Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!  (Read 9190 times)

Grant Goggans

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3391
  • About that Revolution Robotique, Mr Tharg...
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #15 on: 11 September, 2013, 01:47:07 pm »
I know I'm in the minority who finds 20th Century Boys too long and too bloated, but Pluto is so damn astonishing that it eclipses anything and everything that Moore has ever written.  I reread it recently and it's a complete masterpiece.  And I say that even though I feel it's also a book too long.  If had ended one book sooner, with that emotional scene of the wife crying, that would have been the biggest gut-punch in the medium.  I love Pluto to pieces.

As for Moore, I think he's clever enough to know that his words are chiefly going to be dissected by morally outraged superhero fans, and that the places that are interviewing him would be all too happy for the ad clicks as they refresh the comments again and again.  He knows how to provide good ad copy for anybody who wants to give him a microphone.

Recrewt

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #16 on: 11 September, 2013, 01:47:29 pm »
I think this thread should really be titled:

Alan Moore thinks DC are pricks!

Alan really doesn't like DC, he believe's that they have stolen Watchmen from him and over time are degrading it with the film, tales of black freighter and now the prequels.  He saw it as a self-contained 12 parter and that was that.  Also, he feels he should now own the copyright but I'm not going into all of that here. 

This is a large part of the dig in the current interview - these concepts/characters were written to entertain 12 year-olds 50 years ago.  This is true, so why do 40-50 year olds still get entertained by them?  Well, we all know for starters that these characters have also changed over time but Alan is suggesting this 'nostalgia' is holding back the comics industry and really only done to generate money.  In a large part, you have to agree - despite the recent DC new 52, has anything really new/exciting happenned with the usual superheroes?  I suspect Moore would argue that they should all be killed off and then we can come up with something bloomin original! 

It's interesting when Moore rants about the comic industry what people come back with to argue the case that comics are not rubbish.  I don't think anyone has said "well the new Superman is really kicking arse, this week he meets Lois Lane for the first time".   ::)

I wouldn't be as extreme as Alan but I certainly agree that many comics outstay their welcome, wither away and die.  Perhaps a bit more of a planned final exit would be better?  There are good comics out there, but I must admit they tend to be newer ones like Saga. 

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12382
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #17 on: 11 September, 2013, 02:05:37 pm »
I wouldn't be as extreme as Alan but I certainly agree that many comics outstay their welcome, wither away and die.  Perhaps a bit more of a planned final exit would be better?

It's not the comics that outstay their welcome. It's the refusal of the fans to let go of what is, essentially, a juvenile stable of titles and those same titles' publishers' decision to concentrate on pandering to an ever-ageing, ever-dwindling pool of readers that makes it feel that way.

Cheers

Jim
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Grant Goggans

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3391
  • About that Revolution Robotique, Mr Tharg...
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #18 on: 11 September, 2013, 02:49:33 pm »
It's the Roy Thomases and the Geoff Johnses too, though.  DC keeps commissioning these continuity-obsessed man-children who can't let go of the past to write the books.  This isn't a new problem.  Look at the 1980s: At the same time DC was publishing the Wolfman/Perez New Teen Titans and the Levitz/Giffen/Lightle LSH, both of which were critically acclaimed and both of which were aging and maturing the characters and really doing new things, they were letting Roy Thomas do All-Star Squadron, which had plots like "Every one-off masked bad guy who was ever seen in a single issue of BUY WAR BONDS COMICS in 1942 have all teamed up to fight the superheroes!"

I mean, DC published the Alan Scott Green Lantern for, what, ten years?  They published Hal Jordan as the lead for thirty before replacing him with Kyle Rayner, then decided after a decade that they should let Geoff Johns bring Hal Jordan back.  The fact that nobody at that publisher can tell the talent NO is a real problem.

What could have been done (alongside a much more radical change away from funnybook pamphlets and into big 200-page magazines designed for grocery stores, newsstands, and bookstores - not comic shops at ALL, but that's an old complaint of mine) was, when DC decided to streamline continuity, they should have actually used their past as more than just "World War Two."  Because they let Geoff Johns whine that he has to have Hal Jordan and Barry Allen in the present with Superman and Batman, you've got silly backwards continuity keeping these 1960s B-listers in the modern day with the actual icons.   They always tie the old Justice Society characters to WW2 whenever they revamp, but god forbid they actually establish something bold like "Hal Jordan was Earth's Green Lantern from 1958 to 1974, when he died."

They could have made a huge timeline, established years of activity in the past for hundreds of characters, told occasional flashback stories, and - here's the wild part - have the stories in the 2010s with NEW characters.  Aimed at 8-13 year-olds.

Then again, this is a company which owned a character, Static Shock, which was on TV, in a cartoon, seen by millions of kids every week for about five years and didn't understand how to profit from Static Shock merchandising or how to publish a comic book version of that character that the millions of kids who liked the cartoon would want to read.  It's not like this company is run by anybody with forward-looking vision.

blackmocco

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
    • View Profile
    • ART!!!
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #19 on: 11 September, 2013, 02:54:40 pm »
More to the point: Before Watchmen was shite.
"...and it was here in this blighted place, he learned to live again."

www.BLACKMOCCO.com
www.BLACKMOCCO.blogspot.com

JamesC

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3985
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #20 on: 11 September, 2013, 03:02:17 pm »
alongside a much more radical change away from funnybook pamphlets and into big 200-page magazines designed for grocery stores, newsstands, and bookstores - not comic shops at ALL, but that's an old complaint of mine

^This. I honestly couldn't agree more.


JOE SOAP

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14814
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #21 on: 11 September, 2013, 03:10:49 pm »
More to the point: Before Watchmen was shite.


Hence why it's no longer and the Epilogue cancelled.


Professor Bear

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6789
    • View Profile
    • Your Friends and Neighbors
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #22 on: 11 September, 2013, 03:36:52 pm »
The fact that nobody at that publisher can tell the talent NO is a real problem.


Aimed at 8-13 year-olds.

Considering just last week the company was involved with a public dispute over disallowing one of their most lauded and highest-profile creators from doing a plot that they agreed to nearly two years ago, and weeks before that another went on record as being told by Dan DiDio that DC makes comics for 45 year old single men, I am not sure what DC comics you are referring to - but I for one would like to read their creator-defined all-ages books very much, thank you.  The ones produced via editorial clusterfuck that I have been trying to read for the last five years have been just awful.

Also this: http://guttersandpanels.com/gutters-and-panels/2013/3/23/the-new-52-timeline-of-departures
« Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 03:38:24 pm by Professor James T Bear »

Link Prime

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4567
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #23 on: 11 September, 2013, 03:49:30 pm »

More to the point: Before Watchmen was shite.


Some of it was shite, but that's a very harsh criticism of Cooke's Minutemen.
A very well put together piece IMO.

Recrewt

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #24 on: 11 September, 2013, 04:08:51 pm »
Personally, I have not read any of the Before Watchmen stuff so I won't comment on the quality.  And I'm not even saying that I won't at some time.  I can see why Alan Moore was not keen on it and why he would be upset when DC said they were going to do it anyway.  The issue with the BW stuff is: did some creators sit down and think up some great new stories or did the DC execs sit down and think up ways of making more money out of this Watchmen cash-cow? 

Professor Bear

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6789
    • View Profile
    • Your Friends and Neighbors
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #25 on: 11 September, 2013, 04:19:33 pm »
Wouldn't have mattered to me either way if the BW stuff was or wasn't any good - it's still the work of scabs.
I could understand young and hungry creators with families to feed and careers to build doing it, but the names attached did not need the profile boost or work.

I really wanted to check out Cooke's Parker adaptations, too, but I'm fucked if I'm throwing him penny one.

Grant Goggans

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3391
  • About that Revolution Robotique, Mr Tharg...
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #26 on: 11 September, 2013, 05:48:12 pm »

Considering just last week the company was involved with a public dispute over disallowing one of their most lauded and highest-profile creators from doing a plot that they agreed to nearly two years ago, and weeks before that another went on record as being told by Dan DiDio that DC makes comics for 45 year old single men, I am not sure what DC comics you are referring to - but I for one would like to read their creator-defined all-ages books very much, thank you.  The ones produced via editorial clusterfuck that I have been trying to read for the last five years have been just awful.

Sorry, I was ranting and unclear, I guess.  The books that DC is producing now should be produced with younger readers in mind, not 45 year-olds.

This used to not be a problem with Marvel or DC.  You read these Essentials and Showcases and anybody can see that the best of both company's output, while aimed at kids, can be enjoyed by everybody.  If you don't like Lee & Kirby Thor, or Aragones/O'Neill/Cardy Bat Lash, something is downright wrong with you.

In the mid-90s, DC started producing a separate "Batman Adventures" comic book to tie into the cartoon on Fox.  That way, they could say THESE comics are for little kids, and OUR COMICS, the ongoing continuity, THOSE are for grown-ups.  Idiots.  What they should have done was modified the continuity, storytelling, and character designs - not necessarily to strictly adapt the DC-Animated-Universe - but make it familiar.

And if you wonder how that could possibly work, it DID in the 1960s.  The Batman comics made when the Adam West series was on still had some insanely weird plots, but they also brought Alfred back, and started introducing TV-styled villains like Cluemaster and Poison Ivy (originally a va-va-voom Julie Newmar type with no plant obsession) and making the Riddler a much more regular character.  And they sold about thirty times what Batman comics sell today.  And they're pretty good stories, too - check out the Showcases, and they've aged, but they're not bad.

Instead, DC put all the "animated" universe tie-in comics into their own little ghetto for little kids, as they did similar books like 8th Grade Supergirl, or Billy Batson & the Power of Shazam, or Tiny Titans.  And while some of those were occasionally charming, there was nothing there to grow from.  If a ten year-old got hooked on one of those, tough, because they existed in a vacuum and would get canceled soon and nothing else was around to tie into them, but any ten year-old who picked up a Defenders or an X-Men or a good Justice League in the early 1980s had entire evolving universes to explore.  Modern DC and Marvel do not want little kid readers, they want their universes to be full of gore and 90-part crossovers and thick continuity and Red Lanterns who vomit blood, because comics ARE SO NOT FOR KIDS THESE IS FER GROWN-UP READERS I'M NO SISSY PLEASE DON'T BEAT ME UP MISTER FOOTBALL PLAYER.

These are superhero funnybooks for kids.  Period.  If you can't make them exciting and compelling and safe for children and also simultaneously interesting to adults, you deserve to go out of business.

I'll take a Batman that sells 3,000,000 copies a month and can appeal to anybody over a Batman that sells 100,000 copies a month and appeals to only people in their thirties and forties any day.
« Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 05:50:05 pm by Grant Goggans »

Jimmy Baker's Assistant

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
    • View Profile
    • Massacre For Boys
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #27 on: 11 September, 2013, 06:10:35 pm »
I used to think Alan Moore was a bit moany, but now I've come to the view that he's basically right. It helps that DC are now going out of their way to show how stupid and evil they really are on an almost daily basis.

Wouldn't have mattered to me either way if the BW stuff was or wasn't any good - it's still the work of scabs.
I could understand young and hungry creators with families to feed and careers to build doing it, but the names attached did not need the profile boost or work.

I really wanted to check out Cooke's Parker adaptations, too, but I'm fucked if I'm throwing him penny one.

Amen, brother.

I won't read Darwyn Cooke stuff now because anyone involved in Before Watchmen clearly has had an integrity bypass.

JamesC

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3985
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #28 on: 11 September, 2013, 06:44:29 pm »

Considering just last week the company was involved with a public dispute over disallowing one of their most lauded and highest-profile creators from doing a plot that they agreed to nearly two years ago, and weeks before that another went on record as being told by Dan DiDio that DC makes comics for 45 year old single men, I am not sure what DC comics you are referring to - but I for one would like to read their creator-defined all-ages books very much, thank you.  The ones produced via editorial clusterfuck that I have been trying to read for the last five years have been just awful.

Sorry, I was ranting and unclear, I guess.  The books that DC is producing now should be produced with younger readers in mind, not 45 year-olds.

This used to not be a problem with Marvel or DC.  You read these Essentials and Showcases and anybody can see that the best of both company's output, while aimed at kids, can be enjoyed by everybody.  If you don't like Lee & Kirby Thor, or Aragones/O'Neill/Cardy Bat Lash, something is downright wrong with you.

In the mid-90s, DC started producing a separate "Batman Adventures" comic book to tie into the cartoon on Fox.  That way, they could say THESE comics are for little kids, and OUR COMICS, the ongoing continuity, THOSE are for grown-ups.  Idiots.  What they should have done was modified the continuity, storytelling, and character designs - not necessarily to strictly adapt the DC-Animated-Universe - but make it familiar.

And if you wonder how that could possibly work, it DID in the 1960s.  The Batman comics made when the Adam West series was on still had some insanely weird plots, but they also brought Alfred back, and started introducing TV-styled villains like Cluemaster and Poison Ivy (originally a va-va-voom Julie Newmar type with no plant obsession) and making the Riddler a much more regular character.  And they sold about thirty times what Batman comics sell today.  And they're pretty good stories, too - check out the Showcases, and they've aged, but they're not bad.

Instead, DC put all the "animated" universe tie-in comics into their own little ghetto for little kids, as they did similar books like 8th Grade Supergirl, or Billy Batson & the Power of Shazam, or Tiny Titans.  And while some of those were occasionally charming, there was nothing there to grow from.  If a ten year-old got hooked on one of those, tough, because they existed in a vacuum and would get canceled soon and nothing else was around to tie into them, but any ten year-old who picked up a Defenders or an X-Men or a good Justice League in the early 1980s had entire evolving universes to explore.  Modern DC and Marvel do not want little kid readers, they want their universes to be full of gore and 90-part crossovers and thick continuity and Red Lanterns who vomit blood, because comics ARE SO NOT FOR KIDS THESE IS FER GROWN-UP READERS I'M NO SISSY PLEASE DON'T BEAT ME UP MISTER FOOTBALL PLAYER.

These are superhero funnybooks for kids.  Period.  If you can't make them exciting and compelling and safe for children and also simultaneously interesting to adults, you deserve to go out of business.

I'll take a Batman that sells 3,000,000 copies a month and can appeal to anybody over a Batman that sells 100,000 copies a month and appeals to only people in their thirties and forties any day.

And again, ^this.

I would add that I really liked the Batman Animated comic because you could pick up almost any issue and get a high quality stand alone Batman tale that was pretty much continuity free. Also, early issues featured art by the great Mike Parobeck.
Having said that, I agree that if the regular Batman titles were properly tweaked, they could have fulfilled the same purpose.
Was there much crossover between the Animated comic and the Grant/Breyfogle Batman run though, because they were great (I suspect it was around the time of Grant's slightly darker Shadow of the Bat).

The best current Bat title is the digital 'Legends of the Dark Knight'.

Frank

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7805
    • View Profile
Re: Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!
« Reply #29 on: 09 September, 2014, 09:31:10 pm »
(Moore) mentions that he's having another prose novel published next year, called Jerusalem.

Which he finished today:   https://m.facebook.com/OfficialAlanMoore?_rdr