Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

On Trainwrecks, Realism, and the Picking of Nits...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by CindyR
    kevin, perhaps you've forgotten that TOP speed on a train of that era was about 35mph; fully laden, sustained speed probably 25 on a good day?
    I'm sorry cindy, but did you miss the part of my post where I said:

    you know on further evaluation I wouldn't be surprised if it'd take that train going at a speed sufficient enough to toss the caboose that far into the air -- we're talking maybe 10+ miles to come to a complete stop.
    25-35 Mph is NOT a sufficient enough speed to toss that caboose in the air. But even if that train was going 25-35 mph that train would NOT be stoppin anytime soon even if they pulled the emergency cord (which hadn't have been invented yet to my knowledge).


    Not only that but do you actually think that a train caring THOUSANDS of TONS can stop in less than 3 miles going 35 miles per hour?

    (info, interestingly, came from the 'true west moment' series on the western channel, with bob boze bell.) with air *or mechanical brakes (which it most certainly would have had), it was not about to ghost along for miles and miles after having been jolted by dragging derailed cars.
    Cindy, I'm reading the book right now. NONE of the other cars outside the caboose and that giant several thousand ton freight car had flipped which is what would've happened if they derailed. NONE. The train is also carrying freight and passengers. (something which seems odd is the artist drew freight and passenger cars inbetween each other). There seems to be a lot wrong with this train.


    (i realize the last two would have snapped loose but it didn't look like the others flew free tho they probably left the track.) [interesting train link-i read it all. and i still contend that only a pack of idiots of a crew wouldn't have noticed they were dragging (and lost) derailed cars! that doesn't make sense.

    lol we're talking about an era where they used the same stretch of track going west as going east. How much money are you willing to stake on your bet cause I'm a little poor right now and could use extra cash. These people were paid top dollar to go from point A to point B as fast as possible.


    i believe they would most certainly have investigated--
    Yeah, after a week had gone by.


    anyone would have including you and me; again, that only makes sense, and i believe that was the source of Bart's survival of his injuries.
    They would not have been able to stop the train and back it up. You're misunderstanding how long it took those trains to come to a stop.


    (after all, we're only *assuming internal injuries, no one said he had any. all we saw was a broken leg and a bullet hole in his hand.
    That leg is drawn as broken in two, it juts out at two different angles, and that means arteries are slashed. Outside of the artist having 0 perspective, that leg is a mortal injury.


    it would be a good touch if bart did lose his leg and i hope justice comes to him later, tho i guess he's out of the story for now. maybe he's in a wheelchair?
    anyway, it's not that hard for a full train crew to bundle a man onto the first on-track car and leave.
    LOL yes it is! Cindy, it'd take a long, a very very very very long time for that train to come to a halt. It would then take a very very very very long time and a TON of coal to start that train back up and back it up far enough so they wouldn't have to walk 10 miles to check out the wreck.

    That train was carrying freight with passengers, (cars inbetween one another which is odd), and it had a piss poor breaking system. EVERY TIME a Engineer breaks a train it means life and death. They have to jump from one car to another in order to tighten each break on each car to bring the train to a halt. They are NOT emergency crew ready. NO WAY IN HELL would that train have stopped, backed up, and investigated the missing cars. NONE.

    These people are NOT trained for emergencies.

    Black Bart should be dead. period. Nobody would've reached him for several days and he would not be able to climb out of that mess.
    Last edited by Kevin; 06-19-2007, 12:36 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      bart, et al

      obviously we shall have to respectfully agree to disagree both on trains and on Bart. as i mentioned, the telegram alone proves bart is not dead. how he survives is pretty immaterial to me tho the discussion was interesting if not really germain.
      best,
      Cindy

      Comment


      • #18
        Cindy, the problem here is you're not understanding anything about trains and how they were run. That's not something to "agree to disagree" about. That's something on which you actually need to do a bit more research.

        One episode of Wild West Tech will blow your theories out of the water.

        The only possible excuse for Bart's survival after this is if the artist really didn't know how to draw the scene he was told to draw or if likewise the writer didn't know much about trains or what not.

        I'm more inclined to believe Bart is dead.
        Last edited by Kevin; 06-19-2007, 03:10 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Not meaning any disrespect here people, but we are trying to argue real world logic into a comic book. Real world logic would say there is no way the Lone Ranger could even shoot that switch with the weapons of the day. And if he did make what would have to have been a very lucky shot, more than just the last two cars would have derailed. Here is how I see the bottom line: Bart's death was left open to interpretation, leaving the creative team the option of someday bringing him back if they felt the need. Maybe he died out there, maybe he was found. It was left open. I happen to believe he did survive and we will see him in a wheelchair eventually. Although I can see the other arguement as well. If he is dead, I believe he probably used Tonto's knife to commit suicide, rather than die a slow, torturous death from starvation, dehydration, internal bleeding, or whatever. Only Brett Matthews knows for sure, and I'll bet he doesn't give a definitive answer so that he still has the option of changing his mind later.
          DECODER RING THEATRE
          EDGAR RICE BURROUGHS
          PROJECT SUPERPOWERS DATABASE
          PUBLIC DOMAIN SUPER HEROES

          Comment


          • #20
            There's a difference to me between performing a Heroic Feat (such as shooting the train switch), and completely re-writing reality (such as this entire train idea and black bart's survival).

            I do kinda hope that the Lone Ranger of the future spins more towards realism than Marvel or DC Comics Fantasy (super skrulls causing Civil War and Superboy Prime punching an invisible wall). I'm enjoying it so far, but if it turns into what Red Sonja's becoming I'm gonna get turned off real fast.

            Likewise, I hope Zorro retains the original concept of realism. That's one reason why I love Alex Toth's and Don McGregor's zorro incarnations so much, they WOULD have Heroic feats, but they'd keep it grounded in realism. A train would not flip a caboose and a several thousand ton freight car 30 feet in the air while the rest remains perfectly intact. If someone broke a leg in two (such as the injuries Black Bart suffered), there's a good chance they'll die, even if it's from infection.

            Zorro or LR can make a heroic shot from 200 yards to slice the rope of a hangman's noose, I'll buy that and it's in line with their heroic feats. But I don't want to see Zorro getting his back broken and walking around the next day, the Lone Ranger jumping from a moving train and only having one hair put out of place, or having a villain get his neck snapped in two then coming back to life.


            Comic book or not some real life physics has to follow these characters.

            Comment


            • #21
              agreeing to disagree

              [frostily spoken] And YOU, Kevin, need to go read up on how not to be rude on the internet.
              CindyR


              Originally posted by Kevin
              Cindy, the problem here is you're not understanding anything about trains and how they were run. That's not something to "agree to disagree" about. That's something on which you actually need to do a bit more research.

              Comment


              • #22
                Cindy, if you want to call me rude for saying your wrong, that's your porogative. But, you're wrong about how they handled those trains. Trains took a long time to come to a stop. Trains were on tight schedules with near speed psychotic engineers. Trains like this were not service vehicles. There were no real search and rescue parties that serviced train wrecks like they did today.

                The only thing on which I'll agree with you is that the Train scene seemed poorly portrayed. Everyone seems to have said that in all their online reviews so I didn't think it that necessary to point it out to this degree. The comic was still a great comic, I loved it, and I still love it and I can't wait for issue #7.

                I'm sorry, Cindy, but that's just the way it was.

                Comment


                • #23


                  People, CHILL.


                  As Mikey said:

                  Originally posted by MadMikeyD
                  Not meaning any disrespect here people, but we are trying to argue real world logic into a comic book.
                  Exactly. Silly, isn't it? Please move on to the next discussion point.


                  Tommy.
                  Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well your post does bring up a point, Tommy I'm not being nasty or attacking you or dynamite in any way, but I believe it's a serious point :

                    Do real world physics no longer have a place in heroes such as Lone Ranger or Zorro? Is it now unacceptable to have any kind of hero comic that is soundly grounded in real world physics?

                    I'm being dead serious on this topic. I"m not attacking anybody here or being nasty and I’m not attacking the writers or this comic. I think this topic is extremely pertinent to these characters and as far as I can tell it has not be discussed to date.

                    While I can understand physics being constantly bent and broken for the likes of X-Men or Superman. The Lone Ranger, The Shadow, Green Hornet, Zorro, are all characters of which real life physics plays a critical role in their existence. They are the policemen who get things done when others can't, but they don't get them done because of fantastical superhero physics, they get them done through real life physics. To me, their struggle with real life physics not only grounds the characters and their strife, but it also makes their heroic feats that much more heroic because they are doing it in a world that has the same physics humanity knows and struggles with every single day.

                    In the X-Men universe, it's nothing to walk on the moon.

                    In our universe, or in the universe of the Wild Wild West, a concept of walking on the moon brings up hurdles of physics/logistics that must be overcome through brilliance, strength, and perseverance.

                    To me, real life physics me needs to play a critical part in these types of mortal characters. Regardless of it being a comic, I need Zorro to deal with a broken leg if he has a broken leg. I don’t want to see him grimacing and “working his way through it” while taking down an army of the Alcade’s corrupt lancers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In my opinion, humble though it may be, many of us read comics as a means of escapism from reality and purely for entertainment. We don't concern ourselves with the fantasy world of the comic fitting into the rules and scientific principles of our everyday world. Seems completely unnecessary for it to do so. Just enjoy it for what it is..a comic

                      Comment


                      • #26


                        Originally posted by Kevin
                        Well your post does bring up a point, Tommy I'm not being nasty or attacking you or dynamite in any way, but I believe it's a serious point:
                        ...

                        To me, real life physics me needs to play a critical part in these types of mortal characters. Regardless of it being a comic, I need Zorro to deal with a broken leg if he has a broken leg. I don’t want to see him grimacing and “working his way through it” while taking down an army of the Alcade’s corrupt lancers.
                        Originally posted by Bradtisme
                        In my opinion, humble though it may be, many of us read comics as a means of escapism from reality and purely for entertainment. We don't concern ourselves with the fantasy world of the comic fitting into the rules and scientific principles of our everyday world. Seems completely unnecessary for it to do so. Just enjoy it for what it is..a comic

                        Both these approaches are, in my opinion, correct, as are disagreements over the extent to which possibility and/or reality are desirable (refer to the last couple of pages), provided such disagreements remain entirely civil. My own appreciation of comics tends to be far closer to that which Brad expresses. That said, I definitely appreciate a strong streak of gritty realism (or perhaps more accurately, a gritty depiction of realism with which the artist has taken license) and I don't believe it's a zero-sum game in which one must be chosen over the other.

                        We are in the end all giving our opinions here. Disagreement does not render the opinion of another invalid, nor extinguish their right to hold such opinions no matter how odious we may regard them as being. Nor should our opinions be presented as necessarily factual - though we may cite evidence to support them, they remain interpretations of facts and are not facts in and of themselves. Expression of opinion may of course in some instances be curtailed where behaviour is deemed malicious (though this has not occurred in this thread), as evidenced via the example of a number of members removed from these forums.

                        Kevin, I do realise you're not attacking anyone here, myself and Dynamite included. I definitely do understand that your intent within this discussion is genuine (and from what I can see certainly not malicious) and that your appreciation of the comic art-form is a keen one. However, having posters simply stating and re-stating and re-stating the same basic argument with (or at) each other after they have agreed to disagree and have strongly indicated that neither will be persuaded by the other is simply pointless, and does nothing to foster a fun and pro-active forum environment. There comes a point at which it is far more productive to move the discussion along. Hence, my post above.


                        Tommy.
                        Last edited by Tommy; 06-20-2007, 06:19 AM. Reason: Nuance... :)
                        Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Well I don't think that some concepts of the discussion have been addressed, not only that, but I think maybe Dynamite needs to directly discuss them.

                          Most of the complaints I've seen about the Lone Ranger have been concerning the depiction of realism concerning the lone ranger. The Lone Ranger is not a comic character. This is a comic of a ficticious hero.

                          A Comic Character is the X-Men. It seems to me like it'd be helpful if Dynamite sets the groundrules for realism in this comic and expressed these rules to the fans.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Well first off thanks Cindy on the Tonto info its good to know that Matthews isn't mishandling the term "half-breed". Now to me the realism debate is subjective as a whole all the minor nuances, dismissals and flatout mistakes (peacemaker bullets without cartriges) in the story telling don't detract from the themes or narrative. If this were a superhero or high fantasy thing the aspects of realism should be easily dismissed because truthfully there is a strong element of unreality to begin with or at leat it USED to be. Most of us just like to be pulled along on a satisfying ride and a good writer (Matthews) does exactly that. And thats what we have here. Too much realism like in superhero comics and you have discussions on super-menstration and bowel movements (I have actually read this kinda stuff before) dismiss enough detail and its Because I say so storytelling or even worse flash without substance which is a disservice to the characters traditions and creators most of us came to in underoos in grade school in search of the gift of fantasy. It was good enough then and to me it still works without the overly polished lens of cynism and laboriously honed sexual wit and neurosis of "adult" storytelling which endeavors to reach an essentially juvenile area in the readers imagination. Heck as long as the symbolism and spirit of adventure remains in LR I don't care if those .44's are made from Hector's sword or if Silver fed on air and could outstrip the wind.

                            Comment


                            • #29


                              This thread has strayed a fair ways from MadMikeyD's excellent Lone Ranger #6 review. Split and re-named...


                              Tommy.
                              Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                thx tommy ^_^

                                tonto, the whole purpose though of heroes like the Lone Ranger, Zorro, The Shadow, is that they live in a world as real as ours. That is their whole purpose as heroes - is that they are part of a reality with real physics, with real consequences to these physics.

                                They are not superheroes, and I really am getting tired of hearing people call the Lone Ranger a superhero. It's not even an accurate description of the man.

                                What makes them amazing, outstanding, and breath taking is the fact that their physics closely resembles ours!

                                When Robin Hood shoots an arrow that splits/shatters his opponent's arrow then the audience GASPS! They GASP because NOBODY could do that! But when Green Arrow does it the reader says, "Yeah, so what?"

                                When Zorro jumps from a 2 story building and lands safely on Tornado the audience claps and yells "WOO HOO!" When GHOST RIDER does it, the audience says, "Dude, that might've been cool if he jumped from a 50 story building.

                                When Captain Picard gets punched by a Klingon, you know he's hurt and you're saying "DAMN! What's gonna happen!". When Professor X gets punched by a Super Skrull you "Yawn! Show me something exciting."

                                There's realism like menstration (which is absolutely ridiculous to have in a comic 99.9% of the time), and there's Realism concerning physics.



                                These heroes are heroes, not superheroes. Just because they're in a comic doesn't make them superheroes (where they bend the laws of time and space). Even Star Trek with fantastical science doesn't cross that boundary (well not often). REALISM is a quintessential part of the makeup for these characters. REMOVING this kind of realism is really destructive and counter productive to their entire essence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X