As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Rooting for the bad guys.

178101213

Posts

  • WitchdrWitchdr Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Whoever posted scorpio, my hat is off to you. That is my all time favorite simpsons episode.

    My favorite "bad guy":

    Boiler:
    bender-futurama.jpg
    But you can call him Bender

    Witchdr on
    "Look, all I know is that this cord was plugged into my house and your house was glowing like the freakin' sun. So, I put two and two together there and decided that you're pissing me off." -Carl Brutananadilewski

    In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)

    Handles: LoL-Emerging, BF4/Hardline-Whiskeyjack227, Steam-Fragglerock, HOTS/Blizzard-Whiskeyjack#1333, Life-Jason
  • LeCausticLeCaustic Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    THEPAIN73 wrote: »
    I rooted for Hans in Inglorious Basterds.

    Him and the Joker of course.

    I have often heard that a hero is only as good as his villian. I would say that's true.

    I don't know, as much of awesome the Joker was in Dark Knight, Batman was still awesome. So, if we're simply saying that you rooted for the both, then I agree. But rooting for the Joker more so? No. I also loved Alfred. He seems to know what to say in the movies at every given moment and it makes him more memorable. Like, if was just a silent butler like Osbornes who's only line pissed me off more than any character in the Marvel Universe (I tended his wounds and they were made by his own technology - WTF, where were you when you should've said that?), then no. But in Batman Begins and Dark Knight he had me loving him. I'm digressing, but my main point is that the movie did a brilliant job of rooting for both.


    Also, lols at the Giant Squid in Watchmen

    LeCaustic on
    Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
    kaustikos.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Avraham wrote: »
    Avraham wrote: »
    I don't have the book with me. Did Ozymandias engineer the situation that caused Dr. Manhattan to leave for Mars?
    Wikipedia says he did. So basically he caused the very situation which he claimed allowed him to kill millions of people.

    Yes Ozymandis admits he conspired to get rid of Dr Manhattan. He gave the ex girlfirend cancer.

    nexuscrawler on
  • THEPAIN73THEPAIN73 Shiny. Real shiny.Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I liked the change to the ending of the movie.

    Giant squid just kinda... yeah.

    In the movie though it worked and I think had it been the reverse aka the bombs are in the book and the squid was added to the movie people would have flipped their shit just the same.

    THEPAIN73 on
    Facebook | Amazon | Twitter | Youtube | PSN: ThePain73 | Steam: ThePain73
    3DS FC: 5343-7720-0490
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I always end up sort of rooting for Richard III, from the play with the same name.

    Yeah, he's a ruthless scumbag, but he's got such style that I can kind of almost forgive it.

    Then again, knowing that his bastardly ways are going to end up driving away every single one of his friends and allies, leaving him alone and abandoned on the battlefield, does make it somewhat easier to enjoy his rise to power.

    WotanAnubis on
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I actually thought the movie completely missed the point of the Ozymandias twist. Like, yes, giant alien squid was kind of dumb, but the Manhattan bombs just mad eit so... hygenic. There was no impact, no real cost to what Ozymandias had done. In the comic, you get about 6 pages of absolute horror and you are reminded, again and again, exactly what Ozymandias had done in the name of peace. Making it a bomb that disintegrated stuff removed all of the human cost.

    And, terrible as it is to say, I actually kind of felt for Ozymandias in Watchmen. Arguably, of all the heroes in the book, he was the one out to do the most good and along the way his own intentions corrupted him. He's really one of the better tragic figures in comics.

    As to rooting for villains, I pretty much always root for Doctor Doom in the Marvel comics. there was an Avengers story in the '70s where Doom actually won, and mind controlled the planet. The Avengers broke free of the mind control and discovered that, well, Doom wasn't actually making the planet worse. In fact, all of Doom's bravado about "If I was running this place" turned out to be completely right. No nuclear weapons, pollution largely taken care of, sustainable crops, war eliminated. Lead the Avengers to have a really good moment where they had to sit down and think about whether or not to stop Doctor Doom.

    Villains who are right are usually pretty amazing.

    LibrarianThorne on
  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Yes, I liked the alteration they made to the story in Watchmen. Reminded me of another canon change made by Hollywood that I preferred--Spider-Man's webbing. Growing up, I've seen more than one special about how difficult it is to replicate spider's silk. So I was always dubious of the claim by Marvel that some dorky lab-tech in college could not only invent this new wonder material, but also mass-produce it in enough quantity to go out on a regular basis and casually swing around New York. What happens when he runs out? "Well, can't go save anyone now--gotta make more web! Sorry, MJ, it'll just be a couple days...." I seem to recall the only reason that this was a useful plot device for the writers is so they could have him go to use his web and be all, "Oh noes, now I'm falling!"

    I think I remember reading that Stan Lee originally planned for the webshooters to be part of his body like they are in the movie, but the editors rejected it.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Pata wrote: »
    Yes, I liked the alteration they made to the story in Watchmen. Reminded me of another canon change made by Hollywood that I preferred--Spider-Man's webbing. Growing up, I've seen more than one special about how difficult it is to replicate spider's silk. So I was always dubious of the claim by Marvel that some dorky lab-tech in college could not only invent this new wonder material, but also mass-produce it in enough quantity to go out on a regular basis and casually swing around New York. What happens when he runs out? "Well, can't go save anyone now--gotta make more web! Sorry, MJ, it'll just be a couple days...." I seem to recall the only reason that this was a useful plot device for the writers is so they could have him go to use his web and be all, "Oh noes, now I'm falling!"

    I think I remember reading that Stan Lee originally planned for the webshooters to be part of his body like they are in the movie, but the editors rejected it.
    One of Peter Parker's problems has always been that he was close to broke most of the time.

    And yet, here he is sitting on an invention with a ton of useful applications that could have made him a fortune and probably done a lot of good in the world. Yet, all he uses it for is swinging around NYC and tying up bad guys. Seems kind of like a waste.

    Also, why didn't he invent other stuff, if he's able to create such a revolutionary substance in his bedroom as a teenager? Maybe all the beatings from the Rhino have dumbed him down.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Avraham wrote: »
    Avraham wrote: »
    I don't have the book with me. Did Ozymandias engineer the situation that caused Dr. Manhattan to leave for Mars?
    Wikipedia says he did. So basically he caused the very situation which he claimed allowed him to kill millions of people.

    He most definitely and undoubtedly did manipulate Manhattan into leaving.

    The "but we maintained the balance in real world" argument is flawed for the following reasons: 1) when the book was written in the middles 1980's, cold war was still fully happening, and I can tell you that the threat of imminent MAD was very much alive. Even if, maybe, the actual chances of a Nuclear War starting were slim, the public perception was far from that.

    2) The existence of Dr. Manhattan itself changed that balance. He was such a monstrous deterrent, so godly powerful, that it pushed the USSR much harder. After he left, the imbalance was so huge to the point of turning the situation unsustainable.

    3) Well, it's a fiction that wanted to prove a point, whether you agree with the point or not.

    Yeah that actually summed it up really nicely. In more ways than one; by focusing on familiar manifestations of things analogous to stuff from BNW, it illustrates that the mental control of BNW would probably be more effective because it would be self-regulating and seem natural. In 1984 the government is trying to dam the river of humanity - independence, thought, learning - through rigid enforcement of rules. Even if they managed to successfully change the language, they would be enforcing such an unnatural and displeasing state that rebellion is more a matter of "when" than "if." The BNW government doesn't really have that problem. Instead of suppressing human traits, they simply cultivate the negative traits that are already there, such as laziness and need for simple, instant gratification.

    Still, I disagree with y'all that BNW is scarier than 1984. Happiness > agony.
    I'm not saying that BNW is nice, or good, or innocuous. But using that comic: Would you rather live in a extremely totalitarian police state (kinda redundant, but still) or in the USA as it is now? Because the point of that comic is that WE LIVE IN BNW ALREADY OMG; Would leave the US for North Korea? I was gonna compare 1984 to Nazi Germany, but even that wasn't as horrible as the world they show in 1984.

    I'm talking about "scary" in its purest sense, not intellectual uneasiness in the face of the subtle manipulation in BNW... I feel physically bad just by thinking about 1984. It's hell on earth. It's suffering piled upon suffering, physical, mental, psychological. There is no hope, no escape, not even death is enough. As bad as BNW might be, at least most people have a decent life. That's not the case with 1984.

    Sure, BNW mis maybe more intellectually disturbing, considering it's a lot more likely to happen (or to have already happened OMG), but the fear 1984 inspires is much deeper, it touches the most basic parts of our conscience. Sure, YOU might feel more scared by BNW, but I still think 1984 is fundamentally scarier.

    I thought the Brits in V for Vendetta had it pretty good given how shitty the rest of the world was

    override367 on
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    One of Peter Parker's problems has always been that he was close to broke most of the time.

    And yet, here he is sitting on an invention with a ton of useful applications that could have made him a fortune and probably done a lot of good in the world. Yet, all he uses it for is swinging around NYC and tying up bad guys. Seems kind of like a waste.

    Also, why didn't he invent other stuff, if he's able to create such a revolutionary substance in his bedroom as a teenager? Maybe all the beatings from the Rhino have dumbed him down.
    Seriously. Spider silk is also insanely tough - toss in some basic knowledge of ceramics that anyone well versed enough in material engineering to make synthetic fucking spider silk would understand, and spidy should be literally bulletproof in whatever suit he whips up.

    JihadJesus on
  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I can't believe that nobody has mentioned Benjamin Linus.

    So: Benjamin Linus.

    adytum on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I actually thought the movie completely missed the point of the Ozymandias twist. Like, yes, giant alien squid was kind of dumb, but the Manhattan bombs just mad eit so... hygenic. There was no impact, no real cost to what Ozymandias had done. In the comic, you get about 6 pages of absolute horror and you are reminded, again and again, exactly what Ozymandias had done in the name of peace. Making it a bomb that disintegrated stuff removed all of the human cost.

    And, terrible as it is to say, I actually kind of felt for Ozymandias in Watchmen. Arguably, of all the heroes in the book, he was the one out to do the most good and along the way his own intentions corrupted him. He's really one of the better tragic figures in comics.

    I wish this came through more in the film. I read the book long after watching it, and I really thought the book did a better job of showing ozymandias as a conflicted character. In the movie he just comes across as an arrogant dick.

    I like the change to bombs vs. squid in a general sense (because the squid in the comic is sort of what), but it would have been nice if the movie did a better job of communicating how traumatic those bombs going off would actually have been for society.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • DarksierDarksier Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I'm gonna throw in Elim Garak from Deep Space Nine
    292px-Garak_(mirror).jpg
    He's a spy and an assassin. Corrupts the morality of the crew with his philosophies on winning at any cost. Is shown to be just as ruthless when given the chance. But he works for the good guys out of circumstance. This guy makes any scene entertaining.

    Darksier on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Garrak is pretty awesome
    Shakespeare for Cardassians

    override367 on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Avraham wrote: »
    The story is very much open to interpretation, and this is yours.
    Very true
    Dan and Laurie don't so much "go along with it" as much as they admit the damage was already done and realize telling the truth would lead to likely endless bloodshed.
    This is their justification for going along with it.

    edit: I don't have the book with me. Did Ozymandias engineer the situation that caused Dr. Manhattan to leave for Mars?

    Yeah, he gave a a few people close to Dr. M cancer and had the media blame it on him.

    Deebaser on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Darksier wrote: »
    I'm gonna throw in Elim Garak from Deep Space Nine
    292px-Garak_(mirror).jpg
    He's a spy and an assassin. Corrupts the morality of the crew with his philosophies on winning at any cost. Is shown to be just as ruthless when given the chance. But he works for the good guys out of circumstance. This guy makes any scene entertaining.

    Garak is awesome but not really a bad guy. Now Gul Dukat....

    Thomamelas on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Gul Dukat is an exquisite example, because I believed his rhetoric until that one episode (you know which one).

    I thought he was an honest man who was racist, arrogant, and condescending for sure, but not the monster they made him out to be. I thought Kira's attitude toward him was totally unwarranted and that he had made a genuine effort to reduce Bajoran deaths during the occupation. She was simply blinded by her hatred for Cardassians and he was telling the truth. In fact I believed that she did things at least as bad as him and there was an equivalency between the two of them.

    Then he spills his guts to Sisko, explaining why he isn't "an evil man"

    Such a great villain until he turned into Valdimort

    override367 on
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Avraham wrote: »
    Avraham wrote: »
    I don't have the book with me. Did Ozymandias engineer the situation that caused Dr. Manhattan to leave for Mars?
    Wikipedia says he did. So basically he caused the very situation which he claimed allowed him to kill millions of people.

    He most definitely and undoubtedly did manipulate Manhattan into leaving.

    The "but we maintained the balance in real world" argument is flawed for the following reasons: 1) when the book was written in the middles 1980's, cold war was still fully happening, and I can tell you that the threat of imminent MAD was very much alive. Even if, maybe, the actual chances of a Nuclear War starting were slim, the public perception was far from that.

    2) The existence of Dr. Manhattan itself changed that balance. He was such a monstrous deterrent, so godly powerful, that it pushed the USSR much harder. After he left, the imbalance was so huge to the point of turning the situation unsustainable.

    3) Well, it's a fiction that wanted to prove a point, whether you agree with the point or not.

    Yeah that actually summed it up really nicely. In more ways than one; by focusing on familiar manifestations of things analogous to stuff from BNW, it illustrates that the mental control of BNW would probably be more effective because it would be self-regulating and seem natural. In 1984 the government is trying to dam the river of humanity - independence, thought, learning - through rigid enforcement of rules. Even if they managed to successfully change the language, they would be enforcing such an unnatural and displeasing state that rebellion is more a matter of "when" than "if." The BNW government doesn't really have that problem. Instead of suppressing human traits, they simply cultivate the negative traits that are already there, such as laziness and need for simple, instant gratification.

    Still, I disagree with y'all that BNW is scarier than 1984. Happiness > agony.
    I'm not saying that BNW is nice, or good, or innocuous. But using that comic: Would you rather live in a extremely totalitarian police state (kinda redundant, but still) or in the USA as it is now? Because the point of that comic is that WE LIVE IN BNW ALREADY OMG; Would leave the US for North Korea? I was gonna compare 1984 to Nazi Germany, but even that wasn't as horrible as the world they show in 1984.

    I'm talking about "scary" in its purest sense, not intellectual uneasiness in the face of the subtle manipulation in BNW... I feel physically bad just by thinking about 1984. It's hell on earth. It's suffering piled upon suffering, physical, mental, psychological. There is no hope, no escape, not even death is enough. As bad as BNW might be, at least most people have a decent life. That's not the case with 1984.

    Sure, BNW mis maybe more intellectually disturbing, considering it's a lot more likely to happen (or to have already happened OMG), but the fear 1984 inspires is much deeper, it touches the most basic parts of our conscience. Sure, YOU might feel more scared by BNW, but I still think 1984 is fundamentally scarier.

    I thought the Brits in V for Vendetta had it pretty good given how shitty the rest of the world was

    Well, yeah, totalitarian governments are still better than Mad Max Wastelands. I think. But I did mention that on my other post. 1984 is (my) scariest scenario barring the Apocalypse.

    Stormwatcher on
    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't know if it says anything about my personality but my childhood was made of this. Shredder, Magneto, Captain James Hook, Megatron, Vegeta, Wile E. Coyote, Vega, Gaston, Jafar, Scar... Well, any character by Jeremy Irons. Especially in Diehard: With a Vengence. Same with Alan Rickman in the first one. I'd rather play Zelda as Gannondorf. When I was three or four years old, or so I've been told, I was a very big fan of Jake the Snake Roberts who was a heel at the time.

    And...

    Tuco_15.jpg

    Cedar Brown on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    The V government was better than 1984 though, it was better than the vast majority of existing governments today to be honest.

    Everyone lived comfortably and the trains ran on time, it was just in a police state.

    override367 on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't know if it says anything about my personality but my childhood was made of this. Shredder, Magneto, Captain James Hook, Megatron, Vegeta, Wile E. Coyote, Vega, Gaston, Jafar, Scar... Well, any character by Jeremy Irons. Especially in Diehard: With a Vengence. Same with Alan Rickman in the first one. I'd rather play Zelda as Gannondorf. When I was three or four years old, or so I've been told, I was a very big fan of Jake the Snake Roberts who was a heel at the time.

    This is totally unrelated but the name Ganondorf Dragmire is fucking stupid. Why couldn't they just leave it at Ganon?

    mrt144 on
  • Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I don't know if it says anything about my personality but my childhood was made of this. Shredder, Magneto, Captain James Hook, Megatron, Vegeta, Wile E. Coyote, Vega, Gaston, Jafar, Scar... Well, any character by Jeremy Irons. Especially in Diehard: With a Vengence. Same with Alan Rickman in the first one. I'd rather play Zelda as Gannondorf. When I was three or four years old, or so I've been told, I was a very big fan of Jake the Snake Roberts who was a heel at the time.

    This is totally unrelated but the name Ganondorf Dragmire is fucking stupid. Why couldn't they just leave it at Ganon?

    I like the name Ganondorf but the last name makes it silly. Continuity ain't their thang.

    Cedar Brown on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    The V government was better than 1984 though, it was better than the vast majority of existing governments today to be honest.

    Everyone lived comfortably and the trains ran on time, it was just in a police state.

    I think the film simply didn't have the time or means to show the large groups of people living in prison towns or labor camps or religious sanitariums. I do think they were alluded too.

    I mean, you could do worse. You could do a lot better, too, even among authoritarian states, but you could do worse. It's no Brezhnev Russia, but it's no Oceania either. And at least you're not pumped full of drugs (anymore).

    Speaking of society running on drugs, anyone remember Equilibrium with Christian Bale? Ridiculousness of plot aside, I think that was a case of a negative utopia with an otherwise very high standard of living. But that was deliberately acknowledging that most people still lived in warzones outside the city.

    Synthesis on
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't know if it says anything about my personality but my childhood was made of this. Shredder, Magneto, Captain James Hook, Megatron, Vegeta, Wile E. Coyote, Vega, Gaston, Jafar, Scar... Well, any character by Jeremy Irons. Especially in Diehard: With a Vengence. Same with Alan Rickman in the first one. I'd rather play Zelda as Gannondorf. When I was three or four years old, or so I've been told, I was a very big fan of Jake the Snake Roberts who was a heel at the time.

    And...

    Tuco_15.jpg

    Captain Hook Has always been one of my favorites.

    If you read the original story a case can be made that he was the main character.

    Cliff on
  • DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Darksier wrote: »
    So you're afraid of what... drugs? You fear a world in which some people are genuinely happy, and most of the rest are artificially happy, more than a world in which despair and hopelessness is the only life you'll ever know? A world where the mere concepts of freedom, happiness and hope are being erased from human conscience?

    I'm sorry I assumed people here weren't completely irrational.

    Here's a hint - at least in the world of 1984, the walls of the cage are visible.

    This is why Mordin hates metaphors. The people of 1984 and BNW are all mentally conditioned to accept their society just as the children of BNW are conditioned. There are no walls for the masses. The only walls are the ones constructed by the dissident protagonists. The real difference between BNW and 1984 is the method used by the governments to sustain the society. BNW utilizes positive reinforcement through their various applications of pleasure (soma, sex, etc...) whereas 1984 utilizes positive punishment (administering pain and suffering through scarcity, eternal war and the thought police). So if you had to choose...it really comes down to which form of "encouragement" do you find scarier.

    I really think this sums it up:
    huxley-vs-orwell.jpg

    There is a speech that Huxley gave at Berkley that talks about this. Basically the big mistake people make in comparing 1984 to Brave New World is that they see it as a versus situation. The arguments always go with the assumption that it'll be this(1984) versus that(BNW). Huxley believed that a 1984 situation would be a waypoint to the Brave New World. Basically the crushing tyranny and perpetual warfare of 1984 would be necessary to create a population that would be pliable enough to build the Brave New World.

    So as Huxley saw it, neither are exclusive of each other, and that certain elements of the two may actually be interchangeable. It's merely that the totalitarian state would be a necessary step in the evolution towards the scientific dictatorship.

    Drake on
  • DarksierDarksier Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Gul Dukat is an exquisite example, because I believed his rhetoric until that one episode (you know which one).

    I thought he was an honest man who was racist, arrogant, and condescending for sure, but not the monster they made him out to be. I thought Kira's attitude toward him was totally unwarranted and that he had made a genuine effort to reduce Bajoran deaths during the occupation. She was simply blinded by her hatred for Cardassians and he was telling the truth. In fact I believed that she did things at least as bad as him and there was an equivalency between the two of them.

    Then he spills his guts to Sisko, explaining why he isn't "an evil man"

    Such a great villain until he turned into Valdimort

    It's hard to get an exact feel for where Dukat stands on the evil-o-meter. I thought in the episode you refer to, he was more so flipping out due to everything falling apart. A sort of retrospect "I should have..." as opposed to an admittance of some past evil. He probably sees himself as the hero who let the bad guys go only for them to turn around and bite him back in the end. Though we're also not privileged to see all his behind the scenes dialogues with central command. He's still a complete spoonhead supremacist though. But without that he probably wouldn't have made it to villain status.

    Darksier on
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    The V government was better than 1984 though, it was better than the vast majority of existing governments today to be honest.

    Everyone lived comfortably and the trains ran on time, it was just in a police state.

    I think the film simply didn't have the time or means to show the large groups of people living in prison towns or labor camps or religious sanitariums. I do think they were alluded too.

    I mean, you could do worse. You could do a lot better, too, even among authoritarian states, but you could do worse. It's no Brezhnev Russia, but it's no Oceania either. And at least you're not pumped full of drugs (anymore).

    Speaking of society running on drugs, anyone remember Equilibrium with Christian Bale? Ridiculousness of plot aside, I think that was a case of a negative utopia with an otherwise very high standard of living. But that was deliberately acknowledging that most people still lived in warzones outside the city.

    The V government also exterminated all non-white and non-heterosexual people. Well, the killed everyone who wasn't an average anglo-saxon white hetero person.

    Moore himself admits that V was too heavy handed and idealistic on the TPB's introduction.

    Stormwatcher on
    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I love that picture though, I wish I came in the thread early enough to post it myself.

    It's been burning a hole in my bookmark list.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    The V government also exterminated all non-white and non-heterosexual people. Well, the killed everyone who wasn't an average anglo-saxon white hetero person.

    Moore himself admits that V was too heavy handed and idealistic on the TPB's introduction.
    And, in retrospect, Moore kind of looks like a freaked out nutjob. The government in V reflected his fears of where the Thatcher government was taking the country. That's eye-rollingly funny,

    Though, he was kind of right about how surveillance cameras would become incredibly common in the UK.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    The V government was better than 1984 though, it was better than the vast majority of existing governments today to be honest.

    Everyone lived comfortably and the trains ran on time, it was just in a police state.

    I think the film simply didn't have the time or means to show the large groups of people living in prison towns or labor camps or religious sanitariums. I do think they were alluded too.

    I mean, you could do worse. You could do a lot better, too, even among authoritarian states, but you could do worse. It's no Brezhnev Russia, but it's no Oceania either. And at least you're not pumped full of drugs (anymore).

    Speaking of society running on drugs, anyone remember Equilibrium with Christian Bale? Ridiculousness of plot aside, I think that was a case of a negative utopia with an otherwise very high standard of living. But that was deliberately acknowledging that most people still lived in warzones outside the city.

    The V government also exterminated all non-white and non-heterosexual people. Well, the killed everyone who wasn't an average anglo-saxon white hetero person.

    Moore himself admits that V was too heavy handed and idealistic on the TPB's introduction.

    Ah, you see, I completely missed that.

    I remembered, from the film, that the government was blatantly xenophobic and draconian and only tolerated Christians. But I remember seeing non-white extras walking around in a scant few scenes (not imprisoned yet anyway).

    I'm basing this on what I saw in the film. I never read the comic book.

    Synthesis on
  • FremanFreman Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    The comic book makes the government more assholish, but it also has V being an outright anarchist instead of a liberal with knives and bombs.

    Freman on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Freman wrote: »
    The comic book makes the government more assholish, but it also has V being an outright anarchist instead of a liberal with knives and bombs.

    That's what I've heard.

    From what was described, I got the impression that the film took deliberate liberties to present something a lot more...well, plausible. And believable.

    Not too plausible, but more believable to a new audience.

    Synthesis on
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited May 2010
    Whee, multi-reply!
    And to be fair to the charecter, the trauma that made him snap was pretty horrendous. I get why Moore would be a little shocked at all the fan love, but its like he doesn't understand the way he wrote him was sympathetic.

    I like one little detail: before Rorschach snaps, his speech bubbles are normal. After, they're all jagged. You can see if he's pre- or post-psychosis.

    I always liked him as a Batman analogue (though I think Moore intended him as a Blue Beetle analogue) - Batman has been portrayed as both a millionaire disguising as a bat to fight crime, and a crime-fighting Batman that disguises as a millionaire.

    Rorschach says something similar about how before he snapped he put on a mask to disguise himself; after that he takes "his face" off to disguise himself.
    mrt144 wrote: »
    This is bordering on claiming the Phantom from Phantom of the Opera is some misunderstood hero.

    There's a book by Susan Kay based on Gaston Leroux's novel about his life before he settles down in the Paris opera house. He is, among other things, a court assassin in Persia.
    KalTorak wrote: »
    like the cows that walk to your table in the restaurant

    Exactly.

    Very humane. What, you're going to eat that salad that doesn't want to be eaten over the cow that does?

    Since The Culture got mentioned: there's a species there that re-engineered a bunch of species to emit tasty stuff into their flesh when they're extremely stressed and fearful, to make the hunting more fun.

    The same species reengineered their females to make sex painful for them.
    Heartlash wrote: »
    I was rooting for the Republic to fall in Star Wars. I'm absolutely shocked that the ethical issue of breeding an army of clones to fight a war isn't addressed in a more overt way.

    The existence of that army not only created the inevitability that the Republic would fall, but provided a strong case that it deserved to fall as well.

    There's a part in World of Warcraft, of all things, that has me baffled in a similar way. In the Halls of Stone they have something similar to the Engine of the Makers. During the last boss fight it creates a bunch of adds that you fight, until Brann Bronzebeard hacks it and creates Earthen that assist you in the fight.

    After the fight, he says he'll make "batches" of Earthen to help defend. Earthen are sentient creatures, and they're just created like that as throwaway guards.

    Echo on
  • TalleyrandTalleyrand Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Freman wrote: »
    The comic book makes the government more assholish, but it also has V being an outright anarchist instead of a liberal with knives and bombs.

    That's what I've heard.

    From what was described, I got the impression that the film took deliberate liberties to present something a lot more...well, plausible. And believable.

    Not too plausible, but more believable to a new audience.

    I've also heard that it became a lot more directed towards to the Bush presidency. Kind of Americanized in a way.

    So I think we've said 3 or 4 times now that Rorschach is open to interpretation and whether you consider him a bad guy or good guy says more about you than him. That's why he's called Rorschach.

    Of course Moore muddied the waters a bit by throwing in a dash of homophobia. I always thought that if he was supposed to be a criticism of Batman it should have been the other way around with a little bit of homo-eroticism thrown in. Now that I think about it he does go around in highheels and drenched in perfume. :winky:

    Talleyrand on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited May 2010
    Talleyrand wrote: »
    I've also heard that it became a lot more directed towards to the Bush presidency. Kind of Americanized in a way.

    Moore himself said something along the lines of "it was made by people too timid to critique their own country" about the movie.

    Echo on
  • ReptarReptar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Magneto in the X-Men cartoon series.
    Magneto wrote:
    When I was a child, my people talked while others prepared for war. They used reason while others used tanks, and they were destroyed for their trouble! I won't stand by and watch it happen again, I won't!

    and
    Magneto wrote:
    When I was a boy, I saw men executed, women and children. Each night I swore to myself 'never again,' but we must prevail.

    Reptar on
    Or are you waking up?
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    And to be fair to the charecter, the trauma that made him snap was pretty horrendous. I get why Moore would be a little shocked at all the fan love, but its like he doesn't understand the way he wrote him was sympathetic.

    I like one little detail: before Rorschach snaps, his speech bubbles are normal. After, they're all jagged. You can see if he's pre- or post-psychosis.

    I always liked him as a Batman analogue (though I think Moore intended him as a Blue Beetle analogue) - Batman has been portrayed as both a millionaire disguising as a bat to fight crime, and a crime-fighting Batman that disguises as a millionaire.

    Rorschach says something similar about how before he snapped he put on a mask to disguise himself; after that he takes "his face" off to disguise himself.

    I'm pretty sure Rorschach is Moore's take on the Steve Ditko character The Question, since both characters have an unbending, no shades of gray take on the world in general and fighting crime in particular.

    Of course, Dikto was (and still is, I think) a die-hard Objectivist, so he presented that as a positive thing, while Moore is all about ambivalence.

    Lawndart on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The V government also exterminated all non-white and non-heterosexual people. Well, the killed everyone who wasn't an average anglo-saxon white hetero person.

    Moore himself admits that V was too heavy handed and idealistic on the TPB's introduction.
    And, in retrospect, Moore kind of looks like a freaked out nutjob. The government in V reflected his fears of where the Thatcher government was taking the country. That's eye-rollingly funny,

    Though, he was kind of right about how surveillance cameras would become incredibly common in the UK.

    He wrote in the commentary that it would have been easy to transition to a police state in the thatcher years - for instance, politicians advocating special camps be built for homosexuals.

    Brutal dictatorships often rise on the persecution of a hated minority.

    Casual Eddy on
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited May 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Rorschach is Moore's take on the Steve Ditko character The Question, since both characters have an unbending, no shades of gray take on the world in general and fighting crime in particular.

    Of course, Dikto was (and still is, I think) a die-hard Objectivist, so he presented that as a positive thing, while Moore is all about ambivalence.

    Doh. Of course. It's Nite-Owl that's the Blue Beetle analogue.

    But parts of Batman also fit for Rorschach.

    Echo on
  • KylethePeonKylethePeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    If you're not with the bad guys then you're watching a Bond film.

    Or you're a nun.

    KylethePeon on
    Never take life seriously, no one gets out alive anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.