To Peter Chung: An explanation : LUSENET : Aeon Flux : One Thread

Peter Chung, we can never be civil because, for a start, I hate you. Don't get sulky and say the same thing back but with two fingers extended okay? I wish not to be bored. However, it is unfair for all if I spontaneously rain on your parade, so I shall illuminate your flaws.

1) Doesn't it just stink of crass worship baiting to frequent a forum especially erected in your honour, in your creation, and in your glory? Come off it, Pete, to be a regular visitor is so piteously shallow I scarcely have words to describe your actions..."tragic" maybe? He comes from resting on his laurels to arriving in a burst of electricity to reclaim direct praise! You love him! You love him! Tragic, Peter, tragic. Don't you have better things to do than to effectively immerse yourself in self-obsession and self-serving shenanigans? You are exploiting your fans...and I see this wholly.

2) You are just a human. You are not more important than any of us. Therefore, it is basically damn stupid to put your ongoing frequency in speculation, or to reiterate your authority time and time again ([paraphrasing] "I chose to reply because..." "I will not reply if you keep on doing this..." "The reason why I come here...". Come on Peter, we all know, yes you created a great cartoon (albeit your creative input was reportedly never as high as most believe...who wrote what? You don't have total creative control over your own cartoon?) but there is no need whatsoever to make us feel humble. I once respected you, but now that has been robbed by your omnipotent attitude.

3) People fell in love with your cartoon...not you. You are not Aeon Flux. She has outstripped you. Realise this and you'll be a more tolerable man.

Parade still going?

-- James Wan (, June 14, 2000


You are wasting space and time. Please leave. Thank you

-- william (, June 14, 2000.

James, I know you're pretty steamed up, so I'll ignore the first part of your message. I mean it when I say I regret that this exchange ended up being so emotionally charged. But I think anyone examining your posts here will see that you were just itching for a fight. Well, it looks like you got one-- but not the one you had in mind.

If you want to make a list of my flaws, that's only fair. Frankly, I get embarassed by many of the messages of praise that fans have sent me. A bit of criticism is always welcome, as long as it's done fairly. Actually, I'm surprised that you list only three flaws; I could easily come up with countless more.

I asked you to explain why you persisted in provoking me and others on this board with your inflammatory rhetoric. Purely for the sake of debate? I can't take this claim seriously, since you seem to have no interest in understanding or even listening to the replies given to your own questions. I've been wondering if you truly thought your questions were innocent. Maybe you didn't realize just how out-of-line your behavior was. If that's the case, then you really do need to work on your social skills.

As for your list:

1) Well, I guess I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Believe me, I had every intention of never getting involved in this forum. But what would you say about an artist with a loyal fanbase who never read or responded to his fanmail? I like conversing with the many great people here. Getting to mix it up with my audience is one of the rewards for my work I want to enjoy. You yourself seemed eager to have your curiosity satisfied by asking me questions. A lot of questions. It's too bad that your attempt to be too clever by egging me to "regret" my creation backfired.

2) As I've said, being on this forum puts me in an awkward position, since I'm necessarily the one with all the answers. When I've stated why I choose to reply or not to reply to certain questions, I figure that this is better than leaving people hanging and wondering why they're being ignored. I don't have time to answer all questions with the amount of depth that I'd like. Or would you suggest that I devote more time to this forum? But that would conflict with your point that I'm spending too much of my time here already.

I'm the first one to give proper credit to the contributions of other artists on Aeon Flux. Any time any viewer has tried to ascribe credit to me that I didn't deserve, I've always volunteered the name of the collaborator responsible.

And yes, the process of creating the show was fraught with many struggles against the network over content. Many times the network won. I'm sorry.

3) James, I'm confused. You list the fact that I am not Aeon Flux as one of my flaws. I never claimed I was Aeon. If I recall, only the other day, it was you who were trying to link the persona of Aeon to my own in one of your lines of questioning.

Can we call it quits, now?

-- Peter Chung (, June 14, 2000.

Yes james, let's call it quits! Move on! This is already tiring! And Mr. Chung why do u feel a need to justify yourself to james? I mean it's quite obvious that james thinks what he does of you regardless of what you say. But your true fans think much more highly of you, than to waste your time with petty fights and stupid comments! he obviously wants to get some attention and we are feeding into his desires, so please let us ignore him until he has something that is worth while, shall we?

-- Lady Morgan (, June 15, 2000.

James: it's a lose-lose situation, isn't it? You could spin it however you want:

Peter is trying to strike a balance which allows him to give back to those who support his work without having it become a bloody annoyance. This is fair.

I am not a frothing-at-the-mouth fanboy, but I feel it is a privelage to speak to someone whose creations have inspired me and influenced my life. For a show that disappeared into oblivion half a decade ago, this is a nice gesture. So let's stop bickering over trivialities.

-- eskimonkey (, June 15, 2000.

and the fox said,"Oh, they're probably sour anyway." It was one way to cope with the fact that he was not going to have those grapes he so desired.

-- Barb e. (, June 15, 2000.

I won't comment on this question, as its not mine to answer, but I was just looking back over the recent posts, and I just have to give congratulations to James on his really shitty, half-assed attempt to pretend he's somebody new.

-- Chaos Knight (, June 15, 2000.

Sigh, I guess I'm just the eternal optimist... Well, it made for some cheap drama, at least? James, you're welcome to come back when things get slow around here. Just kidding, everybody. Hahaha...gurgle....plop....

-- Peter Chung (, June 15, 2000.

Oh, there's no sour grapes here. "James" goes quite aways back at this place, and he hates the show, the people who like the show, the very fact this board exists. However, I'd rather have the man who'll believe anything here than some of the other people who don't like Aeon Flux, like Lord Janus, or god forbid, The Count.

-- Chaos Knight (, June 15, 2000.

Peter, I respect the fact that you answered. However, how do we know you are Peter Chung? After all, you do seem to lose your rag often and I would have thought the man behind Aeon Flux was more intelligent than to succumb to tar-pit traps (yes I admit it now..but I had three main reasons to behave so-see original post). What are you thinking right now? You're so grand that people would believe some try to impersonate you? Godamnit you are the one and only PETER CHUNG? If you can answer without ballooning your ego I would be impressed. Until next time...

And ChaosKnight....what on earth could you possibly mean? En memoria de los amigos perdidos?


-- James Wan (, June 15, 2000.

James, looks to me like your final score looks pretty low, considering you were playing against a blindfolded opponent. I guess we'll never know how you'd do in a fair fight. Good game, though-- I actually enjoyed it.

Until next time.

-- Peter Chung (, June 15, 2000.

Calling Lord Janus and The Count lost friends. Hmm... Very interesting concept. It would be like calling a cured case of say, spastic colon the missing excitement in your life.

-- Chaos Knight (, June 15, 2000.

Chaos Knight, you are the master of your craft, the solid rock upon which this forum stands, and a very funny gentleman. Thanks for being there.

-- Peter Chung (, June 15, 2000.

Hey, I read that 'plop' thing when I just woke up, and then got on the freeway and drove to work with the chilling realization, (I think) that that refers to, (after the explaination from you about Reraizure), a little fantasy 'abortion' for Wan. Diabolical, and wickedly entertaining.

-- Barb e. (, June 16, 2000.

Hmm Peter Chung...interesting replies. Much appreciated. I was "playing against a blindfolded opponent". Well well please explain I am too dumb to work out your nebulous phrasing. You don't, God forbid and forbid, suppose I had an unfair advantage?

You know maybe we should continue this "debate" of ours but with more civil conduct so that it will more less intolerable to others. I wholeheartedly think this would be wise. After all, I have many queries to ask the great Peter Chung.

ChaosKnight. You turn me on. Godamnit I don't want what it is about you but you stink of sexiness.

On a later date folks...

-- James Wan (, June 17, 2000.

At the very least Peter Chung has created a wonderful animation that many enjoy, as is obvious by the multitude of people who come to this forum and have interest in the show. It was very different from others and was original, who wants to here from someone who did nothing except complain on this forum. I say if you don't like it there are plenty of other places to go on the internet. We do like it and I for one am very thankful that Mr. Chung has deemed this appreciation worthy of his attention, and has been kind enough to come answer our questions. That is just plain gracious.

-- Mary Brody (, June 19, 2000.

Humm i think i'm gettin a bit tired of you James! Why don't you go grace urslef in some other forum!

-- Lady Morgan (, June 20, 2000.

Peter's role as patriarch of this forum, so to speak, can't be avoided because of his relation to the topic, so there's no need to argue about that point. He can't help but be a focal point to this discussion. Peter: I for one don't blame you one bit for coming to interact with this forum. I'm an aspiring filmmaker, and if I ever built a fan base around my work, I'd be the first one to try and understand my viewers' reactions to what I'd made by "mingling" among them.

-- Matthew Rebholz (, June 28, 2000.

This site is full of artists, authors, and creative minds, I'm not the age of many on this site, but really it amazes me constantly at the depth and content of thought that there is here. It renews my faith in humanity to see good sound thoughts in spite of being raised with t.v., and the internet is going to free us all, as far as I'm concerned, may the age of Englightment begin again, and may it start with Aeon Flux. Heh heh. Thanks Peter Chung, although I'm sure you're modest nature would deny this, I think you're use of animation is, well not to give myself away, but Fab.

-- Barb e. (, June 29, 2000.

James Wan(ker) is simply someone who needs to get a life. He is obviously trying to bait anyone and everyone to respond to his prattle. He lacks any depth, intelligence, or sophistication in either his arguments or his demeanor. His venom toward Peter is obviously misplaced aggression toward his own personal failings in life. It's sad, really.

-- KT Roughneck (, September 27, 2001.

We just got rid of him last year, don't tempt fate :-)

-- Inukko (, September 27, 2001.

woo hoo, cool discussion. i'm all fired up to get into the thick of it. too bad i'm over a year too late. d'oh

-- adrian (, October 07, 2002.

> One Mr Wan disputes authorship of AEON FLUX? Huh, which one? Isn't this > the guy who isn't sure whether he's somebody else or else or who the fuck is > he this time? It doesn't surprise me somehow he might get confused about > whether he were, "in fact," um that's it - Peter Chung this week or Peter > Paul or Mary oh from the Bible I guess no no not the musicians from the '60s > that was 2000 years ago back with that punkrock scene like Paul Revere and > the Raiders? Oh wait a minute now I'm confused I'm sorry that was two HUNDRED > years ago. Some shit . But keeping his considerable inventory of internet > identities from getting conflicted sounds like a lot of work so I suppose > we're all entitled to a slip once in a while. Like comin ta this > motherfucker in the first place all ready for matching wits so of course > Chung deconstructed his gig so then we got this sudden raving wacko on the > other line in throes of spontaneous combustion. > > This sort of thing has nothing to do with say questions of whose credibility > were at stake etc. nor does it originate from that, or from any resolvable > question. This goes to what sort of mental torture some > Travis-Bickle-With-A-M.D.S.C, intends to do to other people's feelings . MDSC > means doctor of pscychiatry I think this guy has deep experience obviating or > dancing his way out of the loony bin, he's waaaaaay too sophisticated with his > strategy and tactic arsenal to be just some asshole playing around being smart > or funny or weird. > > The motherfucker doen't even want anyone to know WHO the fuck he even > IS-literally figuratively fictively sincerely or insncerely now, does he. So > this fool's game's already rigged before anyone 's about to log on! And > multiply our Professor Wan, here by even the mean # of personality > permutations he might experience on any given afternoon of contemplating his > we don't know - not even a FRACTION of how many of these insano wackjobs > are out there just really into getting to know you . And there's only one of > you. > > And, me? I resent and have it in personally for mental cases like this one. > I revile human cruelty and demand it to end and especially fault myself for > whenever I allow it to slip - I have to retain a facility for ti myself for no > ther excuse than this selfimportant shitbag now I have to wait on this sorry > motherfuckier to be abusing others with shit who he can pick on. It's not > for lack of conscience or of anything else: Wan's is a considered choice. > True Evil always is deliberate unlike error or failure or lack. So I say > fuck insanity. It's bullshit" look at this fucker. Is he laughing. Do I > get it. What am I missing here: Now you see how all of our questions have > somehow managed to wind up on the wrong schedule, like that. Whose schedule > or agenda is it let's see. His own. Damn. Hey how you do that trick. God > damn. > > It's precisely this shithole's faculty of impairment, his psychic handicap > that not only obliges me to pity him, or to give him my seat on the bus - it's > the same thing about him I'm supposed to somehow "understand" or "appreciate" > or "respect" about him, that is exactly what makes him a danger to me and to > society. I'm a tortured genius here sure but this should be my special > quality to go out of my way to or even my special excuse for hurting people? > Plus you may not know how I am about my friends, but I don't have a whole lot > of them. Chung has been my friend since World War 4 - I suppose that should > compromise my own objectivity for purposes of any discussion as to who the > fuck I know for a fact created AEON FLUX. > > Wan's proclivity for introduction of a hostile accusation or > cynical assumption or even an outright insult as it were some sort of given > which were, somehow, already understood as true or readily apparent > concerning whomever or whatever discussion he's about to warp to suit his own > obscene self-serving purposes, is frightening. But all that does is make the > guy more effective as a asshole so what's this prove.) I hope I know a little > bit about the difference between my story and somebody else's and am not for > seeing that crucial qualification somehow overlooked neglected or avoided > however "respectfully". As if this INDIVIDUAL's attentions to politesse > have anything to do with regards for anything other than facilitating his own > malicious treachery or personal agenda at our expense. I have the hardest > time trying to keep all of that garbage where it belongs or out of my own > vocabulary. It takes a human strength to be nice.

> Nice is no frivolity either; we're talking about the definition of the > human spirit as well as of civilization in it s apotheosis. This is why I > really believe that some people really are worse than everybody else. >

-- dangerboy and FUCK YOU, WAN (, October 07, 2002.

You'd think some people were in need of omniscient clarity. Maybe thatís why such things seem so utopian. At least we consistently attack some of our own weaknesses.

-- Sam (, October 09, 2002.

To Adrian: Bwahahaha, I know exactly how you feel :) It makes you feel weird like if you had stepped in a time vortex or something...

-- Ricardo Dirani (, November 27, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ