[Semi-OT] If the Watchmen were a Saturday morning cartoon
Travers Naran
--
-----
Travers Naran, tnaran at google's mail.com
"Welcome to RAAM. Hope you can take a beating..." -- E.L.L.
Derek Janssen
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
Or, conversely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33IuPXEou4
*:)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Traveler
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> Travers Naran wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
>
> Or, conversely:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33IuPXEou4
>
> *:)
>
Heh, let's hope the movie lives up
even to just a portion of the GN series.
What are the sayings again?
"Frank Miller's Dark Knight wrote the eulogy for superheroes;
The Watchmen eviscerated them."
"Dark Knight explored the dark side of being a superhero;
The Watchmen explored what if the dark side are the superheroes."
Or something along those lines? ^_^
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Fri, 6 Mar 2009 5:49am-0000, Derek Janssen <eja...@nospam.verizon.net>:
>
>> Travers Naran wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
>> Or, conversely:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33IuPXEou4
>>
>> *:)
>>
>
> Heh, let's hope the movie lives up
> even to just a portion of the GN series.
>
> What are the sayings again?
>
> "Frank Miller's Dark Knight wrote the eulogy for superheroes;
> The Watchmen eviscerated them."
>
> "Dark Knight explored the dark side of being a superhero;
> The Watchmen explored what if the dark side are the superheroes."
Not really. The Watchmen explored what if one of the bright heroes went
bad and the one guy who knew it didn't do anything and waited until the
others caught on. And if the bright hero was also an idiot, but no one
else caught on even at the end.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Travers Naran
> S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
>> What are the sayings again?
>>
>> "Frank Miller's Dark Knight wrote the eulogy for superheroes;
>> The Watchmen eviscerated them."
>>
>> "Dark Knight explored the dark side of being a superhero;
>> The Watchmen explored what if the dark side are the superheroes."
>
> Not really. The Watchmen explored what if one of the bright heroes
> went bad and the one guy who knew it didn't do anything and waited until
> the others caught on. And if the bright hero was also an idiot, but no
> one else caught on even at the end.
You sound like one of those super-hero otaku who are in denial about
what Watchmen was about. ;-)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
>>> What are the sayings again?
>>>
>>> "Frank Miller's Dark Knight wrote the eulogy for superheroes;
>>> The Watchmen eviscerated them."
>>>
>>> "Dark Knight explored the dark side of being a superhero;
>>> The Watchmen explored what if the dark side are the superheroes."
>>
>> Not really. The Watchmen explored what if one of the bright heroes
>> went bad and the one guy who knew it didn't do anything and waited
>> until the others caught on. And if the bright hero was also an idiot,
>> but no one else caught on even at the end.
>
> You sound like one of those super-hero otaku
OtaKING!
>who are in denial about
> what Watchmen was about. ;-)
It's the ones who don't agree with me who are in denial!
sanjian
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
>>> What are the sayings again?
>>>
>>> "Frank Miller's Dark Knight wrote the eulogy for superheroes;
>>> The Watchmen eviscerated them."
>>>
>>> "Dark Knight explored the dark side of being a superhero;
>>> The Watchmen explored what if the dark side are the superheroes."
>>
>> Not really. The Watchmen explored what if one of the bright
>> heroes went bad and the one guy who knew it didn't do anything and
>> waited until the others caught on. And if the bright hero was also
>> an idiot, but no one else caught on even at the end.
>
> You sound like one of those super-hero otaku who are in denial about
> what Watchmen was about. ;-)
That's surprising, because Stan's description sounds a lot cooler than
Wasp's.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Mine is vastly more accurate, though. Watchmen was cool, and I'm going
to see the movie, but it had plot holes in it large enough to pilot the
Death Star through and not even worry about scraping the sides.
Bill Martin
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
I didn't see them as plot holes, more as a reason to re-read the bonus
materials with each chapter or even re-read the whole collection.
And I'd describe the Watchmen as a superhero story where you see the
whole of the superhero, not just the polished boy scout image that most
people associate with Supes, Spidey, Bats, and the others. The heroes
are real people, have to deal with real circumstances in their life,
and how they deal with the evils that creep up, and ultimately how they
deal with something that in itself is evil, but is capable of bringing
about a change for the good, to see how each of them deals with the end
justifying the means.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If you saw a "polished boy scout image" when reading Spider-Man, you
were reading really, REALLY different comics than the ones *I* found on
the shelves. Spider-Man is the archetypal example of the superhero who
has to also live a regular life.
And if you're talking about the MODERN Batman, I'd love to see a Boy
Scout troop that would even let him APPROACH them, let alone endorse him
as something wholesome.
Superman, yes. Captain America, yes. But then, they *ARE* that squeaky
clean.
> The heroes
> are real people, have to deal with real circumstances in their life, and
> how they deal with the evils that creep up, and ultimately how they deal
> with something that in itself is evil, but is capable of bringing about
> a change for the good, to see how each of them deals with the end
> justifying the means.
But it doesn't. And even if the end DID justify the means, the huge
plot hole is that his plan WON'T ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS.
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gp49k8$b1t$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Bill Martin wrote:
>> On 2009-03-06 17:31:39 -0600, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>>> sanjian wrote:
>>>> Travers Naran wrote:
>>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>>>> S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
>>>>>>> What are the sayings again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Frank Miller's Dark Knight wrote the eulogy for superheroes;
>>>>>>> The Watchmen eviscerated them."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dark Knight explored the dark side of being a superhero;
>>>>>>> The Watchmen explored what if the dark side are the superheroes."
>>>>>> Not really. The Watchmen explored what if one of the bright
>>>>>> heroes went bad and the one guy who knew it didn't do anything and
>>>>>> waited until the others caught on. And if the bright hero was also
>>>>>> an idiot, but no one else caught on even at the end.
(snip)
>> The heroes are real people, have to deal with real circumstances in their
>> life, and how they deal with the evils that creep up, and ultimately how
>> they deal with something that in itself is evil, but is capable of
>> bringing about a change for the good, to see how each of them deals with
>> the end justifying the means.
>
> But it doesn't. And even if the end DID justify the means, the huge plot
> hole is that his plan WON'T ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS.
Rather than just asserting this as a fact, could you explain exactly what
you think those ends are, and why you think his plan won't accomplish them?
Before you answer, I'm going to presume you are aware that there was a plan
in place in the real world 1980s for the USA and USSR to put aside their
differences and cooperate in the event of an alien attack? This being under
Ronald Reagan, who was not exactly a big fan of the Soviets?
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Because there was no plan for a follow-up, and no real way for even
Ozymandias to do so even if he wanted to. It took him many years to
arrange his one surprise attack trick.
With no follow-up, he's got nothing to KEEP people cooperating. It's a
lovely vision that this outside threat will unite the world and bring
peace, but that kind of change takes TIME -- enough time that by the
point that you might consider undoing your alliance there isn't enough
left of the Old Order to make things fall back into the original
pattern. This isn't the case if you can't keep up the pressure. People
get bored, lose interest, etc. In six months, a year, two years, if
there's no more evidence of alien invasion, the old rivalries will show
back up, the alliance will begin to crumble, and in five years you'll be
back to square one.
ASSUMING, of course, that they never actually figure out the scam (say,
someone does DNA typing on the Squid Alien and realizes it's a cob-job
from Earth species); if THAT happens, EVERYTHING comes apart even
faster, and possibly disastrously, as both sides accuse each other of
the setup and start rattling sabers VERY loudly. The ending of the comic
actually indicates that the whole thing may come out anyway in a very
mundane way, which will torpedo Ozymandias' plan at the waterline.
Dr. Manhattan even TELLS Ozymandias this, in an offhanded way, just
before he leaves. Which just makes it more incomprehensible that
Manhattan let things play out that way, except I guess the poor bastard
has no choice but to follow his script, smart or stupid; sucks to be him.
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gp5l02$vmn$1...@news.motzarella.org...
You know, I'm looking and looking, and I can't find where Ozymandias says
that he has no plan to follow up his masterstroke. Page and panel reference,
please?
> Ozymandias to do so even if he wanted to. It took him many years to
> arrange his one surprise attack trick.
Yeah, there's absolutely no way for the smartest man on Earth, a
multibillionaire who has massive connections with governments, the press,
and in public opinion, to follow-up on a plan that basically relies on
propaganda.
> With no follow-up, he's got nothing to KEEP people cooperating. It's a
> lovely vision that this outside threat will unite the world and bring
> peace, but that kind of change takes TIME -- enough time that by the point
> that you might consider undoing your alliance there isn't enough left of
> the Old Order to make things fall back into the original pattern. This
> isn't the case if you can't keep up the pressure. People get bored, lose
> interest, etc. In six months, a year, two years, if there's no more
> evidence of alien invasion, the old rivalries will show back up, the
> alliance will begin to crumble, and in five years you'll be back to square
> one.
Proof? Or is that basically your opinion based on your extensive scholarly
research of the human race's response to alien attacks?
Getting away from sarcasm, I assume Ozy intends to keep up an extensive
propaganda campaign to keep humanity focused. I think he is more than
eminently capable of doing that. I also think there is a lot of historical
precedent for people being drawn into Great Achievements that don't pay
immediate dividends.
> ASSUMING, of course, that they never actually figure out the scam (say,
> someone does DNA typing on the Squid Alien and realizes it's a cob-job
Either that technology doesn't exist in parallel-80s (and Ozy will most
certainly sabotage attempts to develop it), or it does, and he already
thought of it.
> from Earth species); if THAT happens, EVERYTHING comes apart even faster,
> and possibly disastrously, as both sides accuse each other of the setup
> and start rattling sabers VERY loudly. The ending of the comic actually
> indicates that the whole thing may come out anyway in a very mundane way,
> which will torpedo Ozymandias' plan at the waterline.
The journal was a great ending symbolically, but in no realistic way could
that torpedo his plan. Ozy pointed out that Rorschach was not in any way a
credible witness to anything; with him dead, his journal (published by a
conspiracy-theory-laden anti-Soviet rag!) would be even less so (assuming
they could even get it published, which they couldn't, because Ozy would
dynamite any attempts to, possibly literally).
> Dr. Manhattan even TELLS Ozymandias this, in an offhanded way, just
There's a lot of interpretations to what Manhattan says; you are assuming
one in absence of evidence. My general feeling is that Manhattan is actually
pointing out that Ozy's machinations won't mean shit 1000 years after he's
dead, that humanity can blow itself up then and everything he's done will
have been ultimately meaningless. He thinks he's "won" because he prevented
one disaster, but because history marches on implacably, he can never "win",
because it never ends.
> before he leaves. Which just makes it more incomprehensible that Manhattan
> let things play out that way, except I guess the poor bastard has no
> choice but to follow his script, smart or stupid; sucks to be him.
Actually, he didn't know what was going on due to Ozy's interference, as was
pointed out repeatedly in the comic. There was not a coherent script for him
through the latter half of the series.
-
Blade
John Brewer
But they could run the Watchmen Saturday Morning Cartoon Youtube
animation until the part where the Comedian flirts with Silk Spectre...
Then Comedian turns to the camera...
"OK! A 'Watchmen Saturday Morning Cartoon" as well as - 'spoiler alert'
- I'm technically hitting on my own daughter! You think that's wrong?!
I'll tell you what's wrong - A cellphone company that charges hidden
fees!! That's why I use Boost Mobile! Their $50 a month Unlimited Plan
has no hidden fees!!"
Travers Naran
I laughed. Out loud.
Bill Martin
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
Comics? I couldn't afford the comics. For the longest time, I only
saw the Saturday morning cartoons.
> And if you're talking about the MODERN Batman, I'd love to see a Boy
> Scout troop that would even let him APPROACH them, let alone endorse
> him as something wholesome.
Again, was way more familiar with the animated & live-action Batman,
than the comicbook version.
> Superman, yes. Captain America, yes. But then, they *ARE* that squeaky clean.
>
>> The heroes are real people, have to deal with real circumstances in
>> their life, and how they deal with the evils that creep up, and
>> ultimately how they deal with something that in itself is evil, but is
>> capable of bringing about a change for the good, to see how each of
>> them deals with the end justifying the means.
>
> But it doesn't. And even if the end DID justify the means, the huge
> plot hole is that his plan WON'T ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS.
You really think that the LAST step in his plan was the attack? You're
forgetting, there's the cover-up/handling. The only one who could
really stop his master plan from working was Dr. Manhattan, and the
doc's too hung up on being a "puppet who can see the strings" than to
try cutting the strings.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
Along these lines:
This started a week of Watchmen-themed strips:
<http://mediumlarge.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/saturday-february-28-2009/>
"Worst Jobs in Hollywood," Panel 4:
<http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20090309.html>
Finally, this starts a week-long parody that require knowing what a
"zombie strip" is, and the current state of syndicated comic strips:
<http://www.pvponline.com/2009/03/02/ombudsmen/>
--
- ReFlex76
Dot
> But it doesn't. And even if the end DID justify the means, the huge
> plot hole is that his plan WON'T ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS.
Exactly. All Ozzy did was artificially create 9/11 writ large. Sure,
the world may be in mutual mourning, holding hands and singing
kumbayah, but even with the perception of a common enemy it's only a
matter of time before people fall back into their old habits. "Sure,
there might be aliens, but maybe we can talk/manipulate them into
eradicating the other side first."
Even if down the road some cowboy president decides to declare a War
On Aliens, questions are still going to be asked: "Would it be
constitutional to hold aliens in Guantanamo bay? Is it justified to
start a war under false pretenses? Is it worth it to fight a war that
costs so many American lives?" (Or, less tongue in cheek: "What if the
aliens were our Progenitors, come to give us a cosmic spanking of epic
proportions? What if the aliens are right and we deserve to go
extinct? What if these are the prophesied End Times?")
Unless Ozzy is smart enough to fundamentally change human nature
within the next generation or so, his efforts will still go to naught
even without Rorschach's journal.
Behold his works and despair indeed.
-"Dot"
Blade
"Dot" <dot_wa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2bfa2834-68d4-4e6e...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> But it doesn't. And even if the end DID justify the means, the huge
>> plot hole is that his plan WON'T ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS.
>
> Exactly. All Ozzy did was artificially create 9/11 writ large. Sure,
You know, provided 9/11 was over 1000 times bigger and committed by an enemy
that threatens the entire world and which noone can possibly negotiate with
or be allied to the aims of. Oh, and the equivalent of 90% of U.S. military
might is gone at the same time.
In other words, it's not in the slightest like 9/11 at all. That is simply a
bad analogy.
(And in the real world, 9/11 created a nearly worldwide sense of brotherhood
and goodwill with the United States that was almost unprecedented, at the
time. So if it had been a good analogy, that would not really have served
your point.)
> the world may be in mutual mourning, holding hands and singing
> kumbayah, but even with the perception of a common enemy it's only a
> matter of time before people fall back into their old habits. "Sure,
> there might be aliens, but maybe we can talk/manipulate them into
> eradicating the other side first."
I will ask the same thing I asked Sea Wasp and he declined to answer - from
what, exactly, do you think that was the last thing Ozy was going to do? Did
he plan to retire? I must have missed that dialogue. What he claimed it
would do was avert the imminent threat of war between the United States and
her allies and the Soviet Union and her allies. Do you believe that to be
implausible? Do you believe it is implausible for the US and USSR to work
together against a common foe, particularly with Ozy pushing them overtly
and covertly? Because that's his plan. And in the world as it exists then,
for the moment that's the only thing he needs to do, since there is no
significant power on earth outside their spheres of influence.
If you have problems with his actual plan, feel free to lay them out. This
nonsense about "one attack makes the human race forevermore hold hands and
sing kumbayah" is being deliberately disingenuous. Do you SERIOUSLY think
Ozy was going to let the rest of history handle itself, rather than take
advantage of the situation he had created to mold a new world order that was
less likely to engage in nuclear conflict? Does that seem in-character for
him, even ignoring the fact he's a superhuman genius?
> Even if down the road some cowboy president decides to declare a War
> On Aliens, questions are still going to be asked: "Would it be
> constitutional to hold aliens in Guantanamo bay? Is it justified to
> start a war under false pretenses? Is it worth it to fight a war that
> costs so many American lives?" (Or, less tongue in cheek: "What if the
> aliens were our Progenitors, come to give us a cosmic spanking of epic
> proportions? What if the aliens are right and we deserve to go
> extinct? What if these are the prophesied End Times?")
You seriously expect that to be a major part of the world's dialogue after
an unprovoked hostile attack from a species that is incomprehensible to
humanity? Like, I suppose, appeasing terrorists is a major part of the US
political dialogue now (no smartass remarks from the right wing, please)?
(You're also ignoring the fact that since the aliens don't exist, none of
those questions could ever be asked.)
> Unless Ozzy is smart enough to fundamentally change human nature
> within the next generation or so, his efforts will still go to naught
> even without Rorschach's journal.
That was Manhattan's actual point, in my opinion. However, do you think,
therefore, that his averting a near-certain nuclear war was worthless
because a nuclear war might happen a hundred years after his death? Why or
why not?
> Behold his works and despair indeed.
That's part of the reason that's Dr. M's point, in my opinion, and not what
Sea Wasp's interpretation was.
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I declined to answer because you have your perceptions and I have mine,
and your interpretations and mine won't jibe. So discussing where *I*
get my interpretation and you get yours will just waste more time. I
explained my view, you explained yours.
Invid Fan
<kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Watchmen spoilers. Come on people, mark this stuff.
>
>
>
>
> "Dot" <dot_wa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2bfa2834-68d4-4e6e...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > Unless Ozzy is smart enough to fundamentally change human nature
> > within the next generation or so, his efforts will still go to naught
> > even without Rorschach's journal.
>
> That was Manhattan's actual point, in my opinion. However, do you think,
> therefore, that his averting a near-certain nuclear war was worthless
> because a nuclear war might happen a hundred years after his death? Why or
> why not?
>
Well, he intentionally caused the near-certain war by getting Dr. M to
flee Earth, thus quickly changing the balance of power. The question
is, given that at some point within 100 years it's reasonably certain
some sort of similar situation would happen, was it worth it to try and
set off that time bomb now given any fix would in fact be temporary?
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Blade
"Invid Fan" <in...@loclanet.com> wrote in message
news:130320091436580067%in...@loclanet.com...
To be fair, it was heavily implied the USSR felt cornered and was going to
start something anyway. That being said, it's a good question. I think it's
sort of an unanswerable question, in the sense that it would be impossible
to know how history would have turned out without Ozymandias' interference,
or if he had done something different. All he has to go by is his own
judgment, something he shares with anyone of considerable power in the world
during a crisis point. Of course, nobody elected Ozy to that position OTHER
than his own judgment - something you can't say about, say, JFK or even
Nikita Khrushchev.
I believe the story intends us to think Ozy is completely wrong, and that
the ends didn't justify his means. I certainly don't think he was RIGHT. But
I think that it's hard to imagine what Ozy ought to have done, given his
position and convictions (which were not necessarily wrong). Ultimately I
think the moral murkiness of the whole thing, especially after it's already
happened, is what makes the ending of Watchmen so strong.
-
Blade
Gerardo Campos
> Watchmen spoilers. Come on people, mark this stuff.
>
>
>
>
> "Dot" <dot_wa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2bfa2834-68d4-4e6e...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>>
>>> But it doesn't. And even if the end DID justify the means, the huge
>>> plot hole is that his plan WON'T ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS.
>>
>> Exactly. All Ozzy did was artificially create 9/11 writ large.
>> Sure,
>
> You know, provided 9/11 was over 1000 times bigger and committed by an
> enemy that threatens the entire world and which noone can possibly
> negotiate with or be allied to the aims of. Oh, and the equivalent of
> 90% of U.S. military might is gone at the same time.
>
> In other words, it's not in the slightest like 9/11 at all. That is
> simply a bad analogy.
>
> (And in the real world, 9/11 created a nearly worldwide sense of
> brotherhood and goodwill with the United States that was almost
> unprecedented, at the time. So if it had been a good analogy, that
> would not really have served your point.)
You have your point of view, as I have mine, but, just to let you know,
from my point of view and from published articles from recognized
writers, my perception is that the level of brotherhood and goodwill of
several countries with the US is very low in this moments.
Is regrettable all valuable and innocent lives that were lost in the
event that happened in the WTC over 7 years ago, as regrettable are all
the same valuable and innocent lives that were lost before and after that
date, by the US military in the countries were they are present.
Sorry for the OT, and I if I do not respond or continue the discussion in
this thread, is because I have said what I planned to say and here is no
place to discuss it further.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Blade
news:Xns9BCDBFC...@130.133.1.18...
> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Fri 13 Mar 2009 07:59:12a:
>
>> Watchmen spoilers. Come on people, mark this stuff.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dot" <dot_wa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2bfa2834-68d4-4e6e...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>>
>>>> But it doesn't. And even if the end DID justify the means, the huge
>>>> plot hole is that his plan WON'T ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS.
>>>
>>> Exactly. All Ozzy did was artificially create 9/11 writ large.
>>> Sure,
>>
>> You know, provided 9/11 was over 1000 times bigger and committed by an
>> enemy that threatens the entire world and which noone can possibly
>> negotiate with or be allied to the aims of. Oh, and the equivalent of
>> 90% of U.S. military might is gone at the same time.
>>
>> In other words, it's not in the slightest like 9/11 at all. That is
>> simply a bad analogy.
>>
>> (And in the real world, 9/11 created a nearly worldwide sense of
>> brotherhood and goodwill with the United States that was almost
>> unprecedented, at the time. So if it had been a good analogy, that
>> would not really have served your point.)
>
> You have your point of view, as I have mine, but, just to let you know,
> from my point of view and from published articles from recognized
> writers, my perception is that the level of brotherhood and goodwill of
> several countries with the US is very low in this moments.
I would agree. I would also point out that over seven years have passed
since the WTC attacks, and that events have happened in the meantime that
have changed the situation from what it was on September 12, 2001 when a
major Paris newspaper ran the headline "Today, we are all Americans".
> Is regrettable all valuable and innocent lives that were lost in the
> event that happened in the WTC over 7 years ago, as regrettable are all
> the same valuable and innocent lives that were lost before and after that
> date, by the US military in the countries were they are present.
I would also agree that it is bad when people die.
> Sorry for the OT, and I if I do not respond or continue the discussion in
> this thread, is because I have said what I planned to say and here is no
> place to discuss it further.
Okay. I have no idea what relevance it has to the question of the
feasibility of Ozymandias' plan in Watchmen, however.
-
Blade
Gerardo Campos
<snip>
> Okay. I have no idea what relevance it has to the question of the
> feasibility of Ozymandias' plan in Watchmen, however.
>
> -
> Blade
>
It was your comment about real world 9/11, it was the first post that was
displayed when I opened my newsreader and not sure why after reading it, I
felt that I needed to make that post.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Dot
> that threatens the entire world and which noone can possibly negotiate with
> or be allied to the aims of. Oh, and the equivalent of 90% of U.S. military
> might is gone at the same time.
Okay, more like an artificially created _Independence Day_, then.
> > Even if down the road some cowboy president decides to declare a War
> > On Aliens, questions are still going to be asked: "Would it be
> > constitutional to hold aliens in Guantanamo bay? Is it justified to
> > start a war under false pretenses? Is it worth it to fight a war that
> > costs so many American lives?" (Or, less tongue in cheek: "What if the
> > aliens were our Progenitors, come to give us a cosmic spanking of epic
> > proportions? What if the aliens are right and we deserve to go
> > extinct? What if these are the prophesied End Times?")
>
> You seriously expect that to be a major part of the world's dialogue after
> an unprovoked hostile attack from a species that is incomprehensible to
> humanity? Like, I suppose, appeasing terrorists is a major part of the US
> political dialogue now (no smartass remarks from the right wing, please)?
Okay, fine, let's pick a different strawman, then. How many wacky
fundamentalist preachers from [Insert Your Least Favorite Religion
Here] are going to say that this is the End Times and/or the fault of
humanity abandoning its principles or whatever? (Not to say that Ozzy
wouldn't have contingency plans for that, but again, unless he somehow
manages to either change human nature or live forever, things will
still get back to normal before long.)
> (You're also ignoring the fact that since the aliens don't exist, none of
> those questions could ever be asked.)
I'm assuming, of course, that there were tangible aliens to be fought
and killed and studied in the first place. The movie treatment might
be a little more plausible.
> > Unless Ozzy is smart enough to fundamentally change human nature
> > within the next generation or so, his efforts will still go to naught
> > even without Rorschach's journal.
>
> That was Manhattan's actual point, in my opinion. However, do you think,
> therefore, that his averting a near-certain nuclear war was worthless
> because a nuclear war might happen a hundred years after his death? Why or
> why not?
I guess it depends on whether your a cynic or an optimist. Me, I
mostly just wanted the smarmy bastard to fail. :P
-"Dot"
Blade
"Dot" <dot_wa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d682743c-5bd3-4753...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> You know, provided 9/11 was over 1000 times bigger and committed by an
>> enemy
>> that threatens the entire world and which noone can possibly negotiate
>> with
>> or be allied to the aims of. Oh, and the equivalent of 90% of U.S.
>> military
>> might is gone at the same time.
>
> Okay, more like an artificially created _Independence Day_, then.
Sort of yeah. If the aliens had immediately scampered off afterwards without
waiting for us to hack their OS. ;p
>> > Even if down the road some cowboy president decides to declare a War
>> > On Aliens, questions are still going to be asked: "Would it be
>> > constitutional to hold aliens in Guantanamo bay? Is it justified to
>> > start a war under false pretenses? Is it worth it to fight a war that
>> > costs so many American lives?" (Or, less tongue in cheek: "What if the
>> > aliens were our Progenitors, come to give us a cosmic spanking of epic
>> > proportions? What if the aliens are right and we deserve to go
>> > extinct? What if these are the prophesied End Times?")
>>
>> You seriously expect that to be a major part of the world's dialogue
>> after
>> an unprovoked hostile attack from a species that is incomprehensible to
>> humanity? Like, I suppose, appeasing terrorists is a major part of the US
>> political dialogue now (no smartass remarks from the right wing, please)?
>
> Okay, fine, let's pick a different strawman, then. How many wacky
> fundamentalist preachers from [Insert Your Least Favorite Religion
> Here] are going to say that this is the End Times and/or the fault of
> humanity abandoning its principles or whatever? (Not to say that Ozzy
Plenty. But they won't be taken seriously and will lose credibility, just
like it wasn't taken seriously when fundamentalists in America said
Hurricane Katrina was the fault of the gays. There's a giant Doom Squid
alongside a million corpses in New York and thousands of people driven crazy
by visions of an alien world that popped into their brains - most people
will put together two and two there (even if the answer is actually five).
Even regimes like Iran are driven a lot more by realpolitik and
self-interest than they are by religious principles - everyone's going to be
a lot more interested in collective defence when you don't know where the
Doom Squid could strike next, and it'll take awhile to shake off that shock.
The last nuclear weapon detonated in anger was in 1945, and I would argue
they still hold an enormous amount of mystique that derives in large part
from then.
> wouldn't have contingency plans for that, but again, unless he somehow
> manages to either change human nature or live forever, things will
> still get back to normal before long.)
He doesn't need to change human nature, though. He accomplished his goal if
he makes the self-extermination of humanity impossible within the span of
time he can foresee. We don't really know how he plans to do this beyond the
events of the book, but there are other ways beyond ending war forever (I
sincerely doubt Ozy could care less about African wars, for instance). A
commitment by NATO and the Warsaw Pact to jointly oversee their nuclear
arsenals would do it as long as said pact lasted, for instance.
I do agree it's impossible for Ozy to predict events a thousand years ahead
unless he thinks he's Hari Seldon (or hell, maybe he does intend to live
forever - it could be his next project now that he's 'saved the world'.
Wouldn't be out of character).
>> (You're also ignoring the fact that since the aliens don't exist, none of
>> those questions could ever be asked.)
>
> I'm assuming, of course, that there were tangible aliens to be fought
> and killed and studied in the first place. The movie treatment might
> be a little more plausible.
But there wasn't tangible aliens in the book, either. There was one, already
dead, artificially created alien and a bunch of manufactured visions in the
heads of the psychically sensitive. Humanity has no way of finding out the
joke until they can casually dimension hop, really (which may be Ozy's
long-term plan, reasoning that once humanity has colonised a few dozen
planets, it will be much harder for them to exterminate themselves - of
course, his method has ensured a huge amount of arms research by humanity
for the next century or three, so...).
>> > Unless Ozzy is smart enough to fundamentally change human nature
>> > within the next generation or so, his efforts will still go to naught
>> > even without Rorschach's journal.
>>
>> That was Manhattan's actual point, in my opinion. However, do you think,
>> therefore, that his averting a near-certain nuclear war was worthless
>> because a nuclear war might happen a hundred years after his death? Why
>> or
>> why not?
>
> I guess it depends on whether your a cynic or an optimist. Me, I
> mostly just wanted the smarmy bastard to fail. :P
Ah, but it's important to note - so did Nite Owl. ;p Until he realised what
Ozy failing would actually mean. I guess that's the central question posed
by their moral dilemna: that Ozy is a debatably insane mass murderer who is
a greater "villain" than anyone they've fought before, but what can you do
about it, given the situation? The protagonists each came up with their own
answers, but it's important to note that none of them actually decided to
blow the lid off the Xanatos Roulette (I would argue that even includes
Rorschach). Would you have? I honestly can't say what I'd do.
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
This is why I didn't really continue the debate; Rorschach, to me, was
clearly going to blow the lid, but once Manhattan got in the way he knew
there was no way for him to actually succeed; Rorschach is nuts, but
even he knew the difference between fighting anyone else and fighting
Doctor Manhattan. So he basically told Manhattan to either DO IT or get
the hell out of the way.
>Would you have? I
> honestly can't say what I'd do.
I'd have done it in a splintered second if Doc Manhattan didn't
vaporize me. From *MY* point of view, the ONLY way to prevent the
long-term damage I see from Ozzy's approach is to IMMEDIATELY show that
the perp has been caught, that his manipulations have been stopped, etc.
You might be able to salvage some of his goals, actually, by letting the
huge amount of attention be focused on his motives during the trial,
that he basically went crazy by obsessing about the world he was trying
to protect. That would be more, in my view, than he deserves, but if it
could be used to help promote peace I'll compromise that far.
>
> -
> Blade
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gpg9sf$it$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Blade wrote:
Still got Watchmen spoilers. Lots of 'em.
(snip)
>>> I guess it depends on whether your a cynic or an optimist. Me, I
>>> mostly just wanted the smarmy bastard to fail. :P
>>
>> Ah, but it's important to note - so did Nite Owl. ;p Until he realised
>> what Ozy failing would actually mean. I guess that's the central question
>> posed by their moral dilemna: that Ozy is a debatably insane mass
>> murderer who is a greater "villain" than anyone they've fought before,
>> but what can you do about it, given the situation? The protagonists each
>> came up with their own answers, but it's important to note that none of
>> them actually decided to blow the lid off the Xanatos Roulette (I would
>> argue that even includes Rorschach).
>
> This is why I didn't really continue the debate; Rorschach, to me, was
> clearly going to blow the lid, but once Manhattan got in the way he knew
> there was no way for him to actually succeed; Rorschach is nuts, but even
> he knew the difference between fighting anyone else and fighting Doctor
> Manhattan. So he basically told Manhattan to either DO IT or get the hell
> out of the way.
You think he was? I think he felt obliged to but even he figured it would
lead to the destruction of the world and therefore wanted to fail. He said
it himself:
"Even in the face of Armageddon." He isn't denying that stopping Ozy will
cause Armageddon; in fact, he says it WILL.
Plus, when Dr. M is about to vapourise him, he's crying. He begs Dr. M to do
it. He doesn't say "get out of the way". He says "What are you waiting for?
DO IT!"
He wants to be killed. He doesn't want to destroy the human race, in the
end. It is one of his great humanising moments. I can't really see where his
tears and dialogue fit in with an interpretation that he was going to do it
without qualms but just figured Dr. M would kill him. I think if Rorschach
believed that either Ozy's plan wouldn't work or that stopping it wouldn't
doom the world, he would have acted differently, tried to argue his point of
view for starters (he certainly is quite eager to argue his pov with his
comrades elsewhere).
Plus, he pulls off his mask. That's his face. As he has said before, that's
RORSCHACH. By pulling it off, he is symbolically saying he is not Rorschach,
he is Kovacs. Rorschach would have done whatever was necessary to expose
this evil. But he doesn't. He doesn't even want to expose it, but he can't
live with betraying his guiding principles. So he chooses to die instead,
for all intents and purposes committing suicide because he cannot be true to
what he thought was himself - he can't destroy humanity out of moral purity.
I believe quite strongly that if your interpretation was correct and he
merely expected to die, he would not take his mask off and he would not be
crying. Kovacs doesn't fear death.
>>Would you have? I honestly can't say what I'd do.
>
> I'd have done it in a splintered second if Doc Manhattan didn't vaporize
> me. From *MY* point of view, the ONLY way to prevent the long-term damage
> I see from Ozzy's approach is to IMMEDIATELY show that the perp has been
> caught, that his manipulations have been stopped, etc. You might be able
> to salvage some of his goals, actually, by letting the huge amount of
> attention be focused on his motives during the trial, that he basically
> went crazy by obsessing about the world he was trying to protect. That
> would be more, in my view, than he deserves, but if it could be used to
> help promote peace I'll compromise that far.
Sure, you're certainly entitled to believe that. It's not as if it's a
testable hypothesis in either case. ;p
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Your interpretation. Mine: He's saying it DOESN'T MATTER to him whether
it does. It's WRONG to let Ozymandias get away with it, and Rorschach's
entire existence has been to do what he sees as right, regardless.
>
> Plus, when Dr. M is about to vapourise him, he's crying. He begs Dr. M
> to do it. He doesn't say "get out of the way". He says "What are you
> waiting for? DO IT!"
>
> He wants to be killed. He doesn't want to destroy the human race, in the
> end. It is one of his great humanising moments. I can't really see where
> his tears and dialogue fit in with an interpretation that he was going
> to do it without qualms but just figured Dr. M would kill him. I think
> if Rorschach believed that either Ozy's plan wouldn't work or that
> stopping it wouldn't doom the world, he would have acted differently,
> tried to argue his point of view for starters (he certainly is quite
> eager to argue his pov with his comrades elsewhere).
>
> Plus, he pulls off his mask. That's his face. As he has said before,
> that's RORSCHACH. By pulling it off, he is symbolically saying he is not
> Rorschach, he is Kovacs. Rorschach would have done whatever was
> necessary to expose this evil. But he doesn't. He doesn't even want to
> expose it, but he can't live with betraying his guiding principles. So
> he chooses to die instead, for all intents and purposes committing
> suicide because he cannot be true to what he thought was himself - he
> can't destroy humanity out of moral purity.
>
> I believe quite strongly that if your interpretation was correct and he
> merely expected to die, he would not take his mask off and he would not
> be crying. Kovacs doesn't fear death.
Your interpretation.
Mine: He's crying because, twisted though Rorschach/Kovacs was, he
still saw these people as his friends, his ONLY friends, and the people
who understood his mission even if they didn't always agree with his
extremity or methods. His family. And now he's being forced to leave
that family over something that strikes at the very core of WHO HE IS.
He yanks off the mask to show Manhattan his tears, to FORCE Manhattan to
kill KOVACS -- kill a man, not a mask. "What are you waiting for?" is
not a "Hey, I want to die because I don't want to finish my job", it's
"If you really mean this, then do it. Don't waste my time, don't look
all uncertain and sad and stand there looking sympathetic when you've
just agreed to work with Satan and destroyed the only family I ever
really had."
>
>>> Would you have? I honestly can't say what I'd do.
>>
>> I'd have done it in a splintered second if Doc Manhattan didn't
>> vaporize me. From *MY* point of view, the ONLY way to prevent the
>> long-term damage I see from Ozzy's approach is to IMMEDIATELY show
>> that the perp has been caught, that his manipulations have been
>> stopped, etc. You might be able to salvage some of his goals,
>> actually, by letting the huge amount of attention be focused on his
>> motives during the trial, that he basically went crazy by obsessing
>> about the world he was trying to protect. That would be more, in my
>> view, than he deserves, but if it could be used to help promote peace
>> I'll compromise that far.
>
> Sure, you're certainly entitled to believe that. It's not as if it's a
> testable hypothesis in either case. ;p
All we need to do is create an entirely separate universe...
sanjian
> If you saw a "polished boy scout image" when reading Spider-Man, you
> were reading really, REALLY different comics than the ones *I* found
> on the shelves. Spider-Man is the archetypal example of the superhero
> who has to also live a regular life.
>
> And if you're talking about the MODERN Batman, I'd love to see a Boy
> Scout troop that would even let him APPROACH them, let alone endorse
> him as something wholesome.
Bats wouldn't be too bad. Northstar would be SoL, though.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
OK, guys, it'll be awhile till I finish the graphic novel.
I hear they changed a lot in the movie.
So, please spoil me. ^_^
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
> OK, guys, it'll be awhile till I finish the graphic novel.
> I hear they changed a lot in the movie.
No, they didn't. Of course they had to omit something here and there,
but all key scenes were present and accounted for. They changed the
ending a little, but not in a way that would affect message or outcome
of the story. All in all I think it's a pretty decent adaptation.
cu
59cobalt
--
"My surname is Li and my personal name is Kao, and there is a slight
flaw in my character."
--Li Kao (Barry Hughart: Bridge of Birds)
Aje RavenStar
"Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" <usene...@planetcobalt.net> wrote in message
news:gpiogo...@news.in-ulm.de...
> S.t.A.n.L.e.E <LostRu...@uofr.slamspam.net> wrote:
>> OK, guys, it'll be awhile till I finish the graphic novel.
>> I hear they changed a lot in the movie.
>
> No, they didn't. Of course they had to omit something here and there,
> but all key scenes were present and accounted for. They changed the
> ending a little, but not in a way that would affect message or outcome
> of the story. All in all I think it's a pretty decent adaptation.
>
Indeed, the one review I've seen of the movie by someone who had read the
book version made a point of how it was an accurate, true to source
adaptation. Then the writer complained because there was nothing new or
unique about the director's version of the story.
The Wanderer
Which is, of course, how it *should* be... signing up to make a movie
version of a book (or vice versa, or any other cross-medium translation
of a work) should not automatically mean signing up to create a
re-envisioned version of the contents; there's no reason it can't
involve that, but it should not be the assumed default, and when it does
happen it should be explicitly stated that that is what is being done.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
sanjian
> Aje RavenStar wrote:
>> Indeed, the one review I've seen of the movie by someone who had read
>> the book version made a point of how it was an accurate, true to
>> source adaptation. Then the writer complained because there was
>> nothing new or unique about the director's version of the story.
>
> Which is, of course, how it *should* be... signing up to make a movie
> version of a book (or vice versa, or any other cross-medium
> translation of a work) should not automatically mean signing up to
> create a re-envisioned version of the contents; there's no reason it
> can't involve that, but it should not be the assumed default, and
> when it does happen it should be explicitly stated that that is what
> is being done.
"Since the book was so popular, let's toss out everything people liked about
it and do our own thing."
Invid Fan
<whine...@comcast.net> wrote:
It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
identical. I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same story/visuals
in multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect some changes to take
advantage of the possibilities and limitations of each art form. I'd
rather a director bring their own vision then just make each shot look
exactly like the comic (but with movement!). I'll probably watch the
movie at some point, just to give it a chance, but there's no hurry :)
The Wanderer
> In article <gpirp7$ofo$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Aje RavenStar
> <whine...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" <usene...@planetcobalt.net> wrote
>> in message news:gpiogo...@news.in-ulm.de...
>>> No, they didn't. Of course they had to omit something here and
>>> there, but all key scenes were present and accounted for. They
>>> changed the ending a little, but not in a way that would affect
>>> message or outcome of the story. All in all I think it's a pretty
>>> decent adaptation.
>>
>> Indeed, the one review I've seen of the movie by someone who had
>> read the book version made a point of how it was an accurate, true
>> to source adaptation. Then the writer complained because there was
>> nothing new or unique about the director's version of the story.
>
> It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
> identical.
Because just because the story is identical doesn't mean the
presentation is?
A book can get inside characters' heads in ways a movie or TV series
can't. A movie or TV series can convey physical actions and visual
effects in ways a book can't. Some stories which can be told well in one
medium cannot be effectively told in another; others can be told equally
well in both.
There is an advantage in being able to see what was only described
before. There is an advantage to being able to see movement where it was
only implied before. There is an advantage in being able to know what
someone is thinking or how they are feeling, where you had to guess
before. The list can go on.
That said, I have rarely seen a case of a single story in two different
media where I found experiencing both to be worthwhile - but I think
this is largely *because* the same story is so rarely told in multiple
media, not despite the fact; there is such a small sample to select from
that I'm not positive I can think of a single example of one story told
unchanged in more than one medium.
> I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same story/visuals in
> multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect some changes to take
> advantage of the possibilities and limitations of each art form.
There's nothing wrong with taking advantages of the capabilities of each
medium. There is, however, nothing which says that doing so requires
reinventing or reimagining the story. There's nothing inherently wrong
with doing that, either, but there is definitely something wrong with
doing so by default, and/or pretending that the end result is the same
thing as the original.
> I'd rather a director bring their own vision then just make each shot
> look exactly like the comic (but with movement!).
It isn't necessary to go shot-by-shot to tell the same story without
embellishment. Reinventing the work is theoretically fine, but then it
isn't the same thing anymore, and there's no more guarantee it will be
good than there would be with something simply create new from scratch.
In a sense, the director bringing their own vision to the work
contaminates it - and while contamination can improve something (many
kinds of gems are just the same thing with different impurities), it is
far more likely to make it worse.
You're perfectly free to prefer reinvented versions of the story over
simple retellings, and indeed I often like that myself (across many
different stories); there is, however, considerable value in both, and a
reinvention should never be "sold" as the original thing.
Aje RavenStar
"The Wanderer" <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ubCdnaQaFpA_yyDU...@giganews.com...
I suppose the prime example of this would be Murray Burnett and Joan
Alison's (unstaged) play, 'Everybody Comes To Rick's'. Three credited and
one uncredited scriptwriters late, plus Director Michael Curtis' vision, we
had 'Casablanca'.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I'm the opposite. An ideal adaptation is one which matches the movie
version that plays in my head when I read. But I'd like to be able to
actually SEE that version.
sanjian
If the director wants to write his own story, let him. Or hell, if he wants
to write fanfic, that's fine, too. But don't promises us Story X when
that's not what you're going to deliver. And, to be honest, if you aren't
going to do Story X, why did you buy the rights, anyways?
sanjian
>> You're perfectly free to prefer reinvented versions of the story over
>> simple retellings, and indeed I often like that myself (across many
>> different stories); there is, however, considerable value in both,
>> and a reinvention should never be "sold" as the original thing.
>>
>
>
>
> I suppose the prime example of this would be Murray Burnett and Joan
> Alison's (unstaged) play, 'Everybody Comes To Rick's'. Three
> credited and one uncredited scriptwriters late, plus Director Michael
> Curtis' vision, we had 'Casablanca'.
Which was titled "Casablanca," not "Everybody Comes to Rick's." In the end,
they got to do the story the way they wanted. They didn't lie to anybody
who was dead-set on seeing "Everybody Comes to Rick's." And they ended up
with a classic.
The Wanderer
> Invid Fan wrote:
>> It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
>> identical. I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same
>> story/visuals in multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect
>> some changes to take advantage of the possibilities and limitations
>> of each art form. I'd rather a director bring their own vision then
>> just make each shot look exactly like the comic (but with
>> movement!). I'll probably watch the movie at some point, just to
>> give it a chance, but there's no hurry :)
>
> If the director wants to write his own story, let him. Or hell, if
> he wants to write fanfic, that's fine, too. But don't promises us
> Story X when that's not what you're going to deliver. And, to be
> honest, if you aren't going to do Story X, why did you buy the
> rights, anyways?
Precisely.
I will add that I do consider it legitimate to do a new or altered or
reimagined (et cetera) version of an existing story; it's given us some
classic literature and some very good stories (Shakespeare, Wicked,
various fairy-tale retellings such as many of the works of Robin
McKinley), and quite a bit of the better fanfic falls into that
category. None of these, however, are presented as *being* the original
work, and IMO that makes all of the difference.
ObAnime: This is also a major part of the reason I object so
vociferously to most of the changes that so routinely get made in the
dubbing, or even sometimes the subtitling, process...
Blade
"The Wanderer" <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u6ydnbqvc9j6DyDU...@giganews.com...
> sanjian wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>
>>> It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
>>> identical. I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same story/visuals
>>> in multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect
>>> some changes to take advantage of the possibilities and limitations
>>> of each art form. I'd rather a director bring their own vision then
>>> just make each shot look exactly like the comic (but with
>>> movement!). I'll probably watch the movie at some point, just to
>>> give it a chance, but there's no hurry :)
>>
>> If the director wants to write his own story, let him. Or hell, if
>> he wants to write fanfic, that's fine, too. But don't promises us
>> Story X when that's not what you're going to deliver. And, to be
>> honest, if you aren't going to do Story X, why did you buy the
>> rights, anyways?
>
> Precisely.
>
> I will add that I do consider it legitimate to do a new or altered or
> reimagined (et cetera) version of an existing story; it's given us some
> classic literature and some very good stories (Shakespeare, Wicked,
> various fairy-tale retellings such as many of the works of Robin
> McKinley), and quite a bit of the better fanfic falls into that
> category. None of these, however, are presented as *being* the original
> work, and IMO that makes all of the difference.
I have yet to see the movie adaptation of an original work that presented
itself as being the original work.
-
Blade
(Except the Lion King! HAHAHAHAHAHAohgodsonerdy.)
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
So you don't possibly get sued by those who could think
there's too much similarity and capitalize on your success!
Heck, Disney could've avoided all this possible trouble
if they would've just pre-paid Tezuka's Estate regardless,
just to be safe, doncha think? ^_^
(Even when Tezuka's Estate eventually decided not to sue.)
Laters. =)
STan
Jack Bohn
>Invid Fan wrote:
>>>
>> It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
>> identical. I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same story/visuals
>> in multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect some changes to take
>> advantage of the possibilities and limitations of each art form. I'd
>> rather a director bring their own vision then just make each shot look
>> exactly like the comic (but with movement!). I'll probably watch the
>> movie at some point, just to give it a chance, but there's no hurry :)
>>
>
> I'm the opposite. An ideal adaptation is one which matches the movie
>version that plays in my head when I read. But I'd like to be able to
>actually SEE that version.
But with comics and/or manga, don't you already see it clearly
enough?
In the case of long works to a necessarily shorter form,
(Watchmen of the subject, any novel-to-movie project,) I think
getting the gist, and a few key scenes the reader would remember
after the year or so is sufficient.
I do remember in the case of movie-to-novelization, I did expect
an accurate transcription of events, but more information, which
made movie-to-comics (without even accurate visuals) a loss to
me.
--
-Jack
The Wanderer
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
>>> identical. I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same
>>> story/visuals in multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect
>>> some changes to take advantage of the possibilities and
>>> limitations of each art form. I'd rather a director bring their
>>> own vision then just make each shot look exactly like the comic
>>> (but with movement!). I'll probably watch the movie at some
>>> point, just to give it a chance, but there's no hurry :)
>>
>> I'm the opposite. An ideal adaptation is one which matches the
>> movie version that plays in my head when I read. But I'd like to be
>> able to actually SEE that version.
>
> But with comics and/or manga, don't you already see it clearly
> enough?
Clearly enough for what?
The still image isn't the same as, and doesn't always do justice to, the
full-blown action(s) being depicted. The short answer is, therefore,
"no".
The Wanderer
In the case under discussion, the movie was presented as being
"Watchmen", not as e.g. "A Reimagined Version of Watchmen" or "A New
Story Based on Watchmen", and was therefore - under the definition I am
using - presented as being the original work. (I am withholding judgment
on whether it was justified in being so presented, as I have neither
seen the movie nor read the 'comic's, nor from the descriptions I'm
reading do I think I am likely to want to do either anytime soon.)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
>>> identical. I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same story/visuals
>>> in multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect some changes to take
>>> advantage of the possibilities and limitations of each art form. I'd
>>> rather a director bring their own vision then just make each shot look
>>> exactly like the comic (but with movement!). I'll probably watch the
>>> movie at some point, just to give it a chance, but there's no hurry :)
>>>
>> I'm the opposite. An ideal adaptation is one which matches the movie
>> version that plays in my head when I read. But I'd like to be able to
>> actually SEE that version.
>
> But with comics and/or manga, don't you already see it clearly
> enough?
No.
>
> In the case of long works to a necessarily shorter form,
> (Watchmen of the subject, any novel-to-movie project,) I think
> getting the gist, and a few key scenes the reader would remember
> after the year or so is sufficient.
Watchmen isn't that long; it looks long, but word-wise it's probably a
novella at best.
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
> Blade wrote:
>> I have yet to see the movie adaptation of an original work that
>> presented itself as being the original work.
>
> In the case under discussion, the movie was presented as being
> "Watchmen", not as e.g. "A Reimagined Version of Watchmen" or "A New
> Story Based on Watchmen", and was therefore - under the definition I
> am using - presented as being the original work.
Blade will now tell you that movies and books are different media, so
that a movie could present itself as "the original work".
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
>> presented itself as being the original work.
>
> In the case under discussion, the movie was presented as being
> "Watchmen", not as e.g. "A Reimagined Version of Watchmen" or "A New
> Story Based on Watchmen", and was therefore - under the definition I
> am using - presented as being the original work.
Blade will now tell you that movies and books are different media, so
that a movie could never present itself as "the original work".
Chris Mattern
>
> OK, guys, it'll be awhile till I finish the graphic novel.
> I hear they changed a lot in the movie.
No, not really. Most reviews have commented on how closely they hewed
to the GN, and that was my reaction, too. They cut a bunch of stuff (most
notably all the Black Freighter stuff), but they did have to make all fit
in a single movie (and it was a pretty long movie as it was). Probably the
single biggest change was that in the movie, Ozzy framed Doctor Manhattan
for mass murder, while in the GN, he had fictional aliens take the rap.
> So, please spoil me. ^_^
>
> Laters. =)
>
> Stan
--
Christopher Mattern
NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities
Robert Sneddon
<kumo...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>I have yet to see the movie adaptation of an original work that
>presented itself as being the original work.
There are a few -- the short story "A Boy and his Dog" by Harlan
Ellison was turned into a shot-for-shot movie. It helps that Harlan is
also a screenwriter and the story was written in a very cinematic
manner.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
sanjian
> Sun, 15 Mar 2009 5:39pm-0400, sanjian <mun...@vt.edu>:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> In article <gpirp7$ofo$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Aje RavenStar
>>> <whine...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It becomes a question of why experience both versions if they're
>>> identical. I know some (many ^_^) people do want the same
>>> story/visuals in multiple mediums, but I personally want/expect some
>>> changes to take advantage of the possibilities and limitations of
>>> each art form. I'd rather a director bring their own vision then
>>> just make each shot look exactly like the comic (but with
>>> movement!). I'll probably watch the movie at some point, just to
>>> give it a chance, but there's no hurry :)
>>
>> If the director wants to write his own story, let him. Or hell, if
>> he wants to write fanfic, that's fine, too. But don't promises us
>> Story X when that's not what you're going to deliver. And, to be
>> honest, if you aren't going to do Story X, why did you buy the
>> rights, anyways?
>>
>
> So you don't possibly get sued by those who could think
> there's too much similarity and capitalize on your success!
That makes it even worse.
Blade
"Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" <usene...@planetcobalt.net> wrote in message
news:gplh6g...@news.in-ulm.de...
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Blade wrote:
>>> I have yet to see the movie adaptation of an original work that
>>> presented itself as being the original work.
>>
>> In the case under discussion, the movie was presented as being
>> "Watchmen", not as e.g. "A Reimagined Version of Watchmen" or "A New
>> Story Based on Watchmen", and was therefore - under the definition I
>> am using - presented as being the original work.
>
> Blade will now tell you that movies and books are different media, so
> that a movie could present itself as "the original work".
No, my English-challenged friend, Blade would now say that the part in the
credits where it says "Based on the graphic novel by..." would indicate to
the discerning viewer that this is an adaptation of another work, and
therefore is not presenting itself as being the original work.
-
Blade
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
That's why buy the rights, just in case.
Hey, nobody gave Cameron any grief when he came out
with Dark Angel (Jessica Alba's coming out also helped).
Imagine if he never bought the rights to Battle Angel prior;
people would had gone nuts! ^_^
Laters. =)
Stan
The Wanderer
Was the credit present (prominently enough to be noticed, not hidden in
the fine print) in e.g. the ads for the movie, and the posters, and so
forth?
If so, then you may - probably do - have a point, in at least this
instance.
If not, then it's irrelevant. They were attempting to present it to the
public consciousness as "Watchmen", and hidden (or not-so-hidden, or
perhaps even anything but prominent and attention-getting) disclaimers
do not change that fact. It should not be necessary to be a "discerning
viewer", or to dig beyond the surface, to discover the claim that the
work is something different; the fact should be announced up front.
sanjian
> Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:37am-0400, sanjian <mun...@vt.edu>:
> That's why buy the rights, just in case.
>
> Hey, nobody gave Cameron any grief when he came out
> with Dark Angel (Jessica Alba's coming out also helped).
> Imagine if he never bought the rights to Battle Angel prior;
> people would had gone nuts! ^_^
I didn't give him grief, I just didn't bother to watch it.
Jack Bohn
>Jack Bohn wrote:
>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> I'm the opposite. An ideal adaptation is one which matches the
>>> movie version that plays in my head when I read. But I'd like to be
>>> able to actually SEE that version.
>>
>> But with comics and/or manga, don't you already see it clearly
>> enough?
>
>Clearly enough for what?
>
>The still image isn't the same as, and doesn't always do justice to, the
>full-blown action(s) being depicted. The short answer is, therefore,
>"no".
Maybe it's just me, I can't think of any scene playing in my head
from a comic that I saw playing before my eyes in a movie...
Spider-Man's web-swinging, in that it uses stretchy web, is not
from the comics, although it is wonderful. One comicbook effect
I would have liked to have seen would be where there are several
poses in the same frame -- if used for a story purpose, if making
clear Spidey's exact motion was necessary -- not just to do an
Ang Lee Hulk.
I suppose the wonderful animation of Nausicaa on her
jet-hanglider were what Miyazaki had in mind when doing the
manga, but I didn't get the one from the other.
--
-Jack
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Jack Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm the opposite. An ideal adaptation is one which matches the
>>>> movie version that plays in my head when I read. But I'd like to be
>>>> able to actually SEE that version.
>>> But with comics and/or manga, don't you already see it clearly
>>> enough?
>> Clearly enough for what?
>>
>> The still image isn't the same as, and doesn't always do justice to, the
>> full-blown action(s) being depicted. The short answer is, therefore,
>> "no".
>
> Maybe it's just me, I can't think of any scene playing in my head
> from a comic that I saw playing before my eyes in a movie...
Well, since you mention Spidey, I felt I SAW most of that in the
comics. It was just BETTER in live-action. In particular, there was the
one sequence where Spidey first sets up his camera to take pictures, and
I swear I saw that EXACT same "beat thugs up" sequence in one of the
comicbooks. It sure FELT just like reading the comic, only better.
>
> Spider-Man's web-swinging, in that it uses stretchy web, is not
> from the comics,
Whaaaa? He's often made USE of the stretchy characteristics of the web
in the comic. Clearly we image this stuff differently.
Arnold Kim
> Blade wrote:
>
>> "Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" <usene...@planetcobalt.net> wrote in
>> message news:gplh6g...@news.in-ulm.de...
>>
>>> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> In the case under discussion, the movie was presented as being
>>>> "Watchmen", not as e.g. "A Reimagined Version of Watchmen" or "A
>>>> New Story Based on Watchmen", and was therefore - under the
>>>> definition I am using - presented as being the original work.
>>>
>>> Blade will now tell you that movies and books are different media,
>>> so that a movie could present itself as "the original work".
>>
>> No, my English-challenged friend, Blade would now say that the part
>> in the credits where it says "Based on the graphic novel by..." would
>> indicate to the discerning viewer that this is an adaptation of
>> another work, and therefore is not presenting itself as being the
>> original work.
>
> Was the credit present (prominently enough to be noticed, not hidden
> in the fine print) in e.g. the ads for the movie, and the posters,
> and so forth?
Right smack in the middle of the first trailer, you see the words "The Most
Celebrated Graphic Novel of All Time".
Arnold Kim
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And note NOT the words,
"ADAPTED FROM The Most Celebrated..."
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Blade wrote:
>>> [I] would now say that the part in the credits where it says
>>> "Based on the graphic novel by..." would indicate to the
>>> discerning viewer that this is an adaptation of another work, and
>>> therefore is not presenting itself as being the original work.
>>
>> Was the credit present (prominently enough to be noticed, not
>> hidden in the fine print) in e.g. the ads for the movie, and the
>> posters, and so forth?
>
> Right smack in the middle of the first trailer, you see the words
> "The Most Celebrated Graphic Novel of All Time".
But that by itself doesn't present a claim that the movie is something
different, a reimagining as opposed to a faithful translation. Indeed,
if anything, that phrase would seem to claim that the movie *is* the
same thing as the original, not an alternate version.
Just giving credit for the original idea to those who created it does
not constitute announcing that you are doing something different derived
from that idea, instead of merely reimplementing the same idea in a
different medium...
sanjian
> Arnold Kim wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>> Blade wrote:
>
>>>> [I] would now say that the part in the credits where it says
>>>> "Based on the graphic novel by..." would indicate to the
>>>> discerning viewer that this is an adaptation of another work, and
>>>> therefore is not presenting itself as being the original work.
>>>
>>> Was the credit present (prominently enough to be noticed, not
>>> hidden in the fine print) in e.g. the ads for the movie, and the
>>> posters, and so forth?
>>
>> Right smack in the middle of the first trailer, you see the words
>> "The Most Celebrated Graphic Novel of All Time".
>
> But that by itself doesn't present a claim that the movie is something
> different, a reimagining as opposed to a faithful translation. Indeed,
> if anything, that phrase would seem to claim that the movie *is* the
> same thing as the original, not an alternate version.
>
> Just giving credit for the original idea to those who created it does
> not constitute announcing that you are doing something different
> derived from that idea, instead of merely reimplementing the same
> idea in a different medium...
Indeed. Having only half-assedly followed this conversation, I thought
Arnold was arguing for your side with that post.
The Wanderer
You could be right; I think I may have mixed him up with a different A
from a past conversation which sits in my head next to this one. If so,
then I apologize for the confusion.