Messages

Personnally I think not. If only because I don't think he is rated that highly.

What I mean by that if is there is one comic book creator that will polarise opinion it's Grant Morrison. Some people adore him, some people hate him. Even those who love the fella's work (and I include myself in there) often don't like particular bits of this stuff.

I think Zenith and Animal Man are the best comics / strips ever written. love um. Seven Soldiers and what we have to date of Final Crisis are close to the top of my lists as well. On the other hand while I loved Doom Patrol back in the day I find it a little cold now, a bit to cool for skool. The JLA stuff I've read (and I must admit its not a great deal) not so keen on.

I think if he was held in the high and almost universal esteem that Alan Moore is then yeah I think it would be fair to say he was over-rated (and whether Alan Moore is over-rated is a debate for another time). I think as it is his status as controversial but largely admired is about fair.

I haven't read Hellblazer in years (in fact since the Ennis run) but the news that Milligan is coming on board has caught my imagination and I'll be picking it up and hoping the fit is as perfect as it seems, if you'll excuse the pun, on paper.

Uh I was really hoping they'd be a little more concrete evidence, or even a rumour from a fan who'd talked to Pat Mills on this. I'd love to see Nemesis back. I've still to read book 10 (was it?) as that appeared during my wilderness years so not sure how well it ended?

That said it'd have to be a bleedin' marvelous ending to make me want to leave it alone and not have Nemesis return.

Just watched it all in one go. While I know such talk is dangerous straight after watching something I think I can safely say. BEST. ZOMBIE. FILM. EVER!

Loved it. Funny, scarey and incredibly human all at the same time. Charlie Brooker is a genius.

Thank you very much to Leigh for getting my point and defending it while I've not been here. Can I make a few clear points and then we can all move on.

Thoughout my posts I've never once said the Mail is a good thing - in fact I've stated my distaste for it.

I have not defend the fuss as I think by now its way over the top.

I've not complained about anything.

What I have said is that people saying that the 30,000 people who made the complaint and hadn't heard the show in the first place is a bad thing are wrong and they have no right to their opinions or the reactions their opinions have inspired in them.

My reason for saying this is that the news is there to inform people of events they haven't witnessed so they can form an opinion of their own.

I don't believe that of the 30,000 all are mindless sheep, or all 30,000 are forming their own opinion. What I'm saying is I'm not arrogant enough to assume that 30,000 people haven't got the right to form their own opinion on something from second hand evidence be that the Mail or some other news channel. To attack people for having an opinion on a matter that they haven't witnessed first hand is at best poor logic.

I have stated that the big shame that people haven't been inspired to put the same effort, i.e. to become informed by the news, about a story of more worth.

Simple as that, that's it.

I have NOT heard the show be it first hand or via YouTube or what not and have no intention of doing so. Does that mean I haven't got the right to have an opinion on the matter from investigating it from a number of sources. If you think it does you can sod off. All you evidence is the fact that you yourself have all the sensiblity of the Mail itself, i.e. I don't like what people are saying and or doing so I will attack them in whatever manner I can however poor my arguement is.

All that said as I've said a couple of times people are putting far too much effort into a small news story and so am I by doing this. Sigh.

Ok lets try another analogy.

People hear on the news that there is a humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Repulbic of Congo, People investigate the background and whats happening there, people choose to donate to the Oxfam supporting people over there.

By the logic being used this would be infuriating as people haven't 'witnessed' the events first hand.

Now I use that analogy deliberately to back up my point that the real shame and embarrassment to the country is that such people haven't got involved in a more signifciant news story NOT to compare the two situations.

The point I'm making is just because people don't hear, witness something first hand doesn't mean they can't gather information and form a valid opinion about it and act on that opinion. Yeah the fact that 30000 people have done the Daily Mail's dirty work and russled up hate and anger is a massive pity BUT that doesn't make the argument that people have been inspired to act via the news a valid one. There are many valid arguments that can be used but this just isn't one.

Oh while I'm giving my take on things one agrument that really bugged from people defending Ross and Brand is that most people had complained only after the event having seen all the fuss and retrospectively investigated.

To be honest this is a shocking arguement. Its a good thing if the news informs people about things they don't know about, they go and investigate and having done that form an opinion on it (of course people who get that mixed up, hear about it, form an opinion, then go and investigate need to sort themselves out). The only shame is that people haven't been motivate to apply this rigourous research into a more worthy news story - ahem say the man making his third posting about it...

[Even as Russell Brand row raged, BBC 'comedians' were insulting the Queen"]

The Daily Mail are now trying to lynch Frankie Boyle and the BBC as they run a story the the wonderful headline "Even as Russell Brand row raged, BBC 'comedians' were insulting the Queen" where they fan the flames of hatred for the Beeb for showing a repeat of Mock the Week where Boyle makes a joke about the Her Maj. You couldn't make it up!

//http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081966/Even-Russell-Brand-row-raged-BBC-comedians-insulting-Queen.html

Arh well that's the price of actually agreeing with something something said in the Mail. I've sold my soul to the devil and now I must pay the price and hate one of my favourite comedians while 'struggling to pay my mortgage'...

...oh hold on ... no... no ... phew its ok... I've just realised. I have the ability to distinguish between something being offensive when said on a topical satirical TV show and comments made ON SOMEONES PHONE. One is comedy and the 'victim' can ignore it, one is insulting and invasive - phew

Thank God the Daily Mail is still a bastion of insane ranting and my agreeing with it was a one of freak occurance. The world returns to normal!

Shame as he's been great. Of course the strenght of the show is that its doesn't really matter as it s all about change. Would have been nice to have a season of Moffat and DT that could have been exceptional.

As for replacement I think Rich Johnson's rumour that Paterson Joesph (of Peep Show etc) is lined up is pretty damned exciting I think he'd be great. The sooner the Nesbitt rumours get put to bed the better though. I can't imagine an actor I'd like less to get the part!

While I agree the whole thing has got to ridiculious levels and Gordon B stepping in just simply reeks of him finding people to be presented against who make him look good I personally am quite glad of the slap down that Ross and Brand are getting.

Smug broadcasters like this need to be reminded that their vacuous whittering and self safistifed nonsense needs to be kept within the bounds of common decency. Now I've not heard the show so I'll not comment on that just glad that a couple of smug media types are being reminded of the real world for once. Not the ego inflating, back slapping media circus in which they live. Could have been any number of people but it was them they seem to be in the wrong they need to get into a bit of trouble. That said I believe it was a pre-record show so surely there's a number of editors/producers that are wetting themselves right now as well!

Wow that was a rant - oh and the Daily Mail should apologise for just about everything.

Some people have also suggested that Jones will soon be signing a Marvel exclusive and thus DC pulled him. All specualtion and it'll be a while, if ever, before the true story comes out. Been a bit surprised that Rich Johnson over at Laying in the Gutters hasn't had anything to say on the matter? Or has he and I've just missed it?

While I'd much prefer one artist on any series its the story that keeps me coming back for more. Secret Invasion I feel kinda done with and I just want over so it can move into whatever the next big thing Marvel are doing will be. Its interesting that DC get accused of putting out stories that require years of back knowledge but since 'House of M' I feel Marvel have been bouncing from one cross over to the next all inter-linked and as someone said further up Secret Invasion will [spoiler]simply led into the next thing which will be Dark Reign and whatever that involves[/spoiler]. At least Final Crisis has been contained and all the crossovers have been keep out of the regular titles.

To that end how what the Adnett and Lanning cosmic stuff been like. I'm not too keen on Marvel's cosmic stuff but if they continue they way they have I'll only have Daredevil in trade, Captain Britain and possibly Mighty Avengers left on my list and don't entirely like the idea of leaving the Marvel Universe behind. Anyway yeah has it been good?

Only seen the first 30 minutes to date but so far...

Yeah defo enjoyed it. Fast Zombies aside, which it would seem Charlie Brooker is a big fan of and personally I think misses the point of zombie as satire BUT hey there you go; really good.

I'm wondering how well it'll hold out over another 2 1/2 hours of TV (thats' right isn't it?) as most of the TV satire is surely done by now and there is only so much more that can be done with the whole we're trapped in here and there's Zombie's everywhere thing?

That said so far so good

Sorry to harp back to the spoiler thing BUT I've not got an Edit post button available so I've reported the post to the mods and asked them to make the alteration.

Didn't want people thinking I was just ignoring the concern raised.

Cheers

Sorry tried to make sure there weren't any and I'm still not sure where they are? The only story elements I touch are from at least a month ago and there's a bit of speculation.

That said apologise if people think otherwise.

Over at Comics Should be Good the Curious Cat asked which people thought was better Final Crisis or Secret Invasion.

//http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/10/25/1025-curious-cat-asks-2/

So I thought what the heck I'd ask the same question here to see what 2000ad folk felt.

Have to say for me its Final Crisis by a country mile. I've found Secret Invasion to be waffer thin, a rehash of old fimilar stories dragged out. Its saving grace is that Bendis is great at the character moments meaning that the dragging out has been done very well ([spoiler]ok I was annoyed with the who crashed space ship, who is or isn't a skrull - oh they all are -thing) and I'm going to be gutted if they kill off The Wasp BUT there's nothing new there at all.[/spoiler] On the plus side been loving the art and at least they have got their act together in shipping it on time which is to Marvel's credit.

Final Crisis on the other hand is a fractured work of genius. It will be hard to judge until its all in BUT even half way through its been more original, intriguing and engaging than the 7 issues of Secret Invasion to date. I personally don't understand why people think its so hard to follow. Sure I've had to read each comic twice to try to get it all BUT damn me more comics these days could do with requiring a reread and the minute I've put it down I've actually wanted to reread it, so all good. Ok so if you do have a broad knowledge of DC you get a little more out of it BUT the same can be said of Secret Invasion. I don't think its inpenetrable to a DC newbie? The fact that's a Crisis doesn't make it unorinal in anything other than title.

The shipping and art changes haven't helped it BUT I think Civil War stands testiment to patience being a virtue and its a shame DC weren't bold enough to hold out for Jones but they're decisions that I don't have full info on so I'll settle for what I'm getting.

Anyway that's my take on the big two's big plays this year I'm really intrigued to know what the more decerning comics fan, e.g. 2000ad readers think.

Cheers