|
Post by balok on Mar 6, 2007 11:06:40 GMT -5
On the other hand, I know a lot of younger folk who tell me without a hint of sarcasm that the government is doing all these things to protect us. I don't know if it is optimism or naivete, but they truly seem to believe this. That's one of the most frightening things anyone could ever say - that we have raised a generation of people who trust the government.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 6, 2007 11:53:14 GMT -5
From my experience in my little educational corner of the universe, I would say it's more
a) apathy b) ignorance
They are so uninformed (and voluntarily so) that they don't know what to care about...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 6, 2007 12:16:32 GMT -5
Hang on a second!
Now before the "wisdom of old" tells me just how "uninformed" I am, I have to say I am insulted by this. Just because I loved "Civil War" doesn't mean I don't know what quality is. Isn't quality opinion-based? I can tell my friend that I love "Citizen Kane" while my friend can tell me it's contrived movie and therefore, didn't like it.
And, let me point out to all of you that I maybe 24, but I have been reading comics since I was nine. I never gave them up, unlike some of you. I have been reading comics for fifteen years. That doesn't just mean that I've been reading the current comics, but I've read a lot of backissues. I have can even prove it with my blog, for goodness sake (http://uncannyxperiment.blogspot.com/), where I openly express my enjoyment of both comics today and of the Silver and Bronze Ages!
More to the point, while I haven't read a bazillion issues like you guys, I have read enough to form an opinion about how "Civil War" portrayed Captain America and Iron Man. I've posted my opinion and I've defended it.
I'm greatly insulted that I am basically being told that because of my "youth" and "inexperience," my opinions are not only invalid, but also don't matter.
If that seems to be the concensus here (which it's quickly becoming apparent it is), then I won't be coming back to this "old folks home."
~W~
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 6, 2007 12:44:29 GMT -5
W --
I was speaking in general terms about the high school I teach in in east central Illinois. No more, no less. I think if you walked in my shoes, with exceptions of course, you'd say the same thing. We have 2100 students here, about half of whom will see the inside of some college. But most could not tell you anything about current events, hence my agreement with the statement Balok made about young people and the gov't. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Mar 6, 2007 15:18:40 GMT -5
W -- I was speaking in general terms about the high school I teach in in east central Illinois. No more, no less. I think if you walked in my shoes, with exceptions of course, you'd say the same thing. We have 2100 students here, about half of whom will see the inside of some college. But most could not tell you anything about current events, hence my agreement with the statement Balok made about young people and the gov't. That's all. Wow, I come back and check the boards after my comment late last night and see we've got a generational war going! That was certainly not my intention. Although I have to laugh, here we all are writing on a comics board and getting so worked up... guess it shows how much we love this stuff. But I digress. What I was doing was sort of wondering out loud, did the events which occured during our formative years affect how we view authority and thereby which sides we chose in Civil War? Maybe it was a stretch. I just know that many of the twentysomethings I work with have a completely different take on our government and its role in the lives of citizens than do my peers and myself. I don't think I could ever say that just because a person is younger than me they are not as discerning or critical as I am. Although I would agree with dlw regarding the general apathy of not only high school kids, but the populace as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 6, 2007 15:27:33 GMT -5
Now before the "wisdom of old" tells me just how "uninformed" I am, I have to say I am insulted by this. Well, I am sorry you feel offended, but (there's always a but)... While I didn't set out to offend, I didn't set out not to, either. One thing I can guarantee is that you'll hear my real opinions on things here, and not falsehoods conjured in some (probably vain) attempt to avoid treading on people's sore nerves.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 6, 2007 16:27:21 GMT -5
Hang on a second! Now before the "wisdom of old" tells me just how "uninformed" I am, I have to say I am insulted by this. Just because I loved "Civil War" doesn't mean I don't know what quality is. Isn't quality opinion-based? I can tell my friend that I love "Citizen Kane" while my friend can tell me it's contrived movie and therefore, didn't like it. And, let me point out to all of you that I maybe 24, but I have been reading comics since I was nine. I never gave them up, unlike some of you. I have been reading comics for fifteen years. That doesn't just mean that I've been reading the current comics, but I've read a lot of backissues. I have can even prove it with my blog, for goodness sake (http://uncannyxperiment.blogspot.com/), where I openly express my enjoyment of both comics today and of the Silver and Bronze Ages! More to the point, while I haven't read a bazillion issues like you guys, I have read enough to form an opinion about how "Civil War" portrayed Captain America and Iron Man. I've posted my opinion and I've defended it. I'm greatly insulted that I am basically being told that because of my "youth" and "inexperience," my opinions are not only invalid, but also don't matter. If that seems to be the concensus here (which it's quickly becoming apparent it is), then I won't be coming back to this "old folks home." ~W~ Well, there are 2 ways at looking at this, W. a more "egalitatian" one which, in effect, states what you say here: "Quality is opinion based". Then, there's another school of thought, the one generally espoused by specialized critics of every branch of the arts, which considers taste as something to be educated, cultivated, and quality to be not just merely a value we can ascribe to anything which happens to appeal to our own personal tastes, but instead to works which attain certain artistic & aesthetic goals... This 2nd view is often thought of as snobbish & elitist by most lay, non-specialized people, though...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 6, 2007 23:03:49 GMT -5
Young whippersnappers and old geezers alike may be interested to know that the fifth and final installment has been posted. (Seriously, trying to discredit a person’s arguments on the basis of age is some sort of ad hominem attack—unless, I suppose, the person in question had put forth arguments which his youth specifically contradicts [e.g., an argument based on alleged firsthand testimony of the Hindenburg disaster]. Note also that inferring that a person of a certain age group must have certain characteristics just because some—even a goodly percentage—of persons in that age group do is an association fallacy. If we can’t play nice, let’s at least play fair.)
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Mar 7, 2007 0:38:59 GMT -5
Dude, I'm sorry I like comics that you don't. Deal with it. It's not bad writing. Good and bad are critical and subjective. Does it progress from A to B to C? Are we talking Civil War as a whole or just the Millar series? The fact that you insinuate that younger readers have inexperience with quality and "slavish" attitude towards Marvel is insulting. I've been reading Marvel comics for 15 years. I've read A LOT of comics and not just Marvel. I am critical and I am careful as to where I spend my money. And hey, I like "Civil War." But I guess that makes me a dummy in your eyes. I don't think you're stupid. My only problem with you is that you confuse issues of taste with issues of substance. As I touched on as part of another post -- issues of taste are subjective. Issues of substance are not subjective -- they are objective. I'll expand on this so hopefully you can see I'm not simply trying to be insulting. OK -- you've stated that you like CW. That is taste and ultimately you can't argue about it. No problem so far. You've also stated that (paraphrasing) "Cap/IM's actions are justifiable in light of previous history." Now we are not talking about taste any more -- we are talking about substance. I understand that it might be your belief that this statement is justified. But over 40 years and countless examples, it simply is not. This isn't about what I like, or don't like about the characterization. This is about what has been published by Marvel for 40+ years and is factually verifiable by reading the comics. You cannot cite examples to show why this characterization is legitimate, because there are no such examples. Your statement is not supportable, but you continue to stand by it and avoid even trying to give a factual basis for it. And that is really the only problem I have with you -- confusing something you like with something you can (and in this case cannot) demonstrate with examples. Here's how I believe you should look at the situation: When you said (again paraphrasing) "Cap/IM's actions in CW are justifiable in light of previous history," had you instead said: "Cap/IM are behaving differently in CW than previously, and I like the change," then we are again talking about issues of taste and not substance. You either like the new CW-characterization for its own sake, or you simply like it because it's different and you thought that any change was good. Again -- no problem here from me. I wouldn't agree with you that the change was for the better, but ultimately you understand that there has been a change, you like it, and that's taste.Hopefully I am getting my point across here. RSC
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 7, 2007 23:55:22 GMT -5
W, though the text of your last post above seems to call for treatment as an equal in mature discussions, your new avatar practically screams “arrested development”. (It’s just a pun, folks, a pun. )
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 8, 2007 0:08:26 GMT -5
W, though the text of your last post above seems to call for treatment as an equal in mature discussions, your new avatar practically screams “arrested development”. (It’s just a pun, folks, a pun. )Figured Maeby I should surrender to pier pressure and finally get an avatar. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Mar 8, 2007 9:28:34 GMT -5
Love it, W. I just recently watched the entire series on DVD and thought it was hilarious from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 8, 2007 13:22:47 GMT -5
This is what you don't get, RSC. Past actions are set in stone. Interpretation of them, and belief in what a character may do, IS speculative. You cannot state for absoute certainty that Captain America would not fight Iron Man in this situation. You cannot. It is impossible and reeks of the worst kind of arrogance. The statement IS supportable, the difference is that you merely ignore the support. Please understand, neither you nor Joe Simon himself nor ANYONE ELSE can state an absolute definitive on what Cap would never do in a given situation. It IS pure arrogance and like it or not, there IS a case to be made for the point that they aare acting in character. You can't just say "Nope, you are wrong" because it is opinion based. Thus, your claims- which are either preposterous, misguided, or flat out lies, can be easily read as insulting. Except we don't believe that true. You can't seem to understand that anyone who disagrees with you on that point is not automatically wrong. You are, it's just that said point is incorrect.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Mar 8, 2007 14:06:57 GMT -5
If all previous actions are consistent with each other, and this new action is inconsistent with all previous actions, then what rational conclusion should be drawn... without further exposition as to the reason or nature of the new differing action.
Everyone here now seems to be caught up in semantics, throwing around absolute terms when they don't mean them, and of course using other people use of absolute terms as an argument against them and why your own arguments are absolute...
sheesh I have a headache.
Yeah, no one can predict the future with absolute certainty. Who doesn't get that, and who doesn't factor that into the equation as a given?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 8, 2007 14:22:06 GMT -5
Apparantly RSC given that accoridng to him, it is basically a fact that Cap is out of character.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 8, 2007 14:47:47 GMT -5
This is what you don't get, RSC. Past actions are set in stone. Interpretation of them, and belief in what a character may do, IS speculative. You cannot state for absoute certainty that Captain America would not fight Iron Man in this situation. Well, no one can say with *absolute certainty* that the sun won't go out tomorrow... but the smart money doesn't bet that way. I read several Batman books. Throughout the character's long history, he has vowed never to kill. Now, if Millar came along and wrote a story where Batman killed someone, would I be right to say "bad characterization?" You bet I would. (I hope DC is a little smarter than to let Millar near anything they care about.) I use Batman because he provides a nice, clear, black and white example of a specific thing that defines the character. In the cases of Cap and Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic, their definitions are more complex, but no less valid. Heroes don't commit crimes (as Tony did) and they don't recklessly endanger civilians (as Tony and Cap both did). And Reed isn't a pansy follower who'd sign up for a blatant attack on the civil rights of an entire minority (the superhumans) on the basis of a stolen concept (psychohistory). It simply doesn't make sense within their established characterization. You can like their new characterization all you want - but you can't call it their established characterization. The people Millar, and Jenkins, and others wrote about look like Tony and Steve and Reed. But that's where it ends - at appearance. Please understand, neither you nor Joe Simon himself nor ANYONE ELSE can state an absolute definitive on what Cap would never do in a given situation. It IS pure arrogance and like it or not, there IS a case to be made for the point that they aare acting in character. Please understand that for you to say that these characters will do anything any writer wants them to, to sell any bag of crap story he cares to write, is just as pure an arrogance. You like Marvel. We get that. But when you make a statement of this sort it says your like is based on the fact that they're "Marvel" and not on the fact that they're telling good stories. That's fine, and it's your perfect right. But don't represent it as other than what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 8, 2007 16:34:37 GMT -5
Except no Balok, you once more emonstrate that remarkable talent you have for avoiding the issue in an attempt to confuse it. Let us ask this question; Is whether a character is acting in-character or not opinionated to each individual reader? If the answer is yes, then you agree with my stance on this issue and I have a right to read these characters any way I choose. If the answer is no, then I have no idea how you ever read comics.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 8, 2007 16:39:14 GMT -5
Love it, W. I just recently watched the entire series on DVD and thought it was hilarious from start to finish. Dark Tower AND Arrested Development fan? I thought I was the only one! ~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 8, 2007 16:49:39 GMT -5
Except no Balok, you once more emonstrate that remarkable talent you have for avoiding the issue in an attempt to confuse it. Let us ask this question; Please explain how I avoided the issue. I make a clear explanation of how a character can be written out of character: the writer ignores what his past says about what he would do in a particular situation. Is whether a character is acting in-character or not opinionated to each individual reader? No, and a half-dozen people have explained why. ...I have a right to read these characters any way I choose. Of course you have that right. It is up to each individual to decide where he wishes to set his expectations. If you want to set them low, I certainly can't stop you. Just don't set them low and argue that you're setting them high, and not expect people to disagree with you. It's no different than if Cap suddenly donned an SS uniform and decided that henceforth he would attempt to establish the Fourth Reich, or if Tony abandoned his armor and fought villains hand to hand, or if Reed was written as a moron. It's just subtler than those things, that's all. If you don't see it, I can't make you. But it's there, and perhaps one day you will see it.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 8, 2007 17:01:26 GMT -5
People are now going to tell me that I set the bar way too low when I judge characters acting in-caharcter? Wow, the arrogance level of this forum, already pretty high, just sky rocketed. So basically, I'm not allowed my opinion that I've set the bar very high and it's been matched, because I'm blatantly wrong and any attempt to argue otherwise... is arrogance.
Yeah.
Wow.
Methinks it is the marvel fans who have fallen far lower than the marvel universe.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Mar 8, 2007 18:11:12 GMT -5
This is what you don't get, RSC. Past actions are set in stone. Interpretation of them, and belief in what a character may do, IS speculative. You cannot state for absoute certainty that Captain America would not fight Iron Man in this situation. You cannot. It is impossible and reeks of the worst kind of arrogance. The statement IS supportable, the difference is that you merely ignore the support. Please understand, neither you nor Joe Simon himself nor ANYONE ELSE can state an absolute definitive on what Cap would never do in a given situation. It IS pure arrogance and like it or not, there IS a case to be made for the point that they aare acting in character. Actually I think Joe Simon as co-creator of the character has every right in the world to say what Cap would do in any given situation. because marvel (and presumably Timely comics before them) have a work for hire that retains all rights, even a creator has no say in the current characterization. But Simon created the template, he created the persona, he created the idea that inspired others. I would be offended as a creator if some fans told me I didn't have a right to express a more authoritative opinion on something that sprung from my fertile imagination...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 8, 2007 18:15:41 GMT -5
People are now going to tell me that I set the bar way too low when I judge characters acting in-caharcter? Wow, the arrogance level of this forum, already pretty high, just sky rocketed. So basically, I'm not allowed my opinion that I've set the bar very high and it's been matched, because I'm blatantly wrong and any attempt to argue otherwise... is arrogance. No one is denying you an opinion. Some of us just don't agree with it, and we have explained why, and for some reason that seems to irritate you. You want to have your opinion, and you want everyone else to agree with it. Who's arrogant, again? Methinks it is the marvel fans who have fallen far lower than the marvel universe. Well, it really isn't accurate to call me a Marvel fan any longer. I was once, and I hope to be again someday. But at the moment, no.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Mar 8, 2007 22:30:27 GMT -5
To further display my incredulity with the way this thread has gone, I shall offer forth this little nugget, that I found on another message board I frequent... Plato is standing guard on a bridge. Socrates approaches the bridge.
Plato yells across the bridge to Socrates, "Tell me one fact. If it is true, than I shall let you pass, if it is false, than I shall throw you off the bridge"
Here, Plato plans to use relevance, reality, and philosophy to falsify any statement made by Socrates. For example, if he were to say 'I am Here', Plato would respond as that is false because it cannot be proven true, similarly, as the sky's inherent colors cannot be proven. Simply put, Plato believes everything is left to be determined by perspective.
Socrates replies, "You shall throw me off the bridge"
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 9, 2007 11:37:15 GMT -5
Not at all inept, Tone-Loc. It can basically be summarised as this;
I believe they are acting in character. Mnay of you believe they are not. RSC says I am WRONG if I believe they are in character, and it's not an opinion but a fact Balok believes he's right, except when he argues with me when suddenly my opinion is allowed.
Whatever, this is clearly going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 14, 2007 9:02:43 GMT -5
About this topic.
I think this guy has real stones (can I say stones?) to even do these interviews. After reading them I have to disagree with the opinion that he was only hitting softballs. There were some rather direct questions in there. Also, I have to agree with, I believe it was Doom who said, this guy DID NOT HAVE TO DO THIS, but he did. Think about it for a sec. There are few fans so rabid about what they like as comic book fans. We all tend to be veerrrrry picky. They knew, before they started that this series was gonna hit all of us hard in one way or another. That many of us would be unhappy with one aspect or another. For one of these guys to stand up and brave the barbs and arrow of our group, that's brave, and I think you have to give the guy some credit.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 14, 2007 16:26:09 GMT -5
The interviews were worthwhile. We got some clarification on them. There were a few too many asked and answered questions, suggesting that the sponsor could have done better work filtering duplicate questions. But on the other hand, that might have taken sufficient energy that the results would no longer be topical, or the window of Brevoort's availability/willingness would have closed.
|
|