| |
|
The ambiguous thing about Snyder is over what he actually intended to change and where he just succumbed to the pressing weight of accumulated cinema cliche. Veidt being a much more telegraphed villain would seem to me to fall into the second camp.
I'd certainly be unwilling to decide between deliberate intent from Snyder, pressure from studios to make a clearer hero/villain split, and, as you say, cinema cliche.
But the way he changes Veidt's plot did seem to me to be an improvement.
I'm not sure. My view is that in the comic, the point was that it was a hoax - as long as Veidt never gets found out, then the threat is ever-present, since no-one can possibly know how it happened or why. It's entirely and bafflingly external and separate to anything that humanity has seen up to that point in time.
In the film, the threat comes from one of the characters - Dr. Manhatten. It's a known quantity (well, kind of), and the implication is "Behave, or I'll destroy more of you." There's something in the fact that he is (was?) American, too - America's superweapon turning against them. Now, maybe that works in itself as some kind of commentary, but it's very much against the entirely external threat of the comic.
Then, there's the matter that Veidt actually can carry out the threat himself - he actually HAS replicated Manhatten's destructive powers, and presumably can do so again. So, the "bluff" is unnecessary - he can simply state that it was him, and he will do it again. As "the world's smartest man", I'd willingly buy that he can remain hidden and out of the grip of the authorities who will no doubt come after him, so it's a viable threat.
And if Manhatten agrees with Veidt, which he does "without condeming or condoning", then Veidt could have simply talked to Manhatten first, and got him bought into the concept - Manhatten could have carried out the initial attacks himself, without Veidt having to go to the trouble of replicating the powers. |
|
|
