Ironclad wrote:There are grumbles about a possible black female playing 007 before long. I've tried to argue, though I'm generally preferring canon, yadda blah blah, that 007 is a code name. James Bond is not. Swing away, I say.

Bring it on. Anything that causes upset to the kind of person who would see this as an issue is a good thing.

You don't lose a thing, those movies are abominable shit that trample hobnailed over the childhood of those who read the classic comics.

arugula2 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:There's no one to play Sherlock Holmes for me but Jeremy Brett, but I understand that some students of the genre consider his portrayal flawed. I think my fandom relates to what was going on in my life when I first watched that series.

This. Well, the early series. The last couple are painful, and he probably wasn’t all with it by then.

For me it was the books first, several times, and many years later I discovered Brett. I didn’t really notice any particular portrayal before that. I’m guessing they were never as vulnerable as the character seemed on the page, and as a result maybe felt 2-dimensional. Brett tapped into the manic obsessive side of the character, and the melancholy. He was probably better equipped than others. He ‘got’ the whole character, others seemed to be cherry picking. The idea of “flawed” is a compliment, afaic, because that’s Sherlock.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
What 'fans' want is to live in a time capsule from 40 years ago. Actual fans understand that it isn't 40 years ago, and mature adults today aren't going to pretend it is. The only people that would are the ones who are actually trying to steal your faded memories for a buck.

I’m not sure I get these distinctions. To me, people seem complex enough to have a foot in different levels of maturity, about different things simultaneously, sometimes even about the same thing. The fandom spreads across all levels, comfortably. We all want to live in a time capsule some of the time, intensely some days, less so others. It depends. I think more meaningful than categories of fan is general trends in those attitudes... which is probably where commentary like Moore’s and Scorsese's is useful.

I'd say if you don't like something in its current iteration, you aren't a fan. You're a fan of the old iteration, and to pretend that it's some sort of betrayal that they've moved on from you is silly. Simply preferring a previous iteration isn't -- my list of media where I prefer the old iteration would be endless. But there's plenty of media where I enjoy the current iteration as well. In other words it's not about which you prefer, it's the stance you take on it. Yours clearly isn't the sort of view I'm describing, and maybe you haven't seen it but it's all over the place now, loud and shrill and pretentious.

Moore and Scorcese's high art jack-off, a tired old trope if there ever was one, is apparently useful and appealing to folks as a way to demand compliance to their views as the OP has done at the start of this thread, but I honestly don't see much use for it otherwise

laklak wrote:The only Sherlock is Basil Rathbone.

The only Basil is Basil Fawlty.

WIN!

Murderous Italians with too much money, lots of bullets and trilby hats. Booze, torture and broads. This is what you digest once you've outgrown Superman, because it's adult and less concerning. Martin suggests.
Is it ok if I watch reruns of Laurel and Hardy? I am over 50, and I'd not want to look foolish if the neighbour sees me!

You're not watching the new Laurel And Hardy where they're a lesbian couple running a Planned Parenthood?

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I'd say if you don't like something in its current iteration, you aren't a fan. <snip>

I think that’s arbitrary. What’s the basis? If I’m a fan of Conan the Barbarian stories, but I’m not a fan of a specific Conan book or Conan movie, then I’m both: a fan and not a fan. That’s literal. If you restrict fandom to one specific iteration, then you’re just telling me what version of a story/concept I don’t like. That seems... obvious? But if you’re telling me that if I dislike a ‘current’ version of a franchise/story, that then I’m not a fan of the material generally, then I don’t understand. That seems illogical. I doubt there’s ever been a human who would qualify as a fan, then.

Plus (more to the earlier point) I don’t think delineations, even of franchises or source materials, actually matter, because I’m pretty convinced we are responding to broader themes, even when we think we are just obsessing over franchises. I think accepting the framing of the people yelling = fruitless & doesn’t clarify much.

Moore and Scorcese's high art jack-off, a tired old trope if there ever was one, is apparently useful and appealing to folks as a way to demand compliance to their views as the OP has done at the start of this thread, but I honestly don't see much use for it otherwise

It’s useful as sociological commentary. Seems like they both frame it in very personal terms, with Scorsese letting you know he’s aware that he happens to like what he likes & that it’s somewhat arbitrary; and Moore telling you the same thing, plus that the zeitgeist is flat-out lame. So both express it in an intimately personal way, because they’re not communicating like sociologists. But it still contains useful/interesting information about trends. Interesting if such things interest you. They do interest me.

I think (at least in terms of Moore) there's a much simpler explanation. He's a misanthrope and contrarian. He likes putting people down and he's been at it for decades.

To be fair to him, I think he's not the only person who gets to feel superior because they don't like something other people do. You get pop music snobs, classical music snobs, wine snobs, literature snobs, gaming snobs, you get class snobs and you get reverse snobbery in every dimension as well.

I very much liked arugula2's contributions to the thread, and I definitely agree that there's the potential for something interesting in the topic, but I have to admit I draw the line at useful. You're never going to derive a constructive use from Alan Moore being slightly dickish to people becuase he disapproves of their hobby. Particularly since the first question of any generalisation before it can be put to use must be is it true? The closest to a use you'll ever see is the OP of this thread, where it stands, passive-aggresively, in place of an argument from another thread. And that use is far from constructive and is relatively content independent anyway.

ETA: There is one detail I omitted to mention and perhaps should have. There is a distinction between a sociological commentary (or an attempt at one) which critiques the audience of a particular genre as infantile (and hence as having worrying implications) and a literary commentary which critiques a particular genre (or a number of works within one) as infantile. Only one of those two things is amenable to evaluation rather than being strictly opinion, and clearly some comments have fallen on either side of this divide.

Alan Moore's opinions clearly fall on the side of critiquing an audience rather than a genre, and he's expressed them in numerous places over the years, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/ ... s-watchmen.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You're not watching the new Laurel And Hardy where they're a lesbian couple running a Planned Parenthood?

In color!! Technicolor! God save us..

arugula2 wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I'd say if you don't like something in its current iteration, you aren't a fan. <snip>

I think that’s arbitrary. What’s the basis? If I’m a fan of Conan the Barbarian stories, but I’m not a fan of a specific Conan book or Conan movie, then I’m both: a fan and not a fan. That’s literal. If you restrict fandom to one specific iteration, then you’re just telling me what version of a story/concept I don’t like. That seems... obvious?

So it's arbitrary, but obvious?

You're forgetting the context of these statements. They're aimed at people who say that they're being betrayed because an iteration isn't close enough to the one they approve of, and that their approved iteration is trve kvlt. If you only like the Robert Howard books and nothing else, then sure you're a fan of those books, but it's not like you've got the hard line to the heart of the Conan fandom. It's more than you, and if you accept that then I don't think there's any actual point of dispute between us. We'd be arguing semantics, and no doubt mine could use some fine tuning.

Moore and Scorcese's high art jack-off, a tired old trope if there ever was one, is apparently useful and appealing to folks as a way to demand compliance to their views as the OP has done at the start of this thread, but I honestly don't see much use for it otherwise

It’s useful as sociological commentary. Seems like they both frame it in very personal terms, with Scorsese letting you know he’s aware that he happens to like what he likes & that it’s somewhat arbitrary; and Moore telling you the same thing, plus that the zeitgeist is flat-out lame. So both express it in an intimately personal way, because they’re not communicating like sociologists. But it still contains useful/interesting information about trends. Interesting if such things interest you. They do interest me.

I don't find artists claiming that their version is the best and other people's is garbage particularly helpful or revealing, but more power to you if you can glean anything worthwhile from it.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You're forgetting the context of these statements. They're aimed at people who say that they're being betrayed because an iteration isn't close enough to the one they approve of, and that their approved iteration is trve kvlt.

I just had a look at what Alan Moore said in that interview with Raphael Sassaki. Your take is a gross misinterpretation of it. As for Martin Scorcese, I can't find any comment that can be read, even remotely, as "being betrayed because an iteration isn't close enough to the one they approve of" either.

Hermit wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:You're forgetting the context of these statements. They're aimed at people who say that they're being betrayed because an iteration isn't close enough to the one they approve of, and that their approved iteration is trve kvlt.

I just had a look at what Alan Moore said in that interview with Raphael Sassaki. Your take is a gross misinterpretation of it. As for Martin Scorcese, I can't find any comment that can be read, even remotely, as "being betrayed because an iteration isn't close enough to the one they approve of" either.

That's because you're conflating two separate points.

What happened to the white supremacist dreams of the master race? Is that what Catwoman was about? I wasn't into comic books either.
I figured y'all'd be talkin about this man, who is offended by racism.

You mean the embodiment of racism.

I think that was his response to the emails leak, that it offends him. I haven't had the want to read the emails yet.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You're not watching the new Laurel And Hardy where they're a lesbian couple running a Planned Parenthood?

Wait. I don't know what Lauren and Harding is but I'd watch this.

I'd at least give the first episode a go.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You're not watching the new Laurel And Hardy where they're a lesbian couple running a Planned Parenthood?

"Here's another nice fetus we've gotten out of you."

SafeAsMilk wrote:
So it's arbitrary, but obvious?

I offered two interpretations in that paragraph. You cut one out. That’s the one that’s arbitrary - or seemed arbitrary to me, and I was asking for the basis of it.

So to recap, because your response left it out (so I’m not sure if you saw it), arbitrary would be to distinguish the kind of ‘fan’ that makes specific demands of new interpretations of existing stories, from “true fans” (see your post, to which mine was replying). It’s almost explicit that what you meant by “true fans” are those of us (me included) who are flexible & enjoy the mere fact of divergent interpretations of things. Otherwise things go stale and oppressive, imo. But those other kinds of fans are still fans of the material... I was trying to suss out meaning that wasn’t jumping out at me - but if it was just a normative stance, that’s fine, and I’d get that.

What I fear in discussions about the way the rabble behaves, is the adopting of the methods of the rabble (I mentioned this earlier). The classifying of people into neat categories specifically in order to dismiss their arguments, is what the people in question tend to do - not a small reason for why they almost never change their minds about anything. It has two potential downsides, I think. One, it means almost any perspective will tend to be largely dismissed before it is fully considered. Two, the larger trends, the ones that are bigger than individuals, are obviated, and there’s nothing to learn from a situation that’s clearly rich with potential for learning. Individuals may be boring and predictable, but humanity is weird and interesting.

Btw, those two things are predictions, and anyone can test them.

I don't find artists claiming that their version is the best and other people's is garbage particularly helpful or revealing, but more power to you if you can glean anything worthwhile from it.

The container doesn’t really matter, is my point. Even a vain asshat has access to truth, and can sometimes spurt it out. I haven’t seen enough of Moore’s comments to feel like I fully understand his pov... but ya, he’s unsubtle. A misanthrope? (Someone else’s word.) Narrow tastes? I guess so. Doesn’t tell me nearly enough about whether or not his observations are based in actual trends.

Scorsese’s take is obviously nuanced - not thin like the media summaries led me to expect. It made me think. I can look past the masturbation, especially because he acknowledges his tastes are arbitrary. It’s pretty clear he knows that, and is trying to describe a trend. Scorsese’s “version” isn’t really his own, anyway. He seems to be arguing for diversity itself, in a time when cinema is becoming more homogenized:

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all. (link)

It’s more generous than what you implied. It’s almost an inversion. It’s a point that gets missed if the container is thrown out because there’s something distasteful about it. But that’s the same point you are apparently trying to make (diversity, and bullocks to narrow-minded fanbois) but from the other side, somehow.