Finally got to read it tonight, and I loved it. It is definitely wacky Morrison, but I feel like the premise of the book actually makes his vibe make sense and work for the story. Reis' work is beautiful, and I love the way that the gathering of multiversal characters (as well as the "demons" they are against-- and I think the guess that they all started out as monitors is right) let Reis and Morrison cut loose with an abundance of character designs and ideas.
Also, when I read the initial solicits, I worried that the Earth-Prime layer of the story (which is the direct address and awareness of the reader) might be too precious and gimmicky, but so far it really works. As the idea that what is real on one Earth is the fiction (often the comic books) of the other-- a DC multiverse idea that predates Morrison, I believe- really works here. I like that it makes for a kind of 'am I real/ am I being watched?' existential dread. (That is also very Grover)
A great start and a lot of fun. I don't know or really care what this story might "mean" to the overall DCU. Partly I am not usually interested in books that way when I am reading them. Whether they are "important" or will "stick". So far, Multiversity is a fun, imaginative romp that looks great and has a lot of fun versions of characters, and playful ideas. Sold. I don't need it to be any more "important" than that.
I liked bits of it, but feel Morrison is trying to be too clever for his own good. Breaking the 4th wall was great back in Animal Man years ago but now he seems to be doing it to have a go at publishers etc, I get the impression he is probably mocking us for liking it.
I liked bits of it, but feel Morrison is trying to be too clever for his own good. Breaking the 4th wall was great back in Animal Man years ago but now he seems to be doing it to have a go at publishers etc, I get the impression he is probably mocking us for liking it.
I didn’t get that feeling at all. To me it felt like he was just trying to make a fun comic book that plays with the concepts of comic book storytelling.
I don’t know Grant very well, but from talking with him, I believe his enjoyment of those Silver Age tropes is genuine, and I don’t think he would ever mock his readers (well, maybe a few specific individuals, but not his entire audience).
I liked bits of it, but feel Morrison is trying to be too clever for his own good. Breaking the 4th wall was great back in Animal Man years ago but now he seems to be doing it to have a go at publishers etc, I get the impression he is probably mocking us for liking it.
I didn’t get that feeling at all. To me it felt like he was just trying to make a fun comic book that plays with the concepts of comic book storytelling.
I don’t know Grant very well, but from talking with him, I believe his enjoyment of those Silver Age tropes is genuine, and I don’t think he would ever mock his readers (well, maybe a few specific individuals, but not his entire audience).
I agree. I think Morrison protege Mark Millar has been guilty of disdain of the audience a few times, but I don't feel like that is what Morrison's meta-layers are out to do. I feel like he is talking to the audience because he loved when books used to do that (and because it is the way to add Earth-Prime to the story, which is something I get the feeling is going to pay off in the narrative). I don't think he is doing that to use an old, playful style to involve us, not to mock us for even participating in the first place.
Sold. I don't need it to be any more "important" than that.
Honestly, I'd be more interested in it if it wasn't "important."
Like their films, DC's books are, to my taste, far too damned "important" already.
That is what I am saying-- the tone is not importance or self-importance. The tone is playful and fun. The story doesn't feel like a "This Will Change Everything", but rather a "Is This Even Happening?"
I also think the fact that Multiversity, at least so far, entirely leaves out the New52 (Earth-1) Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. is another way in which this book feels like a fun creative yarn instead of a continuity event: It can't lean on an interest in how the characters will be changed forever, because it is not clear yet whether the usual characters will even be involved.
Sold. I don't need it to be any more "important" than that.
Honestly, I'd be more interested in it if it wasn't "important."
Like their films, DC's books are, to my taste, far too damned "important" already.
That is what I am saying-- the tone is not importance or self-importance. The tone is playful and fun. The story doesn't feel like a "This Will Change Everything", but rather a "Is This Even Happening?"
I also think the fact that Multiversity, at least so far, entirely leaves out the New52 (Earth-1) Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. is another way in which this book feels like a fun creative yarn instead of a continuity event: It can't lean on an interest in how the characters will be changed forever, because it is not clear yet whether the usual characters will even be involved.
It's comicy and fun. I think you'd like it.
Yay!
Can I wait for the trade, or is he using the space between the issues as part of the experience?
Sold. I don't need it to be any more "important" than that.
Honestly, I'd be more interested in it if it wasn't "important."
Like their films, DC's books are, to my taste, far too damned "important" already.
That is what I am saying-- the tone is not importance or self-importance. The tone is playful and fun. The story doesn't feel like a "This Will Change Everything", but rather a "Is This Even Happening?"
I also think the fact that Multiversity, at least so far, entirely leaves out the New52 (Earth-1) Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. is another way in which this book feels like a fun creative yarn instead of a continuity event: It can't lean on an interest in how the characters will be changed forever, because it is not clear yet whether the usual characters will even be involved.
It's comicy and fun. I think you'd like it.
Yay!
Can I wait for the trade, or is he using the space between the issues as part of the experience?
I have no idea. I have only read the first one, and I haven't read any interviews about it or anything, just the comic itself. But probably not necessarily. It is a really satisfying periodical, and a meaty read for the 5 bucks. Like anything, trade would probably be fine, too, and as with Seven Soldiers of Victory, will likely reprint everything in publication order.
I liked bits of it, but feel Morrison is trying to be too clever for his own good. Breaking the 4th wall was great back in Animal Man years ago but now he seems to be doing it to have a go at publishers etc, I get the impression he is probably mocking us for liking it.
He has said repeatedly that the book that got him hooked was an issue of The Flash where the cover said "Only YOU can save me!" or somesuch fourth wall breaking. He returns to it quite often as a storytelling device, much like how other people return to certain storytelling devices (Tarentino's jumping around in time, Leone's use of a war as the background for his stories without the story being about war, John D MacDonald's use of the lead character's long internal monologues, etc...)
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
Yep.
I'd say the core difference between GMo & Mordru is that Morrison's work comes from a love of the material, whereas Moore's comes from a sense of superiority to the material.
Grant says "I wanna do THAT and THAT and THAT!", whereas Alan says "I can do that better."
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
Yep.
I'd say the core difference between GMo & Mordru is that Morrison's work comes from a love of the material, whereas Moore's comes from a sense of superiority to the material.
Grant says "I wanna do THAT and THAT and THAT!", whereas Alan says "I can do that better."
My two-word imitations:
GMo: "That's greet!"
Mordru: "That's shite."
Which one of them do you think this quote is from?:
...And then I can recall on one day, I think I was ill in bed—I'd been seven or eight at the time—and my mother said that'd she get me a comic to cheer me up while I was confined to the bed. I knew that the only comic that I could think of that I hadn't actually bought was a Blackhawk comic that I'd seen around. So I was trying to convince her to sort of pick up this Blackhawk comic, kind of explaining to her what it was and that it was a bunch of people in blue uniforms. Much to my initial disappointment she brought back Fantastic Four #3, which I read. It did something to me. It was the artwork mainly. It was a kind of texture and style that I've just never seen before. The DC artists at the time, I didn't really know their names, but their style was the one I was accustomed to: Very clean, very wholesome looking, and here was something with craggy shadows with almost a kind of rundown look to a lot of it. It was immediate; literally, from that moment I became a devoted fan of the Fantastic Four and the other Marvel books when they came out—particularly those by Kirby. I mean, it was Kirby's work that I followed more than anybody else as I was growing up. Just the work in Thor and "Tales of Asgard," the Fantastic Four during that long classic stretch in the middle, and then when Kirby went over to DC and the Fourth World books.
This was around the time that I was approaching my psychedelic teenage years and the subject matter of these books seems to be changing along with me. I absorbed actively every line he drew in those years, or at least the ones that I was able to lay my hands on. There's something about the dynamism of Kirby's storytelling. You never even think of it as an influence. It's something that you grew up with, kind of understanding that this is just the way that comics were done. So I'd say yeah, that I would account for the influence of Jack Kirby upon my own work. It's almost like a default setting for my own storytelling. It's sort of like if you can tell a story the way Kirby would have, then at least that's proper comics; you're doing your job okay.
(And it didn't take digging, I just tried my luck by putting their name and then 'on Jack Kirby' and got this as a top result.)
My point is that I think they both have had plenty of praise for other creators, and many times where in words or action they have approached a body of previous work with a sense of superiority. For example, for all the love that Morrison has shown for the Silver Age of Superman (and, frankly, so has Moore), I think a lot of X-Men writers prior to Morrison didn't feel the love when he came in, you know what I mean?
I respect that you see that as a core difference between them. Personally, I don't think either of their approaches boil down so simply as that. In how they approach their work, or in how they talk about their peers (for example, for all that Moore is quoted in saying about publishers in interviews, Morrison actually makes a chunk of his book about superheroes a takedown of Watchmen, so it is not like he doesn't try a "this is shite" when he wants to).
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
Yep.
I'd say the core difference between GMo & Mordru is that Morrison's work comes from a love of the material, whereas Moore's comes from a sense of superiority to the material.
Grant says "I wanna do THAT and THAT and THAT!", whereas Alan says "I can do that better."
My two-word imitations:
GMo: "That's greet!"
Mordru: "That's shite."
Which one of them do you think this quote is from?:
...And then I can recall on one day, I think I was ill in bed—I'd been seven or eight at the time—and my mother said that'd she get me a comic to cheer me up while I was confined to the bed. I knew that the only comic that I could think of that I hadn't actually bought was a Blackhawk comic that I'd seen around. So I was trying to convince her to sort of pick up this Blackhawk comic, kind of explaining to her what it was and that it was a bunch of people in blue uniforms. Much to my initial disappointment she brought back Fantastic Four #3, which I read. It did something to me. It was the artwork mainly. It was a kind of texture and style that I've just never seen before. The DC artists at the time, I didn't really know their names, but their style was the one I was accustomed to: Very clean, very wholesome looking, and here was something with craggy shadows with almost a kind of rundown look to a lot of it. It was immediate; literally, from that moment I became a devoted fan of the Fantastic Four and the other Marvel books when they came out—particularly those by Kirby. I mean, it was Kirby's work that I followed more than anybody else as I was growing up. Just the work in Thor and "Tales of Asgard," the Fantastic Four during that long classic stretch in the middle, and then when Kirby went over to DC and the Fourth World books.
This was around the time that I was approaching my psychedelic teenage years and the subject matter of these books seems to be changing along with me. I absorbed actively every line he drew in those years, or at least the ones that I was able to lay my hands on. There's something about the dynamism of Kirby's storytelling. You never even think of it as an influence. It's something that you grew up with, kind of understanding that this is just the way that comics were done. So I'd say yeah, that I would account for the influence of Jack Kirby upon my own work. It's almost like a default setting for my own storytelling. It's sort of like if you can tell a story the way Kirby would have, then at least that's proper comics; you're doing your job okay.
(And it didn't take digging, I just tried my luck by putting their name and then 'on Jack Kirby' and got this as a top result.)
My point is that I think they both have had plenty of praise for other creators, and many times where in words or action they have approached a body of previous work with a sense of superiority. For example, for all the love that Morrison has shown for the Silver Age of Superman (and, frankly, so has Moore), I think a lot of X-Men writers prior to Morrison didn't feel the love when he came in, you know what I mean?
I respect that you see that difference between them. Personally, I don't think either of their approaches boil down so simply as that. In how they approach their work, or in how they talk about their peers (for example, for all that Moore is quoted in saying about publishers in interviews, Morrison actually makes a chunk of his book about superheroes a takedown of Watchmen, so it is not like he doesn't try a "this is shite" when he wants to).
Yes.
I plead guilty to gross over-stereotyping.
Said gross-over-stereotyping is much more a reaction to their recent respective presentations of themselves, than of their whole careers.
Both men have become kind of cartoons. Snoopy & Pig-Pen, if you will. (OK. Maybe Snoopy & Linus.)
The Miracleman reprints are top of my stack every time they come out. In fact, they never even make the stack, I generally read them at dinners after visiting the FLCS.
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
Yep.
I'd say the core difference between GMo & Mordru is that Morrison's work comes from a love of the material, whereas Moore's comes from a sense of superiority to the material.
Grant says "I wanna do THAT and THAT and THAT!", whereas Alan says "I can do that better."
My two-word imitations:
GMo: "That's greet!"
Mordru: "That's shite."
Which one of them do you think this quote is from?:
...And then I can recall on one day, I think I was ill in bed—I'd been seven or eight at the time—and my mother said that'd she get me a comic to cheer me up while I was confined to the bed. I knew that the only comic that I could think of that I hadn't actually bought was a Blackhawk comic that I'd seen around. So I was trying to convince her to sort of pick up this Blackhawk comic, kind of explaining to her what it was and that it was a bunch of people in blue uniforms. Much to my initial disappointment she brought back Fantastic Four #3, which I read. It did something to me. It was the artwork mainly. It was a kind of texture and style that I've just never seen before. The DC artists at the time, I didn't really know their names, but their style was the one I was accustomed to: Very clean, very wholesome looking, and here was something with craggy shadows with almost a kind of rundown look to a lot of it. It was immediate; literally, from that moment I became a devoted fan of the Fantastic Four and the other Marvel books when they came out—particularly those by Kirby. I mean, it was Kirby's work that I followed more than anybody else as I was growing up. Just the work in Thor and "Tales of Asgard," the Fantastic Four during that long classic stretch in the middle, and then when Kirby went over to DC and the Fourth World books.
This was around the time that I was approaching my psychedelic teenage years and the subject matter of these books seems to be changing along with me. I absorbed actively every line he drew in those years, or at least the ones that I was able to lay my hands on. There's something about the dynamism of Kirby's storytelling. You never even think of it as an influence. It's something that you grew up with, kind of understanding that this is just the way that comics were done. So I'd say yeah, that I would account for the influence of Jack Kirby upon my own work. It's almost like a default setting for my own storytelling. It's sort of like if you can tell a story the way Kirby would have, then at least that's proper comics; you're doing your job okay.
(And it didn't take digging, I just tried my luck by putting their name and then 'on Jack Kirby' and got this as a top result.)
My point is that I think they both have had plenty of praise for other creators, and many times where in words or action they have approached a body of previous work with a sense of superiority. For example, for all the love that Morrison has shown for the Silver Age of Superman (and, frankly, so has Moore), I think a lot of X-Men writers prior to Morrison didn't feel the love when he came in, you know what I mean?
I respect that you see that difference between them. Personally, I don't think either of their approaches boil down so simply as that. In how they approach their work, or in how they talk about their peers (for example, for all that Moore is quoted in saying about publishers in interviews, Morrison actually makes a chunk of his book about superheroes a takedown of Watchmen, so it is not like he doesn't try a "this is shite" when he wants to).
Yes.
I plead guilty to gross over-stereotyping.
Said gross-over-stereotyping is much more a reaction to their recent respective presentations of themselves, than of their whole careers.
Both men have become kind of cartoons. Snoopy & Pig-Pen, if you will. (OK. Maybe Snoopy & Linus.)
The Miracleman reprints are top of my stack every time they come out. In fact, they never even make the stack, I generally read them at dinners after visiting the FLCS.
Fair enough. They are both big personalities, and I think they both play themselves as such larger than life characters when they talk to the press.
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
Yep.
I'd say the core difference between GMo & Mordru is that Morrison's work comes from a love of the material, whereas Moore's comes from a sense of superiority to the material.
Grant says "I wanna do THAT and THAT and THAT!", whereas Alan says "I can do that better."
My two-word imitations:
GMo: "That's greet!"
Mordru: "That's shite."
My point is that I think they both have had plenty of praise for other creators, and many times where in words or action they have approached a body of previous work with a sense of superiority. For example, for all the love that Morrison has shown for the Silver Age of Superman (and, frankly, so has Moore), I think a lot of X-Men writers prior to Morrison didn't feel the love when he came in, you know what I mean?
I don’t think Chris Claremont shows love to ANYONE on the X-Men other than him, and maybe Roy Thomas before him. As for the writers of the X-Men in the 90’s….well, do they deserve any love? ^_^
And not to re-hash the old Morrison X-Men debate, I think there was amazing amounts of love from Grant to the Claremont/Byrne X-Men, especially how he kind of dropped a lot of the silliness of the 90’s and focused back on the characters. He even found a new spin on the “X-Men are minority” allegory by pointing out the young people latch on to minority culture when they want to rebel (should I note that the biggest consumers of gangsta rap were suburban white kids?).
I’ve also read his pitch for the New X-Men and he was hired to make the X-Men different, freshen it up and take it out of the endless soap opera style that had made the book nearly impossible to package when the first movie came out. He did what he was asked: Clear the decks, go back to basics and find what made the X-Men so popular in the late 70’s and early 80’s, and I feel he succeeded.
You are perfectly free to dislike Morrison, but to say he approaches with a sense of superiority is not the vibe I get from his work. I can give endless examples of his use of Golden and Silver Age concepts in his DC books, and his Marvel stuff touched on a LOT of plot threads from the past. I still say his run up to New X-Men #150 was a fantastic homage to the Phoenix Saga and follows the plot as it was planned with Byrne’s “Broccoli people” addition that screwed up the planned ending.
And, let’s face it, the ending of Watchmen is pretty bad. ^_^
We’ll have to disagree.
And I am loving this book more than I have anything by him since his X-Men run.
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
Yep.
I'd say the core difference between GMo & Mordru is that Morrison's work comes from a love of the material, whereas Moore's comes from a sense of superiority to the material.
Grant says "I wanna do THAT and THAT and THAT!", whereas Alan says "I can do that better."
My two-word imitations:
GMo: "That's greet!"
Mordru: "That's shite."
My point is that I think they both have had plenty of praise for other creators, and many times where in words or action they have approached a body of previous work with a sense of superiority. For example, for all the love that Morrison has shown for the Silver Age of Superman (and, frankly, so has Moore), I think a lot of X-Men writers prior to Morrison didn't feel the love when he came in, you know what I mean?
I don’t think Chris Claremont shows love to ANYONE on the X-Men other than him, and maybe Roy Thomas before him. As for the writers of the X-Men in the 90’s….well, do they deserve any love? ^_^
And not to re-hash the old Morrison X-Men debate, I think there was amazing amounts of love from Grant to the Claremont/Byrne X-Men, especially how he kind of dropped a lot of the silliness of the 90’s and focused back on the characters. He even found a new spin on the “X-Men are minority” allegory by pointing out the young people latch on to minority culture when they want to rebel (should I note that the biggest consumers of gangsta rap were suburban white kids?).
I’ve also read his pitch for the New X-Men and he was hired to make the X-Men different, freshen it up and take it out of the endless soap opera style that had made the book nearly impossible to package when the first movie came out. He did what he was asked: Clear the decks, go back to basics and find what made the X-Men so popular in the late 70’s and early 80’s, and I feel he succeeded.
You are perfectly free to dislike Morrison, but to say he approaches with a sense of superiority is not the vibe I get from his work. I can give endless examples of his use of Golden and Silver Age concepts in his DC books, and his Marvel stuff touched on a LOT of plot threads from the past. I still say his run up to New X-Men #150 was a fantastic homage to the Phoenix Saga and follows the plot as it was planned with Byrne’s “Broccoli people” addition that screwed up the planned ending.
And, let’s face it, the ending of Watchmen is pretty bad. ^_^
We’ll have to disagree.
And I am loving this book more than I have anything by him since his X-Men run.
No, no. To be clear, I loved Morrison on New X-Men. I do not dislike Morrison. I am not saying he should have shown more love or respect to what has come before. Or that it is even any given creator's job to approach long-lived, shared mega serials is to attempt to be better than what has come before, rather than be slavish to what has been. I actually like an attempt of a big shake up. If a creator doesn't think they have a better idea, then why bother?
I wasn't choosing between the two of them (as the consumer, I get to enjoy them both), I was only pointing on some examples to refute @WetRats summation of the difference between their two approaches. I don't see them as very different- which is part of what I find funny about the way Morrison talks (and talks, and talks) about Moore- and I would try anything both of them do.
And, let’s face it, the ending of Watchmen is pretty bad. ^_^
:-O
Huh?
How so?
Do elaborate.
The entire section lifted from an old episode of "The Outer Limits" At the time it seemed like a cheat, and now it seems MORE like a cheat. It doesn't fit the complexity of the story, presumes that all of the tension that is building through the story can be disarmed and world peace achieved by one city being destroyed by a random act of unknown stuff (or so the world thinks) and has never worked for me (and many others).
It was too much hand waving to fit the complex story we were given.
The entire section lifted from an old episode of "The Outer Limits" At the time it seemed like a cheat, and now it seems MORE like a cheat. It doesn't fit the complexity of the story, presumes that all of the tension that is building through the story can be disarmed and world peace achieved by one city being destroyed by a random act of unknown stuff (or so the world thinks) and has never worked for me (and many others).
It was too much hand waving to fit the complex story we were given.
Preach Preacher. The movie had a 100% better ending. Dr. Manhattan as the willing fall guy made way more sense than a giant Akira shaped thought bomb.
And, let’s face it, the ending of Watchmen is pretty bad. ^_^
:-O
Huh?
How so?
Do elaborate.
The entire section lifted from an old episode of "The Outer Limits" At the time it seemed like a cheat, and now it seems MORE like a cheat. It doesn't fit the complexity of the story, presumes that all of the tension that is building through the story can be disarmed and world peace achieved by one city being destroyed by a random act of unknown stuff (or so the world thinks) and has never worked for me (and many others).
It was too much hand waving to fit the complex story we were given.
I think that misses the point of the end entirely. First, there's nothing wrong with taking concepts from other works, like the Outer Limits bit you mentioned. In fact, isn't the whole work a patchwork of other material woven into an interesting design?
Second -- the point of the end, to my mind, is that it's so fragile that it cannot possibly last, and things will be far, far worse very soon. Especially with Rorshach's journal just sitting there, waiting to tell the world the truth...
I have my hopes up that he can make it his own spin on those Charlton characters, rather than making it about the way Moore and Gibbons adapted those characters, and therefore, again, how he doesn't like Watchmen (as I feel he has said his piece on that). But, we'll see.
I am much more interested in what he thinks about those characters, rather than what he thinks about what other people thought.
Comments
Also, when I read the initial solicits, I worried that the Earth-Prime layer of the story (which is the direct address and awareness of the reader) might be too precious and gimmicky, but so far it really works. As the idea that what is real on one Earth is the fiction (often the comic books) of the other-- a DC multiverse idea that predates Morrison, I believe- really works here. I like that it makes for a kind of 'am I real/ am I being watched?' existential dread. (That is also very Grover)
A great start and a lot of fun. I don't know or really care what this story might "mean" to the overall DCU. Partly I am not usually interested in books that way when I am reading them. Whether they are "important" or will "stick". So far, Multiversity is a fun, imaginative romp that looks great and has a lot of fun versions of characters, and playful ideas. Sold. I don't need it to be any more "important" than that.
Reis' art is just gorgeous. It gives it the epic feel I think this story will be.
Like their films, DC's books are, to my taste, far too damned "important" already.
I don’t know Grant very well, but from talking with him, I believe his enjoyment of those Silver Age tropes is genuine, and I don’t think he would ever mock his readers (well, maybe a few specific individuals, but not his entire audience).
I also think the fact that Multiversity, at least so far, entirely leaves out the New52 (Earth-1) Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. is another way in which this book feels like a fun creative yarn instead of a continuity event: It can't lean on an interest in how the characters will be changed forever, because it is not clear yet whether the usual characters will even be involved.
It's comicy and fun. I think you'd like it.
Can I wait for the trade, or is he using the space between the issues as part of the experience?
Morrison's work has always seemed to me to be full of love for comics, especially the Silver Age. All Star Superman should erase any doubts about how much he loves these characters.
I'd say the core difference between GMo & Mordru is that Morrison's work comes from a love of the material, whereas Moore's comes from a sense of superiority to the material.
Grant says "I wanna do THAT and THAT and THAT!", whereas Alan says "I can do that better."
My two-word imitations:
GMo: "That's greet!"
Mordru: "That's shite."
My point is that I think they both have had plenty of praise for other creators, and many times where in words or action they have approached a body of previous work with a sense of superiority. For example, for all the love that Morrison has shown for the Silver Age of Superman (and, frankly, so has Moore), I think a lot of X-Men writers prior to Morrison didn't feel the love when he came in, you know what I mean?
I respect that you see that as a core difference between them. Personally, I don't think either of their approaches boil down so simply as that. In how they approach their work, or in how they talk about their peers (for example, for all that Moore is quoted in saying about publishers in interviews, Morrison actually makes a chunk of his book about superheroes a takedown of Watchmen, so it is not like he doesn't try a "this is shite" when he wants to).
My point is that I think they both have had plenty of praise for other creators, and many times where in words or action they have approached a body of previous work with a sense of superiority. For example, for all the love that Morrison has shown for the Silver Age of Superman (and, frankly, so has Moore), I think a lot of X-Men writers prior to Morrison didn't feel the love when he came in, you know what I mean?
I respect that you see that difference between them. Personally, I don't think either of their approaches boil down so simply as that. In how they approach their work, or in how they talk about their peers (for example, for all that Moore is quoted in saying about publishers in interviews, Morrison actually makes a chunk of his book about superheroes a takedown of Watchmen, so it is not like he doesn't try a "this is shite" when he wants to).
Yes.
I plead guilty to gross over-stereotyping.
Said gross-over-stereotyping is much more a reaction to their recent respective presentations of themselves, than of their whole careers.
Both men have become kind of cartoons. Snoopy & Pig-Pen, if you will. (OK. Maybe Snoopy & Linus.)
The Miracleman reprints are top of my stack every time they come out. In fact, they never even make the stack, I generally read them at dinners after visiting the FLCS.
I plead guilty to gross over-stereotyping.
Said gross-over-stereotyping is much more a reaction to their recent respective presentations of themselves, than of their whole careers.
Both men have become kind of cartoons. Snoopy & Pig-Pen, if you will. (OK. Maybe Snoopy & Linus.)
The Miracleman reprints are top of my stack every time they come out. In fact, they never even make the stack, I generally read them at dinners after visiting the FLCS.
Fair enough. They are both big personalities, and I think they both play themselves as such larger than life characters when they talk to the press.
And not to re-hash the old Morrison X-Men debate, I think there was amazing amounts of love from Grant to the Claremont/Byrne X-Men, especially how he kind of dropped a lot of the silliness of the 90’s and focused back on the characters. He even found a new spin on the “X-Men are minority” allegory by pointing out the young people latch on to minority culture when they want to rebel (should I note that the biggest consumers of gangsta rap were suburban white kids?).
I’ve also read his pitch for the New X-Men and he was hired to make the X-Men different, freshen it up and take it out of the endless soap opera style that had made the book nearly impossible to package when the first movie came out. He did what he was asked: Clear the decks, go back to basics and find what made the X-Men so popular in the late 70’s and early 80’s, and I feel he succeeded.
You are perfectly free to dislike Morrison, but to say he approaches with a sense of superiority is not the vibe I get from his work. I can give endless examples of his use of Golden and Silver Age concepts in his DC books, and his Marvel stuff touched on a LOT of plot threads from the past. I still say his run up to New X-Men #150 was a fantastic homage to the Phoenix Saga and follows the plot as it was planned with Byrne’s “Broccoli people” addition that screwed up the planned ending.
And, let’s face it, the ending of Watchmen is pretty bad. ^_^
We’ll have to disagree.
And I am loving this book more than I have anything by him since his X-Men run.
I wasn't choosing between the two of them (as the consumer, I get to enjoy them both), I was only pointing on some examples to refute @WetRats summation of the difference between their two approaches. I don't see them as very different- which is part of what I find funny about the way Morrison talks (and talks, and talks) about Moore- and I would try anything both of them do.
Huh?
How so?
Do elaborate.
It was too much hand waving to fit the complex story we were given.
"This isn't just bad, this is a special kind of bad. This is bad with raisins on it."
“If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” George Orwell
Second -- the point of the end, to my mind, is that it's so fragile that it cannot possibly last, and things will be far, far worse very soon. Especially with Rorshach's journal just sitting there, waiting to tell the world the truth...
I am much more interested in what he thinks about those characters, rather than what he thinks about what other people thought.