|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Is Thor really decompression though?... and I don't think Watchmen is either.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 01:40:56 pm CDT (Viewed 138 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Is Thor really decompression though?... and I don't think Watchmen is either.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 05:46:18 am CDT (Viewed 137 times)
The problem is that not all great stories make great movies. Watchmen is a great example of that. Its slow, gratuitous, predictable, none of the characters are really heroic (and therefore audiences will be unsympathetic towards them) and the payoff isn't worth it.
I agree Watchmen was never meant to be a movie. Alan Moore has said as much, but I don't think all of the heroes are unsympathetic. Nite-Owl is a true hero or at least was genuinely trying to make the world a better place. I think people would also sympathize with Rorschach due to his past and if people can root for the Punisher they can root for him.
Agreed to an extent. But you shouldn't spend $150 million dollars on a movie virtually devoid of action like Watchmen. Its idiocy...just ask Bryan Singer.
The difference I would argue is Superman Returns was pretty much a rehashing of the first film with no real development or depth of any kind. Watchmen had all of that. The problem was with the film is the true depth was left out.
It was obvious the masses were not going to get it (anymore than the masses got the recent Final Crisis crossover). Therefore the fact that it was made as a mainstream movie with a mainstream blockbuster budget is actually a fault of the decision makers who gave it the green-light. Not a fault of the public at large.
Compared to a lot of "art" movies I've seen Watchmen is not that hard to get if you think about it only a little so I can see why it was made as a mainstream movie. The set-up it had required a good size budget. The problem as far as I can tell is alot of people just don't seem to have any real patience with slower movies that aren't pure romance any more.
The irony being that Bendis hyped this (and in the process tricked even me) that he was going to try a more faster paced action-oriented style with Mighty Avengers.
So we agree on that one? I think that story was one of the perfect examples of bad decompression.
I disagree with this. If Hulk has a problem its Loeb's logic gaps. Not character development. The key element to the start of this series is the question "who is the Rulk". Its self-defeating to reveal this too early. Also with Rulk's true identity underwraps it becomes more difficult to fully flesh out the character. But with plot and character development purposefully slowed to protect Rulk's identity its unfair to say we have seen none of the above. Certainly A-bomb's character is developing and we now know Rulk has a plan of sorts (his chat with Thundra being one element of that).
The problem is that for people who complain stories like Thor is slow with development RHUlk is even slower. Granted, Loeb's logic doesn't help, but for me the story isn't developing. In a single issue you may have about three pages of actual plot or character development and the rest some pointless fight scene with just random characters showing up. I don't even think RHulk's identity has to be exposed (assuming Loeb even has an idea who RHulk is.), but I fail to see how pointless fight scene after pointless fight scene is any different or better from long drawn out speeches? I like a good action scene in my comic as much as the next guy, but I would like some actual development after about three or four issues.
Theres a difference between something interesting happening and something exciting happening. In 13 issues Thor has been in peril once!
How many times was Thor in danger for the first 13 issues of Stan Lee's run...or Walt Simonson's run...or Dan Jurgens run...?
How many villains appeared in the first 13 issues of JMS run? Contrast that again with any of the others.
Why have multiple villains appear when you can flesh out Loki and use him in a way that he has not been used in years. I'm not just talking about his absence. JMS has a real handle on Loki that few writers over the years have had.
I am not trying to sound intellectual or snobbish here so please forgive me if I do, but the current run on Thor has been compared to a Shakespearn play and Thor himself has often been compared to a Shakespearen hero. In some of Shakespeare's plays action only happen a few times with large dramatic build up. That is what JMS is going for here. He could be throwing in pointless actions scenes, but with the character and plot development he has done is being done in such a way that I think adds a layer of depth often missing in some stories today.
I admit the story is too slow for the average comic reader. That is probable why Rhulk is so popular. Maybe it is just because I am older now then I once was, but that at least is the way I feel on things.