Which I think sets up the biggest critique of superheroism in the book: it’s pointless. The Comedian points that out to the Minutemen in the '50s. It does nothing for the problems of society at large. It upholds the status quo to a small extent (Captain Metropolis wants the new Minutemen to deal with problems like “black unrest”) and it doesn’t do anything about injustice or larger problems, nevermind the fact that nuclear war could wipe out most of the human race. For The Comedian, that makes vigilantism a license to do whatever he wants. The rest are just disillusioned. Rorschach commits to it only after losing his sanity. Ozymandias says he goes back to “adventuring” half-heartedly, and then stops because he realizes bigger solutions are required.
Never approves? :dubious:Then who signed the rights away for From Hell, League, & V? Who deposited the checks from the films? Pul-eez. :rolleyes:
The New York Times article also interviewed David Lloyd about Moore’s reaction to the film’s production, stating, "Mr. Lloyd, the illustrator of V for Vendetta, also found it difficult to sympathise with Mr. Moore’s protests. When he and Mr. Moore sold their film rights to the comic book, Mr. Lloyd said: “We didn’t do it innocently. Neither myself nor Alan thought we were signing it over to a board of trustees who would look after it like it was the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
They were.
I feel the key to the Comedian was that he was essentially no different than a criminal. He liked hurting other people. He didn’t become a masked vigilante because he wanted to help people. He wanted to beat up people but he was smart enough to realize that if he beat up criminals, he’d be seen as a hero and his violence would be allowed. Later he became a government operative and was committing crimes and killing people - but it was okay because he was doing it for the government.
That was the “joke” he based his life around - he knew that he was really no different than the people he was fighting.
He’s trading on material, non-public information for personal profit.
So, 'Mika, you didn’t like the movie, but knew that the comic is a geek-tastic cultural icon and got this thread going. And sure enough, while the movie is being discussed, we’ve ended up with multiple pages more because Dopers + Watchmen = Geek-Squee!
Have you gotten a sense for why it makes so many of your fellow Dopers all meta- and deep and geeky and shit?
(Sorry, since **Super Kapowzler **hasn’t been making his presence known - :mad: and where is he?! - I thought I would add the “and shit” in his honor ;))
For what it’s worth, isn’t that also pretty much Veidt’s read on the guy? “I see him as an amoral mercenary allying himself to whichever political faction seems likely to grant him the greatest license. The difference is as simple and profound as that.”
Yes, I do, and I’m *very *glad I started this thread. It’s shown me while the movie may be deeply flawed in many ways, the story itself may not be - it remains to read the comic to see if I enjoy it or not. And I like discussions, even about things I didn’t particularly like. I come here when I finish a book or a movie because often enough, other people will take what I saw and turn it on its head and show me a different way. That doesn’t mean my perspective or theirs is wrong or right, just different ways to look at the same thing. And, a lot of the deeper medium that is lost in a movie no matter how hard you try is addressed in this thread.
Next is Cowboy Bebop. I tried to get the Doctor Who Season 6.2, but it says “very long weight”. Damn you, other American Who fans! :shakes fist:
What’s the non-public information he’s trading on? The scene you mentioned has him drawing his conclusions by just watching television:
Veidt: “First impressions: oiled muscleman with machine gun…cut to pastel bears, valentine hearts. Juxtaposition of wish fulfillment violence and infantile imagery, desire to regress, be free of responsibility… This all says ‘war’. We should buy accordingly.”
Minion: “But…sir, we have never bought into munitions…”
Veidt: “Of course not. You’re ignoring the subtext: increased sexual imagery, even in the candy ads. It implies an erotic undercurrent not uncommon in times of war. Remember the Baby Boom…”
Isn’t he basing his decision on the same public-consumption pop-culture items anyone else can eyeball? (Again, in November?)
I was referring to his attitude about the finished products, rather than alleging that any illegal or otherwise shady behavior had gone on.
From the Watchmen film entry: “Dave Gibbons became an advisor on Snyder’s film, but Moore has refused to have his name attached to any film adaptations of his work. Moore has stated that he has no interest in seeing Snyder’s adaptation; he told Entertainment Weekly in 2008, “There are things we did with Watchmen that could only work in a comic, and were designed to show off things that other media can’t.” While Moore believes that David Hayter’s screenplay was “as close as I could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen,” he asserted he did not intend to see the film if it were made.”
So no, no one is forcing him in this matter. He still does not approve of the practice. I think that is an appropriate description of the situation.
You don’t think the arrival of a freaking squid killing millions is material non-public information?
How, exactly, does that tie into his investment decisions?
He signs the contracts, he accepts the payment. Thus he approves.
I don’t remember any implication that Ozy engages in insider trading, and doing so would completely contradict his ‘anybody can do it’ ethic. He’s smarter than anyone else and can intuit information other people cannot. His secret plot isn’t connected to his trading or business activities.
Well, if a person thinks there’s a very good chance of the world ending, they will under value their assets.
Bottom line, though, Moore’s not exactly a fan of stock market trading in general. Whether the years are legal or not under the current rules.
Agree? Like? Enjoy? Decides to quietly snark about it rather than be an obstructionist douche who says ‘fuck you, collaborators, you get no money from this opportunity?’ Pick an alternate.
Plenty of artists have grudgingly made money off works they utterly despised - Arthur Conan Doyle killed Holmes to get rid of him, but brought him back after public outcry and having all his non-Holmes works unfavorably compared. A.A. Milne detested Winnie the Pooh’s popularity having driven away any demand for any writings from him other than more children’s books about that bear and his friends.
Call him a hypocrite, but he’s in good company.
That’s because there are no supervillains. Superheroes, at least since the 50’s, exist because society has enemies that the ordinary authorties simply aren’t equipped to handle. You can’t have superheroes without supervillains. To me, that seems to be the most fundamental rule of the genre.
So yeah, of course they fail. They lack their other halves.
That’s mostly the blue guy. The rest of the cast are pretty svelte.
I think the point is being missed here. He will gladly accept payment for derivative works. He just believes that they will not meet his artistic standards, so he avoids viewing them and and will not participate in their development. He has no faith that movie producers will do his works justice, and, indeed that no movie can do his works justice. He disclaims any responsibility or interest in the merits of the finished product. That’s pretty much the extent of it.
Hee, I caught my typo far too late, and now I am glad I didn’t have time to change it. 