SMAX... that blue guy in TOP 10, right?

[JarlWolf]

Well what he did was he made the slate clean; he removed all of the big powerbrokers and he allowed others to step up and form a society. So you can't blame him for that, the regime had to end. It was so corrupt and self destructive that if it didn't collapse like it did, the whole of England may have been wiped out internally.


The Union's fall did not clean the slate, all it did was allow people who had connections to rise up, kick everyone else down and everyone else had to fight for their survival. V kills all real connections. He's a realistic revolutionary, you can sympathize with him, hate him or a bit of both.

And Susan and his cronies would've eventually butchered everyone. Susan was going completely mad.

[Buster's Uncle]

Look, you know that I'm a big egalitarian -I think the way I run this place is proof- but a country isn't an internet forum; somebody has to be in charge, or it'll be that big violent guy down the road who collects guns - and a lot of people will die while that's getting settled.  It's the same reason Europeans until pretty recent history put up with pathetic, inbred, royalty.  Almost no King can possibly be so incompetent as to be as bad as having people fighting over who's King.

I don't buy that Susan and his murdering thugs were worse than utter chaos, -Susan was going mad because of V- and I'm surprised to hear you say so, remembering the 1990's as you do.  All I'm suggesting is that V should have thought a little about what might come next before he started killing people.

Fight the power and stick it to the Man, yes, I'm all for it; but not before you have a good plan in case you win.

[Buster's Uncle]

Incidentally, I'd like your reaction to this idea: if the Crown Prince had not been a publically-known hemophiliac, the last 100 years of Russian history might very likely have been profoundly different.  He wasn't a very good prospect to live long enough to be Czar, or produce heirs, and that made all the difference in getting people to support a revolution.  Chaos was coming anyway.

[Doc Nebula]

I want to be Superman.  -Or at least for Superman to be real.  Reasonable people can disagree about whether that's a mature fantasy, but it seems obvious.

I'd rather he not be real and here is why.

He's Kryptonian and a super being that is only countered by Krypton, which is apparently a VERY rare mineral.

And why is this an issue? Superman's costume is Clark Kent. Superman's identity is Superman, his costume, Clark Kent is him trying to fit into humankind and blend. It also represents his opinion of humanity; Clark Kent is a weak, near useless, cowardly individual.

You're misreading Superman in the way a great many people do.

Clark Kent is neither weak nor useless nor cowardly.  He is the human son who was raised by Ma and Pa Kent.  He is kind and decent and generous and altruistic.  He is not macho in any way, but I personally do not in any way mistake that for 'weak'.   He is intelligent, considerate, sensitive, articulate, and a talented writer... among many other things. 

Clark Kent is the real person.  He puts on the Superman costume, and when he does, he becomes merely himself, with super powers... which he always uses for other's good.

I know it's not realistic.  It's why DC has such a hard time bringing Superman into the modern age, where everyone has flaws and feet of clay.  Superman just... doesn't.  That's who he is.  But that's not what modern audiences want... and every time DC tries to make Superman more like a Marvel hero, well, they make him less like Superman. 

I understand what DC feels it has to do with the character, but to date it has never worked.  This is the problem DC has; most of their really big well known characters are from an earlier, more innocent age and do not translate well to this more cynical and corrupt one.  Only Batman can really make the transition to four dimensional characterization.  It just doesn't work well with Superman and Wonder Woman, and, I think, the Flash as well. 

But when you worry about 'if Superman was real, he'd be a dick, or might become a dick'... yeah, you're right.  That's why Superman can never be real... in our world. 

[JarlWolf]

Incidentally, I'd like your reaction to this idea: if the Crown Prince had not been a publically-known hemophiliac, the last 100 years of Russian history might very likely have been profoundly different.  He wasn't a very good prospect to live long enough to be Czar, or produce heirs, and that made all the difference in getting people to support a revolution.  Chaos was coming anyway.

Amongst NUMEROUS other reasons. There was outside influences pressing on the nation such has war and that in turn effected the economy and bad things happened.

Susan's England also had outside influences: remember the HUGE amount of Scottish gangs that came down over? They were dominating the gov't and state. Creedy was going to lead a coup no matter what, Helen was having a powerplay with her husband and was going to lead a coup and Susan was already insane and going to go clinical no matter what the source of stress. I see your point and I agree mind, V's lack of foresight is apparent, though if you also remember, Evie becomes the next V, so there is hint she takes up reigns to help the country a bit.


Also on account of Superman, note that my sources of Superman may be a bit different. Films in particular did not help his image.
Though I do get your point on that though, looking back at it now. But while the world can't have a Superman, I do not think the world can't have heroes. Heroes can, did and do still exist, its just they are a lot more subtle. Heroes are people willing to take one step further to get a job done properly so the rest of us don't have to put up with a problem, and heroes are people who are willing to sacrifice. And a good many sort of people like that exist, this forum has a few.

[Buster's Uncle]

Well, I wasn't speaking of the prince as a singular cause, by any means; merely suggesting that a healthy Romanov heir just might have made enough difference to get the old system past a wartime crisis point.  My knowledge of the time and place suggests that the revolution could maybe have gone the other way, anyway, if it had rained at different times, or something.

A real hero would have had a plan to build something.  Maybe Evey was supposed to - though that would be a real hail mary, on V's part, to assume.

All we saw Evey do was carry out V's last wish, and seemingly commence training a successor - which tends to hint that she didn't expect to live a long time - or just wanted another pair of hands to the work, depending.  She probably hadn't changed her mind about not killing, but we have very little to go on about WHAT she was going to do.  V was much cleverer even than we were shown if he knew.

[JarlWolf]

A real hero would have had a plan to build something.  Maybe Evey was supposed to - though that would be a real hail mary, on V's part, to assume.

All we saw Evey do was carry out V's last wish, and seemingly commence training a successor - which tends to hint that she didn't expect to live a long time - or just wanted another pair of hands to the work, depending.  She probably hadn't changed her mind about not killing, but we have very little to go on about WHAT she was going to do.  V was much cleverer even than we were shown if he knew.
[/quote]
V isn't a hero, but he isn't a villain either. He was simply a means of destruction for a regime that was bound to fail.
And he did groom Evey as his successor. Why would he got through so much effort to "educate" her and make her mature/ embody his ideals more? He essentially indoctrinated her to become the next V. So he did plan that; he did not plan a system to take place but he did plan for someone to help guide the revolution after his Viking funeral. So he wasn't completely in lack of foresight.

The book has quite a bit of depth if you look at it.

Well, I wasn't speaking of the prince as a singular cause, by any means; merely suggesting that a healthy Romanov heir just might have made enough difference to get the old system past a wartime crisis point.  My knowledge of the time and place suggests that the revolution could maybe have gone the other way, anyway, if it had rained at different times, or something.

The last Romanov ruler WAS a relatively strong leader though. Nicolas was by no means a weak man, or an incompetent leader. He tried his best to fight a massive war that his country was dragged into, and he had to put up with a sub faction in the military that wanted to follow the latest military trends, trends that caused the Russian army to fail and be beaten severely.

The problem was the inherent corruption and just overall backwardness of that regime. People were tired of bending a knee to an inept autocratic monarchy (no matter the leader) backed by oligarchs and fat pocketed churchmen. The rest of the world was advancing in some way or another, monarchies were dying and on their way out. It was only a matter of time.

[Buster's Uncle]

You second paragraph is near pure Marxist historical theory,  you know.

Nicolas even tried to head off the war with a personal appeal to his cousin Bill.  Which could have worked, under different circumstances.  I think a tiny bit better of the man for trying that.  -And he and Alexandra deserved full marks for an important part of monarchy people don't think about much - they looked great.  Not even Putin has prettied up a parade like those two could.  I'm not very serious in raising the point, but stuff like that does matter.

[Doc Nebula]

It's not that I don't find where this thread has ended up fascinating.  It's just that I know nothing about Russian history and V FOR VENDETTA is probably my least favorite Alan Moore product, so, you know.

But by all means, carry on.

[Buster's Uncle]

Seriously?  Because it's your thread, and I'll ramble about everything in the universe somewhere else if you want - community tradition.

[Sigma]

It's not that I don't find where this thread has ended up fascinating.  It's just that I know nothing about Russian history and V FOR VENDETTA is probably my least favorite Alan Moore product, so, you know.

But by all means, carry on.

I take it you never read Lost Girls?

[Buster's Uncle]

I've heard terrible things about it, and the pages I've seen excerpted didn't tend to make me disbelieve - but anything out since 1997, I probably only know from reading internets comments.

[Doc Nebula]

Never heard of LOST GIRLS.  Sorry.  And yes, by all means, carry on.  I love a good ramble.  I can post my own pointless meandering hoss shwit in other threads.

[JarlWolf]

As I said, Nicolas was a strong leader, but his regime, the very system was old, outdated and was going to collapse. It may be a Marxist Theory but its a theory that has turned out true, and not just for the Russian monarchy, but ALL monarchies. Nearly ever monarchy now is non existent, or non functioning. Of course lots of that is due to world wars kicking them out of power, but why didn't so many European nations re-instate their monarchs into full power after the conflicts? Because people do not want monarchies is why. They were/are outdated establishment that is unrelated to the modern society.

Also, apologies Darren.

And man this thread is active, I've tried posting 5 times and I get these damned insurgent messages 

[Doc Nebula]

I'm going to bed, and then, I'm going away for a while.  So, insurge on.