Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!

[Professor Bear]

I wouldn't want anyone to be under illusions regarding 95% of Crossed: it literally is gross-out shock for shock's sake, going as far as possible for the hell of it

Not just Crossed.  You are describing 95% of modern superhero comics there, TB.  The drive is usually towards setting up and delivering some sort of soundbite, splash image or shock twist, and as time goes on the amount of sex, violence, and sexual violence in children's comics increases to the point that in 10 years' time, Crossed will likely seem a bit quaint.

[PsychoGoatee]

I wonder if Moore's read Naoki Urasawa's Pluto or 20th Century Boys. Probably not, which is unfortunate because I feel Urasawa is the modern Alan Moore.

I dig those, and I love the anime adaptation of Monster too. That's my fav of his.


Moore is a one of the greats of course, but I do think it's hard to say somebody is the most important writer of a 30 year period. He's one of a great bunch, and agreed Watchmen (along with The Dark Knight Returns) were big game changers.

I do think his criticisms on adults enjoying entertainment aimed at a young audience are incredibly silly, but hey, he's entitled to his view. I do like when people criticize Marvel and DC since I find them very often disappointing and often baffling, but Moore isn't even really approaching the topic with any substance.

And on superhero comics, it'd be cool if people were more specific with what they're referring to. You have incredible stuff like Savage Dragon and Invincible over at Image, Marvel and DC aren't the only game in town for that genre.

[J.Smith]

I wouldn't want anyone to be under illusions regarding 95% of Crossed: it literally is gross-out shock for shock's sake, going as far as possible for the hell of it

Not just Crossed.  You are describing 95% of modern superhero comics there, TB.  The drive is usually towards setting up and delivering some sort of soundbite, splash image or shock twist, and as time goes on the amount of sex, violence, and sexual violence in children's comics increases to the point that in 10 years' time, Crossed will likely seem a bit quaint.

Oh, come on. Granted, a lot of comics do have have problems with violence and sex, and many do go out of their way to make the next big shocking plot twist, but the difference between those and something like Crossed is pretty huge - let's not kid ourselves that they're the same. As Tordleback pointed out, the Crossed comics are almost purely about finding inventive ways to gross the reader out - kind of like The Hostel films, I suppose - but the critical difference between them and any superhero comic you may read is that they do so by throwing tons of rape and child murder your way, and they do so graphically in all its horrible detail, and don't really take the time to concentrate on anything else (in my short-lived experience anyway, with the exception of the little I've read of Spurrier's free webcomic series). Honestly, unless they throw in graphic baby murder or - god forbid - their rape, I highly doubt comics like Crossed will ever seem "quaint" at all.

Anyway, although I'm not as excited as the rest of the internet seems to be by this news (Multiversity Comics even have a ridiculous post collecting reactions on social media), I'd possibly pick it up if the first reviews suggest it's any good, which I believe it could be seeing as Neonomicon, also published by Avatar, was also pretty nasty stuff but also had the usual Moore depth to it.

[Satanist]

I've read all of Crossed and still do. Most of it is crap.

Honestly, unless they throw in graphic baby murder

Actually they've done this at least twice

god forbid - their rape

A Serbian Film beat them to it. They call it new born porn.

Anyone interested in Crossed should read the initial Ennis run and his later runs. All the Spurrior stuff is good as well. Leave the rest.

Really looking forward to what Moore can bring to it.

[Frank]

god forbid - their rape

A Serbian Film beat them to it. They call it new born porn.

Mr Orange was there long before them or Ian Watkins of Lost Prophets.

[Link Prime]

Mr Orange was there long before them or Ian Watkins of Lost Prophets.

The War Zone is one of the toughest films I've ever sat through.

Excellent, though.

[Skullmo]

Never even heard about Crossed until this thread! is it as awful as Boiled Angel (not that I have read that either)

[JamesC]

I've never been a massive fan of Ennis humour. Even in Preacher I find the humour bits often grate rather than amuse. It's a shame when he falls back on the purile humour as he's such a good writer of drama. Check out the contrast between his MU Punisher and the MAX stuff - it's like he suddenly thought 'what the fuck am I doing?' and decided to write some proper stories.

As for main stream super hero comics (and I wouldn't include titles like Invincible or Savage Dragon in that)- they make me laugh. They're fun fluff which I can enjoy on a superficial level but they're very backward. The industry makes a big fuss about how progressive they are by giving Captain Marvel or the new Dazzler a costume that covers them up and then the very same company introduces Angela to the MU who goes into battle in her pants with her tits out.

[Proudhuff]

The first Ennis 6 parter is 'okay'

Come now.  It has a character whose name and catchphrase is 'Horsecock', and whose signature weapon is, well, just take a wild guess.  Gerry Finley Day himself couldn't have done better.

I wouldn't want anyone to be under illusions regarding 95% of Crossed: it literally is gross-out shock for shock's sake, going as far as possible for the hell of it - which can be an art in itself.  Sometimes this works for me, often it doesn't - and as noted elsewhere I can't read any of Lapham's contributions, they're woeful.  In the other 5%, there's something interesting being said about humanity in extremis and the balance of pragmatism and compassion, and I like those bits a lot.  Generally these are by Ennis and Spurrier.

But I bet Moore can stand the whole thing on its head.

^^^ THIS.


They know how to play a fanboy:
'every cover ofCrossed: +100 will offer clues and hidden information about what has transpired in the 100 years since the outbreak, and hints at things to come for the characters'.


Would this be a good time to sell the various Crossed I have kicking about Huff Mansions?

[Professor Bear]

Preacher is an interesting addition to the discussion, as while it was the most extreme thing on the mainstream market at the time, it's pretty tame these days.

I suppose the temptation is to not include Invincible in the discussion on account of its indy status, but that would be a mistake because it really is a microcosm of the output of the modern superhero comics industry in that it's made by and for 30-40something fans disillusioned with the Big Two's properties for whatever reasons and yet spends all its time rehashing stories and characters from their output.  You will note the current storyline in Invincible where the character with Superman's powers and named after Batman's partner is currently having a baby girl like Spidey didn't manage to do all those years ago after the Clone Saga, a story which also ran through Invincible up until recently (and which might still be in play depending on how the CIA angle plays out in current issues).  Invincible is what the average grown superhero fan wants to read and write, and not only has it been full of graphic violence since the very start, like the superhero industry of which it is a paradigm it's escalated upon that graphic content in the only way that it could with the recent addition of rape and F-bombs.
Superman murdered three people in cold blood once in a Superman comic and it was shocking - nowadays?  Small beer.  I mean, he didn't even punch anyone's spine out or do a witty one-liner afterwards, he just killed some people because he'd been painted into a corner and then he was very sad about it even though he only killed three people who had it coming anyway, etc.  In this age of Avengers Arena where a mainstream superhero comic can only sell if it features the graphic murder or dismemberment of characters, ten years might have been me being generous rather than flippant.

[PsychoGoatee]

Invincible in the discussion on account of its indy status, but that would be a mistake because it really is a microcosm of the output of the modern superhero comics industry in that it's made 30-40something fans disillusioned with the Big Two's properties for whatever reasons and yet spends all its time rehashing stories and characters from their output.

Not to nitpick, but I see a lot of fairly specific age ranges like that listed for comics, and they always seem too narrow. Me, I'm 28, got into Invincible for example in my early-to-mid 20s, so did some of my friends. I see lots of people my age or younger in comic stores.

Also on a similar topic, I do think new people get into comics all the time. It's not just people who were 20 in the comic boon of say 1991 who are reading today, I was five in 1991.

To me aiming a sci-fi action or superhero book at 17-55 or something is as valid as anything else in entertainment. And due to the price of comics and the effort it takes to keep up with them, I don't think it's a medium that makes sense to aim specifically at kids today. I know when I was a kid even then comics weren't an option for my parents to buy me, I think it works as an adult thing, even in the superhero genre. Granted I'm preaching to the choir with a lot of this.

On the storytelling quality of Invincible, personally I think it takes stylistic ques and uses tropes but in general Invincible doesn't read as derivative of Superman or Spider-Man to me, and I don't think the Grayson name has much to do with the content. I also think stuff like graphic violence and the occassional f-bomb is something that can be part of a story and not just for it's own sake, I don't look at it differently than a Rated R film. The Coen brothers have included both of those things for example.

[Professor Bear]

Invincible in the discussion on account of its indy status, but that would be a mistake because it really is a microcosm of the output of the modern superhero comics industry in that it's made 30-40something fans disillusioned with the Big Two's properties for whatever reasons and yet spends all its time rehashing stories and characters from their output.

Not to nitpick, but I see a lot of fairly specific age ranges like that listed for comics, and they always seem too narrow. Me, I'm 28, got into Invincible for example in my early-to-mid 20s, so did some of my friends. I see lots of people my age or younger in comic stores.

While it is true that 99% of statistics are made up and there will always be atypical fans outside the target audience - the publishers of those cheesecake soft-porn "Grimm Fairy Tales" comics can attest to this, as half their audience is female - Kirkman is in his 40s, Invincible's letters pages show that the vast majority of his audience grew up with late-80s and 1990s popular culture, and Kirkman has been pretty forward about the book being a reaction to the Big Two's output and where certain characters come from.  The low sales, vocal fans, and restrictions on sales to younger readers imposed by retailers don't make it hard to discern the average age even before you factor in the actual average age of the baseline North American comics consumer, nor is it hard to figure out what Kirkman is reacting to when he opens a letters page editorial straight-up telling you why he's done whatever he did that issue.

[PsychoGoatee]

While it is true that 99% of statistics are made up and there will always be atypical fans outside the target audience - the publishers of those cheesecake soft-porn "Grimm Fairy Tales" comics can attest to this, as half their audience is female - Kirkman is in his 40s, Invincible's letters pages show that the vast majority of his audience grew up with late-80s and 1990s popular culture, and Kirkman has been pretty forward about the book being a reaction to the Big Two's output and where certain characters come from.  The low sales, vocal fans, and restrictions on sales to younger readers imposed by retailers don't make it hard to discern the average age even before you factor in the actual average age of the baseline North American comics consumer, nor is it hard to figure out what Kirkman is reacting to when he opens a letters page editorial straight-up telling you why he's done whatever he did that issue.

Plenty of room for personal interpretation in those subjects, just saying, I don't think 30-40 is necessarily accurate for Invincible. And people in their 20s also grew up with early 90s pop culture like Ninja Turtles, Batman and X-Men cartoons etc. And I can attest that several of the regulars in the letters column are indeed in their 20s.

We're both largely guessing at what some unspoken thousands of people's ages are here pretty much, but just from what I've seen, my impression is it skews wider and also younger than the 30s-40s figure you're using personally. Just saying, Invincible does have plenty of fans in their 20s.

And Kirkman does sometimes talk about things in letters pages, like him parodying the big advertised death events etc, but I'm not sure how that would contradict my opinions on the content of the book. I don't think Kirkman himself either would say he considers his work derivative, and the book he cites as most influential on him is Savage Dragon.

[Colin YNWA]

Its normally not worth tangling with the various Bear incarnations sweeping statements... which is a sure sign I'm going to bite isn't it... BUTTTTTT I think its fair to say that DC not so recent relaunch was a very clear attempt to get a new audience. It seems to be, in large chunks, aimed at finding a younger audience and they have made clear comments to that effect.

The question, or sweeping statement should surely not who they are aiming at but, who they are using to create the books for the audience they are aiming at and therefore how successful that attempt has been... over all the market is still significantly up, significantly (well according to the figures made available) so regardless of the horrible mistakes made along the way and they appear to be many, for the market somethings happened. I don't assume the knowledge to pick that one apart... oh and that'd be derailing the thread even more.

[Professor Bear]

I think its fair to say that DC not so recent relaunch was a very clear attempt to get a new audience. It seems to be, in large chunks, aimed at finding a younger audience and they have made clear comments to that effect.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/08/quote-of-the-day-we-publish-comics-for-45-year-olds/