Aquaman vs Watchmen

As okay of a movie as Aquaman was, it was a visually stunning movie. Had the movie not been so long and had the end fight set up been more satisfying, I would have enjoyed that final war scene more.

1. Aquaman is more visually stunning overall.
2. Watchmen is more consistent visually. Aquaman has higher highs, but it also has some pretty bad shots here and there.
3. Aquaman is overall the better film. Watchmen has a great 1st half, but falls off a bit in the 2nd. Aquaman is much more well-rounded.

@theamazingspidey: @saintwildcard:

This is a poll comparing purely their visuals.

Not their quality.

Stop being wrong about things, JEEZ! Watchmen is obviously the better movie. It's a freaking shot for shot adaptation of the greatest COmic book story ever told, which a better ending than the one from the book

I know. Just thought there was no harm in giving my overall thoughts y'know?

Naaah even taking the movie on it's own merits without comparing it to the source material, Watchmen just feels too emotionally sterile and oftentimes cold. The pathos feels less authentic and more engineered.

Aquaman is the cheesiest thing I've ever seen, but it's fun and sincere in it's tone. Just an overall more well-rounded movie that knows what it is and succeeds at doing it.

agree

The movie actually fixed the ending to the original which at least in that aspect makes it better. Only character who was different in personality, was Ozymandias (he had a bit more charisma), everyone for the most part felt the same as they did in the comic.

The pathos feels less authentic and more engineered.

Literally a shot for shot remake of the original. I don't give a flying poop how you feel about their acting.

Aquaman is the cheesiest thing I've ever seen, but it's fun and sincere in it's tone. Just an overall more well-rounded movie that knows what it is and succeeds at doing it.

Aquaman suffers from too much action and too many things crammed into one movie. A lot could have been cut out. That final fight could learn from the phrase "less is more".

@saintwildcard:

The movie actually fixed the ending to the original which at least in that aspect makes it better. Only character who was different in personality, was Ozymandias (he had a bit more charisma), everyone for the most part felt the same as they did in the comic.

Characters aside, the inaccuracy of the movie came from Zack Snyder's direction and execution of certain aspects which missed the tone of the graphic novel. The opening action sequence and the alley action scene with Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre are two action sequences that come to mind where Snyder fetishes and stylises the blood and violence. Or take the prison escape scene.

In the graphic novel, Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre only only shown attacking one or two people. In the movie, it's a prolonged action sequence involving numerous people where dozens of punches and attacks are thrown. Zack Snyder's overemphasises on epic, prolonged, stylished action sequences didn't work and weren't homogenous with the tone and message of the story.

Literally a shot for shot remake of the original. I don't give a flying poop how you feel about their acting.

No it isn't. Do you recall a prolonged action sequence in the beginning of the comic involving the Comedian? The graphic novel starts with the dude already earlier. The plot outside of the ending is virtually the same beat-by-beat, but Zack Snyder's direction and execution of events created a movie with stylish, over-the-top action sequences that didn't work and made the movie feel all the more cold.

Aquaman suffers from too much action and too many things crammed into one movie. A lot could have been cut out. That final fight could learn from the phrase "less is more".

Don't get me wrong: Aquaman is a very flawed movie. But the flaws didn't stop it from being an enjoyable, light and fun experience. Whereas the flaws in Watchmen resulted in a movie that is neither fun or emotionally potent. It has it's moments and it has some great performances (specifically in the 1st half IMO), but overall it feels too cold and emotionless.

3 paragraph which can be summed up with "No! The action scenes were too long! HA! OWNED! NOT ACCURATE AT ALL"I expected a better response from you. YOu're blowing it out of proportion

It's flaws stop it from being better than Watchmen, which it isn't. In terms of performance and story, Watchmen is just better. And some action scene criticism hardly proves your point. When it comes to performances, I'd argue that Aquaman had some terrible acting scenes as well and just because it's "fun" doesn't mean that they get a pass. The motivations and characters are all still there, which all add up to the greatest finale in comic books.

@saintwildcard:

3 paragraph which can be summed up with "No! The action scenes were too long! HA! OWNED! NOT ACCURATE AT ALL"I expected a better response from you. YOu're blowing it out of proportion

What? I spent most of my post criticising the form of the action sequences, not just the length: the stylisation and fetishism of the violence. It's supposed to be a grounded superhero moving. Having drawn out action sequences full of slo-mo, close-ups of blood and gore and heroes performing outstanding feats that only a peak human would be able to perform did not work for me.

It's flaws stop it from being better than Watchmen, which it isn't. In terms of performance and story, Watchmen is just better.

I'll giving Watchmen credit for being more ambitious and tackling deeper themes, but I don't think that inherently makes it more enjoyable. As I mentioned, there are too many issues with the execution, though, primarily stemming from Snyder's tonally deaf direction. Snyder took a story that condemns violence and heroics, and directed it with too much style, flash and too many slo-mo, over-the-top action sequences that are basically violence porn.

The way Snyder directed the movie really reflects this quote by him:

"You could call it "high-brow" comics, but to me, that comic book was just pretty sexy! I had a buddy who tried getting me into "normal" comic books, but I was all like, "No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me." I was a little broken, that way. So when Watchmen came along, I was, "This is more my scene."

When it comes to performances, I'd argue that Aquaman had some terrible acting scenes as well and just because it's "fun" doesn't mean that they get a pass.

I agree. Jason Momoa and Amber Heard were below average, even for a superhero movie (which generally just have decent, serviceable acting). And that kid who played Young Arthur was awful.

Jackie Earl Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan alone put Watchmen above Aquaman in terms of performances. Though Patrick Wilson and Malin Akerman are mediocre at best.

Blah blah blah! I know you did, and it's still an overblown criticism. GIT IT OUTTA HERE!

An other paragraph that puts to much emphasis on the action being "a problem". First of all, the story was a criticism of injecting realism to the comic book genre. Unfortunately for Moore ended up creating an epic story that took all focus away from that moral. While Moore states it's a cautionary tale, no one really cares about that and just enjoys the story for the story and not the moral. IMO, he did that moral better and more clearly with "Whatever Happend To The Man of Tomorrow".

Even freaking William "Biggest Penis" Dafoe was terrible in this. I liked Patrick Wilson honestly. He played that "dorky depressed past his prime hero" really well. His voice really fit that character.

@saintwildcard:

Blah blah blah! I know you did, and it's still an overblown criticism. GIT IT OUTTA HERE!

Well, that's the subjectivity of film, innit? Maybe the execution of action sequences weren't significant for you, but for me, it was enough to detract from the experience. "It's an overblown criticism" seems like a way of handwaving criticism that isn't necessarily wrong, but you just don't agree with or find significant enough.

An other paragraph that puts to much emphasis on the action being "a problem". First of all, the story was a criticism of injecting realism to the comic book genre. Unfortunately for Moore ended up creating an epic story that took all focus away from that moral. While Moore states it's a cautionary tale, no one really cares about that and just enjoys the story for the story and not the moral.

What is this, dude?? I've talked to a lot of people, myself included, that enjoy the moral.

Even freaking William "Biggest Penis" Dafoe was terrible in this. I liked Patrick Wilson honestly. He played that "dorky depressed past his prime hero" really well. His voice really fit that character.

He was terrible at playing "an adult man who dressed up in a silly suit and beat up people" though.

Because how you're viewing the movie is strange to me. You're focusing on the moral, rather than the substance of the story and character motivations. You literally have to be told what the moral is for that to be an issue, cus it's not really clear in the book that that's the moral. And if it is, Moore does a terrible job at it, cus he spends his time fleshing out all the characters and the setting. Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly don't remember that moral being clear in the story.

EDIT- It's like spending all your time building a giant statue of a penis and a vagina, and the claiming that it symbolizes abstinence.

Good for you and those... probably 5 people (hyperbole, if it's not obvious). But Moore knows very well that his story led to the very thing he wanted to avoid. It's why he wrote Supreme, in attempts to prove that he could write a lighthearted story. Frank Miller and him both feel bad for essentially bringing in the era of adult and edgy comics. So regardless about how you feel about that moral, the attempts to recreate that Watchmen magic by introducing heavy topics and real world problems shows how little that moral stuck with the mass audiences and the industry. If you asked anyone if they'd like a story that's as well written as Watchmen and just as dark, 9/10 they'd say yes, despite that the moral of Watchmen is against that.

Well good thing that's not what the character was and he played what the character actually was.

Bump.

Bump

Aquaman, but that's literally the only way it's superior to Watchmen.

Aquaman was in no way stunning.

It has one good looking shot, and I would not call it stunning.

Watchmen made me interested in visuals as a kid (middle school) when I saw it. It influenced me a bit, and I'm not even a fan of Snyder. Obviously it's hard to ignore something as significant as that films impact on comic book visuals.

It's style is both recognizable and attractive.

Everyone debating quality, neither were A or B films, Watchmen was a C, and Aquaman was a hard D. Neither had exceptional story telling.