|
In response to
"Spoils"
by
TWuG
|
Spoilers
Posted by
David (aka David)
Mar 8 '09, 09:39
|
You seem to be trying to find the most arcane of distinctions to justify the fact that you just don't like it. All you need to do here is track back the historical timeline shown in the movie.
Manhattan comes to exist.
Manhattan is used as a government weapon.
Manhattan wins a military conflict.
Russians stockpile weapons but never invade Afghanistan.
(Even after Manhattan leaves, the Russians are afraid to enter Afghanistan for fear it's a trap wherein they are baited in to give Manhattan an excuse to obliterate them.)
Manhattan goes on live television and says he sees no difference between a live human and a dead one.
Millions die in an explosion that make it appear as if Manhattan has sent a message to the world to find peace. Otherwise, he will take away their existence.
That's an exemplary exploration of causality from start to finish. There is no hole in the logic. You want there to be one out of respect for the book, but Snyder hasn't left you a bone to chew on.
In the book, the fear is just plain silly. It's cartoon supervillainy. You're arguing that a psychic fish is a more believable reason for lasting peace than a rogue deity. It's fine that you have reverence for the book and you are frustrated by the changes made in the movie. The reality here is that Snyder holed up and tried to address the book's biggest weakness: the hilariously ridiculous threat to humanity. He wanted to make an adult movie and he knew the ridicule that would come from a modern audience seeing such silliness. So, he brainstormed on what would work and he saw what Moore should have seen but didn't. Manhattan was always the answer. The movie's ending is airtight.
Saying the psychic squid is better is like arguing that a guy in a 1950s special effects costume is better than a modern CGI representation. You're picking silly. I'm picking realistic.
|
|
|