Comments on Comics Should Be Good: How the Wachowskis screwed up, why Alan Moore need...

How dare you compare Bush to Machiavelli? To be Ma...

2006-08-10T12:26:00.000-04:00

How dare you compare Bush to Machiavelli? To be Machiavellian requires cunning - an adeptness Bush seriously lacks. Machiavelli was way cooler, way smarter, and way more glorious than Bush could ever hope to be.

I hated the movie. Thought it was ham-fisted and r...

2006-04-04T11:23:00.000-04:00

I hated the movie. Thought it was ham-fisted and really, really dumbed down. Changing Evey's character, removing all her desperation, killed the entire point of the story. As did showing the entire population to be well-off pub drinkers with kick-ass plasma TVs in every home. Yeah, certain people got that knock on the door in the middle of the night, but the masses were kept well-fed and sleepy, so, uh, what's the point of this revolution again?

I also hated the Islamic stuff. I get the "He was killed for a book! OMG!" stuff about Fry's character just fine, thanks. But I didn't buy the entire notion of an intelligent gay man revering the Koran. They fucking drop walls on gay people in the Muslim world, folks.

I could see Fry's character having a copy of Khayyam's Rubaiyat or something similar, and being killed because of crazy prohibitions on writing in Arabic. That would've been more subtle, and more sensible.

Also, you want to start arguing about Islamic body counts, please don't start with the Crusades. Start with the incredibly bloody war of conquest where the Muslims tried to conquer all civilization in the seventh and eighth centuries. The Crusades were an attempt to regain what the Muslims had conquered through war just four centuries previously.

You want to compare body counts? Sure. Just make sure and start in 632, when the Muslim armies charged out of Arabia and exterminated the Persians, brought the Byzantine Empire to the brink of collapse, conquered all of northern Africa and Spain, and tried to drive on into France.

Get your information from history, not Alan Moore's misinformed rantings or current PC thinking that always begins with an apology for the Crusades.

"The folks on the left of American politics are co...

2006-03-23T17:58:00.000-05:00

"The folks on the left of American politics are convinced that they live in the worst of times"

Secret prisons.
Government-endorsed discrimination toward homosexuals.
Illegal spying on peace groups.
Public lying about information and actions connected to Katrina, where people died due to the slow response.
A president who honestly believes that he can hear the word of God, and all his decisions are of divine command.

It may not be the worst of times, but fear and anger are justified.

"I couldn't believe a statement like that could go...

2006-03-23T17:51:00.000-05:00

"I couldn't believe a statement like that could go unchallenged on a site where posters passionately defended Muslims when responding to the news of Frank Miller's Batman book."

Maybe I'm misremembering, but it seemed to me that it was more about passionately decrying Frank Miller as unsuited to deal with complicated and delicate social and political issues.

Attacking one does not mean defending the other.

david writes: "The folks on the left of American p...

2006-03-22T22:57:00.000-05:00

david writes: "The folks on the left of American politics are convinced that they live in the worst of times"

Some may. I wouldn't say "worst of times", I think it's bad enough that we live in times when torture and indefinite detention without trial have become offical American policy. All the arrogant incompetence in the White House and the Pentagon, the contempt for the rule of law, and the corruption, the personality cult around Bush - they're just icing on the cake.

" The movie was very explicit and detailed in its ...

2006-03-22T22:49:00.000-05:00

" The movie was very explicit and detailed in its treatment of conservatives as villains, yet vague when discussing the muslim threat, no matter what neutral mantras it ends with about being "about everybody." "

My god, it must be awful to live in such mind-killing fear.

"Muslim threat" is irrelevant because the movie is about a group who took advantage of fears like yours in order to gain power and destroy everyone's liberty but their own.

Step one: people like you decide they would gladly live in a nationwide prison just as long as they're safe from them bad, bad Muslims (even though your likelihood of being killed by a terrorist is lower than being struck by lightning while winning the lottery.)

Step two: Evil people fake a terrorist attack and blame it on some handy Muslims.

Step three: the evil people take power and establish a totalitarian state.

That's the point.

But apparently, you think it would be okay to turn a free country into an un-free totalitarian state just because there are Muslim terrorists in the world.

Am I getting this right? You want the movie to acknowledge the acts of real-world terrorists because that would make it easier to understand why the conservatives killed 100,000 people, blamed some innocent Muslims, and stripped everyone of their liberty?

You really think those acts would be acceptable, just because you're scared of the bad, bad Muslims?

You're more likely to be killed by a deer jumping into your car on the highway than by a terrorist. Is that also a valid justification for stripping away everyone's freedoms?

(coincidence: my word verification is semtxw, which is kinda like semtex, the plastic explosive.)

The case, she is rested.

2006-03-22T00:18:00.000-05:00

The case, she is rested.

Anonymous, look at everything I've written. For y...

2006-03-22T00:04:00.000-05:00

Anonymous, look at everything I've written. For you to have read everything I said and say I provided no proof of my points just showed me that you were jusr resolved not to get it. I can understand if you just disagree with my reasoning or conclusion, but to say I was avoiding debate or not providing proof? As if the people arguing that only Communists and Nazis were more evil than Christians were supplying bibliographies to support their claims? I'm supposed to jump through your hoops and supply a standard of proof that you don't seem to be demanding of anyone else? Give me a break. If you read my posts and see no proof offered and no valid points given, it's either your comprehension or my debating at fault. Either way, another thousand words from me or links to other meticulously websites won't resolve the situation.

"I mean, I like T. and Greg and Lungfish, but what...

2006-03-21T23:54:00.000-05:00

"I mean, I like T. and Greg and Lungfish, but what are you guys trying to accomplish with the tally sheets?"

The tally sheet was pretty much in response to the throwaway line in Greg's (whose writing I still love) review stating that right-wing crazies shouldn't complain because if a tally sheet were started Christianity would be shown to be as bad as Islam. I couldn't believe a statement like that could go unchallenged on a site where posters passionately defended Muslims when responding to the news of Frank Miller's Batman book.

If you don't want clarification, T., then why do y...

2006-03-21T23:39:00.000-05:00

If you don't want clarification, T., then why do you ask for it? Silly me, I supplied it thinking that you might engage with what I said in good faith...but "whoa, you're really getting worked up there" hardly counts as a serious good-faith response, does it?

Are you trying to imply that I'm being overly passionate about this topic? Says the man who's written a good couple thousand fiery words about it. Sorry, won't wash; a few all-caps words does not a raving lunatic make. My point remains: you're avoiding real argument.

My invitation to you is to prove me wrong about that. It'll be interesting to see if you choose to.
Whether we agree or disagree is all one to me; you don't have to change your tune to get me to concede you're arguing legitimately. But you will have to do something besides changing the subject.

Okay, absent the miracle of T. addressing anything I've said at face value, I'm out. Thank you for your time.

Brad Curran said: "Summarize, please."I think I ca...

2006-03-21T23:20:00.000-05:00

Brad Curran said: "Summarize, please."

I think I can do this for all concerned.

You see, This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk...

I'm skimming this, because shit, it's long, but I ...

2006-03-21T22:30:00.000-05:00

I'm skimming this, because shit, it's long, but I think that arguing which side committed the most atrocities is the dumbest thing ever. I mean, I like T. and Greg and Lungfish, but what are you guys trying to accomplish with the tally sheets? Or did you already reach a resolution and I missed it because I am ignoring you all? Summarize, please.

Man anonymous, you are really getting worked up th...

2006-03-21T21:22:00.000-05:00

Man anonymous, you are really getting worked up there.

I'm still wondering where you're getting the idea ...

2006-03-21T21:14:00.000-05:00

I'm still wondering where you're getting the idea that the movie specifically targets Christianity and Christians as a bad thing...are there scenes where the evils of Christianity throughout the years are mentioned that I missed? Is there more than one evil 'Christian' character (and he isn't even shown as being really Christian, just a nasty power figure using the vaguest trappings of religion)?
I really don't see where you're coming from for that point...

As a movie, I liked V for Vendetta. I didn't look...

2006-03-21T21:13:00.000-05:00

As a movie, I liked V for Vendetta. I didn't look at my watch, and the technical performances are well done (Weaving in particular).

As a prompt to ask theoretical questions like "is extremism in the defense of liberty a vice?" V works very well. Clearly those who struggle against monsters tend to become monsters themselves, but is that inevitable?

As cautionary tale, it works not quite as well as 1984 or many others, but still works. Liberty is fragile, and can be taken away in surprising manners. People throughout history have willingly followed horrifyingly bad people.

As allegory to current events, it sucks badly. The folks on the left of American politics are convinced that they live in the worst of times (thus, things like "BusHitler" are relatively common expressions); while the folks on the right of American politics raise "you're either with us or against us" to the level of scripture rather than pity aphorism. A reading of current American politics into this movie does both the movie and politics a disservice.

Oh, and the arguments about Christianity and Islam thoroughly miss the point. Right now (and for the recent past), Islam has been vastly more violent than Christianity, and has been far less tolerant of diversity and dissent. Christianity has mellowed out tremendously over the past 100 or so years, and hopefully something similar will happen in the Islamic world (soon, please!). But neither Islam nor Christianity have been as opressive and destructive as Communism and Nazism (with Fascism thrown in for the ride). Those two have a body count orders of magnitude larger than any of the worst religous periods in human history.

"What points have I missed, exactly?"As I said: e...

2006-03-21T21:12:00.000-05:00

"What points have I missed, exactly?"

As I said: every point. You even supply your own example of how it's done:

Me: "At this point I'd be shocked if you actually deigned to engage with a rebuttal. Or even a mildly neutral comment."

You: "Mildly neutral comment? No. But I'm hardly the only one here with comments that aren't mildly neutral. And I think I have a fair amount of rebuttals here."

Maybe you do, but that ISN'T what I said. I said you aren't RESPONDING to OTHER PEOPLE'S rebuttals. That was my rebuttal to you, you see? That you gloss right over what other people are saying. LIKE YOU JUST DID WITH ME! "I'm hardly the only one with comments that aren't mildly neutral." I WASN'T ACCUSING OTHER PEOPLE, OR EVEN YOU, OF MAKING INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS, T.! I was saying that I'd be surprised if you deigned to engage fairly even with something that WASN'T a rebuttal, but just a comment. Did you even read what I said?

You: "Mildly neutral comment? No."

Let me ask you, to what did you think you were responding there? Whose question were you answering? Not mine! So you "think you have a fair number of rebuttals", do you? I question that. Certainly you've told people they're wrong a lot. But you haven't actually argued them down. When they say Christianity is bad, you say "oh, Islam is worse!" Well, so what if it is? It doesn't make Christianity better. And when someone notes that you cannot claim Christianity as the author of every progressive measure ever taken in Western Europe - which you can't, because how can you? Did Jesus write the Declaration of the Rights of Man? - you reply by giving a link to Muslim massacres, as if to say "look, aren't they horrible?" This isn't rebutting. This is bobbing and weaving. What you claim Christianity has accomplished hasn't even been accomplished yet, much less by Christianity, so you can't count it. "Equal rights for women", indeed! Was that Christianity's idea, after all? And Maxwell may "arguably" have been a greater genius than Newton or Einstein (not that I've ever heard anyone argue it, not even you - asserting that something's arguable is far from being the same as proving that it is), but what did his religion have to do with this, even if true? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. NOTHING. Did his Christian faith predispose him to look at the electron with more compassionate eyes, or something? Is that really what you're saying there? Perfect nonsense, utter crap, obfuscation. Illegitimate reasoning.

Adam says it's funny how Christian Americans are so self-centred. You reply that you think what's really funny is when people cut Christian Americans down. Sorry, non sequitur, pal. Jer says the pissing match over whose religion is worse is beside the point, and you correct him on it by saying the anti-Christian zeal of V For Vendetta has to be exposed for the hypocrisy it is. Doesn't follow! Somebody points out that Christianity is responsible for more bodies than anything but fascism and communism, and you say "Aha! That just proves my point, to turn away from Christ is to become a barbarian!" But that ISN'T what that person was saying. You've taken their words and twisted them, and that isn't allowed.

God help you if you think you can stack up all Christianity's bodies against Islam's bodies, and then say "this one's better, it killed less." What a shocking conclusion that would be.

"to echo the movie's final words: it's about every...

2006-03-21T20:41:00.000-05:00

"to echo the movie's final words: it's about everyone."

That's what I thought about the movie until the scene where V describes how the conservatives came to power. The muslim contribution to the War on Terror is very glazed over, almost as an afterthought before the focus is placed on conservatives (explicitly named) and their politics of fear. The movie was very explicit and detailed in its treatment of conservatives as villains, yet vague when discussing the muslim threat, no matter what neutral mantras it ends with about being "about everybody." If it's about everybody, then be vague about everyone and use just allegory or be explicit and name everybody. But to be vague about certain groups and suddenly become explicit when targeting Christians, conservative and Bush...c'mon now.

Do we ever find out what happened to the Muslims that kicked off the war? No. Who gets accused of spreading politics of fear? The West. Personally I think Muslims flying plans into buildings, blowing up trains and innocents is way more effective as spreading fear than Bush's speeches ever could be.

Personally, I'd argue the opposite and say that pe...

2006-03-21T20:13:00.000-05:00

Personally, I'd argue the opposite and say that people tend to tune off or get defensive when a PRO-American/Christian perspective viewpoint is given light, as evidenced by this thread, but that's just me. That's, well, funnier actually.

ah, well, see how you tuned off regarding everything else that i said about americans and whatnot, instead quoting a couple of sentences from a longish post and trying to spin it around to your advantage? that was what i found was funny about you people.

now, just to kill the thread dead with my extra-american perspective:

as you might not know, the philippines is going through a rough patch of months with our president, who is quickly shaping up to be our very own margaret thatcher, only with our version, she was put there illegally and unconstitutionally.

we're actually just less than a month off of a presidential declaration of state of national emergency, which was actually martial law in disguise. it was pulled out of a hat largely in aid of arresting opposition leaders (ah, the dreaded commies! the gay and the intellectuals!) and pretty much shitting on everyone's basic human rights (organizations even slightly resembling opposition forces are discouraged by the police to assemble, even if only for meetings, "discouraged" with threats of arrests and bludgeoning of batons and hard hosing downs).

full disclosure: i come from the state university, a place better known for its activist-communist leanings more than anything else, and i am somewhat in the begginings of what you americans might jokingly call as "pinko", although it manifests more in my views about literary production, with my political leanings only secondary to that. i don't think i'll ever be a commie through-and-through, until the day i die, as they have way as many problems within the movement as without to ever effect any real change, although i do believe in their more sedate ideals, like the christian who believes in all the christian good will but not with its exclusivist bullshit. i'm a non-practicing communist, i guess.

seeing the film, a lot of us filipinos couldn't help but see parallels of our situation (from the past, present, and the immediate future, and i'm not just saying this for the sake of argument) within the two hours of the movie: the media manipulation and censorship, the state-sponsored terrorism (down south, in muslim mindanao, civilians (read: women and children) are killed wholesale, by the villages, just out of dint of being muslim, most soldiers rationalizing it with "it's us or them"), the random pick-ups of personalities from opposition forces... every effort that our government has employed to threaten, suppress, bludgeon, kill, and ignore contrary perspectives were found in the movie.

even the bit where the population was largely unconcerned with norsefire's terrorist campaign because, well, as far as the rest of england was concerned, it's the good life, and as long as it's not happening to them, it's all okay. the ambiguous middle forces, neither left nor right, just... comfortable.

so, maybe, V FOR VENDETTA isn't just about america's war on terror? or thatcherite britain? or saddam's iraq? or macapagal-arroyo's de facto martial law? or hitler's nazi germany? or stalin's red russia?

to echo the movie's final words: it's about everyone.

By the way, I love the movie. I plan to see it ag...

2006-03-21T19:55:00.000-05:00

By the way, I love the movie. I plan to see it again and have recommended it to my friends. The fact that it degenerates into liberbabble at the end doesn't detract from what I felt was sharp cinematography, good direction, great work by Weaving and kick-ass action. That final fight scene was great and Weaving really made the dialogue pop. I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars just based on style and execution. It's just really stupid and feeble-minded when it comes to political analysis, history and knowledge of how the world actually works.

T. - you're missing every single point anyone else...

2006-03-21T19:53:00.000-05:00

T. - you're missing every single point anyone else brings up, and it's beginning to look like you're doing it on purpose.

What points have I missed, exactly?

At this point I'd be shocked if you actually deigned to engage with a rebuttal. Or even a mildly neutral comment.

Mildly neutral comment? No. But I'm hardly the only one here with comments that aren't mildly neutral. And I think I have a fair amount of rebuttals here.

Nice job with taking other people's words out of context and then using them to bolster your own argument, by the way! Classy.

I personally don't think I've taken anything out of context, but who knows, maybe I have. I'll reread the thread and see.

No way was From Hell any varying degree of decent....

2006-03-21T19:11:00.000-05:00

No way was From Hell any varying degree of decent.

That movie was boring and stinky.

Anonymous writes: "I mean, sure, we're all good wi...

2006-03-21T19:03:00.000-05:00

Anonymous writes: "I mean, sure, we're all good with seeing third world countries go all apeshit with rights abuses, but if the UK did? I think we'd have something to say."

I think our government would say "Welcome to the party, have you tried these new cattle prods? They work great! Really get the prisoners talking!"

Adam - even funnier now, isn't it?Jer - thank you....

2006-03-21T18:43:00.000-05:00

Adam - even funnier now, isn't it?

Jer - thank you.

T. - you're missing every single point anyone else brings up, and it's beginning to look like you're doing it on purpose. At this point I'd be shocked if you actually deigned to engage with a rebuttal. Or even a mildly neutral comment.

Nice job with taking other people's words out of context and then using them to bolster your own argument, by the way! Classy.

This is a long one. Apologies...The United Kingdom...

2006-03-21T17:02:00.000-05:00

This is a long one. Apologies...

The United Kingdom has arisen as a power because they turned to brutal fascism to control things, implying that because Americans had freedom to question the government, things fell apart.
Is that the implication? That seems rather specific to be an implication. I merely read that as a logical (if extreme) extension of the current divisions within the US, rather than a statement about Americans' freedom to question authority.

By singling out the Koran
And again, I feel it's overstating it a bit to say the film "singles out" the Qu'ran.

By using this idea, the Wachowskis again imply that the Bush Administration would do it, or perhaps has done it.
And again, this would appear to be reading too much into it. Are they specifically targetting Bush here, or are they just warming up an old and well-used plot point?

Dunno...

Aside from that, I'm in general agreement with you. This was a fine superhero movie, and a pretty decent adaptation too. I still prefer Unbreakable though.

I really liked it, and it was only the fudging of V's political philosophy from destructive anarchist to inspiring revolutionary that bothered me. And the Legion of V at the end, which was just silly, and utterly undermined Evey's role.

In some ways, I even preferred it to the original. I don't think Moore and Lloyd managed to make V quite as creepy as the film did, for example.

the British people are unconcerned with the destruction of their national symbol
I actually really enjoyed seeing the place going up. I'm not particularly anti-government, but I've never much liked that building.

What a movie like V For Vendetta does is show us that it could easily happen anywhere.
Exactly.

ChristopherAllen:
V was written in the early '80s largely as a response to the fascism of soon-to-be British PM Margaret Thatcher
Thatcher was first elected in 1979, so it's more likely that V was a reaction to her first years.

Mike Loughlin:
What happens after V tortures Evey? She falls in line with him, carries his plans to fruition, and takes his place.
It's been a couple of years since I read the book, but this isn't how I remember it at all. V does "create" Evey to follow on from him, but not to carry on his work, because his work is done, and he knows he can't do what Evey can, which is to provide inspiration and rebuild. One of the key points of the book, as I remember it, is that Evey is not like V. He's the destroyer, she's the creator.

Jer:
The thematic shift away from "anarchism vs. fascism" and to "democracy vs. fascism" makes the movie much more black and white than the comic book its derived from.
Quite right. And excellent point about the "love story", which undermines V's role as destroyer.

Anun:
they took away a lot of the people's responsibility for givng Norsefire its rise to power by making it one big conspiracy theory
Good point, and it's rather surprising that they didn't emphasise this aspect (beyond the brief bit about the election with the ridiculously unlikely result), assuming that they did in fact want to equate Norsefire with Bush.

T:
We don't preach the murder of nonbelievers of Christ.
Some Christians in fact do do this. And they get television programmes and even whole channels on which to do it. But they (thankfully) don't speak for all Christians, just as a nutter with a bomb jacket (thankfully) doesn't speak for all Muslims.

Nazis and Islamofascists are more evil than Americans and the British, end of story.
What about British Nazis, which is what the film's Norsefire essentially is?

Jer (again):
Gordon was arrested for poking fun at the government. Gordon WAS EXECUTED for OWNING A FUCKING BOOK AND SOME SUBVERSIVE ARTWORK.
Exactly.

T (again):
But when a movie is glossing over the misdeeds of one religion and culture in its one-sided zeal to demonize another
But it doesn't. Gordon says the Qu'ran has some beautiful passages, which it does. And the film doesn't demonise Christianity at all. The fact that the Bishop is a nasty sort has nothing to do with his religion, and Norsefire's emphasis on "godliness" is hardly a specific condemnation of Christianity.

jingyang:
Another point that I saw in another blog was an American claiming that "the UK enacted gun control" so that was how the fascists stayed in power.
Really? That's insane.

If any readers here are dim enough to believe this, I should point out that the UK has always had "gun control".
One of the things I found unusual about the film was just how many guns there were, considering that it's Britain. I don't remember the fascist police in the book using guns so readily.

"it's just sometimes, you revolve around america t...

2006-03-21T16:36:00.000-05:00

"it's just sometimes, you revolve around america too much, and how some of you actually tend to tune off when a different, extra-american perspective is actually given light. it's just, well, funny."

Personally, I'd argue the opposite and say that people tend to tune off or get defensive when a PRO-American/Christian perspective viewpoint is given light, as evidenced by this thread, but that's just me. That's, well, funnier actually.