Anyone know when the word 'paranormal' was first coined? Merriam-Webster doesn't say.
Apparently Baby Ruth bars do go back to 1944, though -- all the way back to 1921, in fact.
Full Version: Hellboy
Highlight if you want my first impression of Hellboy. There aren't spoilers in the sense of details. But it might spoil your enthusiasm...
[quote]Ten brief notes about Hellboy.
Ron Perlman: Great.
Special effects: Decent to awful.
Dialogue: Melodramatic... in a bad way... except when Hellboy and Abe Sapien speak. They're actually cool and they have some good lines.
Music: Dull.
Villains: Dumb. Not even fun to laugh at. The tone is all wrong. They're too melodramatic, to grandstanding, and they lack any sense of history or complexity or personality. Ilsa makes Elsa of Indy III seem like a brilliantly conceived character.
Monsters: Del Toro seems to think that Butt Ugly=Scary. He is wrong. Remember the monsters in Dreamcatcher? Or Men in Black 2?
Action: Del Toro has no sense of momentum in an action scene. It's just basically one big smackdown after another.
Suspense: I wasn't nervous or scared by anything in this movie. Anything that might have had some mystery about it gets exposed and made extremely visible, so that the monsters just seem kinda silly.
High points: Abe Sapien. Very very cool creature. Also good: Whenever Hellboy sits down to chat with somebody, or whenever he's thinking aloud to himself. Whenever Perlman's the focus, the movie works. Best scene involves Hellboy making the acquaintance of a kid on a rooftop.
Low points: Pretty much the rest of the movie... but the last couple of minutes are just painfully bad.
To sum-up: More disappointing than Hulk. At least Hulk had some great action sequences and some good cinematography. This feels more like Ghostbusters or Men in Black without the chemistry and the relentless humor.
Christian symbolism? Well, the cross is everywhere, but everything related to Christ becomes merely a talisman, something good guys can use to fight bad guys, lacking any real resonance, and completely devoid of any sense that these symbols might lead to a Higher Power or something truly meaningful. "That's the spear that pierced Christ's side. He who weilds it is invincible." Huh?
What does the film accomplish? It reveals what a GENIUS Bryan Singer is. No, not Del Toro... Brian Singer.
What do we learn about Del Toro: He should stay away from comic book movies and dig deeper. The Devil's Backbone was great.
[quote]Ten brief notes about Hellboy.
Ron Perlman: Great.
Special effects: Decent to awful.
Dialogue: Melodramatic... in a bad way... except when Hellboy and Abe Sapien speak. They're actually cool and they have some good lines.
Music: Dull.
Villains: Dumb. Not even fun to laugh at. The tone is all wrong. They're too melodramatic, to grandstanding, and they lack any sense of history or complexity or personality. Ilsa makes Elsa of Indy III seem like a brilliantly conceived character.
Monsters: Del Toro seems to think that Butt Ugly=Scary. He is wrong. Remember the monsters in Dreamcatcher? Or Men in Black 2?
Action: Del Toro has no sense of momentum in an action scene. It's just basically one big smackdown after another.
Suspense: I wasn't nervous or scared by anything in this movie. Anything that might have had some mystery about it gets exposed and made extremely visible, so that the monsters just seem kinda silly.
High points: Abe Sapien. Very very cool creature. Also good: Whenever Hellboy sits down to chat with somebody, or whenever he's thinking aloud to himself. Whenever Perlman's the focus, the movie works. Best scene involves Hellboy making the acquaintance of a kid on a rooftop.
Low points: Pretty much the rest of the movie... but the last couple of minutes are just painfully bad.
To sum-up: More disappointing than Hulk. At least Hulk had some great action sequences and some good cinematography. This feels more like Ghostbusters or Men in Black without the chemistry and the relentless humor.
Christian symbolism? Well, the cross is everywhere, but everything related to Christ becomes merely a talisman, something good guys can use to fight bad guys, lacking any real resonance, and completely devoid of any sense that these symbols might lead to a Higher Power or something truly meaningful. "That's the spear that pierced Christ's side. He who weilds it is invincible." Huh?
What does the film accomplish? It reveals what a GENIUS Bryan Singer is. No, not Del Toro... Brian Singer.
What do we learn about Del Toro: He should stay away from comic book movies and dig deeper. The Devil's Backbone was great.
Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Special effects: Decent to awful.
I thought they were quite good, actually -- my beef was that there were just far, far too many of them, and nowhere in any of this did we get any sense of "character".
: Dialogue: Melodramatic... in a bad way... except when Hellboy and Abe
: Sapien speak. They're actually cool and they have some good lines.
They do, though there is something about Hellboy's line readings that seemed a little too flat to me. Deadpan is good, but he was almost dead.
: Music: Dull.
I remember liking it, actually, though I must say I've forgotten it already.
: Villains: Dumb. Not even fun to laugh at. The tone is all wrong. They're
: too melodramatic, to grandstanding, and they lack any sense of history
: or complexity or personality. Ilsa makes Elsa of Indy III seem like a
: brilliantly conceived character.
Heh. And lacking a sense of history is especially bad when the head bad guy is, like, Rasputin!
: Monsters: . . .
: Action: . . .
: Suspense: . . .
I shan't quibble with any of these points. Though I think you could have devoted a paragraph to the film's HUMOUR, since that is such a prominent feature -- it's not so much the spice, as it is in most action films, as it is a side dish all unto itself, if you know what I mean.
: High points: Abe Sapien. Very very cool creature.
And very very cool CHARACTER.
And hey, what about the John Hurt character?
: Low points: Pretty much the rest of the movie... but the last couple of
: minutes are just painfully bad.
I kinda liked the flaming kiss. But the whole destiny/choice thing was so underdeveloped -- and I have never cared much for stories in which grand cosmic decisions all boil down to a couple of characters who are supposed to be in love but the film never really sold me on that.
: To sum-up: More disappointing than Hulk.
Hmmm, I could almost agree, though the difference here is that I went into Hulk with a number of expectations, whereas I went to Hellboy expecting nothing but cheesy fun.
: Christian symbolism? Well, the cross is everywhere, but everything related
: to Christ becomes merely a talisman, something good guys can use to
: fight bad guys, lacking any real resonance, and completely devoid of any
: sense that these symbols might lead to a Higher Power or something
: truly meaningful. "That's the spear that pierced Christ's side. He who
: weilds it is invincible." Huh?
Makes you wonder how they got it from the bad guys who were using it before.
This could easily turn into a tangent, though, devoted to the question of whether it is better to deal with the supernatural in a naturalistic fashion (a la Underworld, which, like Hellboy, features bullets filled with liquid (and) silver), or whether it is better to deal with the supernatural in a truly supernaturalistic fashion (a la Dracula). And that, in turn, could easily turn into a tangent devoted to the question of where one draws the line between the two. I'm still getting my mind around the concept of "energies" and relics and whatnot -- though there is certainly a precedent for that sort of thing in the scriptures, at least.
Ah, but now I remember we dealt with some of that stuff in the thread on The Missing.
: Special effects: Decent to awful.
I thought they were quite good, actually -- my beef was that there were just far, far too many of them, and nowhere in any of this did we get any sense of "character".
: Dialogue: Melodramatic... in a bad way... except when Hellboy and Abe
: Sapien speak. They're actually cool and they have some good lines.
They do, though there is something about Hellboy's line readings that seemed a little too flat to me. Deadpan is good, but he was almost dead.
: Music: Dull.
I remember liking it, actually, though I must say I've forgotten it already.
: Villains: Dumb. Not even fun to laugh at. The tone is all wrong. They're
: too melodramatic, to grandstanding, and they lack any sense of history
: or complexity or personality. Ilsa makes Elsa of Indy III seem like a
: brilliantly conceived character.
Heh. And lacking a sense of history is especially bad when the head bad guy is, like, Rasputin!
: Monsters: . . .
: Action: . . .
: Suspense: . . .
I shan't quibble with any of these points. Though I think you could have devoted a paragraph to the film's HUMOUR, since that is such a prominent feature -- it's not so much the spice, as it is in most action films, as it is a side dish all unto itself, if you know what I mean.
: High points: Abe Sapien. Very very cool creature.
And very very cool CHARACTER.
And hey, what about the John Hurt character?
: Low points: Pretty much the rest of the movie... but the last couple of
: minutes are just painfully bad.
I kinda liked the flaming kiss. But the whole destiny/choice thing was so underdeveloped -- and I have never cared much for stories in which grand cosmic decisions all boil down to a couple of characters who are supposed to be in love but the film never really sold me on that.
: To sum-up: More disappointing than Hulk.
Hmmm, I could almost agree, though the difference here is that I went into Hulk with a number of expectations, whereas I went to Hellboy expecting nothing but cheesy fun.
: Christian symbolism? Well, the cross is everywhere, but everything related
: to Christ becomes merely a talisman, something good guys can use to
: fight bad guys, lacking any real resonance, and completely devoid of any
: sense that these symbols might lead to a Higher Power or something
: truly meaningful. "That's the spear that pierced Christ's side. He who
: weilds it is invincible." Huh?
Makes you wonder how they got it from the bad guys who were using it before.
This could easily turn into a tangent, though, devoted to the question of whether it is better to deal with the supernatural in a naturalistic fashion (a la Underworld, which, like Hellboy, features bullets filled with liquid (and) silver), or whether it is better to deal with the supernatural in a truly supernaturalistic fashion (a la Dracula). And that, in turn, could easily turn into a tangent devoted to the question of where one draws the line between the two. I'm still getting my mind around the concept of "energies" and relics and whatnot -- though there is certainly a precedent for that sort of thing in the scriptures, at least.
Ah, but now I remember we dealt with some of that stuff in the thread on The Missing.
| QUOTE |
| Makes you wonder how they got it from the bad guys who were using it before. |
Jeffrey,
I think your take is basically right on.
So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say about the implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with horns and tail?
My first question is, isn't this sort of story meant to come with a level of debate and existential angst about whether a demon can ever truly be good, whether he has a soul, what his true nature is, that sort of thing? Yes, the villain talks a bit about Hellboy's real name and purpose, but where's the discussion and pondering on the other side? Shouldn't there have been a good five or ten minutes of debate and soul-searching right up front before Hellboy even grows up? Shouldn't other characters be nervously asking questions like this behind his back? Shouldn't Hellboy himself have had one good scene of introspective angst?
My second question is, Should Joss Whedon sue? Compare Hellboy to Dawn Summers. Nuff said.
Okay, a few thoughts. In the real world, obviously, demons are never babies, and cannot grow up to fight evil. They're fallen angels and they are irredeemably evil.
But of course it's legitimate to posit a fantasy universe in which such things have been differently ordered, otherwise we must pitch It's a Wonderful Life on the fire.
And it's a fundamental trick of human imagination that we like to stand archetypes and stereotypes on their heads, and imagine good witches, dragons, vampires, etc. We also like stories of dramatic redemption, and what's more redemptive than redeeming a demon?
OTOH, dragons and vampires are creatures of our own imaginations, so in redeeming them we're only playing with toys we created ourselves. And while witches of a sort do exist, they're either self-deluded or else are dupes, allies, or agents of the true enemy of mankind.
In other words, demons, not witches, are the real objects of our caution and concern, and they occupy a far more important place in the hierarchy of Christian truth. Imagining a good demon is thus far more problematic than imagining a good witch. If we imagine good witches, ipso facto we divorce them from demonic forces and influences. How does that logic apply to imagining a good demon?
The iconography of demons with red skin, horns, and tail (and pitchfork, which Hellboy doesn't have) has a certain place in Christian culture and imagination. Hellboy files his horns (and in one scene breaks them off), but remains recognizably a demon. Is this sufficient? Shouldn't this use of the iconography of demons be troubling, if not objectionable, from a Christian cultural perspective?
Michael O'Brian thinks that even dragons represent an archetype of evil in human imagination that should not be tweaked by introducing good dragons. I don't see that myself -- for example, I doubt if the more positive associations of dragons in Chinese and Celtic culture represent a cultural pathology. Although I do suspect that our fear of dragons is probably rooted in some kind of very fundamental, primitive, mammalian antipathy to reptiles, and may even go back on a genetic level to the days of dinosaurs.
However, when it comes to demons I'm more uncomfortable. I'm not opposed to doing good demons in principle, but I think it requires a bigger imaginative leap than Hellboy actually makes to bring sufficient redemption to the imagery to make it nonproblematic.
Having said all that, I don't think Hellboy is Bad. But I don't think it's unproblematic, either.
I think your take is basically right on.
So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say about the implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with horns and tail?
My first question is, isn't this sort of story meant to come with a level of debate and existential angst about whether a demon can ever truly be good, whether he has a soul, what his true nature is, that sort of thing? Yes, the villain talks a bit about Hellboy's real name and purpose, but where's the discussion and pondering on the other side? Shouldn't there have been a good five or ten minutes of debate and soul-searching right up front before Hellboy even grows up? Shouldn't other characters be nervously asking questions like this behind his back? Shouldn't Hellboy himself have had one good scene of introspective angst?
My second question is, Should Joss Whedon sue? Compare Hellboy to Dawn Summers. Nuff said.
Okay, a few thoughts. In the real world, obviously, demons are never babies, and cannot grow up to fight evil. They're fallen angels and they are irredeemably evil.
But of course it's legitimate to posit a fantasy universe in which such things have been differently ordered, otherwise we must pitch It's a Wonderful Life on the fire.
And it's a fundamental trick of human imagination that we like to stand archetypes and stereotypes on their heads, and imagine good witches, dragons, vampires, etc. We also like stories of dramatic redemption, and what's more redemptive than redeeming a demon?
OTOH, dragons and vampires are creatures of our own imaginations, so in redeeming them we're only playing with toys we created ourselves. And while witches of a sort do exist, they're either self-deluded or else are dupes, allies, or agents of the true enemy of mankind.
In other words, demons, not witches, are the real objects of our caution and concern, and they occupy a far more important place in the hierarchy of Christian truth. Imagining a good demon is thus far more problematic than imagining a good witch. If we imagine good witches, ipso facto we divorce them from demonic forces and influences. How does that logic apply to imagining a good demon?
The iconography of demons with red skin, horns, and tail (and pitchfork, which Hellboy doesn't have) has a certain place in Christian culture and imagination. Hellboy files his horns (and in one scene breaks them off), but remains recognizably a demon. Is this sufficient? Shouldn't this use of the iconography of demons be troubling, if not objectionable, from a Christian cultural perspective?
Michael O'Brian thinks that even dragons represent an archetype of evil in human imagination that should not be tweaked by introducing good dragons. I don't see that myself -- for example, I doubt if the more positive associations of dragons in Chinese and Celtic culture represent a cultural pathology. Although I do suspect that our fear of dragons is probably rooted in some kind of very fundamental, primitive, mammalian antipathy to reptiles, and may even go back on a genetic level to the days of dinosaurs.
However, when it comes to demons I'm more uncomfortable. I'm not opposed to doing good demons in principle, but I think it requires a bigger imaginative leap than Hellboy actually makes to bring sufficient redemption to the imagery to make it nonproblematic.
Having said all that, I don't think Hellboy is Bad. But I don't think it's unproblematic, either.
If I thought The Devil's Backbone was the worst piece of trash I'd ever seen.... will I like Hellboy?
Well, I love Devil's Backbone, and thus had high hopes for Hellboy, and was sorely disappointed, so....
SDG, I understand many of your points. But they've left it so deliberately vague as to what Hellboy really is... He's not really a demon, per se... he certainly couldn't "possess" anybody. He's more like one of myriad varieties of monster that have come over from the "other side." This "hell" on the other side they refer to seems to be characterized more as just another dimension, and a particularly nasty one. And yet, Hellboy has to resist forces there that come for our souls, so it's one of those ways in which the film is frustratingly vague and confusing. Thus, I don't take offense at any of it, because I don't know what it is.
In the language of comics, Hellboys seemt to represent an overgrown teenager trying to resist his urges to be self-centered. The rest of the story is, to its detriment, quite uninterested in spiritual things. Demons like that Sammiel thing are nothing more than ugly monsters, fit for Men in Black or Ghostbusters to come along and torch. Rasputin and his clockwork ninja are much more interested in their wardrobes and their theatrical presence than they are in real evil.
And instead of suggesting that Hellboy is actually serving a higher power, Del Toro's story suggests that good is all about us and our choices, not our Source or our destination, not any kind of Authority. In that sense, it's a few shades away from Phillip Pullman's universe....
Still, I hope there's a sequel, directed by somebody who's a better mythologist than Del Toro, AND a better action director. Somebody who'll give us that missing angst, and give us more backstory on EVERYBODY. Especially Myers... or else get rid of him. (We need to know more than "Hellboy was a baby demon who got taken over to the good side." Huh?) Hellboy and Abe Sapien are too good as characters to go to waste.
And have you ever seen anybody act more naturally under pounds of latex than Ron Perlman? What a pro.
SDG, I understand many of your points. But they've left it so deliberately vague as to what Hellboy really is... He's not really a demon, per se... he certainly couldn't "possess" anybody. He's more like one of myriad varieties of monster that have come over from the "other side." This "hell" on the other side they refer to seems to be characterized more as just another dimension, and a particularly nasty one. And yet, Hellboy has to resist forces there that come for our souls, so it's one of those ways in which the film is frustratingly vague and confusing. Thus, I don't take offense at any of it, because I don't know what it is.
In the language of comics, Hellboys seemt to represent an overgrown teenager trying to resist his urges to be self-centered. The rest of the story is, to its detriment, quite uninterested in spiritual things. Demons like that Sammiel thing are nothing more than ugly monsters, fit for Men in Black or Ghostbusters to come along and torch. Rasputin and his clockwork ninja are much more interested in their wardrobes and their theatrical presence than they are in real evil.
And instead of suggesting that Hellboy is actually serving a higher power, Del Toro's story suggests that good is all about us and our choices, not our Source or our destination, not any kind of Authority. In that sense, it's a few shades away from Phillip Pullman's universe....
Still, I hope there's a sequel, directed by somebody who's a better mythologist than Del Toro, AND a better action director. Somebody who'll give us that missing angst, and give us more backstory on EVERYBODY. Especially Myers... or else get rid of him. (We need to know more than "Hellboy was a baby demon who got taken over to the good side." Huh?) Hellboy and Abe Sapien are too good as characters to go to waste.
And have you ever seen anybody act more naturally under pounds of latex than Ron Perlman? What a pro.
| QUOTE |
|
So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say about the implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with horns and tail? |
Huh. Yeah. Steven, knowing that you're a Jersey Guy, can you tell me whether there's ever been much resistance or outcry from locals regarding the name of the local NHL team? Are you a fan? If no, does the name have anything to do with your non-fandom? There's some connection to the local Jersey Devil, right? What is that thing?
There was that funny sequence in that Seinfeld episode involving the body-painted David Puddy.
| QUOTE |
| In other words, demons, not witches, are the real objects of our caution and concern, and they occupy a far more important place in the hierarchy of Christian truth. Imagining a good demon is thus far more problematic than imagining a good witch. If we imagine good witches, ipso facto we divorce them from demonic forces and influences. How does that logic apply to imagining a good demon? |
| QUOTE |
| Huh. Yeah. Steven, knowing that you're a Jersey Guy, can you tell me whether there's ever been much resistance or outcry from locals regarding the name of the local NHL team? Are you a fan? If no, does the name have anything to do with your non-fandom? There's some connection to the local Jersey Devil, right? What is that thing?
There was that funny sequence in that Seinfeld episode involving the body-painted David Puddy. |
Um. Are you being sarcastic with me? Because, look. I'm not being a Nazi about this or anything. I'm not all "down with horns and redness." Daredevil is my favorite superhero, after Spider-Man. Hot Stuff in Harvey Comics doesn't get me all worked up. But are you really saying that there's nothing here even worth thinking or talking about? A mascot is not the same thing as the protagonist of a film. Calling your team the Devils doesn't make a devil a hero.
| QUOTE |
| I think my ideas on the freedom of the subcreator come from Tolkien and McDonald |
So do mine, along with Lewis. So let me ask you, if Tolkien or Lewis or MacDonald had had a character who was a big red fireproof guy with horns and a tail from another dimension, what do you think are the chances that they would make such a character the hero?
Once again, for the record, I'm NOT SAYING that a big red guy with horns CAN'T be the hero, any more than I would say that you can't have good guys who study and perform magic in your story. But as I've documented at some length, Tolkien and Lewis didn't simply jettison all real-world concerns or issues surrounding the moral dangers of magic in treating their sub-created worlds.
| QUOTE |
| Tolkien, at least in the implications of his thoughts in On Fairy Stories, would seem to argue in favor of the subcreator's primary responsibility as self-consistency. In other words, it's the author's Secondary World, he can do pretty much whatever he wants with it. |
Are you sure that's what Tolkien thought?
| QUOTE |
| The McDonald caveat has to do with morals: the subcreator (though he didn't use Tolkien's terms) can change everything but the moral structure of the universe. In other words, cowardice and rage can't be turned into virtues. But after that, it's all fair game. |
Even the moral structure can be tweaked, I think. I would be very cautious about saying you CAN'T do anything in a story. But just because it's POSSIBLE to do something in a morally legitimate way doesn't mean that moral concerns can't possibly apply. Have I mentioned that I'm NOT SAYING that you CAN'T have a demon as a hero? But just because you CAN, does that mean that there can't possibly be any moral questions to discuss about doing so?
| QUOTE |
| As for the iconography of demons, well the red skin, horns and tale may have a certain place in the Christian imagination, but its entirely socially-created and should not be mistaken for divine revelation and taken literally |
I agree. But we are inhabitants of our society, and social conventions do matter.
| QUOTE |
| SDG, I understand many of your points. |
Thank you. I'm glad somebody does.
| QUOTE |
| But they've left it so deliberately vague as to what Hellboy really is... He's not really a demon, per se... he certainly couldn't \"possess\" anybody. He's more like one of myriad varieties of monster that have come over from the \"other side.\" This \"hell\" on the other side they refer to seems to be characterized more as just another dimension, and a particularly nasty one. |
Yes, there certainly is a high level of fantasy fictionalization and even science-fiction fictionalization about it. Which functions, I think, similar to the magic wands and flying broomsticks in Harry Potter that push it away from fictional depictions of real-world phenomena and toward the realm of pure fantasy.
OTOH...
| QUOTE |
| And yet, Hellboy has to resist forces there that come for our souls, so it's one of those ways in which the film is frustratingly vague and confusing. |
Plus, Catholic sacramentals such as rosaries, holy water, and relics of saints impact Hellboy and his enemies, which pushes them away from being sci-fi aliens and toward being spiritual creatures in a quasi-Christian angelology. Whatever Hellboy is, a crucifix can burn him, at least when he's in evil mode... and whatever he is fighting, sacramentals such as holy water, relics, and rosaries have power against them.
| QUOTE |
| Thus, I don't take offense at any of it, because I don't know what it is. |
I don't take offense either. I just have concerns.
| QUOTE |
| And instead of suggesting that Hellboy is actually serving a higher power, Del Toro's story suggests that good is all about us and our choices, not our Source or our destination, not any kind of Authority. In that sense, it's a few shades away from Phillip Pullman's universe.... |
Good point. And what about that line where the villain says that the Christian God remains silent, in contrast to his own active god? I tend to want to see a line like that pay off with something more like a response from heaven.
SDG wrote:
: So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say about the
: implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with horns and tail?
I wondered about this, but it seems to me that there are no spiritual implications at all about this character -- like Jeffrey says, the so-called "gods of chaos" seem to be trapped in another dimension that is not all that different from the "phantom zone" in Superman 2. I think Hellboy has the characteristics he has just because the filmmakers want us to overcome our prejudices -- the same way Gene Roddenberry gave Mister Spock pointed eyebrows and pointed ears and had the other characters kid him that he looked like Satan.
: My first question is, isn't this sort of story meant to come with a level of
: debate and existential angst about whether a demon can ever truly be
: good, whether he has a soul, what his true nature is, that sort of thing?
Ideally, sure. But this film isn't very interested in character or personality of ANY kind. I think this film is pretty perfunctory in EVERYthing it does, scriptwise -- it lavishes all its attention on the effects, the effects, the effects -- so I wouldn't isolate its lack of spiritual depth.
: Shouldn't there have been a good five or ten minutes of debate and
: soul-searching right up front before Hellboy even grows up?
Yup, especially if the adoptive dad is a Catholic "among other things".
: My second question is, Should Joss Whedon sue? Compare Hellboy to
: Dawn Summers. Nuff said.
Hmmm. The Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie came out in 1992, and I seem to recall seeing Mike Mignola's character in comics before or around then ...
: In the real world, obviously, demons are never babies, and cannot grow
: up to fight evil. They're fallen angels and they are irredeemably evil.
I wonder about this sometimes. There was a baptism at church last week and the sponsors were asked to turn around and spit when they renounced Satan. I have to say I'm not a huge fan of encouraging hateful attitudes towards ANYone. The fall of Satan and his ultimate defeat are a loss to be mourned, not just a triumph to be celebrated.
I have heard it said that God has tried to redeem fallen humanity because we are his Sons, whereas the angels are only his Servants, so if one of THEM falls, that's it -- they're toast, history, never to be seen in Heaven again. Which makes me wonder why servants can't be redeemed.
: So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say about the
: implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with horns and tail?
I wondered about this, but it seems to me that there are no spiritual implications at all about this character -- like Jeffrey says, the so-called "gods of chaos" seem to be trapped in another dimension that is not all that different from the "phantom zone" in Superman 2. I think Hellboy has the characteristics he has just because the filmmakers want us to overcome our prejudices -- the same way Gene Roddenberry gave Mister Spock pointed eyebrows and pointed ears and had the other characters kid him that he looked like Satan.
: My first question is, isn't this sort of story meant to come with a level of
: debate and existential angst about whether a demon can ever truly be
: good, whether he has a soul, what his true nature is, that sort of thing?
Ideally, sure. But this film isn't very interested in character or personality of ANY kind. I think this film is pretty perfunctory in EVERYthing it does, scriptwise -- it lavishes all its attention on the effects, the effects, the effects -- so I wouldn't isolate its lack of spiritual depth.
: Shouldn't there have been a good five or ten minutes of debate and
: soul-searching right up front before Hellboy even grows up?
Yup, especially if the adoptive dad is a Catholic "among other things".
: My second question is, Should Joss Whedon sue? Compare Hellboy to
: Dawn Summers. Nuff said.
Hmmm. The Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie came out in 1992, and I seem to recall seeing Mike Mignola's character in comics before or around then ...
: In the real world, obviously, demons are never babies, and cannot grow
: up to fight evil. They're fallen angels and they are irredeemably evil.
I wonder about this sometimes. There was a baptism at church last week and the sponsors were asked to turn around and spit when they renounced Satan. I have to say I'm not a huge fan of encouraging hateful attitudes towards ANYone. The fall of Satan and his ultimate defeat are a loss to be mourned, not just a triumph to be celebrated.
I have heard it said that God has tried to redeem fallen humanity because we are his Sons, whereas the angels are only his Servants, so if one of THEM falls, that's it -- they're toast, history, never to be seen in Heaven again. Which makes me wonder why servants can't be redeemed.
| QUOTE |
| SDG wrote:
: So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say about the : implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with horns and tail? I wondered about this, |
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one at least thinking about the question.
| QUOTE |
| but it seems to me that there are no spiritual implications at all about this character |
Even though he can be burned by a crucifix and creatures like him can be warded off with relics and holy water and the like?
| QUOTE |
| I think Hellboy has the characteristics he has just because the filmmakers want us to overcome our prejudices -- the same way Gene Roddenberry gave Mister Spock pointed eyebrows and pointed ears and had the other characters kid him that he looked like Satan. |
But Mr. Spock was an entirely rationalized and science-fictionized figure. Hellboy clearly is not.
| QUOTE |
| : My first question is, isn't this sort of story meant to come with a level of
: debate and existential angst about whether a demon can ever truly be : good, whether he has a soul, what his true nature is, that sort of thing? Ideally, sure. But this film isn't very interested in character or personality of ANY kind. I think this film is pretty perfunctory in EVERYthing it does, scriptwise -- it lavishes all its attention on the effects, the effects, the effects -- so I wouldn't isolate its lack of spiritual depth. |
You, right, of course, but the lack of spiritual depth still makes the demonic imagery troubling to me.
| QUOTE |
| : Shouldn't there have been a good five or ten minutes of debate and
: soul-searching right up front before Hellboy even grows up? Yup, especially if the adoptive dad is a Catholic \"among other things\". :) |
Good point.
| QUOTE |
| : My second question is, Should Joss Whedon sue? Compare Hellboy to
: Dawn Summers. Nuff said. Hmmm. The Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie came out in 1992, and I seem to recall seeing Mike Mignola's character in comics before or around then ... |
Oh, Hellboy far antedates Dawn Summers, who wasn't even in the film, but dates to to like the sixth season of the TV show or so. But was Hellboy in the comics conceived as having the same nature and specifically the same intended function of earth as we see in the film? I haven't read the comics, but I thought that might possibly have been a twist introduced by the film.
| QUOTE |
| : In the real world, obviously, demons are never babies, and cannot grow
: up to fight evil. They're fallen angels and they are irredeemably evil. I wonder about this sometimes. There was a baptism at church last week and the sponsors were asked to turn around and spit when they renounced Satan. I have to say I'm not a huge fan of encouraging hateful attitudes towards ANYone. |
I felt that way at one time, but I got over it.
| QUOTE |
| The fall of Satan and his ultimate defeat are a loss to be mourned, not just a triumph to be celebrated. |
I think it's both. In the book of Revelation the saints in heaven respond to God's "judgment" of the great harlot who "corrupted the earth with her fornication" by shouting, "Alleluia! For the smoke from her goes up forever and ever."
| QUOTE |
| I have heard it said that God has tried to redeem fallen humanity because we are his Sons, whereas the angels are only his Servants, so if one of THEM falls, that's it -- they're toast, history, never to be seen in Heaven again. Which makes me wonder why servants can't be redeemed. |
I wouldn't say it that way. It's BECAUSE God has redeemed us that we are his sons, not the other way around. The angels have, however, a different kind of knowledge, consciousness, and free will that makes their fallenness radically different from our own. Our decisions are conflicted and vaccillating, hostage to our disordered appetites, weakened wills, and darkened intellects. The angels' decision was absolutely free, conscious, total, and irrevocable.
| QUOTE |
| Um. Are you being sarcastic with me? Because, look. I'm not being a Nazi about this or anything. I'm not all \"down with horns and redness.\" Daredevil is my favorite superhero, after Spider-Man. Hot Stuff in Harvey Comics doesn't get me all worked up. But are you really saying that there's nothing here even worth thinking or talking about? A mascot is not the same thing as the protagonist of a film. Calling your team the Devils doesn't make a devil a hero. |
No, I'm not saying there's nothing worth thinking or talking about. I'm not sure where I implied that. Actually, it was just genuine curiosity. Non-sarcastic. I've always thought devil mascots were strange.
| QUOTE |
| No, I'm not saying there's nothing worth thinking or talking about. I'm not sure where I implied that. Actually, it was just genuine curiosity. Non-sarcastic. I've always thought devil mascots were strange. |
Oh. Okay. Thanks for clarifying and I apologize for my defensive overreaction, Russell.
Next Steven will be telling us that Devil's Food Cake is a product from the pits of Hell. :roll:
Just kidding! :wink:
| QUOTE |
| Just kidding! :wink: |
Heh. I think that what happened was, through nobody's fault but my own, what with a number of recent factors including the Last Temptation thread where I almost singlehandedly played, er, not devil's advocate, but false-Christ prosecutor, and the Culture Snob thread (no offense to Jeff, who has been quite a gracious sparring partner, or to anyone else), I'm maybe feeling a bit jumpy. And Mike's "here we go again" maybe made me feel that I was once again going to be the lone semi-nay-sayer. And then when I read your post, for some reason I had a sudden flashback to another thread where I was the lone semi-nay-sayer, and to you saying "It's time to change your sig quote, SDG, or change it." My goodness, where did all THAT come from? I need more sleep.
| QUOTE |
| Quote: : My second question is, Should Joss Whedon sue? Compare Hellboy to : Dawn Summers. Nuff said. Hmmm. The Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie came out in 1992, and I seem to recall seeing Mike Mignola's character in comics before or around then ... Oh, Hellboy far antedates Dawn Summers, who wasn't even in the film, but dates to to like the sixth season of the TV show or so. But was Hellboy in the comics conceived as having the same nature and specifically the same intended function of earth as we see in the film? I haven't read the comics, but I thought that might possibly have been a twist introduced by the film. |
Sorry to jump in, because I have no idea what's going on here--having never read Hellboy nor seen the movie (yet, if ever, given the so-so reviews so far!). Nevertheless, two things:
First, Dawn Summers turns up as Buffy's sister in the first episode of season five.
Second, why is she being compared to Hellboy? She has no supernatural powers once her function as "key" to another dimension is ended, and never acquires any, unless you count possibly above-average intelligence, shoplifting skills, and a remarkable facility with languages displayed in season seven.
What am I missing?
To SDG:
Oh, yeah. Kill Bill. I'll tell you-- when I was trying to decide where to post the news of the soundtrack list for Volume 2, it was Scylla-Charybdis all the way. Do I start a new thread and run the risk of a terse Chattaway link to the existing thread? Or do I go to the old thread, where I knew things had gotten a bit testy?
And have you gotten invites to any screenings of Vol. 2, btw? Do you intend to go?
Again-- honest, non-sarcastic curiosity.
Oh, yeah. Kill Bill. I'll tell you-- when I was trying to decide where to post the news of the soundtrack list for Volume 2, it was Scylla-Charybdis all the way. Do I start a new thread and run the risk of a terse Chattaway link to the existing thread? Or do I go to the old thread, where I knew things had gotten a bit testy?
And have you gotten invites to any screenings of Vol. 2, btw? Do you intend to go?
Again-- honest, non-sarcastic curiosity.
| QUOTE |
| And Mike's \"here we go again\" maybe made me feel that I was once again going to be the lone semi-nay-sayer... My goodness, where did all THAT come from? I need more sleep. |
| QUOTE |
| Sorry to jump in, because I have no idea what's going on here--having never read Hellboy nor seen the movie (yet, if ever, given the so-so reviews so far!). Nevertheless, two things:
First, Dawn Summers turns up as Buffy's sister in the first episode of season five. |
Thanks, I knew it was somewhere around there.
| QUOTE |
| Second, why is she being compared to Hellboy? She has no supernatural powers once her function as \"key\" to another dimension is ended, and never acquires any, unless you count possibly above-average intelligence, shoplifting skills, and a remarkable facility with languages displayed in season seven.
What am I missing? |
The answer involves a climactic plot point from the film. FWIW, here it is:
[quote]Hellboy also is essentially a "key" to a dimension of evil that, if opened, will essentially usher in the apocalypse.
| QUOTE |
| And have you gotten invites to any screenings of Vol. 2, btw? Do you intend to go? |
I was going to go tonight, but my wife's having surgery tomorrow, so I'm staying home to help her get ready.
| QUOTE |
| Oh, yeah. Kill Bill. I'll tell you-- when I was trying to decide where to post the news of the soundtrack list for Volume 2, it was Scylla-Charybdis all the way. Do I start a new thread and run the risk of a terse Chattaway link to the existing thread? Or do I go to the old thread, where I knew things had gotten a bit testy?
And have you gotten invites to any screenings of Vol. 2, btw? Do you intend to go? Again-- honest, non-sarcastic curiosity. |
Just what are you implying, Russell?! Don't start walking on eggshells or anything, or I might take offense.
Isn't the Old Thread locked? So it doesn't matter, right?
I don't get Miramax invites often, although if I actively bug them they'll let me come. FWIW, I do plan to see this one, and maybe write up something on Kill Bill once I have.
| QUOTE |
| What say we join up and beat the tar out of an innocent bystander (I'm thinking Stef) and call it a week instead? |
Your offer warms the cockles of my heart. It's almost enough to entice me to drive all the way out to Area 312 to join you.
| QUOTE | ||
|
Hope and pray all goes well, Jeffrey.
[Pepto Bismol Hat Firmly on Head]
SDG - Get some sleep. And sleep in heavenly peace because everyone here loves you. Even when you're wrong, you're wrong for all the right reasons.
Russell - Quit causing trouble and get back to that head in your freezer.
Flickerhead - We don't beat up innocent bystanders, we beat up the Devil. And he's no innocent bystander.
[/Pepto Hat]
-s.
SDG - Get some sleep. And sleep in heavenly peace because everyone here loves you. Even when you're wrong, you're wrong for all the right reasons.
Russell - Quit causing trouble and get back to that head in your freezer.
Flickerhead - We don't beat up innocent bystanders, we beat up the Devil. And he's no innocent bystander.
[/Pepto Hat]
-s.
Just for the record, I remember being very suspicious, as a child, of names like "New Jersey Devils" and "Daredevil" and "Devil's Food Cake" and so forth. There's a tourist spot over some rapids in B.C. called "Hell's Gate" that caused some tut-tutting among my fellow fundies.
SDG wrote:
: : : So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say
: : : about the implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with
: : : horns and tail?
: :
: : I wondered about this . . .
:
: Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one at least thinking about the
: question.
Yer welcome. It's the sort of question that often came to mind whenever I tried collecting complete sets of the Superman comics or complete sets of annual cross-overs, etc., and significant storylines involving characters like Jack Kirby's "The Demon" would come along. Like, oh dear, has this tainted the entire storyline, now? Should I just stop collecting?
I used to write letters to DC Comics all the time, and quite a few of them got printed. One of the ones that got printed was a letter to one of the Superman comics when they had a storyline in which Superman went to Hell, or was trapped in Hell, or some such thing, and someone had to fetch him out of there. I believe I began my letter by saying something that involved the phrase "Jesus Christ as a cataylst for such soul-saving", as in, I don't cotton to stories that pretend we can skip over that element. The letters editor wrote a very gracious response to my letter. (And if anyone's interested, I could track down an issue number!)
: : . . . but it seems to me that there are no spiritual implications at all
: : about this character . . .
:
: Even though he can be burned by a crucifix and creatures like him can
: be warded off with relics and holy water and the like?
Oh, right, that. Actually, at this point, I would refer back to Jeff's comment that all these things are just "talismans" and don't have much spirituality either.
: Oh, Hellboy far antedates Dawn Summers, who wasn't even in the film,
: but dates to to like the sixth season of the TV show or so. But was
: Hellboy in the comics conceived as having the same nature and
: specifically the same intended function of earth as we see in the film?
Ah. Haven't a clue, as I have never actually READ the comics.
: : There was a baptism at church last week and the sponsors were asked
: : to turn around and spit when they renounced Satan. I have to say I'm
: : not a huge fan of encouraging hateful attitudes towards ANYone.
:
: I felt that way at one time, but I got over it.
: In the book of Revelation the saints in heaven respond to God's "judgment"
: of the great harlot who "corrupted the earth with her fornication" by
: shouting, "Alleluia! For the smoke from her goes up forever and ever."
Yeah, I just don't see myself going that route -- I don't see myself buying into what Jewett & Lawrence have called "Tertullian ecstasy," the getting off on the punishment and torture of the wicked and the damned.
: It's BECAUSE God has redeemed us that we are his sons, not the other
: way around. The angels have, however, a different kind of knowledge,
: consciousness, and free will that makes their fallenness radically different
: from our own. Our decisions are conflicted and vaccillating, hostage to
: our disordered appetites, weakened wills, and darkened intellects. The
: angels' decision was absolutely free, conscious, total, and irrevocable.
Hmmm, and where would Unfallen Man fall on this spectrum?
SDG wrote:
: : : So, do none of us Christian cinephile types have anything to say
: : : about the implications of making a hero out of a big red demon with
: : : horns and tail?
: :
: : I wondered about this . . .
:
: Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one at least thinking about the
: question.
Yer welcome. It's the sort of question that often came to mind whenever I tried collecting complete sets of the Superman comics or complete sets of annual cross-overs, etc., and significant storylines involving characters like Jack Kirby's "The Demon" would come along. Like, oh dear, has this tainted the entire storyline, now? Should I just stop collecting?
I used to write letters to DC Comics all the time, and quite a few of them got printed. One of the ones that got printed was a letter to one of the Superman comics when they had a storyline in which Superman went to Hell, or was trapped in Hell, or some such thing, and someone had to fetch him out of there. I believe I began my letter by saying something that involved the phrase "Jesus Christ as a cataylst for such soul-saving", as in, I don't cotton to stories that pretend we can skip over that element. The letters editor wrote a very gracious response to my letter. (And if anyone's interested, I could track down an issue number!)
: : . . . but it seems to me that there are no spiritual implications at all
: : about this character . . .
:
: Even though he can be burned by a crucifix and creatures like him can
: be warded off with relics and holy water and the like?
Oh, right, that. Actually, at this point, I would refer back to Jeff's comment that all these things are just "talismans" and don't have much spirituality either.
: Oh, Hellboy far antedates Dawn Summers, who wasn't even in the film,
: but dates to to like the sixth season of the TV show or so. But was
: Hellboy in the comics conceived as having the same nature and
: specifically the same intended function of earth as we see in the film?
Ah. Haven't a clue, as I have never actually READ the comics.
: : There was a baptism at church last week and the sponsors were asked
: : to turn around and spit when they renounced Satan. I have to say I'm
: : not a huge fan of encouraging hateful attitudes towards ANYone.
:
: I felt that way at one time, but I got over it.
: In the book of Revelation the saints in heaven respond to God's "judgment"
: of the great harlot who "corrupted the earth with her fornication" by
: shouting, "Alleluia! For the smoke from her goes up forever and ever."
Yeah, I just don't see myself going that route -- I don't see myself buying into what Jewett & Lawrence have called "Tertullian ecstasy," the getting off on the punishment and torture of the wicked and the damned.
: It's BECAUSE God has redeemed us that we are his sons, not the other
: way around. The angels have, however, a different kind of knowledge,
: consciousness, and free will that makes their fallenness radically different
: from our own. Our decisions are conflicted and vaccillating, hostage to
: our disordered appetites, weakened wills, and darkened intellects. The
: angels' decision was absolutely free, conscious, total, and irrevocable.
Hmmm, and where would Unfallen Man fall on this spectrum?
Peter, I still enjoy the frequent tussles between the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer and Mephisto. Mephisto's always stealing one Richards kid or the other and taking him or her to Hell.
| QUOTE |
| : : . . . but it seems to me that there are no spiritual implications at all
: : about this character . . . : : Even though he can be burned by a crucifix and creatures like him can : be warded off with relics and holy water and the like? Oh, right, that. Actually, at this point, I would refer back to Jeff's comment that all these things are just \"talismans\" and don't have much spirituality either. |
Not MUCH, no. But whether we call them "sacramentals" or "talismans" (and even if they're talismans, they're still talismans in a Christian mode, and even a Catholic and ecclesiological mode [with references to the Vatican, etc.]), it still locates Hellboy and his enemies more on the "spiritual / supernatural" side of things than the sci-fi / natural side.
| QUOTE |
| : It's BECAUSE God has redeemed us that we are his sons, not the other
: way around. The angels have, however, a different kind of knowledge, : consciousness, and free will that makes their fallenness radically different : from our own. Our decisions are conflicted and vaccillating, hostage to : our disordered appetites, weakened wills, and darkened intellects. The : angels' decision was absolutely free, conscious, total, and irrevocable. Hmmm, and where would Unfallen Man fall on this spectrum? |
Good question. It seems that unfallen man had an intermediate degree of freedom, unimpaired like ours by concupicence (which is why his sin was so much graver than our daily sins), but not absolute and irrevocable like the angels.
| QUOTE |
| Peter, I still enjoy the frequent tussles between the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer and Mephisto. Mephisto's always stealing one Richards kid or the other and taking him or her to Hell. |
Demonic figures as EVIL EVIL BAD GUYS, of course, are in a very different category from someone like Hellboy. Or Etrigan, for that matter.
| QUOTE |
| Peter, I still enjoy the frequent tussles between the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer and Mephisto. Mephisto's always stealing one Richards kid or the other and taking him or her to Hell. |
In a recent FF story arc, Doom kidnaped Franklin Richards and left him stranded in hell. Then in the most recent story arc, Ben Grimm is killed (or near killed) and Reed invents a machine where the family goes to Heaven to bring him back (yes, Heaven). Most of this is goofy fantasy stuff, but there was an interesting line in one issue, where Reed is talking about how he got the designs for the "heaven machine" from Doom's labs in Latveria, and Johnny asks why Doom would want to go to Heaven? Reed responds that Doom was using it to try to bring back his dead mother, then says something to the effect that "it never occurred to him to look for her in that other place. Who would think to look for their mother in Hell?"
Nothing particularily profound, but it is interesting to see fantasy interpretations of Christian theology and imagery.
| QUOTE | ||
The answer involves a climactic plot point from the film. FWIW, here it is: [spoilery answer omitted] |
Thanks, SDG. That makes perfect sense! I mean, inasmuch as something like that can make sense :wink:
| QUOTE |
| Okay, a few thoughts. In the real world, obviously, demons are never babies, and cannot grow up to fight evil. They're fallen angels and they are irredeemably evil. |
I haven't seen the movie (though I am looking forward to this Friday, despite what I read on here), nor have I read the comics, but I did find this on the movie's official site - Hellboy's Movie Bio, which states that he's only half-demon, his mother being a human. Not having seen the film, I don't know how much of the info in that bio is discussed in the film, but maybe this is just the sort of backstory some of you find missing from the film.
His mother is human? Wow, I totally don't see how that could fit into this film -- though I suppose the sequel could go into his back-story.
BTW, just wanted to draw an analogy that might help to explain the SORT of concern I have with regard to films that make heroes out of demons. I am perfectly willing to run with mike_h's idea that subcreators can do whatever they want with their own worlds. But problems arise when these subcreations are a little TOO close to Creation. Going through the extras on my Brother Bear DVD yesterday, I was made aware once again of how sometimes the filmmakers (and their audience) approached this film as a myth about compassion and forgiveness and learning to walk in another person's shoes, no more, and of how sometimes the filmmakers (and their audience) seemed to think that the film was actually a powerful statement on the nature of real-life bears. That blurring of the line between mythic make-believe and commentary on the real world is one of the reasons I started the "anthropomorphic munchies" thread -- and I think a similar confusion may take place when people start making films about good demons etc. Sure, the very notion of a "demon" pre-dates Christianity and probably Judaism too, so I am quite happy to let subcreators do whatever they want with these devilish beings -- but when the "demon" in question is defined in terms so close to the Christian understanding of such, well, I begin to wonder.
BTW, just wanted to draw an analogy that might help to explain the SORT of concern I have with regard to films that make heroes out of demons. I am perfectly willing to run with mike_h's idea that subcreators can do whatever they want with their own worlds. But problems arise when these subcreations are a little TOO close to Creation. Going through the extras on my Brother Bear DVD yesterday, I was made aware once again of how sometimes the filmmakers (and their audience) approached this film as a myth about compassion and forgiveness and learning to walk in another person's shoes, no more, and of how sometimes the filmmakers (and their audience) seemed to think that the film was actually a powerful statement on the nature of real-life bears. That blurring of the line between mythic make-believe and commentary on the real world is one of the reasons I started the "anthropomorphic munchies" thread -- and I think a similar confusion may take place when people start making films about good demons etc. Sure, the very notion of a "demon" pre-dates Christianity and probably Judaism too, so I am quite happy to let subcreators do whatever they want with these devilish beings -- but when the "demon" in question is defined in terms so close to the Christian understanding of such, well, I begin to wonder.
| QUOTE |
| ... how sometimes the filmmakers (and their audience) seemed to think that the film was actually a powerful statement on the nature of real-life bears. That blurring of the line between mythic make-believe and commentary on the real world is one of the reasons I started the \"anthropomorphic munchies\" thread -- and I think a similar confusion may take place when people start making films about good demons etc. Sure, the very notion of a \"demon\" pre-dates Christianity and probably Judaism too, so I am quite happy to let subcreators do whatever they want with these devilish beings -- but when the \"demon\" in question is defined in terms so close to the Christian understanding of such, well, I begin to wonder. |
Reviewer Jonathan V. Last seemed to like Hellboy. At least better than The Punisher in comparison.
Anyone jonesing for a more introspective Hellboy, or at least one who seems to stuggle more seriously with his "purpose," should definitely check out the comic. The first volume is called Seed of Destruction.
| QUOTE |
| Peter, I still enjoy the frequent tussles between the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer and Mephisto. Mephisto's always stealing one Richards kid or the other and taking him or her to Hell. |
Heh... I was a huge "Silver Surfer" fan when I was in high school. He's still probably my fave comic book character, always so tortured and noble. I pulled out my old comics last night and spent some time going through them, specifically the whole "Infinity Gauntlet" saga. Fun stuff. I'm almost tempted to head down to the local comic book shop and just buy up all as many old issues as I can, just to fill in the holes in my collection.
I've got the complete run of Volume 3, which ran from 1987 to 1998 or 1999, I think. Over 125 issues, and then they killed the run with a filler issue. I loved those Ron Lim covers.
Yeah, Volume 3 was when I really got into it, though I think I have 2-3 issues from Volume 2 (the way Marvel divided up their series always baffled me). I stopped collecting it around issue #93, mainly because I went to college and had to start tackling college life. And yeah, I loved Ron Lim's artwork. Some of his illustrations of the Surfer riding his board were simply amazing.
I just got back from seeing Hellboy this afternoon, and my initial thoughts are that I quite liked it. It's a solidly crafted, funny, entertaining bit of comic book filmmaking.
The make-up and creature effects are superb. Hellboy and Abe Sapien are two of the coolest looking creatures in film I've seen in a long time. In fact, I liked all the set design's too. That Nazi-assasin guy was cool and menacing from the first scene on that island. Overall I think the trailers and posters gave a misleading view of the visual design of the film. It looked a lot better in the movie.
Perlman does a great job of giving character to the creature. I have to say his was the best performance in the film. And he's really funny too. More thought's to come on the concept of a devilish hero...
The make-up and creature effects are superb. Hellboy and Abe Sapien are two of the coolest looking creatures in film I've seen in a long time. In fact, I liked all the set design's too. That Nazi-assasin guy was cool and menacing from the first scene on that island. Overall I think the trailers and posters gave a misleading view of the visual design of the film. It looked a lot better in the movie.
Perlman does a great job of giving character to the creature. I have to say his was the best performance in the film. And he's really funny too. More thought's to come on the concept of a devilish hero...
Movieguide's sum-up of the situation: "In two scenes, Hellboy is shown as a demon, ensconced in flames and with long, curled horns, so he cannot be redemptive like Jesus."
[quote]Movieguide's sum-up of the situation: "In two scenes, Hellboy is shown as a demon, ensconced in flames and with long, curled horns, so he cannot be redemptive like Jesus."[/quote]
That's beautiful. Just kind of puts my little ol' reservations about the whole thing into perspective real nice, don't it?
That's beautiful. Just kind of puts my little ol' reservations about the whole thing into perspective real nice, don't it?
Y'know, I can be so impressionable. My girlfriend likes this film, so I want to like it too, but Jeff makes a few good points in his criticisms of the film, so I find myself swayed by those too; fortunately, I think Jeff may have over-reacted to a few bits, and I know my girlfriend is very, VERY forgiving when it comes to shlocky films, so I SHOULD be able to stake out some sort of middle ground, but darn it, I just wish I could COMMIT. So with that in mind, all I will say is that the National Post's Adam Sternbergh has summed up, better than anyone else I have seen, what my biggest disappointment with this film was: "Del Toro has done admirable justice to Hellboy's visual style -- he's laboured over every horn, every gill, every exposed eyeball. But what he ends up with isn't a movie, it's a visual-effects portfolio."
[quote]Movieguide's sum-up of the situation: "In two scenes, Hellboy is shown as a demon, ensconced in flames and with long, curled horns, so he cannot be redemptive like Jesus."[/quote]
They don't actually pay attention to the movies they review do they? I mean, they seem to busy keeping a running tab on number of "naughty words and scenes". Because I never at any point got the impression they were saying Hellboy could be redemptive like Jesus anywhere in the film.
They don't actually pay attention to the movies they review do they? I mean, they seem to busy keeping a running tab on number of "naughty words and scenes". Because I never at any point got the impression they were saying Hellboy could be redemptive like Jesus anywhere in the film.
[quote]They don't actually pay attention to the movies they review do they? I mean, they seem to busy keeping a running tab on number of "naughty words and scenes". Because I never at any point got the impression they were saying Hellboy could be redemptive like Jesus anywhere in the film. [/quote]
Same here. I don't know where they get some of this stuff. In the words of Jack Black, "Uh oh, it looks like [Movieguide] is on crack, right kids?"
But seriously, I didn't think Hellboy was a redeeming character. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see him more as a fallen character, like each of us, who must make a choice to overcome his fallen nature and be redeemed. However, I'm not particularily inclined to read too much into this, because as far as I'm concerned, this is just a solidly made popcorn flick that a comic book fan like me finds great.
Same here. I don't know where they get some of this stuff. In the words of Jack Black, "Uh oh, it looks like [Movieguide] is on crack, right kids?"
But seriously, I didn't think Hellboy was a redeeming character. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see him more as a fallen character, like each of us, who must make a choice to overcome his fallen nature and be redeemed. However, I'm not particularily inclined to read too much into this, because as far as I'm concerned, this is just a solidly made popcorn flick that a comic book fan like me finds great.
Just saw it--liked it better than most (sound familiar). A "popcorn" movie. The biggest visual disappointment was the demons--they looked like leftovers from Blade II rather than the classic/gothic demonic aesthetic I had hoped for. Del Toro has some kind of squid fetish or something. I found it tiring.
Chalk this one up to Spawn meets Men in Black or something like that. But not as good as either. (I did like it better than Hulk probably becuase I expected less, or because it was more gratifying.)
MAN, I wish John Hurt was better utilized as an actor. Perhaps one of the richest voices speaking today and he is so under-cast. I could have just listened to his narrated introduction for two hours and gone home happy.
:spoilers:
Although in fantasy flicks I tend to be very generous when it comes to occult and witchcraft issues, Hellboy raising the corpse in the graveyard towards the end (the "talker") crossed over a line for me. I'm not sure what line or why it was crossed, so I'll have to think about that, but I wasn't comfortable with that at all, whereas the occult elements in Blade or (particularly similar) Spawn didn't bother me at all.
More stray thoughts
Jesus = succeeds in redeeming us by his blood, a redemptive act, consistent with his sinless nature
Hellboy = succeeds in not destroying the world, by living in a manner inconsistent with his nature.
I'd say they're very different. MovieGuide seems a bit defensive, as if God needed a defender (as opposed to an apologist). Sounds like Ted's been imposing too much mythic-hero structure onto this film.
In thinking of Hellboy, I keep coming back to Spawn, which I consider a vastly superior film in almost every way (except no John Hurt). Big difference of course, is that Spawn is a (supposedly damned) human being, whereas Hellboy is a demonic creature. (Is he ever identified actually as a demon?)
This is one of those films that, while I enjoyed my time in the cinema, the more I think about the film after leaving the theater, the more disappointed I get.
I really liked the way cool, gay (he accessorized), bio-mechanical, zombie-assassin guy. That was a very cool monster (sorry, Jeffrey)--although he died way, way too easily for my tastes. In agreement with JO, many of the action sequences just seem to involve Hellboy or someone else getting the tar beat out of him rather than any real fighting skill. But to the film's credit, there is thankfully no "demon fu" involved.
Hurt's character's murder was way, way too gentle and kind. The writers totally missed out on the nature of evil in that scene. Contrast that with the climax of Return of the Jedi where the emporer takes such sadistic delight in attacking Luke. ("So be it.")
Similarly, the nature of good is obscured a bit. Why in the world would a supposed paranormal warrior for the good (the professor) take in an imp? I guess that's the "given" of the film and I might just have to accept that, but I was expecting the cages from Jurassic Park to be used to contain the imp, not a blanket and candy.
Abe Sapien = Creature from the Black Lagoon + Niles Crane
Van Helsing here we come...
Chalk this one up to Spawn meets Men in Black or something like that. But not as good as either. (I did like it better than Hulk probably becuase I expected less, or because it was more gratifying.)
MAN, I wish John Hurt was better utilized as an actor. Perhaps one of the richest voices speaking today and he is so under-cast. I could have just listened to his narrated introduction for two hours and gone home happy.
:spoilers:
Although in fantasy flicks I tend to be very generous when it comes to occult and witchcraft issues, Hellboy raising the corpse in the graveyard towards the end (the "talker") crossed over a line for me. I'm not sure what line or why it was crossed, so I'll have to think about that, but I wasn't comfortable with that at all, whereas the occult elements in Blade or (particularly similar) Spawn didn't bother me at all.
More stray thoughts
Jesus = succeeds in redeeming us by his blood, a redemptive act, consistent with his sinless nature
Hellboy = succeeds in not destroying the world, by living in a manner inconsistent with his nature.
I'd say they're very different. MovieGuide seems a bit defensive, as if God needed a defender (as opposed to an apologist). Sounds like Ted's been imposing too much mythic-hero structure onto this film.
In thinking of Hellboy, I keep coming back to Spawn, which I consider a vastly superior film in almost every way (except no John Hurt). Big difference of course, is that Spawn is a (supposedly damned) human being, whereas Hellboy is a demonic creature. (Is he ever identified actually as a demon?)
This is one of those films that, while I enjoyed my time in the cinema, the more I think about the film after leaving the theater, the more disappointed I get.
I really liked the way cool, gay (he accessorized), bio-mechanical, zombie-assassin guy. That was a very cool monster (sorry, Jeffrey)--although he died way, way too easily for my tastes. In agreement with JO, many of the action sequences just seem to involve Hellboy or someone else getting the tar beat out of him rather than any real fighting skill. But to the film's credit, there is thankfully no "demon fu" involved.
Hurt's character's murder was way, way too gentle and kind. The writers totally missed out on the nature of evil in that scene. Contrast that with the climax of Return of the Jedi where the emporer takes such sadistic delight in attacking Luke. ("So be it.")
Similarly, the nature of good is obscured a bit. Why in the world would a supposed paranormal warrior for the good (the professor) take in an imp? I guess that's the "given" of the film and I might just have to accept that, but I was expecting the cages from Jurassic Park to be used to contain the imp, not a blanket and candy.
Abe Sapien = Creature from the Black Lagoon + Niles Crane
Van Helsing here we come...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.