MovieChat Forums > The Zodiac (2006) Discussion > The Zodiac vs Zodiac

The Zodiac vs Zodiac

posted 17 years ago by SevenKal-ElGuiry
13 replies | jump to latest

i have seen both, and both are VERY well done, but i like THIS version better, it tells you MORE and is MUCH shorter, sometimes shorter is better. lt.bookman (people who watch seinfeld will understand )are in both.

My wife knows ALOT about the zodiac, she is a profiler so she knows her stuff.

so very cool to see how different a movie about the same person can be. VERY GOOD JOB

Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible and receives the impossible
I am not Paul Avery
I WAS IN THE POOL, I WAS IN THE POOL

[–] whatsupyo 17 years ago

It may have been shorter but I don't see it anywhere close to being better. It also didn't have as many facts. In Zodiac, they actually went through evidence, questioned the main suspect, etc. Every single angle was covered in Zodiac. At the end of The Zodiac, it said that they never was any main suspects! That's ridiculous. I thought Zodiac was much more superior, very well done and wasn't that much longer to boot.

[–] Panterken 17 years ago

yeah whatsupyo, you're right.

Zodiac vs. The Zodiac. What a ridiculous equasion.

Zodiac: We see into the minds of the investigators, questioning of suspects, the effects of the case on the investigators, a decent background story of the investigators, fine acting, some humour, a masterpiece...

The Zodiac: bad acting(stick to tv-shows é Justin), just a display of a limited number of facts( they show the murders, the code deciphering), ...euhm that's it

Case closed :-p

C.

[–] JJCooney 17 years ago

Bookman hates potty words and pictures of pee-pees drawn in books

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xyZee 17 years ago

I prefer Fincher's film Zodiac way over this one, but this film does have something I liked that the other one didn't have too much, having the current events of the time help place the film. This had the moon landing, the Manson murders, the war, etc, but it's major flaw is the mediocre acting, which is annoying at times. And that kid, I hate how he just walks around like a zombie trying to solve the case that his father can't.

"Don't mind me, man, I'm just effen with ya…" - Janis Joplin

[–] rep588 16 years ago

yeah right, this movie was merely a cheesy flick that tries desperately to use cheap thrills to scare its audience. And I found it bizzare that you actually think this movie tell you more...?!?! are you serious?! this movie barely hangs on to being based on the actual event. it merely used the event kind of like many people used the ed gien event. and uh, okay with your wife. i doubt it. she would have appreciated Zodiac much more, like most Zodiac buffs do. The cartoonist was everything to this story, and this movie simply leaves it out, and kind of replaces him with the cops son. the son of which plays the roll of somebody's creepy son in every friggin bad horror movie. ugh, i can't beleive anybody would actualy say this is better than zodiac. this movie is mediocre at best. why do you think fincher made his movie? because he wanted to do the story justice.

[–] napoleonpete 16 years ago

I vote "Zodiac"

"And what do you want for Christmas this year, and dont say breast implants again."

[–] Mister_Anderson 16 years ago

While I'm normally one to root for the underdog, this movie was crap compared to Zodiac. Here we had a lot of flash shots showing things from the killer's perspective. In Zodiac, it was always from the victim's perspectives, which was better because it's all we know. There's a dumb scene in this movie where the killer is clipping newspapers while listening to opera...ummm, ok???

Zodiac was more historical and accurate. This one was crap. Names and places were changed, characters were manufactured out of thin air, and the acting was subpar. Not to mention that Fincher's story telling and suspense abilities run circles around this one. No contest. And I don't even usually like Fincher movies.

MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com

[–] daronimo 15 years ago

Actually the "opera scene" does have some signicance as the opera the Zodiac was listening to was the Mikado, which he actually paraphrased in one of the correspondances to the San Francisco Chronicle. So whilst in this movie it seems somewhat irrelevant there is a real connection to the Zodiac case.

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Gotta go the other way, Finchers is much better.

Go the mighty maroons!

[–] jorgddh 15 years ago

The comparison is unfair. Zodiac is better because is made with better elements and with better professionals. But I think at least one scene in "The Zodiac" is great: when the young couple is resting in the field, and you can see the killer in the distance, with his black hood, approaching.

[–] tylermaher 15 years ago

OP how in the world can you say that this version tells you more than Fincher's?
This pretty much just covered the basics while Fincher's went into far greater depth. Fincher's also had waaaaay better acting, a better score, and maasterful cinematography. Zodiac kicks the crap out of The Zodiac.

"Freedom is never free"

[–] NoahBody 13 years ago

My wife knows ALOT about the zodiac, she is a profiler so she knows her stuff.

1) You're an insane little teenager, not married.

2) TV (and movies) have lied to you "profilers" are as reliable as psychics and mother goose. They ruined the lives of innocent people (like Richard Jewell) all the time.