TF Views

Sparky Prime wrote:

Shockwave wrote:It doesn't matter, it's comic books, he'll be back later on eventually as a Black Lantern or clone or time travel or something anyway...

Not every character that dies get brought back, and these really weren't that big of characters that they'd do that for...

I know, I was just being a smart ass.


COMIX!!!

andersonh1 wrote:Not at all. If you go back and look at the way different authors have written the Guardians, there's no way it can be honestly said that Geoff Johns has done anything other than what Ron Marz did, or Gerard Jones did, and that is to change their personality to suit the story. I'm entirely on firm ground in saying that in no sense were the Guardians ever lacking in emotion or governed entirely by logic. There have been many, many occasions where emotions guided their decisions, or where they acted on knowledge that they possessed which the Green Lanterns did not.

Such as what stories? Do you have some clear examples? Because I've never seen a story where a Guardian is shown to be emotional or anything but logical that their decisions are what's best for the larger picture that is the universe. Aside from the likes of Ganthet, Sayd and Appa Ali Apsa.

The Manhunters weren't (and aren't) emotionless. In their case, it was a classic sci-fi story of the machines coming to believe that they were superior to their creators. Indeed their current goals are largely revenge against the Guardians and Green Lanterns, and revenge is an emotional goal, not a logical one. They came to see organic life as inherently flawed, and sought to remove it from the universe entirely. The Guardians personally fought and destroyed most of them. Ironic that the Guardians in this latest storyline would almost do the same thing the Manhunters did, and decide that life in the universe was fundamentally flawed and should be altered beyond recognition.

How are the Manhunters shown to have emotions then? Because, again, I have never seen a story where they are anything but emotionless robots. Wanting revenge against the Guardians is a logical choice for them, given the Guardians built them and can stop them from completing their mission that they have deemed more important than listening to their creators.

And the fact the Guardians have gone down the same road as the Manhunters is pretty much the point of the recent storyline. With the Guardians cutting themselves off from emotion, they lost sight of how life is supposed to be and became obsessed with trying to control it. Much like how the Manhunters, with out the ability to relate to organic life, decided all life was the source of chaos and the only way to end that chaos was to end life.

No, the Guardians' dialogue confirms it. That individual is gone.

What dialogue says that? You're not really supporting any of your arguments with any actual evidence here.

Have any of them been restored? If that happens in future issues, I'll concede the point, of course. But all the evidence so far says otherwise.

As I said, no one ever even tried to restore them or help those people, unless you count Saint Walker's First Lantern scenario. They seemed to all be destroyed when the First Lantern took his power back that the Guardians took from him. And again, you haven't presented any actual evidence that says otherwise.

I get the motivation, the problem is that I don't find it believable or consistent. It's like saying the way to end conflict in the world and protect life is to forcibly lobotomize every man, woman and child. That's not a rational scenario, for obvious reasons, but that's what the Guardians essentially chose to do. They might as well have allowed Nekron to end all life, it would have amounted to the same thing.

I don't see how you don't see it as believable or consistent. The self appointed Guardians of the Universe took it upon themselves to police the universe by their own ideals and however they saw fit. Their first army went on a murdering spree trying to keep order. Their second army had the tendency to be insubordinate. Is it any wonder they'd come to the conclusion they should try to control life itself? And while a lack of free will might have amounted to the same thing as death, obviously they didn't see it that way. And a point of fact, a lobotomy was a legitimate medical practice for several conditions for almost two decades.

Sparky Prime wrote:Such as what stories? Do you have some clear examples? Because I've never seen a story where a Guardian is shown to be emotional or anything but logical that their decisions are what's best for the larger picture that is the universe.

I'd have to go through some old issues to give you exact numbers, but there are several occasions (okay, many occasions) where the Guardians reacted with anger. When they took Oa's power back from Appa Ali Apsa, or when dealing with Hal's latest burst of anger at them. The acted with pride and determination during the Sinestro Corp War when taking on the Anti-Monitor. They laughed a few times (which Kilowog found creepy) when explaining why they kept Gnort in the Corps. They were patting little kids on the head and interacting with them when John Stewart took them on his bus tour of the Mosaic world.

All of that is just off the top of my head. As I said, if I went issue by issue, I could be a lot more concrete, and I may.

No, the Guardians' dialogue confirms it. That individual is gone.

What dialogue says that? You're not really supporting any of your arguments with any actual evidence here.

It's in the annual. The Guardians talk about how their very first third army convert has had his cells completely converted, and about how his mind and will have been broken down and discarded, and how all his memories have been erased. Only his eyes remain, and they're vacant and empty. Go back and re-read it, it's near the end of the issue.

I don't see how you don't see it as believable or consistent. The self appointed Guardians of the Universe took it upon themselves to police the universe by their own ideals and however they saw fit. Their first army went on a murdering spree trying to keep order. Their second army had the tendency to be insubordinate. Is it any wonder they'd come to the conclusion they should try to control life itself? And while a lack of free will might have amounted to the same thing as death, obviously they didn't see it that way. And a point of fact, a lobotomy was a legitimate medical practice for several conditions for almost two decades.

Surely you're not defending lobotomies, and certainly not applied to EVERYONE. That's the point here. Even if it was a good idea in individual cases, it doesn't follow that every last person in the world needed one.

The Guardians' concern used to be for life. Again, that's stated over and over and over again, in many issues and by many writers. That's yet another reason I find this new storyline so disappointing.

andersonh1 wrote:I'd have to go through some old issues to give you exact numbers, but there are several occasions (okay, many occasions) where the Guardians reacted with anger. When they took Oa's power back from Appa Ali Apsa, or when dealing with Hal's latest burst of anger at them. The acted with pride and determination during the Sinestro Corp War when taking on the Anti-Monitor. They laughed a few times (which Kilowog found creepy) when explaining why they kept Gnort in the Corps. They were patting little kids on the head and interacting with them when John Stewart took them on his bus tour of the Mosaic world.

You realize the Sinestro Corps War was, in-part, written by Johns, right? And look at how the Guardians acted in "Secret Origin", which Johns also wrote. They display outbursts that could be described as being angry. But a lot of that could simply be explained as the Guardians presenting themselves that way for nothing more than social protocol in a given situation. I mean, patting a kid on the head I'd hardly call an emotional response. Laughing, you don't think they might do for the sake of the troops? Dressing down an officer who displays disorderly conduct, you'd expect more attitude from a superior than a calm rationalized reaction... I really don't see anything here that wouldn't fit with what Johns wrote, especially when at least one of the stories you pointed out was during his run.

It's in the annual. The Guardians talk about how their very first third army convert has had his cells completely converted, and about how his mind and will have been broken down and discarded, and how all his memories have been erased. Only his eyes remain, and they're vacant and empty. Go back and re-read it, it's near the end of the issue.

Then to quote exactly what they said about it: "His mind broken down and decimated". They didn't say that his memories had been erased or that the individual is essentially dead. And no indication if they think the process could be reversed or not. That one sentence is not enough information to make any sort of definite call one way or another.

Surely you're not defending lobotomies, and certainly not applied to EVERYONE. That's the point here. Even if it was a good idea in individual cases, it doesn't follow that every last person in the world needed one.

Of course I'm not defending it. The point I was making is that views about it now is not what it was then. And that's where I think you're loosing the real point here. You're not looking at the other side of the story at all, and as such, you're completely missing why the story unfolded the way it did. We know why it's wrong, but they didn't see it that way and you're not looking at the reasons why that is.

The Guardians' concern used to be for life. Again, that's stated over and over and over again, in many issues and by many writers. That's yet another reason I find this new storyline so disappointing.

Again, you need to look at it from their perspective. They see cutting out free will as a way to stop chaos in the universe and in doing so protect life.

Sparky Prime wrote:You realize the Sinestro Corps War was, in-part, written by Johns, right?

Absolutely. And even in that story, Ganthet says that he and Sayd feel, while the others don't. But the Guardians clearly display emotion with word, deed, facial expression and body language, even when written by an author who says they have none of the above.

They aren't emotionless. They may lack empathy, but that's not the same thing, not at all.

I mean, look at the promo art for the Third ARmy storyline: http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2012/08/30 ... he-artists

Do those Guardians look emotionless? They look filled with rage to me.

And look at how the Guardians acted in "Secret Origin", which Johns also wrote. They display outbursts that could be described as being angry. But a lot of that could simply be explained as the Guardians presenting themselves that way for nothing more than social protocol in a given situation. I mean, patting a kid on the head I'd hardly call an emotional response. Laughing, you don't think they might do for the sake of the troops? Dressing down an officer who displays disorderly conduct, you'd expect more attitude from a superior than a calm rationalized reaction...

So they don't have emotion, they're just faking it for the troops. Right. :/

Then to quote exactly what they said about it: "His mind broken down and decimated". They didn't say that his memories had been erased or that the individual is essentially dead. And no indication if they think the process could be reversed or not. That one sentence is not enough information to make any sort of definite call one way or another.

Of course it's definitive! The man's body and mind are gone, broken down, decimated. Of course his memories are gone, what else could that possibly mean?!? He has no will except that of the Guardians. There is no other logical conclusion except that the man himself is dead and gone.

Again, you need to look at it from their perspective. They see cutting out free will as a way to stop chaos in the universe and in doing so protect life.

And my point is that any rational person is going to see how idiotic that point of view is (not yours, the Guardians' in-story. Definitely not calling you an idiot here. ). You don't save lives by turning everyone into mindless zombies, even if such a thing were possible. The Guardians of old would have known that and would never have tried anything so mindlessly stupid.

andersonh1 wrote:Absolutely. And even in that story, Ganthet says that he and Sayd feel, while the others don't. But the Guardians clearly display emotion with word, deed, facial expression and body language, even when written by an author who says they have none of the above.

Johns didn't say the have no emotions. He said they cut themselves off from their emotions. That's why Ganthet and Sayd were able to feel, they decided to re-embrace their emotions. And that's what this storyline was all about. The Guardians corruption due to cutting themselves off from their ability to feel and relate to other the other emotion filled beings throughout the universe. And just cutting themselves off from emotions doesn't mean they can't still display emotional reactions.

So they don't have emotion, they're just faking it for the troops. Right. :/

In terms of things like laughing, or dressing down an officer like Hal who has stepped out of line, absolutely. Even Data did that sort of stuff, long before he got an emotion chip.

Of course it's definitive! The man's body and mind are gone, broken down, decimated. Of course his memories are gone, what else could that possibly mean?!? He has no will except that of the Guardians. There is no other logical conclusion except that the man himself is dead and gone.

Broken down just means something is disassembled or fragmented, while decimated means inflicting great damage on something. Not obliterated and gone completely. There is nothing so definitive about that statement as you're suggesting.

And my point is that any rational person is going to see how idiotic that point of view is (not yours, the Guardians' in-story. Definitely not calling you an idiot here. ). You don't save lives by turning everyone into mindless zombies, even if such a thing were possible. The Guardians of old would have known that and would never have tried anything so mindlessly stupid.

I think it makes perfect sense the Guardians, even of old, would do this. They've had two armies to police the universe, both admittedly has had their flaws. How do you fix that from a logical point of view? What makes it a stupid idea to save lives by taking away everyone's will to make their own choices; aside from the obvious it's not really living argument? That's the point you should be looking at here, because we already know that's not a viable solution the Guardians should have tired.

Sparky Prime wrote:Johns didn't say the have no emotions. He said they cut themselves off from their emotions. That's why Ganthet and Sayd were able to feel, they decided to re-embrace their emotions. And that's what this storyline was all about. The Guardians corruption due to cutting themselves off from their ability to feel and relate to other the other emotion filled beings throughout the universe. And just cutting themselves off from emotions doesn't mean they can't still display emotional reactions.

That makes no sense. They don't have emotions unless they do, when something gets through to them enough to provoke them into an emotional reaction? As you said earlier, that makes them sound like Vulcans, only Vulcans would logically understand that you don't save and protect life in the universe by turning it all into zombies. The Guardians are just psychopaths in the latest storyline, or at the very least sociopathic. And that's my point: they have never been portrayed this way before. Quite the opposite in fact, they have always valued life. Not subdued, zombiefied life, but genuine life in all its varieties as it exists in the universe. Many Guardians have in fact given their lives to safeguard the greater good over the years. The stark left turn into attempted universal domination is a major change that makes no sense to me.

There was absolutely a time when the Guardians cared about life, to the point they wouldn't even allow the Green Lantern Corps to use lethal force. That's worth pointing out.

I think it makes perfect sense the Guardians, even of old, would do this. They've had two armies to police the universe, both admittedly has had their flaws. How do you fix that from a logical point of view?

You disband the armies. Or you admit that there is no such thing as a flawless police force, and set about to make the existing one as flawless as possible. Those are the two logical, sensible choices when faced with that dilemma.

What makes it a stupid idea to save lives by taking away everyone's will to make their own choices; aside from the obvious it's not really living argument? That's the point you should be looking at here, because we already know that's not a viable solution the Guardians should have tried.

The obvious is all that's needed here. If the Guardians truly were making rational, logical decisions, they'd never have made the decision to create the Third Army. Because such an Army would undo all they had spent billions of years trying to accomplish, and that would be blindingly obvious to a thinking individual. The Guardians have made mistakes before, but nothing quite like this.

andersonh1 wrote:That makes no sense. They don't have emotions unless they do, when something gets through to them enough to provoke them into an emotional reaction? As you said earlier, that makes them sound like Vulcans, only Vulcans would logically understand that you don't save and protect life in the universe by turning it all into zombies. The Guardians are just psychopaths in the latest storyline, or at the very least sociopathic. And that's my point: they have never been portrayed this way before. Quite the opposite in fact, they have always valued life. Not subdued, zombiefied life, but genuine life in all its varieties as it exists in the universe. Many Guardians have given their lives to safeguard the greater good over the years. The stark left turn into attempted universal domination is a major change that makes no sense to me.

The Vulcan's don't consider themselves to be Guardians of the Universe though, and don't take it upon themselves to police the universe. The role they generally take in Star Trek is more like ambassadors, to help others solve their own problems, or otherwise take a stance like the Prime Directive to not interfere with other planets affairs. But we have seen how the Vulcan's have a superiority complex towards humans, partially because they strive to suppress their emotions, unlike humans. You saw how even Spock was treated for being half human by other Vulcans. And you're confusing the Guardians turning people into the Third Army as not valuing life. They took that action because they value life and order. And how is this a stark turn? They literally gave themselves the name *Guardians of the Universe*, took it upon themselves to police that universe. Not to mention, they are among the most powerful beings that few can stand up to and created armies similarly as powerful to enforce certain values. I mean really, from a certain point of view, they've always been about domination over the universe, so I don't see that this is really a different portrayal of the Guardians at all.

There was absolutely a time when the Guardians cared about life, to the point they wouldn't even allow the Green Lantern Corps to use lethal force. That's worth pointing out.

Except the Guardians weren't technically killing anyone with the Third Army and were trying to maintain life and order.

You disband the armies. Or you admit that there is no such thing as a flawless police force, and set about to make the existing one as flawless as possible. Those are the two logical, sensible choices when faced with that dilemma.

They planned on disbanding their army, by replacing it with a new one. And when what they see as the flaw is will itself, what do you do about fixing that?

The obvious is all that's needed here. If the Guardians truly were making rational, logical decisions, they'd never have made the decision to create the Third Army. Because such an Army would undo all they had spent billions of years trying to accomplish, and that would be blindingly obvious to a thinking individual. The Guardians have made mistakes before, but nothing quite like this.

You keep over looking why it's obvious to us and not them. They are making a logical decision based on a purely logical point of view and what they perceive to be for the good of the greater universe, living but no will in order to maintain perfect order. You're judging that decision based on an emotional point of view of what we see as truly living, everyone having a will of their own to live their own life as they wish.

Sparky Prime wrote:You keep over looking why it's obvious to us and not them. They are making a logical decision based on a purely logical point of view and what they perceive to be for the good of the greater universe, living but no will in order to maintain perfect order. You're judging that decision based on an emotional point of view of what we see as truly living, everyone having a will of their own to live their own life as they wish.

Sure, if destroying the universe to save it is logical. Even the First Lantern says they're descending into madness.

Clearly I'm going to have to dig out the old issues and be more specific and give some context and prove how different the Guardians used to be. I tried to do a little surfing around the net, and it's interesting how many GL info sites only have detailed synopses of recent history, or maybe back to the 90s. There's very little on the Guardians from the 60s through the 80s, and I think that's coloring perception of the characters big time. If all you've ever read is Geoff Johns version of the Guardians, then what they do in The Third Army makes perfect sense. If you've been reading longer, it doesn't.

andersonh1 wrote:Sure, if destroying the universe to save it is logical. Even the First Lantern says they're descending into madness.

Their plan wasn't to destroy the universe. You're misreading the story if that's what you're getting out of it. And the First Lantern isn't a reliable judge of character himself considering what he does.