• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
CritterKeeper

NP Weds July 26, 2017

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yes, and that attitude is totally out of proportion. Even Sauron gave humans nine rings. For that matter, he gave seven to the dwarves and helped the elves forge three more. If you include his own, that's twenty rings in all. What would a couple of handfuls of Lantern rings matter against that? But nooooooooo.

Actually, he helped elves with creating the other rings, but the last three were done by Celebrimbor without Sauron's help. When he tried to use the One ring to rule over other rings, elves noticed and took off their rings, so Sauron attacked with army and took 16 rings while the last three were hidden. It IS possible that more than 20 rings was made and the others just didn't survive the war.

Sauron might not be so eager to give humans 9 rings if the elves didn't do most of the work.

2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

The villain is always a threat to the status-quo and the hero is obliged to support it.  Comics have tried to get away from or subvert this to some degree and the value of their work has tended to decline as a result.

I wouldn't think THIS is the reason. With the status quo getting less and less attractive to people, heroes who are actually changing status quo gets more popular. But there is one problem: if the hero changes the status quo, it means the story has distinct beginning and end ; you can't just continue. When hero protects the status quo, he can protect it as long as the writers get paid for it.

Note that Aragorn and Frodo were NOT protecting status quo. They helped to end third age. Granted, Sauron was planing to change the status quo as well.

Those kids in Narnia were NOT protecting status quo. They ended the reign of queen Jadis who was totally protecting status quo.

Luke Skywalker was NOT protecting status quo. He ended the Galactic Empire. Which his father helped to build from Galactic Republic ... which lasted tens of thousands years (ok, it was the Old Republic which lasted so long, still, Galactic Republic lasted thousand years).

And for something newer: Neo totally wasn't protecting status quo. The machines were - and got increasingly efficient with it :)

(There are also lot of heroes who didn't have such ambitions and wanted just to get home. Like Bilbo Baggins ... oh wait, he actually helped to kill one of the last dragons and made sure the North will be protected when the next party will go South to deal with Sauron. Not exactly keeping status quo, is it?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(There are also lot of heroes who didn't have such ambitions and wanted just to get home. Like Bilbo Baggins ... oh wait, he actually helped to kill one of the last dragons and made sure the North will be protected when the next party will go South to deal with Sauron. Not exactly keeping status quo, is it?)

Vorlonagent did say 'tended to.' And using a work like Tolkien's is not completely fair precisely because it was so original and seminal. It is in the main field of less brilliant artists (that still include some excellent works, mind you) that our good agent's rule works best. If you look at Superman's long, long run from the 50s onward, most of it has indeed been as protector of the status quo. It was less so right after he appeared, mind -- then he was a vigilante whom if he did not precisely scorn the status quo nonetheless often treated it in a quite cavalier manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Vorlonagent did say 'tended to.' And using a work like Tolkien's is not completely fair precisely because it was so original and seminal. It is in the main field of less brilliant artists (that still include some excellent works, mind you) that our good agent's rule works best. If you look at Superman's long, long run from the 50s onward, most of it has indeed been as protector of the status quo. It was less so right after he appeared, mind -- then he was a vigilante whom if he did not precisely scorn the status quo nonetheless often treated it in a quite cavalier manner.

What about Batman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Vorlonagent did say 'tended to.' And using a work like Tolkien's is not completely fair precisely because it was so original and seminal. It is in the main field of less brilliant artists (that still include some excellent works, mind you) that our good agent's rule works best. If you look at Superman's long, long run from the 50s onward, most of it has indeed been as protector of the status quo. It was less so right after he appeared, mind -- then he was a vigilante whom if he did not precisely scorn the status quo nonetheless often treated it in a quite cavalier manner.

I'm not sure if I get what exactly Vorlonagent was trying to say, but my point was that it's unfair to blame experiments with heroes who do not protect status quo for low quality of mass comics production. (Personally, I would suspect the "mass" bit - I mean, that expecting most comics would be good is too optimistic given how many of them is produced.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I'm not sure if I get what exactly Vorlonagent was trying to say, but my point was that it's unfair to blame experiments with heroes who do not protect status quo for low quality of mass comics production. (Personally, I would suspect the "mass" bit - I mean, that expecting most comics would be good is too optimistic given how many of them is produced.)

 

But it is largely what heroes do. Even the immensely well-crafted Watchmen by Alan Moore featured heroes that attempted to preserve the status quo. Ultimately they failed to do so (or did they? That ending seems to hint that Rorschach reached out from beyond the grave) but nonetheless that was mostly what the main cast sought to do.

There are exceptions. The Authority features revolutionary heroes, but I dislike the comic because it is 1) a fascist revolution and 2) the negative sides of their revolution get whitewashed out. There was an 80s Squadron Supreme miniseries that told a similar story but did it not better, ultimately turning into a confrontation between revolutionary and reactionary heroes. Then there is the amazing Kingdom Come by Mark Waid and Alex Ross that once again told a story like this one but with its own take on it.

The problem is, of course, that many actions deemed heroic are inherently aimed towards the status quo -- saving lives is maintaining the status quo, stopping disasters the same, keeping destructive villains from damaging society likewise so. It is possible to combine this with a revolutionary hero but the result is almost invariably strongly political in nature no matter what the creator may intend. The unfortunately named cheerleader-themed heroine, as the good God-King likes to call her, is in a way a revolutionary heroine simply by nature of being genderfluid -- and once again, that is a strongly political statement these days.

The most persistently revolutionary-themed heroes I know of are literal revolutionaries. Resistance fighters during WWII, the main characters in American Revolutionary War stories and of course escaping slaves/abolitionists. They all have in common that they are underdogs fighting an oppressive regime. And once again, that kind of story tends to be intensely political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I wouldn't think THIS is the reason. With the status quo getting less and less attractive to people, heroes who are actually changing status quo gets more popular. But there is one problem: if the hero changes the status quo, it means the story has distinct beginning and end ; you can't just continue. When hero protects the status quo, he can protect it as long as the writers get paid for it.

Dissatisfaction with the status quo was why comics writers (and increasingly editors who want to write or plot from their editor's desk) are uncomfortable  supporting it.  Some loss of quality is also due to ideology, contemporary politics and virtue-signalling being mixed into the writing as well but this isn't the thread to discuss that part.

17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note that Aragorn and Frodo were NOT protecting status quo. They helped to end third age. Granted, Sauron was planing to change the status quo as well.

Yes they were. 

The Scouring of the Shire was a return to the status quo that existed from before Frodo left.  Destroying the One Ring aborted a new dark age that would have further changed the status quo of Hobbiton from what Saruman was already doing.

Aragorn's ascendance to the throne of Gondor was a "Return of the King", the resumption of a long-buried status quo .  Also it was the resumption of a ruler (call him King or Steward) who was, in fact, sane.  I presume sanity in the soverign was the status quo for more of Gondor's existence.  I could be wrong.

17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Those kids in Narnia were NOT protecting status quo. They ended the reign of queen Jadis who was totally protecting status quo.

Luke Skywalker was NOT protecting status quo. He ended the Galactic Empire. Which his father helped to build from Galactic Republic ... which lasted tens of thousands years (ok, it was the Old Republic which lasted so long, still, Galactic Republic lasted thousand years).

IIRC,  the Queen had not been in power all that long.  Deposing her didn't create something new, but resumed life more or less as before.

Same thing for the Empire.  The Empire was still consolidating its hold on the Galaxy after nearly 20 years.  It was a deviation from the status quo of relatively benevolent rulership and Luke helped push the galaxy back toward that status quo. 

Fast-forward to the Episode 7-8 timeframe, the trailers for Episode 8 suggest a movement to something new (not resuming the status quo) with Luke's line, "The Jedi must die".

17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And for something newer: Neo totally wasn't protecting status quo. The machines were - and got increasingly efficient with it :)

Are you sure about that?  I'm going to take just The Matrix by itself because the Watchowskis made a mess of their own universe with Reloaded and Revolutions.  Neo was fighting for the survival of the human race in any form besides as a power source for the AIs.  Zion, the last human city, was the status quo Neo supported.  You are correct that in the artificial world of The matrix, he was a revolutionary.

17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(There are also lot of heroes who didn't have such ambitions and wanted just to get home. Like Bilbo Baggins ... oh wait, he actually helped to kill one of the last dragons and made sure the North will be protected when the next party will go South to deal with Sauron. Not exactly keeping status quo, is it?)

If you mean getting Smaug angry enough to attack the nearby town where a guy lives with the convenient means of killing said dragon, yes.  Bilbo's contribution to ending the dragon threat mostly got a lot of people killed however.  But I would point out the town's status quo was "no rampaging dragon".

But after questioning all of you examples, I'll agree with your point.  :).  Heroes do not always support the status quo.  That's clearly too small a box.  In fact the archetypal hero of Joseph Campbell is and must be a revolutionary.  By definition he or she comes back home with something new.  In superheroes that's represented by the powers they have.  Superhero stories don't focus on the journey to get the powers, they focus on what happens once they are back home with their powers.

When superheroes save lives, homes, cities, planets, galaxies and universes from destruction or worse, that is by definition a support for the status quo.  When they act to overturn governments, hurt or kill people that's villainy. 

The line is blurred in comics today.  Both the Punisher and Venom began life as villains.  Who they are, their motives and methods haven't changed, but the morals of the real world into which they are published have changed to the point where they are now heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Vorlonagent did say 'tended to.' And using a work like Tolkien's is not completely fair precisely because it was so original and seminal. It is in the main field of less brilliant artists (that still include some excellent works, mind you) that our good agent's rule works best. If you look at Superman's long, long run from the 50s onward, most of it has indeed been as protector of the status quo. It was less so right after he appeared, mind -- then he was a vigilante whom if he did not precisely scorn the status quo nonetheless often treated it in a quite cavalier manner.

DC's marketing dept, writers and editors have had a very very hard time making Superman change with the times.  That's why they killed him, changed his powers split him in two and the gods know what else.  It's as if the character himself is saying "no" to DC.  I consider "Kingdom come" to be great commentary on both the classic Superman and the darker more marketable heroes that sprung up since the mid-80s.

15 hours ago, Scotty said:

What about Batman?

he breaks the rules but supports the society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vorlonagent said:

he breaks the rules but supports the society. 

I was mainly curious as to what was considered the status quo in Gotham City. There was a fair bit of corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty said:

I was mainly curious as to what was considered the status quo in Gotham City. There was a fair bit of corruption.

If you think of the status quo as people able to go about their daily business as they see fit, then yeah.  But he doesn't affirm the gloomy corrupt aspect of the status quo, so you get a mixed bag that is a qualified yes or qualified no depending on how you want to view it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

But it is largely what heroes do.

Yes. Especially comics heroes are preserving status quo a lot. That's wasn't what I argued against. I was talking about the minority of cases where they don't.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The problem is, of course, that many actions deemed heroic are inherently aimed towards the status quo -- saving lives is maintaining the status quo, stopping disasters the same, keeping destructive villains from damaging society likewise so. It is possible to combine this with a revolutionary hero but the result is almost invariably strongly political in nature no matter what the creator may intend. The unfortunately named cheerleader-themed heroine, as the good God-King likes to call her, is in a way a revolutionary heroine simply by nature of being genderfluid -- and once again, that is a strongly political statement these days.

Yes, fighting against status quo is political statement because you need to describe it good enough to explain WHY the hero fights against it. Meanwhile, you can make story about protecting status quo without describing it enough to make political statement.

Also note that Cheerleadra is NOT fighting against status quo with being genderfluid because her being genderfluid (or transformed and gender-meh) is not public knowledge. Unless you count people who both believe Voltaire and correctly guessed what he spoke about - despite the Cheerleadra sightings disproving that.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Destroying the One Ring aborted a new dark age that would have further changed the status quo of Hobbiton from what Saruman was already doing.

Destroying the One Ring destroyed Sauron's empire. Not exactly preserving status quo, especially if you realize that fighting Sauron was basically status quo since Melkor's defeat.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Aragorn's ascendance to the throne of Gondor was a "Return of the King", the resumption of a long-buried status quo. 

Replacing one status quo with other is not preserving status quo.

Note that I did mentioned that Sauron wanted to change the status quo more than the heroes, so it can be said that they tried to preserve status quo and just weren't completely successful. But I would say that lot of people believed Aragorn as king will do plenty of changes.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

IIRC,  the Queen had not been in power all that long.  Deposing her didn't create something new, but resumed life more or less as before.

One hundred years. And what followed wasn't exactly same as before either, although it presumably returned to previous status quo when the children disappeared. Then other humans came of course ...

And, again, replacing one status quo with other is not preserving status quo anymore. For example, attempts to recreate Roman Empire are generally not seen as preserving status quo ...

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Are you sure about that?  I'm going to take just The Matrix by itself because the Watchowskis made a mess of their own universe with Reloaded and Revolutions.  Neo was fighting for the survival of the human race in any form besides as a power source for the AIs.  Zion, the last human city, was the status quo Neo supported.  You are correct that in the artificial world of The matrix, he was a revolutionary.

When you end with The Matrix, Neo directly SAYS he will change things in end of movie. When you end with Revolutions, the change is already there. Note that Zion is small anomaly, the artificial world is where most people are - and Neo cared more about the Matrix than Zion in first movie.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

If you mean getting Smaug angry enough to attack the nearby town where a guy lives with the convenient means of killing said dragon, yes.  Bilbo's contribution to ending the dragon threat mostly got a lot of people killed however.  But I would point out the town's status quo was "no rampaging dragon".

Wasn't Bilbo originally telling someone about the flaw in Smaug armor? Not in the movie of course.

But, yes: the main thing Bilbo and maybe more importantly Thorin II Oakenshield did was ending the status quo of Smaug occupying the Lonely Mountain by making him angry enough to get himself killed. They also forced start of battle of five armies, which Sauron would definitely prefer to happen later.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

But after questioning all of you examples, I'll agree with your point.  :).  Heroes do not always support the status quo.  That's clearly too small a box.  In fact the archetypal hero of Joseph Campbell is and must be a revolutionary.  By definition he or she comes back home with something new.  In superheroes that's represented by the powers they have.  Superhero stories don't focus on the journey to get the powers, they focus on what happens once they are back home with their powers.

When superheroes save lives, homes, cities, planets, galaxies and universes from destruction or worse, that is by definition a support for the status quo.  When they act to overturn governments, hurt or kill people that's villainy. 

My point wasn't (just) that heroes don't support the status quo. As I already said, I was commenting that heroes who don't support the status quo can still make good stories. I agree that most superheroes spend most of their time supporting status quo. I would even say some of them support status quo so well (and long) it's getting boring, therefore not good story.

54 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:
3 hours ago, Scotty said:

I was mainly curious as to what was considered the status quo in Gotham City. There was a fair bit of corruption.

If you think of the status quo as people able to go about their daily business as they see fit, then yeah.  But he doesn't affirm the gloomy corrupt aspect of the status quo, so you get a mixed bag that is a qualified yes or qualified no depending on how you want to view it.

Batman is trying hard to both protect the status quo for normal people and change the status quo for politicians. His results seems to be that both statui quo holds, meaning he failed in his revolutionary aspect.

The authorities are so corrupt they were still not able to execute Joker, despite repeated proofs they are not able to keep him in jail!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Destroying the One Ring destroyed Sauron's empire. Not exactly preserving status quo, especially if you realize that fighting Sauron was basically status quo since Melkor's defeat.

The status Quo was "no orcs in Gondor"  Suron's presence raised the threat of a destroyed status quo.  Destorying the Ring ended the threat, status quo restored.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

And, again, replacing one status quo with other is not preserving status quo anymore. For example, attempts to recreate Roman Empire are generally not seen as preserving status quo ...

You don't see that as attempting to return to the status quo under Rome?  I do.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

When you end with The Matrix, Neo directly SAYS he will change things in end of movie. When you end with Revolutions, the change is already there. Note that Zion is small anomaly, the artificial world is where most people are - and Neo cared more about the Matrix than Zion in first movie

I already agreed that within the matrix Neo was a revolutionary.  Except he wasn't. he never fulfilled the promises he made at the end of The Matrix.  he never showed the people a world without the AIs.  he never exposed the falseness of their world.

The end of Revolutions was unsatisfying exactly because the status quo of "machines in power, humans as slaves" was affirmed.  Zion would continue to be allowed to exist because it served the machines' purpose of acting as a safety valve for the Matrix, just as it always had.  Humanity would continue to be enslaved just as it always had been.  The only thing that Neo did was keep a viral AI (Agent Smith) from changing things.  That is literally all Neo did.  Nothing else mattered.   There have been a bunch of "The Ones" exactly like Neo before and there will be a bunch more after him.  the legends of The One were just stories about The One before Neo.  The next One will hear stories about Neo.  Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

...which is why I discuss The Matrix by itself.  I really dislike the endless useless human striving for freedom which only serves to support the actual slavery.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Wasn't Bilbo originally telling someone about the flaw in Smaug armor? Not in the movie of course.

But, yes: the main thing Bilbo and maybe more importantly Thorin II Oakenshield did was ending the status quo of Smaug occupying the Lonely Mountain by making him angry enough to get himself killed. They also forced start of battle of five armies, which Sauron would definitely prefer to happen later.

Bilbo may have seen the missing scale when he was in Smaug's treasure room but he didn't as far as I remember, relay that information to the human who shot the black arrow.

I don't remember Sauron expressing a preference about a time frame for the battle of the 5 armies, but it makes straigthforward sense that putti9ng a big pot og gold in front of the elves, dwarves and humans to have them at each other's throats just as Sauron's armies were on the march would have been optimal timing.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

My point wasn't (just) that heroes don't support the status quo. As I already said, I was commenting that heroes who don't support the status quo can still make good stories. I agree that most superheroes spend most of their time supporting status quo. I would even say some of them support status quo so well (and long) it's getting boring, therefore not good story.

That's a writing problem, really.  There's an endless number of good stories to tell.  It was the real world that changed, not the concept growing stale.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

The authorities are so corrupt they were still not able to execute Joker, despite repeated proofs they are not able to keep him in jail!

The Joker is mentally ill.  You don't execute someone because they're sick.  What kind of monster are you?   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

The status Quo was "no orcs in Gondor"  Suron's presence raised the threat of a destroyed status quo.  Destorying the Ring ended the threat, status quo restored.

The status quo of "orcs in Mordor" was totally broken.

46 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

You don't see that as attempting to return to the status quo under Rome?  I do.

... was I too subtle? There was a world war about the topic.

46 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

The end of Revolutions was unsatisfying exactly because the status quo of "machines in power, humans as slaves" was affirmed.  Zion would continue to be allowed to exist because it served the machines' purpose of acting as a safety valve for the Matrix, just as it always had.  Humanity would continue to be enslaved just as it always had been.  The only thing that Neo did was keep a viral AI (Agent Smith) from changing things.  That is literally all Neo did.  Nothing else mattered.   There have been a bunch of "The Ones" exactly like Neo before and there will be a bunch more after him.  the legends of The One were just stories about The One before Neo.  The next One will hear stories about Neo.  Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Machines planed to destroy Zion ... again, to continue the cycle. Neo made them promise they won't, and they, being AIs and not human, will keep the promise. That WILL change things - the destruction and rebuilding of Zion each time it become too powerful was status quo.

Although I agree that I expected more after the end of first Matrix.

46 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Bilbo may have seen the missing scale when he was in Smaug's treasure room but he didn't as far as I remember, relay that information to the human who shot the black arrow.

After Bilbo made it out of Smaug's lair safely, the dragon flew off to Laketown. Bilbo told a thrush to send word to Bard of Smaug's weakness. Bard shot the Black Arrow at the bare spot, killing Smaug and sending him to rot at the bottom of the lake, but destroying part of Lake Town.

46 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I don't remember Sauron expressing a preference about a time frame for the battle of the 5 armies, but it makes straigthforward sense that putti9ng a big pot og gold in front of the elves, dwarves and humans to have them at each other's throats just as Sauron's armies were on the march would have been optimal timing.

Sauron was not POV character obviously, but the fact he lost the battle suggests something. The big pot of gold not protected by dragon anymore obviously forced everyones hand. Sauron DID send an army, but it wasn't in optimal condition.

What Sauron would prefer would be to ALLY with Smaug and make coordinated attack with him. Gandalf specifically wanted Smaug to be destroyed before the "war of the ring" because he feared the possibility. This is mentioned in The Quest of Erebor, part of Unfinished Tales, along with fact that in time of battle of Minas Tirith, there WAS also battle on North which would certainly ended differently if Smaug wasn't be dealt with - Gandalf in fact feared Imladris might've been sieged and Arwen killed.

46 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

That's a writing problem, really.  There's an endless number of good stories to tell.  It was the real world that changed, not the concept growing stale.

There is an endless number of good stories, but comics writers seem to not be able to prove that when they repeat already written story again and again with just minor changes.

46 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

The authorities are so corrupt they were still not able to execute Joker, despite repeated proofs they are not able to keep him in jail!

The Joker is mentally ill.  You don't execute someone because they're sick.  What kind of monster are you?

Practical one. Every time Joker escapes he kills people. Their lives have bigger value than Jokers. Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

There was argument that Batman is responsible, but he isn't, he can't be if he's supposed to remain on side of law. The officials are responsible.

Note that I don't propose killing him on first try. I just conclude that they should've already exhausted all other possibilities. Either they didn't, which suggest they are corrupted or incompetent, or they did, in which case capital punishment is only remaining solution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

The status quo of "orcs in Mordor" was totally broken.

For a little while yes.  It was restored.

33 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

... was I too subtle? There was a world war about the topic.

You might have been. 

Romantisizing Rome doesn't seem a part of WW2 beyond the obvious of italy.  I don't get that from Nazi Germany or japan.

My knowledge of WW1 motivations beyond a webwork of alliances that forced a bunch of nations to fight, is a little murkier.

40 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Machines planed to destroy Zion ... again, to continue the cycle. Neo made them promise they won't, and they, being AIs and not human, will keep the promise. That WILL change things - the destruction and rebuilding of Zion each time it become too powerful was status quo.

Although I agree that I expected more after the end of first Matrix.

A difference that makes no difference s no difference.  If Zion ever actually becomes a threat to machine rule over Earth, I seriously doubt they would keep to a promise made to a dead man.  They'd go in a wipe it out again.  Neo negotiated a brief cessation of periodic destruction of Zion, but the cycle will either return or Zion's continued existence will never be a threat.  Status quo maintained.

48 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I'll concede this one...

49 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Sauron was not POV character obviously, but the fact he lost the battle suggests something. The big pot of gold not protected by dragon anymore obviously forced everyones hand. Sauron DID send an army, but it wasn't in optimal condition.

What Sauron would prefer would be to ALLY with Smaug and make coordinated attack with him. Gandalf specifically wanted Smaug to be destroyed before the "war of the ring" because he feared the possibility. This is mentioned in The Quest of Erebor, part of Unfinished Tales, along with fact that in time of battle of Minas Tirith, there WAS also battle on North which would certainly ended differently if Smaug wasn't be dealt with - Gandalf in fact feared Imladris might've been sieged and Arwen killed.

Forcing Smaug to the forfront early sounds like Gandalf's goal in helping Thorin Oakenshield, not that he said anything...

Sauron may not have sent the orc army.  The rediscovery of The One Ring may have been too soon for Sauron to send an army so much as a bunch of orcs banded together and went to try to take the gold.

53 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

There is an endless number of good stories, but comics writers seem to not be able to prove that when they repeat already written story again and again with just minor changes

Not all comics writers are on a par with Neil Gaiman or Alan Moore.

55 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Practical one. Every time Joker escapes he kills people. Their lives have bigger value than Jokers. Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

There was argument that Batman is responsible, but he isn't, he can't be if he's supposed to remain on side of law. The officials are responsible.

Note that I don't propose killing him on first try. I just conclude that they should've already exhausted all other possibilities. Either they didn't, which suggest they are corrupted or incompetent, or they did, in which case capital punishment is only remaining solution.

That not ho w it works.  A part of the Joke being ruled mentally ill means he cannot be held accountable for his actions.  The sort of summary execution you are talking about is simply not done in the US.  Maybe in Texas but I don't think even in Texas.

In the comics, Jason Todd has made a big deal out of Batma's unwillingness to kill the Joker in reprisal for killing him (Todd - yeah he's back alive again).  As the Red Hood, jason Todd has been built into the sort of batman that marketing always wanted Bruce Wayne to be right down to creating a dark version of DCs trinity with REd Hood, Bizarro and some girl who was more or less a wonder woman wannabe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

... was I too subtle? There was a world war about the topic.

You might have been. 

Romantisizing Rome doesn't seem a part of WW2 beyond the obvious of italy.  I don't get that from Nazi Germany or japan.

My knowledge of WW1 motivations beyond a webwork of alliances that forced a bunch of nations to fight, is a little murkier.

Hmmm ... ok, the connection to Roman Empire itself might not be as direct as I though ... Nazi Germany however saw itself as successor state of Holy Roman Empire. And their salute was supposed to be based on Roman salute, although it might actually be just what was supposed to be Roman salute at that time, the actual Roman works don't seem to display it.

30 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

If Zion ever actually becomes a threat to machine rule over Earth, I seriously doubt they would keep to a promise made to a dead man.

I repeat, they are not human. Human wouldn't keep the promise. Agent Smith wouldn't. But the ruling AI's actually might, and I think that's what the movie is supposed to say.

32 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Forcing Smaug to the forfront early sounds like Gandalf's goal in helping Thorin Oakenshield, not that he said anything...

He didn't said anything to Thorin. I have Unfinished Tales here and he told it to Frodo and Gimli after Aragorn's coronation.

35 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Sauron may not have sent the orc army.  The rediscovery of The One Ring may have been too soon for Sauron to send an army so much as a bunch of orcs banded together and went to try to take the gold.

He was much more ready than Gandalf expected, which was proven when Gandalf with rest of White Council attacked Dol Guldur, where Sauron was at that point. THATS where Gandalf was when he wasn't helping Bilbo and the dwarves, and it IS actually shown in movie. The attack succeeded, but Sauron was already planing to move to Mordor so it was extremely short victory.

However, it's true it is not directly mentioned there if the orc army attacked on Sauron's direct order.

43 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Not all comics writers are on a par with Neil Gaiman or Alan Moore.

And some are VERY far from that.

45 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

That not ho w it works.  A part of the Joke being ruled mentally ill means he cannot be held accountable for his actions.  The sort of summary execution you are talking about is simply not done in the US.  Maybe in Texas but I don't think even in Texas.

There is no real villain similar to Joker. There are lot of them in comics. The law can be changed.

47 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

In the comics, Jason Todd has made a big deal out of Batma's unwillingness to kill the Joker in reprisal for killing him (Todd - yeah he's back alive again).  As the Red Hood, jason Todd has been built into the sort of batman that marketing always wanted Bruce Wayne to be right down to creating a dark version of DCs trinity with REd Hood, Bizarro and some girl who was more or less a wonder woman wannabe.

... I must admit I know more about Middle-earth than about Batman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

a wonder woman wannabe

Cathy Lee Crosby?

As for Criminal Heroes?  Robin Hood, and the movie version transplanted to colonial Los Angeles, Zorro.  The Status Quo was a regent or colonial officials playing fast and loose with Law and Justice in the King's absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also note that Cheerleadra is NOT fighting against status quo with being genderfluid because her being genderfluid (or transformed and gender-meh) is not public knowledge.

But we (the readers) do. In-universe, she is fighting for the status quo. But the story we are reading is very much one fighting the status quo of trans people being erased and deprived of rights.

And with recent developments she may yet turn into a fighter against the status quo since she is trying to provide at least one and possibly many trans people with a better way to express the gender they identify with. If she succeeds, that will be revolutionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I repeat, they are not human. Human wouldn't keep the promise. Agent Smith wouldn't. But the ruling AI's actually might, and I think that's what the movie is supposed to say.

I wouldn't think the machines would have survived this long by being lawful/Stupid.  They made a promise based on gratitude not a suicide pact.  And the end of matrix Revolutions gives us nothing more than the machines' word that they'll play very slightly nicer with free-range humanity.  The fact that they aren't human does not mean they are implicitly trustworthy.

15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

He didn't said anything to Thorin. I have Unfinished Tales here and he told it to Frodo and Gimli after Aragorn's coronation.

"Oh By the way Frodo I shamelessly manipulated your uncle and his dwarf friends, including Gimli's father, but it was all 100 years ago, it was for the greater good and since I died once inbetween there and ascended, I'm not really the same person.  No hard feelings, OK?"

15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

He was much more ready than Gandalf expected, which was proven when Gandalf with rest of White Council attacked Dol Guldur, where Sauron was at that point. THATS where Gandalf was when he wasn't helping Bilbo and the dwarves, and it IS actually shown in movie. The attack succeeded, but Sauron was already planing to move to Mordor so it was extremely short victory.

However, it's true it is not directly mentioned there if the orc army attacked on Sauron's direct order.

Unless Sauron has some mojo that makes all orces automatically follow him 9and he might) word would be still be spreading "Sauron's back!"  It could even be that the orcs getting their butts kicked at the battle of the 5 Armies was what drove the orcs to Sauron.

15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And some are VERY far from that.

There is no real villain similar to Joker. There are lot of them in comics. The law can be changed.

... I must admit I know more about Middle-earth than about Batman.

 

15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And some are VERY far from that.

Definitely.  Comics have tended to idolize artists and ignore writers (with a handful of exceptions, Moore, Gaiman, a few others).  With the graphic novel Kingdom Come, everybody remembers that Alex Ross did the art but who remembers the guy who actually wrote the scenes that Ross so compellingly brought to life?  It wasn't Ross.

15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

There is no real villain similar to Joker. There are lot of them in comics. The law can be changed.

... I must admit I know more about Middle-earth than about Batman.

The more you change the comics earth the less it looks like our earth.   That weakens the reader's ability to relate.  That's where graphic novels (like Kingdom Come) have a place.  Writers and artists can create radically different worlds for a short-term series that wouldn't necessarily hold their popularity for an indefinite length comic.

15 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:
16 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

a wonder woman wannabe

Cathy Lee Crosby?

Her name is Artimis.  I had to dig a little to find it because her name never stuck with me.  Probably still won't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
21 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And poisoning the water supply for the rest of the town for decades to come with a giant rotting corpse.

... that IS something they should've think about, yes ... but they didn't really had that much choice.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

But we (the readers) do. In-universe, she is fighting for the status quo. But the story we are reading is very much one fighting the status quo of trans people being erased and deprived of rights.

And with recent developments she may yet turn into a fighter against the status quo since she is trying to provide at least one and possibly many trans people with a better way to express the gender they identify with. If she succeeds, that will be revolutionary.

I would say it's ELLIOT doing this fighting against status quo, in both cases.

I mean, he is not using Cheerleadra abilities, look or anything for that.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I wouldn't think the machines would have survived this long by being lawful/Stupid.

Explain why they are harvesting energy from humans instead of using nuclear sources then.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

And the end of matrix Revolutions gives us nothing more than the machines' word that they'll play very slightly nicer with free-range humanity. 

They consider the strategy they were using before failure. They are trying to come up with new one. How much nicer it will be to free-range humanity is to be seen, but they are AIs. They don't do revenge. They don't get anything from being mean to people. Successful strategy for them means sustainable, it doesn't matter if humans suffer or not.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

"Oh By the way Frodo I shamelessly manipulated your uncle and his dwarf friends, including Gimli's father, but it was all 100 years ago, it was for the greater good and since I died once inbetween there and ascended, I'm not really the same person.  No hard feelings, OK?"

Did you read it meanwhile? Yes, he mentioned being different person and looking differently at some stuff he did. He also mentioned that he will only give full debriefing on West.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Unless Sauron has some mojo that makes all orces automatically follow him 9and he might)

Well why do you think orcs made no real resistance after Sauron died, while some of the humans allied with him did?

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

The more you change the comics earth the less it looks like our earth.   That weakens the reader's ability to relate.  That's where graphic novels (like Kingdom Come) have a place.  Writers and artists can create radically different worlds for a short-term series that wouldn't necessarily hold their popularity for an indefinite length comic.

NOT changing the comics earth despite lot of reasons for change breaks the suspension of disbelief. I don't think you can do successful indefinitely running comics. Even Garfield starts to look repetitive.

They should START with earth being similar to our earth, then diverge as makes sense given what's happening, and give up and try something else when readers stop to relate.

Or limit themselves to the "advanced" audience who have no problem to relate to elves,  Jedi or Klingons.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Her name is Artimis.  I had to dig a little to find it because her name never stuck with me.  Probably still won't.

Pininterest links don't work. Also, Artimis? Not Artemis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I wouldn't think the machines would have survived this long by being lawful/Stupid.  They made a promise based on gratitude not a suicide pact.  And the end of matrix Revolutions gives us nothing more than the machines' word that they'll play very slightly nicer with free-range humanity.  The fact that they aren't human does not mean they are implicitly trustworthy.

5 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

They consider the strategy they were using before failure. They are trying to come up with new one. How much nicer it will be to free-range humanity is to be seen, but they are AIs. They don't do revenge. They don't get anything from being mean to people. Successful strategy for them means sustainable, it doesn't matter if humans suffer or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong as it's been a while since I've seen Revolutions, but I thought that Neo convinced the machines to open talks with the humans of Zion in the hopes that they can work together to coexist, rather than continue this cycle since it was proven that the cycle couldn't be maintained.

In The Matrix, Neo is given a crash course in history, learning how Humanity created sentient AI's, how they then started to distrust robots, becoming paranoid that the machines would one day try to eradicate or enslave them, and then making a preemptive strike that essentially caused their fears to be proven. Everyone in Zion would likely have learned this history and know that it was Humanity's fault that they're in their current situation. If there was ever a chance for peace, they would likely jump at it and try to avoid repeating the mistakes that Humanity made however long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Correct me if I'm wrong as it's been a while since I've seen Revolutions, but I thought that Neo convinced the machines to open talks with the humans of Zion in the hopes that they can work together to coexist, rather than continue this cycle since it was proven that the cycle couldn't be maintained.

Unless there is some director's cut, the entire negotiation of Neo with Machines is

AI: Speak.

Neo: The program Smith has grown beyond your control. He will spread through this city as he spread through the Matrix. You cannot stop him. But I can.

AI: We don't need you! We need nothing!

Neo: If that's true, then I've made a mistake, and you should kill me now.

AI: What do you want?

Neo: Peace.

Pretty short negotiation, open to speculation about exact meaning. However, later we have Architect talking with Oracle:

Architect: You played a very dangerous game.

Oracle: Change always is.

Architect: Just how long do you think this peace is going to last?

Oracle: As long as it can. What about the others?

Architect: What others?

Oracle: The ones that want out.

Architect: Obviously, they will be freed.

Oracle: I have your word?

Architect: What do you think I am? Human?

THIS is where I think the AIs - represented by Architect - are INSULTED by implication they might lie or cheat. They will keep the peace as long as it's possible (presumably until humans would attack them) and won't be trying any "technically fulfilling the terms but not the spirit of agreement" stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Unless there is some director's cut, the entire negotiation of Neo with Machines is

AI: Speak.

Neo: The program Smith has grown beyond your control. He will spread through this city as he spread through the Matrix. You cannot stop him. But I can.

AI: We don't need you! We need nothing!

Neo: If that's true, then I've made a mistake, and you should kill me now.

AI: What do you want?

Neo: Peace.

Pretty short negotiation, open to speculation about exact meaning. However, later we have Architect talking with Oracle:

Architect: You played a very dangerous game.

Oracle: Change always is.

Architect: Just how long do you think this peace is going to last?

Oracle: As long as it can. What about the others?

Architect: What others?

Oracle: The ones that want out.

Architect: Obviously, they will be freed.

Oracle: I have your word?

Architect: What do you think I am? Human?

THIS is where I think the AIs - represented by Architect - are INSULTED by implication they might lie or cheat.

 

Yeah that certainly sounds like the Machines are willing to keep their end of the bargain, and willing to release anyone that wants out of the matrix. Of course it's all on the Human's to make sure that the peace holds, and the machines probably can't survive without the power generated by humans. They might come to some agreement that they can't release all humans immediately as doing so might make things difficult anyway as Zion probably couldn't support however many humans there are in the matrix. I imagine there'd be periodic releases as conditions on Earth improved, they'd prioritize cleaning up the atmosphere so that the sun can get through again and the machine can switch over to solar power but that could take years or decades. It might even be centuries before the Earth could properly support Humanity. That's a fairly long time to allow trust to develop between Humans and Machines or for Humans to give reason to get beat down again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Explain why they are harvesting energy from humans instead of using nuclear sources then.

Because humans were in some way easier or more economical than nuclear or the machines wouldn't do it.  

I am aware of how little real-world sense this makes but it is the central conceit of the movies. 

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

They consider the strategy they were using before failure. They are trying to come up with new one. How much nicer it will be to free-range humanity is to be seen, but they are AIs. They don't do revenge. They don't get anything from being mean to people. Successful strategy for them means sustainable, it doesn't matter if humans suffer or not.

I'm not sure they should consider it a failure.  Their old strategy worked for hundreds or thousands of years.  Perhaps they don't yet understand that perfection isn't attainable.  If so that will be a shock when they figure that one out.

Agreed they get nothing from being mean by its own right but it is an acceptable means to an end.  If maintaining security means hurting people, they will maintain security.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Did you read it meanwhile? Yes, he mentioned being different person and looking differently at some stuff he did. He also mentioned that he will only give full debriefing on West.

I do not own a copy of Unfinished Tales.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Well why do you think orcs made no real resistance after Sauron died, while some of the humans allied with him did?

I can speculate.  The orcs were on the front lines.  They got more of their number killed in the field.  Also combine that with their personal loyalty to Sauron.  They were Sauron's army not an allied army.

I don't remember the humans that allied with Sauron dealing with any losses other than troops and materials that they sent to support the war.  What I mean is no army from Gondor or Rohan went out and took the war to those humans.  The humans just gabled and lost.  IIRC at least some of them were mercenaries and a mercenary is loyal to the coin so it's a loss of a job, which is less personal.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

NOT changing the comics earth despite lot of reasons for change breaks the suspension of disbelief. I don't think you can do successful indefinitely running comics. Even Garfield starts to look repetitive.

They should START with earth being similar to our earth, then diverge as makes sense given what's happening, and give up and try something else when readers stop to relate.

That's certainly *a* way of handling it and it might be an interesting experiment.   The bottom line is what moves more comics.  Certainly the conventional wisdom is the "Our earth...with these exceptions" approach.  DC has hit the reset button three times rather than continue a timeline.  IIRC, Marvel just did their first reset.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

.Pininterest links don't work. Also, Artimis? Not Artemis?

That's her.  My spelling error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Oracle: I have your word?

Architect: What do you think I am? Human?

THIS is where I think the AIs - represented by Architect - are INSULTED by implication they might lie or cheat. They will keep the peace as long as it's possible (presumably until humans would attack them) and won't be trying any "technically fulfilling the terms but not the spirit of agreement" stuff.

It is worth pointing out that this a bad-faith negotiator could say the same thing. 

As the humans say, 'talk is cheap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Yeah that certainly sounds like the Machines are willing to keep their end of the bargain, and willing to release anyone that wants out of the matrix. Of course it's all on the Human's to make sure that the peace holds, and the machines probably can't survive without the power generated by humans. They might come to some agreement that they can't release all humans immediately as doing so might make things difficult anyway as Zion probably couldn't support however many humans there are in the matrix. I imagine there'd be periodic releases as conditions on Earth improved, they'd prioritize cleaning up the atmosphere so that the sun can get through again and the machine can switch over to solar power but that could take years or decades. It might even be centuries before the Earth could properly support Humanity. That's a fairly long time to allow trust to develop between Humans and Machines or for Humans to give reason to get beat down again.

Most humans probably wouldn't WANT to be freed anyway. In fact, I'm sure Architect has pretty good estimates about how many humans want out of matrix so he knows it won't be problem for long time.

And, yes ... long term, they may fix the sky. Or the bug in programming which made machines not consider nuclear power :) I think that the AI's in Matrix are limited, that humans actually can invent stuff they can't. And it's possible Neo made them realize how necessary that is.

39 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I'm not sure they should consider it a failure.  Their old strategy worked for hundreds or thousands of years.  Perhaps they don't yet understand that perfection isn't attainable.  If so that will be a shock when they figure that one out.

I think it was just hundreds and yes, they have problems understanding that stability is not best solution.

39 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Did you read it meanwhile? Yes, he mentioned being different person and looking differently at some stuff he did. He also mentioned that he will only give full debriefing on West.

I do not own a copy of Unfinished Tales.

Then your guess was surprisingly correct.

39 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I can speculate.  The orcs were on the front lines.  They got more of their number killed in the field.  Also combine that with their personal loyalty to Sauron.  They were Sauron's army not an allied army.

I don't remember the humans that allied with Sauron dealing with any losses other than troops and materials that they sent to support the war.  What I mean is no army from Gondor or Rohan went out and took the war to those humans.  The humans just gabled and lost.  IIRC at least some of them were mercenaries and a mercenary is loyal to the coin so it's a loss of a job, which is less personal.

I specifically talk about those ON the battle field. In book it was mentioned that after Sauron's dead, there were still some smaller battles with allied humans, but none with orcs or trolls. Those simply lost the will to fight.

39 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

That's certainly *a* way of handling it and it might be an interesting experiment.

That sounds like noone tried yet, but there ARE stories like that. Not from the big houses, though. THOSE go for quantity, not quality.

33 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

It is worth pointing out that this a bad-faith negotiator could say the same thing. 

As the humans say, 'talk is cheap".

Machine would never say that. Actually generate sounds using muscles? WiFi is much cheaper than talking. :)

Unfortunately, few lines of dialogue is cheaper than 30 minutes bonus movie on topic of how machines actually fulfilled the contract ... nevertheless, I'm convinced the authors MEANT architect to be sincere.

And from the meta perspective ... if the war started because humans were paranoid and feared AI's will enslave them, your unwillingness to accept the possibility Architect will keep his word is example of the same way of thinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this