Star Trek vs Watchmen

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).

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

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

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.

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. 😐

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.

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.

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.

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. 🙂

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.

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. 🙂

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.

"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.

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. 😐

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. 😐

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.

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.

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.

Star Trek, duh.

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

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by Menetnashté
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.

That was the issue with "Watchmen": It was a character fueled story that Snyder screwed up by trying to make it a big flashy film.