Sideswipe versus Bumblebee.....

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Prolly looks not near as hot without all the makeup.

I'm not paying $8 to go see Transformers b/c of her. The kids at my school joked that they'd bring lotion to the premiere of Jennifer's Body. I told them to have fun. The next week all I heard was how bad the film was. "They didn't show anything!" I sat in my seat shaking my head.

But then again at my school they think Wolverine, G.I. Joe, ROTF>>>Watchmen, District 9.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, it looks like Sideswipe is the most uber H2H bot in the series...or at the least, on part with Optimus.

Watchmen sucked.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Oh, please....what did he do that's so impressive. It was a cool scene. When did we go to just that to "this leapfrogs him in martial ability above everybody else"? He hasn't displayed his H2H abilities once. Only people who have notable H2H abilities are Prime and Bumblebee.

He has much faster and "fancy" H2H movement than any other character. Rewatch the vid. That type of movement and speed is more uber dan bumblebee, for sure.

Sideswipe IS the fastest Autobot. Agreed. He's the fanciest one alive(the only competition is dead) as well. Agreed.

Does that make him more uber or a better H2H fighter than Bumblebee? No. He may be the better fighter but we've neither seen or heard anything to support this claim. Bumblebee has been in a H2H fight with 2 Autobots. He's had far more battle experience by the way.

Why's this thread still going on again?

He's the fastest, therefore BB will have a hard time blasting him. His blades are capable of slicing BB in two, so if it goes CQC, advantage SS.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
He's the fastest, therefore BB will have a hard time blasting him. His blades are capable of slicing BB in two, so if it goes CQC, advantage SS.

Assumptions and baseless-claims, FTW.

So is saying SS's blades cannot cut BB in two.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So is saying SS's blades cannot cut BB in two.

The way you make it, SS rolling up to BB; swinging and slicing him in twain is baseless, considering the very specific way he cut SW.

BB kicking, punching, kneeing, flipping and shooting the shit out of SS once they clash isn't, considering the screen feats BB has, but we've been over and over this.

Indeed we have.

Yes, RJ. Double indeed...

Double cheeseburger?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Double cheeseburger?

That sounds good. With Mayo.

I leave for a few days and this thread is still active...

facepalm

Door swings both ways.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Watchmen sucked.

The script in comparison to the book sucked cock, yes.

And we can say that the movie was terrible, but at the end of the day we all have to come to the harsh reality of human pleasure and admit that the unbelievable augmentation that such an evolved form of visual and audio perfection that a modern-day high budget film brought to what was once a poorly drawn 2-D piece of paper kicked ass and brought thousands of previously uninterested people into the fandom of the Watchmen Novel and lengthened the amount of times the original book will be read by the new generations to come.

Reading the graphic novel gave me a headache and took me over three weeks to read and I didn't understand a word of it, watching Doctor Manhattan molecularly disassemble a man's flesh because they said the wrong thing to him made me laugh out loud in a theater filled with tons of people like a fat Roman Emperor did after having witnessed a group of trained lions savagely tear a Gladiator apart in a Colloseum filled with thousands of people hundreds of centuries before me.

Originally posted by \\S//
The script in comparison to the book sucked cock, yes.

You mean it was almost as awesome as the comic and even better in other ways, right? awesome

Originally posted by \\S//
And we can say that the movie was terrible, but at the end of the day we all have to come to the harsh reality of human pleasure and admit that the unbelievable augmentation that such an evolved form of visual and audio perfection that a modern-day high budget film brought to what was once a poorly drawn 2-D piece of paper kicked ass and brought thousands of previously uninterested people into the fandom of the Watchmen Novel and lengthened the amount of times the original book will be read by the new generations to come.

Reading the graphic novel gave me a headache and took me over three weeks to read and I didn't understand a word of it, watching Doctor Manhattan molecularly disassemble a man's flesh because they said the wrong thing to him made me laugh out loud in a theater filled with tons of people like a fat Roman Emperor did after having witnessed a group of trained lions savagely tear a Gladiator apart in a Colloseum filled with thousands of people hundreds of centuries before me.

😆

Well said.

Personally, I enjoyed the film more. It looks like you did as well.

Reasons why the film was better:

1. Characters seemed more real and less linear. (The actors added to the characters in a way that made the fictional characters more real than the linear interpretation of a single author.)

2. The "color" of the film was better. The novel's colors were bland and monotonous.

3. The art direction of the film was much better than the graphic novel. Much much better. The movie's art direction was much more believable, as well. The comic was too linear and bland, imo.

4. Not as overly dramatic as the comic.

5. Was shorter but still got the plot across. That's really important, actually.

6. Had sound. 😐

7. Had real people in it. 😐

8. Had music. 😐

9. Had real bewbz. 😐 (Not too keen on the CGI cawk, though.)

10. I was, originally back and forth on this one, but...the ending plot is better in the film. It just fits better and is more realistic, imo.

Reasons comic was better:

1. Had more character development. The sub-plots were longer for the characters and there was more "narration" going on.

2. Because it was written, allows the reader to interpret things in his or her own way, at times. A movie form does not allow that kind of freedom.

3. Was longer. Some people enjoy being entertained night after night by a good book/comic.

That's it. 😐

The movie gets my very coveted 9 out of 10. I'm not the only one to give it high marks. Sadako, who is many times at odds with my tastes on films, gave it an 8 out of 10.

You know who hated it? Comic book fanboys/girls that would have hated it...get this....no matter how good the film was.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean it was almost as awesome as the comic and even better in other ways, right? awesome

😆

Well said.

Personally, I enjoyed the film more. It looks like you did as well.

Reasons why the film was better:

1. Characters seemed more real and less linear. (The actors added to the characters in a way that made the fictional characters more real than the linear interpretation of a single author.)

2. The "color" of the film was better. The novel's colors were bland and monotonous.

3. The art direction of the film was much better than the graphic novel. Much much better. The movie's art direction was much more believable, as well. The comic was too linear and bland, imo.

4. Not as overly dramatic as the comic.

5. Was shorter but still got the plot across. That's really important, actually.

6. Had sound. 😐

7. Had real people in it. 😐

8. Had music. 😐

9. Had real bewbz. 😐 (Not too keen on the CGI cawk, though.)

10. I was, originally back and forth on this one, but...the ending plot is better in the film. It just fits better and is more realistic, imo.

Reasons comic was better:

1. Had more character development. The sub-plots were longer for the characters and there was more "narration" going on.

2. Because it was written, allows the reader to interpret things in his or her own way, at times. A movie form does not allow that kind of freedom.

3. Was longer. Some people enjoy being entertained night after night by a good book/comic.

That's it. 😐

The movie gets my very coveted 9 out of 10. I'm not the only one to give it high marks. Sadako, who is many times at odds with my tastes on films, gave it an 8 out of 10.

You know who hated it? Comic book fanboys/girls that would have hated it...get this....no matter how good the film was.

I wink at you sir.

It's ok, deep down we all know that Watchmen couldn't achieve in nearly three hours, a director's cut and an additional DVD what Alan Moore accomplished in a book that amounts to an inch thick.

There's reasons for it, and ignoring them is dumb. This isn't to say people can't think it did some things well, but it absolutely didn't achieve what Watchmen did.

The film just felt like a movie with people from Watchmen in it. It didn't feel anything like the book and cut out several key elements that didn't allow the plot to get across in entirity (Fact. Cutting out Hollis Mason's murder was beyond stupid).

Also, to suggest the novel had bland and monotonous colours is laughable, but to each their own. The characters were nowhere close to being linear in the comic, and I find it hard to see why anyone would think that. Then again, some people have trouble struggling without a film to guide them. It's just the way things go. Logically, how do you cut back the parts of characters in Watchmen and make them LESS linear? Defies sense. They made Dr. Manhattan seem like a whiney *****, they cut out all of his best parts.

Laurie was nothing like the chain-smoking, on-edge neurotic freakshow that she is in the comic.

Some people need sound and moving images, real boobs and flashy lights. It's cool, I accept that. I do.

"The end was more realistic.".

Hahahahahaha. In a movie containing a man who sees time simultaneously, realism went out the window from the beginning.

On top of that, letting Laurie say Dr. Manhattan's final line was abominable and there was no excuse. This woman spends her time tearing her hair out because Doc sees things on a level she cannot comprehend, and by the end of the movie we're expected to accept that she understands? No, sorry. That was never Alan Moore's intention. It should have ended with Veidt and Manhattan, but it didn't.

Bear in mind, I don't think the movie was shit, or bad. It was alright. It was way less than the novel deserved and was, as is expected with Moore's books, a poor adaptation. "Poor" meaning that it cut way too much out, and I feel that people who read the book first are mistaking "The plot got conveyed well regardless." with "I filled in the gaps without realising it. Others who haven't read the book didn't/couldn't.".

Calling someone a fanboy or fangirl for disliking a movie adaptation of a book that's very close to a lot of people, isn't a bad thing, but to do so despite the fact that there're good reasons to hate this movie, is wrong. I'm not one of them, I just don't think they're wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's ok, deep down we all know that Watchmen couldn't achieve in nearly three hours, a director's cut and an additional DVD what Alan Moore accomplished in a book that amounts to an inch thick.

In my opinion, it exceeded it. I would rather watch the movie than read the comic, any day of the week.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's reasons for it, and ignoring them is dumb. This isn't to say people can't think it did some things well, but it absolutely didn't achieve what Watchmen did.

Yup. Glad I've touched on them in multiple posts in multiple threads then, right?

And, the movie exceeded the comic in almost every category.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The film just felt like a movie with people from Watchmen in it. It didn't feel anything like the book and cut out several key elements that didn't allow the plot to get across in entirity (Fact. Cutting out Hollis Mason's murder was beyond stupid).

It felt like the comic but thank the Lord, they didn't keep with that very linear format for all of the characters. They all seemed like the same character with just a tad bit of variance to them.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Also, to suggest the novel had bland and monotonous colours is laughable, but to each their own. The characters were nowhere close to being linear in the comic, and I find it hard to see why anyone would think that. Then again, some people have trouble struggling without a film to guide them. It's just the way things go. Logically, how do you cut back the parts of characters in Watchmen and make them LESS linear? Defies sense. They made Dr. Manhattan seem like a whiney *****, they cut out all of his best parts.

Also, to think that the novel had anything but a bland and monotonous color scheme is laughable. Anyone who doesn't admit that should be taken out into the streets and beaten.

Sure, it's not bland at all if you compare it to Edo era "manga". 😐

And, actually, they made Manhattan even more believable.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Laurie was nothing like the chain-smoking, on-edge neurotic freakshow that she is in the comic.

How dare they give her a personality. How. Dare. They.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Some people need sound and moving images, real boobs and flashy lights. It's cool, I accept that. I do.

Covered this point already. I understand that some people can't let go of their precious comic and think about things objectively cause that would be too intelligent.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"The end was more realistic.".

Hahahahahaha. In a movie containing a man who sees time simultaneously, realism went out the window from the beginning.

So, in other words: "I didn't pay attention to the movie so I missed the part about tachyons clouding his vision. Look at me. I'm cool."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
On top of that,

No matter what comes next, it will be a

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
letting Laurie say Dr. Manhattan's final line was abominable and there was no excuse. This woman spends her time tearing her hair out because Doc sees things on a level she cannot comprehend, and by the end of the movie we're expected to accept that she understands? No, sorry. That was never Alan Moore's intention. It should have ended with Veidt and Manhattan, but it didn't.

Yeah, how dare they create character development. How. Dare. They.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bear in mind, I don't think the movie was shit, or bad. It was alright. It was way less than the novel deserved and was, as is expected with Moore's books, a poor adaptation. "Poor" meaning that it cut way too much out, and I feel that people who read the book first are mistaking "The plot got conveyed well regardless." with "I filled in the gaps without realising it. Others who haven't read the book didn't/couldn't.".

I thought the movie did the novel justice and then some.

Also, it was one of the best novel to movie adaptations ever done.

And, I think the movie was superb. The only other movie I enjoyed more this year was Inglorious Basterds.

Watchmen movie exceeded the expectation I had from reading the comic. That's a huge accomplishment. I feel that too many novel readers are not being objective about it, at all. I've only met one other person that liked the movie more, and he already posted in this thread.

I don't think any lesser of you, AC, for liking the novel more. In fact, it might be said that you have a better imagination than I do because you liked the novel more. Lots of people enjoy reading a story, that has lots of more details, than watching a movie of the same story. The little details and side stories are what do it for them.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Calling someone a fanboy or fangirl for disliking a movie adaptation of a book that's very close to a lot of people, isn't a bad thing, but to do so despite the fact that there're good reasons to hate this movie, is wrong. I'm not one of them, I just don't think they're wrong.

-AC

I feel the opposite. It is my opinion that the Watchmen fanboys and fangirls dislike the movie specifically because they can't be objective. Especially when they say stupid shit like, "No matter what the movie is like, I'm going to hate it" before they even watch the damn film. How much more silly can that get?

And, because you did like the film and didn't say you'd hate the film before watching it, your criticisms most definitely seem more objective. How can someone hate the live action adaptation of a comic they loved when it held so close to the comic?

Here's how I see it:

The comic book series is a giant bland colored cake with lots of flavors hidden throughout the many layers of the cake, but the flavors have similar tastes. The layers fit together nicely, but sometimes, the layers get messed up into each other unnecessarily. Also, the layer design can sometimes be a tad unappealing.

The movie is a much smaller cake with an exterior decoration that makes the giant cake look like it was designed by a 5-year-old. The flavors are more varied in the layers, but there are fewer layers. However, the layers fit together more closely and even the layers are beautiful in design. Some of the layer design was slightly changed, but it very closely resembles the Giant cake.