Courtesty of Wired. A small extract (its a long interview)
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa
QuoteIt does seem to me that massive tactical superiority might be a key to the superhero phenomenon. That, if it's a military situation, then you've got carpet bombing from altitude, which is kind of the equivalent of having come from Krypton as a baby and to have gained unusual strength and the ability to fly because of Earth's lesser gravity. I don't know, that may be a simplistic interpretation, but that's the way I tend to see superheroes today.
That wasn't what it used to mean. That wasn't what it used to mean to me when I was a child. What I was getting out of it was this unbridled world of the imagination, and the superhero was a perfect vehicle for that when I was much younger. But looking at the superhero today, it seems to me an awful lot like Watchmen without the irony, that with Watchmen we were talking very much about the potential abuses of this kind of masked vigilante justice and the kind of people that it would in all likelihood attract if these things were taking place in a more realistic world. But that was not meant approvingly.
I have to say that I haven't seen a comic, much less a superhero comic, for a very, very long time now—years, probably almost a decade since I've really looked at one closely. But it seems to be that things that were meant satirically or critically in Watchmen now seem to be simply accepted as kind of what they appear to be on the surface. So yeah, I'm pretty jaundiced about the entire "caped crusader" concept at the moment.
If you remember back in the '80s, there was an incredible spate of monumentally lazy headlines in British and American magazine and newspapers. But also something along the lines of "Bam! Sock! Pow! Comic Books Aren't Just for Kids Anymore." I used to think those headlines were just irritating, but it's only recently that I've looked back and realized how incredibly inaccurate they were. Comics had not grown up, bam-sock-pow. What had happened was that you'd gotten two or three comics that had gotten, perhaps for the first time, serious adult elements in their compositions. This was judged as miraculous as a dog riding a bicycle back in the 1980s. It doesn't matter whether he's riding it particularly well; it matters that he's riding it at all.
I think that a lot of people, irrespective of whether they'd ever read a book like Watchmen, took it basically as a form of license. I think there were a surprising number of people out there who secretly longed to keep up with the adventures of Green Lantern but who felt they would have been socially ostracized if they had been seen reading a comic book in a public place. With the advent of books like Watchmen, I think these people were given license by the term graphic novel. Everybody knew that comics were for children and for intellectually subnormal people, whereas graphic novel sounds like a much more sophisticated proposition.
...well that was boring
Good thing I'm not forcing you to read it then, isn't it?
Alan Moore has come off as dismayed for a good few years now. He is of course right.
Edit, this has less to do with his view on superhero success because of tactical advantage and more with the current 'Dark trend in comics
The GRITTY ADULT worlds of frank millars writing popularized the idea of 'grown up comics. The current mainstream comics are nothing but real-life-issues™ badly hammered into a story like a square peg in a round hole. Firstly its bad because its killing the escapist romance aspect of comics, while somehow destroying peoples suspension of disbelief more then the ridiculous older generation.
When EVERY superheros life is shit, its hard to believe in them or associate with them. Marvel are terrible for this.
Secondly those real life issues are badly implemented parallels of actual events. Civil was made me cringe as characters persona's drastically changed to suit what at the time was the big event. when its done everything resets, theres no cohesion.
I think the only marvel comic that I have read in the last few years that was genuinely fun with actual interesting characters in a world that wasn't over top Dark was the great lakes avengers.
I mean there is still good stuff. But currently bleak sells.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on February 28, 2009, 11:17:04 PM
...well that was boring
got a problem with alan moore, bitch boy?
Quote from: Aufenthatt on February 28, 2009, 11:17:04 PM
...well that was boring
A thoughtful critique on comics by a celebrity in the industry is boring?
Thanks.
Where do we obtain myth (to subvert) any more?
Read Hellblazer. Constantine is not much like Keanu at all, he's much more of a badass. Not nearly as brooding or gloomy either. British "humour" is pretty damn funny too. check it out
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 04, 2009, 04:55:54 AM
Read the issues of Hellblazer by warren ellis or alan moore everything else is shit. Constantine is not much like Keanu at all, he's much more of a badass. Not nearly as brooding or gloomy either. British "humour" is pretty damn funny too. check it out
fixed
I heard the film was a bad representation of the comic (what's new, hey?). And if there is one thing the British can do, apart from riot over football matches, its dark humour. Anyone who doubts this should watch the BBC comedy, the League of Gentlemen. People wonder why my sense of humour is twisted, and that show pretty much explains it, perfectly.
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2009, 12:04:51 PM
I heard the film was a bad representation of the comic (what's new, hey?). And if there is one thing the British can do, apart from riot over football matches, its dark humour. Anyone who doubts this should watch the BBC comedy, the League of Gentlemen. People wonder why my sense of humour is twisted, and that show pretty much explains it, perfectly.
The british have the greatest divide in their humor too. Legaue was one of funniest shows ever made, faulty towers despite only being 12 episodes long will live on forever, but then theres stuff like little britain which is nothing but repetition as far as I can tell and the I.T croud which is trash.
Yeah, you're right. I think it depends on the genre of humour, a lot. Dark, surrealist and deadpan humour tend to be done quite well, character and slapstick, not quite as much.
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2009, 12:21:44 PM
Yeah, you're right. I think it depends on the genre of humour, a lot. Dark, surrealist and deadpan humour tend to be done quite well, character and slapstick, not quite as much.
Especially true in the case of stand up, Jack Dee and Stephen Fry are in a masterclass but then in the slapstick side theres Lee Evans who is appalling.
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2009, 12:04:51 PM
I heard the film was a bad representation of the comic (what's new, hey?). And if there is one thing the British can do, apart from riot over football matches, its dark humour. Anyone who doubts this should watch the BBC comedy, the League of Gentlemen. People wonder why my sense of humour is twisted, and that show pretty much explains it, perfectly.
Best thing(s) about the movie: Tilda Swinton as Gabriel, and some dude as Satan.
Also, the story the ripped off for the movie has a
much better ending on how Constantine wins. Trade Paperback is called
Dangerous Habits
I'm not sure I entirely agree with him. I do respect Alan Moore and like a lot of his work (though I haven't read Watchmen), but he himself admits that he doesn't read superhero comics anymore, so how does he know what they're like? I'm a big comics fan personally, so I might (probably will) come off as defensive, but I still think I'm right.
Yes, a lot of them are pretty "edgy" and unintentionally ridiculous, but a lot of them are really good, too, and really do examine the ethics of superpowers.
And if he wants something more classic and light-hearted, there's always things like Marvel Adventures: The Avengers, which is intended for kids but awesome for everybody, and definitely doesn't go for the same 90s trying-too-hard antihero thing.
QuoteI wonder if the root of the emergence of the superhero in American culture might have something to do with a kind of an ingrained American reluctance to engage in confrontation without massive tactical superiority.
I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, yes superheroes have a massive advantage over civilians, but in the Marvel universe at least (which I read exclusively) there are always entities that have as much or more power. For example, many government agencies don't have many superheroes on the staff, but they do have highly superior intelligence (the secrets kind, not the smart kind) and technology to most superheroes. Most superheroes can't stand up to a tank. And there are many superheroes that are "underdogs", which seems like it wouldn't agree with his theory.
QuoteThe average age of the audience now for comics, and this has been the case since the late 1980s, probably is late thirties to early fifties—which tends to support the idea that these things are not being bought by children. They're being bought in many cases by hopeless nostalgics or, putting the worst construction on it, perhaps cases of arrested development who are not prepared to let their childhoods go, no matter how trite the adventures of their various heroes and idols.
This is true to some extent, but I think hating on a hobby just because some of the people who follow it are losers and nutcases is inherently flawed. There are people like that in every hobby, whether it's comics, watching sports or stamp-collecting. I know plenty of young, awesome people who read comics.
I hate to say it, but I think Alan Moore has a lot of bitterness towards the comics industry that he is letting color his view. His bitterness is perfectly understandable for a lot of reasons, of course, and I feel bad for what DC in particular has put him through, but he still can't exactly be considered an unbiased observer. He seems to have this idea that he and the people he work with are the only people doing anything creative and original in comics, and that's just completely untrue.
I'm obviously a big comics fan, so I might (probably do) come off as defensive, but I still think I'm right.
That said, I agree completely with him on the excesses of the film industry, Promethea was awesome, and also I'm really looking forward to the Bumper Book of Magic.
But Lost Girls was edgy, pretentious shit.
I cant help but think that Alan Moore has some very good points here, and one section in particular echoes my thoughts on film these days, his description of CGI.
QuoteI think the amount of work we contribute to our enjoyment of any piece of art is a huge component of that enjoyment. I think that we like the pieces that engage us, that enter into a kind of dialog with us, whereas with film you sit there in your seat and it washes over you. It tells you everything, and you really don't need to do a great deal of thinking. There are some films that are very, very good and that can engage the viewer in their narrative, in its mysteries, in its kind of misdirections. You can sometimes get films where a lot of it is happening in your head. Those are probably good films, but they're not made very much anymore.
There seems to be an audience that demands everything be explained to them, that everything be easy. And I don't think that's doing us any good as a culture. The ease with which we can accomplish or conjure any possible imaginable scenario through CGI is almost directly proportionate to how uninterested we're becoming in all of this. I can remember Ray Harryhausen's animated skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts. I can remember Willis O'Brien's King Kong. I can remember being awed at the artistry that had made those things possible. Yes, I knew how it was done. But it looked so wonderful. These days I can see half a million Orcs coming over a hill and I am bored. I am not impressed at all. Because, frankly, I could have gotten someone, a passerby on the street, who could have gotten the same effect if you'd given them half a million dollars to do it. It removes artistry and imagination and places money in the driver's seat, and I think it's a pretty straight equation—that there is an inverse relationship between money and imagination.
If you haven't got any money, you're going to need lots and lots of imagination. Which is why you'll get brilliant movies by people working upon a shoestring, like the early John Waters movies. People are pushed into innovation by the restrictions of their budget. The opposite is true if they have $100 million, say, pulling a figure out of the air, to spend upon their film, then they somehow don't see the need for giving it a decent story or decent storytelling. It seems like those values just go completely out the window. There's an inverse relationship there
The Lord of the Rings example I feel is perfect, I personally the movie lost a great deal of the charm of the book because of all the eye candy and the overly epic battle scenes. I dont mean specifically to change the subject, or to say that Peter Jackson did a bad job, just to use this as an example of something I feel Alan Moore gets absolutely right in his article.
I'm a little worried that I'll experience a similar sensation with the Watchmen, that the eyecandy is going to overwhelm the subject matter, but I'll probably still enjoy it... and it wont change the quality of the book.
One minor point I'd like to make is that while the Tolkien movies had a lot of CGI, it was technically a low-budget movie.
Other than that, I basically agree with everything else.
I totally do not agree with the CGI critique in regards to the LOTR movies. I think that criticism is best levied against someone like Lucas and the Star Wars franchise. I think LOTR was successful with CGI in the creation of a totally CGI character, Gollum, who was very lifelike and compelling and not just some stupid cartoon character, Jar Jar Binks was that. So I agree with the spirit of the criticism, I just don't agree with the LOTR franchise being a target of the critique.
My SRSB senses are tingling. Heh.
I don't think anyone's saying LoTR wasn't good, I think what's being said is that the use of CGI takes all the wonder out of film, because time was people had to be creative to get good "special effects" as they used to call them.
Yes, I understand that, and I guess I didn't articulate that very well. That's why I pointed to the creation of Gollum because I believe that is an example of how the CGI was used in a way that did create a sense of wonder. Gollum, as a CGI creation, I felt was very believable.
cgi on its own looks awful.
cgi used over a template or to touch up an existing object works well. cgi on its own doesn't feel tangible. gollum is the closest that they have come to real feeling, and he's still not perfect, he has that polished glow that artists are over eager to add to their work when making cgi.
I think that there exists a huge difference between a story and that story in a specific medium.
LoTR was awesome as a book, the depth and detail, the mythology the history... its an entire world that one can immerse themselves in.
LoTR was awesome as a movie because its a cool story with lots of fighting and crazy mythical creatures straight out of hardcore fantasy.
If you break down a wall, don't freak out when everyone goes across it. "OH NOES, I MADE UNIQUE SUPERHEROES THAT WERE FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD... NOW EVERYONE DOES IT!!! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!"
ON NOES, We have the ability to make somewhat realistic critters on screen... WHAT WILL THE AUDIENCE USE THEIR IMAGINATION FOR?!??!?!
Anyone who confuses the 'art' of turning a book into movie, with the 'art' of writing a book from scratch needs their head examined. Anyone with a budget and the right team of people can make a movie whatever movie, with CGI or Puppets. Its a a 'kind' of art... but only Tolkien could have written LoTR and that is a much different, and to my mind, a far more interesting kind of Art. The art of the storyteller and the art of the author are two very different things. Can you imagine the theater critic who was pissed that they actually allowed women on stage, rather than the audience using their imagination? Or the first time there was a complete stage set? OMG, THERE IS ACTUALLY A TREE ON STAGE!!! WHAT THE FUCK WILL THE AUDIENCE DO WITH THEIR IMAGINATION?!?!?! I mean once you have backdrops and fly-in's I'm sure the audience stopped using its imagination entirely....
As much as I hate to say it, Alan Moore in that interview reminded me of RU Sirius in the Pranksters class... "Oh woe! For the cool thing I used to do is not as it once was! WOE!!!"
"As much as you hate to say" it my ass, you're frothing at the mouth. :lol:
I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.
I don't give him credit for the run of dystopian heroes we've had lately. He has made an impact, but it seems to me like a larger pattern that no single writer can take credit for.
Quote from: Felix on March 05, 2009, 06:37:17 PM
"As much as you hate to say" it my ass, you're frothing at the mouth. :lol:
I just hated to have to compare ALAN MOORE with RU Sirius... :horrormirth: Esp cause I once thought RU Sirius was awesome (and I still think Alan Moore is).
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 06:39:41 PM
I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.
I dunno... do the beatniks and dadaists that wanted to break down the fourth wall get to criticize YouTUBE? Its exactly what they wanted... no difference between "artist" and "audience".
You break down a wall, you gotta be ready for the consequences...
HIKEM BEY!!!! YouTUBE IS YOUR FAULT!!!
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 06:39:41 PM
I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.
He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 05, 2009, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 06:39:41 PM
I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.
He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.
Did he claim to have created it? He said he tried something new and hoped to see others trying new stuff and was left wanting from the superhero genre. The authority took a pretty unique stab at it though it was through homage/parody of characters. grant morrisons stuff is pretty unique as well. maybe its just a marvel thing.
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 10:29:48 PM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 05, 2009, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 06:39:41 PM
I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.
He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.
Did he claim to have created it? He said he tried something new and hoped to see others trying new stuff and was left wanting from the superhero genre. The authority took a pretty unique stab at it though it was through homage/parody of characters. grant morrisons stuff is pretty unique as well. maybe its just a marvel thing.
"Watchmen" was put out by D.C.
The characters in "Watchmen" are based directly off of Charlton Characters that D.C. had acquired before "Watchmen" came out. And when I say based on I mean he wanted to use the Charlston characters and was initialy told he could and later told he couldn't.
And really if he didn't create it he wasn't trying anything new.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 05, 2009, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 10:29:48 PM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 05, 2009, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 06:39:41 PM
I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.
He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.
Did he claim to have created it? He said he tried something new and hoped to see others trying new stuff and was left wanting from the superhero genre. The authority took a pretty unique stab at it though it was through homage/parody of characters. grant morrisons stuff is pretty unique as well. maybe its just a marvel thing.
"Watchmen" was put out by D.C.
The characters in "Watchmen" are based directly off of Charlton Characters that D.C. had acquired before "Watchmen" came out. And when I say based on I mean he wanted to use the Charlston characters and was initialy told he could and later told he couldn't.
And really if he didn't create it he wasn't trying anything new.
I have to say that Moore did create something new with the Watchmen. Many people forget that it was written back in the '80's and he was presenting superheroes as 'real people' with real life problems. Especially, the lesbian superhero who was outed and kicked out in the backstory.
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
actually lost girls was just kinda voyeuristic and tacky, however I do feel he tried to make it somewhat original so i guess he gets marks for trying
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 05, 2009, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 10:29:48 PM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 05, 2009, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 06:39:41 PM
I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.
He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.
Did he claim to have created it? He said he tried something new and hoped to see others trying new stuff and was left wanting from the superhero genre. The authority took a pretty unique stab at it though it was through homage/parody of characters. grant morrisons stuff is pretty unique as well. maybe its just a marvel thing.
"Watchmen" was put out by D.C.
The characters in "Watchmen" are based directly off of Charlton Characters that D.C. had acquired before "Watchmen" came out. And when I say based on I mean he wanted to use the Charlston characters and was initialy told he could and later told he couldn't.
And really if he didn't create it he wasn't trying anything new.
I have to say that Moore did create something new with the Watchmen. Many people forget that it was written back in the '80's and he was presenting superheroes as 'real people' with real life problems. Especially, the lesbian superhero who was outed and kicked out in the backstory.
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I bought the first issue of "Watchmen" the day it hit the stands. I think I remember when it came out. And let me tell you he wasn't the only person telling stories about superheroes as real people with real life problems. I already said all he did was bring it to the mainstream.
I wouldn't really truncate what made the watchmen new to "superheroes as real people", there is most definitely more to it then that.
Not saying it was an earth shattering tapestry woven from the pubic silk of the avant garde, but it had something that made it last on when nearly everything else from that time is all but forgotten.
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 11:43:10 PM
I wouldn't really truncate what made the watchmen new to "superheroes as real people", there is most definitely more to it then that.
Not saying it was an earth shattering tapestry woven from the pubic silk of the avant garde, but it had something that made it last on when nearly everything else from that time is all but forgotten.
Of course it was more than that. It dealt with politics (as has many Comics since there inception), it dealt with social problems, it dealt with problems that a superhero may have in life. Much like "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" which finished it's run months before "Watchmen" started. Which was also dark And gritty. I know you said "nearly" but when one of the things that is remembered and can be argued to have the same effect on comics that "Watchmen" it's worth a mention.
Basically the only thing he added to mainstream comics was nudity, swearing, sex, and rape. Unless you consider "Heavy Metal" to be mainstream.
All of those things had been done in the underground for years. But as long as it helped lay the foundation for "Preacher" then I'm ok with it.
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 06, 2009, 12:14:25 AM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 11:43:10 PM
I wouldn't really truncate what made the watchmen new to "superheroes as real people", there is most definitely more to it then that.
Not saying it was an earth shattering tapestry woven from the pubic silk of the avant garde, but it had something that made it last on when nearly everything else from that time is all but forgotten.
Of course it was more than that. It dealt with politics (as has many Comics since there inception), it dealt with social problems, it dealt with problems that a superhero may have in life. Much like "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" which finished it's run months before "Watchmen" started. Which was also dark And gritty. I know you said "nearly" but when one of the things that is remembered and can be argued to have the same effect on comics that "Watchmen" it's worth a mention.
Basically the only thing he added to mainstream comics was nudity, swearing, sex, and rape. Unless you consider "Heavy Metal" to be mainstream.
All of those things had been done in the underground for years. But as long as it helped lay the foundation for "Preacher" then I'm ok with it.
Don't forget out of sequence events(with the doc manhatten bit). its something you don't see too often but then I wouldn't call it earth shattering.
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
It was partly supposed to be exploring the awkwardness of youths transition to adulthood and the awakening of sexuality blah blah blah.
I consider it a failed project and yes it does reek pedo.
Quote from: Faust on March 06, 2009, 12:28:00 AM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
It was partly supposed to be exploring the awkwardness of youths transition to adulthood and the awakening of sexuality blah blah blah.
I consider it a failed project and yes it does reek pedo.
Yeah, I'm sure he had lofty intentions, I just think they fell short of the mark.
Quote from: Faust on March 06, 2009, 12:25:09 AM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 06, 2009, 12:14:25 AM
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 11:43:10 PM
I wouldn't really truncate what made the watchmen new to "superheroes as real people", there is most definitely more to it then that.
Not saying it was an earth shattering tapestry woven from the pubic silk of the avant garde, but it had something that made it last on when nearly everything else from that time is all but forgotten.
Of course it was more than that. It dealt with politics (as has many Comics since there inception), it dealt with social problems, it dealt with problems that a superhero may have in life. Much like "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" which finished it's run months before "Watchmen" started. Which was also dark And gritty. I know you said "nearly" but when one of the things that is remembered and can be argued to have the same effect on comics that "Watchmen" it's worth a mention.
Basically the only thing he added to mainstream comics was nudity, swearing, sex, and rape. Unless you consider "Heavy Metal" to be mainstream.
All of those things had been done in the underground for years. But as long as it helped lay the foundation for "Preacher" then I'm ok with it.
Don't forget out of sequence events(with the doc manhatten bit). its something you don't see too often but then I wouldn't call it earth shattering.
True. I did forget about it.
It is the
only time I have seen Flashback and Foreshadowing used in context with a characters powers but I can't really say it's had much impact in comics. In as much a characters powers being used as the narrative of the story.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 06, 2009, 12:14:25 AM
Basically the only thing he added to mainstream comics was nudity, swearing, sex, and rape. Unless you consider "Heavy Metal" to be mainstream.
You forgot drugs, rotting zombies, and anything else the comics code forbade.
Quote from: Requia on March 06, 2009, 01:57:04 AM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on March 06, 2009, 12:14:25 AM
Basically the only thing he added to mainstream comics was nudity, swearing, sex, and rape. Unless you consider "Heavy Metal" to be mainstream.
You forgot drugs, rotting zombies, and anything else the comics code forbade.
Drug use was depicted in The Amazing Spider-Man; issues #96–98 which ran in 1971. Yes without the comics code logo on it. Just as "watchmen was ran without the comics code logo on it.
Marvel Comics ran Tales of the Zombie (1973-1975) in a magazine format so as to get around having to put a Comics code logo on it.
Drugs were used after the spider man run as well, the comics code got ammended. But drug use *had* to be betrayed as bad, anti drug messages only.
Moore got them to toss out the comics code altogether.
Quote from: ratatoskHAKIM BEY!!!! YouTUBE IS YOUR FAULT!!!
:lulz:
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AMI dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
throw in some drugs and replace superheroes with artists/actors/writers/dandies and Dutch literature was decades ahead of that.
- triple zero
whose highschool finals Dutch literature reading list consisted of nothing but sex, drugs and coke-snorting artistes having sex. in a large variety of manners. a large, really imaginative, variety of manners. goddamnit i should possibly re-read those books and see if they are as smutty as I remember them.
and of course Max Havelaar on the list, no sex, Dutch literature classic, to appease the teacher and all was good.
Um, guys?
Zap, Weirdo, Leather Nun, Fabulous Furry Freak Bros... Milo Fucking Manara, for fuck's sake.
The only "groundbreaking" thinG in watchemen is that a major publisher had the balls to mass-market it.
Quote from: LMNO redux on March 06, 2009, 07:07:27 PM
Um, guys?
Zap, Weirdo, Leather Nun, Fabulous Furry Freak Bros... Milo Fucking Manara, for fuck's sake.
The only "groundbreaking" thinG in watchemen is that a major publisher had the balls to mass-market it.
Pretty much.
3 pages about Alan Moore and no Glycon jokes? :?
Quote from: anthraxcat on March 07, 2009, 01:31:14 AM
3 pages about Alan Moore and no Glycon jokes? :?
Sorry, I thought it was implied.
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
It's fantasy. Maybe not your preferred flavour of fantasy, but still fantasy. No minors were harmed during the creation of said comic. You're starting to sound like the people pissed off that Larry Welz had the nerve to portray Cherry Poptart's younger sister. It's a comic book, not a factual entity. People should be able to explore taboo ideas in fictional formats.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
It's fantasy. Maybe not your preferred flavour of fantasy, but still fantasy. No minors were harmed during the creation of said comic. You're starting to sound like the people pissed off that Larry Welz had the nerve to portray Cherry Poptart's younger sister. It's a comic book, not a factual entity. People should be able to explore taboo ideas in fictional formats.
...
So fictional pedo is ok?
Please to see HP slashfic.
Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:36:14 PM
Please to see HP slashfic.
ROFL
slashfic is never OK... but that has more to do with my criteria for writing that any taboo breaking ;-)
Please see DeSade.
Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:38:27 PM
Please see DeSade.
:lulz:
Well, for me personally, I think breaking taboos in fiction, literature and from a philosophical position is a fine thing. Mostly cause I like to see 'open minds' squirm when they see it. But then, that's one of the things I like about Uncle BadTouch. :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 10, 2009, 07:34:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
It's fantasy. Maybe not your preferred flavour of fantasy, but still fantasy. No minors were harmed during the creation of said comic. You're starting to sound like the people pissed off that Larry Welz had the nerve to portray Cherry Poptart's younger sister. It's a comic book, not a factual entity. People should be able to explore taboo ideas in fictional formats.
...
So fictional pedo is ok?
I don't see why not.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 10, 2009, 07:34:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
It's fantasy. Maybe not your preferred flavour of fantasy, but still fantasy. No minors were harmed during the creation of said comic. You're starting to sound like the people pissed off that Larry Welz had the nerve to portray Cherry Poptart's younger sister. It's a comic book, not a factual entity. People should be able to explore taboo ideas in fictional formats.
...
So fictional pedo is ok?
I don't see why not.
Just checking... its a hot button issue around here ;-)
I'm well aware, and let me make it clear that I am not interested in reading fiction about peds, I simply believe in freedom of speech COMPLETELY. And thats what it boils down to. I am against kiddie porn and actual pedophilia because there are ACTUAL children involved. In fiction, there isn't. As distasteful as it is for me or someone else, nobody is actually harmed.
And don't respond with anything along the lines of "it gives the peds fuel for their sick craft", because I won't be responding to it. Its bullshit.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:58:40 PM
I'm well aware, and let me make it clear that I am not interested in reading fiction about peds, I simply believe in freedom of speech COMPLETELY. And thats what it boils down to. I am against kiddie porn and actual pedophilia because there are ACTUAL children involved. In fiction, there isn't. As distasteful as it is for me or someone else, nobody is actually harmed.
And don't respond with anything along the lines of "it gives the peds fuel for their sick craft", because I won't be responding to it. Its bullshit.
No disagreement here, I concur with your position 100%
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 06, 2009, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: zen_magick on March 05, 2009, 11:11:46 PM
Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career. And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight. It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.
OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
z_m
I am neither homophobic nor "dogmatically straight", and it's patently ridiculous for you to accuse me of that based simply on the fact that I don't like a comic book you like. I don't have a problem with the lesbian aspect of Lost Girls. I can break out my dykey credentials if I have to.
Yeah, I find some of it offensive, but it's not the lesbian sex, it's the rampant pedophilia. I guess it makes me "homophobic" to think making a character who fucks little boys and girls who are possibly his children sympathetic. Every character in the book seems to think fucking little kids is A-Okay. Go ahead, call me a prude if you will, but I don't like reading about pedos. Not to malign his character, but I really don't know why Alan Moore needs rape, pedophilia and elderly skeezes fucking young girls in all of his works.
But that's not really why I dislike it. I dislike it mainly because I really do think he's trying way too hard to do the whole "erotica for intellectuals" thing and it comes off as pretentious and trying too hard. Plus it's just plain not as interesting as it thinks it is.
It's fantasy. Maybe not your preferred flavour of fantasy, but still fantasy. No minors were harmed during the creation of said comic. You're starting to sound like the people pissed off that Larry Welz had the nerve to portray Cherry Poptart's younger sister. It's a comic book, not a factual entity. People should be able to explore taboo ideas in fictional formats.
I don't think it's morally wrong, or that it should be banned, or that people shouldn't read it. I just have no personal interest in reading it, and think it was done mostly for the sake of being edgy.
Why do people always say that about art they don't personally like?
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 12, 2009, 06:58:32 PM
Why do people always say that about art they don't personally like?
I think it has to do with Brick Walls and Iron Bars...
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 12, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
I don't think it's morally wrong, or that it should be banned, or that people shouldn't read it. I just have no personal interest in reading it, and think it was done mostly for the sake of being edgy.
Wait, if you have no interest in it and haven't read it, how did you form an opinion on its artistic merit? That's like saying a movie you haven't seen is crap, based solely on the premise.
Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 10:37:44 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 12, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
I don't think it's morally wrong, or that it should be banned, or that people shouldn't read it. I just have no personal interest in reading it, and think it was done mostly for the sake of being edgy.
Wait, if you have no interest in it and haven't read it, how did you form an opinion on its artistic merit? That's like saying a movie you haven't seen is crap, based solely on the premise.
I do that for
Twilight... :oops:
Quote from: Cainad on March 13, 2009, 04:35:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 10:37:44 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 12, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
I don't think it's morally wrong, or that it should be banned, or that people shouldn't read it. I just have no personal interest in reading it, and think it was done mostly for the sake of being edgy.
Wait, if you have no interest in it and haven't read it, how did you form an opinion on its artistic merit? That's like saying a movie you haven't seen is crap, based solely on the premise.
I do that for Twilight... :oops:
Well, you only know the premise, though, right? So you can really only judge that the premise is crap.
Although from what people who HAVE seen the movie say, it is crap... but you really can't determine that just from a plot synopsis. Some movies with terrible premises are beautiful and amazing and great, and some with fantastically intriguing premises are fucking boiled-tripe awful.
Good interview but he really does come across as a tunnel-visioned, crotchety old fuck at times.
So he doesn't see the art in movies. Therefore they suck. What about the actor's performances? The lighting, set design. Or the much hated CGI as a thing of beauty, art for art's sake. Compared to old fashioned shit like the mona lisa, even shit movies like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are more immersive and able to hold the attention longer. Problem with an intellectual high horse is you tend to get stuck up there in the saddle. Perhaps not everyone watches movies to get spoonfed a story, like you do with books and comics?
QuoteIf we are going to spend our money upon film, then let's start valuing the people that produce wonderful things with very little to go on. Let's stop being so childishly awed by what are essentially fireworks displays.
If you don't go "ooooooh" when a firework goes off then you're halfway to dead imo.
Pet hate - intellectual/cultural snobbery
I'd take a blowjob from a cheap hooker over a 1933 Armagnac any day.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:58:40 PM
I'm well aware, and let me make it clear that I am not interested in reading fiction about peds, I simply believe in freedom of speech COMPLETELY. And thats what it boils down to. I am against kiddie porn and actual pedophilia because there are ACTUAL children involved. In fiction, there isn't. As distasteful as it is for me or someone else, nobody is actually harmed.
And don't respond with anything along the lines of "it gives the peds fuel for their sick craft", because I won't be responding to it. Its bullshit.
This is a bit of a cliched question, but I'm genuinely interested, not disagreeing with you; Do you have kids hoopla?
Quote from: Faust on March 13, 2009, 12:41:07 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:58:40 PM
I'm well aware, and let me make it clear that I am not interested in reading fiction about peds, I simply believe in freedom of speech COMPLETELY. And thats what it boils down to. I am against kiddie porn and actual pedophilia because there are ACTUAL children involved. In fiction, there isn't. As distasteful as it is for me or someone else, nobody is actually harmed.
And don't respond with anything along the lines of "it gives the peds fuel for their sick craft", because I won't be responding to it. Its bullshit.
This is a bit of a cliched question, but I'm genuinely interested, not disagreeing with you; Do you have kids hoopla?
No I don't, but I do have a mother, a sister, and a wife, and still believe people have the right to write about rape and murder fantasies if they so choose. Is my opinion now void?
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 13, 2009, 01:23:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 13, 2009, 12:41:07 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 10, 2009, 07:58:40 PM
I'm well aware, and let me make it clear that I am not interested in reading fiction about peds, I simply believe in freedom of speech COMPLETELY. And that's what it boils down to. I am against kiddie porn and actual pedophilia because there are ACTUAL children involved. In fiction, there isn't. As distasteful as it is for me or someone else, nobody is actually harmed.
And don't respond with anything along the lines of "it gives the peds fuel for their sick craft", because I won't be responding to it. Its bullshit.
This is a bit of a cliched question, but I'm genuinely interested, not disagreeing with you; Do you have kids hoopla?
No I don't, but I do have a mother, a sister, and a wife, and still believe people have the right to write about rape and murder fantasies if they so choose. Is my opinion now void?
Not at all, I've just noticed people with kids would rarely have that opinion.
Firstly:
I personally Love whatever horror, tragedy or debasement of humanity I can read. It reminds me why my life is good and why I should always do my best to make my life and others more enjoyable.
secondly As you said its fiction, nothing more then theory and hypothesis, I remember when I was reading naked lunch being horrified at the parts about the young boys being sexually abused then hung, but the strange humor about it and the whole book in general was unique, a way of thinking that I would not have expected.
If what was described in those scenes was real it would be monstrous, intolerable. Instead because its fiction it was an exploration of suffering that A lot could be learned from.
I agree completely.
Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Cainad on March 13, 2009, 04:35:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 10:37:44 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 12, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
I don't think it's morally wrong, or that it should be banned, or that people shouldn't read it. I just have no personal interest in reading it, and think it was done mostly for the sake of being edgy.
Wait, if you have no interest in it and haven't read it, how did you form an opinion on its artistic merit? That's like saying a movie you haven't seen is crap, based solely on the premise.
I do that for Twilight... :oops:
Well, you only know the premise, though, right? So you can really only judge that the premise is crap.
Although from what people who HAVE seen the movie say, it is crap... but you really can't determine that just from a plot synopsis. Some movies with terrible premises are beautiful and amazing and great, and some with fantastically intriguing premises are fucking boiled-tripe awful.
Fair enough; I judge based on the premise and on what other people have told me.
Also, there's the minor issue of my fundamental opposition to the idea of vampires that don't die in sunlight.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 11:13:44 AM
Good interview but he really does come across as a tunnel-visioned, crotchety old fuck at times.
So he doesn't see the art in movies. Therefore they suck. What about the actor's performances? The lighting, set design. Or the much hated CGI as a thing of beauty, art for art's sake. Compared to old fashioned shit like the mona lisa, even shit movies like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are more immersive and able to hold the attention longer. Problem with an intellectual high horse is you tend to get stuck up there in the saddle. Perhaps not everyone watches movies to get spoonfed a story, like you do with books and comics?
QuoteIf we are going to spend our money upon film, then let's start valuing the people that produce wonderful things with very little to go on. Let's stop being so childishly awed by what are essentially fireworks displays.
If you don't go "ooooooh" when a firework goes off then you're halfway to dead imo.
Pet hate - intellectual/cultural snobbery
I'd take a blowjob from a cheap hooker over a 1933 Armagnac any day.
IAWTC
Quote from: Cainad on March 13, 2009, 02:57:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Cainad on March 13, 2009, 04:35:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 10:37:44 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 12, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
I don't think it's morally wrong, or that it should be banned, or that people shouldn't read it. I just have no personal interest in reading it, and think it was done mostly for the sake of being edgy.
Wait, if you have no interest in it and haven't read it, how did you form an opinion on its artistic merit? That's like saying a movie you haven't seen is crap, based solely on the premise.
I do that for Twilight... :oops:
Well, you only know the premise, though, right? So you can really only judge that the premise is crap.
Although from what people who HAVE seen the movie say, it is crap... but you really can't determine that just from a plot synopsis. Some movies with terrible premises are beautiful and amazing and great, and some with fantastically intriguing premises are fucking boiled-tripe awful.
Fair enough; I judge based on the premise and on what other people have told me.
Also, there's the minor issue of my fundamental opposition to the idea of vampires that don't die in sunlight.
That only started in the 20s with the movie "Nosferatu"... even Dracula could go out in the daylight.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 13, 2009, 03:23:17 PM
That only started in the 20s with the movie "Nosferatu"... even Dracula could go out in the daylight.
Well then, I guess I will have to go back in time and killabitch.
Cainad,
Actually doesn't give a crap about vampires in any way, shape, or form
Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 10:37:44 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 12, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
I don't think it's morally wrong, or that it should be banned, or that people shouldn't read it. I just have no personal interest in reading it, and think it was done mostly for the sake of being edgy.
Wait, if you have no interest in it and haven't read it, how did you form an opinion on its artistic merit? That's like saying a movie you haven't seen is crap, based solely on the premise.
Sorry, I misspoke, I have read it. I just wouldn't choose to read it again.
And Hoopla has some reasonable points, but I still don't like it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 11:13:44 AM
QuoteIf we are going to spend our money upon film, then let's start valuing the people that produce wonderful things with very little to go on. Let's stop being so childishly awed by what are essentially fireworks displays.
If you don't go "ooooooh" when a firework goes off then you're halfway to dead imo.
Pet hate - intellectual/cultural snobbery
I'd take a blowjob from a cheap hooker over a 1933 Armagnac any day.
There's no justification for conflating "loud" and "stupid" (and, for that matter, "bad"). (This is me agreeing)
How much production values should we put into making a fireworks display, though? One that can't even set things afire? A film of a fireworks display isn't the same: you're not dropping live, hot, colorful fire and impossible percussion into the real sky.
Quote from: Faust on March 05, 2009, 05:24:02 PM
cgi on its own looks awful.
cgi used over a template or to touch up an existing object works well. cgi on its own doesn't feel tangible. gollum is the closest that they have come to real feeling, and he's still not perfect, he has that polished glow that artists are over eager to add to their work when making cgi.
Further, what will become of pyrotechnics, now that all the explosions are done with computers? And what of extras? Do you remember the massive casts of the old epic movies like Alexander, where hundreds of men with all the panalopy of war marched across the fields? No more, no more, you need perhaps five men, and a few costumes and props, and can then mix, match, copy and paste them across the screen so you can have thousands.
My thought: Such cheap tricks should
only be used by the underdogs, the independants. The fellows without huge casts and productions studios and billion dollar budgets. The rich folks can hire a gazillion extras. We've got the system all upside down and backwards. Technology, really. Instead of making work easier on people, it lets bosses pile more work on them. So they're even more :x .