I used to be like "Woo! The movie is awesome, the comic sucks!" But then on a whim I picked up the full graphic novel (I had only been reading the small portion that came with my DVD) and I fell in love . . . then I read half of Watchmen and fell in love.
I've tried reading it before but haven't got far since it seems to always cost a fuckton of money round here, but it doesn't seem all that enjoyable to me even though I love what I've been told about the story
Quirk on
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
I wouldn't say it's bad. It's definitely the most preachy and pretentious of Moore's stuff I've read, probably because it's early.
The movie is a totally intellectually void sell-out.
I wouldn't say it's bad. It's definitely the most preachy and pretentious of Moore's stuff I've read, probably because it's early.
The movie is a totally intellectually void sell-out.
I wouldn't call it preachy. Unless you missed the bit where people in general actually seemed better off under fascism, it's clear Moore isn't telling us to do anything specific.
As usual, I view the comic and the movie as two seperate entities. I enjoy each seperately, and never the twain should meet, for they would annihilate the universe.
Of course, the damage could be localized to our own galaxy...
Tach on
0
Sars_BoyRest, You Are The Lightning.Registered Userregular
I enjoyed the movie as well as the graphic novel. Perhaps when I become a souless egotist, capable of dismissing anything remotely attempting to reach a mass market as sell-out crap, I will come to appreciate your point more.
But of course, by then I'll just be Alan Moore but without the talent... which I guess would make me the Unibomber or some other societal reject with no outlet for my creativity or angst.
I will keep you all posted.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
I used to be like "Woo! The movie is awesome, the comic sucks!" But then on a whim I picked up the full graphic novel (I had only been reading the small portion that came with my DVD) and I fell in love . . . then I read half of Watchmen and fell in love.
Good times.
I picked up the comic after watching the film too. The film was entertaining, the comic was just dull featuring horrible art. The two are only very loosely related however.
I wouldn't say it's bad. It's definitely the most preachy and pretentious of Moore's stuff I've read, probably because it's early.
The movie is a totally intellectually void sell-out.
I wouldn't call it preachy. Unless you missed the bit where people in general actually seemed better off under fascism, it's clear Moore isn't telling us to do anything specific.
That's a good point. The film was about a hero advocating freedom via democracy in the face of totalitarian fascism and who had the sympathies of the general populace (who all pretty clearly hated their government but were too afraid to do anything about it). It's a nice way to make V more clearly the superhero the W brothers wanted him to be.*
The graphic novel is different. It's not about democracy versus fascism, it's about ANARCHY versus ordered government, and that's a whole different kettle of fish. V becomes much scarier and more ambiguously heroic when he's advocating the complete and total collapse of all forms of overarching government. This isn't to say that Moore is advocating the fascist Norsefire government; he's clearly not doing so. But the point I think he's stressing is that V, the alternative, the man who's going to bring down the system, is REALLY going to bring down the WHOLE system. He's not going to replace it with something we know and are comfortable with (democracy), he's going to replace it with something that we've never really experienced, non-government, and that's terrifying.
*In the interests of full disclosure, I didn't like the film. However, that had more to do with the changes to Evey and the Evey/V relationship than anything else.
Brian888 on
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't say it's bad. It's definitely the most preachy and pretentious of Moore's stuff I've read, probably because it's early.
The movie is a totally intellectually void sell-out.
I wouldn't call it preachy. Unless you missed the bit where people in general actually seemed better off under fascism, it's clear Moore isn't telling us to do anything specific.
I guess didactic might be a better word.
Moore had V deliver a lot of philosophy and lengthy quotations to us through V. A lot of "hey guys I read this" type content that he gave up after that.
Don't trust the government. Rebel! FIGHT THE POWER!
blow up parliament/10 downing street?
It is preachy, and it allows angry teenagers who have discovered politics to have a focal point for their angst. I agree with Tube.
That says a lot more about the teenagers than it does about the graphic novel. Consider who's advocating that message, after all; a person who is, when you think about it, downright inhuman in his control of events and his ability to sacrifice individual lives to his plan. Batman on his best day has nothing on V, and that's frankly a very scary prospect.
Don't trust the government. Rebel! FIGHT THE POWER!
blow up parliament/10 downing street?
It is preachy, and it allows angry teenagers who have discovered politics to have a focal point for their angst. I agree with Tube.
That says a lot more about the teenagers than it does about the graphic novel. Consider who's advocating that message, after all; a person who is, when you think about it, downright inhuman in his control of events and his ability to sacrifice individual lives to his plan. Batman on his best day has nothing on V, and that's frankly a very scary prospect.
Ok the people who love it aside. The book is still ridiculously preachy and what could be a good story is hamstrung (in my opinion) by Moore beating us over the head with the "REBEL YOU FOOLS!" stick.
Don't trust the government. Rebel! FIGHT THE POWER!
blow up parliament/10 downing street?
It is preachy, and it allows angry teenagers who have discovered politics to have a focal point for their angst. I agree with Tube.
That says a lot more about the teenagers than it does about the graphic novel. Consider who's advocating that message, after all; a person who is, when you think about it, downright inhuman in his control of events and his ability to sacrifice individual lives to his plan. Batman on his best day has nothing on V, and that's frankly a very scary prospect.
Ok the people who love it aside. The book is still ridiculously preachy and what could be a good story is hamstrung (in my opinion) by Moore beating us over the head with the "REBEL YOU FOOLS!" stick.
No, he doesn't do that. In interviews, he says that even fascism has good points (order, relative safety). He depicts rebellion as a messy process that leads to wandering around a bleak landscape. Whether or not that is preferable is up to the reader.
You'd have to already be a well-informed anarchist to take V as a statement in favor of rebellion.
As to whether or not V is didactic, I'd say that you should expect quotations and literary references from a man who is the literal embodiment of all the art, beauty, and dangerous chaos that is lost in the transition to fascism.
Ok the people who love it aside. The book is still ridiculously preachy and what could be a good story is hamstrung (in my opinion) by Moore beating us over the head with the "REBEL YOU FOOLS!" stick.
Again, I'll have to disagree. Look at the messenger. Considering V's actions and personality, do you really buy what he's selling? Do you think Moore expects or wants us to?
Also, I don't happen to think that what goes on in "V for Vendetta" IS rebellion, or at least not rebellion for the general populace. The story is seems to be V's war on government, but it's not even really a war; V is in such total control of the situation that the REAL story is how V orchestrates the downfall of government in England. Rebellion denotes struggle against a greater power, which simply doesn't apply to V; there is no greater power than him in the story.
Brian888 on
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
As to whether or not V is didactic, I'd say that you should expect quotations and literary references from a man who is the literal embodiment of all the art, beauty, and dangerous chaos that is lost in the transition to fascism.
Ok the people who love it aside. The book is still ridiculously preachy and what could be a good story is hamstrung (in my opinion) by Moore beating us over the head with the "REBEL YOU FOOLS!" stick.
Also, I don't happen to think that what goes on in "V for Vendetta" IS rebellion, or at least not rebellion for the general populace. The story is seems to be V's war on government, but it's not even really a war; V is in such total control of the situation that the REAL story is how V orchestrates the downfall of government in England. Rebellion denotes struggle against a greater power, which simply doesn't apply to V; there is no greater power than him in the story.
And that's the main difference between the book and the movie. The former has one man acting against the will and best interests of the majority to satisfy his own vision whereas the latter has literally every single civilian in that city becoming V and staging what is depicted as a nearly bloodless coup. Anarchy is shown as being easy.
If we're going to complain about anything fueling the stupid dreams of teenagers, it's V the movie and not V the book.
Ok the people who love it aside. The book is still ridiculously preachy and what could be a good story is hamstrung (in my opinion) by Moore beating us over the head with the "REBEL YOU FOOLS!" stick.
Also, I don't happen to think that what goes on in "V for Vendetta" IS rebellion, or at least not rebellion for the general populace. The story is seems to be V's war on government, but it's not even really a war; V is in such total control of the situation that the REAL story is how V orchestrates the downfall of government in England. Rebellion denotes struggle against a greater power, which simply doesn't apply to V; there is no greater power than him in the story.
And that's the main difference between the book and the movie. The former as one man acting against the will and best interests of the majority to satisfy his own vision whereas the latter has literally every single civilian in that city becoming V and staging what is depicted as a nearly bloodless coup. Anarchy is shown as being easy.
If we're going to complain about anything fueling the stupid dreams of teenagers, it's V the movie and not V the book.
Ok the people who love it aside. The book is still ridiculously preachy and what could be a good story is hamstrung (in my opinion) by Moore beating us over the head with the "REBEL YOU FOOLS!" stick.
Also, I don't happen to think that what goes on in "V for Vendetta" IS rebellion, or at least not rebellion for the general populace. The story is seems to be V's war on government, but it's not even really a war; V is in such total control of the situation that the REAL story is how V orchestrates the downfall of government in England. Rebellion denotes struggle against a greater power, which simply doesn't apply to V; there is no greater power than him in the story.
And that's the main difference between the book and the movie. The former as one man acting against the will and best interests of the majority to satisfy his own vision whereas the latter has literally every single civilian in that city becoming V and staging what is depicted as a nearly bloodless coup. Anarchy is shown as being easy.
If we're going to complain about anything fueling the stupid dreams of teenagers, it's V the movie and not V the book.
Strongly agree.
Absolutely true. Everything I said applies to the graphic novel, not the movie.
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
I liked the little one shot that was in the back of the trade, where V kills a guy climbing on a ledge by using a banana peel and then talks about the dangers of slapstick
I wonder what V would read like if Moore hadn't had a three year gap between ending the first section of the book (the material thru #7 of the miniseries) and the last section of the book. I wonder how the success of WATCHMEN and SWAMP THING influenced him.
The film was entertaining, the comic was just dull featuring horrible art.
Uh, what?
Anyway, how can anyone read the book and interpret it as glorifying anarchy when it ends in chaos and ambiguity? Maybe you guys are thinking of the movie or something.
You know, when I read the comic I really didn't see it as Moore trying to tell me anything but a story. I guess I was just oblivious to him shoving his ideals down my throat.
When I picked up the book, I had just read Watchmen and nobody had heard of a film adaptation (as it likely should have remained). I thought it was great. As a piece of art and literature, probably a B to Watchmen's A, but still really fucking good. V's character was fascinating. I can still see in my head the panel where he
Walks away from Larkhill through flames
. In response to the art, I think that in comparison to a lot of the stuff that Gaiman writes or Fables, it doesn't look as pretty. That was the idea, though. In both Watchmen and V, he was meticulous in how he wanted it to look. So it was intentional, for good or bad.
In response to the art, I think that in comparison to a lot of the stuff that Gaiman writes or Fables, it doesn't look as pretty. That was the idea, though. In both Watchmen and V, he was meticulous in how he wanted it to look. So it was intentional, for good or bad.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. One, the craft of creating and printing comic art has come a long way in the 25-30 years since V and WATCHMEN were produced (and in V's case, most of it was recolored - it was colored differently when it was being published serially in WARRIOR). Two, there is a very good chance that most of the artists working today have been influenced heavily by Gibbons and Lloyd's art in those books.
I guess I'm just reading your post as saying that WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA were 100% Alan Moore, and that's just not the case. They were collaborations. Just like FROM HELL, or SWAMP THING, or TOM STRONG, or anything else he's done.
Registered User admin
Posts
I'm sorry.
I used to be like "Woo! The movie is awesome, the comic sucks!" But then on a whim I picked up the full graphic novel (I had only been reading the small portion that came with my DVD) and I fell in love . . . then I read half of Watchmen and fell in love.
Good times.
I therefore believe my views to be unique around here.
Anally.
The movie is a totally intellectually void sell-out.
Definitely ain't no Watchmen, though
Or Swamp Thing
aint got no relevancy nowdays
I liked the comic.
I wouldn't call it preachy. Unless you missed the bit where people in general actually seemed better off under fascism, it's clear Moore isn't telling us to do anything specific.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Of course, the damage could be localized to our own galaxy...
I enjoyed the movie as well as the graphic novel. Perhaps when I become a souless egotist, capable of dismissing anything remotely attempting to reach a mass market as sell-out crap, I will come to appreciate your point more.
But of course, by then I'll just be Alan Moore but without the talent... which I guess would make me the Unibomber or some other societal reject with no outlet for my creativity or angst.
I will keep you all posted.
I liked Watchmen, it was great.
I guess I think preachiness requires a clear-cut message.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That's a good point. The film was about a hero advocating freedom via democracy in the face of totalitarian fascism and who had the sympathies of the general populace (who all pretty clearly hated their government but were too afraid to do anything about it). It's a nice way to make V more clearly the superhero the W brothers wanted him to be.*
The graphic novel is different. It's not about democracy versus fascism, it's about ANARCHY versus ordered government, and that's a whole different kettle of fish. V becomes much scarier and more ambiguously heroic when he's advocating the complete and total collapse of all forms of overarching government. This isn't to say that Moore is advocating the fascist Norsefire government; he's clearly not doing so. But the point I think he's stressing is that V, the alternative, the man who's going to bring down the system, is REALLY going to bring down the WHOLE system. He's not going to replace it with something we know and are comfortable with (democracy), he's going to replace it with something that we've never really experienced, non-government, and that's terrifying.
*In the interests of full disclosure, I didn't like the film. However, that had more to do with the changes to Evey and the Evey/V relationship than anything else.
I guess didactic might be a better word.
Moore had V deliver a lot of philosophy and lengthy quotations to us through V. A lot of "hey guys I read this" type content that he gave up after that.
Don't trust the government. Rebel! FIGHT THE POWER!
It is preachy, and it allows angry teenagers who have discovered politics to have a focal point for their angst. I agree with Tube.
That says a lot more about the teenagers than it does about the graphic novel. Consider who's advocating that message, after all; a person who is, when you think about it, downright inhuman in his control of events and his ability to sacrifice individual lives to his plan. Batman on his best day has nothing on V, and that's frankly a very scary prospect.
Ok the people who love it aside. The book is still ridiculously preachy and what could be a good story is hamstrung (in my opinion) by Moore beating us over the head with the "REBEL YOU FOOLS!" stick.
No, he doesn't do that. In interviews, he says that even fascism has good points (order, relative safety). He depicts rebellion as a messy process that leads to wandering around a bleak landscape. Whether or not that is preferable is up to the reader.
You'd have to already be a well-informed anarchist to take V as a statement in favor of rebellion.
As to whether or not V is didactic, I'd say that you should expect quotations and literary references from a man who is the literal embodiment of all the art, beauty, and dangerous chaos that is lost in the transition to fascism.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Again, I'll have to disagree. Look at the messenger. Considering V's actions and personality, do you really buy what he's selling? Do you think Moore expects or wants us to?
Also, I don't happen to think that what goes on in "V for Vendetta" IS rebellion, or at least not rebellion for the general populace. The story is seems to be V's war on government, but it's not even really a war; V is in such total control of the situation that the REAL story is how V orchestrates the downfall of government in England. Rebellion denotes struggle against a greater power, which simply doesn't apply to V; there is no greater power than him in the story.
So yes then.
And that's the main difference between the book and the movie. The former has one man acting against the will and best interests of the majority to satisfy his own vision whereas the latter has literally every single civilian in that city becoming V and staging what is depicted as a nearly bloodless coup. Anarchy is shown as being easy.
If we're going to complain about anything fueling the stupid dreams of teenagers, it's V the movie and not V the book.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Strongly agree.
Absolutely true. Everything I said applies to the graphic novel, not the movie.
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
And I liked the movie!
Uh, what?
Anyway, how can anyone read the book and interpret it as glorifying anarchy when it ends in chaos and ambiguity? Maybe you guys are thinking of the movie or something.
When I picked up the book, I had just read Watchmen and nobody had heard of a film adaptation (as it likely should have remained). I thought it was great. As a piece of art and literature, probably a B to Watchmen's A, but still really fucking good. V's character was fascinating. I can still see in my head the panel where he
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. One, the craft of creating and printing comic art has come a long way in the 25-30 years since V and WATCHMEN were produced (and in V's case, most of it was recolored - it was colored differently when it was being published serially in WARRIOR). Two, there is a very good chance that most of the artists working today have been influenced heavily by Gibbons and Lloyd's art in those books.
I guess I'm just reading your post as saying that WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA were 100% Alan Moore, and that's just not the case. They were collaborations. Just like FROM HELL, or SWAMP THING, or TOM STRONG, or anything else he's done.