The film the watchmen is NWO propaganda. (major spoilers for those who haven't watched it)

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Yes, the people claiming that this was a graphic novel before do have a point.

What do you mean, claiming??? Walk into any bookstore and just buy the damned thing! It has been listed among the top 100 novels of the 20th century by a number of sources.

I know that it was a graphic novel, but, I'm talking about the people here claiming that all of it was a graphic novel before so the movie wasn't new have a point but they're detracting from what I'm saying.

Sorry, that just further illustrates your ignorance.

How so?

Don't you know anything of the government's involvement with Hollywood films? I think you're showing ignorance here by not wanting to discuss a conspiracy and dismissing it.

And for those that think that I haven't considered of the possibility an alien takeover of Earth... I have... I just don't see what that has to do with the film.

Again read the book. The ending in the graphic novel is different than the film, but ultimately lead to the same ends.
Same difference... but I believe that there were probably some changes to the movie version to make it more viewable to the public so they would believe more in an NWO.

It wouldn't be the first film to have government's involvement with the production

reply to post by Frankidealist35


You haven't even read it, and you just ASSUME that any symbolism you've seen was added by the film makers? Because of some preconceived notions? To the point of being argumentative? Seriously? You're just being closed-minded.

step 1: know what you're talking about.
step 2: discuss.

A critical step has been skipped here.

reply to post by mdiinican


I think you guys are being close minded.

Don't you think that the government would want to be involved in the film?

reply to post by Frankidealist35


No, you are. You never read the book, and are ASSUMING the government went and added NWO/Illuminati symbolism NOT ALREADY PRESENT in the source material, for the purposes of "getting the population used to the idea" or something.

You could have a point if you accused ALAN MOORE of adding it when he wrote the comic, but unlike most adaptation, this one changes very little visually. You can almost follow it panel by panel.

the changes made from the comic version are pretty much as follows:

There was a miniature comic about a man whose ship was attacked by pirates, stranded on an island. He tries to get back to his hometown to warn them of the pirate's attack, going insane in the process. This was interspersed throughout the watchmen comic, where thematically appropriate.

Dr. Manhattan's monologue on mars was much longer and more involved.

Rorschach's sessions with the psychologist were much longer, and were told from the perspective of the psychologist. And instead of killing the murderer with a knife, he cuffed him to something, gave him a hacksaw, and set the building on fire, like max did to some raider in mad max.

The ending was different, with a fake alien invasion instead of framing Dr. Manhattan. There were a number of things foreshadowing this that were also removed.

All that was probably necessary to cut it down to about 3 hours, and make it more intelligible. Also: to make the big explosion scene more impressive. In the comic, it only killed the people; the buildings weren't destroyed.

reply to post by mdiinican


I have my suspicion of anyone who knows a lot about the conspiracy world in the MSM. I know that conspiracies are a plot device that is frequently used within comics. But I am highly suspicious of anyone who is famous (like the comic book creator) who knows a lot. I still think you're being close minded to all of the obvious illuminati symbolism. Perhaps the author of the comic book was heavily into conspiracies as we are...

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I'm not saying there isn't obvious symbolism, I'm saying it was right there in the comic books, and wasn't added for the movie.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by mdiinican

 

I have my suspicion of anyone who knows a lot about the conspiracy world in the MSM. I know that conspiracies are a plot device that is frequently used within comics. But I am highly suspicious of anyone who is famous (like the comic book creator) who knows a lot. I still think you're being close minded to all of the obvious illuminati symbolism. Perhaps the author of the comic book was heavily into conspiracies as we are...

I haven't read the book yet (nor seen the movie), but went to YouTube and watched a couple videos of Alan Moore talking about Watchmen. Since you are NOT going to read the book, at least watch some of the stuff about it FROM THE AUTHOR'S MOUTH.

Made it easy... YouTube search for You
You Tube - alan moore

Anyone that lived through the 60s, 70s and 80s understands where Alan Moore was coming from when he wrote this masterpiece.

Have you noticed the reoccuring themes in his works? V for Vendetta and The Watchmen in particular represent many of the issues from the 1980s. Just as anyone with any similar concerns or cynicism on these boards could possibly write something in the same vein.

Alan Moore wrote V about Thatcherism in the UK and has said that science fiction is more about writing about the current times than the future. And the Watchmen capture the mood of the 1980s, in all its depressing darkness.

I think you have the cart before the horse here; this isn't a manipulation after the fact, this is outright commentary, as bold and blatent as anything written here.

Alan Moore:

"I...wanted to write about power politics. Ronald Reagan was president. But I worried readers might switch off if they thought I was attacking someone they admired. So we set Watchmen in a world where Nixon was in his fourth term — because you're not going to get much argument that Nixon was scum! For me, the '80s were worrying. ''Mutually assured destruction.'' ''Voodoo economics.'' A culture of complacency... I was writing about times I lived in. "

reply to post by Jadette


Thanks that clears up some of it.

I still would like to know why he made Nixon a dictator in the film.

He was elected for 5 times... I guess he was playing off the fears people had of him becoming too powerful.

I suppose it would make sense if he was creating the comic book based off of that time period. I would however like to see him talk about where he got that idea for the Pyramid group. That sounds a lot like the NWO to me.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Like I said, The Watchmen is all about a deconstruction of the superhero mythos. Superheros = modern day god figures. In Freemasonry you have a revival of Greek, Roman and Egyptian archtypes. That is where the over lap lies. The book is really about nilihism, as can be seen with the characters of The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan. Nietzsche actually wrote a book called Twilight of the Idols which is about humans destroying their god figures. It's where people get that Nietzsche was all about "God is dead", but this is incorrect. Nietzsche is quoted through out the book.

Again, as others have pointed out, Alan Moore is very much into mysticism. Read From Hell, Moore's theory is that the Jack the Ripper murders were a Masonic plot. The graphic novel is a pretty much a scholarly endeavor and just about the only one in comic book format. The guy is really that good.

Check out the graphic novel for The Watchmen, there is a ton more symbolism. I don't know what they did for the movie but in the graphic novel Ozymandias' symbol is actually the pyramid with the eye of providence. ILLUMINATI symbolism at it's finest.

I took the time last night to go see this movie...if anything just to get out. It's been awhile since i've seen a movie at a theater.

That being said..

This movie was terrible. Nice special effects..but the rest...HORRIBLE.

Seeing someone gun down a pregnant woman or seeing two junk yard dogs eating the leg from a child's corpse is not my idea of fun.

Previews were misleading. Just a bad movie.

There were some political undertones...but the movie was so terrible I didn't care.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I still would like to know why he made Nixon a dictator in the film.

He was elected for 5 times... I guess he was playing off the fears people had of him becoming too powerful.

Not at all. He was playing off how horrible he thought the Reagan/Thatcher era of politics was and satirized it by using the only thing people would find unimaginable -- Nixon as savior.

Don't forget, someone went to Warner Bros to request a budget to create this film. The timing for the release of this film is questionable given the other films that touch on conspiracy topics released at the same time.

The International: banks profiteering off war
Duplicity: another Clive Owen, espionage comedy/thriller
Valkyrie: Plot to assassinate Hitler
Milk: Assassination of Milk
Knowing: number conspiracy
W. & Nixon
and for the kids, Monsters vs Aliens. I'd also look out for UP.

I think Desensitization is a better word.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by JRSB]

Cant everything be looked at as possible NWO? How bout Dr. House being a representation of 1984's 'thought police' - House thinks everyone is wrong and if they think he is wrong the other person is stupid and therefore must be sick and need treatment.

If you want to see it you will.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35

#3- There was a group called the pyramid. Doesn't that sound a lot like the illuminati? This group was crucial to Adrian (the main villain) in bringing about the NWO. I think this is potential disclosure.

that has become a common theme in hollywood.

for example... Has anybody seen the movie Unlawful Entry (1992)?

www.imdb.com...

what was the password?

the password is pyramid.

I went to watch the film yesterday and loved every minute of it. Even though its massively long it just seemed to fly.

The ending wasn't as poignant as the novel, but thats the way it is in Hollywood - fading to black never seems to be a proper option these days.

As for the symbolism - its all there in the book, and more. Moore is a very very clever man, and he played off all the imagery to make his point about the world he created in his book, with the conspiracy and manipulation of the people involved.

Somone above mentioned that some of the scenes were OTT - theres a reason why the film has an adult rating - don't ever watch SAW

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by mdiinican

 

I have my suspicion of anyone who knows a lot about the conspiracy world in the MSM. I know that conspiracies are a plot device that is frequently used within comics. But I am highly suspicious of anyone who is famous (like the comic book creator) who knows a lot.

That's one of the most remarkably arrogant things I've read on this forum for a while. 'Mainstream? Pfft! Not like me, I'm a member of ATS - I know the score about conspiracies!'

Well, funnily enough, people have been saying "Alan Moore knows the score" long before you were posting on internet boards about conspiracies. Just because you come here are read and post about conspiracies doesn't necessarily make you any more informed about conspiracies than people that you are deriding as 'mainstream' or 'famous'. Moore was researching and putting the Watchmen together in the mid-1980s. What was you doing conspiracy-wise at that time? So someone was researching conspiracies and writing fantastic literature through doing so - and subsequently becomes "famous" because of it - you're suspicious? Don't you understand that it's work like Watchmen and V for Vendetta that made Moore famous?

It's like me saying that I'm suspicious of George Orwell because I don't understand how a famous mainstream figure (that you even get taught about in school) could write something like 1984. It's because he wrote 1984 that he gets taught in schools.

I still think you're being close minded to all of the obvious illuminati symbolism. Perhaps the author of the comic book was heavily into conspiracies as we are...

Ding ding ding ding! Got there in the end! Now, to pre-empt any 'he must be in on the conspiracies' you appear to regard yourself well-versed in conspiracies and separate from the mainstream, are you part of the conspiracies?

As I said in my first post on this thread, it's because of threads like these I was dreading the film's eventual release.

Originally posted by David9176
I took the time last night to go see this movie...if anything just to get out. It's been awhile since i've seen a movie at a theater.

That being said..

This movie was terrible. Nice special effects..but the rest...HORRIBLE.

Seeing someone gun down a pregnant woman or seeing two junk yard dogs eating the leg from a child's corpse is not my idea of fun.

Well, don't blame the film for that - those two scenes are taken from the comic. Funnily enough, they're not actually portrayed as "fun" either. In the film, it's the 'junk yard dog' investigation that pushes Rorschach over the edge. When The Comedian shoots his pregnant ex-lover it shows how debased and wrong his character is and how messed-up the Comedian's life is in general - something he genuinely regrets before he dies.

Also, regarding the film being graphically violent, I'm not sure whether you read rating certificates but everywhere the film has been released it's carried an adult rating (R in America, 18 on this side of the Atlantic) and that it carries a warning about the graphic violence, language, nudity and sex. It's not as if you weren't warned.

Previews were misleading. Just a bad movie.

I think I saw every trailer and read all the early pre-release reviews. I'm not aware of any misleading at all. Even the fact the ending was changed was widely known before the official release.

There were some political undertones...but the movie was so terrible I didn't care.

Some political undertones? Politics is the story. The Keene Act, the Cold War, and Ozymandias' plot which takes in false flag conspiracies, Big Oil, politically-motivated assassinations and so on - some political undertones?

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I suppose it would make sense if he was creating the comic book based off of that time period. I would however like to see him talk about where he got that idea for the Pyramid group. That sounds a lot like the NWO to me.

Yes, there is a conspiracy, in fact there are a great number of conspiracies that are all tripping each other up. And all of those conspiracies are run by paranoid fantasists and ham-fisted clowns. If you are on a list targeted by the CIA, you really have nothing to worry about. If however, you have a name similar to somebody on a list targeted by the CIA, then you are dead.
...
The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.

Alan Moore, author of Watchmen interviewed in "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" (2003)

Not finding that clip online immediately, but here's another about how he set the Watchmen...


[edit on 3/9/2009 by JoshNorton]

Originally posted by JRSB
Don't forget, someone went to Warner Bros to request a budget to create this film. The timing for the release of this film is questionable given the other films that touch on conspiracy topics released at the same time.

You do realize that people have tried and failed to make this film for almost 20 years? It's gone through 2 or 3 studios, 5 or 6 directors, and who knows how many script adaptations? It had a reputation of being unfilmable because that's what Alan Moore told Terry Gilliam in 1989. While I do have a few issues with the final result, I think it was a laudable effort.

As to funding, I think a $55 million opening weekend in March probably doesn't hurt the studio. This is one of the most beloved comics in the industry. They knew they'd have an audience. It was a safe bet getting funding once the "what to tell" and "how to tell it" had been visualized by the current director.