gingaio

You mean Apocalypse Now? It was a good musical reference ("Ride of the Valkyries"), as that movie's view on the Vietnam War was dark and decidedly non-heroic.

Okay, but I'm holding on to my "Member's Only" jacket. BTW, where can I learn to be as fly and good with the "snaps" as you?

It's awfully nice of you to be always sucked into worthless debates with two-year-olds who can't read good, because, well, I did not know that that was your thing. If you don't mind, let me take a few hours to thumb through my comic collection so I can reply your detailed bullet list of Wolvie's actions in the past twenty years with a more detailed bullet list. Thanks!

Well, it sort of wasn't. But I think you "got" that.

Great point. And that's why I think all the characters are so incredibly wrongheaded in the end. It's also why this book is so nihilistic.

No, I got that. My bad, though. I guess when I read this (bold mine)--a statement riddled with sufficient self-contradiction to fluster the most expert of philologists--my brain just gets confused: Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's. Only, like, the satirized is not the satirical, right? And, hey, don't blame me if Claremont (and Frank Miller) wrote Wolverine as the honorable Western Samurai. I totally hated the vacation in Japan thing.

Eugimon wrote: In X-men number 1 (the jim lee reboot) Magneto and Cyclops both remark that Wolverine was trying to outright kill Magneto. In X-men number 4 he's seen lifting his would be kidnappers by his claws which Wolverine has stuck in his chest at the time. In X-men #5 he's seen standing over a body that has claw stab wound through the top of the head. Even during claremont's run, wolverine killed plenty of normal human mobsters in Japan. The above seems to be about all that I remember from my reading (haven't read a superhero comic in nearly ten years--you're referring to the Acolytes above, no?), and in all these instances, he was killing or trying to kill people who, well, were trying to kill him and his teammates. And hey, I've long since grown out of the phase when I thought this stuff--kill or be killed--was "cool" (even for Wolverine). However, the point was whether Rorschach was Wolverine. He's not. Just like he's not Batman, or the Question, upon whom he was based. Rorschach is pretty obviously meant to satirize wolverine and other such 'heroes', imo. The heavy handed didactic self righteous moralizing, the over the top brutality, even making him short and repugnant physically. Those traits directly reference both the punisher and wolverine. And here you finally get it. Yeah, he's a satirical figure. Yeah, he's repulsive. Yeah, he's a reference to the sillier aspects of superheroes. But saying that Rorschach is Wolverine is like saying that the Watchmen--who were all based on older established characters--are those characters. And they aren't. They're deconstructed versions of what those characters would be like in "real life"--the screwed-up, non-idealized, mentally unstable trajectories of a hero fantasy taken too far. But Wolverine--the one from that golden 80s decade--still belongs to that period of idealized fantasy. Boyish violent fantasy? Sure. But he's no Rorschach. But who the hell knows with what Wolverine's become these days--that part of the argument I cede to you. In any case, the satirical is not the satirized. Hyperion from Squadron Supreme, while obviously based on Superman, is not Superman. Hyperion's the social commentary of the fantasy that Superman represents. (aside: Just like the British circa 1730 were not really contemplating eating poor Irish children.)

Thanks!

To say that violence in a comic is unreal just because it's a comic is a faulty premise, I think. You can arbitrarily say the same thing about books, movies, documentaries (which also operate through filters). My point was that if you compare Silence of the Lambs/Hannibal to Watchmen, then you're comparing novels with a romanticized hero to a comic book about heroes who are dysfunctional and insistently unromanticized. Two different genres, essentially (different media notwithstanding). I mean, the whole point of Watchmen was to deconstruct the comic hero myth, to tear it down, character by character. The Lecter stories were about reenvisioning the flawed hero in a contemporary setting. Your examples (hole in the wall, arm sawed off....I can't remember if that was a brick wall). A friend of mine once punched a hole in the wall of his house without injuring his hand. As far as the arm sawed off, wasn't he already dead? Anyway, those are just details. The point is what purpose those details serve. Too often in the Lecter books, especially in the example you cited above, the gore is used as a launchpad for Lecter's humor and witticisms. And he--the witty, charming man--gets the girl in the end, too. The violence, as "unrealistic" as it may be in Watchmen, is never glamorized or made light of or used for the purpose of celebrating a central character. The atrocity committed at the end is one that reveals just how compromised, imperfect, and criminal all of the heroes are. And you thought Alex from Clockwork Orange was sympathetic? He was interesting as hell, but sympathetic? The character was a sadist brute with nary a redeeming quality. And in the movie, he was Kubrick's poster boy for the corruption of society....on all levels. It was a cautionary tale, not a heroic one. Again, I think the whole anti-hero label (which connotes heroism, but flawed) is completely overused and misused these days.

Eugimon wrote: I guess it all depends on what you mean by unnecessarily as there are numerous upon numerous instances of wolverine killing people that he had already incapacitated or otherwise detained. The problem with wolverine is there's so many depictions of him Which is why I specified the Claremont era (in the 80s). Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's. Funny. I distinctly remember Wolverine making another long Claremont-esque speech in X-Men #3 (the newer series) about how he couldn't kill Magneto because he has to "do the right thing, no matter how much it hurts." If that's Rorschach, I'm Tina Fey. Rorscach's "moral code," as you say, involves sending innocent cops and petty criminals to the morgue or the hospital and abusing old washed-up villains long retired. If you've got examples of Wolverine doing the same, I'd be more inclined to buy your argument.

I admit I was being sarcastic with the child molestation allegation (sort of) in regards to this sexually dysfunctional "hero" (for god's sake, he's using pieces of a woman's dress as his mask: "put the lotion in the f'ing basket" anyone...?). It's not "if" Rorschach is a killer. He is. And we're shown that he's just as liable to kill a petty thief as he is a murderer. Which is what some might consider Draconian. Or Old Testament. Or whatever. There's a world of difference between getting the urge every once in a while to let the neighborhood cop have it, and creating a "hero" out of a character who embodies our worst, darkest, and most repulsive instincts. Rorschach is like a childhood fantasy/avenger gone wrong.

Well, if you want to be specific, Wolverine (at least from what I remember during the Claremont era), was a reformed brute who learned not to kill unnecessarily and to submit to Xavier's code. Not to mention he was always a stud with the ladies. And his invulnerable healing factor, Adamantium bones, etc. were all symbolic of a type of physical idealization. Rorschach is the creepy uncle with the Chevy Mailbu and a bag of lollipops on the seat next to him, cruising the junior high schools when he's not shooting cops in the chest with a grappling hook.

Loner wrote: Well, maybe Moore shouldn't have made Rorschach so f'ing awesome. Depends on what you define as f'ing awesome, I guess. Gubaba wrote: Besides he made Rorschach ugly, unhygenic, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Not exactly the kind of "hero" most people would gravitate towards, and definitely not the kind most people would idealize. Exactly. Not to mention being saddled with "mother" issues and homicidal rage. I just read an essay in an academic journal that reasoned that Rorschach was the most sympathetic character to the hardcore fans because he was the most like them--outcast, reject, etc. versus the physically idealized Dr. Manhattan and Veidt. Anyway, not exactly a flattering thesis. The analogy to Travis Bickle I get because that was another character not meant to be seen as an attractive "anti-hero" (a term used so loosely these days it can cover anyone from Batman to Justin Timberlake). In fact, Scorcese dealt with issues similar to Alan Moore's re: Goodfellas. Here's a film that's about how wasteful and destructive the mob lifestyle ultimately is, he reasoned, and yet, people thought it was the coolest thing in the world. Taksraven wrote: These characters do the things that many people feel that they would like to do. (I think that most, however, if put in the same situation would not emulate their anti-heroes, however.) It also extends into real life with things like people wearing Charles Manson T-Shirts and others purchasing the artworks of John Wayne Gacey. You can be that even in Jack the Rippers day there were those who did not care about his antics since he was murdering prostitutes. What is funny is that I do remember reading an interview with Alan Moore around the time that From Hell was being made into a film. He was criticising the latest Hannibal Lecter book, calling it a "pile of wank" and observing that serial killers are rarely, if ever, people who are geniuses like Lecter is supposed to be. I always figured the majority of people who wore those serial killer shirts to be poser counter-culturalists in search of an authentic ideology. The Jack the Ripper thing is about morality/class and a whole other can of worms. And the comparison to Hannibal Lecter is apples and oranges--Lecter is portrayed as a charming, erudite man who always outwits his dunderheaded opposition in the end. He's a romanticized figure, a Byronic hero...like Count Dracula or something out of a Bronte novel. Compare this to what Gubaba described above. Violence in Moore's comic book is not portrayed in a glamorous or funny fashion (compare the bits of humor in Silence of the Lambs to the grisly acts of violence perpetrated by the Comedian).

One of Alan Moore's longstanding laments was precisely this reaction of the fans--that the majority of them identified most with Rorschach, the moral absolutist ultra right-winger with the goofy face. That he bears more than a passing resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman has got to be some kind of an in-joke, or a reference at least to the oversimplified nature of his moral barometer. Personally, I found him to be one of the creepier (in the sexually repressed, manically violent sense) characters in the comic, which is saying a lot. Anyway, from dailygazette.com: “Rorschach is clearly the most compelling character in the book in many ways,” said Matthew Costello, a professor of political science at St. Xavier University in Chicago and a comic book aficionado. “Alan Moore has said on a couple of occasions that Rorschach is a psychotic killer, and he doesn’t understand why everybody likes him so much. Yet Rorschach is clearly the character he gives depth to.

If that TBDX thread had made it to 20 or however many pages this thread has included/will include, rest assured that it would be pages devoted to the finer points of charred cow meat. The constant whining here, over an as yet to be materialized toy, and whether it's against Yamato or Bandai, is amusing, too, but in a more depressingly absurdist Beckettian manner. Carry on, gentlemen!

Also, I would add that people are now talking excitedly about the Frontier valks not because they're "forgiving of Bandai's sins," but because for the first time in quite some time, people now have an alternative to Yamato as far as new Macross toys. This place has been a Yamato fanatic haven partly because Yamato's been the only game in town. Now, people who prefer something other than what Yamato has to offer have a choice. Hence the excitement. Hence the unsubstantiated praise and equally unsubstantiated detractions (toy hasn't come out yet, folks). Hence the ongoing Biggie vs. Tupac vs. Yamato war.

If Yamato puts out something like this, then the collectors who've been waiting for Yamato to put out a sturdy toy will be happy. Given the perpetual hue and cry on this board, it's obvious that there are multiple strains of collectors with varying levels of expectations for sturdiness and accuracy, and that people tend to, generally speaking, favor one over the other. What I don't understand is why people need to think about this as the Bloods vs. the Crips. Or Biggie vs. Tupac. Or Cobra vs. GI Joe. Some people here seem intent on making sure that one company's products are perceived as superior to the other's, or vice-versa. That I don't get. "Cutting Bandai more slack" suggests that toy collectors care more about a label on a box than the toy inside. Speaking strictly for myself, I'm really not that big of a moron. If Yamato ever puts out a sturdy, non-delicate transformable toy, I'm there. Until then, I will pour my money into Bandai's coffers.

The two-toy set I didn't even know existed until I saw some on eBay recently. A really nice box design. That's cool that you picked one up.

The one I picked up was the first Japanese Gakken release. Note the bag of missiles/plugs next to the gun. The large Gakken Ride Armor did get a Robotech rebox (there's one on eBay now, I think), but like the other non-Japanese Gakkens, it got stripped of the firing mechanisms. Anyway, regarding looks, we'll have to disagree. However, I don't think any of the new stuff will beat out the Gakken in terms of stability/playability. The fact that the figure can't sit on the bike blows, but it's a great toy otherwise.

Speaking as a fairly disinterested party to this particular disagreement: 1) Someone accuses Roger of calling people stupid and dumb, of being a vile bootlegger of precious visual artifacts related to Robotech: Alpha Generation, and of other assorted dastardly deeds. 2) Roger says he never did any of the things he was accused of doing, especially in calling people stupid or dumb. He simply uses the term, Loopy Avians*, to describe people he doesn't agree with. 3) A moderator loses his cool, accuses Roger of making the very insults that he denied making in point #2, and mentions something about exile to the Island of Malta. 4) Which then encourages helpful comments like, Ooh, you talked back to a mod, you naughty man, you're lucky they didn't explode your monkeya$$ account! 5) Granted, the Rog has made his share of archnemeses here, but if one is going to (threaten to) ban him, please do it on the grounds of something specific, or give him a trial, Gaius Baltar style, whereby Lee Adama can chime in and say, "But we're all just dumping our shame--our SHAME--on Roger Baltar." 6) It seems that so far, the only insults being hurled are by those hurling accusations at Roger. Because those people are currently accusing him of doing everything short of having sex with a llama.** 7) Similarly, I'm sure some of the more enthusiastic and articulate members will respond to this post by accusing me of being a troll, being stoopid, or having cooties. (I love how in our age, accusing someone of being a troll automatically takes the place of having to come up with a somewhat intelligible reason for disagreeing.) I just won an original Robotech: Alpha Generation Gakken Cyclone on Yahoo Japan. You know, the one with the firing forearm missiles. I'm so STOKED! (The more I see of these new Cyclones by CMs/Basset Hound/Toynami, the less I'm interested.) 9) If anyone has any old Robotech: Alpha Generation toys for sale (bootleg versions sold as "Mospeada"), please let me know. *The term Loopy Avians is racist, misogynistic, and unfair to winged animals, so I definitely think Roger should be banned for using it. **I'm pretty sure Roger would have sex with a llama if it were legal. And if he could afford a llama.

Yeah, how'd you guess? I'm stuck in front of my laptop trying to craft a lesson plan for Monday's English class (mostly freshmen). Got some anime (Ghost in the Shell:SAC), some sci-fi flicks (Blade Runner), and some hardcore philosophy (Baudrillard) to mash together. Suffice to say, the issue of true identities has been running through my head. Anyway, I feel your pain (of having to work). Good talking to you.

QUOTE (Fatalist @ Apr 5 2008, 06:19 PM) Seriously, get a life. It wasnt funny the first time. Still isnt funny now. He's talking to you, jackass. Mr. Fatalist and I are in complete agreement as to the utter seriousness of preserving VF-1 thread virginity (and keeping the space-time continuum in check), even if we aren't in complete agreement as to the usage of apostrophes. Sincerely, Existentialist gingaio

You got PWNED, gingaio! BTW, Fatalist, your contributions to this thread have been really insightful and useful...NOT! Peace!

Yeah, he's talking to you, dork. Way to get Mr. Fatalist all riled up by turning this nice virgin toy thread into a trampy one. You obviously have no idea how such toy board violations can potentially damage the space-time continuum and cause the Macross cannons to overload, thus ending life as we know it...even if such violations were intentional, a joke, or whatnot. Nice job, man. I can see you obviously can't tell your VF-1 from your YF-21. Ha ha! Hoser. Sincerely, Existentialist (not to be confused with the dork gingaio)

Or are you talking to me?