BF2S Forums Rate the last TV Show you've seen

Thats literally Gandalf.

Supernatural superhero fantasies are literally the norm in literature and are timeless, stories about some berk wandering around trimming hedges, or waiting for an inheritance are the aberration and will be forgotten.

also you really can't have it both ways, dilbert. you rhetorically approve of and reject the premise in the same post.

'supernatural fantasies from antiquity are stupid: jews, christians and muslims are obsessed with hokey stories'.
'Homer was actually a comic book writer and wrote about superheroes, which is why my own childish tastes are credible, ackshually, and such stories will live on forever'.

so should human culture move on from supernatural thrillers about fake gods or not? are they a net social good or net social evil?

alan moore is himself saying that the religiose and reductive approach to comic fictions is what is driving the culture to a point of unreflective, unsophisticated inanition today. that's rather the point; call it nerd comic fundamentalists. people getting as vexed over star wars sequels or the lore of batman movies as theologians did over points of doctrine at councils in 400 AD. people expecting to find that real life and real human conduct should match their reductive texts about heroes and villains.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-10 04:02:00)

he is literally complaining about the fact that comic books franchises occupy a huge place in our common culture now, that they're treated more importantly and with more seriousness than they ever deserve, that they're hypertrophied, basically. children's tales and light entertainments have nudged out the place of 'serious' and 'adult' art in our popular culture, so that adults spend their time agonizing over The Joker rather than engaging with more complex matters. that's his whole point. it's no different than if society's common culture were hijacked by religious fundamentalists who are forever agonizing over the codes and proscriptions in Leviticus.

then you pop up and, in some aimless defence of i don't know what, your pale little ego, you claim that comic books have the same proud and prestigious origins as ... ancient religious texts, which you profess to despise.

i've got as much time for religious fundamentalists or scriptural literalists as i do for comic book nerds. that said, there is far more literary and artistic merit in something like the KJV translation of the bible than there are in 100 skips full of pulpy comic fabulations. call it a special collaborative issue that took the combined efforts of 100s of people over 1000s of years to revise and perfect. the ultimate collector's edition!

you're a very confused guy methinks.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-10 02:50:16)

but why would that be in any way preferable? as opposed to, uh, you know, just growing up?

most religious folks have a more nuanced and adult relationship with their faith than comic cons attendees, dilbert.

you on these dawkins-level diatribes is very weak piss.

why can't you engage with alan moore's argument about comic books without dragging in world religion and The Jewz? he's very specifically talking about a modern industry and pop-cultural phenomenon and comparing it to, you know, arts and culture that are adjacent to it, such as other movies and other literature. you really don't have to leap to citing jewish settlers and islamist radicals to debate this point, dilbert ...

what does alan moore's comments have to do with religious people? seriously?

you cannot construct an argument. it's really piteous. 'yes but the jews'. 'tolkien knew about moses and old testament myths'.

lmao oh right. dilbert the arch critic. 'the lower end of the imaginative scale'. i love the idea that you have an imaginative scale.

i've got no horse in this race, i couldn't care less about the comparative reputation of one comics writer or graphic novel artist over another; i don't read them and i'm not an avowed fan of any writer. but his influence and plaudits within the industry seem patently obvious enough. he is spoken about in the same reverence and regard as other writers like frank miller. that seems enough qualification for me.

time magazine ranked watchmen no. 1 of the best graphic novels of all time. in the same ranks as works by spiegelman, miller, sim, etc.
https://entertainment.time.com/2009/03/ … /watchmen/

irrelevant? wasn't the same property just optioned into a HBO tv series? the news media were full of thinkpieces and hot takes about 'woke watchmen' all of a year ago. having international media talking about your creations is a weird sort of 'irrelevance'.

HBO's Watchmen review: the show of the year - Vox
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/10/17/ … king-comic

the UK press have covered all of his recent literary forays and non-comics work. features, interviews, reviews, etc. you can read PR fluff pieces and career retrospectives in several major newspapers in the last few years. i don't think he's struggling for publicity, actually.

Goodbye, Alan Moore: the king of comics bows out
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ … s-bows-out

you do an awful lot of posturing and sweating to just deflect from the fact that you only engage with kid's media. writing long reviews here on wonder woman and then meanwhile putting on your pretentious monocle to declare alan moore 'a lesser talent'. lmao. my god man you are just so fucking funny.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-10 03:40:39)

dilbert: the ultra-rationalist modern scientific man who likes to justify his creepy fixations on children's entertainments and sexualised animals by ... claiming ancient mythical pedigrees.

stories about some berk wandering around trimming hedges, or waiting for an inheritance are the aberration and will be forgotten.

except those incredibly boring tales, of peregrinations like chaucer's canterbury tales (1476) or bunyan's pilgrim's progress (1678), are still being read. and not a single superhero, magic power, evil villain, or wizard battle in either of them.

talk about berks trimming hedges: robinson crusoe (1719) and daniel defoe are still widely read, and they're 300 years old. entire chapters listing inventory on a desert island. the invention of prose realism and the novel in english. pages and pages of description without point. imagine! an antique predecessor to all those adventure movies, to be sure. there was even a tom hanks one! clearly a lot of people are very bored by tales of ordinary people. the book could be much improved if a nubile actress in hotpants turned up and started deflecting evil nazi bullets from her mythical bracers.

i guess you're talking about jane austen-style bourgeois novels re: 'waiting for inheritances'. well, people are still regularly LARPing around bath's royal crescents in austen costume and tuning in to watch lurid television adaptations of the same tales (see Bridgerton), 200 years after publication.

how long is it until these things are meant to be forgotten? books which took as their subject pedestrian, ordinary lives are justly celebrated in their national literatures. boccaccio's decameron was a prosy trundle through local folk intrigues and day-to-day happenings in the era of the black death. that's 650 years old. it's still considered one of the 3 or 4 'essential' pieces of italian literature, celebrated precisely, in fact, because it gave the italians a sense of themselves, it being the first work written in the vernacular italian and not clerical latin, and it being about 'berks trimming the hedges' and not the high fantasy superhero epic the church were stuffing down their throats.

even outside of the western perspective and canon, and our publishing history, in korea the most famous set of tales in their national history is literally about 'berks wandering around'. it's called the chunhyangjeon and tells the tale of a bunch of low-caste outsiders wandering around the countryside, reflecting on and satirising social mores, as well as the iniquities and hypocrisies of the confucian class system. these stories have been in circulation since at least the 1600s, and every literate schoolkid is familiar with them or the character archetypes (much like commedia dell'arte's stock characters, our dear pierrot).

how many of the MCU universe movies do you think are going to last for 500+ years, mate? can you even name me the top comic superheroes or -villains from 100 years ago? of the 1920s? are you intimately familiar with captain blood and count orlok? whatever happened to 'bumba the jungle boy' or 'moon maid', anyway? because a lot of people know who robinson crusoe is. a lot of people are still very passionate about dashing mr. darcy or young david copperfield. about the only old comic characters i can recall are tintin, popeye and bunch of sub-lovecraftian monsters.

i think, considering the material evidence in our common culture, that the pressure of 'surviving the test of time' is entirely on the pulpy and forgettable comic franchises, tbh. novels and tales of unfortunately ordinary people’s travails seem to be in rude health after half a millennium or more. it’s likely they would have always been perennial interests if there had actually been vernacular language printing presses to distribute them, not to mention literate audiences to receive them, derp.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-10 06:52:43)

the only truly 'aberrant' thing in any discussions of fantastical/mythical/speculative art versus comparatively realist/psychological/social types of art is that dilbert foreswears entirely off one type of them. most people consume both equally and have done throughout all of human history.

imagine immediately turning off or having no interest in any sort of film, prose, painting, drama, etc, that takes as its subject human problems or interpersonal relationships. with other human experiences and perspectives, on this all-too-mundane, unfortunately non-magical world. of stories that say something about people, or families, or society and the way the world turns.

dilbert is singularly uninterested in other human beings. that's the only really aberrant thing, here. there's terms for that in medical dictionaries. most well-adjusted people have no problem enjoying both lord of the rings and victor hugo.

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/157 … BS6Q8iUlug

💯

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

He has gone on record saying he's not even interested in why Power Girl made him shed a tear. The mechanisms of color, music, and shots that tug at your emotions. What they did right, what they got wrong, and generally why. Even within his own niche he seems rather disengaged. I honestly have no idea how to get such a person to expand their horizons.

Think where we'd be if the average person in-depth analysed their own religiosity.

I'm sure people sometimes wonder if furryism is the true path.

Not really sure how anyone with any intelligence would take religion with any seriousness at all TBH.

I'd say most people go to church for family reasons and fear of death, there's no deep thinking involved.