RoR: Forum

We paid the big bucks by going over the weekend at night and still really got our money's worth.

Post 61

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 8:21am

Glad you enjoyed it so much, Michael. See? I don't push junk!

Post 62

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:13pm

I had to delay seeing it for a week. BUT, I was really on to going- I was in Tampa visiting my in-laws and we dragged them in there- saw it Tuesday. It was everything you said, Robert.

Post 63

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:44pm

Yay! We aim to please, Rich.

Post 64

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 4:37pm

Big thumbs up from me too. Really cool flick. Loved it.

I remember when they were filming it in Chicago last year and it caused a bit of excitement one night when I was at the Billy Goat having a cheezeborger. It was cool to see my hometown on the big screen, but if you guys ever come out here don't expect to see that train system, it is all movie magic and nothing like our L trains. I wonder where it came from. Dayaamm, I'm going to miss this town.

Post 65

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 9:55am

An article published by the oldest consistent defender of free markets (FEE):

Batman Begins: Anti-Capitalistic Themes
by Matthew Hisrich

Batman Begins manages to undermine both capitalism and freedom by displaying a deep discomfort with those who engage in business, reinforcing stereotypes of nineteenth-century capitalistic production and promoting the concept that the answer to crime and corruption is greater force rather than greater liberty.

Post 66

Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 6:44pm

If I could choose the Academy award for best picture of 2005 I would, without hesitation, choose 'Batman Begins'.

Post 67

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:44pm

     Don't know what I can add as to the worth of this movie that others haven't already covered (other than to say that Marcus and I don't have the same line-to-cross re acceptable-'believability.')

     Well, I'll try.

      I thought that X-Men (and sequel) were very, very, well done; stories, characters/actors, etc. They raised a bar re cinematic 'super'-heroes (which Reeves 1st 2 Superman movies already moved up).

     Didn't think that Fantastic Four was all that horrible most reviewers made out either, but, character-wise, though they were well-copied/acted from the comix, the story did seem to...lack. Same for Bruce Banner.

     Spidey's two stayed true-to-comic form (which was better than FF in areas mentioned) but, adolescent-angst coupled with crisis situations just no longer...reaches me. They were almost as interesting as X-Men.

     Besides, we're talking 'Super'-human in all cases (though, with the X-Men, the mutant powers are plot-relevent to their story-lines, whether taken metaphorically or not.)

     Batman is a character in the tradition of The 3 Musketeers, The Scarlet Pimpernal, Zorro, The Lone Ranger (do I have to put 'TM's there?): a member of the 'human' species who found toleration of rulers/leaders ignoring or impotent re Truth, Justice, and...Rules-of-Law INtolerable. --- Ok; the SP had to deal with the F-R's anarchy, and Zorro, the closest to a 'vigilante', like the 3M, was dealing with rogue 'Law-Makers', but, you get my drift.

     I thought Keaton was, really, pretty good in Burton's 1st 2, though the first should have been called The Joker, since it was Nicholson's histrionic scene-chewing (totally fitting to the character, no argument) that unfortunately made the film. --- Burton's overloading the 2nd movie with 3 villains sent the series down the tubes for the hacks to finish off with the next 2; Burton was clearly more interested in the villains than The Batman. And though DeVito's penguin was acted par excellance, character-wise, Freddy Krueger is more interesting; b-o-r-i-n-g-l-y non-threatening (penguins with rockets? As Marcus might say: "Gimme a break!") the Penguin was. Walken's Schrek was a better foil for Batman, and Burton should have focused on him. And Pfieffer's Catwoman...well...no complaints here; maybe she should have been the ONLY villain...ess.

     But Batman Begins? It raised the bar of 'fantasy-heroes' ('super' or not; and, Banderas' Mask of Zorro WAS very well done also) in cinema higher than it's ever been re story-interest-worth. It answered many trivial...and important...'how' questions about Batman's origin, and especially the 'why?' of his continuance...in a very 'believable' manner. In short, maybe someone somewhere COULD do this kind of thing...without being a bona-fide, actual, 'vigilante'.

     However, I do have 1 complaint about it. I've heard NO news about a sequel, now, 6 mos after it's release and it's on DVD. Hope this movie wasn't a 'flash-in-the-pan'.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: Wonder how Miller would have Batman handle Sin City, where the 'law' is only surfacely by 'rule', but actually is by corrupt 'men'?

Post 68

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 3:50pm

Good to see someone with an appreciation for the super-hero genre. My thinking on the aesthetic/romantic points of the genre has been getting clearer and clearer lately with a rereading of the Romantic Manifesto and the intro to the first Astro City volume.

Especially the idea of how art is about taking abstractions and making them into perceivable concretes... as related to the idea of how super-heroes lend themselves strongly to metaphor and pulling more/deeper abstraction into the realm of perceivable concretes. That coupled with the fact that super-hero stories are to some degree rooted in reality (by their nature) and not as prone to the flights of fancy distant planets, ancient magical realms, and far distant futures can inspire. Which, while they can be entertaining, pull the story farther from reality and make them less relatable on a legitimate level.

Oh, uh sanction.

---Landon

Post 69

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 11:09pm

Landon:

     Danke, Merci, Adomo-arigato, thanx.

     Didn't want to see this thread die out...'till the sequel (it was mentioned somewhere mos. ago) comes, anyways. --- Bayle, and the script-/screen-writers were...well...exceptional (Liam was good...as usual...also).

     I could rave on more about it, but, only in iterating what others already covered; therefore I shan't... except for one, last, comment re your comment:

     I do believe that if Rand were still around and did a 'revised' edition of The Romantic Manifesto, she'd have some reference to Batman Begins in at least fairly, if not very, praiseworthy terms. As I said about what she'd think of Marv (here) in Sin City (wonder if she'd mention THAT in same?), she'd think the same of Bruce (not to be confused with Batman!)...and probably really 'argue' the worth of them better than all of us put together.

LLAP
J:D

Post 70

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 12:54pm

Landon,

I enjoy your post.

"Especially the idea of how art is about taking abstractions and making them into perceivable concretes... as related to the idea of how super-heroes lend themselves strongly to metaphor and pulling more/deeper abstraction into the realm of perceivable concretes."

I think that observation is right on the money.

"That coupled with the fact that super-hero stories are to some degree rooted in reality (by their nature) and not as prone to the flights of fancy distant planets, ancient magical realms, and far distant futures can inspire. Which, while they can be entertaining, pull the story farther from reality and make them less relatable on a legitimate level."

Here I noticed your qualifier, "some degree rooted in reality". But as long as super-heros have super powers, traits not metaphysically possible, how does that distinguish them from fantasy or sci-fi. Though after having said that it seems that Batman doesn’t have any superpowers, or does he?

Michael

Post 71

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 1:29pm

Michael

No, there are characters like Batman who rooted almost entirely in reality. (Miller's rewrite of Daredevil as not actually having powers but just working hard enough to turn his disability into an advantage also comes to mind.)

But the gist of it is they essentially take place in the real world with the powers working primarily as metaphors and tools for abstraction. That is of course if the author so chooses he can just as easily just use it for simple entertainment value and put no real thought into it... which is why I appreciate it so much when someone actually approaches it this way.

But these people live, work, play in a world very much like our own. They have to do productive work to survive, reality still has rules which much be followed (granted apparently much looser rules than those applying to our world), and they've dealt with many of the same concretes and abstract theories we have. They still have a hard time struggling with how to deal with things which make them exceptional, what to do about it and why. They often have to deal with many of the same moral/political issues we do, only on a much larger scale and in clearer focus (It would be nice if all the islamofacists were nice enough to go around in Halloween Costumes and state their plans and ideas clearly). And though they deal with some truly amazing things that we couldn't even fathom happening in our world, they can still be impressed by things which would amaze us even in our world. The endurance and integrity of the Daily Planet. The almost effortless productive genius of Bruce Wayne and Wayne industries or Tony Stark and Stark Enterprises. The political/philosophical idealism of Charles Xavier. The giant leaps forward in technology springing from such scientific geniuses as Henry Pym and Reed Richards.

In short I think there is always a place for romantic fantasy in this world so long as people know the strong points of its nature.

Also I hope this clears up any questions about the basic orientation of my aesthetics.

---
---Landon

(Edited by Landon Erp on 2/05, 1:29pm)

Post 72

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 2:03pm

Landon wrote: "In short I think there is always a place for romantic fantasy in this world so long as people know the strong points of its nature...Also I hope this clears up any questions about the basic orientation of my aesthetics."

Sure, that does and I agree with that there is a wonderful place for it. The super heros are very similar to the myths of ancient Greece--tell wonderful moral stories.

Funny, Miller was my next-door neighbor for several years in a loft building in downtown L.A. But we were both pleasant the times we talked but he didn't seem to get painting and I don't really get comics.

Michael

Post 73

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 4:35pm

I can definitely understand how it probably felt like you were speaking different languages.

From what I've read in your posts illustration (including painting) is about essentials, but it's more about the essentials of a specific moment in time. Like when you think back on your first kiss or something like that how you remember what you were wearing, what color the walls were, how you were standing, what the expression on her face looked like just before etc... specificly just everything that would hit you about a particular moment.

Where as comics are about essentials pared down as far as possible. To this end comics work on the idea of the visuals as narration. I remember how one time you were talking about how as an artist you use a blend of several colors (possibly even avoiding the central color you would associate with an object) to render the color of an apple in a certain light. This is the perfect approach for illustration. But if I took the approach in rendering an apple in a comic, I'm giving literary significance to that apple, meaning I'm saying this apple is very important to the story and you should spend lots of time noticing it because it's very detailed and those details catch your eye.

There are artists who take the approach of giving everything a large degree of detail and sometimes it works like in the case of Alex Ross. His art gives you the feel of being a spectator in a world where all kinds of amazing things are going on but you're not really capable of effecting anything about it (except maybe running for cover to save your life). But you're just so overwhelmed with detail you spend a long amount of time on a page where very quick things are happening... It's kind of like how things seem to slow down at times of stress (like in a car wreck). But Ross understands this.

Whereas artists of the standard school know the importance of essentials. By keeping it very simple as black and white, either or: your mind assimilates the story information in a more controlled manner. By drawing a quick shot of your central character walking against either a blank background or flowing lines you realize he is moving towards a goal (or away from a fear) and it gives you insight to his value judgements (he doesn't care about what's going on around him. This is a standard employment of this tool, another is your central character interacting with a single prop and/or background element against either a black or white background gives you insight as to the importance of that object to the character and again how the world around him has ceased to matter to him.

Conversely if you see a character walking into a large panel with several trees, a swingset. a few lampposts, some children playing, lovers kissing on a bench and your central character sitting alone on another bench reading a thick book. Think about how long it would take for all of that information to imprint itself on your memory if you were in that scene in that particular park.

Probably the biggest difference between the two mediums is that comics uses amount of detail as a specific narrative tool. You have to make more choices about what is and isn't essential in any given scene in relation to your plot.

In painting you're saying with a single image "this is what life is to me."

In a comic you're saying in effect "the sum total of everything in this narrative is what life is to me. From it's darkest lows to it's brightest heights, everything."

In a sentance, two completely different languages.

---Landon

Post 74

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 4:35pm

Sorry if I rambled/hijacked a little there.

---Landon

Post 75

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 12:08pm

Thanks Landon for your thoughts.

I appreciate the difference you make that you draw to illustrate the story and the problems that brings.

"I remember how one time you were talking about how as an artist you use a blend of several colors (possibly even avoiding the central color you would associate with an object) to render the color of an apple in a certain light. This is the perfect approach for illustration."

Thanks for taking notice of my comment on color.

Funny, but I have always felt uncomfortable when someone speaks of my work or of fine art as an illustration, rendering, or craft. Perhaps that is due, as you have pointed out, to comic images highlighting a story, they are in service to something higher. Hahahahah, never felt that about fine art.

Michael

Post 76

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 2:29pm

Thanks and sorry if I used a term you were uncomfortable. I just remember a discussion on Bosch Fawstin's board (I don't remember how involved I was in it but I paid attention to the thrust of the arguement). It was about an artist named George Perez. Fawstin made the point that as an illustrator he was amazing paying so much attention to detail on every image in every panel... but as a result his storytelling suffers. And it was in reference to that style (the art as an end in itself) which fits PERFECTLY to your medium, but is ultimately poison to mine.

---Landon

Post 77

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:41am

Landon,
Yep, uncomfortable...but it really doesn’t matter. I went to a few exhibitions yesterday in Chelsea, in Manhattan. One exhibit were large canvases, something like cartoons and 50's ads combined to make a sociological statements. Painted in flat Las Vegas colors–but no form, no depth, no light–I, and fine art as I know it, do not have anything in common with those "paintings". Same goes for your suggestion that George Perez’s style would be perfect for painting as an end in itself, yet I did not see any indication that he was anything but an illustrator and no indication that he was a fine artist. Hence, I am uncomfortable in what is a good way to communicate the difference between illustration and fine art.
Michael

Post 78

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 3:02pm

Guess you have a point there. I'm just saying he moves a little too far out of the end of the spectrum he should be occupying. But conversely he may or may not be good enough to occupy a spot as a "fine" artist (cartooning is a style of art, many artists can do other styles as well, but since I haven't seen anything in another style I can't honestly judge) But that's the worst part, Dave Sim (godfather of self-publishing) made the point best. "We're not good artists. Any of us. But what we can do is tell a story and that's what we do." It's not intended to be viewed the same way fine art is, when it's approached that way then that draws literal comparisons and it shows just how many flaws the artist actually has. (If it's any consolation, I've been told most good comic artists HATE having their work shown in museums as opposed to read in its intended form).

But you're right I probably needed to find a better term but it seemed to apply on the specific axis I was speaking about. I see the point though, illustration tends to be any type of visual art applied to a higher (internally and literally higher not objectively) end, as opposed to an end in itself.

Slightly off topic I've really enjoyed being able to discuss these ideas with you, Thanks Michael.

---Landon

Post 79

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 3:53pm