amercer said:
Also, when will Nite Owl make an appearance? We are running out of episodes.
I'm betting they save him for season two, make a casting announcement in the "off season," etc.
*** WATCHMEN (HBO) ***
123,806 Views |
1166 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by third coast..
I'm betting they save him for season two, make a casting announcement in the "off season," etc.
TCTTS said:amercer said:
Also, when will Nite Owl make an appearance? We are running out of episodes.
I'm betting they save him for season two, make a casting announcement in the "off season," etc.
I was watching the Lights Camera Barstool podcast after episode three (I think), and they stated they thought they heard that this was only supposed to be one season.
I found that hard to believe, and they even didn't sound too confident, but one of them said he definitely thought he had read/heard that Lindelof claimed he was doing one season and bowing out.
Hope that's not true, but figured I'd see if anyone has heard differently
Sine poena nulla lex.
I did some quick research and found this quote...
This strikes me as similar to the mindset Christopher Nolan had after making each of his first two Batman movies. He said he made Begins with no sequel in mind and then made TDK the same way; complete stories that could go on, but in order to make the current one as good as possible, he couldn't think in terms of sequels or a trilogy. My guess is that HBO wants more, and Lindelof certainly seems open to more, but in order to crack something like this, and make it as good as it is, he had to treat this season as one-and-done... with a lingering thread or two, of course, in case it took off.
All that said, this is good to know, and I take back my Night Owl comment. Maybe we do actually see him, though I can't imagine him having a significant role at all in these final three episodes.
Quote:
Speaking to Deadline after the panel, Lindelof didn't exactly rule out a second season, but he's certainly not thinking about it right now.
"I'm not being flippant when I say that the answer is one. Does that mean that there isn't going to be anymore Watchmen? Not necessarily. Does that mean that I will be working on subsequent seasons of Watchmen? I don't know is the answer to that question. We designed these nine episodes to be as self-contained as the original 12 issues. We wanted to feel like there was a sense of completeness, to resolve the essential mystery at hand. Obviously, there is a potential promise for the further exploration of the world but like the seasons of Leftovers that I did as opposed to Lost, which was designed to have cliffhanger finales and a promise of future storytelling."
This strikes me as similar to the mindset Christopher Nolan had after making each of his first two Batman movies. He said he made Begins with no sequel in mind and then made TDK the same way; complete stories that could go on, but in order to make the current one as good as possible, he couldn't think in terms of sequels or a trilogy. My guess is that HBO wants more, and Lindelof certainly seems open to more, but in order to crack something like this, and make it as good as it is, he had to treat this season as one-and-done... with a lingering thread or two, of course, in case it took off.
All that said, this is good to know, and I take back my Night Owl comment. Maybe we do actually see him, though I can't imagine him having a significant role at all in these final three episodes.
Sex Panther
Joined:
Aug 29, 2010
Posts:
33,165
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So...what did you think happened after the van full of 7K showed up with shotguns? I'm very curious what other ways that ending was interpreted.TCTTS said:
You guys really think Looking Glass is dead? That didn't even cross my mind. I assume they'd at least show him die. I don't think his story is over yet, not by a long shot.
It's like sports. 100k people watch a sack and come away with different reasons why it happened.
Sine poena nulla lex.
Echoing what C@LAg said above. If there's no body, and we didn't see him die, we shouldn't assume he's dead. That's movies/TV 101. Plus, he's one of the primary cast members. I'm not saying that means he can't die in episode five, I'm simply saying they would have given him more of a final moment or "send off" if he did. He may very well be killed by the Seventh Cavalry goons who showed up to his house, and he may only have one more scene, but there's absolutely no way that was the last we saw of Looking Glass.
My question was "what do you think happened?"
Not interested in arguing why you think he's not dead...
Not interested in arguing why you think he's not dead...
Sine poena nulla lex.
redline248 said:
My question was "what do you think happened?"
Not interested in arguing why you think he's not dead...
I think the issue is that you're thinking of it as being in the past tense. It probably hasn't happened yet, as 98% of episode six didn't take place in the present timeline. In other words, we've likely yet to see what *happens* with Looking Glass. For all we know, the next episode could pick up at the exact moment the goons break into his house and perhaps he hides in his bunker or maybe, in his paranoia, even has his house booby-trapped Home Alone style. Remember when episode four opened moments before the end of episode three, which we had already seen (Blake laughing at the car dropping from the sky, Angela approaching her, etc.)? Similarly, I wouldn't put it past them to pick up the next/seventh episode with the end of episode five, since we haven't really seen much present-day story in between.
Mainly, just think how awkward/lazy it would be if they yada-yada-ed Looking Glass' death. Like if we have to hear about it only in exposition from another character or something. That would be really bad writing, and this isn't a show that has dabbled in bad writing yet.
Not to mention, he wen't through a profound character change/state of mind. I can't think of many shows or movies that have a character come to such a life-altering realization and then off him shortly after instead of exploring their new perspective and dealing with all the ramifications of that.
Not to mention, he wen't through a profound character change/state of mind. I can't think of many shows or movies that have a character come to such a life-altering realization and then off him shortly after instead of exploring their new perspective and dealing with all the ramifications of that.
Sine poena nulla lex.
Ha, I don't think of it as a reply. I'm adding to my earlier statement. And yes, I edit like crazy. In fact, I just edited this post.
I honestly can see both sides of this. Playing contrarian, what purpose does he now serve? He did what the senator wanted and can be seen as a threat (or loose end) to expose him and the squid lie.
He's lived most of his life believing in something and just had his core seriously pummeled into dust. He finally knows the truth, hates himself and the lie he believed, and it just ends for him right there.
He's lived most of his life believing in something and just had his core seriously pummeled into dust. He finally knows the truth, hates himself and the lie he believed, and it just ends for him right there.
Sine poena nulla lex.
imdb has him appearing in 8 episodes, so I guess we'll find out soon enough. I don't know if scenes from the "previously" portion count as an episode credit
"Previously" portion doesn't count. He's been in five episodes total, so if IMDb is to believed, he's in all three final episodes.
Just getting around to reading the peteypedia for this week.
It's pretty revealing
It's pretty revealing
Did they ever say what year the Millennium Clock was built and the HDTVs were handed out? Reading notes on the Seventh Kavalry, they originally started causing trouble in 2015-2016, went underground after the White Night, and are now back. What if the 7K "white supremacy" is actually mind control from Lady Trieu or others
Not to tangent, but that's surprising to me. TDK was about as "there's more to this story" as it gets with the way it ended.TCTTS said:
I did some quick research and found this quote...Quote:
Speaking to Deadline after the panel, Lindelof didn't exactly rule out a second season, but he's certainly not thinking about it right now.
"I'm not being flippant when I say that the answer is one. Does that mean that there isn't going to be anymore Watchmen? Not necessarily. Does that mean that I will be working on subsequent seasons of Watchmen? I don't know is the answer to that question. We designed these nine episodes to be as self-contained as the original 12 issues. We wanted to feel like there was a sense of completeness, to resolve the essential mystery at hand. Obviously, there is a potential promise for the further exploration of the world but like the seasons of Leftovers that I did as opposed to Lost, which was designed to have cliffhanger finales and a promise of future storytelling."
This strikes me as similar to the mindset Christopher Nolan had after making each of his first two Batman movies. He said he made Begins with no sequel in mind and then made TDK the same way; complete stories that could go on, but in order to make the current one as good as possible, he couldn't think in terms of sequels or a trilogy. My guess is that HBO wants more, and Lindelof certainly seems open to more, but in order to crack something like this, and make it as good as it is, he had to treat this season as one-and-done... with a lingering thread or two, of course, in case it took off.
Yes and no, I think. The Joker is caught and Two-Face is dead. Plot-wise, it's over. And you can view the end of Batman's arc in that movie - accepting his responsibility to be whatever Gotham needs him to be - as his ultimate destiny. We technically didn't need to see what happened to Batman after that - whether he was caught, got away, etc. - because his arc was complete. He fully embraced his fate/role at that point. But yeah, I get what you're saying, and it's not like they were ever really going to leave on that note.
Still, there are bunch of quotes out there where Nolan says he thought most third movies in trilogies were terrible, he might not want to take the risk, etc, and it took a lot of convincing for WB to get him back, especially in the wake of Ledger's death. I know it also took a long time for Nolan/his brother/Goyer to even come up with the plot for the third movie. Heck, the reason we got Man of Steel is because Nolan and Goyer got so stuck trying to crack TDKR that Nolan insisted they take a two-week break in hopes that it would come to them if they weren't trying so hard to figure it out. It was in that two weeks that Goyer randomly came up with the plot for Man of Steel, pitched it to Nolan when they finally met up again, Nolan called the president of WB the second he heard the pitch, and they had a handshake deal by the end of the day.
Still, there are bunch of quotes out there where Nolan says he thought most third movies in trilogies were terrible, he might not want to take the risk, etc, and it took a lot of convincing for WB to get him back, especially in the wake of Ledger's death. I know it also took a long time for Nolan/his brother/Goyer to even come up with the plot for the third movie. Heck, the reason we got Man of Steel is because Nolan and Goyer got so stuck trying to crack TDKR that Nolan insisted they take a two-week break in hopes that it would come to them if they weren't trying so hard to figure it out. It was in that two weeks that Goyer randomly came up with the plot for Man of Steel, pitched it to Nolan when they finally met up again, Nolan called the president of WB the second he heard the pitch, and they had a handshake deal by the end of the day.
I don't know why this show isn't resonating with my attention span or interest. I really liked the movie. I like The Boys.
One episode felt painfully slow and then the lead up to explain Jeremy Irons...meh.
One episode felt painfully slow and then the lead up to explain Jeremy Irons...meh.
The episode was good, but I really cant stand when you wait a week and only get a 100% flashback episode.
I read the comic this past week so I was really interested to see what ozy was up to now that I had more background. Oh well. This episode was still great. #Thankful that some of those complaining about racism themes have stopped watching and commenting
Can't wait for the Easter eggs video
Can't wait for the Easter eggs video
I'm still watching.
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Sine poena nulla lex.
Haven't watched yet, but they got this one up fast...
That's fair. And yeah, it just felt like there was no way they could let this particular character's story die with the TDK ending.TCTTS said:
Yes and no, I think. The Joker is caught and Two-Face is dead. Plot-wise, it's over. And you can view the end of Batman's arc in that movie - accepting his responsibility to be whatever Gotham needs him to be - as his ultimate destiny. We technically didn't need to see what happened to Batman after that - whether he was caught, got away, etc. - because his arc was complete. He fully embraced his fate/role at that point. But yeah, I get what you're saying, and it's not like they were ever really going to leave on that note.
It's kind of shocking how lame Rorschach is in this version. Jorah Mormont doesn't make a bad Dan Dreiberg, though...
https://news.avclub.com/watch-ray-stevenson-and-iain-glen-in-test-footage-from-1840056060
https://news.avclub.com/watch-ray-stevenson-and-iain-glen-in-test-footage-from-1840056060
Btw, this has potential for one of the greatest "In" gifs of all time.
Damn, I forgot all about that dude.
TCTTS said:
It's kind of shocking how lame Rorschach is in this version. Jorah Mormont doesn't make a bad Dan Dreiberg, though...
https://news.avclub.com/watch-ray-stevenson-and-iain-glen-in-test-footage-from-1840056060
Woah nice find... never even heard about that version. Stevenson definitely seems to be playing Rohrshach wrong though.
Also, two bad American accents in action right there
Hayter said Daniel Craig was supposed to play Rorschach for that test footage, but had to drop out at the last minute. That would have been interesting. This was three years before Casino Royale, so he was still a relative unknown then. Hayter said if his version would have actually been made, he ultimately wanted John Cusack for Night Owl and Denzel Washington for Dr. Manhattan (???). Then I think I read way back when that he wanted Mel Gibson for The Comedian. Hayter's draft, I think, was also set in the present day. I have it, but have never read it. If anyone's curious, let me know and I can post it...
I can't see anyone other than Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. He was perfect. He's come a long way since Bad News Bears and Damnation Alley.TCTTS said:
Hayter said Daniel Craig was supposed to play Rorschach for that test footage, but had to drop out at the last minute. That would have been interesting. This was three years before Casino Royale, so he was still a relative unknown then. Hayter said if his version would have actually been made, he ultimately wanted John Cusack for Night Owl and Denzel Washington for Dr. Manhattan (???). Then I think I read way back when that he wanted Mel Gibson for The Comedian. Hayter's draft, I think, was also set in the present day. I have it, but have never read it. If anyone's curious, let me know and I can post it...