Star Trek vs Watchmen

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Darth Martin
There was big hype half a year ago when it had been reported that Kevin Smith had seen both films long before they had been released. He was also asked how he would stack them up against The Dark Knight.

Well now that I have seen both Watchmen and Star Trek I must say that they are both AMAZING! I was rooting for Star Trek as the big summer event of them all this year. And I was one who was trying to hype Watchmen up for people who didn't know even though I hadn't read the original graphic novel. Also I'm a small Star Trek TV Series fan. I've watched The Next Generation, Deep Space, and Voyager b ut never really viewed much of the Original Series. I have always been a big Star Wars fan.

I do agree with the assessment that Star Trek is this years "Iron Man". So that leaves the question, which is this years "The Dark Knight". Well if your searching for it in the summer movie season you may not find it. IMO Watchmen was it! While Star Trek like Iron Man was a art work to look at. Watchmen made you not only in awe of what was on screen but made you think while watching it AND afterwards. Right now I'm sold at Star Trek at an 8.5/10. But after leaving the theater I gave Watchmen a 7/10. But after having a night to sleep on it I upgraded it to a 9/10. While none of these films are what The Dark Knight(10/10) was to me, they are great films.

Which one do you think is better? Explain why and include your thoughts on each films casting, direction, and special effects and what not. Including The Dark Knight where would these films rank? Are there any more films coming this yeart that you feel will heavily rival these two?

Mr Shindiggery
For me Star Trek edges it for me. Don`t get me wrong I liked Watchmen, it was okay. But Watchmen being my favourite graphic novel of all time, my expectations for this movie were quite high and while it was mostly good some finer details and themes were not in the film which I missed. Plus I was not a big fan of the ending being changed, Moore`s ending was much better and ambiguous whereas Synder`s ending felt more forced. As for Star Trek this was very good imo, its stands up there toe to toe with some of the classic movies such as Star Trek 2, 4 and 6. While I do admit it was weird seeing this as an alternative spin on the characters, to think of an analogy think of the Ultimate universe in Marvel but for Star Trek all the actors did their very best to bring to life the characters I mostly love in Trek lore. Even the actors who had small parts had their chance to shine and the references to the Old Series and movies were Gold, as a semi Trekkie, yes you read that right I thoroughly enjoyed Star Trek and thought it was a much better cinema experience and film then Watchmen.

MildPossession
I thought Watchmen was one of the biggest disappointments of the year and apart from the visuals, nothing special. So I chose Star Trek even though I haven't seen it. stick out tongue

Mr. Rhythmic
"Watchmen" broke my heart.

BruceSkywalker
This is NO COMPARISON Watchmen was a let down, while Star Trek rocked from beginning to end

dadudemon
Watchmen was the better movie, IMO. I liked it more than Star Trek.

jinXed by JaNx
haha, Watchmen was by far the better movie for me. Star Trek had prettier colors. I did enjoy Star Trek for the most part but it greatly lacked the one thing Watchmen had in spades...,depth.

ThunderGodEneru
Even the watered down Watchmen I saw in theaters was better than Star Trek IMO.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
haha, Watchmen was by far the better movie for me. Star Trek had prettier colors. I did enjoy Star Trek for the most part but it greatly lacked the one thing Watchmen had in spades...,depth.


Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Even the watered down Watchmen I saw in theaters was better than Star Trek IMO.

I love both of you. weep


And, indeed, the watered down version of Watchmen really was better than Star Trek.

I did enjoy both, though.

Sadako of Girth
Im yet to see watchmen, but it really must f**king rule if its better than ST was.

Cause STXI was the shit.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Im yet to see watchmen, but it really must f**king rule if its better than ST was.

Cause STXI was the shit.

You probably will not like Watchmen as much as Star Trek. Of this, I am almost positive. However, you and I do have a nice intersection in movie taste, so, who knows what you'll think.



Have you read the comic? If you have, I can say for sure you won't like it as I am the only person out of a dozen or so that liked the film better than the comic. Reading the comic, for some reason, automatically creates a hate for the film...

Sadako of Girth
No Im on the hunt for the graphic novels and I have heard of several aspects that fascinate me. Doc Manhattan and his perception of time issues Ive heard about for example.

ThunderGodEneru
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am the only person out of a dozen or so that liked the film better than the comic. ...........WHAT!?

WO Polaski
watchmen sucked but star trek was the shiz

ThunderGodEneru
If Isaiah was not your cousin I would slap you. stick out tongue

I don't think I ever posted my opinion of the Watchmen movie. mmm

Although Watchmen(movie) was indeed inferior to the comic, as much of what made the comic great does not translate into live-action very well or not at all, but honestly, the Watchmen film is about as good an adaption as there can be IMO.

And despite being a watered down Watchmen, I enjoyed it more than Star Trek.

WO Polaski
i honestly wouldnt even put watchmen over star trek in terms of plot. the comics got a lot of themes and story but it didnt translate over very well at all into the movie imo. i feel that the violence was too over-the-top and the story was rushed and felt a bit forced and ozymendia's justification for destroying the world was weak. but yeah thats just my opinion.

dadudemon
Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
...........WHAT!?

Exactly. I found mysefl bored, at times, with the comic. For REALZ. Whereas, the movie, I wanted to see what would happen next. (Out of curiosity of how they made it into a film and also because of the story differences making it slightly new.)

Sure, I enjoyed some of the expanded back stories...but those obviously couldn't fit into one film. Comic is still quite good, don't get me wrong.

jalek moye
i found the comic overrated, i mean i liked it but it is defintly not one of my favorites

batmanfan136
I like star trek a lot better I'm not even a big star trek fan i thought it was better just cause of the all the changes to watchmen, I'm fine with changes in adaptations of things cause some things in comics are a little far fetched and to bring a realism to a movie something needs to be changed but the things that were changed in watchmen seemed dumb and unless to me Idk that's just my opinion. And for the star trek movie did really find anything that wrong to me not saying its a perfect movie but i found it better than watchmen

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by WO Polaski
and ozymendia's justification for destroying the world was weak. but yeah thats just my opinion.

really, to bring peace? You thought that was weak?

dadudemon
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
really, to bring peace? You thought that was weak?

laughing


PWNED!

Robtard
I like them both equally, ST had that fast paced, cheesy feel, which is fun in a theater. Watchmen was more drama, had decent action and the plot kept you going.

Really, I've only read parts of the GN, but I don't see why all you **** cry about it "not being like the graphic novel", it's pretty close, they couldn't fit every single aspect of it onto film, given the allotted time.

WO Polaski
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
really, to bring peace? You thought that was weak?

the concept of "kill millioons to save billions" is wrong. there is no debate about it there is no question of morality. it is just incorrect and stupid. thus its a bad justification.

Robtard
Yes, by first conquering the majority of the world, setting up a dictatorship and executing anyone who didn't meet the required grade.

Far different that Veit's plan, the 1k Year Reich was. Apples to oranges.

WO Polaski
he obliterated multiple major, executing millions of people. including entire families. the only difference between his plan and hitlers was that his sounded nicer.

but that doesnt change the fact that they both share the "justificiation", which was that they what they did was a way to bring peace. i was only addressing that, not their actions as a result of that justification.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
I like them both equally, ST had that fast paced, cheesy feel, which is fun in a theater. Watchmen was more drama, had decent action and the plot kept you going.

Really, I've only read parts of the GN, but I don't see why all you **** cry about it "not being like the graphic novel", it's pretty close, they couldn't fit every single aspect of it onto film, given the allotted time.

The voice of reason.

Robtard
Veit wanted to unit humanity to save it from extinction (ie a nuclear war), while his actions did cause millions of death, it is not comparable to Hitler's.

WO Polaski
and hitler wanted to pull germany out of its shitty state of affairs and have its people prosper. at the end of they day they both justify mass slaughter by claiming that they're trying to make their "world" a better place. wanting "peace" or "stability" does not make it okay to kill everything

Robtard
You're conveniently ignoring that Veit's cause was to save all of humanity from pending extinction. So while his actions killed millions, he saved billions and secured peace for all nations. His other option was to do nothing and let armageddon come.

Would you choose to let billions die, because it's "not okay" to kill millions?

WO Polaski
how do we know that plan worked? we saw them sign a cease fire or whatever, but how long do we know that lasted? maybe it did last forever or maybe it lasted a few years and then the two leaders had words and they killed every living being on Earth. So how do you know he saved billions? maybe momentarily. would you kill millions to prolong the worlds destruction for... a decade? the movie goes out of their way to show how violent we, humans, are. but then it goes on to ignore that theme by stating that giving us all one common enemy will untie us all and save us all. that's a lie. there will always be the religious extremists who want the world to end, or want everyone to die, there will always the politicians with their own agendas. i can assure you that dr.manhatten raping the world will act as a way for a dicatotr-esque leader to come into power, and then we'll be right back where we started and those millions whos lives were destroyed will be for nothing.

so to answer your question? would I? yes.. i would, because ai one person like everyone else and i dont have the authority to choose who dies and who doesnt. especially if there was no guenrentee that the peace would actually last.

now, if i asked every one of those millions of people if theyd be willing to do die to save billions and they all said yes then sure. thats a chocie and a sacrifice theyre willing to make.

if itd help establish my views, i think the christian god is a dick.

Robtard
We don't know it worked indefinitely, but it's better than the pending doom for all that was going to happen. Anyone of reason would choose to have another chance, than certain death.

Now that's a really poor choice, those millions you're unwilling to sacrifice would be dead anyways, along with everyone else.

I doubt the Christian God cares, going on the grounds it's all true, but okay.

Mindset
I liked Star Trek a lot more.

dadudemon
Originally posted by WO Polaski
how do we know that plan worked?

Because it did. Rather simple, really.

Impediment
I have yet to see the new ST. Watchmen was okay, but it was disappoining on so many levels.

jalek moye
Originally posted by WO Polaski
the concept of "kill millioons to save billions" is wrong. there is no debate about it there is no question of morality. it is just incorrect and stupid. thus its a bad justification. yes there is seeing as people view morality differently. me and plenty others think that its actual a good reason. Just because you dont doesnt mean that there is no debate about whather its right or wrong

ThunderGodEneru
Turning this thread into a morality debate?

Isaiah would be proud. big grin

Robtard
Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Turning this thread into a morality debate?

Isaiah would be proud. big grin

Killing millions (who would be dead anyways) to save billions (ie humanity) isn't really a question of morality, it's common sense.

It's like refusing to put down the diseased dying dog to save the rest of the pack. Just idiocy, letting them all die.

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by WO Polaski
the concept of "kill millioons to save billions" is wrong. there is no debate about it there is no question of morality. it is just incorrect and stupid. thus its a bad justification.

yeah, but i really dont think that killing millions to save billions was his ambition. I believe the point was to stop the cycle of war and inspire peace and enlightenment. War is mans greatest hinderance. Even with Dr Manhattan (a god) watching over the world, man was still warring. In fact, man was on the brink of destroying the world. What Dr Manhattan (a god) couldn't accomplish. White accomplished by doing what Dr Manhattan neglected to do...,making a decision that a watchmen should make. Whether it was right or wrong doesnt matter it is the one thing that Manhattan could never do. He was unable to make a human choice, or just a choice in general. War and Nuclear Holocaust was going to happen either way. The only way it was ever going to be averted was by the hand of Manhattan. White new Manhattan was never going to make that choice. So, instead of a world wide nuclear holocaust that would have sent humanity into history, white sacrificed innocent people to bring humanity out of the cycle of war. White gave humanity a chance.

Even though Manhattan did ultimately choose to help. It wasn't until Whites' revelation that he realized his presence would not end the cycle of war but, instead, only strengthen the gap between nations. This is at least what i took away from it. It was bitter sweet for me. Yeah, everyone wanted Manhattan to wave his hand and end everything but unlike Manhattan, we're not faced with a decision that holds the entire human race in our hands. Each one of the Watchmen served as a different voice. Rorschach obviously served as the voice of the common man...,wrong is wrong. Nite Owl, although he agreed with Rorschach he was torn with his faith to believe in something bigger...,Manhattan (god).

I'm not trying to say you're wrong or argue your point. So don't take me the wrong way because my first reaction was to side with Rorschach and even now, i can see the logic of both sides. My human morales and values tilt me towards agreeing with...,justice is justice but then i start looking at the decision without moral investment and rather with a sense of indifference and i see only one thing...,preservation.

Bicnarok

H. S. 6
Originally posted by Robtard
Killing millions (who would be dead anyways) to save billions (ie humanity) isn't really a question of morality, it's common sense.

It's like refusing to put down the diseased dying dog to save the rest of the pack. Just idiocy, letting them all die.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The voice of reason.

thumb up

CATMANEXE
Originally posted by Robtard
I like them both equally, ST had that fast paced, cheesy feel, which is fun in a theater. Watchmen was more drama, had decent action and the plot kept you going.

Really, I've only read parts of the GN, but I don't see why all you **** cry about it "not being like the graphic novel", it's pretty close, they couldn't fit every single aspect of it onto film, given the allotted time.

exactly. its like when someone has a tiff that an X-Men movie wasnt
accurate to continuity. theres like what, 40 years worth of comics?
good new is, Watchmen is being rereleased this year in a 4.6 hour
directors cut.

personally opinion and coming from a convention going Trekkie,
liked Watchmen more, but not to denote Star Trek either. i think Terminator has a chance at blowing them both out the the window.
( but we'll have to wait and see).

Bardock42
Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
...........WHAT!? Don't mind it, he has a "go against reason in order to be special" issue....he thinks the new Star Wars movies are better than the old.

He probably thought Indy 4 was not a pile of steaming old crap.

Robtard
Originally posted by CATMANEXE
exactly. its like when someone has a tiff that an X-Men movie wasnt
accurate to continuity. theres like what, 40 years worth of comics?
good new is, Watchmen is being rereleased this year in a 4.6 hour
directors cut.

personally opinion and coming from a convention going Trekkie,
liked Watchmen more, but not to denote Star Trek either. i think Terminator has a chance at blowing them both out the the window.
( but we'll have to wait and see).

I have high, high hopes for Terminator. Here's hoping it doesn't turn out to be pure shit.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't mind it, he has a "go against reason in order to be special" issue....he thinks the new Star Wars movies are better than the old.

He probably thought Indy 4 was not a pile of steaming old crap.

Since when did "reason" come into movie taste opinion? AHA!

I think anyone who likes the OT better than the PT are idiots who refuse to let go of their blankie. no expression


And, no, I most certainly did not think the new Indiana Jones movie was that good. If you compare it to everything hollywood puts out, it was marginally better than average. If you compare it to blockbuster hits, it was near the bottom.




Yes, I also have high hopes for the new Terminator. I look forward to it, greatly.

A 4.6 hour watchmen? Dude, that sounds great! I loved the movie, so I look forward to things following closer to the comic. That'd make it even better.

ThunderGodEneru
Originally posted by dadudemon
A 4.6 hour watchmen? Dude, that sounds great! I loved the movie, so I look forward to things following closer to the comic. That'd make it even better. This makes your opinion bullshit.

How can you like the movie more, but think that if it is closer to the comic it would be better?

The only thing the movie had over the comic was fighting/action. It did not possess near the same depth.

Although for the record, I actually do enjoy the PT more than the OT. Both have cheesy lines, a few craptastic plot elements, but PT looks better, and didn't have Ewoks. My mortal enemies.

dadudemon
Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
This makes your opinion bullshit.

How can you like the movie more, but think that if it is closer to the comic it would be better?

Because the live action film is better than comic book, my friend. The more of the live action movie I can get that is close to the comic book, the better.

In my world movie > comic book, all things equal. Since the visuals and general artistic feel for the movie is >>>>>>>>> comic, anything in that same form would be better for me. Since I liked the comic, and lots of stuff had to be cut out of the movie to keep it form being 4.6 hours, I had to settle with what I got. Also, you should probably think a little bit more about opinions before you call them illogical, because opinions can't be illogical unless there is factual evidence that makes the opinion just that, illogical.


I'll make a comparison for you.


You get a bunch of shitty pictures that tell a good story.


Now, animate them with backgrounds. Same story.... Why wouldn't it be better than the still images?

It's like the difference between a storyboard with subtitles and the finished product. Now do you feel me?

The more of the storyboard that can be made into the finished prodcut, the better. smile

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
The only thing the movie had over the comic was fighting/action. It did not possess near the same depth.

I agree that it didn't possess that same amount of depth, but it certainly had depth in spades.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Although for the record, I actually do enjoy the PT more than the OT. Both have cheesy lines, a few craptastic plot elements, but PT looks better, and didn't have Ewoks. My mortal enemies.

What is wrong the with the Ewoks? I just don't get the Ewok hate. EVERONE whines about the Ewoks.

ThunderGodEneru
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because the live action film is better than comic book, my friend. The more of the live action movie I can get that is close to the comic book, the better.

In my world movie > comic book, all things equal. Since the visuals and general artistic feel for the movie is >>>>>>>>> comic, anything in that same form would be better for me. Since I liked the comic, and lots of stuff had to be cut out of the movie to keep it form being 4.6 hours, I had to settle with what I got. Also, you should probably think a little bit more about opinions before you call them illogical, because opinions can't be illogical unless there is factual evidence that makes the opinion just that, illogical.


I'll make a comparison for you.


You get a bunch of shitty pictures that tell a good story.


Now, animate them with backgrounds. Same story.... Why wouldn't it be better than the still images?

It's like the difference between a storyboard with subtitles and the finished product. Now do you feel me?

The more of the storyboard that can be made into the finished prodcut, the better. smile



I agree that it didn't possess that same amount of depth, but it certainly had depth in spades.



What is wrong the with the Ewoks? I just don't get the Ewok hate. EVERONE whines about the Ewoks. 1. So it is the visuals? That's it? Because it looks pretty and has special effects?

"Settle for what you got?" So that is it then? You admit it did not have the same genius as the comic did, but because it looks prettier, it is better? You're right, illogical is the incorrect term, I think shallow would be far better.

Big problem. Watchmen had great comic-art, and told a great story with a substantial amount of depth.

The movie while preserving as much of the comic's depth as it could, paled compared to the original. Also, Watchmen was made by Alan Moore to show what comics could do that no other form of fiction could, much of the symbolism and depth of the comic does not translate easily into movies.

While I would agree I was surprised by and enjoyed the movie, it still is nowhere near the comic in depth and brilliance.

You don't see anything wrong with a bunch of three foot hairy midgets with rocks and sticks defeating the best battallion in the Empire? Odd.

dadudemon
Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
1. So it is the visuals? That's it? Because it looks pretty and has special effects?

And real actors with each of them putting their own unique spin on the characters.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
"Settle for what you got?" So that is it then? You admit it did not have the same genius as the comic did, but because it looks prettier, it is better? You're right, illogical is the incorrect term, I think shallow would be far better.

Did I say the comic was genius?

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Big problem. Watchmen had great comic-art, and told a great story with a substantial amount of depth.

I disagree that it had great comic art. I thought it was bland, plain, and the coloring was just...meh. Even the characters were generic, at best.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
The movie while preserving as much of the comic's depth as it could, paled compared to the original.

Again, no one here is debating that the movie was "deeper" than the comic. no expression

If the movie was a miniseries, it could be "deeper" than the comic.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
While I would agree I was surprised by and enjoyed the movie, it still is nowhere near the comic in depth and brilliance.

Sure, the comic had more depth...no one is debating that. Overall, I enjoyed the movie more, though. Sometimes, I got bored reading the comic. I've read better. no expression

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
You don't see anything wrong with a bunch of three foot hairy midgets with rocks and sticks defeating the best battallion in the Empire? Odd.

The best batllion? I don't remember that being stated anywhere.

And, yes, that's perfectly okay. They used tricks. And towards the end, they started to get the beat down as soon as their tricks ran out.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
What is wrong the with the Ewoks? I just don't get the Ewok hate. EVERONE whines about the Ewoks.

I loved them when I was 10, my excuse, I was 10.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
I loved them when I was 10, my excuse, I was 10.

This is what I'm going with. I thought they were cool when I was a lad. These days, I couldn't care less, but I most certainly don't hate them.

Ax3l
Star Trek, duh.

Mr. Rhythmic
"Watchmen", at best, was mediocre. "Star Trek" was nothing but mind blowing fun.

Hell, "Star Trek" even had the giant squid "Watchmen" should have.

Menetnashté
Originally posted by Robtard
We don't know it worked indefinitely, but it's better than the pending doom for all that was going to happen. Anyone of reason would choose to have another chance, than certain death.

Now that's a really poor choice, those millions you're unwilling to sacrifice would be dead anyways, along with everyone else.

I doubt the Christian God cares, going on the grounds it's all true, but okay.
haha yes he sent his only son to die for all of humanity. He probably doesn't care though, I find it hilarious how ignorant most everyone is about Christianity.

But yeah the two movies are a bit difficult to compare, I mean they're not at all alike. Star Trek was a big flashy action film and Watchmen was a more story compelled movie. I think if I had to pick though I'd say Watchmen, I prefer story over action and Watchmen definitely had the story down. Star Trek's plot was kind of stupid. The best part of Star Trek was its actors. Besides Rorschach is epic.

Mr. Rhythmic

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.