cptgaio

One writes a review about the Almighty and out pop Nirvana ;-) At least this time you can't say I started it! :-D I thank everyone who participated (I'm not joining the debate because I think my positions are well known since I've talked about them a lot in the past). Bye!

Just to say, with the utmost calm possible and without any controversy, that "Exhibitions," "Rassegna," etc. with their related "bestiaries" are not representative of the Comics universe and it really depends on the case at hand. To the skeptics, I always suggest a visit to the National Comics Museum in Brussels (that one is indeed representative). As for the evaluations of "loser" or "not a loser," they are so closely tied to the personal sphere of those who write (or don't write) them that I wouldn't want to spark controversy. However, it's important not to come to conclusions with little material available and therefore limited knowledge on the subject, but again, everyone is free to think as they wish. Bye.

First of all, is that sentence true or is it a liberty taken by Krakauer (or the screenwriters)? I’m not insinuating anything, just that, knowing the author, I think it’s fair to ask. If it were true, my answer would be so obvious that it’s almost pointless to say it, but still I would say that I don’t believe there’s any need for some kind of physical or astral "journey" to understand that man is a social animal (hence the need to share). Of course, there are more or less "philosophical" exceptions, but they are just that—exceptions. As for the idea of "becoming a man," it depends on the parameters we impose on ourselves; if you mean "maturity," I believe that finding joy in sharing is definitely part of it.

"dangerous" not "danger"...and "to them" not "to them"...dysgraphia, my friend(?)...

@Defender: and how could we forget Vanessa? I didn't mention her in the review because otherwise I would have opened up other discussions, and I wanted to be concise: it's dangerous to introduce "osee'" elements into DeB ;-) anyway, I don't know if they're still together. @Spirit: I remember that episode too, but look, I share the point you make (in the sense that I always distrust someone's public image) and I think the contradiction of certain behaviors is always lurking in the Rock world which, I remind you, aside from a few romantic exceptions, is still showbiz. I adore extremely flashy bands and their kind of "fake" just as much as I do more "serious" ones, and I don’t know why that is, elective affinities? The thing is, I've stopped worrying about all of this; I only evaluate the sensations that a type of art gives me. This leads to me having opposing attitudes for two quite similar bands like Crue and Poison (being benevolent with the former and picky with the latter) and so on, but this also means I can listen to Maiden and then Germano on the same day. I hope I've clarified my thoughts. @Franci: well, come on, my friend, it's not that more annoying than that of the fans of the mentioned bands who 90% of the time consider the Crue to be clowns (and it happens indeed). The thing is, these issues have always occurred: it’s part of the game...look at DeBaser! ;-) Bye and thanks to everyone! PS: I also thank those not mentioned, in the replies, Jargon and Omaha for their appreciation.

I see, that's exactly why I'm saying that the "ethical" reconstruction presented in the book and then in the film might not be the right one. That's all. I'm going to sleep now, night :-D

I wasn't discussing the human story itself, but rather the reconstructions by Krakauer (which, okay, there's the sister's testimony, but I think it doesn't say much about the time the protagonist was alone, most of the story, right?) because he generally tends to "spectacularize" more than necessary and convey interpretations that are far from simple reporting. What I mean is that we'll never fully know the real motivations of this guy because we only have those "revised" by someone like Krakauer. Then, if we want to give it an ethical interpretation, the conversation changes, but I wonder if it's really worth it.

I will interfere: I wouldn't give much weight to the story of "Into The Wild" since the film is based on a book written by Krakauer, a "journalist" who works a lot with imagination (I know the events actually happened, but we don't have the first-person account of the protagonist, since he is dead; it's actually a reinterpretation by Krakauer).

PS: DeBaser is beautiful precisely for this reason: one writes a review and then the comments complete it (or possibly correct it): the important thing is to discuss it!

I don’t see what you need to feel sorry about; we’re talking about “light” things, and I believe no one will take offense over that :-D. I don’t know, I repeat, it reminds me a lot of how, yes, I can see the comparison with Hetfield (who I don’t find that bad anyway, even if he’s certainly not a genius), but I don’t think it’s worth it to say “yes, this reminds me of that, this doesn’t” since ultimately I don’t think it would influence our (opposite) views on the band in question ;-). If you think I made an inaccuracy in the review, I welcome your critique and promise that I will try to pay more attention next time (though I don’t think I’ll be reviewing HR or HM often anymore, because apart from Maiden and a few others, I’m listening to something completely different now in my life). Rather, I believe you didn’t understand (or I didn’t explain well) regarding the “rebellious” discussion: I was comparing them to their contemporaries of the '90s (I quote the phrase “that they exploited certain 'rebellious' clichés,” which I also mentioned in the review, but during those years, everyone in the rock scene did it, including the unsuspected), and not with the previous generation (including the House of Lords) who certainly didn’t have "alternative" attitudes, but perhaps went to the opposite extreme of being overly “sycophantic” (but that’s just my opinion and doesn’t apply to all the bands from those years, let’s be clear). Then I think that ultimately it depends a lot on “where” each person thinks their roots are and consequently where their tendency to judge is oriented: harshly judging what we think doesn’t belong to us and/or being more indulgent with those we feel closer to. If you notice in my review, I do nothing to hide the (terrible?) flaws of the Almighty, but at the same time, I claim nostalgia for that beautiful era that has passed, even with them. Conversely, right now, if I see many behaviors (and also many “questionable” songs) from certain ’80s AOR bands (even Whitesnake, to mention the Coverdale you named), I can’t help feeling a certain perplexity regarding certain excesses, both in image and style, but that’s just my sensitivity that has shifted elsewhere; perhaps it happens the opposite for you, but that’s okay, no problem! @DrFotter, Cornell, and Ardalo who shamelessly bring up "Wrench," I say: "Do you want to see me collapse!" Bye and thanks to everyone, including those I didn’t mention.