Descartes

Wow.

This seems to be the most highly regarded issue in a year or so. I don't see it, but Im happy you all enjoyed it so much.

A little question: when you rate on a scale of 1 to 10, what is the range of issues you are considering? The whole series? Carrey's run? Or just this individual issue relative to the last few?

I ask because perhaps I'm being too harsh with my rating (i.e. comparing this issue with my favorites from Delano and Ennis as "10" and "ashes and dust" as "1").

No (well, yes, but that's not the issue with this particular example), the Academy Award voters are morons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, yes, that too.

It is not worthy of that claim.  And as far as Titanic - hate to say it but it is a much better film all the way around and does deserve its place in film history because it managed to connect with the FEMALE audience and coax them into emotional submission - This is a group that many filmakers simply ignore or cast off as an afterthought - or in the case of My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Terms of Endearment as a strange anomoly.  Had I taken my girlfriend to Sin City she would have walked out in ten minutes and thought I was sick for sitting through the entire thing.  Does that make her a moron because she doesn;t want to subject herself to that kind of film? 

 

It doesn't mean films like Sin City should not be made - they should.  So should Kill Bill (which I loved ) and any other film that places violence and explotatiion up front as its central themes  - but to champion those films - to say they are great cinema and those that shun them are morons is being a bit simplistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats funny. When I saw Sin City with the wife on Sunday, to her left were a couple obviously on a date. The guy was into it, but the young lady simply cringed through the whole thing and looked slightly sick.

Not a good first date movie, eh? But... on the other hand, Id like to see someone try to tell my wife that she should like Titanic because it connects with her as a FEMALE. Ha!

There is a difference between (a) saying that the film going public (again a non-entity) are morons, and (b) that "x" film is horrible or that "Y" individual who likes "x" film is a moron.

The latter relates to an almost universal question: why are there no good movies anymore? Answer: cause the film going public are morons. I bet people were saying this way before I was born, and blaming certain movies for "desensitizing" the audience's taste for more substantial fare.

The former relates to personal opinion on a specific movie, which is a personal idiosyncratic judgment relating to taste.

For example, my mother likes "Dances With Wolves." I believe said film is shit. However, I don't believe my mother is a moron. She just like sthat kind of stuff. Corollary: I would never recomend for her to watch Sin City. She hates violence.

Compare: "Dances with Wolves" was a box office success. "Dances With Wolves" won Kevin Costner an Oscar for best director. Scorcesse has never won an Oscar for best director.

God, the film going public are morons.

Ah its the good old bad days again, isn't it?

I wasn't old enough to really remember the 80s in terms of anything other than comic books and tv shows, but I bet the demon soul brokers could do good business where I live in San Francisco.

Just ask anyone (half-way) involved in (popular) economics: there is a general consensus that "value" is a meaningless term in the market. First in the internet bubble, and now in the housing market.

With that kind of reasoning, I bet more people now would be willing to hand over their soul (esssentially an item of qualitative value and only of speculative worth) for very little in terms of cash or success.

But... I see the overall point: there is a portion of John's character (especially in Deleno's run) that is kind of "stuck" in the 80s. I think the Planetary issue that included John's funeral summed this up quite well.

Well, if it does fall off, so be it.

But Sin City was, by far, the more enjoyable movie---for me at least.

I felt like it was the kind of movie I could recomend to friends that don't read comic books. In fact I did.

I had hoped it would do better simply because it would be good to send a message to Hollywood that it is possible to make a film that sticks to its source material and is successful simultaneously.

As for calling the film-watching public at large "morons," well, I think thats a rather apt summation, and not simply because I disagree with their taste (as if an amorphous entity could have "taste").

The problem is not simply that good movies are not embraced by the public (because they sometimes are) but more along the lines of how fickle the public's taste is---the public's consistent half-hearted support for mediocre movies like the latest ashton kutcher farce results in a steady stream of mediocrity from hollywood, and when coupled with this strange desire on the part of the public to equate gross returns with quality, it means there is unlikely to be another Straw Dogs, Taxi Driver, Wild Bunch, Apocalypse Now, hell, even Scarface as these movies simply don't "test well".

It used to be a mark of pride that a film so disturbed the audience that people got out of their seats and left the theatre. Now the offending portion is quickly cut, irregardless of the "artistic vision" or its overall importance to the script.

So what you get is a film that the majority of people watching "like" but no one really "loves" or even remembers the next day.

Not to say that I don't love the Ashton Kutcher movies, mind you...

I don't think there's really that much of Constantine in Gravel (Strange Killings), though the recent Strong Medicine story was very Hellblazer.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not so much the character, you're right, except perhaps superficially. I was being semi-ironic. (Im not sure which emoticon to use to express that emotion).

Strong Medicine and the original strange kisses could have been hellblazer stories--the recent zombie on or the body orchid could not have been.

If someone got drunk and beat up his wife, but he only did it when he was drunk, would you say that the fact that he only does it when drinking lessens the actions? I think the demon soul was just used by Carey, in the same way another writer must use illegal drugs, to get Chas do the things which he had been suppressing for so long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but if someone gets drunk and beats up their wife, even if not conscious of what they are doing at the time, they still made a conscious choice to get drunk in the first place, so they are morally culpable for the act.

I mean, Rene may never understand and may end up leaving Chas... but "honey I was possessed by a fromer arch-duke of hell in the form of a rat for two days after being almost murdered by the demon spawn of John Constantine" is a much better excuse than, "honey, I had one too many pints of lager and you wouldn't stop bitching at me."

I think Ellis should stick with making money on the "ultimate" books.

His attiutde after learning "shoot" wasn't going to be published was childish: "fine, you don't wanna play my way, I'll take my toys and go home."

If the story was a masterpeice, or even thought-provoking, or whatever, then I'd feel another way-- but it wasn't.

Mind you, not like I think a work has to be good to avoid censorship, Ellis should have the freedom to publish anything he wants. But he should also realize that he had a job that most of us would kill for, and, like any job, there are things you can and can't do.

Anyway, Ellis is still writing Hellblazer, after all: its called "Strange Killings" which is pretty much John Constantine with a machine gun.

Wait a second... doesn't that sound like a movie that recently came out?? Hmmm...

I've never seen anything to suggest that Chas has some kind of innate 'resistance' to magic. The only issue which has really looked at his background in that sort of detail was #84, and I don't recall any suggestion to that effect in there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No direct reference to a resistance, I was thinking more like implied by exclusion: everyone else is in the comic is either dead or "magical," aren't they?

And note, the "non-magical" characters are usually killed by non-magical means: being hit by a car, killed by neo-nazis, etc.

Like I said, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's sort of like what John told Tim in the original Books of Magic, how magic is a choice, and if you choose not to live in that world, it won't affect you (or at least, it wont have any "direct effect" on you).

Of course, "All His Engines" has Chas beign teleported across town, so my theory is definitely flawed, but, oh well, thats probably why Im not writing the comic.

On another unrelated point, Maria has "attempted" to kill Chas twice now and failed. Isn't there some sort of "hat trick" law when it comes to demons trying to kill you?

Like, if a demon singles you out for death and fails three times in a row, Agony and Ecstacy "punish" them or something? I remember a mention of this back during the Ennis run (they attempted to do it to TFOTF?), but don't have the issues at hand.

"Finally for now, I really do not like Camuncoli's art."

I think his art is fine, if this was "Hellblazer: Manga" but it didn't work for me in this setting.

Poor Chas.  It's nice to see a Chas-centric issue after all these years. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but I was kind of disapointed about how it tied in with the "greater continuity."

I always thought it'd be cool to have an entire issue featuring Chas, but I thought it was kind of cheap that he had to be "infected" with nergal's evil.

Why not just have an issue of Chas sitting around, loathing his life with no super natural elements to "drive" the plot.

Maybe it's how you interpret the character: I always thought chas was kind of "simple" and non-magical (i.e. like his father).

You know, the way he was raised, it was like he had built up a sort of resistence to magic (sort of like having the chicken pox as a kid).

As such, Chas grounded John and never became involved with his "weird shit."

For example, when the Devil was killing all of John's friends, he never went after Chas. Same with Nergal. Now, I always assumed that the reason why they didn't was because Chas was, in part, "immune" to magical influence.

Of course, in Carrey's world I'm totally wrong.

I like Ennis's take on the character in MAX. He's not just blood and violence, any more than a movie like the Wild Bunch is just blood and violence.

What Ennis seems to be doing is crafting a morality tale: Frank has this sort of "duty" ethic, where he will happily kill the entire world if he needs to, but only if it is "guilty."

It's a kind of extrapolation on the retributive thrust of punishment America: in the last twenty years, we've decided that rehabilitation doesn't work, and persons who commit even the most minor infractions can (and have been) sentanced to prison for life (even "liberal" california supports a 3 strikes law that will send offenders to prison for life for committing non-violent crimes).

I'm not saying whether thats a good or bad thing (there are strong arguments on both sides) but I think the point is, in general, the defense of retributivist methods of punishment lacks any sort of "bright line" imposed by morality: we will happpily execute retarded people (for example).

At least, until the supreme court tells us not to.

I think Ennis's version of Frank captures the essential paradox of the American psyche when it comes to crime: we happily give up our rights when ever we become scared, and accept torture, murder and worse if our intrests are at stake but at the same time we are not psychopaths (those all these actions, if done by an indvidual and not a collective would seem psychopathic). Oh no, we are the "good guys."

Yeah, I know, it sounds cheesy when written down like that, but I enjoy it in comic form.

Ta James. Only two appearances. Wow. I always had the feeling I missed some "untold adventures". Well then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps Mange will get his own special after the Papa Midnit mini is done. It can be called "Mange: Year one" and either detail how Mange became a rabbit, or how a rabbit learnt to talk.

Im picturing "hellblazer" meets "watership down" here.

If it's a success, Mange will get his own series...

or maybe john will die in the next storyline and Mange will take over the title. I can see it now:

Mange: Hellblazer

Aside from "subverting the dominant paradigm of mal/female sexual politics in horror comics," I was just happy tp see that Gemma didn't need saving for once.

As was mentioned earlier, it seemed like she was turning into a "plot-device" character (how do we get John to be become invovled in the storyline? Oh, I know, Gemma is in trouble and he has to rescue her! This device has now been used twice in Carrey's run).

I hope that in the future she is allowed to become more of a real character: perhaps john should trust her a little more and introduce her to some of his "friends" (a la Tim Hunter in the original books of magic).

I think john's main worry is the "constantine curse" will fall on her: like a typical junkie, John thinks "well, since magic fucked up my life, it'll fuck up hers as well."

This kind of reasoning is flawed: just because John treated magic as a "laugh" as a kid and it ended up driving him insane, doesn't mean that the same thing has to happen to Gemma.

Perhaps, after the current story line is over, John should introduce Gemma to Zed. To my understanding, female magicians are much more powerful (at least historically) than their male counterparts, and aisde from teaching Gemma how to be a complete bastard, I don't think there is much John can teach her.

Note, by the way, that knee-capping someone demonstrates a level of cruelty that John (at least pre-Ellis) wouldn't have stooped to.

For example, remember his self-loathing in "Rake at the gates of hell" when he had Chas hire some thugs to beat some guy up. Also, remmeber his inability to kill the family man (until it was almost to late).

Yes, the female of the species is more deadly, and what not, but I can't help but think that if John wants to help Gemma avoid the "constantine curse" then he should find her some good postivie role models: Zed and Marge (wherever they are) being the first that spring to mind (Angie is too young and inexperienced herself, while Clarice is too spooky).

Niles would be okay...

BUT I would love to have Milligan (now that human target has been canned) or maybe even the triumphant return of Delano.

Or perhaps a couple years of 6 issue stand alone stories by different past writers...

You know, Morrison, Moore, Delano, Ennis...

I do think that it should be a British (or Scottish or Irish or Welsh, you get the idea) writer though. And preferably one that isn't already well known over here.

And maybe someone who is young too (you know, young, hungry, ready to try new things with the comic).

i would really love to see Jaynova's explanation come true - that eould show that john's children are not too powerful, just like daddy, but can con ANYONE, even daddy...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be a great twist.

Now I've read everyone else's opinion. (I wrote mine before reading them to be able to say what I thought more "unspoiled") I really don't get the disgust for Stormare's Lucifer. The way I see it, he and Swinton's Gabriel are the characters most closely resembling their HB counterparts. "Lucifer" in the film isn't Mike Carey/Neil Gaiman's Lucifer, but Ennis's "First o fthe Fallen", and he's EXACTLY like this in the comic. Not clever, not sophisticated, not cultured and suave (as Balthazar was), but mean, brutal, vengeful and sadistic.

 

Ah well, it's a minor part I know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. His acting was kind of campy, but at that point in the film the whole movie had taken itselfm so fucking seriously that we needed someone to wonder around and chew scenery.

I think it might of been better if they had introduced Satan (or Lucifer or whatever) earlier on, so as to allow some sort of dramatic tension between constantine and him.

As it was, I never felt like any of the other "demons" posed much of aproblem (I mean, all you have to do is pretend they are not there and they disappear, right?)

How has this movie done, by the way? I mean, cash wize? Is it a big flop? Serves WB right if it is.

Hey.

Saw the movie last weekend and I think it was the worst of both worlds:

1. if I hadn't read the comics it wouldn't have made much sense; and

2. since I have read the comic, I was predisposed not to like it

All in all, I thought it was piss-poor but not completely offensive, as there wasn't much at all to remind you of the actual character of Constantine.

Tilda swinton was good as gabriel, and I actually liked the guy who played satan (or lucifer).

Now, if Mike Carrey has John get tatoos on his forearms so he can summon angels (or use a bucket of water to go to hell) then my feelings about the movie won't be so benign.

Is it just me or is Gemma Constantine becoming like the equivalent of Kim Bauer from 24 in Hellblazer with all these dreadful situations she gets herself caught up in?

You're right. I never realized that until now, but its so obvious when you think of it.

My vote is that it must be the Demon Constintine (compare the driving scene in the Grant Morrison issues) who is possessing Chas.

Mike may have forgotten that John doesn't have Nergal's blood and he could be reading these posts and going "oh shit!" as we speak.

As for the random deaths of minor characters of yore, perhaps the demon-spawn just open random back issues of the comic to decide who to kill.

Anyway, the next arc will probably be a take off on Orpheus, where John goes to hell to rescue... Mange!

I was looking through the posts and I see no one mentioned the old phantom stranger comic from the 60's eraly 70's drawn by jim apparo and writ by len wein.

It was actually good stuff, in a sixties kind of way, and it went well with the rest of DC's horror line at the time (house of mystery, its midnight ... the witching hour, and that comic by marv wolfman about Baron Winter).

Plus if you are up one your old "christian mythology" the phantom stranger is a lot like that old story about the "wandering jew" who was forced to walk the earth, immortal, for being mean to Jesus, or something.

I personally think that the reason why the good old PS never seems right in Hellblazer is thta he and John opperate in the smae sphere: mysterious motherfuckers who jump out of the shadows, say something enigmatic, and then disappear into the darkness.

In some ways you can look at John (at least as originally concieved by Alan) as a reaction to the Phantom Stranger: a working-class hard-drinking no-bullshit phantom stranger...

As for the Jim Corrigan version of the Spectre, he has always seemed too powerful to me to be very interesting... Kinda like Superman of the mystic set.

Saga of the Swamp Thing Number 50 (where John co-stars with a bunch of old DC magicians) was my first encounter with the man. I was six, I bought it at a newstand. My first issue of swamp thing was actually #53, which I bought because I really liked Batman, but they had issue 50 on the back of rack, so I got htat one too.

To be honest, I dont think I really "got it" at the time, but I thought JC was "cool" even if he lacked superpowers.

I didn't start reading hellblazer until much later, however.

I started with issue 50 and collected the rest of garth's run, but then I stopped reading comics for a few years. I picked up issue 150 and hated it, but began collecting it again anyway. Being older, I finally had the money to buy all the old Delano issues (fear machine, family man) I also found I had missed the Ellis run, which I bought for 50 cents a piece at a comic store in PDX.

The thing about hellblazer is, its never really been my favorite comic, as I've always htought more could be done with the character.

One of my favorite issues, the one that really sold me on John as a character, is #51-- it was written by "John Smith." He later wrote another vertigo mini called Scarab.

What ever hapened to him?

My favorite non-hellblazer constantine was the guest appearance in Shade. Peter even had the good taste to have it be a younger "early 80s" constantine as the guest star (due, alas, to a poorly contrived time travel plotline).

That one was good cause it had the "romantic" side of constantine (a side we haven't seen in a long time, and no, shagging the girl (angie?) that looks like his neice doesn't count).

I wish, though, that John looked older. I mean, I'm 27 now. so the john in swamp thing 50 (who was what, 33 then?) should be 50 something. Manco is drawing him a little older, which is nice, but he should look like he has aged, I think. Magic, and john's lifestyle, wears you out, even if he did get a new body in "dangerous habits."

Of course, he is modeled after Sting, so...