Biggest surprise when you read the book...

[gbaji]

Wait? Who is "okay" with Veidt in the series? Everyone hates him, the only people who stand him are the idiot clones left in his care (a fitting punishment if i ever seen one), and he cant stand them. He gets arrested immediately after the climax crisis is resolved and made to be paid for his crimes.

Do you mean the "audience" is okay with Veidt?

Or do you mean the legacy he left behind and how people remembers him in-story?

IIRC, he's mentioned in the background as "missing" or basically a mysterious figure, but still generally viewed as brilliant. In the story, he basically got betrayed by his own people, and shuffled off to a prison (on another planet/moon/whatever, no less), while his former underlings basically ran everything back on Earth. One of the side stories is his efforts to escape, so he can return and help "fix things" (well, for his own definition of "fix" that is). And yeah, along the way, he's more or less gone completely round the bend, but...

The general populace was completely unware of what he had done in the original events in the past, and his "plan" was still being implemented (but with some other folks doing some other things for their own purposes as well, and frankly a lot of that stuff didn't make a lot of sense anyway).

The problem with the series (well, many problems, but this was IMO the core one), is that the writers of the series were more interested in pushing a specific modern day social agenda, than they were with actually writing a good superhero story. And every single time they had a choice between "make it make sense" and "make it sell our narrative", they went in the latter direction. It's not about said social agenda (and I'm not here to discuss that at all), but that they completely lost sight of the setting and theme of the original work along the way (and yeah... resulted in a story that made no sense). The result was cardboard cutout characters, with paper thin motivations for what they were doing, and when you got to the resolution, there really wasn't one.

It was all surface, and no depth. Even the aspects and ideas it did explore (which, again, I'm not going to go into), were very much a presentation of grossly exagerrated stereotypes, didn't really examine any of it, and then just kinda skipped across and went on to the next thing. I can accept and appreciate a lot of different themes, and narratives, and ideas in a story. But... if you're going to go in a given direction, or present a specific idea/concept, then commit to it and go there. This thing? It was a jumbled incoherent mess.

And yeah. At least part of that could have been that they thought they maybe started off intending to write a single story for a single season, maybe got part way through and thought "we should stretch things out to give us the potential for a second season", and then didn't get one, so they just rushed things and snipped off plot threads at the end. Hard to say, but it definitely felt "off". The result was predicably bad.

[Tyndmyr]

So what do people think is a worse sequel, HBO’s Watchmen or DCs Doomsday Clock?

I've not read the latter, so I'll assume it's better. HBO's Watchmen is one of the worst TV series I've actually watched without quitting, mostly out of love of the original work and morbid curiosity.

Wait? Who is "okay" with Veidt in the series? Everyone hates him, the only people who stand him are the idiot clones left in his care (a fitting punishment if i ever seen one), and he cant stand them. He gets arrested immediately after the climax crisis is resolved and made to be paid for his crimes.

Do you mean the "audience" is okay with Veidt?

Or do you mean the legacy he left behind and how people remembers him in-story?

Why is entrusting him with control over a race of slaves that he gets to kill at will a punishment? That's...honestly much more terrible for the people he is killing. Yes, he's egotistical and bored with his state of affairs, boredom is certainly less punishment than an entire life of servitude and being casually killed on a whim for pure entertainment. Mostly, nobody actually seems to be monitoring him in this, and he has pretty much free reign outside of being stranded on Europa. He is on Europa not as a prison, but because he requested for Manhattan to transport him there, and Manhattan is making him his slaves to play with. It is unclear why any of that is a thing Manhattan needs to do.

People at large simply do not seem to care about Veidt at all. The protaganist is fine working with him. Yeah, she knocks him out in the end, though not until after he tries to kill her, and it's implied that she is going to set everything right...somehow*. How isn't shown, and the TV show really isn't interested in covering this. Veidt's not treated as the main villain at all. He's just a guy with a unique skill set and a mildly upsetting past.

*It is implied that she will get Manhattan's powers. Why this is of any help, given that Manhattan was frigging helpless through this show because fate, I have no idea.

[Cikomyr2]

Why is entrusting him with control over a race of slaves that he gets to kill at will a punishment? That's...honestly much more terrible for the people he is killing. Yes, he's egotistical and bored with his state of affairs, boredom is certainly less punishment than an entire life of servitude and being casually killed on a whim for pure entertainment. Mostly, nobody actually seems to be monitoring him in this, and he has pretty much free reign outside of being stranded on Europa. He is on Europa not as a prison, but because he requested for Manhattan to transport him there, and Manhattan is making him his slaves to play with. It is unclear why any of that is a thing Manhattan needs to do.

People at large simply do not seem to care about Veidt at all. The protaganist is fine working with him. Yeah, she knocks him out in the end, though not until after he tries to kill her, and it's implied that she is going to set everything right...somehow*. How isn't shown, and the TV show really isn't interested in covering this. Veidt's not treated as the main villain at all. He's just a guy with a unique skill set and a mildly upsetting past.

*It is implied that she will get Manhattan's powers. Why this is of any help, given that Manhattan was frigging helpless through this show because fate, I have no idea.

Im not going to bother spelling out the plot points you decided not to pay attention to because you predetermined your conclusions.

Yes, Europa was a prison to Veidt. Even if he spends the last of his days in an American prison, it would be a much more pleasant experience than the nightmarish existence he was trapped in Europa.

If you cannot comprehend why for Veidt, Europa was the single worst place in existence to be, then i feel you just dont understand the character.

Either through brilliance or unwittingly, Jon designed the single most perfect trap to punish Veidt. And in his hubris, Veidt happily walked into it.

[Tyndmyr]

Im not going to bother spelling out the plot points you decided not to pay attention to because you predetermined your conclusions.

Yes, Europa was a prison to Veidt. Even if he spends the last of his days in an American prison, it would be a much more pleasant experience than the nightmarish existence he was trapped in Europa.

If you cannot comprehend why for Veidt, Europa was the single worst place in existence to be, then i feel you just dont understand the character.

Either through brilliance or unwittingly, Jon designed the single most perfect trap to punish Veidt. And in his hubris, Veidt happily walked into it.

Veidt chose to go there. Yes, he was quite clearly bored of it by the events of the show, but the use of all these people is deeply unethical. Even if you are considering it as a means of punishment, these people have done nothing wrong to deserve this fate.

And "I have grown tired of killing people" as a motive is not either a severe punishment nor redemption.

Veidt also is not killed or shown to be imprisoned. A *lot* of people are killed over the course of this show for far lesser crimes. There isn't a great reason why Veidt is treated so gingerly.

[KorvinStarmast]

Watchmen:
Loved the graphic Novel.
The film was OK, glad I went.
Was never going to watch the mini-series. Glad I made that call.

I grew up in and during the Cold War and the Viet Nam War. Moore: very much an author for his times. The blood stained smilie face/have-a-nice-day logo was commentary on contemporary issues (but one example).

(V for Vendetta was another case of a really good graphic novel, then an OK movie.)

As I read through this discussion, I find there to be a great deal of overthinking that I'll not partake in.
As a character, Rohrschach was the catalyst

[J-H]

As a character, Rohrschach was the catalyst

It's almost like people can look at him and see whatever they want to see.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Mordar]

It's almost like people can look at him and see whatever they want to see.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Hey, I already used that. You can't have my cookie!

I came to Watchman much later, despite being of age (it seems) with Korvin. I like(d) Miller much more than Moore, and Watchman reinforced that for me. But I like the character/literary device that is Rorschach...despite my general dismissal of "deconstruction", particularly when the deconstruction sets up a straw man first.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

Hey, I already used that. You can't have my cookie!

I came to Watchman much later, despite being of age (it seems) with Korvin. I like(d) Miller much more than Moore, and Watchman reinforced that for me. But I like the character/literary device that is Rorschach...despite my general dismissal of "deconstruction", particularly when the deconstruction sets up a straw man first.

- M

Miller's Sin City and Dark Knight graphic novels were also, for me, very enjoyable. (Yes, deconstruction is overdone. As an aside: Woody Allen's "Deconstructing Harry" was the last Allen film I was able to stomach ...barely)

[Mordar]

Miller's Sin City and Dark Knight graphic novels were also, for me, very enjoyable. (Yes, deconstruction is overdone. As an aside: Woody Allen's "Deconstructing Harry" was the last Allen film I was able to stomach ...barely)

Miller's DareDevil was my favorite.

By the way, just read an engaging essay saying that Rorschach wasn't a deconstruct of Batman (who holds a place close to my heart) but rather Mr. A and Question. Stands to reason given timeline, and in my defense I already said I came to Watchmen much later...

- M

[Talakeal]

So based on this thread, I went back and rewatched Watchmen, both the Snyder version and the HBO sequel.

And yeah, the HBO version lacks Alan Moore's talent, but it isn't terrible. Honestly, the social justice stuff is pretty low key and doesn't have as much of an impact as it should, I think people are just primed to go off about it in today's environment.

They really leaned into the "weird alternate history" and "overly complicated mystery" aspects over the deconstruction of superheroes aspects.

The stuff on Europa was just bizarre. Veidt went from a soft spoken, intellectual, vegetarian to a raving sadistic lunatic. Jeremy Irons was chewing scenery like he was back on the Dungeons and Dragons movie set, and it was off-putting. I am curious why people are saying he doesn't get treated like the villain he is though, everyone kind of craps on him, and he gets beaten up and arrested at the end.

Looking Glass was a really cool character. I also liked Pirate Jenny's look, I wish they had developed her (and Panda and Red Scare) to actual characters. Unlike shows like Lucifer, I actually wish there was more emphasis on the mundane police work.

Yeah, the Lube Guy does just disappear without resolution. Looking it up online, it was the FBI guy. There are clues in the show, but they are too subtle, and it was meant to be a joke that comes across as not funny because it needs to be explained. Apparently it makes more sense if you read the online promotional stuff which takes the form of his "in-character" journal.

Sad there wasn't more with Mothman and Silhouette in the flashback scenes.

I've not read the latter, so I'll assume it's better. HBO's Watchmen is one of the worst TV series I've actually watched without quitting, mostly out of love of the original work and morbid curiosity.

IMO its actually worse. Except for the, imo pretty excellent, scenes of Mothman in the asylum, Doomsday Clock is just terrible.

Of course, neither of them are so bad that I discount them entirely Highlander 2 style. Which creates a conundrum for me, as there are now two inferior and mutually exclusive sequels to Watchmen fighting for space in my head-canon.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, characterization most certainly isn't consistent. It could be an interesting character, but it's definitely not the same character. It really feels as if the show needed to be its own thing, without the Watchmen ties. There's some ideas there, just not ideas that fit well with the existing story.

IMO its actually worse. Except for the, imo pretty excellent, scenes of Mothman in the asylum, Doomsday Clock is just terrible.

Of course, neither of them are so bad that I discount them entirely Highlander 2 style. Which creates a conundrum for me, as there are now two inferior and mutually exclusive sequels to Watchmen fighting for space in my head-canon.

Impressive. I'm now a little curious to see how they wrecked it so badly. Not sure if I'm curious enough to buy it solely for that, but still.

[Cikomyr2]

Impressive. I'm now a little curious to see how they wrecked it so badly. Not sure if I'm curious enough to buy it solely for that, but still.

My good sir, if you want to see the prime example of a sequel that completely, utterly pissed on the original work's theming, narrative conclusions, character work, you never need to look further than Highlander 2.

[Tyndmyr]

My good sir, if you want to see the prime example of a sequel that completely, utterly pissed on the original work's theming, narrative conclusions, character work, you never need to look further than Highlander 2.

Highlander was a wonderful movie, it's truly a shame that they never made a sequel.

[Doug Lampert]

Highlander was a wonderful movie, it's truly a shame that they never made a sequel.

There can be only one. Thus there should never be a Highlander sequel.

It's the complete lack of a Matrix sequel that I find baffling. I mean, the ending is satisfying enough, but there's so much room for a sequel.

[Cikomyr2]

There can be only one. Thus there should never be a Highlander sequel.

It's the complete lack of a Matrix sequel that I find baffling. I mean, the ending is satisfying enough, but there's so much room for a sequel.

I mean, im sure they would bungle it

I do not believe there was room to a sequel, because the Matrix was about a journey of self-enlightenment by Neo. Once he willed himself back from the dead, that was it. He won. He broke the system.

There's nothing else left to say. If you wanna have a sequel, then you need to massively depower Neo from "fully enlightened being who can remake the Matrix at his will" to "superman", and that would make for a ****ty movie.

[Tyndmyr]

There can be only one. Thus there should never be a Highlander sequel.

It's the complete lack of a Matrix sequel that I find baffling. I mean, the ending is satisfying enough, but there's so much room for a sequel.

Or perhaps even more than one? Three, maybe even four! Can you imagine how satisfying it would be to revisit that world so many times?

[gbaji]

Highlander was a wonderful movie, it's truly a shame that they never made a sequel.

The Highlander series was not bad though. Well, first season was kinda off kilter. But once they got into the second season, they basically fully detached themselves from the film (with a semi-ok rationale), and made the whole thing their own, and that worked well. They found a balance and approach that worked, and were consistent within that structure. And along the way, actually added (in a useful way for the most part) to the lore of the setting itself.

Every single film sequel just... well... sucked. I get it. You're doing a film. You worry just about the one story you are telling. But... man. Maybe at least try to make things fit together or make sense.

Oh. The backstory I got from a film insider on Highlander 2 was that the studio had the rights to a sequel, but no script, and they had a decent sci-fi film script/story, but no backing to make a film. So... they just kinda smooshed them together and hoped for the best. Add to that a writing team that apparently never actually watched the first film at all, and you get.... well... what we got.

I had friends of mine who were *soooo* excited to go see the film, on opening night, in the theater. It was a "big deal". I wasn't able to go (was working or something). Yeah. To say they were disappointed would be understating the sheer depths to which disappointment can go.

[Batcathat]

I think I watched Highlander 2 before the original and I remember thinking it was kind of cool (in my defense, I was probably eight or so at the time) if very confusing so that might've been a better order to watch them in, since at least then it gets better instead of worse.

[Tyndmyr]

The Highlander series was not bad though. Well, first season was kinda off kilter. But once they got into the second season, they basically fully detached themselves from the film (with a semi-ok rationale), and made the whole thing their own, and that worked well. They found a balance and approach that worked, and were consistent within that structure. And along the way, actually added (in a useful way for the most part) to the lore of the setting itself.

It was! A little episodic at times, but it worked pretty well with the constraints it was given. I should bust those DVDs out, I haven't seen them in forever.

[Cikomyr2]

Going back to the OP.

"So Chrisjen Avasarala/Earth Stuff was not even a character a the start of the Expanse"?!?

[gbaji]

It was! A little episodic at times, but it worked pretty well with the constraints it was given. I should bust those DVDs out, I haven't seen them in forever.

They're actually playing the series on H&I channel right now (for those with cable). Getting close to the end of season one (haven't seen the show since it first aired).

One thing that really stuck out at me is this though: You know how you can often tell the decade that a film or TV show was made, based on the clothes the actors are wearing? And sometimes, those styles really are indicative of what folks wore back then, but then sometimes it's like "this is stuff only people on TV and films actually wore"? Well... let's just say... Poor Ritchie. OMG is he wearing stuff that is a designer nightmare. And it's squarely in the "this is stuff only folks on TV wore". There's a ton of street scenes, with people walking around in the scene, and there's Ritchie wearing some strange outfit with absurdly high/loose top sneakers/boots/I'm-not-sure-what-they-are shoes, pants that are baggy and tight in all the wrong ways/places, shirts with asymetrical collars (and colors!), but then like everone else in the scene, the extras that just happened to be there? All walking around wearing normal clothes and otherwise looking like folks you would not find out of place walking around on a street today.

It's kinda jarring and distracting. The other characters at least are mostly wearing stuff that doesn't look too absurd, but Ritchie for some reason they went full fashion victim on. What he was wearing was out of place even in the time/place the series is set, which is really saying something.

But the story itself is good. And I know from memory, that it gets better starting in season 2.