BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

The Grant Morrison Interview Archive

  
  

Page: 1 ... 56789(10)11

 
 
Spaniel
12:06 / 30.03.09
Lost does demand a considerable effort from the viewer, however. In addition to the fact that fans have to keep track of a great deal of information, it also doesn’t usually explain how that information fits together (in the immortal words of Jack the Bodiless, “Lost doesn’t do exposition”). For example, the runway that Ajira 316 landed on the other week is likely the same runway that Kate and Sawyer worked on in Season 2, the implication is, of course, that the Others (or at least Jacob) anticipated its arrival. Given the show’s history with this kind of reveal, I strongly suspect this point will never be clearly and decisively emphasised.
 
 
alex supertramp
16:46 / 30.03.09
"The equation relating to the numbers has not, as far as I remember (I know I've just shown my memory to be faulty) had any further significance or role in the show since the Lost Experience. Sure, it's in canon, but you don't need to know it."

I don't want to keep harping on my Lost obsession, but I really think you're mistaken about this. I think the equation will have a lot of significance to the show, it's just not something we've seen yet. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes up in Season 5. Its the whole reason Dharma is on the island. If you check the Blast Door Map, there are bits where it even says "high relevance to valenzetti equation."

I'd be really surprised and disappointed if it ends up having no significance to the show, or never comes up on the televised show.
 
 
alex supertramp
16:48 / 30.03.09
Also, don't want to be a stickler (yes I do), but Kate and Sawyer worked on the runway in season 3.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
18:56 / 30.03.09
I think the equation will have a lot of significance to the show, it's just not something we've seen yet.

Umm... The Lost Experience ended in September 2006, between seasons 2 and 3. In March 2009, in the middle of season 5, it has had no significance. Your faith is admirable, sure. I just think that my view ~ that the information revealed during the ARG is not incredibly relevant to the core text of the show, and that the ARG is therefore still peripheral, whereas the core text is the site of the important information and constitutes everything you essentially need to know about Lost ~ seems more sensible right now.

If they do bring up the equation some time in season 6, do you really think they won't seed it or explain it at all in the show, and alienate everyone who didn't play an ARG in 2006?

I'm sure it will seem like a great pay-off to those like you who have known about the equation for years, but my money is on the fact that the producers will not bring it up without explanation and context within the core text, the television show. Again, it will be a bonus to you. It won't be necessary that viewers played the ARG, to understand the story.
 
 
alex supertramp
19:26 / 30.03.09
"If they do bring up the equation some time in season 6, do you really think they won't seed it or explain it at all in the show, and alienate everyone who didn't play an ARG in 2006?

my money is on the fact that the producers will not bring it up without explanation and context within the core text, the television show.""

I never said they wouldn't seed it (which they already have, see Blast Door Map and the numbers appearing all over, every episode) or explain it at all in the show. I think in fact the opposite. It will come up and it will become a huge part of the show. Does that mean it was even necessary for me to play the ARG? I guess not, except that it means I (imho) have a better understanding of the mythology of Lost than you do at this point in time, if you think the valenzetti equation means nothing.

While you think it may not be relevant, TPTB have repeatedly said its canon. Do you think the significance of the numbers will never be explained on the show? Why was dharma broadcasting them from the island??? You think that will never come up? I just disagree strongly.

One reason why I think that is another video released outside of the show. It was the Orchid orientation video. Before any time traveling took place on LOST, this video strongly hinted at time travel. Many people speculated time travel would be involved in the show at a later date. Other people scoffed. Since then, we've seen the Orchid as a time travel station, and time travel's everywhere on the show.

It's kind of like how the Sri Lanka Orientation video explains the numbers. To say that has pretty much no relevance to the mothership show is silly, in my opinion, when we've seen things in orientation videos released off-show crop up on-show. If you assume the writers have no intention of ever explaining the numbers at all, or even revisiting them again, then I guess the valenzetti equation will never come up.

But if you assume that...why are you even watching?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:39 / 30.03.09
Dude, if you want to be weird about Lost and who is king of Lost, there's a thread for people to be weird about Lost in. I'm just saying.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:46 / 30.03.09
I never said they wouldn't seed it (which they already have, see Blast Door Map and the numbers appearing all over, every episode)

I didn't mean seed it in Season 2, obviously. I meant that you can't think they will bring up material from the ARG without explaining it in the show.

The Numbers and the Blast Door Map were effectively seeding the ARG, not seeding something from the ARG into the show.


I think in fact the opposite. It will come up and it will become a huge part of the show. Does that mean it was even necessary for me to play the ARG? I guess not, except that it means I (imho) have a better understanding of the mythology of Lost than you do at this point in time, if you think the valenzetti equation means nothing.

Yes, you may well have a better understanding of the mythology of Lost. (I don't think it means nothing ~ I think it has not been relevant to the show since, and I still maintain that's the case).

But that was my point above. If I read the Expanded Universe, in-canon stories of Aayla Secura and Aura Sing, I have a better understanding of the Star Wars prequels than someone who doesn't. If I read eight Carroll biographies, I have a deeper and more complex understanding of the Alice books than someone who doesn't. If I read the Silmarillion, I have a broader context for understanding LOTR. And so on.

But my point was, those supplementary texts aren't necessary to understand the central text on an entirely satisfactory, self-contained, coherent level.

If you HAD to play Enter the Matrix to understand Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, I would treat that as a different case.

But I am suggesting that these supplementary texts are, pick your word, peripheral, bonus, easter egg, satellite, supplementary. Not necessary to the core text, and so the distinction between "core" and "peripheral" remains.



While you think it may not be relevant, TPTB have repeatedly said its canon. Do you think the significance of the numbers will never be explained on the show? Why was dharma broadcasting them from the island??? You think that will never come up? I just disagree strongly.


I don't think it will never come up. I think it's quite possible, but also possible that it will be dropped. I don't know if the polar bear will ever be explained, or the three-toed statue. But my point was: you will not have to have played the ARG to "get it" if and when they bring the equation into the show. Hence, the ARG is supplementary, rather than integral to the main text. Again, it is a bonus. You don't have to have played it, to understand the main show in a perfectly satisfactory, un-enhanced way. I don't think that will change.

As for canon, that applies to my Star Wars examples. Lots of information is canon, and yet not necessary to fully understand the core texts of the movies.



If you assume the writers have no intention of ever explaining the numbers at all, or even revisiting them again, then I guess the valenzetti equation will never come up.

But if you assume that...why are you even watching?

I think it's quite likely you're right, and the equation will come up. I'm not arguing that. Where we disagree, I think, is that I maintain the equation will be explained within the show, if it comes into the core text, and it will not rely on viewers having played a game in 2006. Hence, the game is peripheral, not integral to the main text (the TV series).

I don't necessarily believe every plot hole will be answered, within Lost, or that every previous detail will be returned to and explained. That isn't necessary to my enjoyment.

I'm sorry if I have sounded at all belligerent, as I don't think (from my point of view) we are disagreeing about anything too crucial. We're both fans of the show ~ and I read Lostpedia so I know about the ARG ~ it just never became as important to me as it did to you. That isn't a big deal, really, and I hope I haven't been arguing too forcefully with you.

My main point, again, is that I believe the "core text" (TV show, movies etc) is still core, ie. it is all you really need to follow the story in all these cases, and that the supplements are still "bonus". I think that is still the situation, though I think increasingly, stories will genuinely be told in a way that means you can't actually follow them without engaging in several cross-media experiences. I don't think that is the point we are at just now.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:47 / 30.03.09
Haus is right of course, though this thread did go off-topic a while back. I'd be only too happy for the relevant posts to be moderated to the relevant thread.
 
 
Malio
03:27 / 31.03.09
Wizard - Grant Morrison on Watchmen.
 
 
Neon Snake
07:33 / 31.03.09
If you HAD to play Enter the Matrix to understand Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, I would treat that as a different case.

No, you don't have to - it adds some backstory, and fills in some blanks. Knowledge of those blanks, though, are strictly "nice-to-haves", none of them change the film in any way, unless you've really been fretting over why Jada Pinkett-Smith and partner were behind the truck when Morpheus falls off it.



So, it seems that an ergodic piece will actually not allow you to continue without the performance of something non-trivial/non-typical. I'd struggle to come up with a movie that would be ergodic, seeing as it continues at 30fps regardless of what the viewer is doing.

TV seems easier. Dancing On Ice, for example. Crap example in most respects, but it stops, people ring in, the show continues of basis of those phone calls.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:28 / 31.03.09
Well, there are a couple of things about that, I think. Where the rubber really hits the road on the being weird about Lost is above:


It's kind of like how the Sri Lanka Orientation video explains the numbers. To say that has pretty much no relevance to the mothership show is silly, in my opinion, when we've seen things in orientation videos released off-show crop up on-show. If you assume the writers have no intention of ever explaining the numbers at all, or even revisiting them again, then I guess the valenzetti equation will never come up.

But if you assume that...why are you even watching?

Because it's stating, effectively, that there is no reason to watch Lost unless you are doing so in order to tick back everything that has been mentioned in Lost spin-offs. Or, more kindly, that unless the Valenzetti equation is involved in the television series Lost before the end of the series, the series was totally pointless, so only faith that the Valenzetti equation will appear is acceptable as a reason to have watched Lost. It doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

However, Lost, or the Matrix, or Cloverfield, do all raise a big question about structure and completeness. I read a lot of the supporting material before I actually saw The Matrix - the comics, the website and so on - but I think I would have understood The Matrix as complete without that. I certainly understood The Matrix as complete without the sequel or the sequel to the sequel, or the video games und so weiter. In my humble but extremely accurate opinion, the Matrix franchise would have been more complete and a better experience overall without those things, because the quality of these products, on average, was lower than the quality of the film The Matrix (a) and because there was no necessary drive to continue the narrative (b).

However, this does raise a question. You could, if you were intent on looking silly, say that without playing Enter the Matrix, you don't have the whole skinny on the story described in The Matrix Reloaded, because you do not know how... um... Niobe and Ghost got to the location where they are shown planting a bomb in a three-second montage sequence halfway through the film. And, by extension, that you cannot understand The Matrix without knowing what happens before the actions portrayed in that narrative (the Second Renaissance), after it (the sequels and video games) and alongside it (the comics) - even though these things did not exist at the time of release or, I would suggest, of conception. That is, there is no film called The Matrix. There is only a vast multimedia unity called The Matrix, and only by experiencing every part of it can you be said to have seen The Matrix. George Lucas, as perhaps the first person to encounter this problem, actually came up with quite a good solution - which was to divide the media into the core narrative, the extended universe (which can be affected by the core narrative, usually by being shown as retroactively false, but cannot affect the core continuity) and the entirely uncanon (the stories on the backs of the Kenner toys, the Transformers cross-overs). Of course, plenty of people say that they are happy with their core narrative being the first three films, and do not feel that they are missing out by doing so.

That's basically the confusion you're experiencing, alex, which is being amplified by a desire to experience Lost as both a quasi-sacred text and an establisher of hierarchy - a thing at which it is possible to win, effectively. These are tendencies common in fandom (which brings us sort of back ontopic), which are also used to blur the line between narrative and marketing.

I actually have a half-finished post which this sort of ties into, but am running late. We could move all this to the Head Shop, but to be honest does it matter?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:55 / 31.03.09
I think this is a pretty interesting discussion and at this stage of board-play, I agree: does it matter on which sub-forum the interesting discussion is taking place? I think it's quite encouraging that it is taking place at all.
 
 
unbecoming
12:20 / 31.03.09
I'm enjoying it.

have we had an example yet of what is considered to be ergodic storytelling?
 
 
Neon Snake
12:35 / 31.03.09
The I Ching, Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, and Geoff Ryman's 253 have been given as examples.

I can't speak for 253, but the others absolutely require an action from the reader in order to form a narrative. I'm suspecting that that's the key thing, and is the reason why Lost, The Matrix, et al are not considered as ergodic, since despite the option being available, it isn't required in order to understand the narrative.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
14:50 / 31.03.09
You can read 253 straight from start to finish in a linear manner, I'm sure. I asked whether House of Leaves and The Unfortunates were ergodic.
 
 
unbecoming
18:21 / 31.03.09
So would Final Crisis count as being ergodic because I have to read a GM interview to understand it?

I kid, I kid.

253 doesn't strike me as fitting the bill because although you can choose which order to read the chapters in you are still just turning pages.

But does the choice of which order constitute non trivial activity?

The Final Fantasy books involve the dice so there is an argument for them but is it necessary to roll the dice etc. in order to traverse the text?

Dancing On Ice- audience participation wouldn't necessarily make something ergodic though would it? An outcome would become apparent whether a viewer chooses to vote or not.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:12 / 31.03.09
I think Dancing on ice moves between nodes depending on non-standard audience input. There's an Ayn Rand play where the audience has to form a jury and decide which of two outcomes they want which is cited as ergodic.

Having said which, there's the inclusive argument, maybe - that actually, in the field of audience-voted game shows, phoning in a vote actually is a trivial effort, because it's implicit in the experience. I don't know how that goes, exactly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:48 / 31.03.09
So would Final Crisis count as being ergodic because I have to read a GM interview to understand it?

Back ontopic, and I think that's an interesting one - Final Crisis is certainly heavily intertextual - it's a reference to Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis, and there's the more basic stuff about it making much more sense if you know who these people are. I think there's the alex element, also - I got the last issue without having read Superman Beyond (although I might have felt more moved by the defeat of the big bad from Superman Beyond, rather than him being a dude who turned up after the actual action of the story I had been reading had been defeated), but arguably Final Crisis, Superman Beyond and the other tie-ins were a single piece, which it required effort to negotiate between. I don't know about you, but I could jump either way on that one.
 
 
alex supertramp
01:05 / 01.04.09
"Because it's stating, effectively, that there is no reason to watch Lost unless you are doing so in order to tick back everything that has been mentioned in Lost spin-offs. Or, more kindly, that unless the Valenzetti equation is involved in the television series Lost before the end of the series, the series was totally pointless, so only faith that the Valenzetti equation will appear is acceptable as a reason to have watched Lost. It doesn't sound like a lot of fun."

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that if they never resolve what the signifance of the numbers are on Lost, that will be a huge disappointment to a lot of people.

The same goes for the smoke monster. Lost is a show about mysteries. What I was trying to say was, if you think the mystery won't be answered on the show...well...what's the point of watching?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
05:18 / 01.04.09
Briefly, you might be watching for the interpersonal drama and the character development, not to see every "mystery" explained.
 
 
Spaniel
08:28 / 01.04.09
Absolutely, Lost's success is as much about the interpersonal drama, and our relationships with the characters as it is about mystery and sci-fi antics.

There's also the aesthetic of mystery that the show cultivates - the way in which we enjoy the withholding of information, the constant effort we have to put into figuring things out, the space left open to the imagination - which I would argue is actually the show's biggest selling point with its diehard fans. Course, most of them don't even notice that they're enjoying being kept in the dark.

I intend to write a long Mindless Ones post about that one day.
 
 
Neon Snake
08:45 / 01.04.09
Having said which, there's the inclusive argument, maybe - that actually, in the field of audience-voted game shows, phoning in a vote actually is a trivial effort, because it's implicit in the experience. I don't know how that goes, exactly.

I'd guess that a few years ago, it was unusual enough to have been non-implicit in the experience of watching a prime-time TV show. There were plenty of shows where the studio audience were involved to some degree, but to the viewer at home, it was an entirely passive experience.

Now the viewer can get involved, in an increasing number of shows.

There's something in the fact that I'm treating the "viewers" en masse, possibly. Certainly Arkady can watch Dancing On Ice, choose not to vote or participate, and the show will continue regardless of his/her individual actions.

But then I guess the same can be said of the Ayn Rand play that Haus mention? An "individual" can opt-out, but the "audience" still needs to participate for the narrative to continue.
 
 
Kirk Ultra
08:43 / 09.04.09
Hi, does anybody know which interviews are best for reading about Morrison's real-life/shamanistic-vision-quest encounter with Superman? A lot of the old links aren't working and I'm having a hard time tracking any good quotes down. Thanks!
 
 
Alex's Grandma
22:31 / 14.04.09
Hi Kirk!

If memory serves it was on Newsarama.

Otherwise google "Grant Morrison + Superman + talking bollocks about fuck all, again. In a nice way."
 
 
Kirk Ultra
21:05 / 27.04.09
Thanks, I found almost exactly what I was looking for.
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
15:30 / 07.05.09
http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21104
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
23:36 / 22.05.09
http://comics.ign.com/articles/986/986031p1.html
 
 
Never or Now!
02:26 / 08.06.09
Frazer Irving's on "Batman and Robin." How cool is that?
 
 
Spaniel
14:09 / 08.06.09
Quite cool
 
 
Billuccho!
18:41 / 01.07.09
Graeme McMillan's got a Baterview at io9.
 
 
bencher
12:17 / 03.07.09
Bought a house in LA, "If" becomes a comic(?)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21870
 
 
The Natural Way
16:24 / 03.07.09
I'm more interested in the wonderwoman news meself.

goodgood.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:42 / 03.07.09
Good for him! Los Angeles is a lovely and much underrated city - sure, it has its faults, but I'm very fond of it.
 
 
Spaniel
10:45 / 04.07.09
For sure

What was that Wonder Woman stuff about? A comic? Is he working on a film? Can't imagine the latter going anywhere.
 
 
Benny the Ball
15:16 / 04.07.09
The Wonder Woman stuff was about how he felt that he underused her character during Final Crisis, and came up with some ideas that he shelved and wanted to explore later - taking her away from the "bondage" wonder woman and to something more powerful.

I think he has for a while been talking about script work and film work, so is probably pushing more into this area for a while.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 56789(10)11

 
  
Add Your Reply