Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Here is where you can post your opinions on this topic, because frankly, we all know they are the two biggest hitters. Keep it clean, lets not bicker, but hopefully there can be some good discussion over this.

Before I thought The Dark Knight was the best film of the genre. But after viewing the DC of Watchmen I find myself seriously reconsidering my opinion.

What do you think? Has Watchmen dethroned The Dark Knight as the best film of the genre? If you think neither of these films are as great as I state then state your top and state where these two compare.

TDK was brilliant the Watchmen was pretty good.

Aw dude this is a good question. I loved both TDK and Watchmen alot. Favorite Character in TDK?: The Joker. Favorite Character in Watchmen?: Rorshach. Least Favorite Character in TDK?: Dont have one. Least Favorite Character in Watchmen?: Silk Spectre I(IDK she is really annoying to me. Not like she was in the book). I give my vote to TDK for that sole purpose

i didnt like the watchment that much. i guess because i dont know alot about the characters cause i never read their comis maybe. the movie was long as hell to

Watchmen is much better as a graphic novel..

I did like the movie, but it is not all that it is cracked up to be..

The Dark Knight is leaps and bounds waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Watchmen

Originally posted by Premium
TDK was brilliant the Watchmen was pretty good.

That sums it up.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
The Dark Knight is leaps and bounds waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Watchmen I disagree. I watched both The Dark Knight and Watchmen: Directors Cut last night and it may be b/c I've tired out of TDK but I enjoyed Watchmen a hell of alot more.

Watchmen was just another comic book movie.

It was really fun, but it wasn't an out-of-this-world cinematic accomplishment. The Dark Knight was.

Part of Watchmen's failings was the fact that it had a set source. Batman didn't. Watchmen being as unfaithful as it was is precisely a main reason why it didn't work.

I thought most of the cast were unfitting, except Dreiberg and maybe Comedian. Too much was cut out, too much was changed. Alan Moore did ten times more in a few issues of a comic than Hollywood could do with millions of dollars, multiple editions of DVD and C.G.I.

-AC

Watchmen was the better book. TDK was the better movie, by quite a bit.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I disagree. I watched both The Dark Knight and Watchmen: Directors Cut last night and it may be b/c I've tired out of TDK but I enjoyed Watchmen a hell of alot more.


I'll never tire out of The Dark Knight..

Too me Watchmen is a much better graphic novel that horribly plays like a movie.. I will buy the Watchmen DVD but will only watch it sparingly unlike TDK which I watch every other day

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Watchmen was the better book. TDK was the better movie, by quite a bit.


QFT

The Dark Knight SUCKED. Why they would upgrade Joker and not Batman I will never understand - the only reason people are turning it into a cult film is because that moron managed to kill himself in the process - a fact I am still celebrating about.

The Watchmen was PHENOMENAL - very close to the original story, with the paranoid atmosphere of the 80s and the Cold War perfectly slipped into background.

Not even a close contest...

Originally posted by Dreampanther
The Dark Knight SUCKED. Why they would upgrade Joker and not Batman I will never understand - the only reason people are turning it into a cult film is because that moron managed to kill himself in the process - a fact I am still celebrating about.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
The Watchmen was PHENOMENAL - very close to the original story, with the paranoid atmosphere of the 80s and the Cold War perfectly slipped into background.



You were hypnotized by the giant blue wang weren't you?

Watchmen is the better comic book movie, while TDK is more like a crime drama.

To SC:

Umm, actually - since Watchmen is still the only graphic novel even rated on Time Magazine's 100 best novels published in the English language since 1923, and since the producers actually made a real effort to keep close to the original story of the man who ACTUALLY WROTE THE ORIGINAL NOVEL, I think I might not be the only one blinded by some moron's inabilty to control his lifestyle, resulting in his death.

In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks - "Hey, another moron is dead - I feel like dancing!" Why should I pity an idiot who abuses drugs and dies from it? Simply pathetic...

I love the Dark Knight graphic novels - they are still two of my favourite stories ever told and two of my favourite graphic novels in my collection- and I think Frank Miller is an absolute genius - but the film was completely unbalanced, with no effort made to recreate the Batman that Frank Miller envisioned.

So, if all you can remember about Watchmen is that there was a giant blue wang - do you suppose it is possible that YOU are the one with the homo-erotic fascination...?

Originally posted by Dreampanther
To SC:

Umm, actually - since Watchmen is still the only graphic novel even rated on Time Magazine's 100 best novels published in the English language since 1923, and since the producers actually made a real effort to keep close to the original story of the man who ACTUALLY WROTE THE ORIGINAL NOVEL,

That has nothing to do with the quality of the Watchmen movie which stuck me as mediocre at best. What's the point of judging something on things other than it's own merits?

Watchmen tried (and failed) to stay true to it's source material. TDK too the much wiser route of not basing it self on much of anything and putting together a very good piece of cinematography.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
I think I might not be the only one blinded by some moron's inabilty to control his lifestyle, resulting in his death.

In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks - "Hey, another moron is dead - I feel like dancing!" Why should I pity an idiot who abuses drugs and dies from it? Simply pathetic...

Who cares if he's dead, though? Ledger played a brilliant Joker.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
I love the Dark Knight graphic novels - they are still two of my favourite stories ever told and two of my favourite graphic novels in my collection- and I think Frank Miller is an absolute genius - but the film was completely unbalanced, with no effort made to recreate the Batman that Frank Miller envisioned.

So you're outright ignoring the movie itself when you judge the quality of the movie? That's crazy.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
So, if all you can remember about Watchmen is that there was a giant blue wang - do you suppose it is possible that YOU are the one with the homo-erotic fascination...?

Possibly except that I have no real sex drive to begin with. I was simply trying to come up with a lighthearted reason that you might judge the Watchmen movie (which is what we're actually talking about) as being a better movie (see that word again) than the Dark Knight movie (third time).

Although you're welcome to your opinion the reasoning you gave is terribly flawed at best.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


So you're outright ignoring the movie itself when you judge the quality of the movie? That's crazy.



Umm, no - I said the film was completely unbalanced - how is that ignoring the movie? Please...

Oh, and thank you, THANK YOU for your permission to have my own opinion...

Watchmen was the better movie. TDK was vastly overated, it was only on par with Batman begins.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


You were hypnotized by the giant blue wang weren't you?

If his appendage was your idea of "giant" then I think you're giving a lot about yourself away...

Originally posted by jaden101
If his appendage was your idea of "giant" then I think you're giving a lot about yourself away...

While id agree that Dark Knight is overrated in terms of how good a comic book movie it is, its still a brilliant movie.

Watchmen was good, imo, but not on the level of TDK by any means...

I enjoyed Watchmen's fight scenes a whole lot more than The Dark Knight.

-

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Watchmen was just another comic book movie.

It was really fun, but it wasn't an out-of-this-world cinematic accomplishment. The Dark Knight was.

Watchmen being as unfaithful as it was is precisely a main reason why it didn't work.





How was the Dark Knight such an outstanding accomplishment? Batman is a very good movie but imo it is overrated.

I thought, Watchmen worked very well. I was always a huge fan of the comic book and i think the movie actually worked out better in some ways.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
How was the Dark Knight such an outstanding accomplishment? Batman is a very good movie but imo it is overrated.

I thought, Watchmen worked very well. I was always a huge fan of the comic book and i think the movie actually worked out better in some ways.

How can you say it worked very well, when the very release of it proves otherwise?

It CLEARLY doesn't work well as a movie because it's taking a theatrical release, a director's cut and two additional DVD side stories to tell the bloody thing.

It wasn't meant as a movie and it doesn't work.

It's a movie with characters from Watchmen in it, loosely and carelessly telling bits and pieces of the story. It's not a Watchmen movie.

None of Alan Moore's movies work without being gimped, this is fact.

The Dark Knight was a Batman movie. It wasn't meant to adhere to any set source, it was just inspired by the source. It felt like a Batman movie, not just "Oh, Batman's in it.".

-AC

Well it worked for me. Might not have worked for you. I felt it was a great film of the genre and I base it soley on that. I don't try and match it up with the book.

I liked the Watchmen better. I like the movies ending better than the books. I also felt that TDK was purely a Joker movie and concentrated way to much on him. Ledger played a great Joker, but in my opinion, the Jokers probably the easiest character to portray, so maybe all the kudos he gets are unwarranted.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Well it worked for me. Might not have worked for you. I felt it was a great film of the genre and I base it soley on that. I don't try and match it up with the book.

It's not up to you to decide if it works, it clearly didn't. You liking it doesn't change the fact that it's a sucky adaptation.

You don't try to compare it to the book?

1) You can't. You've never read the book.

2) Why not? It's a Watchmen adaptation. If it wasn't to be compared, it wouldn't exist.

-AC

I can't believe this is even a discussion. We're in the comic book MOVIE forum. The question is which MOVIE was better. Not which is a better adaptation or which novel was better. Put that aside and look at JUST the movie. If you can't then, oh well. TDK is wayyyyy better than Watchmen. I have never read the Watchmen novel, so I know it only as a movie(which is why I comment here, and not in the Comic Book thread), and as a movie is was OK at best. The best part of the movie was the opening montage, I LOVED THAT WHOLE scene. After that the movie was just OK. TDK had me from beginning to end. Ledger did a very good job becoming a different person. Not just Method Acting like everyone, except Rorschach, did in Watchmen.

Why bring up the fact that the actor who played a role in a movie died in real life, that's just done to get a rise out of people; it's not necessary. Stay within the movie.

P.E.A.C.E.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Here is where you can post your opinions on this topic, ...

What do you think?

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Well it worked for me.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not up to you to decide if it works, ...

-AC

So now, on forums where we are invited to share our opinions, we are not allowed to decide what we like?



When did the Nazi Forum Police take over?

That's AC for you.

How about not cutting off my quote and warping it out of context, you cretin?

Would that work for you?

"It's not up to you to decide if it works, it clearly didn't. You liking it doesn't change the fact that it's a sucky adaptation.".

I wasn't saying you can't enjoy the movie, or feel it worked as a movie. It didn't work as an adaptation, and everything proves this. The amount of add ons that exist have proven it doesn't work.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wasn't saying you can't enjoy the movie, or feel it worked as a movie. This is my point. For me, it did work as a film. I felt it was great.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


"It's not up to you to decide if it works, it clearly didn't. ...
I wasn't saying you can't enjoy the movie, or feel it worked as a movie.


-AC

Ah, okay - now we just revert to calling names? How mature.

All hail AC - The only one allowed to decide what "works" and what doesn't. Apparently.

Why so aggressive? Why so full of hate?

Your quote was not taken out of context - just abbreviated. Nowhere did I change the meaning of your statements. Taken in full, if you prefer:

You state, as you repeated "It's not up to you to decide if it works, it clearly didn't." Then you state "I wasn't saying you can't enjoy the movie, or feel it worked as a movie."

That is EXACTLY what you are saying. Now, maybe you didn't mean to contradict yourself that way - but, like it was explained to Alice in Wonderland - "Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is not the same thing, now is it?"

Unfortunately, it comes across quite draconian and totalitarian, sort of implying (and not very subtly) that WE are not allowed to have an opinion on what sucks and what doesn't - but YOU do.

I used to enjoy your posts, you seemed, reasonable, fair and willing to allow other people their opinions without reverting to insults - but for some reason you have now decided you are the only one allowed to decide what works and what "clearly didn't"...

Quite clearly you are extremely passionate about TDK and have appointed yourself a (VERY) vigorous defender of it's virtue and value. (Damn - notice my awesome allitteration there? V ain't got nothing on me! ) But would it not be more appropriate to let the film speak for itself, and let the fans make up their own minds about what they like and what they don't - without being browbeaten about it?

Maybe you just typed too hastily? Too passionately? Maybe you didn't notice you contradicting yourself? However, it is difficult for me to guess what you MEANT to say - I can only respond to what you actually DID say.

I much preferred the old AC...

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
I can't believe this is even a discussion. We're in the comic book MOVIE forum. The question is which MOVIE was better. Not which is a better adaptation or which novel was better. Put that aside and look at JUST the movie. If you can't then, oh well. TDK is wayyyyy better than Watchmen. I have never read the Watchmen novel, so I know it only as a movie(which is why I comment here, and not in the Comic Book thread), and as a movie is was OK at best. The best part of the movie was the opening montage, I LOVED THAT WHOLE scene. After that the movie was just OK. TDK had me from beginning to end. Ledger did a very good job becoming a different person. Not just Method Acting like everyone, except Rorschach, did in Watchmen.

Why bring up the fact that the actor who played a role in a movie died in real life, that's just done to get a rise out of people; it's not necessary. Stay within the movie.

P.E.A.C.E.


QFT

I think a lot of people here are afraid to like Watchmen (the film). They think that they shouldn't because Alan Moore didn't want it made, etc. But that said, I'm not afraid to show my love for the movie; it's still my favorite film of 2009 thus far and I thought it was (overall) great.

With that said, I do like The Dark Knight better/think it's a better film. All I'm saying is that Watchmen was also very good. Decent adaptation, quality film imo.

I thought most of the casting was perfect (Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, JEH as Rorschach, and Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan). I've said it before but the Dr. Manhattan scenes on Mars were fantastic imo and I thought his origin sequence worked perfectly with Philip Glass's music.

Anyway, I think a lot of you are being a little harsh on the movie. It's not as rich or as layered as the graphic novel, but as a "companion piece," if you will, to the graphic novel I thought it was great.

But it didn't blow me away like The Dark Knight. TDK was the last film I've seen in theaters that literally exceeded every expectation and left me in awe of how awesome it was.

If I had to give ratings: Watchmen - 8.5/10, The Dark Knight - 9.5/10

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
it's still my favorite film of 2009 thus far and I thought it was (overall) great.

I've said it before but the Dr. Manhattan scenes on Mars were fantastic imo and I thought his origin sequence worked perfectly with Philip Glass's music. I agree with everything here. Manhattan on Mars was riveting! Yes, Watchmen is the best film I've seen so far this year. Even better than Star Trek.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Ah, okay - now we just revert to calling names? How mature.

All hail AC - The only one allowed to decide what "works" and what doesn't. Apparently.

Why so aggressive? Why so full of hate?

Your quote was not taken out of context - just abbreviated. Nowhere did I change the meaning of your statements. Taken in full, if you prefer:

You state, as you repeated "It's not up to you to decide if it works, it clearly didn't." Then you state "I wasn't saying you can't enjoy the movie, or feel it worked as a movie."

That is EXACTLY what you are saying. Now, maybe you didn't mean to contradict yourself that way - but, like it was explained to Alice in Wonderland - "Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is not the same thing, now is it?"

Unfortunately, it comes across quite draconian and totalitarian, sort of implying (and not very subtly) that WE are not allowed to have an opinion on what sucks and what doesn't - but YOU do.

I used to enjoy your posts, you seemed, reasonable, fair and willing to allow other people their opinions without reverting to insults - but for some reason you have now decided you are the only one allowed to decide what works and what "clearly didn't"...

Quite clearly you are extremely passionate about TDK and have appointed yourself a (VERY) vigorous defender of it's virtue and value. (Damn - notice my awesome allitteration there? V ain't got nothing on me! ) But would it not be more appropriate to let the film speak for itself, and let the fans make up their own minds about what they like and what they don't - without being browbeaten about it?

Maybe you just typed too hastily? Too passionately? Maybe you didn't notice you contradicting yourself? However, it is difficult for me to guess what you MEANT to say - I can only respond to what you actually DID say.

I much preferred the old AC...

Bravo, just a huge bravo. You have me figured out. You've nailed the tail to the donkey, cracked the pinata and hit the bullseye. Everything you said was definitely not pretentious and perfectly summed up precisely who I am and what I do.

Now, without the sarcasm, I'll explain it to you again;

Watchmen did not work as an adaptation. That is a fact. On any level that is to be considered good, it didn't work. Fine, lots of movies do not work as adaptations from a direct source.

This does not mean it isn't a well done movie you can enjoy.

I am not expressing that nobody is allowed an opinion or that I am the only one that is right, or that nobody else can speak. Stop being so painfully melodramatic. The fact is that it didn't work as an adaptation. Nothing about me has changed, you're just one of the many people who loved to see me tear apart other people, then turned on me when their debates were in pieces with me standing over them. It's cool, it happens, it's just dumb.

It's funny, you accuse me of things I haven't done, but then you suggest how I go about my ways. I am not as rabidly defensive of The Dark Knight as you claim, I'm just expressing my opinion, and my opinion on your opinion. That's allowed. No need to over-exaggerate my actions to make your own over-reacting feel justified.

There is no old AC. Fact.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
With that said, I do like The Dark Knight better/think it's a better film. All I'm saying is that Watchmen was also very good. Decent adaptation, quality film imo.

Decent meaning what?

This is what I have issue with. When you spend millions of dollars on making a movie three hours long, and you still happen to leave out multiple massive chunks of an important story, as well as STUPIDLY giving characters the WRONG dialogue, I consider that a poor adaptation.

What's the basis for it being decent? It not ENTIRELY sucking as a movie you can sit and watch if you don't compare it to the book?

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I thought most of the casting was perfect (Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, JEH as Rorschach, and Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan). I've said it before but the Dr. Manhattan scenes on Mars were fantastic imo and I thought his origin sequence worked perfectly with Philip Glass's music.

The Dr. Manhattan Mars scenes were heavily cut back, they were way less poetic and meaningful to the story than the ones in the book.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Anyway, I think a lot of you are being a little harsh on the movie. It's not as rich or as layered as the graphic novel, but as a "companion piece," if you will, to the graphic novel I thought it was great.

This is what I have issue with too.

"It's good as a companion piece.", "It's not as rich, but..." but what? If you have to gimp the compliment, you're starting off on a losing foot. The book doesn't need a companion piece. Especially a companion piece like that. It's fine as it is. The only people who needed this movie were those too lazy to read it, or people who need things to be in motion; Darth Martin being a prime example. He loves Watchmen so much because he feels he's part of the group that lauded it in the first place, now.

I guarantee you he will say he didn't find the book as good, simply because he wishes to defend the movie, or he needed the movie. People somehow feel things are automatically better if they're not just still pictures.

It's like when Doug Stanhope criticised people for saying Sarah Palin is hot...for a politician. What's the measuring stick there? That she's hotter than John McCain? She's not hot.

"Watchmen was good compared to most comic book movies.". Most are shit.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bravo, just a huge bravo. You have me figured out. You've nailed the tail to the donkey, cracked the pinata and hit the bullseye. Everything you said was definitely not pretentious and perfectly summed up precisely who I am and what I do.


Thank you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Now, without the sarcasm, I'll explain it to you again;

Watchmen did not work as an adaptation.

For you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That is a fact.


No, that is an opinion. YOUR opinion. But as I pointed out earlier, you seem to suffer from the delusion that your opinion IS fact...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
On any level that is to be considered good, it didn't work.

For you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fine, lots of movies do not work as adaptations from a direct source.

This does not mean it isn't a well done movie you can enjoy.

Gee whizz golly gosh - thank you, oh THANK YOU...

Why, then, did you attack me when I stated that I DID enjoy it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri I am not expressing that nobody is allowed an opinion or that I am the only one that is right, or that nobody else can speak. Stop being so painfully melodramatic.

Then why state "It's not up to you to decide if it works..." ? Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri The fact is that it didn't work as an adaptation.

For YOU. Making it an opinion - YOUR opinion.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nothing about me has changed,

Maybe it's time?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri you're just one of the many people who loved to see me tear apart other people, then turned on me when their debates were in pieces with me standing over them.

Actually, no - I liked how, for instance in the Religion forum, you would post links to sites arguing for and against Creationism - this is where I developed the opinion that you were balanced.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri It's cool, it happens, it's just dumb.

It's funny, you accuse me of things I haven't done, but then you suggest how I go about my ways. I am not as rabidly defensive of The Dark Knight as you claim, I'm just expressing my opinion, and my opinion on your opinion. That's allowed. No need to over-exaggerate my actions to make your own over-reacting feel justified.

Then why, when I wish to do the same, namely express my opinion, do you revert to abuse and sixth-grade name calling?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri There is no old AC. Fact.

Maybe there should be a new one?

I'm a little bit bored with this now - and tired of having to point out to you why and how you seem unable to distinguish between fact and opinion... So if you don't mind, and in fact, even if you do - I am going to leave this here now and move on.

Please feel free to respond as much or as little as you like - but I think I'm not the only one bored with this by now. Have a great day, and please try to remember that the purpose of an open forum - where people are invited to 'post their opinions' by the creator of the discussion - is to ENCOURAGE people to share their opinions - therefore it seems more than a little small-minded to become abusive and aggressive and hurl insults about when people do exactly that...

Watchmen was a great movie!!! The movie is very confusing and doesn't give too much information which leaves people who read the novel saying, "where is the rest?" But if you haven't read the novel and just watch it, then it's pretty good. You get a decent movie that explains a lot, and it doesn't leave to much questions.

I never read the novel, but I still loved the movie. It explained what it had to. However, my teacher who read the novel and then proceed to watch the movie was pissed off. He kept saying they are leaving things out. It is just like the Green Lantern: FF. That's now how the story is, and it leaves a lot of question and confusion among comic book reader. Like how did the guardians get defeat by Sinestro? Why didn't the GL ring lose to yellow if there was an imperfection? Though, my father actually liked it. Why? he didn't read the comic itself.

TDK, however was just completely better. Even if you are a comic book fan, or just have common knowledge of Batman you will still understand the story. It draws you in; especially the park about the part how you live long enough to see yourself as a villain.

All in all, I liked TDK more.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
For you.

No, objectively.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
No, that is an opinion. YOUR opinion. But as I pointed out earlier, you seem to suffer from the delusion that your opinion IS fact...

My opinion is not fact, my opinion is subjective like everyone else's. This isn't opinion, it's fact.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
For you.

No, objectively, as proven.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Gee whizz golly gosh - thank you, oh THANK YOU...

Why, then, did you attack me when I stated that I DID enjoy it?

Did you consider that I wasn't attacking you, that you were perhaps being over-sensitive? No? Consider that.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Then why state "It's not up to you to decide if it works..." ? Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

It's not a contradiction. It was me fully not clarifying what I was referring to, which is my bad.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
For YOU. Making it an opinion - YOUR opinion.

You continuing to tell me "For YOU" won't make it any more true. I've continued to provide massive evidence and proof that shows you why, outside of your overall judgement of the flick, it's a poor adapation. This does not require you to agree, so there's no point in discussing it. You agree with fact or you deny it. One is sensible, one is dumb.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Maybe it's time?

For you to stop concerning yourself with how others act, yeah.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Actually, no - I liked how, for instance in the Religion forum, you would post links to sites arguing for and against Creationism - this is where I developed the opinion that you were balanced.

Yeah, then you ended up debating me yourself, now you dislike me.

...but really?

Hardly ever been in the religion forum in my life. Any other times I've been in there were extremely one off, so you obviously pay more attention to me than I'd like or you are thinking of someone else.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Then why, when I wish to do the same, namely express my opinion, do you revert to abuse and sixth-grade name calling?

If you take my "name-calling" seriously then I suggest getting more than a sixth-grade backbone, pal.

This isn't opinion, it's objective.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Maybe there should be a new one?

Yeah, I'll change who I am so you don't tear up when we debate. Sure.

(That was sarcasm)

Originally posted by Dreampanther
I'm a little bit bored with this now - and tired of having to point out to you why and how you seem unable to distinguish between fact and opinion... So if you don't mind, and in fact, even if you do - I am going to leave this here now and move on.

Likewise, I'm tired of you not knowing what is the difference between fact and opinion.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Please feel free to respond as much or as little as you like - but I think I'm not the only one bored with this by now. Have a great day, and please try to remember that the purpose of an open forum - where people are invited to 'post their opinions' by the creator of the discussion - is to ENCOURAGE people to share their opinions - therefore it seems more than a little small-minded to become abusive and aggressive and hurl insults about when people do exactly that...

Once again, you miss the point, but thank you for telling me I can post as little or as much as I like. I didn't need your permission.

Sound familiar?

You'll reply. They always reply.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Decent meaning what?

This is what I have issue with. When you spend millions of dollars on making a movie three hours long, and you still happen to leave out multiple massive chunks of an important story, as well as STUPIDLY giving characters the WRONG dialogue, I consider that a poor adaptation.

What's the basis for it being decent? It not ENTIRELY sucking as a movie you can sit and watch if you don't compare it to the book?



The Dr. Manhattan Mars scenes were heavily cut back, they were way less poetic and meaningful to the story than the ones in the book.




This is what I have issue with too.

"It's good as a companion piece.", "It's not as rich, but..." but what? If you have to gimp the compliment, you're starting off on a losing foot. The book doesn't need a companion piece. Especially a companion piece like that. It's fine as it is. The only people who needed this movie were those too lazy to read it, or people who need things to be in motion; Darth Martin being a prime example. He loves Watchmen so much because he feels he's part of the group that lauded it in the first place, now.

I guarantee you he will say he didn't find the book as good, simply because he wishes to defend the movie, or he needed the movie. People somehow feel things are automatically better if they're not just still pictures.



As far as leaving things out, think about ANY adaptation of a complex, or sometimes just plain lengthy, property. Aspects HAVE to get left out and that's something everyone should expect going in. As for why I thought it was decent, as I said I thought the casting and acting was near-perfect, the feel/tone of the graphic novel was represented accurately on the screen I thought and yes, even though they left things out, the ideas conveyed in the graphic novel were translated into the film; the movie evoked thoughts and ponderings on a lot of the same things the graphic novel did, ie "is it morally acceptable to kill of millions to save billions," etc.

Anyway, I know you won't allow yourself to understand or agree with me, but considering that the film kept the core ideas/themes of the book intact and represented them well, that's why I consider it a decent adaptation.

Now, let me say that it's been a couple years since I've read the graphic novel. It's possible that when I reread it, I'd see things in it that make me more critical of the film, but as of now, this is how I'm feeling.

As for the Dr. Manhattan stuff; less poetic and meaningful? Sure. But for me, I FELT more when I saw the film version of that scene. Actually HEARING his voice and the music in conjunction with the images allowed me to have an emotional response that I was unable to have when reading the book.

Which brings me to my next point. I didn't mean to gimp the compliment, I just meant to give it context. As I stated just above there, the film allows the viewer to have a different response to essentially the same material, therefore allowing for a broader understanding and deeper appreciation for the work as a whole. And no I'm not saying that I didn't understand the Dr. Manhattan scenes when I read them in the book, I'm just saying that for me, I can watch the film, then go back and read the book again and like it even more.

And also there's just something that's plain awesome about seeing scenes in the movie lifted directly from the book. I'm sure a lot of fans would agree.

And I agree, the book doesn't NEED a companion piece or an adaptation, but it sure is nice. Lord of the Rings didn't NEED to be made into a film trilogy, but I fvcking love those movies, moreso than the books. What qualifies whether or not a property NEEDS to be adapted anyway?

Anywho, hopefully you'll get the jist of what I mean.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
As far as leaving things out, think about ANY adaptation of a complex, or sometimes just plain lengthy, property. Aspects HAVE to get left out and that's something everyone should expect going in. As for why I thought it was decent, as I said I thought the casting and acting was near-perfect, the feel/tone of the graphic novel was represented accurately on the screen I thought and yes, even though they left things out, the ideas conveyed in the graphic novel were translated into the film; the movie evoked thoughts and ponderings on a lot of the same things the graphic novel did, ie "is it morally acceptable to kill of millions to save billions," etc.

Anyway, I know you won't allow yourself to understand or agree with me, but considering that the film kept the core ideas/themes of the book intact and represented them well, that's why I consider it a decent adaptation.

Don't give me that nonsense of "You won't let yourself agree.". I disagree because I disagree. I don't agree with you. Not because I'm forcing myself to, but because what the Watchmen movie did was what South Park does every episode.

At the end, the nicely sum up what the point of the episode was explicitly, for all the stupid people.

Watchmen did the same. That was the one point that translated over from the book because they explicitly said "Is it wrong or right to kill millions to save billions?". They didn't clearly convey all the other themes of moral absolutism, all the nuances around being or feeling obsolete, deconstruction of the genre, nihilism etc. Naturally, because of what they changed, the whole point of the time/space theme wasn't conveyed accurately. The comic actually conveys Dr. Manhattan being in multiple times at once; he's talking to Laurie on Mars, referencing Rorschach. Then at the very same time, but also later, he's talking to Rorschach in the same manner he spoke to Laurie on Mars. "Sorry, I'm informing Laurie five minutes ago".

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Now, let me say that it's been a couple years since I've read the graphic novel. It's possible that when I reread it, I'd see things in it that make me more critical of the film, but as of now, this is how I'm feeling.

As for the Dr. Manhattan stuff; less poetic and meaningful? Sure. But for me, I FELT more when I saw the film version of that scene. Actually HEARING his voice and the music in conjunction with the images allowed me to have an emotional response that I was unable to have when reading the book.

Which brings me to my next point. I didn't mean to gimp the compliment, I just meant to give it context. As I stated just above there, the film allows the viewer to have a different response to essentially the same material, therefore allowing for a broader understanding and deeper appreciation for the work as a whole. And no I'm not saying that I didn't understand the Dr. Manhattan scenes when I read them in the book, I'm just saying that for me, I can watch the film, then go back and read the book again and like it even more.

That IS what you're saying though. "It offered a different perspective.", it didn't. It just cut down what was already there. That's literally all it did. Nobody got a proper understanding of Dr. Manhattan and the way he sees things because they took out everything that depicts that in the comic, including his final scene with Veidt.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
And also there's just something that's plain awesome about seeing scenes in the movie lifted directly from the book. I'm sure a lot of fans would agree.

I'm above debating the whole "It's a moving image so it's awesome.". I've got an imagination.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
And I agree, the book doesn't NEED a companion piece or an adaptation, but it sure is nice. Lord of the Rings didn't NEED to be made into a film trilogy, but I fvcking love those movies, moreso than the books. What qualifies whether or not a property NEEDS to be adapted anyway?

Nothing. They never need to be adapted.

Ultimately what you're saying is that Watchmen wasn't necessarily as good as the book, nor was it needed, but it was nice. Fine, it's happened now, and it was fun. I just don't think "Fun" justifies its existence.

-AC

Well first off...i hate the graphic novel Watchmen....it was boring and horrible i.m.o......yet i find the movie was way better than TDK, i found TDK to be so boring and trying so hard to be real life...it was such a huge disapointment to me.

Watchmen for the easy win

I found The Dark Knight to feel more like a comic book than any other comic book movie, yet it wasn't restricted by that.

-AC

Who stole the show more: The Joker or Rorschach?

Joker.

Originally posted by starlock
Well first off...i hate the graphic novel Watchmen....it was boring and horrible i.m.o......yet i find the movie was way better than TDK,

........................okay.

Originally posted by The Nuul
Watchmen is the better comic book movie, while TDK is more like a crime drama.

QFT.

Also, on a side note. Joker is always meant to steal the show. If theres ever a Batman movie wiht Joker in it, and he doesnt steal the show, the movie is fail. Period.

With me being such a fan of Batman 89 and Joker, its hard for me to say it was better than Watchmen for the simple fact that i feel that Watchmen stands alone in terms of comic book movies. Both movies had great plots. Watchmen having more action.
I do notice similarities between Batman 89 and TDK. TDK's joker just seemed to serious to me and its something im still not a fan of. I know that that Joker is based of a more serious Joker, but Jacks Joker performance was more memorable. He lived up to the name moreso.
Ive read the Watchmen novel, and i feel the movie did a great job in converting it to the big screen. Both movies are great, but i do feel while TDK may be a bit overrated, Watchmen is a bit underrated and doesnt get the recognition it deserves.

The Watchmen is an excellent movie. I'm not ashamed to say I liked it. A lot, actually. Though, after the second time viewing it, it doesn't quite hold up. It's still a good movie, but TDK was a near perfect film, IMO.

I can still watch it and get excited throughout the movie, unlike Watchmen. All things considered, TDK wins this with ease.

"Watchmen" was a smart movie trying to be stupid. "The Dark Knight" was a smart movie that knew how to stay smart, but appeal to everyone at the same time.

The Dark Knight is a better movie.

The Dark Knight - 7/10
Watchmen - 5.5/10

the watchmen actually was not that great...definitely not what i was hoping for

The Dark Knight midnight showing was suckish however it was not the movie's fault because i loved that movie!

I have just watched Watchmen again this past weekend. And I was very much emotionally stimulated by the movie. Therefore I googled Watchmen and found this interesting thread. Even though it's an old thread, I'd really like to share my opinions.

I have never read either TDK or Watchmen books, but as we are solely discussing the movies here, I think it's valuable to share my own views from an amateur's perspective (as opposed to the die-hard fans who also read the books).

I like Watchmen better than TDK. Not way better, but much better.

TDK is a great movie and is shot in Chicago, where I am from, and when I saw it in IMAX I was shocked with awe. It is amazing at the time.

I saw Watchmen in IMAX too, but it didn't stimulate as much emotions as TDK did, partially because I didn't understand part of Rorschach's speech. I thought it was mediocre.


This last weekend, I have seen Watchmen again, with subtitles. And I was shocked, in a darker and more satiated way, than TDK.

Here is why:

1. TDK: It gives people hope, and stimulate a positive emotion, passion and determination.

2. Watchmen: It is very dark, but much more deeper, incisive as well as insightful on human nature. All the characters have weaknesses, human fallibility. And their weakness are diverse, pretty much covered the major spectra of all human beings. The weaknesses are so subtle - they are exposed through gesture, facial expression, timing of their acts, rhetoric, decision making. And they are only obvious if you think, compare and contrast.

Here is a quote from IMDB review by



The literature references make Watchmen more refined and culturally profound.

I personally like the aesthetics of Greek tragedy and therefore IMHO Watchmen movie is a much better one, because it is more profound, refined, darker, insightful on human nature.

And Rorschach, a hero that is so pure and exact, yet not a cold machine. -- much more humane than a almost-perfect hero Batman, or a complete lunatic Joker.

Again, they are all my opinions, based on my personal taste and experience. I just would like to share and am NOT trying to convince anyone.

Best regards.

Joker is grossly over rated in TDK, infact I think Eckhart was the better villain.

I thought the theatrical release of Watchmen was okay, but I knew it was missing a lot because I read the book. The director's cut is much better.

Originally posted by Badabing
The director's cut is much better.