| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Grubber writes:
> Notice the pentagon purchasing all the satellite rights over afghanistan?
> Whats going on there that they don't want seen?
That honestly doesn't sound suspicious to me, since, had the US Gov't *not*
purchased the exclusive rights, then the Taliban could easily have watched US
troop movements; there's no reasonable way to conclude (but *speculation* is
fair game) that unwillingness to disclose satellite photos is proof of US
wrongdoing.
> > [The Watchmen was a] fine graphic novel, even if Moore sometimes gets
> > caught up in Being Alan Moore The Writer. And I can't stand Dave Gibbons' art
> > in any publication I've seen to date.
>
> I like the art- its the colours i can't stand in that book. It really needs
> digital recolouring or something.
Maybe that's the key. The whole thing seemed visually very flat, but that
might have been improved by more dynamic coloring. I understand that Moore was
on some level interested in preserving the 4-color comic book "look" in the
novel, so perhaps the flatness was a conscious choice. Gibbons' art in Martha
Washington was pretty much the same, though--flat and two dimensional.
> > > Sorry for the rant. I just watched fight club. Best movie ever made.
> >
> > I must have missed that one, but it's a shame that Brad Pitt and Ed Norton
> > were in such a terrible film by the same name.
>
> What! How can you say that? It was awesome- it addressed the pointless
> materialism that is slowly eating us alive and how our society is creating
> barriers...
Well, my problem is that the whole "societal angst" angle has been covered ad
nauseum and is the rallying cry of the pseudointellectual movement (or, bowel
movement, if you prefer) called Postmodernism, so it was hackneyed long before
the book was written, much less the film. In addition, the self-as-two-selves
gimmick has also been done to death and has a literary history reaching back at
least several centuries. So I guess my problem with the film, aside from the
fact that it was and is overhyped, was the fact that it didn't address any new
concerns (though it is alleged to have done so) and it didn't present the
material in a new or interesting way (though it is alleged to have done so).
You mentioned Jekyll and Hyde, which is the most obvious archetype of this
story form, but one could easily cite PK Dick's protagonist in "A Scanner
Darkly," as well as Poe's "William Wilson." Even Marvel Comics' "The
Incredible Hulk," an admitted derivative of Jekyll and Hyde, examines the
dual-self issue in a modern format, but one could even argue that such works as
The Scarlett Pimpernel explore the public-self-versus-real-self.
It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I didn't find the film to be
groundbreaking or innovative in any of the ways it is alleged to have been.
Dave!
FUT, if necessary, to OT-FUN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) Very True. I do think it was dealt with in the most unfortunate means though (shot down)- of course i have no proof, but lack of evidence rarely stops the big media, so why should i worry? ;-P (...) Good point. I guess the conspiracy stuff can (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
