I read _Cla$$war_ back when it came out, and the first issue was REALLY good, but it went downhill. There were 6 issues.
Last year, a similar comic called _Black Summer_ also made a GREAT debut with an issue # 0, but also went downhill over the next 7 or so issues, though not as badly.
so a super soldier named the american and a super group named after the plane that delievered the atomic bomb to japan. yeah this doesn't seem at all original to me.... kind of like surrogates.
"To me, the most important part of the book, even though it's a very small element, is the relationship between Harvey Greer and [his wife] Margaret. I think maybe it accounts for ten pages, if that, of the entire graphic novel, but it's what drives home the human toll of the entire technology."
I completely agree, and I can't imagine how pissed Venditti must be if he's seen the movie, because from what I hear they completely change the most important scene of the relationship, to the point where it really doesn't drive home anything.
@SenorDoucheoisie: I suspected that. I agree that it's the most important part of the book. It's the whole POINT of the book, and if it doesn't go that way, it's pointless.
@Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H.: Well, haven't read the book, but from what he says, it has been retained in the movie. I quote him:
"All of that is retained in the film, and the relationship plays out very much like it does in the book, and I think because that is in there - and in the film, I think more screentime is devoted to it than pagetime in the book - I think that stuff will still shine through."
So from what I hear, they retained that in the movie. AT least, that's what I get from just reading his explanation.
As a moderately physically-disabled person, I'd jump at the chance to have a surrogate. It wouldn't need to be super-strong or super-beautiful, just exist.
Which he talks about in the book.
The book was so good I'm not planning to see the movie.
@Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H.: As a person with a extremely complex and debilitating heart malformation since birth, ther eis no way in hell I would want a surrogate. A artificial heart? Okay. A cloned heart? Still fine. But sleeping in a chair all day and all night, not walking outside, or running or swimming?
@collex: Sure, I'd prefer better physical health, getting everything fixed. But my condition is generalized. I'd need several systems replaced.
But on days when I'm not feeling up to running errands, a surrogate to drive, schlep laundry and groceries would sure be handy. Maybe go to the movies and concerts and other socializing instead of having to beg off.
@Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H.: I understand, but in The Surrogates, if they have the technology to create mindcontrolled robot bodies, they would have the right technology to make mindcontrolled robot prothesis, right? If my legs and my arms are missing, I would prefer new legs and arms than a new body, no?
I remember SPX here in sweden. I saw The first Surrogates novel at the TopShelf booth and asked Chris Staros (what a awesome person btw) "Is'nt this going to be a movie soon? Saw the viral." And then we talked abit about the movie, the comic and the future in general. Then he offered me to buy the book for a cheaper price. Well I could'nt say no to that right?
So later when I got home and opened the book. Guess what? The book was signed by Robert Venditti. :D
Poor Bruce Willis.
A 'MeatPopsicle' in the Fifth Element.
A 'Meatbag' in Surrogates.
Where-oh-where, is that great feminist champion, of the prostituted profession, Megan Fox, when we really need her?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Empowering Jennifer's Body.
(Was I the only one who wondered, when I heard Brucie enunciate his personal preference "No, I'm a Meat Popsicle!", in The Fifth Element, precisely how much Unilever had paid for the product placement?)
I actually really enjoyed a lot of Surrogates (as I did Gamer[and District 9 with the meatbag becoming a prawnbag]), when it let its attention to 'uncanny valley' detail, just do its thing: Make me wonder and question and think.
Why is it, that writers, directors, studios and networks, think that after they show us something that successfully does all these things, that we want to be told what to think, how to feel about it, what's going to happen next and precisely what the 'happy ending' will be?
The worst offender, by far (recently), was the execrable Terminator Salvation.
The least, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
I think its writer, Josh Friedman gave us a pretty good explanation, of why [io9.com] .
Then again, CJ's "ugly Terminator-esque endoskeletons" struck me as unspeakably meatbagist, so perhaps I'm not the target demographic.
Or maybe, the creators are just completely clueless as to who their consumers really are and what they really want.
One thing I liked about the movie is how the actors were able to (mostly) pull off the "slightly beyond the Uncanny Valley" look when they were in the surrogates -- they're just a tad off, not enough to make it look like a movie full of robo-puppets but enough to make it obvious that something's not right. There were different degrees of that sort of woodenness, and while it's probably due to each actor's ability to pull it off well, I like to think that they corresponded to the more- or less-expensive models that had correspondingly more- or less-expressive faces.
The review should have ended like: "So to sum up: dumb movie, weak nonsense plot, incredibly preachy and sledgehammery, you know, a Bruce Willis vehicle."
well, truth be told, I like Bruce too.. (we're both harmonica players too) but sometimes I wanna just bitch-slap him and say 'snap out of it' and start making smaller indie movies and NEVER make another movie where he's some sort of law enforcement type ever again.
Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment
iomatic (I know I'm an idiot, but I'll comment anyway) was starred
iomatic (I know I'm an idiot, but I'll comment anyway) was unstarred
This picture perfectly describes how the "healthy" and "pure" nature really looks like just how our luddite and pseudo-environmentalist-friends imagine it...
@Shadowdagger:
One more thing:
So let's say the directors are all anti-technology and stuff. So I guess they made this movie just with bamboo sticks, stones and.......... wait...
@Shadowdagger:
"luddites" aren't people who hate technology, "luddites" are people who fight against the use of technology to replace humans, specifically human labor. They were originally a group of fabric weavers who fought against the use of the auto-loom (which requires fewer hands to operate) and were united under one of the first union organizers who's name was General Ludd. More colloquially it means one who has a difficult time or resists the implementation of NEW technologies because they introduce NEW procedures which are unfamiliar to the user.
Though, I do think you are right, they, the film makers are probably hypocrites.
@blackmarquet: Sorry about that. I shouldn't have generalize that term.
I know the history of luddism. But today people are calling themselves luddites who just loathe technology. My comment was directed to those kind of people.
I like that poor people have to settle for second-hand robots, kinda like all the poor people with out-of date dumbphones...I wonder if their robots stop working when their surrogate signal is intermittent...
@NerD: Blattella:
rental? I was thinking torrent, personally. If it's any good, I'll catch it on netflix watch it now in 6 months or so, just to make sure the studio gets the handful of half-pennies it deserves.
This whole fad theme of "post modern societies losing their humanity" stinks of of some of the conclusions made in Huxley's Brave New World. I love the book, but the one thing I never fully agreed on was that altering the state of the human (such as chemically- with drugs) need not always degrade us. In fact, I see a lot of potential for drugs/medicine/technology to enhance our humanity and increase our quality of life. Huxley's savage character saw the "soma" drug as something that degraded the soul because of the negative side effects- modern medicine still hasn't reached the point where only positive results are achieved, such as with anti-depression meds. They help with the depression but come with other bad effects such that Huxley would argue takes away from our platonic essence. But this will eventually change when only the depression is cured (enhancing our platonic essence) and doesn't carry other unwanted degradations of the mind. Why must we be against progress and technology for the sake of rebellion? Open your eyes, Luddites!
10/04/09
Last year, a similar comic called _Black Summer_ also made a GREAT debut with an issue # 0, but also went downhill over the next 7 or so issues, though not as badly.
10/04/09
09/26/09
I completely agree, and I can't imagine how pissed Venditti must be if he's seen the movie, because from what I hear they completely change the most important scene of the relationship, to the point where it really doesn't drive home anything.
09/26/09
I hope he got enough money to dry his tears.
09/26/09
"All of that is retained in the film, and the relationship plays out very much like it does in the book, and I think because that is in there - and in the film, I think more screentime is devoted to it than pagetime in the book - I think that stuff will still shine through."
So from what I hear, they retained that in the movie. AT least, that's what I get from just reading his explanation.
09/26/09
09/26/09
Which he talks about in the book.
The book was so good I'm not planning to see the movie.
09/26/09
I did that enough already, thanks.
09/26/09
But on days when I'm not feeling up to running errands, a surrogate to drive, schlep laundry and groceries would sure be handy. Maybe go to the movies and concerts and other socializing instead of having to beg off.
09/27/09
09/26/09
So later when I got home and opened the book. Guess what? The book was signed by Robert Venditti. :D
09/26/09
09/26/09
A 'MeatPopsicle' in the Fifth Element.
A 'Meatbag' in Surrogates.
Where-oh-where, is that great feminist champion, of the prostituted profession, Megan Fox, when we really need her?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Empowering Jennifer's Body.
(Was I the only one who wondered, when I heard Brucie enunciate his personal preference "No, I'm a Meat Popsicle!", in The Fifth Element, precisely how much Unilever had paid for the product placement?)
I actually really enjoyed a lot of Surrogates (as I did Gamer[and District 9 with the meatbag becoming a prawnbag]), when it let its attention to 'uncanny valley' detail, just do its thing: Make me wonder and question and think.
Why is it, that writers, directors, studios and networks, think that after they show us something that successfully does all these things, that we want to be told what to think, how to feel about it, what's going to happen next and precisely what the 'happy ending' will be?
The worst offender, by far (recently), was the execrable Terminator Salvation.
The least, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
I think its writer, Josh Friedman gave us a pretty good explanation, of why [io9.com] .
Then again, CJ's "ugly Terminator-esque endoskeletons" struck me as unspeakably meatbagist, so perhaps I'm not the target demographic.
Or maybe, the creators are just completely clueless as to who their consumers really are and what they really want.
09/26/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
well, truth be told, I like Bruce too.. (we're both harmonica players too) but sometimes I wanna just bitch-slap him and say 'snap out of it' and start making smaller indie movies and NEVER make another movie where he's some sort of law enforcement type ever again.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
*sighs* Another luddite-y movie...
This picture perfectly describes how the "healthy" and "pure" nature really looks like just how our luddite and pseudo-environmentalist-friends imagine it...
09/25/09
One more thing:
So let's say the directors are all anti-technology and stuff. So I guess they made this movie just with bamboo sticks, stones and.......... wait...
ps: luddites are hypocrites.
09/25/09
"luddites" aren't people who hate technology, "luddites" are people who fight against the use of technology to replace humans, specifically human labor. They were originally a group of fabric weavers who fought against the use of the auto-loom (which requires fewer hands to operate) and were united under one of the first union organizers who's name was General Ludd. More colloquially it means one who has a difficult time or resists the implementation of NEW technologies because they introduce NEW procedures which are unfamiliar to the user.
Though, I do think you are right, they, the film makers are probably hypocrites.
09/26/09
I know the history of luddism. But today people are calling themselves luddites who just loathe technology. My comment was directed to those kind of people.
09/25/09
09/25/09
That's too bad because I like the way Bruce Willis isn't afraid to tackle the cheesy film.
09/25/09
09/25/09
rental? I was thinking torrent, personally. If it's any good, I'll catch it on netflix watch it now in 6 months or so, just to make sure the studio gets the handful of half-pennies it deserves.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09