NP Wednesday December 11, 2019

[hkmaly 490]

15 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

19 hours ago, hkmaly said:

How?

Did you really forget that timeline I showed like literally FOUR POSTS above this one that fast?

Ok, let me ask again as it seems I misunderstood the context:

Do you think that non-murderous Batman would lower crime more than Batman who occasionally kill (in self-defense or by failing to save them when they for example charge at him and he dodges and they fall), and if so, how?

15 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Also, that is even granting your glib assumption of automatic escape. Which is not necessarily automatic in real life, I understand. OR in games.

In real life, most people will get out of prison BECAUSE they are not there for live. Granted, it takes years, but they may still be dangerous.

In Batman universe, meanwhile, the escape seems quite automatic. At least based on what I saw ... I'm not so big expert on Batman as ChronosCat.

6 hours ago, Scotty said:

Actually, just thought of something, Wayne totally missed an opportunity when Edward Nygma proposed a device that tapped into people's minds, might have been able to use it to reform criminals or something, and at the same time prevented Edward from turning criminal.

Yes.

6 hours ago, Scotty said:

I got the impression that in-universe then entire legal system is corrupt (except for Commissioner Gordon who's been in a losing battle trying to clean things up) and Arkham Asylum has basically become a place for the villains to regroup and plan for the next time.

That's quite likely actually. Isn't the premise that whole city is corrupt?

3 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

6 hours ago, Scotty said:

I got the impression that in-universe then entire legal system is corrupt (except for Commissioner Gordon who's been in a losing battle trying to clean things up) and Arkham Asylum has basically become a place for the villains to regroup and plan for the next time.

Depends on the timeline and what part of his story arc it is.

In the 1966 Batman show, he was working with the Police officially. (And the Police were fully lawful good, if a bit over-eager to call in Batman to do their jobs for them.)

In the comics, post Crisis On Infinite Earths and pre New 52, he started as a criminal vigilante hunted by the corrupt police (in Year One), but eventually became an unofficial ally of the Police (who were no longer corrupt under Gordon's leadership). In the present-day comics I read in the 90s, the Police officially denied working with him, but everyone in Gotham knew that was a lie.

The first Tim Burton Batman followed a similar arc to the post-Crisis Batman minus the police trying to hunt him down. (I don't remember exactly how things were handled in Batman Returns and the Schumacher films, but I know Batman worked with the Police and they didn't show much signs of corruption in those movies.)

The Dark Knight Trilogy had Batman as a hunted vigilante, but as far as I remember in that version the police weren't corrupt at all, they just didn't have a good opinion of vigilantes (and of course at the end of the Dark Knight, Batman gave them more reason to hunt him).

Oh, someone who actually knows Batman. So, what is the explanation in present-day comics why the villains are escaping from the asylum all the time? Or did they stopped escaping?

 

 

[ChronosCat 155]

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Oh, someone who actually knows Batman. So, what is the explanation in present-day comics why the villains are escaping from the asylum all the time? Or did they stopped escaping?

Actually, I stopped reading Batman comics (and most other American superhero comics) in 2003 because I lost faith in the ability/desire of the writers to tell the sorts of stories I wanted to read. I've heard a bit about what's happened since, but that does not include the current state of Arkham Asylum. I would be shocked if the Asylum or whatever facility replaced it wasn't still a revolving door though; American comic book writers have always liked to re-use villains endlessly and I have no reason to believe that has changed.

Back in the 90s it was mostly just a combination of poor security/management at Arkham (the people in charge weren't very competent) and certain villains being skilled at escaping. There was also at least one mass breakout (at the start of Knightfall, Bane broke into Arkham and released all the inmates so they could soften Batman up for him) and during one crisis (No Man's Land) the staff and management just up and left, letting the inmates free on their way out (one would think they would have done time for that themselves, but if so I never read about it). Also, a few villains did manage to routinely avoid being imprisoned in the first place; I don't think Ra's Al Ghul was ever caught during the time I read the comic, and the first (and as far as I know only) time Catwoman was sent to prison in the Post-Crisis timeline, it was a huge event in her comic.

[hkmaly 490]

19 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

There was also at least one mass breakout (at the start of Knightfall, Bane broke into Arkham and released all the inmates so they could soften Batman up for him)

This actually makes more sense than the inmates escaping individually.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

10 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Oh, someone who actually knows Batman. So, what is the explanation in present-day comics why the villains are escaping from the asylum all the time? Or did they stopped escaping?

The not in-universe meta reason is that's basically how comic book narrative works, Even in old school comics, you may have frequent one-offs, but you always come back to the recognizable antagonists, I suppose because it sells comics, or is at least perceived to. Even death of a character tends to be impermanent. If this seems shallow to you, you probably don't read classic comic books.

Many modern comics avoid this through various mechanisms. Watchmen has death of important characters, villains don't come back out of the woodwork; it is considered to be edgy and well written; but it is more like a novel than a comic series, and someone who actually reads it correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it has wrapped up so ongoing sales is not an issue. SIn City is of this style, you can see in the movies that main characters die off. Another approach is to not have antagonist characters, always fight mooks. Dirty Pair comes to mind. Or if you have an antagonist, just never catch him; perhaps the antagonist is an aggregate, like the Kzinti.

In-universe, the antagonists are super-geniuses, they have confederates in the system (Harley Quinn was a prison psychologist, iirc), they have sharp lawyers, they are filthy rich, they serve their time even (especially if they are a character that the comic has put on the shelf for a while).

It's a successful model, the Marvel and DC movies make far more bank than the perhaps more polished Watchmen and Sin City movies.

[hkmaly 490]

12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Oh, someone who actually knows Batman. So, what is the explanation in present-day comics why the villains are escaping from the asylum all the time? Or did they stopped escaping?

The not in-universe meta reason is that's basically how comic book narrative works, Even in old school comics, you may have frequent one-offs, but you always come back to the recognizable antagonists, I suppose because it sells comics, or is at least perceived to. Even death of a character tends to be impermanent. If this seems shallow to you, you probably don't read classic comic books.

Or possibly do read them but don't LIKE them. Although yes, it was one of reasons why I stopped reading them.

Note that it's not that it sells specific issue of comic: it's that it makes possible to sell LOT of them.

12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Many modern comics avoid this through various mechanisms. Watchmen has death of important characters, villains don't come back out of the woodwork; it is considered to be edgy and well written; but it is more like a novel than a comic series, and someone who actually reads it correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it has wrapped up so ongoing sales is not an issue. SIn City is of this style, you can see in the movies that main characters die off. Another approach is to not have antagonist characters, always fight mooks. Dirty Pair comes to mind. Or if you have an antagonist, just never catch him; perhaps the antagonist is an aggregate, like the Kzinti.

I think the X-Men was totally missed opportunity in this regard: I mean, they can easily came up with thousands of antagonists ...

But, like, it's not just the villains: truth is that classical comics was eventually recycling everything and only got away with it because not everyone managed to buy every issue, specifically new readers rarely buy whole history.

12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

In-universe, the antagonists are super-geniuses, they have confederates in the system (Harley Quinn was a prison psychologist, iirc), they have sharp lawyers, they are filthy rich, they serve their time even (especially if they are a character that the comic has put on the shelf for a while).

It should be possible to buy prison where this won't help them. Get inspiration from how Loki was imprisoned. In original, I mean - I know that in the movie he got out.

13 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It's a successful model, the Marvel and DC movies make far more bank than the perhaps more polished Watchmen and Sin City movies.

You can't be sure it's because of THIS. Although it's true that if it would be serious problem Marvel and DC would likely notice.

... personally, I would consider major problem of Watchmen and Sin City lack of superpowers. I mean, Sin City has no superpowers, Watchmen have SOME but not much.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Or possibly do read them but don't LIKE them. Although yes, it was one of reasons why I stopped reading them.

Note that it's not that it sells specific issue of comic: it's that it makes possible to sell LOT of them.

I think the X-Men was totally missed opportunity in this regard: I mean, they can easily came up with thousands of antagonists ...

But, like, it's not just the villains: truth is that classical comics was eventually recycling everything and only got away with it because not everyone managed to buy every issue, specifically new readers rarely buy whole history.

It should be possible to buy prison where this won't help them. Get inspiration from how Loki was imprisoned. In original, I mean - I know that in the movie he got out.

You can't be sure it's because of THIS. Although it's true that if it would be serious problem Marvel and DC would likely notice.

... personally, I would consider major problem of Watchmen and Sin City lack of superpowers. I mean, Sin City has no superpowers, Watchmen have SOME but not much.

Batman doesn't have super powers either, nor do the Robins, Barbara Gordon, nor most (all?) of his villains. Aquaman talks to fish.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

My ability to talk with fish is of no help

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8d5688NiAo

 

[hkmaly 490]

19 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Batman doesn't have super powers either, nor do the Robins, Barbara Gordon, nor most (all?) of his villains. Aquaman talks to fish.

Well, technically, neither does Ironman, but he can be counted between superpowered heroes thanks to his technology.

Batman also uses technology, but not exactly that level ... and I suspect he didn't developed most of it, he has people working for him who do.

He does hang out with superman quite often though, doesn't he? And I already mentioned Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, who are superpowered and are in core set of Batman villains.

But ... well ... it's true that when comparing Batman and Watchmen as comics series the superpowers are not good argument for any side ... so unless DC Comics is only keeping Batman comics viable by crossovers and other financial support from superpower-rich heroes like Superman, Green Lantern and Flash ...

[Darth Fluffy 302]

5 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

My ability to talk with fish is of no help

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8d5688NiAo

Some day, we'll be as developed as you!

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Batman also uses technology, but not exactly that level ... and I suspect he didn't developed most of it, he has people working for him who do.

Yes, but he's Batman.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

He does hang out with superman quite often though, doesn't he?

So does Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane?

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

And I already mentioned Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, who are superpowered and are in core set of Batman villains.

Mr. Freeze without his gun is severely handicapped, he needs cryogenic temperatures to survive. It's a wonder he's lasted an hour outside of the lab.

Spray a little Roundup on Poison Ivy. If it's still legal in their universe.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

But ... well ... it's true that when comparing Batman and Watchmen as comics series the superpowers are not good argument for any side ... so unless DC Comics is only keeping Batman comics viable by crossovers and other financial support from superpower-rich heroes like Superman, Green Lantern and Flash ...

Low powered, conflicted superheros have always been good sellers. They are basically more interesting than Superman, and a good portion of why Marvel has caught up with and surpassed DC.

I mean, you gotta love The Invisible Boy, who can turn invisible, but only if nobody is looking.

This sort of argues that Aquaman should be more popular than he is. I guess talking to fish is just that lame. You couldn't talk about the weather. "It's wet out." "Gee, thanks for the update."

 

 

 

[hkmaly 490]

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And I already mentioned Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, who are superpowered and are in core set of Batman villains.

Mr. Freeze without his gun is severely handicapped, he needs cryogenic temperatures to survive. It's a wonder he's lasted an hour outside of the lab.

Spray a little Roundup on Poison Ivy. If it's still legal in their universe.

Yeah, Batman needs to be very careful to capture them alive.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Low powered, conflicted superheros have always been good sellers. They are basically more interesting than Superman, and a good portion of why Marvel has caught up with and surpassed DC.

I mean, you gotta love The Invisible Boy, who can turn invisible, but only if nobody is looking.

The Invisible Boy is fun gag for single comedy, wouldn't be able to sell more.

True, Superman is TOO powerful ... and too moral. Hard to write interesting stories about him. Interesting hero needs to be something in between, IMHO.

There are lot of good candidates between X-Men.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

True, Superman is TOO powerful ... and too moral. Hard to write interesting stories about him.

'Too moral'? Spare me the bleating of 90s "Pouches and sociopathy are better than characterisation" 'heroes.' Morals sodding MAKE the hero and can be used to generate conflict. The only way a character can be 'too moral' is if the writer has absolutely no idea of how either morals or personal character work.

[hkmaly 490]

22 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

31 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

True, Superman is TOO powerful ... and too moral. Hard to write interesting stories about him.

'Too moral'? Spare me the bleating of 90s "Pouches and sociopathy are better than characterisation" 'heroes.' Morals sodding MAKE the hero and can be used to generate conflict. The only way a character can be 'too moral' is if the writer has absolutely no idea of how either morals or personal character work.

Well if you want to blame the writers incompetency I'm not going to argue. I'm just evaluating the result.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

Just now, hkmaly said:

Well if you want to blame the writers incompetency I'm not going to argue. I'm just evaluating the result.

Unfortunately, the way you did it turns it into a blanket condemnation of the character itself and not a critique of bad writing.

I would like to cite this as an excellent description of how Superman's morals can be a central driving factor in character conflict.

[ijuin 572]

IMO, Superman's morals are also what keeps him from using his powers as an instant "I win". If he had no morals, then he could simply use brute force to defeat his enemies and not care if they were injured or killed, but since he wants to do the minimum amount of harm, he has not only to restrain himself, but also has to come up with clever ways to subdue enemies without harming them, not to mention finding ways to solve hostage situations without the hostages being harmed.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

'Too moral'? Spare me the bleating of 90s "Pouches and sociopathy are better than characterisation" 'heroes.' Morals sodding MAKE the hero and can be used to generate conflict. The only way a character can be 'too moral' is if the writer has absolutely no idea of how either morals or personal character work.

I believe you need a balance. Spiderman is a good example. He's moral, but he's a kid, he screws up, he learns, he grows. It's hard to have character growth with Superman. Most of the stories run toward "Oh, my God, Lois/Jimmy/Lana is in trouble again. There is no forward movement, nothing is ever really resolved.

Batman, on the other hand actually is a vigilante, and any ill will from the police in that regard is fully earned.

A character can be heroic in context, even though not generally heroic. Sin City runs on this trope.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Unfortunately, the way you did it turns it into a blanket condemnation of the character itself and not a critique of bad writing.

I would like to cite this as an excellent description of how Superman's morals can be a central driving factor in character conflict.

That looks like an awesome story, I'd be interested in reading more, but it doesn't really break what is being said. Yes Superman is being Superman, but there wouldn't even be a story without the #@&!ed up situation that Billy is in. It is interesting specifically because they brought in a vulnerable Spiderman type character.

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The Invisible Boy is fun gag for single comedy, wouldn't be able to sell more.

Fair point. I've never read the series, only saw the movie. "I'm The Shoveler. I shovel well." In that context it was a good laugh, but yes, it was a one off.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It's hard to have character growth with Superman.

Complete nonsense. It is just a question of competent writing. The problem lies in status-quo-ism and in prejudice against the character.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Batman, on the other hand actually is a vigilante, and any ill will from the police in that regard is fully earned.

That greatly depends on the writer. In certain eras Batman is a firm ally of the law, in others he is a grudgingly tolerated private investigator, in still others he is a bitter vigilante convinced that the law has failed and that only by taking matters into his own hands can anything get accomplished at all.

In Stage Four Miller, of course, he is a mere murderous psychopath with nothing heroic about him at all. He abuses children, he tortures and murders criminals, he kills police officers that try to stop his rampage with the blanket excuse that they are all corrupt and he operates entirely from his own warped conception of wrong and right -- and his firm belief that might makes right as long as it is him doing it.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

A character can be heroic in context, even though not generally heroic. Sin City runs on this trope.

Stage Two Frank Miller, tending toward Stage Three near the end. And I disagree. Heroism is not merely context. It is possible for a bad person to obtain good results, but if these good results are inadvertent or do long term damage, they do not redeem the person in question. Stalin helped take down Hitler. This did not make him a good person.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Yes Superman is being Superman, but there wouldn't even be a story without the #@&!ed up situation that Billy is in.

It supports my position. In well written stories he is an excellent character. In the clichéd monster of the week story where Jimmy or Lois play the Dumbass in Distress there is nothing to write about.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Complete nonsense. It is just a question of competent writing. The problem lies in status-quo-ism and in prejudice against the character.

It supports my position. In well written stories he is an excellent character. In the clichéd monster of the week story where Jimmy or Lois play the Dumbass in Distress there is nothing to write about.

I agree that it is a question of competent writing, and your example does show that. This Superman is uncharacteristically interesting; some emphasis on uncharacteristically. You are basically saying "Most Superman stories are badly written." I could go with that; a totally perfect character is hard to write for.

 

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

That greatly depends on the writer. In certain eras Batman is a firm ally of the law, in others he is a grudgingly tolerated private investigator, in still others he is a bitter vigilante convinced that the law has failed and that only by taking matters into his own hands can anything get accomplished at all.

In Stage Four Miller, of course, he is a mere murderous psychopath with nothing heroic about him at all. He abuses children, he tortures and murders criminals, he kills police officers that try to stop his rampage with the blanket excuse that they are all corrupt and he operates entirely from his own warped conception of wrong and right -- and his firm belief that might makes right as long as it is him doing it.

You know more about it than I do; I am not familiar with the Frank Miller version; it sounds awful.

 

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Stage Two Frank Miller, tending toward Stage Three near the end. And I disagree. Heroism is not merely context. It is possible for a bad person to obtain good results, but if these good results are inadvertent or do long term damage, they do not redeem the person in question. Stalin helped take down Hitler. This did not make him a good person.

I don't think it's a fair analogy. Sin City has antihero characters making moral choices to play the hero role. WWII has Stalin change sides for mutual self interest after he is invaded, and even then he's a scummy character; he mistreats his own troops, he virtually enslaves "liberated" territory, and he frequently backstabs his allies. There is a reason Germans wanted to surrender to the West.

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

2 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I agree that it is a question of competent writing, and your example does show that. This Superman is uncharacteristically interesting; some emphasis on uncharacteristically. You are basically saying "Most Superman stories are badly written." I could go with that; a totally perfect character is hard to write for.

A totally perfect character is impossible to write for. Where the writers go wrong is not in Superman's morals. It is in focusing on his powers as the drivers of the plot and not his very human limitations.

3 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

You know more about it than I do; I am not familiar with the Frank Miller version; it sounds awful.

First of all, let me apologise for using the cancer equivalent in describing Miller. I loathe him and consider his latter works in particular to be hateful and destructive of character, but there was no need to implicate the hapless victims of cancer in this.

But apart from that: Miller's Batman has indeed done all of these things. Particularly in the latter half of his career Miller has turned to tooth-grindingly misogynistic and racist narratives glorifying vigilantism and scorning anything resembling justice as opposed to vengeance.

8 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I don't think it's a fair analogy. Sin City has antihero characters making moral choices to play the hero role. WWII has Stalin change sides for mutual self interest after he is invaded, and even then he's a scummy character; he mistreats his own troops, he virtually enslaves "liberated" territory, and he frequently backstabs his allies. There is a reason Germans wanted to surrender to the West.

Hmmm. You may be right. The problem is that toward the end of Sin City and flagrantly in nearly everything he wrote post-Sin City, he abandoned even pretense at sympathetic heroes and turned to characters whose heroism was purely performative and 'because the writer says so.'

[Darth Fluffy 302]

5 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

A totally perfect character is impossible to write for. Where the writers go wrong is not in Superman's morals. It is in focusing on his powers as the drivers of the plot and not his very human limitations.

First of all, let me apologise for using the cancer equivalent in describing Miller. I loathe him and consider his latter works in particular to be hateful and destructive of character, but there was no need to implicate the hapless victims of cancer in this.

But apart from that: Miller's Batman has indeed done all of these things. Particularly in the latter half of his career Miller has turned to tooth-grindingly misogynistic and racist narratives glorifying vigilantism and scorning anything resembling justice as opposed to vengeance.

Hmmm. You may be right. The problem is that toward the end of Sin City and flagrantly in nearly everything he wrote post-Sin City, he abandoned even pretense at sympathetic heroes and turned to characters whose heroism was purely performative and 'because the writer says so.'

Re: Frank Miller, again, going to have to bow to your superior knowledge of the subject matter. I've read enough to know some tropes but not in depth trends.

Your spin on Superman sounds accurate.

 

[hkmaly 490]

15 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

18 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The Invisible Boy is fun gag for single comedy, wouldn't be able to sell more.

Fair point. I've never read the series, only saw the movie. "I'm The Shoveler. I shovel well." In that context it was a good laugh, but yes, it was a one off.

There IS series?

9 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

11 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Complete nonsense. It is just a question of competent writing. The problem lies in status-quo-ism and in prejudice against the character.

It supports my position. In well written stories he is an excellent character. In the clichéd monster of the week story where Jimmy or Lois play the Dumbass in Distress there is nothing to write about.

I agree that it is a question of competent writing, and your example does show that. This Superman is uncharacteristically interesting; some emphasis on uncharacteristically. You are basically saying "Most Superman stories are badly written." I could go with that; a totally perfect character is hard to write for.

This is the direction I was heading to.

9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

A totally perfect character is impossible to write for. Where the writers go wrong is not in Superman's morals. It is in focusing on his powers as the drivers of the plot and not his very human limitations.

Technically, totally perfect character is impossible to write for interestingly. There are plenty of authors who won't be stopped by that. The usual term is Mary Sue, although that term got very overused ... and, in discussion about Mary Sue, there were proof of concepts for the idea that no character is so Mary Sue it would be impossible to write for them: you just reveal imperfections in areas original author didn't touched.

And, really, there are no stories without authors (unless it HAPPENS, but even documents and history books have authors). Saying that Superman is kind of character which is hard to write for and saying that most writers fail to write for superman is exactly same just from different angle.

16 hours ago, ijuin said:

IMO, Superman's morals are also what keeps him from using his powers as an instant "I win". If he had no morals, then he could simply use brute force to defeat his enemies and not care if they were injured or killed, but since he wants to do the minimum amount of harm, he has not only to restrain himself, but also has to come up with clever ways to subdue enemies without harming them, not to mention finding ways to solve hostage situations without the hostages being harmed.

... that's good point. Superman without moral would be even worse to write for: he has some limitations, but turning his morality into limitation is quite effective way to make the story interesting. Now, if only more authors would be able to pull this off, SHOW how the morality is limiting him, instead of making it look like he's so overpowered he can be moral just to make the defeat feel worse for his opponents ...

(Thinking about it, it may be even harder in movie as opposed to comics ... so creating opinion about superman mostly based on movies might not be best way.)

9 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Re: Frank Miller, again, going to have to bow to your superior knowledge of the subject matter. I've read enough to know some tropes but not in depth trends.

I suspect I know him even less. Looking at films he influenced, the ones I saw were not really THAT close to his writing, possibly except 300 which ... well ... I don't think morality is the problem of this movie.

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

There IS series?

Yes, and it took some research to ferret out what it's called. The Mystery Men series is a Golden Age franchise that has nothing to do with the movie. The movie is derived from Flaming Carrot Comics.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I suspect I know him (Frank Miller) even less. Looking at films he influenced, the ones I saw were not really THAT close to his writing, possibly except 300 which ... well ... I don't think morality is the problem of this movie.

 

It's not entirely not based on what happened. They at least got the number right. And the name of the king.

 

[hkmaly 490]

9 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I suspect I know him (Frank Miller) even less. Looking at films he influenced, the ones I saw were not really THAT close to his writing, possibly except 300 which ... well ... I don't think morality is the problem of this movie.

 

It's not entirely not based on what happened. They at least got the number right. And the name of the king.

Yeah. And they fight in the exactly same style which in real history was used by german tribes and was reason Romans were usually winning against them.

(Ok, that might be exaggeration ... but really, I don't think they would hold the pass that long like this. It's historical fact they used phalanx formation, but that wouldn't show they abs so prominently.)