• Post made for three hours last night (9pm-12am EST) have been deleted. This was necessary due to some problems with server maintenance. Anyone who had problems logging into their account during this time should be fine now.

The Power and the Glitter!

That's fine. Have a worse 9/11 attack (or variation thereof). Besides, this TL couldn't be as bad as A Giant Sucking Sound got (especially for Japan in 1995).

My my, in a dystopic mood, are we? Don't you think America needs some time to recover from the Duke debacle? In any alternate history with a sense of justice, having that racist scum getting elected anything higher than dogcatcher should be worse than any one nation deserves.

But then again, I cannot comment on things to come. Only hint at it.
 
Last edited:
This is awesome, and I have to ask, is your title based on the Midnight Oil song "The Power and the Passion"? If so, I love that song! If not, I still do, but it's a weird coincidence.
 
This is awesome, and I have to ask, is your title based on the Midnight Oil song "The Power and the Passion"? If so, I love that song! If not, I still do, but it's a weird coincidence.

No, it's based on the title of a book. But thanks! :)
 
I'm kind of uneasy about Richard Dean Anderson. Having him play movie-O'Neil in basically the same style as series-O'Neill would be difficult to do, since his character arc in the movie is basically all about him recovering from his suicidal depression after his son's death. You'd have to walk a fine line, really -- if O'Neill's funny and a wisecracker, it's got to be made clear that it's a facade he's putting up so he can suppress how he really feels and make himself do his job.
 
Holy Sh*t, Batman... I love this.

I came for the glitter (I'm in a glam-funk, disco-punk, dance-rock band) and I stayed for the rich and engaging content. Being born in '87 this is pretty much dictating how I am going to see the world in an immediate and forceful way. You are reinventing my life.

First of all, a gritty, '90's Watchmen is going to fundamentally change the course of superhero films up to the present day. It will (it would appear) succeed where Batman Forever failed and the comic book adaptation craze may trigger early. I can see Marvel countering by riding on the familiarity of the animated X-Men series and releasing an equally as gritty, if not more-so X-Men film series early. Spider-man butterflies can be expected as well...

Then again, there's always an earlier Avengers attempt...

Secondly, Boss N*gger as Governor of Indiana is beautiful. Love it.

M. Night being killed in the riots is bittersweet for me. I'm sad that he had to die to save us all from his movies, but I'm glad we won't be subjected to them.

The way the election went, I was expecting a 2000-esque recount situation. Such turmoil would increase the "art imitates life" aspect of what you're doing here with Watchmen.

Also, I can see a major party realignment opportunity here, one that was narrowly missed IOTL. The Republicans, reeling from defeat and anxious to avoid associations with Duke, now find themselves a close third in a two-party system. With the successes of the libertarian wing and the displaced Perot followers (who are fiscally conservative, like Republicans, but socially liberal - unlike Duke) A long, difficult merger or at least a healthy dialog/alliance between the two is not unlikely - and would be preferable, imho.

Call it returning to the party of the Great Emancipator and the Bullmoose, but with a Libertarian slant. If successful (and with Duke in office, I can't see it being anything else) American party politics by the new millennium may be centered around a strictly more government or less approach.

Fascinating stuff.

On the cultural side:

Brent Spiner will have a significant (compared to OTL) boost in name from Watchmen, leading to perhaps a more significant role in Independence Day. I'm hoping butterflies lead to development hell for Wild Wild West, making Spiner's co-star Will Smith available for The Matrix... which could butterfly Sean Connery into accepting the role of Morpheus.

That's just me.

Edward Norton getting an early boost combined with sci-fi cred has butterfly sanctuaries worth of changes in his career. Looking forward to this, as he is among my favorite modern actors.

Richard Dean Anderson will be able to pull off the wit and grit that masks the Col.'s recent loss, but his name will have little effect on box office gross, excepting maybe the slightly older MacGyver fan crowd, which is significant. I'm for Spader staying but including another big name somewhere, perhaps a bigger name young actor as Ra, and perhaps a more famous actress as Sha'Uri.

Of course, the film being less successful doesn't mean the show will necessarily suffer, and RDA will be more seamless in the role, leading to earlier talk of a sequel which ties into both the film and tv franchises once the film shows strong video sales. The sequel could be the blockbuster the first film was not.

One last request: Can you provide a rather detailed synopses of your Watchmen film? Also, who plays Nixon? ;)
 
Of course, the film being less successful doesn't mean the show will necessarily suffer, and RDA will be more seamless in the role, leading to earlier talk of a sequel which ties into both the film and tv franchises once the film shows strong video sales. The sequel could be the blockbuster the first film was not.
Probably not. Devlin & Emmerich disowned the TV series from the very start -- that's why they don't have creators' credits in any of the opening titles -- and neither they nor the TV producers (Brad Wright et al) have ever shown any interest in collaborating with each other. And assuming there still is a Stargate SG-1 at all in TTL, any film sequel that follows the TV series going to be much lower budget than the first film: probably around half the budget, or about $20-something million.
 
I hope I'm not stepping on vultan's toes, but he did say he wanted more discussion, so...

Being born in '87 this is pretty much dictating how I am going to see the world in an immediate and forceful way.
A very fine year to be born, I must say ;)

TheInfiniteApe said:
First of all, a gritty, '90's Watchmen is going to fundamentally change the course of superhero films up to the present day. It will (it would appear) succeed where Batman Forever failed and the comic book adaptation craze may trigger early. I can see Marvel countering by riding on the familiarity of the animated X-Men series and releasing an equally as gritty, if not more-so X-Men film series early. Spider-man butterflies can be expected as well...
One interesting possibility which vultan seems to be going out of his way to avoid mentioning is a better-received Batman Returns. IOTL, it performed under expectations due to its unrelentingly grim, depressing, and brutal tone. But ITTL, with a shroud of darkness hanging over the American consciousness, might it do better? And if it does, odds are quite good that both Burton and Keaton would return for *Batman Forever. And that means Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent/Two-Face (and, therefore, yet another Star Wars alum rescued from typecasting) and, apparently, Marlon Wayans as Robin :eek: I'm not sure how good such a movie would be, but it would be worth seeing!

TheInfiniteApe said:
Secondly, Boss N*gger as Governor of Indiana is beautiful. Love it.
I wonder if they'll be playing the theme song as he rides into Indianapolis. Black man, in a White man's town / He's got trouble... Get in his way he's gonna cut you down / Take it over! :p Now all we need is for Richard Roundtree to run for Governor of New York and it'll start a running gag about Blaxploitation politicians, to replace the OTL one about the stars of Predator.

TheInfiniteApe said:
Brent Spiner will have a significant (compared to OTL) boost in name from Watchmen, leading to perhaps a more significant role in Independence Day.
A very logical butterfly. It also helps that his role there is very different from the emotionless Data/Manhattan mould. If anything, I think he would play that up even more ITTL, to "prove" that he can play such characters.

TheInfiniteApe said:
I'm hoping butterflies lead to development hell for Wild Wild West, making Spiner's co-star Will Smith available for The Matrix... which could butterfly Sean Connery into accepting the role of Morpheus.
Now that would be a very different film. Your setup eliminates the closest thing to a flop ("only" $100 million gross) in Will Smith's career, but would the Fresh Prince make a good Neo? The popular consensus seems to be that it's the one role (along with maybe Ted) that Keanu Reeves can play better than anyone else. Would someone as dynamic, enthusiastic, and charismatic as Will Smith be able to pull that off?

TheInfiniteApe said:
Richard Dean Anderson will be able to pull off the wit and grit that masks the Col.'s recent loss, but his name will have little effect on box office gross, excepting maybe the slightly older MacGyver fan crowd, which is significant. I'm for Spader staying but including another big name somewhere, perhaps a bigger name young actor as Ra, and perhaps a more famous actress as Sha'Uri.
Like I said before, there has to be a "name" somewhere in the cast list. Independence Day and all subsequent Devlin/Emmerich films got away with avoiding this because they cashed in on the filmmakers' reputations, and the sheer "disaster movie" spectacle. I think Spader's role being re-cast is the most logical solution, but I agree it could also be one (or both!) of the lesser roles you mention. (Remember Brando being top-billed for Superman...)
 
I'm kind of uneasy about Richard Dean Anderson. Having him play movie-O'Neil in basically the same style as series-O'Neill would be difficult to do, since his character arc in the movie is basically all about him recovering from his suicidal depression after his son's death. You'd have to walk a fine line, really -- if O'Neill's funny and a wisecracker, it's got to be made clear that it's a facade he's putting up so he can suppress how he really feels and make himself do his job.

With all due respect, I don't think you give Mr. Anderson enough credit. He is capable of giving a complex, multifaceted performance, being funny while conveying his inner despair, almost as if it were his method of coping. There's a reason he's hands down the favorite SG-1 character.
 
Holy Sh*t, Batman... I love this.

Why, thank you!

I came for the glitter (I'm in a glam-funk, disco-punk, dance-rock band) and I stayed for the rich and engaging content. Being born in '87 this is pretty much dictating how I am going to see the world in an immediate and forceful way. You are reinventing my life.

Well then let's hope I don't screw up!:eek:

First of all, a gritty, '90's Watchmen is going to fundamentally change the course of superhero films up to the present day. It will (it would appear) succeed where Batman Forever failed and the comic book adaptation craze may trigger early. I can see Marvel countering by riding on the familiarity of the animated X-Men series and releasing an equally as gritty, if not more-so X-Men film series early. Spider-man butterflies can be expected as well...

Then again, there's always an earlier Avengers attempt...

Oh yes, superhero movies will be very much different in this timeline.

Secondly, Boss N*gger as Governor of Indiana is beautiful. Love it.

Dude, have you seen Mr. Williamson be interviewed? He's obviously a very intelligent man, with a wide variety of talents (football player, actor, director, writer, architect!). He's also smooth and charismatic, and would have no problem being elected to office if he tried. Definitely my favorite B-movie actor.

The way the election went, I was expecting a 2000-esque recount situation. Such turmoil would increase the "art imitates life" aspect of what you're doing here with Watchmen.

Even though it was far more fractured than our timeline, Cuomo won by a comfortable enough Electoral College margin that no single state. However, with the heightened social unrest and the slightly worse economy prior to the election, think of this as something of a mixture between 1912's election (what with the extremely successful independent candidate beating out one of the established parties in terms of voters) and our timeline's 2008 election, with Cuomo in the role of Obama.

Also, I can see a major party realignment opportunity here, one that was narrowly missed IOTL. The Republicans, reeling from defeat and anxious to avoid associations with Duke, now find themselves a close third in a two-party system. With the successes of the libertarian wing and the displaced Perot followers (who are fiscally conservative, like Republicans, but socially liberal - unlike Duke) A long, difficult merger or at least a healthy dialog/alliance between the two is not unlikely - and would be preferable, imho.

Call it returning to the party of the Great Emancipator and the Bullmoose, but with a Libertarian slant. If successful (and with Duke in office, I can't see it being anything else) American party politics by the new millennium may be centered around a strictly more government or less approach.

Governor Weld has become a darling of the libertarian movement with his principled small government stances- even when they come into conflict with conservative ideology ("I believe government should stay out of your wallet, and out of your bedroom" -William Weld, 1992 RNC). Bush put him on the ticket to try to disassociate the GOP with the hard-right social conservatives, of which Duke happens to be an extreme version of (though by no means are all or even most social conservatives, even then, represented by Duke). But what Bush did was give him a platform for his libertarian views, and he's becoming a nationally-recognized political figure. I hear Weld is looking for a seat in the United States Senate...

Another funny side-affect is that between William Weld, California Senator Tom Campbell, and some other high-profile classical liberals in the 90's, as I said before, Ron Paul better watch out- even if he still goes back to Congress, he won't be the sole crusader of the libertarian movement.

However, don't think for a second that even with the initial backlash against social conservatism due to Duke, it's out for good. Remember, this was the time period where Pat Buchanan's influence was at it's height...

Edward Norton getting an early boost combined with sci-fi cred has butterfly sanctuaries worth of changes in his career. Looking forward to this, as he is among my favorite modern actors.

I'm rather fond of him as well...

One last request: Can you provide a rather detailed synopses of your Watchmen film? Also, who plays Nixon? ;)

I'll be certain to at least highlight the major differences between the comic and the movie. And as for who plays Nixon, the answer is... nobody we've heard of! That's right, it's an actor who was never prominent in our timeline, but who did well enough at his audition and closely enough resembled Nixon to get the role. Seriously, I was contemplating doing this same thing for one of the major characters in the movie, probably Rorschach- that is, literally making up a person and saying they were an unknown actor until they got this role, and who in our timeline, we are left to assume, never really went anywhere with their career.

However, I decided it was too early in my timeline to try something like that.

But thanks for the feedback, and welcome aboard! :)
 
Probably not. Devlin & Emmerich disowned the TV series from the very start -- that's why they don't have creators' credits in any of the opening titles -- and neither they nor the TV producers (Brad Wright et al) have ever shown any interest in collaborating with each other. And assuming there still is a Stargate SG-1 at all in TTL, any film sequel that follows the TV series going to be much lower budget than the first film: probably around half the budget, or about $20-something million.

We'll see how Stargate plays out first...
 
I hope I'm not stepping on vultan's toes, but he did say he wanted more discussion, so...

Brainbin, your always welcome to step on my toes.:D

One interesting possibility which vultan seems to be going out of his way to avoid mentioning is a better-received Batman Returns. IOTL, it performed under expectations due to its unrelentingly grim, depressing, and brutal tone. But ITTL, with a shroud of darkness hanging over the American consciousness, might it do better? And if it does, odds are quite good that both Burton and Keaton would return for *Batman Forever. And that means Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent/Two-Face (and, therefore, yet another Star Wars alum rescued from typecasting) and, apparently, Marlon Wayans as Robin :eek: I'm not sure how good such a movie would be, but it would be worth seeing!

Well, it's not so much I'm going out of my way to avoid talking about Batman movies, but that it really isn't pertinent to the conversation at the moment. The only reason I even talked out Stargate and Star Trek TNG is because the casting choices directly affected their production.

However, now is as good a time as any to say this: due to it's "dark and gritty" (TM) subject material in a time where there was more demand for that kind of the stuff, Batman Returns did better at the box office than in our timeline, grossing around $50 million more, putting it somewhere modestly north of $300 million in profits. I will discuss how future Batman movies will play out after Watchmen is releases. It may have a somewhat substantial effect on superhero movies, that's for sure...

Now that would be a very different film. Your setup eliminates the closest thing to a flop ("only" $100 million gross) in Will Smith's career, but would the Fresh Prince make a good Neo? The popular consensus seems to be that it's the one role (along with maybe Ted) that Keanu Reeves can play better than anyone else. Would someone as dynamic, enthusiastic, and charismatic as Will Smith be able to pull that off?

I will say this: though I respect the butterfly effect, and I really ought to be more professional than this, there are a small handful of movies that are un-butteflyable, except maybe in very small details. One of those is the first Men In Black movie, which I love. Aside from that, I cannot comment on the details of Will Smith's possible future career...

Like I said before, there has to be a "name" somewhere in the cast list. Independence Day and all subsequent Devlin/Emmerich films got away with avoiding this because they cashed in on the filmmakers' reputations, and the sheer "disaster movie" spectacle. I think Spader's role being re-cast is the most logical solution, but I agree it could also be one (or both!) of the lesser roles you mention. (Remember Brando being top-billed for Superman...)

There will be a name actor in there somewhere...
 
Hmm... Year One? DarkKnight? Batman vs. Superman?

...BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN?!

It sounds kitschy but if you read the available synopses out there, it's as "dark and gritty" as either superheroes could get. Marriage, murder, betrayal, redemption. It's pretty Greek, really. So much so in fact that Nolan is considering doing it after this final part of the trilogy this year.

Thanks for the feedback, looking forward to an update, subscribed. I am totally on board with this one. Excellent work.
 
With all due respect, I don't think you give Mr. Anderson enough credit. He is capable of giving a complex, multifaceted performance, being funny while conveying his inner despair, almost as if it were his method of coping. There's a reason he's hands down the favorite SG-1 character.
Yeah, I'm saying he has to do that. :p That's what I meant by "walk a fine line". All I meant was he can't be exactly like series-O'Neill because by that time O'Neill has had some time to recover, and the update seemed written as if to say "In a case of supreme alt-historical irony, the movie ended up with series-O'Neill in it complete with actor and personality!"
One interesting possibility which vultan seems to be going out of his way to avoid mentioning is a better-received Batman Returns. IOTL, it performed under expectations due to its unrelentingly grim, depressing, and brutal tone. But ITTL, with a shroud of darkness hanging over the American consciousness, might it do better? And if it does, odds are quite good that both Burton and Keaton would return for *Batman Forever. And that means Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent/Two-Face (and, therefore, yet another Star Wars alum rescued from typecasting) and, apparently, Marlon Wayans as Robin :eek: I'm not sure how good such a movie would be, but it would be worth seeing!
Correction: Marlon Wayans filmed some scenes as Robin for Batman Returns (i.e. playing a younger kid whose name actually was Robin) but his scenes got cut. There's no guarantee he'd be invited back for *Batman Forever -- or indeed if Robin would be in the film at all. (Look at what happened to Alexander Knox in the original 1989 film -- he was supposed to be killed off except they changed the ending so he survived, so they could bring him back for sequels... except they never did.)
 
Last edited:
All I meant was he can't be exactly like series-O'Neill because by that time O'Neill has had some time to recover, and the update seemed written as if to say "In a case of supreme alt-historical irony, the movie ended up with series-O'Neill in it complete with actor and personality!"

Well, I was trying to go for that, but you've convinced me that I should go back a change the wording a bit, to make it more explicit.
 
Top