THESIS: Classic comic characters work because they have been through a process of SELECTION and REFINEMENT of their stories for a very long time. The work in Hollywood, when Hollywood DOESN’T FUCK WITH THEM.
Does anyone remember the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet? There are traditional and established ways of shortening Shakespeare, but that one MOVED SCENES and CHANGED DIALOGUE.
What total, arrogant DUMBASS thought he could IMPROVE Shakespeare’s dialogue?
My worry with the MCU is that TWO things are going to collide: the forced injection of social justice is going to KILL good storytelling and going to require NEW CHARACTERS (radically altered = new, also), who WON’T WORK, because they haven’t been WINNOWED for 50+ years.
Even small changes by Hollywood meddling can have serious repercussions.
Let me illustrate graphically.
Here’s a seen from the Watchmen movie. Maybe you remember it?
“Your hands, my pleasure” … kind of funny. I guess.
But let’s compare the COMIC.
The line they change is KEY to understanding EVERYTHING about Rorschach.
“Your hands. My PERSPECTIVE.”
See the difference?
That says so much about Rorschach. He IS Rorschach (not Kovacs, not Kovacs at all) JUST BECAUSE of “his perspective”
And some Hollywood scrub writer “didn’t get the line” and changed it for an easy laugh.
I can’t tell you how disappointed I was when the movie was building to that line … and then fucked us with a cheap substitute.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As Putnam notes, the fact/value dichotomy fails because it never manages to actually distinguish the two entirely, due to a kind of necessary entanglement (or kinds) between putative "facts" and "values."
What we have is a situation of distinction where in some facts are not values, some facts are values, some values are facts, and some values are not facts.
What we do not have is a fact/value dichotomy which amounts to a metaphysical dualism.
This is one of my rules. I use language quite carefully. When someone response to something I have said by calling it "word salad," nothing is lost by blocking them.
There is no possibility they are being an honest interlocutor.
Anyone with more that a child's level of acquaintance with theology should understand that talk about God will always be quite unlike talk about anything else, unlike talk about any creature (which everything but God is).
This does *seem like* a huge incoherence in transgender ideology.
It seems as if it is absurd on its face to say that children can consent to medical "transition" and a lifetime of medicalization and sterilization, but not consent to smoking a cigarette or having a beer.
An honest atheist (if there were such a thing) might say that he does not believe in an uncreated creator. No!—he must pretend that the concept of an uncreated creator is nonsense!
As if everything that does an action need be susceptible to such an action!
A lot of picture-thinkers will form an image of what’s being talked about and then think something that only belongs to the image belongs to the idea itself. Which in turn causes them to miss/reject other cases that instantiate the idea but don’t fit their particular image.
Descartes gives an example of the limits of substituting pictures/the imagination from concepts/the intellect:
Consider a chiliagon, a thousand-sided figure with equal sides. Conceptually, this is easy to understand, but it is impossible to picture clearly and distinctly.