You know that giant crossed swords arc they showed in the book? I know those are real, I read about it vaguely somewhere, but I don't remember the name of it. Anyone?
You know that giant crossed swords arc they showed in the book? I know those are real, I read about it vaguely somewhere, but I don't remember the name of it. Anyone?
I went to Barnes & Noble but they didn't have it, so they're ordering it for me
hopefully I can trick them into giving me the GameStop 30% discount
It isn't a trick if you work for GameStop. =p
This book is sitting on my kitchen table in a pile of 12 other TPBs i recently bought. I haven't read it yet. I opted to read Savage Dragon vol 1 and 2 first. I think that makes me a bad person.
Accualt on
0
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
Almost all of the animal interaction moments were nice, but Vaughan's overly-sentimental conclusion * and clunky political message just ruined this book for me.
[spoiler:54c78b6974]If you spend 95% of the book humanizing these animals, and spend the last 5% gunning them down with callous American soldiers, just what message are you trying to send?[/spoiler:54c78b6974]
I can understand anti-war sentiment, I really can. Hell, I've been against the Iraq War from day one. However, a hamfisted and one-sided political statement crammed into the rear-end of an otherwise exemplary graphic novel is not the way to express that very well.
I pretty much have the same problem with Wood's DMZ. They're using the current tensions in Iraq and in America as a tableau for their work, but they're just not saying anything worth hearing. People get killed in war? Gosh. Every works hard just to survive? Shocking.
Pretty much the only piece of media that has touched upon the war on terrorism with any sense or coherent message is Battlestar Galactica. It says in one scene what Vaughan and Wood can't seem to get out in an entire book.
* [spoiler:54c78b6974]Don't give me the "Oh, it had to happen the way it did in real life!" bullshit. Vaughan placed these sympathetic characters on the receiving end of faceless, robotic-in-tone soldiers. What the hell is the message there? If you can find one, please share. All I can see is a writer toying with the emotions of his readers in an incredibly crass manner.[/spoiler:54c78b6974]
but terrorbyte battlestar galactica is a boring show filled with heavy handed political commentary and I would rather watch donkey porn then melt my brain with that terrible show for even 5 minutes.
First of all, maybe you should, you know, spoiler-tag that for those people who haven't read it yet?
Second, you know it ended that way because that's what actually happened, right?
Third... hell, that's the way life is. Just because you sympathize with a character doesn't mean he or she isn't going to die pointlessly like all the rest of us.
First of all, maybe you should, you know, spoiler-tag that for those people who haven't read it yet?
I was trying to dance around the spoiler part, but I didn't realize how much I revealed until I reread my post. It's fixed.
Second, you know it ended that way because that's what actually happened, right?
Read the * portion.
Third... hell, that's the way life is. Just because you sympathize with a character doesn't mean he or she isn't going to die pointlessly like all the rest of us.
It was obnoxiously sentimental. It's one thing to tell a story with emotion, and it's another to hammer an opinion by wrapping it in an exaggerated and self-indulgent scene. Especially when that point was BARELY touched upon throughout the rest of the narrative.
but terrorbyte battlestar galactica is a boring show filled with heavy handed political commentary and I would rather watch donkey porn then melt my brain with that terrible show for even 5 minutes.
How can you have such a strong opinion on something you haven't watched more than five minutes of?
but terrorbyte battlestar galactica is a boring show filled with heavy handed political commentary and I would rather watch donkey porn then melt my brain with that terrible show for even 5 minutes.
Way to not get stuff.
no I get it, it's a terrible show
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
Actually, the best part of the show is that it doesn't have a clear political message. It doesn't create the hero (lions symbolizing innocent civilians) vs. villain (faceless soldiers) split of Pride of Baghdad, but rather places a flawed protagonist against an even more flawed antagonist. Both parties elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer.
Battlestar Galatica weaves a thoughtful, introspective and post-modern narrative. Pride of Baghdad rehashes sentimental tricks that were laughed out of literature in the 18th century.
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
Actually, the best part of the show is that it doesn't have a clear political message. It doesn't create the hero vs. villain split of Pride of Baghdad, but rather places a flawed protagonist against an even more flawed antagonist. Both parties elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer.
Battlestar Galatica weaves a thoughtful, introspective and post-modern narrative. Pride of Baghdad rehashes sentimental tricks that were laughed out of literature in the 18th century.
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
Actually, the best part of the show is that it doesn't have a clear political message. It doesn't create the hero vs. villain split of Pride of Baghdad, but rather places a flawed protagonist against an even more flawed antagonist. Both parties elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer.
Battlestar Galatica weaves a thoughtful, introspective and post-modern narrative. Pride of Baghdad rehashes sentimental tricks that were laughed out of literature in the 18th century.
jeez man you're pretty dumb
Hey, great response.
Terrorbyte on
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
I'm honestly a little confused how exactly you get a political message out of this, unless you bring it in with you so strongly you can't see anything else. This isn't a pro- or anti-war book, or a war book at all for that matter. Ultimately, at it's most fundamental level, this is a story about choice, and freedom vs safety, and it's frankly one of the most amazing and effective takes on that classic struggle I've read/see/heard in any format.
[spoiler:d025e3cf98]The whole point of this story isn't that the characters we've followed throughout are killed by soldiers (who are as unrobotic as it's possible to make bit characters with pre-ordained roles). It's about making us really question the price of freedom, and framing that question in a symbolic way that is applicable to the real world.
I've never read anything else where my first, visceral reaction was "What a waste" and where I honestly considered that the pursuit of freedom wasn't worth the cost. Putting the whole story in terms animals embroiled in a human war beyond their experience or understanding, not to put it in too highbrow a fashion, gives us a way of looking at humanity's place in an uncertain world.
Sitting outside the story, and with more knowledge than the characters, we can appreciate the choices the they are making, and the risks this implies, in ways the characters never could. We inherently understand just how dangerous trying to be free is for them, we can see that inevitably they would (at least some of them) pay the ultimate price for their freedom, and we have to ask: at what point is it worth it?
Even if they hadn't met the soldiers, Safa was dead. Was the freedom she'd grudgingly experienced worth her life? Would she have been better of staying and hiding in the zoo? What about the rest of her family, what weight does their safety have on her decision making?
Rolling the question back even farther, how much freedom is worth your life? We know, before they ever could, that the main character's lives were in danger the second they set foot outisde and into freedom, and more than that, we abstractly know that freedom means you are free to be betrayed, attacked, starved, or killed and that you have no protection beyond what you can provide for yourself, which is something that the lions with their lifetime of captivity can't really appreciate. So knowing the inherent danger in freedom, are we always willing to pursue it?
PoB lets us really examine, for ourselves, just how much we would be willing to pay for just how little freedom.[/spoiler:d025e3cf98]
How is it? The question of choice is not, in and of itself, inherently in favor of one option or another. There's no liberal or conservative here, no anti-war hamfisted message or anything else I saw bitched about here.
No matter if you are for or against what the characters chose to do, there is plenty to support your view in the story, and both choices are presented as equally valid and reasonable. The only thing that ultimately ends up being the deciding factor is you, the reader, and your beliefs.
That's as apolitical a story as I can think of that involves anything even tangentially touching on reality.
The cost of saftey afforded to the lions by a governing body is inherently political. You have a governing body keeping them safe by limiting their freedom. When the lions enter into anarchy, they struggle with the loss of safety.
It doesn't have to be liberal or conservative to be political. People (lions) plus government (the "fascist" zookeepers) equals politics.
Toji Suzuhara on
0
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
Almost all of the animal interaction moments were nice, but Vaughan's overly-sentimental conclusion * and clunky political message just ruined this book for me.
[spoiler:ed1789dc39]If you spend 95% of the book humanizing these animals, and spend the last 5% gunning them down with callous American soldiers, just what message are you trying to send?[/spoiler:ed1789dc39]
I can understand anti-war sentiment, I really can. Hell, I've been against the Iraq War from day one. However, a hamfisted and one-sided political statement crammed into the rear-end of an otherwise exemplary graphic novel is not the way to express that very well.
I pretty much have the same problem with Wood's DMZ. They're using the current tensions in Iraq and in America as a tableau for their work, but they're just not saying anything worth hearing. People get killed in war? Gosh. Every works hard just to survive? Shocking.
Pretty much the only piece of media that has touched upon the war on terrorism with any sense or coherent message is Battlestar Galactica. It says in one scene what Vaughan and Wood can't seem to get out in an entire book.
* [spoiler:ed1789dc39]Don't give me the "Oh, it had to happen the way it did in real life!" bullshit. Vaughan placed these sympathetic characters on the receiving end of faceless, robotic-in-tone soldiers. What the hell is the message there? If you can find one, please share. All I can see is a writer toying with the emotions of his readers in an incredibly crass manner.[/spoiler:ed1789dc39]
Have you considered that it may not have anything to do with who is right or wrong in the war at all?
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
Actually, the best part of the show is that it doesn't have a clear political message. It doesn't create the hero (lions symbolizing innocent civilians) vs. villain (faceless soldiers) split of Pride of Baghdad, but rather places a flawed protagonist against an even more flawed antagonist. Both parties elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer.
Battlestar Galatica weaves a thoughtful, introspective and post-modern narrative. Pride of Baghdad rehashes sentimental tricks that were laughed out of literature in the 18th century.
I do not see what makes Battlestar Gallactica "post modern" at all.
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
Actually, the best part of the show is that it doesn't have a clear political message. It doesn't create the hero (lions symbolizing innocent civilians) vs. villain (faceless soldiers) split of Pride of Baghdad, but rather places a flawed protagonist against an even more flawed antagonist. Both parties elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer.
Battlestar Galatica weaves a thoughtful, introspective and post-modern narrative. Pride of Baghdad rehashes sentimental tricks that were laughed out of literature in the 18th century.
I do not see what makes Battlestar Gallactica "post modern" at all.
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
Actually, the best part of the show is that it doesn't have a clear political message. It doesn't create the hero (lions symbolizing innocent civilians) vs. villain (faceless soldiers) split of Pride of Baghdad, but rather places a flawed protagonist against an even more flawed antagonist. Both parties elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer.
Battlestar Galatica weaves a thoughtful, introspective and post-modern narrative. Pride of Baghdad rehashes sentimental tricks that were laughed out of literature in the 18th century.
I do not see what makes Battlestar Gallactica "post modern" at all.
if somebody describes something to me as "postmodern" I immediately write that person off as a douchebag.
I'm glad somebody else shares my vision. The only time it is acceptable to use the term post-modern is when you're sitting in a fucking english literature course.
Posts
will read most if not all by the time I go to sleep
Brian K. Vaughan is a BASTARD
Damn you BKV. Damn you.
Runaways?
Oh right, that's by BKV too. Damn him!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Nah. I was alright there.
Dad, will one day everything the light touches one day be mine?
(you should see the other two!)
- The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (2017, colorized)
some nice wallpapers
It isn't a trick if you work for GameStop. =p
This book is sitting on my kitchen table in a pile of 12 other TPBs i recently bought. I haven't read it yet. I opted to read Savage Dragon vol 1 and 2 first. I think that makes me a bad person.
I haven't worked at GameStop since August 6th, I just used an old paystub (from August 9th)
but in my defense, i might be going back to the job
[spoiler:54c78b6974]If you spend 95% of the book humanizing these animals, and spend the last 5% gunning them down with callous American soldiers, just what message are you trying to send?[/spoiler:54c78b6974]
I can understand anti-war sentiment, I really can. Hell, I've been against the Iraq War from day one. However, a hamfisted and one-sided political statement crammed into the rear-end of an otherwise exemplary graphic novel is not the way to express that very well.
I pretty much have the same problem with Wood's DMZ. They're using the current tensions in Iraq and in America as a tableau for their work, but they're just not saying anything worth hearing. People get killed in war? Gosh. Every works hard just to survive? Shocking.
Pretty much the only piece of media that has touched upon the war on terrorism with any sense or coherent message is Battlestar Galactica. It says in one scene what Vaughan and Wood can't seem to get out in an entire book.
* [spoiler:54c78b6974]Don't give me the "Oh, it had to happen the way it did in real life!" bullshit. Vaughan placed these sympathetic characters on the receiving end of faceless, robotic-in-tone soldiers. What the hell is the message there? If you can find one, please share. All I can see is a writer toying with the emotions of his readers in an incredibly crass manner.[/spoiler:54c78b6974]
First of all, maybe you should, you know, spoiler-tag that for those people who haven't read it yet?
Second, you know it ended that way because that's what actually happened, right?
Third... hell, that's the way life is. Just because you sympathize with a character doesn't mean he or she isn't going to die pointlessly like all the rest of us.
I was trying to dance around the spoiler part, but I didn't realize how much I revealed until I reread my post. It's fixed.
Read the * portion.
It was obnoxiously sentimental. It's one thing to tell a story with emotion, and it's another to hammer an opinion by wrapping it in an exaggerated and self-indulgent scene. Especially when that point was BARELY touched upon throughout the rest of the narrative.
How can you have such a strong opinion on something you haven't watched more than five minutes of?
no I get it, it's a terrible show
I mean, if you're gonna rape me with your stupid political messages, could you at least have more space fights? I mean, jeez.
Actually, the best part of the show is that it doesn't have a clear political message. It doesn't create the hero (lions symbolizing innocent civilians) vs. villain (faceless soldiers) split of Pride of Baghdad, but rather places a flawed protagonist against an even more flawed antagonist. Both parties elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer.
Battlestar Galatica weaves a thoughtful, introspective and post-modern narrative. Pride of Baghdad rehashes sentimental tricks that were laughed out of literature in the 18th century.
jeez man you're pretty dumb
Hey, great response.
Terrorbyte is a douche.
POB was awesome.
That is all.
Why don't we just shut the fuck up.
[spoiler:82ea4623a8]Shoe's a cylon.[/spoiler:82ea4623a8]
[spoiler:d025e3cf98]The whole point of this story isn't that the characters we've followed throughout are killed by soldiers (who are as unrobotic as it's possible to make bit characters with pre-ordained roles). It's about making us really question the price of freedom, and framing that question in a symbolic way that is applicable to the real world.
I've never read anything else where my first, visceral reaction was "What a waste" and where I honestly considered that the pursuit of freedom wasn't worth the cost. Putting the whole story in terms animals embroiled in a human war beyond their experience or understanding, not to put it in too highbrow a fashion, gives us a way of looking at humanity's place in an uncertain world.
Sitting outside the story, and with more knowledge than the characters, we can appreciate the choices the they are making, and the risks this implies, in ways the characters never could. We inherently understand just how dangerous trying to be free is for them, we can see that inevitably they would (at least some of them) pay the ultimate price for their freedom, and we have to ask: at what point is it worth it?
Even if they hadn't met the soldiers, Safa was dead. Was the freedom she'd grudgingly experienced worth her life? Would she have been better of staying and hiding in the zoo? What about the rest of her family, what weight does their safety have on her decision making?
Rolling the question back even farther, how much freedom is worth your life? We know, before they ever could, that the main character's lives were in danger the second they set foot outisde and into freedom, and more than that, we abstractly know that freedom means you are free to be betrayed, attacked, starved, or killed and that you have no protection beyond what you can provide for yourself, which is something that the lions with their lifetime of captivity can't really appreciate. So knowing the inherent danger in freedom, are we always willing to pursue it?
PoB lets us really examine, for ourselves, just how much we would be willing to pay for just how little freedom.[/spoiler:d025e3cf98]
How is it? The question of choice is not, in and of itself, inherently in favor of one option or another. There's no liberal or conservative here, no anti-war hamfisted message or anything else I saw bitched about here.
No matter if you are for or against what the characters chose to do, there is plenty to support your view in the story, and both choices are presented as equally valid and reasonable. The only thing that ultimately ends up being the deciding factor is you, the reader, and your beliefs.
That's as apolitical a story as I can think of that involves anything even tangentially touching on reality.
It doesn't have to be liberal or conservative to be political. People (lions) plus government (the "fascist" zookeepers) equals politics.
Have you considered that it may not have anything to do with who is right or wrong in the war at all?
I do not see what makes Battlestar Gallactica "post modern" at all.
It's a good label. It makes you sound important.
that's cause it's not!
MC Lars is post-postmodern and has been so ever since he attended junior high school.
I'm glad somebody else shares my vision. The only time it is acceptable to use the term post-modern is when you're sitting in a fucking english literature course.