>Gives the most surface level truths about good writing and morality
>Comic book fans shat their pants and still haven't recovered to this day.
Can we say based?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>Gives the most surface level truths about good writing and morality
He reads Lulu,of course is based
reads Lulu and his favourite superhero is Herbie Popnecker. he's based
half loves him because of his contributions to the medium. half hates him because of his statements about the industry.
Superheroes are meant to be fun pulp stories about fighting mad scientists and stopping bank robberies.
Here's the thing to understand - according to people who like literature, including many writers like Alan Moore, fiction should mean something. It should say something meaningful about existing as humans in our lives. Watchmen is about the Cold War. Dark Knight Returns is about how great men and mass media can influence minds.
This is important to understand that most superhero comics don't do this. They have some kind of a message or theme, but they're not about it, they only use it as a set dressing, and are primarily disposable pulp entertainment.
So list of cape comics - GOOD cape comics that qualify is way shorter than you think. Marshal Law (original mini, none of the trash sequels) is about American foreign policy of warmongering. Rick Veitch's Maximortal and Brat Pack are about the exploitative nature of comics industry. Miracleman is about what distinguishes a human from a god. V for Vendetta is about fascism and anarchism. And Ex Machina is about how politics corrupt.
>fiction should mean something
bullshit, that's rubbish spouted by pompous old fools with basically no connection to the common man they purport to love, fiction is whatever you want it to be, high concept art for intellectuals or lowbrow slop for the masses.
And here's the hot take, It's totally fine that most media isn't smart, it doesn't need to be, many of the best pieces of art were done for money or for the simple joy of making something fun.
if you want me to expand on this, what I mean is that art is about infecting another human with human experience he does not possess, not monkey brain stimuli aimed at extorting a reaction out of him. The main property of art is that it is additive and enriching, rather than something that drains and enslaves. The vast majority of art made today is not enriching at all, it's a sugar rush. It does not built into anything.
That still sounds like rubbish to me, what does the mona lisa build into? Nothing, it's just a really well made painting, there's no greater meaning to it than that
>what significant change to the world would bring Spider-Man's web shooters if he shared his formula?
oh I don't know, completely revolutionizing the construction industry, or acting as a rapid cast for injuries, or frick as a tool to catch criminals
any of those could be used to improve or save countless lives,
>what I mean is that art is about infecting another human with human experience he does not possess
You're really giving this proven-wrong line again? That argument is Swiss cheese at this point.
>people who like literature
homosexuals?
>Fiction has to... le mean something...in order to matter
Prime example of undergraduate stupidity.
Wrong Superheroe stories are meant to be fun to read!
Moore has explicitly agreed with this multiple times. Watchmen is a look at what they'd be in real (different intent, not what he thinks the average cape comic should be), and he dislikes TKJ in retrospect because it isn't this
How the frick did Moore get away with a comic like Lost Girls
Same way he got away with From Hell, be an edgy c**t to hide your slicked willy.
Because there was a point to it, it wasn't trite and exploitative.
>Believes he's intelligent for pointing out the absurdity of fiction
Gay
He's not pointing out the absurdity of fiction. He's written plenty of it. He's pointing out that superheroes are antithetical to good writing.
That's a lot of words to say you think he's intelligent for pointing out the absurdity of fiction
It means that fiction should have meaning beyond being disposable pulp entertainment and speak to things beyond superficial instant gratification.
No it shouldn't, shit even Alan Moore doesn't feel that way when he admits that his favourite comic of all time is Herbie
Why shouldn't it? Do you not want anything intellectually stimulating? Fiction should breathe depth and understanding into our souls.
Of course, but not necessarily as a rule, if all the producers, editors and writers made their effort to only put out intelectual material, you might get pretentiousness more often than ever.
Personally, I think the great works of fiction come not as often as the standard entertainment, thats what makes them great.
Pretentious refers to something trying to impress by affecting greater importance than it has. By definition all entertainment, MCU schlock movies etc are pretentious. Enjoy them, but they aren’t artistically poignant or new. They offer no new examination of culture, film, comics, or humanity.
I dont think MCU movies for instance were trying to achieve something bigger that being mindless entertainment, how are they pretentious exactly?
In any case, when going into film, there are already films in 2022 that offer examinations of the human condition, all I'm saying is that not everything should follow that standard as a rule.
They're pretentious because they're trying to come as deep and impactful when they're nothing more than mindless entertainment shat out by a multibillion dollar company. Are you actually reading the definitions? The same people will champion your mindset and then claim they'll want Marvel movies nominated for all kinds of rewards.
I dont recall them trying to be impactful or deep, but lets say that they do, perhaps thats the reason why they come out as garbage even for their commercial standards.
And yes, I'm aware that people try to held them up higher than they are, but thats on them really, why other people that can tell the difference between entertainment and art should be included?.
They're pretentious because they offer no insight of culture or humanity outside of "good guy punch bad guy" its empty capitalist wastelands for manchildren to see their favorite characters that remind them of their shitty childhoods.
Read your defenition again, pretentiousness by attempting to impress by affecting greater importance. If I make a movie about martial arts, with the sole purpose of showcasing Jackie Chan's or whatever, martial expertise, how am I being pretentious when I know what I'm trying to reach? its not like I'm trying to appeal to complex ideology, how does that fits within your definition?
Now, I don't know what most directors pretend to put out with their cape movies, but the ones that I have seen are just trying to entertain by virtue of having fun.
>How am I being pretentious?
Because you're not actually making anything of substance. It's pretentious to make a movie with nothing. It defeats the purpose of making a movie in the first place.
>Just having fun
Appealing to superficial emotion is pretentious.
cinema is not art
Not making anything of substance or appealing to human emotions is not being pretentious, at least not with the definition you provided. You are not trying to impress by affecting greater importance, when you keep your objectives simple enough.
That's exactly what that is though. All flash and no substance.
So? Unless all you watch or read is mindless entertainment, then there shouldn't be a problem
A better media diet makes you a better person.
That's the opposite of pretentiousness. Do you think Disney wants MCU to be good art? No, they want cash of FOMOrons who will watch it before everyone else.
>should
There's no should in art. There's utility. Is it useful? If it's just entertainment for the moment I read them and watch it, then is good art. If I wanted to think about human condition I'd read about sociology or philosophy.
Now, if I wanted both, it wouldn't be bad. But it's never a should.
I don't have a duty to care, that's my privilege
Being pretentious is all style and no substance.
So, Morrison?
>Durrr I'll just repeat everything back to you hurrrr
What? Are you having a stroke?
okay I'm going to explain it very simply for you: the ongoing trend of movie studios reducing their films to by-the-numbers, by-committee junk to serve as a vehicle to derive profit and serve advertising is bad. it's bad for art, bad for culture, bad for enjoyment, bad ethically
Remember when Swamp Thing was going round America helping women and minorities from evil white men and then he meets the Parliament of Trees and they tell him that evil doesn't exist and it's all just bark and dirt and shit that nobody has any control over because it's all just the cycle of nature? And then Swamp Thing is like "Woooooow you're probably right tbqh". I legit said "BASED" out loud. What a great writer.
>Gives the most profound truths about good writing and morality and women
>Comic book fans shat their pants and still haven't recovered to this day.
Can we say based?
lol, the average comics fan now doesn't even know who this has-been is, much less cares to crap their pants about him.
You're correct, the average comics fan now is a young trendhopper with no drive to delve further than the algorithm and media. Insightful post!
>ROIGHT
>WOT IF
>SUPA’EROS…
>…WERE WANKAS?
>BLOODY BRIL'ANT INNIT?
Yes. Superheroes are a dumb concept if you try writing them in any way remotely realistic or seriously. They're bootlicking upholders of the status quo that don't lead to any real systemic change in the world.
And no, individual action is not systemic change. They have all this tech at their disposal and they barely share any of it with the world around them. And yet, by tightly controlling the advancement of science and technology and turning every super genius into a tech hoarder, humanity is now almost entirely at the mercy of capes, supervillains or clandestine government groups. Capes are independent unreliable agents in the first place. A public standardized weapon loadout would deter crime by bolstering police, private security organizations, and private citizens. Being a superhero is also inherently fascistic and narcissistic.
These are just some of many reasons why no actual legit writer or artist wants to touch the concept of superheroes with a 50 foot pole.
>They have all this tech at their disposal and they barely share any of it with the world around them.
Oh yeah? what significant change to the world would bring Spider-Man's web shooters if he shared his formula?
Your argument only makes sense on certain characters that can by their own capacity do "systematic change" which even then, it has been explored already and why it wouldn't work, since you know, they are INDIVIDUALS, systematic change comes from the population, not one person, if he forces change into being it would turn him fascistic as you describe.
But even then, most superheroes are street level guys, that cannot do significative change, even with all their power.
>Batman can't bring systemic change despite being both a billionaire and having access to crazy technology.
You are moronic. buttholes with power will always rise up, people that grew into shitty life conditions will look into crime as a way to make some money, and the best a person like Batman or Punisher have achieved at the end of this is that there's a few less bastards in their city.
The fact that you attempt to use characters and the stories themselves as evidence "that no, they actually don't enforce the status quo" tells me you don't understand this. Superheroes like Batman never attack the government, never start a revolution, never attempt to attain permanent change in the world, why?
Because comicbook narrative and executives portray this as EVIL. Nevermind sharing their power, money and nifty technology with the world, DC and Marvel periodically shit out stories attempting to justify why doing this sort of things would somehow make the world a militaristic dystopia or whatever is in vogue at the moment, when the real answer is that there's no money to be had on characters that actually attempt to move society forward, but rather spinning the same old tired tales again and again. Revolutionaries, anarchists and anyone that isn't a bland fence-sitting bootlicker that only goes after supervillains or purse-snatchers are always portrayed in the wrong in mainstream comicbook narratives.
Did you even read my argument?
I already told you that some characters (for example Batman or Superman) may be able to generate signifcant change by ENFORCING they way through the system.
Once again, systematic change comes from the people, not one single person can change the world, let alone a country, when we cannot even agree on most politic conscerns.
Just look at V of Vendetta, how exactly did the titular character achieved his goals? he was the voice of an entire population, all he did was put everything in motion. Now look around you, do you really think everybody agrees with your views of revolution and changing society? what kind of change do you even seek to accomplish? And most relevant to this discussion how can a guy like Spider-Man or say Luke Cage can get it done?
Sharing their technology would help get even more criminals off the streets. A public standardized weapon loadout would deter crime by bolstering police, private security organizations, and private citizens.
How is that "systematic change", all you are saying is changing a weapon for another, if real criminal organizations can get their hands on military grade gunfire, how are you so sure they won't get their hands on the newest technology?
Even if we go along with your idea, not all capes do their thing with technology advancements, so again, you would be leaving some characters out like Daredevil.
It's systemic change because the change affects everyone and everybody benefits from having access to new technology. Which capes shouldn't be the gatekeepers of. By tightly controlling the advancement of science and technology and turning every super genius into a tech hoarder, humanity is now almost entirely at the mercy of capes and supervillains. Also you're trying to claim that Batman with his millions of dollars can't actually lead to any systemic change?
so if Batman starts putting out all his gadgets and batmobiles and whatever, to police organizations and private citizens, how are you so sure said technology won't be corrupted as any other technology that has come out so far?
You are not fixing the problem, you are just stepping up the game.
> Superheroes like Batman never attack the government, never start a revolution
You're describing the Joker you lunatic.
Batman saves the day.
>same exact arguments as yesterday's thread but this time it has alan moore instead of le inkblot man
You're starting to get the autist mentality.
Why is this board so obsessed with Moore?
Some bot-like autist keeps spamming threads, check the archive to see how many threads this pic is used with
Threadly reminder
Dude, just marry him already.
>Moore basically took the Shadow
I love how that big, long post just shits its own pants right off the bat; completely invalidates itself before it can get going.
>Too much of a brainlet to know that Mr A was inspired by the Shadow
>And that Moore actually has previously made statements on the Shadow and how it inspired him
Nice Dunning Kruger you got going on there.
>>Too much of a brainlet to know that Mr A was inspired by the Shadow
Mister A wasn't the Question. Even if you want to pretend that the Shadow inspired the Question, the Shadow didn't inspire Rorschach.
Nothing about Rorschach's character or how he operates invokes how the Shadow works. Moore doesn't even mention him in the page where he goes over Rorschach's character in the Watchmen pitch.
>"Mr. A was inspired by Objectivism, the belief system and moral absolutism of the philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand. Ditko has been quoted as saying that his creation The Question was intended as a version of Mr. A that would be acceptable to the Comics Code Authority that censored mainstream comics during the era."
>Both Question & Mr. A were released in the same year but under different publishers, Wizened being the one that let Ditko keep Mr. A while Charlton Comics kept the character until DC bought them out in 1980s.
>Nothing about Rorshach is Shadow
You're only partially moronic on this one. The Shadow isn't above killing, torture both physical & psychological, and often uses Detective Work and martial arts/gunmanship for his stories. You might be confused with the radio plays & movies because OG Shadow didn't have the psionic bullshit we see now. Now while Alan Moore doesn't talk much about Rorschach other than vitriol because of Randism/Ditko hate, he was also based on the dirty/grimy aspects of Batman who even Bill Finger admits was based on and a retelling of a Shadow story.
>But muh based Moore
V was the radical leftist prototype to Rorschach and not only does Moore admit V was based on The Shadow, he has him die a Martyr/Saint for the rebellion compared to how Rorschach dies rebelling against Veidt who's just as bad as the Nordofascists he despised in V. He's far up his ass hating on Ditko, that he can't understand why people like the character who stands up to the fascist millionaires he claims to despise IRL.
You're a lot further up your own ass than Moore is up his.
Moore was a Ditko simp, admitting to disliking John Romita Sr. Spider-Man because he wasn't Ditko, also giving all credit to Ditko for creating Spider-Man.
>But constantly shitting to Ditko everywhere else, including the memorial video he was interviewed for.
You need to try harder to deflect anon. Moore disliking JRJ's Spider Man is like saying the sky is blue or 2+2=4. Even JRJs current Spider-Man run is garbage and the art is getting uglier and ore offputting by the day.
>it's an 'anon can't difference John Romita Sr. from Jr.' episode
That other anon was talking about his father.
Yeah and JRS Spider Man was meh because JRS would rather be writing Punisher again which his son tried to copy for Kick-Ass. It's all cyclical but hating on the Romita's doesn't mean he likes Ditko. It's tge safest basic take you can do albeit a bit hypocritical since most of Moore's works are closer to Punisher derivatives overall.
>a lot of empty word salad to attempt to cover the mistake he made several posts ago
That's just sad
Just take the L and go before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot
NTA but are you defending JRS and JRJ's Spider Man run? They were both terrible and JRS is the reason we have to deal with MJ over better love interests for Peter. Even with the editorial grinding him, he setup a lot the bad romantic whining arcs that writers can't stop forcing on Peter.
>Oh no, I mixed up Sr and Jr
>Must double down and claim they both were never good!!
Take the L already, you unfunny git
Again not that anon but MJ has been an ungrateful wishy-washy shit even when JRS wrote her. I'd rather have Felicia since at least she's shown to care for Peter more than MJ overall and can relate to the supe side of things. Shit it'd take Dewolff over MJ trying to cuck Peter because JRJ is following the same crap of his father and ruining Spidey again with bad romance. Even though we don't exactly know what the Krakoashit did to break them up, it'll probably be some reality warper notOMD shit at Best or at worst MJ being a shit again because SupeLife is scary but this time she was fricked because of her shilling mutant shit not Spider-Man stuff. This shit might top her being a c**t during Civil War 2 where she wen't YAAS QUEEN SLAY Women of Power for taking over Stark Industries while claiming she wanted to be as far away from Supeshit/Peter because it's dangerous and she doesn't want to have to protect herself from villains.
>more empty word salad
What happened to your mind here?
He didn't refer to JRJR, you smoothbrain
This thread is made up entirely of copypastas, including this comment.
If your audience doesn’t walk away with one life lesson you failed as a writer
As writer your first goal should be entertain and your second goal should be to teach
What people find entertaining is heavily influenced and most of it lives or dies based on trends. But trends can't tell any single person what they like. What sells the most cannot tell any random person what they should find entertaining.
Most stuff made wouldn't be entertaining to most people if it weren't for a vast network of marketing and business ensuring its success by simply saturating people with it. Entertaining doesn't mean if you like it, it means what will "sell". A well-written story is entertaining by default
A story doesn't need to try to be "entertaining"
If it tries to be "entertaining" it's already failing because its a less bold story. When it tries to be "entertaining" its being forced to be palatable by moronic audiences. That's the fricking problem when things are forced to be "entertaining". If you think general audiences are any smarter now then you're a moron. People are even less open to new stories these days.
Entertaining doesn't mean if it appeals to you, it means if its marketable
this is absolutely moronic and ignores the centuries of popular literature that came before the explosion of mass information and "vast networks of marketing"
You know what you’re write i had it backwards, teaching first entertainment second
>teaching first entertainment second
teach through entertainment.
lol what?
Entertainment as a whole can take many forms, wether its a comedy, horror spectacle, or a well coreographed action piece, just to name a few.
But trying to be doesn't mean its already a garbage work by motivation.
I do agree that a well written story is entertaining by default.
You sound like a massive homosexual, anon.
Even stuff considered art doesn't necessarily try to convey any kind of message. Consider something like Marcel Proust. His books are all about trying to capture and evoke an aesthetic experience, not to impart a message. You have an extremely limited view of literature if you think that means he failed as a writer.
This is the same moron who thinks The Birth of a Nation invented superheroes.
He had to have been baiting for outrage when he said that. "Heroic" stories have existed since, well, probably forever; the only thing that comparison does is piss people off.
No, his point was that the same undercurrents in America that gave us Birth of a Nation also led to superheroes. A love for the story "masked paragon vigilantes have risen up to deal with the problems the government couldn't!" It's certainly an unflattering connection to draw, but I'm not sure it's unfair. Nowhere did he say that America's the only country with masked vigilante stories.
>A love for the story "masked paragon vigilantes have risen up to deal with the problems the government couldn't!" It's certainly an unflattering connection to draw, but I'm not sure it's unfair.
I'd certainly say it's unfair, because it's a statement that goes out of its way to be incendiary for no good reason. Their singular, stretched similarity is operating outside the law.
He could have referred to "Robinhood," if he were just trying to make a point about how people want somebody who's willing to operate outside the law. He wanted to draw that comparison from the idea of mystery-men to the klan, when they really only have the slightest of similarities. It's a point made purely to piss people off.
Moore is a tankie, he believes if you're not a lefty you're wrong.
Moore is the type of guy who is perfectly okay with censorship
he said it was arguably the first "superhero" MOVIE which is different
He’s the perfect example of the saying “if you’re the smartest man in the room, you’re in the wrong room”. Nerd worship went to his head.
but he's always hanging out with smarter people than him. he's good buddies with iain sinclar, for instance
>Nerd worship went to his head.
That sounds way more like Morrison than Moore
On the other hand he actually thinks we really can build utopic societies from anarchism and collectivism.
It seems to be that what you really want is Legend of Galactic Hero, but regarding super powers instead. Rather than demand Superheroes conform to your vision, why not make it yourself then. Change won't come from demanding others.
To you who happens to read this: stop replying to these threads.
It's easy bait that always gets replies from every moron. Don't be that moron.
Anon, this board is filled with threads about Twitter and culture war bullshit. Nothing of value is lost by bumping this.