This message has been deleted.

The Discovery is better because of the hottest Native American nudity ever - Talinh Forest Flower! omg i taped the damn film for her!
http://www.imdb.com/board/20286103/

1492 looked more acurate and better made. Take for example the native americans. In "1492" they truly look like full blooded natives. I'f im correct, they used a real tribe to play the native americans. In "The discovery", the natives look more like random people they picked in the street just because they had dark hair and dark skinned. The chief is even played by a hawaiian actor. And that beautiful native with her perfect breasts and stylized hair looks more like a model than a native american living in the wild 500 years ago.

I was responding to the original poster, not to you.
If you will notice, my post is threaded as a response to the original post, not to yours.
You should also be more polite in general, but especially when you are completely wrong or confused about something because it make you look like a, well, you said it not me

I was talking about the music, dummy.

As others have said, the term "original" doesn't apply. Both movies had to have been in production for years before they came out. 6-weeks is just a matter of release schedules by the studios, it's not determinative as to which script was sold first, which one was announced first, went into production first or was even finished first.
All that being said, Ridley Scott's "1492" is a far, far better movie and certainly much more well and beautifully directed. It's not a great movie, but it is decent. This one is not so great, despite a few decent moments.

Cliff Eidelman wrote a much stronger, epic sounding score. His traditional orchestral approach could not be any further from Vangelis' new age music for 1492: Conquest of Paradise, and while the latter score would be a terrible fit for the film itself, it would go on to high album sales for years. Eidelman's score, conversely, was a valiant attempt to help save the film, but has long gone forgotten.

if it means anything 1492 is the much much much much better and much much much more well made film, but this one isn't as bad as the crix made it out to bethere are some nice touches here and there, Selleck, Wacky Brando,
the story is essentialy the same but more straight foward which isn't a bad thing by any means. (less flash, more of a striaght foward story)
the real problem i think i had though is the lead here is the rather bland George Corraface where as the lead in 1492 was Gerard Depardieu who had a much larger than life personality to bring to the screen, that it nearly makes up for all the flashiness that Ridley Scott injects into 1492. (some of the flashes were very good, but as that movie goes on, it gets to be a bit too much to take.)

Indeed, you should probably replace the word 'original' with the words 'The one that was rushed out as quickly as possible to try and steal the more eagerly anticipated Ridley Scott version's thunder!'

When you're talking about a period of six weeks, the word "original" doesn't apply. I'm not being a smartass or anything. I'm saying the word "original"
literally
doesn't apply.
"
What the f-ck is the internet?
" -
Jay
, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

This one is the original, coming out about 6 weeks before 1492.

I confess, I prefered Discovery better just because it was shorter. They were both horrible movies.