Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
"It is the great irony of the Legiones Astartes: engineered to kill to achieve a victory of peace that they can then be no part of." - Roboute Guilliman
"As I recall, your face was tortured. Imagine that - the Master of the Wolves, his ferocity twisted into grief. And yet you still carried out your duty. You always did what was asked of you. So loyal. So tenacious. Truly you were the attack dog of the Emperor. You took no pleasure in what you did. I knew that then, and I know it now. But all things change, my brother. I'm not the same as I was, and you're... well, let us not mention where you are now." - Magnus the Red, to a statue of Leman Russ
Well, if by "wasn't very honest to the comic," you mean they basically threw out all meaning and characterization in order to make another cheap action movie that essentially has little value outside of bashing the Bush presidency.
I loved the comic as well, but haven't seen the movie. And looking at the C&C on it wherever, I don't think I will.
With that said, I shall back away slowly and ominously and disappear in a puff of smoke, then smuggle some fruit across the border in order to stay competitive with the veggie cartel.
Well, if by "wasn't very honest to the comic," you mean they basically threw out all meaning and characterization in order to make another cheap action movie that essentially has little value outside of bashing the Bush presidency.
You say that like its a bad thing... That's actually not a bad update to the idea since V was really a comment on Thatcherite Britain when it came out... Remaking it, for a US audience, as a comment on Bush-era policies is not a literal remake but is, arguably, at least keeping true to the original's spirit.
Valete,
JohnS
Valete,
JohnS
"You don't believe data - you test data. If I could put my finger on the moment we genuinely <expletive deleted> ourselves, it was the moment we decided that data was something you could use words like believe or disbelieve around"
Well, if by "wasn't very honest to the comic," you mean they basically threw out all meaning and characterization in order to make another cheap action movie that essentially has little value outside of bashing the Bush presidency.
You say that like its a bad thing... That's actually not a bad update to the idea since V was really a comment on Thatcherite Britain when it came out... Remaking it, for a US audience, as a comment on Bush-era policies is not a literal remake but is, arguably, at least keeping true to the original's spirit.
Valete,
JohnS
That wouldn't have been so bad had they not gone and trashed everything else in doing it. V wasn't supposed to be a hero, Finch was supposed to have a spine (and honestly, he felt like the main character of the comic), and the dictator should have been a hell of a lot more than a Hitler/Bush lovechild (in the Comics, he was actually a very sympathetic character) who existed for no reason other than to be hated.
Thought the comic was ok, it was already quite dated by the time I read it, Thatcher was long gone.
I think the movie is bloody amazing, well directed, excellently acted and very pretty, I think it's much wider message about tyranny is far more enduring than the direct satire of Thatcher's Britain that the book is about.
Also, I've come to regard Alan Moore as a bit of a tit.
Alan Moore does strike me as a little crazy at times. Some of his stuff is pretty good though. I liked Watchmen and The Killing Joke. What little I've seen of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is also good.
The League is fantastic, it's a shame the movie was so awful. I mean, as much as I hate the V for Vendetta film version, and as disappointing as I found the Watchman film, they were at least well made.
I really liked V, Watchmen, From Hell and I totally hated League.
Moore gets wheeled out from his snake worshipping and dubious child porn fairy tale pollution and asked about them, he says 'It's terrible' without actually watching the film and then loyal nerds say 'well, if the maestro does not like it, it is an affront!' and label the film rubbish...
But if you watch V, Watchmen and From Hell, without knowing the graphic novels, as some here have said, they are darn good movies.
Having read part of Lost Girls and found it so distasteful I handed it back to it's owner saying 'I felt like burning this', I've never looked at him quite the same. I always thought he was a weirdo and a bullshitter for selling the movie rights and then preening about the movies not matching his fairly absolute expectations (including 'its a film, so it can't possibly work' and 'I hated it, despite not actually seeing it'), but reading that paedophile fantasizing, he moved from a delusional and somewhat hypocritical bohemian to a creep on my spectrum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/01 23:58:33
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Having read part of Lost Girls and found it so distasteful I handed it back to it's owner saying 'I felt like burning this', I've never looked at him quite the same. I always thought he was a weirdo and a bullshitter for selling the movie rights and then preening about the movies not matching his fairly absolute expectations (including 'its a film, so it can't possibly work' and 'I hated it, despite not actually seeing it'), but reading that paedophile fantasizing, he moved from a delusional and somewhat hypocritical bohemian to a creep on my spectrum.
After reading this I was curious because I'd never heard of the book before. Now I feel a little disgusted after reading the wiki entry for it. This may help explain why;
Controversy about child sexuality [edit]
In the US and Canada, many retailers have stated that they will not stock the book out of fear of possible obscenity[need quotation to verify] prosecution, though some said they might make the book available to their customers via special order and simply not stock it.[2]
Moore states that the storm of criticism which he and Gebbie expected did not materialize, which he attributes in part to his design of Lost Girls as a "benign" form of pornography (he cites "people like Angela Carter who, in her book The Sadeian Women... admitted... the possibility [of] a form of pornography that was benign, that was imaginative, was beautiful, and which didn’t have the problems that she saw in a lot of other pornography"[3] as inspirations for the work). He has also said that his own description of Lost Girls as "pornography"[4] has "wrong-footed a lot of... people."[3] Moore speculates that "if we’d have come out and said, 'well, this is a work of art,' they would have probably all said, 'no it's not, it's pornography.' So because we're saying, 'this is pornography,' they're saying, 'no it's not, it's art,' and people don't realise quite what they've said."[3]
In the UK, graphic artists and publishers fear that the book could be illegal to possess under the Coroners and Justice Act, which criminalises any sexual image depicting a "child", defined as anyone appearing under the age of 18
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Having read part of Lost Girls and found it so distasteful I handed it back to it's owner saying 'I felt like burning this', I've never looked at him quite the same. I always thought he was a weirdo and a bullshitter for selling the movie rights and then preening about the movies not matching his fairly absolute expectations (including 'its a film, so it can't possibly work' and 'I hated it, despite not actually seeing it'), but reading that paedophile fantasizing, he moved from a delusional and somewhat hypocritical bohemian to a creep on my spectrum.
I recall reading about it when it was initially being listed, and the description was fairly benign, but made it sound as if they were referring to the subjects being older, then as more information came out, it seemed a bit questionable. Part of me was like 'did Moore actually make a child porn comic?' because it seems so absurd, and the other part really doesn't care to find out one way or another.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Having read part of Lost Girls and found it so distasteful I handed it back to it's owner saying 'I felt like burning this', I've never looked at him quite the same. I always thought he was a weirdo and a bullshitter for selling the movie rights and then preening about the movies not matching his fairly absolute expectations (including 'its a film, so it can't possibly work' and 'I hated it, despite not actually seeing it'), but reading that paedophile fantasizing, he moved from a delusional and somewhat hypocritical bohemian to a creep on my spectrum.
I recall reading about it when it was initially being listed, and the description was fairly benign, but made it sound as if they were referring to the subjects being older, then as more information came out, it seemed a bit questionable. Part of me was like 'did Moore actually make a child porn comic?' because it seems so absurd, and the other part really doesn't care to find out one way or another.
After reading the wiki, I'm inclined to say, yes, he made kiddie porn. It seems pretty explicit.
I'm not sure in what way this qualifies as benign pornography, or how it could be beautiful (in the philosophical sense; I'm sure the art was good). Each and every one of the main characters got raped in their respective stories...
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
It doesn't, I said the initial descriptions of it were benign. It was marketed as almost being like Victorian Erotica of older versions of fairy tail characters, but I think the Previews were written before anyone had read much of it. I don't think anyone was expecting such a well known writer to create, for all intents and purposes, a CP comic.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
On V for Vendetta:
I have watched the film and read the comic, and I found the film to be superior. While there were bits that the comic did better, as a whole the film was something I enjoyed watching, while the comic was not.
On Lost Girls:
I oppose child pornography as the proceeds of a crime. I do not object to the existence of something like Lost Girls because it was created out of whole cloth. It represents an imaginary crime against imaginary victims. I may question the taste of someone who wanted to create such a work, but only in the same sense that I think of the creator of the Final Destination franchise.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I really liked V, Watchmen, From Hell and I totally hated League.
Moore gets wheeled out from his snake worshipping and dubious child porn fairy tale pollution and asked about them, he says 'It's terrible' without actually watching the film and then loyal nerds say 'well, if the maestro does not like it, it is an affront!' and label the film rubbish...
But if you watch V, Watchmen and From Hell, without knowing the graphic novels, as some here have said, they are darn good movies.
Except for the part in Watchmen re: Rorschach and the Night Owl at the end; which was a massive betrayal from the comic and went against the characters even when viewed in the film alone.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I really liked V, Watchmen, From Hell and I totally hated League.
Moore gets wheeled out from his snake worshipping and dubious child porn fairy tale pollution and asked about them, he says 'It's terrible' without actually watching the film and then loyal nerds say 'well, if the maestro does not like it, it is an affront!' and label the film rubbish...
But if you watch V, Watchmen and From Hell, without knowing the graphic novels, as some here have said, they are darn good movies.
Except for the part in Watchmen re: Rorschach and the Night Owl at the end; which was a massive betrayal from the comic and went against the characters even when viewed in the film alone.
They also left out the part where Osterman first lands on Mars and talks about his perception of time, which was my favourite part of the entire comic.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I really liked V, Watchmen, From Hell and I totally hated League.
Moore gets wheeled out from his snake worshipping and dubious child porn fairy tale pollution and asked about them, he says 'It's terrible' without actually watching the film and then loyal nerds say 'well, if the maestro does not like it, it is an affront!' and label the film rubbish...
But if you watch V, Watchmen and From Hell, without knowing the graphic novels, as some here have said, they are darn good movies.
Except for the part in Watchmen re: Rorschach and the Night Owl at the end; which was a massive betrayal from the comic and went against the characters even when viewed in the film alone.
Could you go into a little more detail on this? I'm not as familiar with the comic as I am the film - what is the major difference in Rorschach and Night Owl's interaction at the end?
Hordini wrote:Could you go into a little more detail on this? I'm not as familiar with the comic as I am the film - what is the major difference in Rorschach and Night Owl's interaction at the end?
!!! MASSIVE SPOILER THAT WILL RUIN EVERYTHING !!!
Spoiler:
In the comic, after Veidt reveals that he executed his plan "20 minutes ago", all of the Minutemen recognize that because they are powerless to stop the calamity, they might as well just go along with it, as Veidt actually makes sense in a twisted sort of way. However, to do so will require that they become tacitly complicit in the plan, morally akin to helping bury the body of a murder victim. Rorshach cannot stand for that, refuses to compromise, and tells Dr. Manhattan that he has ot kill him. Dr. Manhattan does so, and as the Night Owl looks on, he realizes that he's sold his soul in exchange for world peace. However, in the film, the Night Owl freaks out and shouts like a ragemonkey and starts punching Veidt.
It's a small difference, but it significantly changes the character of the Night Owl at the end, which I feel is a departure that is hard to forgive, considering the entire theme of the comic is the small degrees of compromise we all take over time, until up is down and black is white and eventually it becomes so easy for us to accept those compromises, which tarnish and detract from those whose jobs require being paragons of virtue (this is one part of the use of the phrase "who watches the watchmen"). However, by spazzing out, the Night Owl's character is fighting back against those small compromises, which in turn severely erodes the theme of the comics, just as much as if, as a hypothetical, Rorshach had compromised.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The controversy about Lost Girls is overhyped, it really doesn't amount to a lot in the book.
I can't really agree as it wasn't that big of a controversy to begin with, so I don't see how it was 'overhyped'. I could be wrong, so if anyone saw it on the national news, recalls people burning Mr. Moore in effigy, calling for vigilante justice, or any criminal trials I'd be happy to hear about it. People basically felt what AlexHolder described above: serious distaste and facepalming. Because of all this I went and looked it up and read over some of it, and I have to say it isn't very good. I didn't see anything I would call CP, but that may be later in it, but I won't know because I was bored out of my mind. It is an old Tijuana bible that took itself to seriously. The art is pretty bad and the dialogue is ponderous and dull. If one didn't know that it was Alan Moore writing it, it would seem like any bad internet porn comic (with worse art).
I don't think Nite Owl finally getting angry for minute ruined his character, or the movie at all. Nite Owl can be angry at his inability to stop both Ozy from completing his plan, Dr. Manhattan from frying Rorschach while recognizing that he can't, or shouldn't stop them. He was never portrayed as quite the sad sack as he was in the comic, so it really isn't as out of character for him in the movie to act in such a way. What I didn't like that they left out was when, at the end when Ozy tries to plead his case to Dr. Manhattan to get him to tell him he did the right thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/02 20:09:24
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2k and counting
Soon my freinds, soon.
That's actually not a bad update to the idea since V was really a comment on Thatcherite Britain when it came out... Remaking it, for a US audience, as a comment on Bush-era policies is not a literal remake but is, arguably, at least keeping true to the original's spirit.
