Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    I've looked at this over and over and have come to the conclusion that the Lone Ranger shot the lever to make the train switch tracks. In my opinion, the train crashed. Even if it were just the back part, a wreck like that would derail and stop the train. Others were sure to have been injured or killed in a crash of that magnitude. It's a failure in the story that the Ranger wasn't concerned for others on the train.
    I find it hard to believe that Bart was able to be as physical as he was with a knife wound to the shoulder and a bullet wound in his hand. I think the telegram is proof that Bart did survive. I think it very odd that he would give the Ranger his guns and that the Ranger would accept them. I also think it was a flaw to let Bart go free.
    Also, Brett Matthews really needs a lesson in U.S. geography. The trip between the northwestern most part of Texas and Laramie, Wyo., would take about 12 hours by car (if you wore an astronaut diaper ), but several weeks by horse. To do it in two days would mean violating some laws of physics and nature.
    As for the meaning of Kemo Sabe, there are about as many translations as there are spellings of the word. The most common are Trusty Scout, Trusty Friend, Trusted Friend and now Faithful Friend.

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Poetic justice

    Taking into account John's sense of justice letting Bart live if not perfect would be the better of all evils. I still think that Bart as bait is a tactic LR and Tonto could be using because if Butch wanted no witnesses he sure has heck would have to tie up Bart as a loose end. A one eyed probably crippled man isn't much use on a chain gang and I think his hand is pretty much useless so his gunfighting days if not over are limited.
    Jail or no jail Barts old life looks to be over. John after taking someones pride number one and then the means of which to do evil could probably live with it. Tonto's knife if not providing a means of suicide is at least symbolically in regards to Tonto a tool of amputation (his killing nature) but who's to say it wasn't a bit more literal for Bart as a means to get out of the wreckage.

    As for the guns.. don't look a gift .44 in the barrel.
    Last edited by tonto; 07-15-2007, 06:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    From what we were shown, there’s just no way Tonto could have predicted Bart wouldn’t just murder her and her son like he did all the others. Bart didn’t have to kill any of the wives and kids to draw out the Ranger did he? He just had to find out which Ranger had survived. Not to mention this is a guy who seemed to get off on going back and doing whatever with the corpses, he was obviously into it.
    No way a telegram was going to stop that.
    I get it at the end were supposed to believe Bart is some kind of honorable fallen soul, the new Lone Ranger even carries his shiny guns just to homage the corpse skinning, murdering, necropheliak, woohoo!

    No I’m kidding, I see what Matthews was trying to convey, and it makes her look all the stronger for holding her ground and facing the devil. It just didn’t ring true for me because while Tonto knows this nut job is having tea with Dan’s wife and kid, he is busying himself dyeing Johns new suit baby blue for when he’s “ready!.”
    At the least he could of sent a note saying “get the hell out of the house, the living devil incarnate just murdered all your husbands colleagues wives and kids and he’s a comin’ for you next! Or whatever you can serve him tea and crumpets and please hand him my note. XOXO"
    Last edited by Guicho; 07-15-2007, 12:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Bart's freedom

    I'm leaning toward them assuming Bart would die. It occured to me before as well, that arresting him without evidence would have done no good at all. What could John do? Kill bart? [shakes head] Turn him in without evidence? [shrugs] Or leave him to live or die. If he lives, *maybe they figure they can wrap him up later after Butch rolls on him? all speculation. at this point you can take your pick of the above possibilities, or perhaps it was all of them together. the most significant to me was tonto's renouncing killing on his own in the scene by deciding that maybe he wasn't such a killer after all. this was before john set the rule, remember.

    however, tonto's telegram to stop bart DID make sense to me. he knew what the killer was after, and it *wasn't the families. it was the lone ranger. tonto also knew that the killer would know that killing the remaining family would *not bring the ranger, but rather drive him further underground. leaving linda alive (answering the ranger's own challenge) was all bart wanted. he could always track her down again, after all, but killing her would have defeated the whole purpose of enabling the challenge.
    i think tonto misread the boy's readiness, tho. tonto thought the boy would meet bart and die in the attempt; rather, john won.
    Cindy

    Originally posted by Guicho
    I agree, Bart may be a completely changed man after his encounter with Reid and Tonto (and I don’t just mean physically ). And the Telegram seems to confirm it. It still does not explain why Reid would allow him to go free.
    I think they just assumed he would die, and underestimated his will.
    But considering this guy would not have even blinked while shooting Reid’s brother’s wife and kid, that’s makes the ending somewhat shoddy.
    Not to mention Tonto ridiculously banking on his own telegram somehow diverting Bart away from killing the brother’s wife and kid as well. That made no sense.
    None of the physics bothered me, but this story had some serious problems with character motivation intent and plot.

    Changed man or not, what bugs me about Bart somehow surviving to go free, is not the physics of it, but what it says about Reid and Tonto who allowed it

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I agree, Bart may be a completely changed man after his encounter with Reid and Tonto (and I don’t just mean physically ). And the Telegram seems to confirm it. It still does not explain why Reid would allow him to go free.
    I think they just assumed he would die, and underestimated his will.
    But considering this guy would not have even blinked while shooting Reid’s brother’s wife and kid, that’s makes the ending somewhat shoddy.
    Not to mention Tonto ridiculously banking on his own telegram somehow diverting Bart away from killing the brother’s wife and kid as well. That made no sense.
    None of the physics bothered me, but this story had some serious problems with character motivation intent and plot.

    Changed man or not, what bugs me about Bart somehow surviving to go free, is not the physics of it, but what it says about Reid and Tonto who allowed it
    Last edited by Guicho; 07-14-2007, 09:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I think if Bart did survive that he may have reformed in the process. He saw that Reid could take more hate than Bart had dealt with and still show compassion. I think Tonto aided quite a bit in that lesson.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Kevin
    Comic book or not some real life physics has to follow these characters.
    Key word being some, but not all real life physics needs to follow these characters.

    At least not for me. None of the slightly wonky physics or extranormal actions bothered me in this issue, I loved seeing Tonto shatter the pistol (and it looked liked some old vintage pistol anyway, he even suggests it when he says “I loved that damn gun”) Then switches to his “new” one.
    Or the incredible distances traveled, or the Ranger shooting the lever to derail the last two cars, and the caboose flipping end-over-end, without derailing the rest of the train. So what? It looked great! Loved seeing it, it just ads to the visual drama. I came in expecting to suspend some disbelief, and I personally hope to see more of it in Zorro as well, otherwise why bother.
    Nobody is talking about flying, walking through walls or shooting laser beams out of their eyes here, but they should be allowed some measure of the fantastic!
    I need to see LR make some impossible shots.


    As far as Bart potentially surviving (at leas long enough to have mailed the telegram) That is how I interpreted it too. He did survive at least that long.
    I don’t buy that he could have sent the telegram before the showdown. For one, as Cindy pointed out his motivation. This was not a guy that was planning to loose, which that Telegram would imply he was, if it was sent before the fight.
    And two, the telegram specifically references the money, “keep your money” His whole motivation was the money. Why would he forgo the money before he’d even had a chance to face off with the lone ranger? He had no reason to think he would loose.

    I also don’t buy that Reid would have sent the Telegram after Bart’s death either, as again it references the money, why would Reid care to announce that Bart had forgone the money?.
    The telegram says, “Keep your money. He’s coming’ for you.”
    All Reid would have needed Cavendish to know is that “I’m coming for you.”

    Having said that, Reid leaving this cold-blooded killer free makes absolutely no sense. And neither did him accepting his guns as some kind of token or symbol of honor between them. WTF?
    Last edited by Guicho; 07-14-2007, 08:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I won't drop the book unless it gets stupid ;D so far I don't see that happening. (it takes a lot for me to drop a book. For instance, I stuck through Devin Grayson's run on Nightwing only to drop it on Bruce Jones).

    I just want the writer or artist or whomever to keep realism in mind for future issues, because realism is what Lone Ranger and Zorro thrive upon.

    To tell you the truth I am getting so sickened and fed up with Marvel and DC right now that I only get Excalibur (because, well, there's a bit of realism to ground it, and in general it's alright), Deadpool and Cable trades (because they make fun of superheroes), and whatever Alex Ross is doing (I love his artwork).


    I hope I don't sound harsh on LR. I like LR, I just don't want it to really slip from the roots of realism which help sustain him. I also made the post with Zorro half-in mind. Hoping that the message that "Realism doesn't suck in a comic. Realism helps to create a broad grounding base from where you can expound on their very human abilities that make them heroes".

    Anyway I hope this makes sense to yall.


    You know something I didn't mention before, but Don Rosa, the second most popular Donald Duck/Scrooge McDuck writer of all time -- he went to extremes to do research on each of the areas which his stories centered. He brought a strong sense of realism into the Duck Comics and it worked like a charm. So Realism can be a great benefit to the story telling you can't find anywhere else



    PS: I do really like LR


    PPS: oh and it'd be helpful if there were time passage markers in LR
    Last edited by Kevin; 06-25-2007, 12:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Its all cool

    Hey Kevin I hear your points and there all valid . I hope your enjoyment of the comic has lessened though because there is a lot of good stuff happening in LR. Just to clarify I only mentioned superhero comics because they have been the giant genre in the biz until the adventure fantasy revival recently (still waiting on Romance and Mystery to come back though). From Homer to Walt Gibson the fantastic or the outstandingly extraordinary has always been there even in your examples. But weighing the good stuff against the bad you'll find the good stuff easily outweighs the bad. When has reading a comic been like reading a novel not just a good comics story. And by novel I mean all the literary elements from symbolism to foreshadowing mostly implied if not subtly stated which gives LR re-readability. And theres something new every time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tommy
    replied


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


    Tommy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tommy
    replied


    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... :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X