on a movie screen. I’m thankful to the filmmakers for actually realizing this — and once you see the movie, I hope you will be, too.


The following scenes/plot elements from the graphic novel, unless noted otherwise, are not in the film:

– While it’s heavily implied in the graphic novel, the Comedian is explicitly identified as the gunman responsible for JFK’s assassination.
– Rorschach’s first visit to Happy Harry’s.
– Veidt is visited by Dan instead of Rorschach.
– All scenes involving the newsvendor and the various tangential subplots that converge on his street. He does get a couple brief cameos, though.
– Captain Metropolis isn’t present at the Crimebusters meeting (and the group is renamed “Watchmen” here). Ozymandias runs the meeting instead, with the same results.
– Rorschach’s first confrontation with Moloch (both confrontations are abbreviated into a single scene, though Rorschach unfortunately doesn’t drink any raw eggs).
– Janey Slater’s visit to Nova Express (the relevant plot points are shored up by her appearance at Dr. Manhattan’s TV taping).
– All of Hollis Mason’s present-day scenes, save for his initial beer night with Dan. Yes, this includes the scene with the rioters.
– Dan and Laurie’s encounter with the street gang is MUCH more violent.
– Laurie’s return to the military compound, following Dr. Manhattan’s TV appearance.
– The flashback of Jon and his father is shortened to a very brief scene of Jon working on the watch.
– Laurie’s visit to Veidt.
– Dr. Manhattan’s role in the police strike.
– All references to Kovacs’ landlady.
– The detectives’ various investigations; we only see them once, at Blake’s apartment.
– Kovacs’ psychiatric sessions are all rolled into a single scene.
– The entire subplot involving Dr. Long’s home life and gradual breakdown.
– Kovacs does not relate the story about Kitty Genovese and the dress from which he fashions his mask.
– Rorschach’s method of dispatching the kidnapper is different (yet equally effective/disturbing).
– Dan and Laurie’s dialogue aboard Archie is abbreviated significantly.
– Laurie does not smoke in the film.
– The sex scene between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre is depicted in much more explicit detail.
– The New Frontiersman newsroom is not seen until the end of the film.
– The various missing artists/scientists are not seen — only alluded to.
– Laurie is only referred to by her Americanized surname (Jupiter) and never by her original Polish surname (Juspeczyk), although her original surname is visible when we see her POV when she tries on Dan’s night-vision goggles.
– The trip to retrieve Rorschach’s spare costume (he recovers his possessions during the prison riot, before meeting up with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre).
– Silk Spectre’s trip to Mars is slimmed down for what is probably a much better pacing (notable omissions: the flashbacks to Laurie’s early training as a teenager, and her confrontation with Blake at the dinner party).
– Rorschach and Nite Owl’s arrival at Karnak is abbreviated.
– Cadence of the interaction between Veidt and his staff at Karnak is quite different, though with the same end result.
– Veidt’s speech is mercifully abbreviated for the sake of pacing. Lots of cool action here, too.
– The alien squid is not used; instead, nuclear bombs bearing Dr. Manhattan’s energy signature do the job — and it’s more far-reaching than just New York. Same result, but better-suited to a movie screen.
– The film does not linger on the gory details of the post-apocalyptic carnage.
– Nite Owl witnesses Dr. Manhattan’s altercation with Rorschach, and then proceeds to take his grief out on Veidt.
– Veidt’s “I did it!” is gone, and his display of vulnerability is a bit less pronounced here (he doesn’t ask Dr. Manhattan whether he “did the right thing”).
– Dr. Manhattan’s departure is handled a little differently.
– The final scene between Dan, Laurie, and Sally is much different.
– Much more frequent swearing overall, particularly from the Comedian and Silk Spectre. Quite a few f-bombs, which weren’t in the book.
– A few weird timeline discrepancies. In the book, Walter Kovacs was born in 1940; in the film, TV news reports identify him as “a 35-year-old male,” which moves his birth date to 1950. This would make him 16 years old at the Crimebusters (“Watchmen”) meeting, which one assumes still occurs in 1966 a la the book. An odd change, considering actor Jackie Earle Haley is 48 years old. Also, Big Figure was imprisoned circa 1965 in the book; in the film, this is changed to 1970.
– All the bookend newspaper articles and book excerpts are obviously gone, though all necessary backstory is aptly conveyed, thanks in large part to a very cool opening credit sequence.
– Tales of the Black Freighter is missing entirely, though it’s getting its own separate DVD release at the end of March.

42 Responses to “ “Watchmen: What’s different?”

  1. hittbutt says:

    The assassination of JFK was in the movie. Brains flew then, the screen went to Blake as he packed up his gun.

  2. troy says:

    For those of you that are coming on here and saying “the watchmen movie sucks donkey cock” etc ,i’ve gotta ask have you even read the book?

    Your not backing yourselves up at all and you are making yourselves sound like jackasses.i think that synder did a great job at adapting a difficult book he cut where he needed to to keep it under 3 hrs and I’m fine with that, if you want the extended cut then wait for the dvd.

    Some changes i wasn’t real happy about (john being framed) but i understand why it had to be done, you can’t end with a giant blob that kills everyone with the power of its mind as it dies, the movie has to appeal to people that arn’t fans of the comic if its gonna succeed.

    The casting was overall good Jackie Earle Haley was freaking awsome as Rorschach a great brutal ,primal proformance that really set the tone for the movie.

    So to conclude my rant:
    1.Thats how you backup your opinion (for all the blind haters)

    Shit if you don’t like it thats fine, but don’t act like a dick about it because all your gonna do is put off people that might like the movie and deter them from seeing it, and if this 150 million doillar experiment fails when do you think were going to see another dark,gritty comic adaptation made specificaly for the adult demographic?…………never

    Then all you asses will miss out on some great movies…along with the rest of us..

  3. Johnny Postman says:

    I thought the movie was so-so but aside from the difference between the book/film, did anyone else think the the soundtrack was terrible? The choice of songs didn’t help and ended up being more of a distraction from the film more than anything.

  4. Alan Kleiman says:


    The squid wasn’t necessary, but I don’t think Dr. Manhattan was a good choice. Because they turned it from “the world joined in a tenuous alliance against a single enemy” into “Threatened Nuclear Holocaust? That’s a paddlin’.”

    They literally turned Dr. Manhattan into God, watching over mankind and making sure they behave. Which is internally consistent, as humanity does have a better chance against a squid than against the Almighty, but still a poor choice for a change. Humanity has no choice but behave now, hence the ‘everyone’s just happy happy hippies’ from the New Frontiersman editor. It loses the ‘will this really solve anything?’ question hinted at in Watchmen. But… that’s what the movie does. It answers a lot of questions that were cooler unanswered. I didn’t need to see the Comedian killing JFK. It’s cool enough that they hint at it — they could have just shown Blake on the grassy knoll, as they do in the comics. It’s the same with the Silhouette. Her lesbianism was only hinted at, her murder something the other heroes didn’t speak of. Again, subtlety is not Snyder’s forte. Action sequences are. He really should stick to Frank Miller books. Maybe he can save the Daredevil franchise.

  5. Alan Kleiman says:

    The movie was garbage; I was always in the camp that thought the movie shouldn’t be made, but I’m certain that it should have been done by a more talented, more nuanced director. It’s as if he had the amazing talent to make almost every bit of dialogue sound like it’s from a much worse comic book, and there was a hell of a lot of dialogue. Honestly, a word for word adaptation of the comic would have been more palatable.

    What I thought was particularly annoying was how all depth was removed from the character. Rorschach is clearly unstable, but clearly not the extreme right-wing, misogynistic, gay-hating paranoid nutjob he is in the comic. Now he’s just a Batman Who Kills. They just removed the lines that help round out the character. But they did that all around, they turned almost all characters 1-dimensional, removed all doubt from the conclusion as well! Everything’s just a hippie commune.

    I realize that the comic couldn’t be turned into a movie unchanged, but if the challenge to create a proper adaptation exceeds the director’s talents (and greater directors, like Terry Gilliam realized the difficulty of the project) then it’s the director’s own fault to carry on. It’s not like we haven’t been hearing Alan Moore’s opinion on the subject for at least a decade.

    One thing that’s been bothering me is the Sally Jupiter attempted rape. It was far more violent than the comic… though all fight scenes were more violent than their comic counterparts. I thought it seemed somewhat sadistic and maybe misogynistic, but I may just be carrying the baggage of 300’s entirely unnecessary rape-including subplot.

  6. maxidid says:

    Thought the Dr. Manhattan’s penis shots reminded me of Lost and Damned too much.

  7. Brokren says:

    I saw watchman over the weekend. It sucked major donkey cock.

  8. Jostein says:

    I agree with Ryan, this movie was amazing.

    Loved all the actors, perfect casting if you ask me. particularly Rorschach and Comedian.

  9. Skrattybones says:

    The whole “giant squid/ Manhattan bomb” thing. I’m pretty confident that the decision to use a giant alien squid in the graphic novel was purely a product of the times. “What is something utterly terrifying?” circa 1980s?

    Well, let’s have a look at the culture of the times. Alien and Aliens jump out. Predator, maybe. The ‘big thing’ throughout the 80s was a fascination with outer space and with aliens showing up and causing a ruckus. Present-day the big scary thing are terrorists getting nukes, or more generally the idea of major cities being nuked.

    Both devices attempt to create the same sense of terror in the audience, and I would say both of them worked.

    Of course the Manhattan Bomb works just as well as a giant alien squid telepathically exploding. Both would present a worldwide sense of just how much death and destruction would exist if nuclear war happened — enough incentive for everybody in the Cold War to stop.

    No, the world wouldn’t unite against America because of the Manhattan device — they make a point to show Russia moving on the Afghan border to see if America was trying to pull the wool over the world’s eyes when Manhattan leaves. As far as the entire world is concerned, Manhattan is a rogue agent.

    No, the world wouldn’t stoop back into fighting because “Manhattan leaves for good”. The world doesn’t know that. As far as the world knows, Manhattan could be hanging out on Mars, waiting to attack. Ozymandias could just fire up the generator and hit some more cities if the world descends back into chaos. There are any number of ways for him to keep the world in check now.

  10. Forceman4077 says:

    The Hollis death scene is one of a few things that where cut at the end for time. See about 45 mins was cut to get to the 2 and a half hour run time. So it will show up in the Director’s Cut theater release around July if it does well enought at the box office or in the DVD.

  11. d0ug18 says:

    Hi Ryan,

    Thanks for the write up, I noticed a lot of the same things and will probably tell others who watch the movie about them. One thing that I thought was interesting was that the alternative fuel things that were already in the book ended up coming in at the end of the movie. I’m not sure if this was more of a thinking to keep it more in line with reality since we currently are going through the same thing.

    Other small things: Laurie’s smoking, Nite Owl’s robot suit (might have been in the background, but I didn’t see it and they didn’t bring it up) and the Comedian’s S&M like mask (I think they did this because it would look really strange to movie goers and cover up the actors face, something I noticed that they really don’t like to do much in superhero movies)

    Can’t wait to hear more about it

  12. […] anyone who hasn’t read Watchmen in a while and has seen the film, I recommend perusing this fairly comprehensive list of the changes. There are quite a few that I’d forgotten about or not noticed in there. It […]

  13. AliZeyk says:

    For all the “Manhattan Bomb” detractors:

    I think the change works, and works really well. It ties in many themes of the movie. It changes it from the fear of the alien we get in the comic, to an old fashioned “Behave, or God(s) will destroy you”.

  14. Shaun says:

    I saw the movie last night, some comments, both specific and general.

    1) If the CGI was available to make the destruction of New York similar to the book, and I can’t believe it was not, why change it other than for the sake of being different? While Viedt’s creation of the “alien” being was far fetched, was it that much more of a reach than the whole idea behind the creation of Dr. Manhattan? In addition, the change in means of unifying destruction required that Viedt instead of creating the squid create instead a “tacheon field” to block Dr. Manhattan’s vision of his future. That felt right out of Star Trek, not Watchmen. This change did not work for me. If developing the story line as in the book would have taken time, some of the fight scenes could have been easily trimmed to accomodate.
    2) How can you not have have the Viedt: “In the end, I did the right thing didn’t I John?” Dr. Manhattan: “End, Nothing ever ends” sequence and instead have Laurie do the inane “I think John would say that nothing ever ends” thing at the end of the movie. That line sums up both Viedt and John. I was pretty upset that Snyder skipped that. I think this is a big enough change to make the list of differences.
    3) I felt the movie made the “Watchmen” (aside from Dr. Manhattan) more metahuman than masked crime fighters. To me, this is a big change, so for example, Rorschach’s strength came from his vigalent “no compromise” mantra and his anger and Night Owl was more techno-geek than they were crime fighting super-beings. Viedt’s intelligence aside, I never read anything superhuman into these characters, yet the otherworldly strength they possess in the movie indicates otherwise.
    4) I thought some of the violence was gratuitous and not necessary to move along the story. A prime example of this was Rorschach taking the meat cleaver to the murderer of the little girl as opposed to leaving him in the burning house with one of his “tools” and a choice as he did in the book. (Even though it was pretty clear in the book that Rorschach would have killed him had he emerged from the burning building).
    5) Please, please, please, no more “slo-mo” to “fast-mo” transitions in action scenes. For that matter, no more scences ever that copy cat the Matrix. When they sent the police up to get Rorschach in Moloch’s apartment, I swear I heard someone say “Your men are already dead” in a Hugo Weaving voice.
    6) Also different from the book: At the end it looked like Sally Jupiter was visiting Laurie and Dan in his house (conveniently not destroyed in the energy burst?). I recall them Dan and Laurie visiting Sally in California at the end of the book and their still being “on the lamb” as masked crime fighters were still persona non grata.
    7) I would like to see the movie again just to see what is incorporated in the background from the drawings in the book. Was there anything about the Pale Horses concert? (recognizing that most of the New York street scenes were absent). Still love the “Gunga Diner”.

  15. Mary Frances says:

    Hey I can’t wait for this movie. And thanks a lot for the warning. I want to see it not knowing anything but what I have read from the comic books. 🙂

  16. Dauragon says:

    I really wish I could have hated this movie, but I enjoyed it a great deal. I feel like they made all the right changes in order to make it work on screen.

    This sucks… I feel like I’m gonna have to be Capitan of the Watchmen Movie Defence Force for the rest of my life now…

  17. The Quiff Is Dead says:

    Saw Watchmen this evening. I was sure I had seen Hollis killed by ‘knot-heads’ in a trailer somewhere. It’s actually in the Japanese trailer at 0:43 here

  18. Harry says:

    I enjoyed the film. The new ending made sense to me. Jon leaves Earth in what everyone assumes is a confused mental state, returns, and proceeds to blow stuff up. Why the US isn’t blamed is because everyone knows he went AWOL.

    I did think the actress who played Silk Specter II had some flat delivery of her lines. Also, I thought some of the song choices were jarring with the scene they were placed with. I’m not talking about setting classical music to a slaughter, but the song during the sex scene made everyone in the theatre start to laugh.

    And yes, Jon’s penis is shown a lot.

    Will the Geekbox be podcasting an episode about the movie at some point? I’d love to hear your guys’ views.

  19. Gert says:

    That image represents all superhero movies compared to Watchmen.

  20. Andy says:

    i definitely feel this is a pretty faithful adaptation of the novel. obviously the ending is altered, but as mentioned it captures the same idea while making it more accessible to the moviegoers.

    i didnt hear about them having any trouble about securing an R rating, but i feel like they should have. If only for the post-fire sex scene. Perfect example of why “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” was made.

    Some of my friends were not crazy about the music in the film, but i thought it helped to create more links between the world in Watchmen and the real world. Which is part of what Watchmen tries to do anyway. I dont know if anyone else noticed this, but did you catch the muzak version of “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” while Adrian was giving his Alexander the Great speach? And of course i love having the Nostalgia commercial as the soundtrack to Comedians murder.

    Anyone else also catch the “Squid” nod on the computers after the ’35 minutes ago’ line?

  21. George says:

    I found the movie to be kinda dull. I have the novel and enjoyed but there is something lost in the transition to the big screen. Opening credits were great though.

  22. JasonUresti says:

    So the American superman is blamed for blowing shit up, and this is planned to unite the world? Really, now?

    It would unite the world, maybe, but it would be against the United States. The USA would be blamed for Manhattan’s actions, and made to pay the clean up and rebuilding costs.

    At the very best, even if it did result in a world wide harmony of nations, it would be extremely short term. Manhattan leaves right after, and the very nature and level of his power makes the world trying to defend against him, were he truly trying to cause great harm, a waste of time. The aliens worked because they were not a near all powerful threat, they may have been not even aggressive but an accidental cross over, and allowed for the belief that they could be controlled or opposed through unity. Manhattan offers no such hope, he is no weapon or defense against him.

    The squid may or may not have worked on screen (personally, I’ve always found this line of thinking absurd, and an excuse for the truth that the director/writer/effects team isn’t good enough to make it work), but this solution is no more elegant, and does not sew things up any more effectively, less so. Veidt was a brilliant man, smarter and more creative than nearly anyone alive in the Watchmen world. The outlandish nature and almost incomprehensible form of the threat he creates was all for the purpose of shocking and bewildering the world. This Manhattan nuke is like B-list Bond villain stuff.

  23. Timbo says:

    Does this mean my favorite Manhattan line is missing?

    “You will all return to your homes”

    “What if we don’t want to!”

    “You misunderstand me. It wasn’t a question.”

    Or something of that nature anyway. Oh well, still looks awesome and I will be there Thurs night at IMAX. Despite possibly still having jury duty Friday morning!

  24. Ryan Scott says:

    Reluctant Hero, thanks for the kind words at Wondercon. 🙂

    I REALLY recommend reading the chapter bookends and the Black Freighter stuff. A lot of the bookends convey background information that’s actually pretty important to the setting, and the Black Freighter stuff ties back in to some of the stuff with the scientists. I suppose it’s not ESSENTIAL, but I’d definitely advise reading it in the context of the story.

    The Manhattan change definitely accomplishes the same thing. And I think it resonates really well, because it successfully links Manhattan to the larger plot in a significant way and lends a bit more impact to his decision to keep Veidt’s plan secret.

  25. Reluctant Hero says:

    I picked up a softbound copy of the book at Wondercon last weekend. I’ve never read Watchmen before, so like most people, my interest in the movie and overall love of comics prompted me to read through before the I see the movie this friday night.

    Wow. I read through the whole thing, start to finish, in one sitting last night. What an amazing book. Although, I did skip over the vast majority of the “Black Freighter” sub-comic part as I quickly released that comic-within-a-comic was meant to mirror the events taking place in the “real” world. I also skipped each of the chapter end “Appendixes” with extra materail from the “world’s” history.

    I think I’ll get back into the book and read the “appendixes” tonight. But I’ll rent the “Black Freighter” blu-ray that will released later on this month.

    I’m not sure how I feel the changes though. The one that bothers me the most is replacing the fake alien squid and framing Dr. Manhattan. I like the idea of the squid because it unites the world to rise up the percieved notion of an other-worldy attack. I understand that framing Manhattan theoretically accomplishes the same, but it just feels wrong. Anyways, I loved the book and I’m looking forward to watching this all play out on the big screen.

    P.S. – Ryan, it was cool to see you at the Street Fighter panel last Saturday. I’m the guy who said hello and complimented the Geekbox as we were walking out. I would’ve liked to chat with you more, but you were with your fiance enjoying the day and I was with my wife doing the same.

  26. chaosakita says:

    I thought the squid was sort of stupid. I mean, I know why Ozymandias did what he did, but where did the psychic powers come from?

    On the other hand, it provides great atmosphere for fanfiction!

  27. Monty_V says:

    “I’m shocked people think the squid IS the plot, like it’s a book about a squid blowing up the city.”

    I wasn’t really saying that was the main point of the plot, just an aspect of it that I actually enjoyed. On my first read through of the book, I actually thought that part of the book was pretty absurd, but it grew on me, to the point that it’s actually now one of my favorite moments in the book. Looking back, I think it’s because I spent most of the book expecting a nuke to go off any second, and instead I get a giant squid attack. I tend to like it when stories subvert expectations, and that’s what I think the squid does. But yeah, I can see how that scene could be a problem in translation to a film. But that doesn’t mean I couldn’t hope they’d try it.

    Tying Manhattan to the attacks could be pretty interest though, and could actually be helpful in explaining his departure at the end.

  28. Ryan Scott says:

    “I’m shocked people think the squid IS the plot, like it’s a book about a squid blowing up the city.”

    Haha, that made me laugh. 🙂

  29. WhiteHamster says:

    Thanks Ryan. Digg is exploding right now, pretty good to hear a true fan give an honest opinion. I’m shocked people think the squid IS the plot, like it’s a book about a squid blowing up the city.
    The bigger question, from Josh, regarding Dr. Manhattan’s wang …

  30. Ryan Scott says:

    The slo-mo was not excessive; other than the clip of Silk Spectre fleeing the burning building that they show on every ad ever, I cannot even recall any stand-out slo-mo moments off the top of my head.

    The “Manhattan attack” DEFINITELY goes over better on a movie screen than the giant squid would. And I daresay it’s just generally better in some ways, because it ties everything back to the world’s paranoia about Dr. Manhattan and the whole god/superior being issue. It’s a change that goes really well with the characters and the world that they’ve established.

  31. Jeremy says:

    Tales of the Black Freighter is going to be incorporated into the film on the director’s cut via Blu Ray. The movie is already 2.45 hours long. I personally don’t mind sitting through a long movie but your average movie goer does.

  32. Monty_V says:

    “The alien squid is not used; instead, nuclear bombs bearing Dr. Manhattan’s energy signature do the job — and it’s more far-reaching than just New York. Same result, but better-suited to a movie screen.”

    -Am I the only one that was really hoping for the alien squid? I loved how Lovecraftian it looked in the book, and was hoping they’d just go ahead and do it really garish and colorful. It just always seemed very pulp-y and fun. Sure it was kind of absurd (in that Alan Moore way that makes it almost believable), but that’s sort of why I loved that plot twist. The nuclear bomb thing just sounds so unoriginal, but hopefully it plays better then it sounds.

    Otherwise movie looks and sounds great, can’t wait to see it.

  33. Sebassis says:

    Think I read on sci fi wire that their going to be releasing a later dvd version at over three hours with the Black Freighter stuff cut back into the film. They said they’d already filmed the linking sequences at the news-stand to go into the Black Freighter story.

    Found the article that talks about the different versions coming to DVD

  34. Josh says:

    So do they actually show Manhattan’s blue wang or do they try to cover it up?

  35. kevin ellis says:

    its good to hear nothing big was left out and i know from a director/producer standpoint certain things have to be left out or changed but some of theings on that list could have been easily put in. Also why is it necessary to add swares in.

  36. V for Vendetta (the film) was boring trash.

    As for a question:

    How much slow motion is in this movie? Zak Snyder seems to be a huge fan of it, considering 300 would have only been about an hour and a half long without the slomo.


    How well do you think an effects heavy movie like this will hold up compared to films like the Chris Nolan Batman films, which, comparatively use less CG?

  37. Ryan Scott says:

    Alex: Yes, the group is renamed for the film. Edited my list to clarify.

  38. This eases my fears SO much. Looks like I know where I’ll be Friday night!

    Also, I remember reading somewhere that the Tales of the Black Freighter movie is going to be intercut with the director’s cut on the DVD and Blu-Ray releases of the film.

  39. Alex says:

    “Captain Metropolis isn’t present at the Crimebusters meeting. Ozymandias runs the meeting instead, with the same results.”

    It may be a small thing, but do they call themselves “The Crimebusters” in the movie? From the clips I’ve seen, it seems like they call themselves “The Watchmen” as if that were the name of the group (which would make sense to help people not familiar with the novel to understand the movie’s title; sounds better than Crimebusters anyway).

    Thanks for the review, Ryan. I can’t wait until Friday.

  40. Martin Siggers says:

    Looking over this list it sounds like a very practical and sensible list of changes. Some stuff, like the giant squid just wouldn’t have worked on the screen, and you’ve got to remove certain scenes and dialogue for time purposes. I’m going to catch it in about 3 weeks, it’s the earliest I could get an IMAX booking here in the UK 🙂

  41. Brice Gilbert says:

    @ Mitch Dyer. From what i’ve read that shot with all the blood and bodies is gone. There is nothing shown of the aftermath. The producers said it was because of the current political climate and 911. Sucks I know.

    I’m not going to bother mentioning specific scenes that are missing because of course there are going to be plenty (and some are going to be put back into the DVD cut), but all I have to say is it would’ve been so awesome if this was made into a 12 episode mini-series on HBO. Of course it would need a high budget, but damnit would it have been the perfect way to do this book complete justice. You could be slow and methodical like the book. That’s fine though we are lucky to be getting this version even.

  42. Mitch Dyer says:

    ‘The flashback of Jon and his father.” — this sucks for me. I really liked this aspect of Jon’s character since it’s really, really emotional.

    “Dan and Laurie’s confrontation with the street gang is MUCH more violent.” — This is probably my favorite scene in the book because of the juxtaposition and “camera cuts” it has. LOVE IT.

    “The trip to Mars is trimmed for what is probably a much better pacing.” this is a really emotional part of the book, as I mentioned before, but totally protracted. Good call.

    “The film does not linger on the gory details of the post-apocalyptic carnage.” — The first shot of the final book, with everyone in NYC spilled over a clock, bleeding, is the single best piece of art in comic book history. I’m hopin’ it’s still here.

    “The alien squid is not used; instead, nuclear bombs bearing Dr. Manhattan’s energy signature do the job — and it’s more far-reaching than just New York. Same result, but better-suited to a movie screen.” — This is about what I expected since it’s more appropriate not only for the screen, but for the setting as well. Good stuff.

  43. piratebrido says:

    I hope you’re right, all other attempts at Moore’s work have been nothing short of a disgrace. How did you feel about the V for Vendetta film?

Leave a Reply