Jump to content

Thom Wade

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thom Wade

  1. Yeah...it is troubling that the article's author and Moore made it so vague as to sound like they were addressing "whiners" on the internet, when truth was, Moore was reacting to a specific person who is bit more educated than Moore or the journalist made it seem. It makes other stories seem a bit suspect, as well. Was the woman who approached his artist really yelling, or were they simply expressing a theory that Moore and the artist did not want to consider. One of my problems with Moore is for all his criticisms against everyone else, including the Watchmen related stuff, he is very guilty of himself. He has plenty of works where he is building off of the creative work of others. Lost Girls? League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Even Watchmen started with the Charlton heroes. Moore has cannibalized others' works to create his own franchises, yet he pisses on anyone who agrees to work on stuff he initially created. I had no interest in Before Watchmen...but his complaining about how barely any creative types wrote/contacted him to express sympathy or support over it? As if they were obligated to do so. As much as he wants to blast Morrison and others, he clearly wants to be a deity in comics, held in unique and high esteem. And so I am not particularly impressed by him these days. Truth is, it is kind of like finding out a beloved relative was actually kind of a jerk.
  2. So, it turns out Moore was not "taking down Twitter/Tumblr fake scholars"... He was actually referencing a specific guy...who has a phd. http://bit.ly/1f4sJvm
  3. Of course, if Jesus had no propensity to sin, it cannot be accurate to state that he was truly tempted in the same ways all other people are.
  4. Yeah, that was a problem for me with the film. It pretty much ignored things the setup of the first film, where they suggested crime is getting weirder, but after the Dark Knight, apparently , crime got mundane enough and Batman gave up his crimefighting ways?!
  5. I still contend a better would story could have been made by revealing Dent did not lie and have Two Face out to expose the lie and terrorize Gotham.
  6. None of this spells trouble, of course.
  7. Apparently it only did have appeal for AARP members?
  8. Yeah, I have seen a lot of folks claiming True Detective was a standou role for him. And really, I am in agreement after watching the premier. I found myself intrigued. I liked the visual style (everybody has such distinctive features, almost looks like a Frank Quitely drawing in motion) of the show. And combined with his scrawny thin frame and face in the flashbacks, the quiet inwardly focused detective thing worked real well for me.
  9. I guess I have just gotten so bored with Alan Moore's routine...
  10. Benedict Cumberbatch is appearing in some of my home movies this year.
  11. But really, the guy behind Watchmen and Miracle Man and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen might want to temper his "Grownups should not be reading super-hero comics" snobbery, as I think it is safe to say, he has written little fare for the kiddies. And I guess I tend to find (both on Twitter and Tumblr) most of the race/gender in comics themed people I follow post pretty nuanced and well thought out commentary. And Moore is dismissing them in his comments as well. Yeah, there are the random anger charged "You (bleeping) Sexist! I am never reading anything you write again!" reactionary types. But there are plenty of people who are explaining, quite thoughtfully, what they find problematic in an author's work. Moore chooses to limp those people in with the crowd. I will take him more seriously when he can offer the same nuance and thought in his reactions. Moore can write/say a lot, and it feels so dense it comes off less as a dialog and more as an attempt at distraction.
  12. I do not really disagree (though I found that outside of the Radagast stuff and the "Angry Vengeance filled Orc", the movie follows the first hundred pages book closer than people led me to believe) that keeping it to one film would have been a better move. At the same time, there was no way as a film, the Hobbit could ignore it's predessor. The book is a different creature not just in the fact that books and movies are different, but in the fact that the book the Hobbit came along before the Lord of the Rings books. The Hobbit film is connected to the Lord of the Rings films in a way that books are not. The Lord of the Rings books are certainly a sequel to the Hobbit (and reference the Hobbit more than once). But the Hobbit movie is a prequel. Of course it will reference familar things from the LotR films. This criticism strikes me as the most odd, that they re-use imagery. Yeah, some of it is fan service (but I suspect so were call backs to the Hobbit in the LotR books-maybe I am misremembering, but I seem to recall the fellowship passing the stone trolls...which the movie added in as well, but what was Tolkien's purpose in that? Aside from "remember this thing from the Hobbit?")...but it is also a storytelling technique. And an understable one. Although, the One Ring landing on peoples' fingers like a reverse basketball hoop is kinda annoying.
  13. Of course, that does nothing to damage the theory that Moorre really liks to use rape in his fiction. And it does not undercut the idea that his work has some possible misogynist undertones.
  14. Been reading the Hobbit...about 100 pages in. Maybe I am reading the books to late in life to find them all that mesmerizing...I mean, I am enjoying the Hobbit, but no more than the first Hobbit film. I did not enjoy the LotR books more than the films either... the Dwarves in the books all jumble together and even Thorin seems light on distinguishing personality...
  15. It is brutal, but not really in Moore's favor. It makes him look hateful, petty and vindictive. Not to mention a cultural snob. Coming from a guy who wrote Super-hero books for those emotionally stunted fanboys (and was writing grown up super hero stuff long before Watchmen), it seems to be biting the hand that made him one of those fleeting minor celebrities. He is raging something he almost single handedly inspired, but seems to act like he is above it. Listen, I get he got treated badly by DC-repeately. And I am on his side in that. I disagreed with the idea of "Before Watchmen" and did not support it. But at the same time, Moore tends to attack the very same people who support him. Being mis-treated by publishers is not an excuse to be a jerk. And really, instead of providing an actual defense of his work, he goes on the attack to declare that (just maybe, of course) anyone who finds areas of his work problematic as emotionally stunted fanboys pretending to be angry about sexual violence and misogyny. Gee, Alan, is it possible that deep down, you know you are a raging racist, mysoginist jerk? And that it shows in your writing? Is that so unthinkable? (Not stating that last part as fact, merely that if we are gonna throw out possibilities, the above is entirely valid)
  16. Guy Pierce appears as an ancestor of Weyland.
  17. Are you sure it is not a sequel to Near Dark?
  18. Thom Wade


    Interesting, as most people were expecting Rudd to be Pym.
  19. Boba Fett, fearsome bounty hunter who get's his target because someone else caught Han Solo. Then gets bumped and fals into a pit. Yet most enduring and popular character of the franchise cause he had a cool mask.
  20. Yeah, I got to see the second episode finally and it was far funnier.
  21. I am annoyed...my DVR only recorded the first episode...which I did enjoy...but I agree, very little caused major laughs.
  22. Okay. So, not really a "things kids say"...but on New Years day, my sister asked if I could watch the boys for a few hours. I was a little hesitant, I was enjoying my first day of not having to go to work and being healthy (I spent six weeks with a severe bronchitus and then got bowled over with a hard hitting case of the flu in time for Christmas. I got to spend Thanksgiving alone and Christmas with my parents, as they were sick with the flu as well)... but my sister said the boys would be napping...so I went over for a relaxing time. My youngest nephew (1.5 yrs old) was up...but he was quietly watching Finding Nemo (his brother was obsessed with the movie at the same age). We sat on the couch until he decided he wanted to play in his brother's room. His brother was supposed to be napping. Technically he was watching a movie (he has really gotten into the Incredibles) but was not being to loud. After a few attempts to get to his brother's room (and me thwarting such attempts, he went into his own room and stood by his crib. I put him in and he laid right down. I walked out into the living room, sat on the couch, turned on the TV and looked at the monitor. Three yr old nephew was taking off his clothes. As I was wondering why, he walks to the door and soon is walking into the the living room completely naked. He plops down and I see some stuff on his feet. I as what happened. "I POOPED!" and he was grinning from ear to ear...and I realized that is what was on his feet. I ran him to the bathroom and started cleaning him up (the goofy charm of him walking out carefree and naked was gone as I stepped into his room and discovered an overpowering smell...and poop on almost everything. he had ground it into the carpet, the hardwood floors, the sheets, his stuff animals and blankets... Then little brother burst into tears and wanted to play in brother's room again. Oh the joys of children.
  23. Thom Wade

    Dr. Who

    Honestly, I found this one so very underwhelming. It was pretty much the exact same thing we got over and over in any "Special Episode" of the Smith run. Either all his enemies or just the Daleks show up, and we hear about these epic battles, how the Doctor came to be loved/feared by many. It also felt rushed for me. I get that Moffat has "themes"...but it all felt so text book and ho hum to me...I would have liked a better send off for Smith. The only moment I really enjoyed was the post regeneration gag.
  24. (I haven't seen the film yet) I am really interested in the back and forth on the run time. I see some claiming the film runs to long...but I see many saying things like they would not want to to run one minute let, they wish it were longer, etc. Wat surprises me is that overwhelmingly, I have seen far more commentary in favor of the longer run time we got than those saying it is to long. I definitely want to see this one.
  • Create New...