The Dark Knight vs Watchmen

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.

[/b]

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.

[/B]

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

Originally posted by budmassey ([email protected])

Watchmen is iconic and iconoclastic, deconstructionist and revisionist, laden with allegory and allusion. Consider, for example, the character Ozymandias. I'm wondering how many people who viewed the film ever even heard of Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem by the same name. The character even quotes the poem on a plinth in his Antarctic lair. The allusion is amazing. Here's the full quote;

And on the pedestal these words appear -- "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

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.

👆