What I actually am saying is that, even if you feel that Moore is no longer relevant, it would seem that the Chief Creative Officer of DC disagrees.
Ah, you misinterpreted what I said, then. What you originally said (and what I was replying to) was "I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?"
What I'm saying is that Moore's opinion on mainstream comics isn't relevant today, and hasn't been for a long time, because he doesn't write mainstream comics any more. He only writes weird esoteric stuff that absolutely no one reads or thinks is very good.
I loved his novel, and actively hated his Crossed comic. I look forward to his new novel. He's done with comics, but I find his opinions as interesting as Ditko's, Sims's, and other talented creators who have left the field or become marginalized due to their personality oddities.
It also is pretty interesting that what he has said about mainstream comics in the 90's and 2000's that people scoffed at is pretty much true, as is most of the people who worked for creator's rights in the 80's. Remember the good old days when we heard that DC would give checks to folks whose works were used in movies and video games? Moore said that would end once Levitz was gone...
And you sure don't hear about it any more. Dunno if they quit doing it, but I don't hear creators talk about it any more.
That explains my confusion, then-- what you were replying to was something @bralinator said, not me.
And I was using 'sarcasm' when I said it. I have to agree, he's obviously relevant or he wouldn't still be working in the medium or having his seminal works adapted and used in line-wide reboots.
That explains my confusion, then-- what you were replying to was something @bralinator said, not me.
And I was using 'sarcasm' when I said it. I have to agree, he's obviously relevant or he wouldn't still be working in the medium or having his seminal works adapted and used in line-wide reboots.
Because beating a dead horse is fun, I said his opinion is what's not relevant, he doesn't work in mainstream comics any more. What he thinks about them is biased from the start, because he's chosen to reject them.
Of course his seminal works are still relevant and likely always will be.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
I kind of wish that Moore would do the same thing with the works of Doyle, Shelley, Wilde, Stevenson, Ellison, Haggard and Welles amongst others.
There is a longstanding literary tradition in borrowing characters from dead authors.
There is a difference in doing so against the stated wishes of a still-living author.
I respect that some don't see a difference there, I do.
It doesn't mean that Moore and Gibbons shouldn't have been smarter about the deals they signed, they should have.
But to me, there is a false equivalency in guessing what a long dead H. G. Welles or Oscar Wilde might think, and knowing what a living author prefers.
Which is why LOEG takes part in a longstanding literary tradition of borrowing from sources that are old enough, and whose authors are dead enough, to make things feel fair game (and, in many cases, even public domain).
I'm pretty sure Ditko and some the other Charleton creators were still alive, and quite possibly not pleased with Moore's interpretation (I'm looking at you Rorschach). Perhaps that's different because those creators had signed contracts?
Regardless, long literary tradition or not, Moore has been quoted to decry creators that are so unoriginal as to need to reference or build off of his work? Those works that in turn build off of the works of others? That's a kettle of the same color as the pot.
I also see analogues as a very different thing. For example, I would not say that Roy Thomas and John Buscema did not create new characters when they created the Squadron Supreme, even though they are clearly based on the Justice League.
Also, I would be interested to see where Moore actually decried the idea that no authors should build on classic ideas or characters of the past.
But I think what I am seeing in that quote is not a belief that there is never a reason for people to play with existing ideas or classic characters. Rather, he was surprised that a whole DC crossover seemed to be getting made out of a 7 or 8 page strip he'd done in the early '80s that he felt wasn't even very good. There is a difference between making use of classic, genre-defining literary characters from the past two centuries... and making sure that every last idea to be found in those Collected DC Stories of Alan Moore trades are still being put to use somewhere in the DCU, given how many other great creators are already working there.
Now, what is unfair in his statements-and I am not saying his responses to these questions are always fair, civil, or polite- is that he hasn't read these comics. He is going off of hearsay. But unless there is some quotes somewhere else where he takes a stand against ever making use of classic characters, then I personally don't see the equivalency, or the hypocrisy. Though I respect that others do.
In the midst of all of the doomsaying, there's this piece:
I was noticing that DC seems to have based one of its latest crossovers in Green Lantern based on a couple of eight-page stories that I did 25 or 30 years ago. I would have thought that would seem kind of desperate and humiliating, When I have said in interviews that it doesn’t look like the American comic book industry has had an idea of its own in the past 20 or 30 years, I was just being mean. I didn’t expect the companies concerned to more or less say, “Yeah, he’s right. Let’s see if we can find another one of his stories from 30 years ago to turn into some spectacular saga.”
Admittedly, he makes it a very personal statement about him specifically being targeted out of spite, but there's another take-away - calling back to a germ of an idea from another creator from 25-30 years ago is desperate and humiliating and that the american comic industry has no original ideas. Certainly, it could be as innocent as you suggest, but I'm skeptical. Given that comics are a linear form of storytelling, the idea that they're self-referential and will make call backs to stories and events from years previous should be a given and to be surprised by the fact that such events occur is disingenuous at best.
And then there was that time the Beatles took over two or three threads. That was awesome.
While we’re at it, let’s just go all in. Anyone read Moore’s current miniseries Providence yet? A friend of mine whose opinion I trust says it is absolutely brilliant.
And then there was that time the Beatles took over two or three threads. That was awesome.
While we’re at it, let’s just go all in. Anyone read Moore’s current miniseries Providence yet? A friend of mine whose opinion I trust says it is absolutely brilliant.
I... won't be double-dipping. But, I also don't see this second, more premium format release as flying in the face of what Didio said at Wondercon. This is not simply a second printing. This is a different edition and format, and my guess it is more targeted at the fans that loved this comic, and want a nicer, more collectible version of it.
And I am sure that shops ordered heavy (and DC printed heavy) on the regular format. So it is not that they are soaking a would-be reader at a higher price just so they can, as Didio said, "enjoy the comics". They already made Rebirth in a way that you can buy it. And you can still get 80 pages for $3 digitally. I don't think this square-bound $6 is about making the content accessible to readers that missed it the first time. I think this is targeting the collectors and double-dippers.
Now you can double-dip on a 3rd printing. This one's holding the line at $2.99
And then there was that time the Beatles took over two or three threads. That was awesome.
While we’re at it, let’s just go all in. Anyone read Moore’s current miniseries Providence yet? A friend of mine whose opinion I trust says it is absolutely brilliant.
It's been fantastic. It is dense, and I think it will read better when it is completed as one book, but it has had a great, literary horror feel to it. And the art has been beautiful.
I have also enjoyed a lot of his and O'Neill's LOEG the last few years. Crossed +100 was a slighter work, but I enjoyed it. Some of the ways he imagined culture and language 100 years post zombie apocalypse, particularly in the way language had changed, was some good SF.
Of course, those are not DC or Marvel comics, so I guess despite continuing to make comics, he is not meant to have a voice in talking about the comics industry.
Which is funny, because I make comments about the comics industry, mainstream or otherwise, and I have made 0 of them. Imagine how irrelevant my opinions must be!
I... won't be double-dipping. But, I also don't see this second, more premium format release as flying in the face of what Didio said at Wondercon. This is not simply a second printing. This is a different edition and format, and my guess it is more targeted at the fans that loved this comic, and want a nicer, more collectible version of it.
And I am sure that shops ordered heavy (and DC printed heavy) on the regular format. So it is not that they are soaking a would-be reader at a higher price just so they can, as Didio said, "enjoy the comics". They already made Rebirth in a way that you can buy it. And you can still get 80 pages for $3 digitally. I don't think this square-bound $6 is about making the content accessible to readers that missed it the first time. I think this is targeting the collectors and double-dippers.
Now you can double-dip on a 3rd printing. This one's holding the line at $2.99
That is a good move on their part. Not that anyone should triple-dip, but rather that this one is at the price point that actually continues to make the 80 pager just as accessible to people that want it on paper later, but didn't get the first one.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
I kind of wish that Moore would do the same thing with the works of Doyle, Shelley, Wilde, Stevenson, Ellison, Haggard and Welles amongst others.
There is a longstanding literary tradition in borrowing characters from dead authors.
There is a difference in doing so against the stated wishes of a still-living author.
I respect that some don't see a difference there, I do.
It doesn't mean that Moore and Gibbons shouldn't have been smarter about the deals they signed, they should have.
But to me, there is a false equivalency in guessing what a long dead H. G. Welles or Oscar Wilde might think, and knowing what a living author prefers.
Which is why LOEG takes part in a longstanding literary tradition of borrowing from sources that are old enough, and whose authors are dead enough, to make things feel fair game (and, in many cases, even public domain).
I'm pretty sure Ditko and some the other Charleton creators were still alive, and quite possibly not pleased with Moore's interpretation (I'm looking at you Rorschach). Perhaps that's different because those creators had signed contracts?
Regardless, long literary tradition or not, Moore has been quoted to decry creators that are so unoriginal as to need to reference or build off of his work? Those works that in turn build off of the works of others? That's a kettle of the same color as the pot.
I also see analogues as a very different thing. For example, I would not say that Roy Thomas and John Buscema did not create new characters when they created the Squadron Supreme, even though they are clearly based on the Justice League.
Also, I would be interested to see where Moore actually decried the idea that no authors should build on classic ideas or characters of the past.
But I think what I am seeing in that quote is not a belief that there is never a reason for people to play with existing ideas or classic characters. Rather, he was surprised that a whole DC crossover seemed to be getting made out of a 7 or 8 page strip he'd done in the early '80s that he felt wasn't even very good. There is a difference between making use of classic, genre-defining literary characters from the past two centuries... and making sure that every last idea to be found in those Collected DC Stories of Alan Moore trades are still being put to use somewhere in the DCU, given how many other great creators are already working there.
Now, what is unfair in his statements-and I am not saying his responses to these questions are always fair, civil, or polite- is that he hasn't read these comics. He is going off of hearsay. But unless there is some quotes somewhere else where he takes a stand against ever making use of classic characters, then I personally don't see the equivalency, or the hypocrisy. Though I respect that others do.
In the midst of all of the doomsaying, there's this piece:
I was noticing that DC seems to have based one of its latest crossovers in Green Lantern based on a couple of eight-page stories that I did 25 or 30 years ago. I would have thought that would seem kind of desperate and humiliating, When I have said in interviews that it doesn’t look like the American comic book industry has had an idea of its own in the past 20 or 30 years, I was just being mean. I didn’t expect the companies concerned to more or less say, “Yeah, he’s right. Let’s see if we can find another one of his stories from 30 years ago to turn into some spectacular saga.”
Admittedly, he makes it a very personal statement about him specifically being targeted out of spite, but there's another take-away - calling back to a germ of an idea from another creator from 25-30 years ago is desperate and humiliating and that the american comic industry has no original ideas. Certainly, it could be as innocent as you suggest, but I'm skeptical. Given that comics are a linear form of storytelling, the idea that they're self-referential and will make call backs to stories and events from years previous should be a given and to be surprised by the fact that such events occur is disingenuous at best.
I take your point, and I think it is fair that he should not be surprised.
Of course, if he seemed paranoid back in 2009 about feeling his work was being personally targeted for further exploitation by DC... to look at DC Rebirth, and read Johns statements to the press, I would say that statement above now seems prescient.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
I kind of wish that Moore would do the same thing with the works of Doyle, Shelley, Wilde, Stevenson, Ellison, Haggard and Welles amongst others.
There is a longstanding literary tradition in borrowing characters from dead authors.
There is a difference in doing so against the stated wishes of a still-living author.
I respect that some don't see a difference there, I do.
It doesn't mean that Moore and Gibbons shouldn't have been smarter about the deals they signed, they should have.
But to me, there is a false equivalency in guessing what a long dead H. G. Welles or Oscar Wilde might think, and knowing what a living author prefers.
Which is why LOEG takes part in a longstanding literary tradition of borrowing from sources that are old enough, and whose authors are dead enough, to make things feel fair game (and, in many cases, even public domain).
I'm pretty sure Ditko and some the other Charleton creators were still alive, and quite possibly not pleased with Moore's interpretation (I'm looking at you Rorschach). Perhaps that's different because those creators had signed contracts?
Regardless, long literary tradition or not, Moore has been quoted to decry creators that are so unoriginal as to need to reference or build off of his work? Those works that in turn build off of the works of others? That's a kettle of the same color as the pot.
I also see analogues as a very different thing. For example, I would not say that Roy Thomas and John Buscema did not create new characters when they created the Squadron Supreme, even though they are clearly based on the Justice League.
Also, I would be interested to see where Moore actually decried the idea that no authors should build on classic ideas or characters of the past.
But I think what I am seeing in that quote is not a belief that there is never a reason for people to play with existing ideas or classic characters. Rather, he was surprised that a whole DC crossover seemed to be getting made out of a 7 or 8 page strip he'd done in the early '80s that he felt wasn't even very good. There is a difference between making use of classic, genre-defining literary characters from the past two centuries... and making sure that every last idea to be found in those Collected DC Stories of Alan Moore trades are still being put to use somewhere in the DCU, given how many other great creators are already working there.
Now, what is unfair in his statements-and I am not saying his responses to these questions are always fair, civil, or polite- is that he hasn't read these comics. He is going off of hearsay. But unless there is some quotes somewhere else where he takes a stand against ever making use of classic characters, then I personally don't see the equivalency, or the hypocrisy. Though I respect that others do.
In the midst of all of the doomsaying, there's this piece:
I was noticing that DC seems to have based one of its latest crossovers in Green Lantern based on a couple of eight-page stories that I did 25 or 30 years ago. I would have thought that would seem kind of desperate and humiliating, When I have said in interviews that it doesn’t look like the American comic book industry has had an idea of its own in the past 20 or 30 years, I was just being mean. I didn’t expect the companies concerned to more or less say, “Yeah, he’s right. Let’s see if we can find another one of his stories from 30 years ago to turn into some spectacular saga.”
Admittedly, he makes it a very personal statement about him specifically being targeted out of spite, but there's another take-away - calling back to a germ of an idea from another creator from 25-30 years ago is desperate and humiliating and that the american comic industry has no original ideas. Certainly, it could be as innocent as you suggest, but I'm skeptical. Given that comics are a linear form of storytelling, the idea that they're self-referential and will make call backs to stories and events from years previous should be a given and to be surprised by the fact that such events occur is disingenuous at best.
I take your point, and I think it is fair that he should not be surprised.
Of course, if he seemed paranoid back in 2009 about feeling his work was being personally targeted for further exploitation by DC... to look at DC Rebirth, and read Johns statements to the press, I would say that statement above now seems prescient.
You may be right. I'm willing to take the longer view and, at this point, I'm looking at Watchmen as another victim in the story - yet another comic trope - the strange characters from another world/dimension mistaken as the villain. I'm, optimistically going with a more meta interpretation that the influencing forces are sales and editorial.
Anyone reading any of this week's Rebirth issues? So far, it appears not one of these Rebirth books has even mentioned the big reveal in that book (Superman Rebirth kind of, sort of dealt with part of it). The first week's books appear to have nothing to do with Rebirth. Interesting.
Anyone reading any of this week's Rebirth issues? So far, it appears not one of these Rebirth books has even mentioned the big reveal in that book (Superman Rebirth kind of, sort of dealt with part of it). The first week's books appear to have nothing to do with Rebirth. Interesting.
Anyone reading any of this week's Rebirth issues? So far, it appears not one of these Rebirth books has even mentioned the big reveal in that book (Superman Rebirth kind of, sort of dealt with part of it). The first week's books appear to have nothing to do with Rebirth. Interesting.
Anyone reading any of this week's Rebirth issues? So far, it appears not one of these Rebirth books has even mentioned the big reveal in that book (Superman Rebirth kind of, sort of dealt with part of it). The first week's books appear to have nothing to do with Rebirth. Interesting.
Many of you have already critiqued the book and done it in a much more proficient manner that I could hope to do. I'll simply say that I'm torn. There are parts of the book I really enjoyed. However, the constant mea culpa is just annoying. I would give the book a tepid "Borrow".
Morrison just did the "there are forces outside our comic book universe making it darker" bit in Multiversity with The Gentry.
And at least that had the decency to blame publishers', writers' and readers' thirst for blood rather than Alan Moore.
Plus it's easier to take being preached to by the guy who wrote Flex Mentallo than it is from the guy who wrote Infinite Crisis.
Exactly.
Geoff Johns has had a hand on the tiller of the DCU--as a writer of their most high profile books, as well as in various levels of management-- for 10 years now.
Rebirth is his, what, second or third relaunch/reboot?
He has been Chief Creative Officer of DC Comics since 2010.
He was an Executive Producer on Batman V Superman.
I think it is a little rich for him to be repudiating those 416 pages of Watchmen from 30 years ago as having all this power over these characters (and, I guess, him?) now. Like Moore and Gibbons are still stuffing him in a locker.
How many tens of thousands of pages has Johns written-- and overseen as CCO-- in those 30 years between Watchmen and now?
If he wants to make good, hopeful, loving superhero comics, then why hasn't he done so in all those years?
Real talk: having Watchmen characters in the Rebirth era is making a buck in one of the oldest, shrewdest ways Big Two comics know. And that is not surprising. It's Big 2 corporate comics, in the Internet age. I know the game is the game. And everything is game. And even one of your few, actual classics is not safe from being treated as just more 'toys in the toybox' and used to generate some cheap heat.
But I think what really gets me-- more than their timid idea of looking backwards to Watchmen to generate controversy, rather than focusing forward on Rebirth and what is new-- are these claims by Johns that this is some big, grand attempt of finally snatching love and hope for superheroes away from the darkness and cynicism of Watchmen.
Rubbish.
This is not 'deconstructing the deconstruction'. This is Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman.
Except in this more cynical case, imagine in the 1940s, if the suits at Universal Studios gave interviews claiming that the Wolf Man would be meeting and fighting Frankenstein to finally get away from how that terrible meanie James Whale stole all the love from monster movies back in 1931.
Very well-put.
The only ones responsible for the mess DC is in, now is the upper management that put them there. To blame ANYTHING that came before, is ludicrous. REBOOTING the DC universe was, by its definition, a chance to mold it in the image he desired. Before that, Infinite Crisis was another chance to set a hopeful tone. Squandered.
I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to the DCU, now. I'm beyond being upset by it, beyond caring. I will re-read the DC comics I love, and seek out the ones I missed, but will not ever throw another dollar their way.
Read rebirth and dug it. Although I admit I'm confused. I was motivated to check out a few more DC books again (batman rebirth, detective and action). Intrigued by detective and enjoyed it other than batwoman but I'll give it a couple issues. Liked batman and willing to try it again for a bit too (nice to read batman again). Most surprised by action. Didn't know if when id ever read superman again. Didn't expect to this soon, but happy to say I enjoyed the first two issues and will see where it goes. However im completely lost and have no idea what's going in the superman universe. atill not sure I'm interested in or willing to try out anything else though.
I'm down with it even if it's Bratson. I liked what they did with him in N52 and wouldn't mind seeing that continue. If I need Captain Whitebread, I have those issues already.
Loved the Parker/Shaner Convergence stuff! I hope they somehow set this new Shazam title on a separate Earth. I just don't think the character plays well in a universe with Superman in it; he becomes a reaction to Superman, instead of simply being closer to his natural self.
Comments
It also is pretty interesting that what he has said about mainstream comics in the 90's and 2000's that people scoffed at is pretty much true, as is most of the people who worked for creator's rights in the 80's. Remember the good old days when we heard that DC would give checks to folks whose works were used in movies and video games? Moore said that would end once Levitz was gone...
And you sure don't hear about it any more. Dunno if they quit doing it, but I don't hear creators talk about it any more.
Of course his seminal works are still relevant and likely always will be.
I was noticing that DC seems to have based one of its latest crossovers in Green Lantern based on a couple of eight-page stories that I did 25 or 30 years ago. I would have thought that would seem kind of desperate and humiliating, When I have said in interviews that it doesn’t look like the American comic book industry has had an idea of its own in the past 20 or 30 years, I was just being mean. I didn’t expect the companies concerned to more or less say, “Yeah, he’s right. Let’s see if we can find another one of his stories from 30 years ago to turn into some spectacular saga.”
Admittedly, he makes it a very personal statement about him specifically being targeted out of spite, but there's another take-away - calling back to a germ of an idea from another creator from 25-30 years ago is desperate and humiliating and that the american comic industry has no original ideas. Certainly, it could be as innocent as you suggest, but I'm skeptical. Given that comics are a linear form of storytelling, the idea that they're self-referential and will make call backs to stories and events from years previous should be a given and to be surprised by the fact that such events occur is disingenuous at best.
While we’re at it, let’s just go all in. Anyone read Moore’s current miniseries Providence yet? A friend of mine whose opinion I trust says it is absolutely brilliant.
M
https://www.dcbservice.com/product/apr168691/dc-universe-rebirth-1-3rd-ptg
I have also enjoyed a lot of his and O'Neill's LOEG the last few years. Crossed +100 was a slighter work, but I enjoyed it. Some of the ways he imagined culture and language 100 years post zombie apocalypse, particularly in the way language had changed, was some good SF.
Of course, those are not DC or Marvel comics, so I guess despite continuing to make comics, he is not meant to have a voice in talking about the comics industry.
Which is funny, because I make comments about the comics industry, mainstream or otherwise, and I have made 0 of them. Imagine how irrelevant my opinions must be!
Of course, if he seemed paranoid back in 2009 about feeling his work was being personally targeted for further exploitation by DC... to look at DC Rebirth, and read Johns statements to the press, I would say that statement above now seems prescient.
M
The only ones responsible for the mess DC is in, now is the upper management that put them there. To blame ANYTHING that came before, is ludicrous. REBOOTING the DC universe was, by its definition, a chance to mold it in the image he desired. Before that, Infinite Crisis was another chance to set a hopeful tone. Squandered.
I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to the DCU, now. I'm beyond being upset by it, beyond caring. I will re-read the DC comics I love, and seek out the ones I missed, but will not ever throw another dollar their way.
http://letstalkshazam.shazamcast.com/2016/05/27/geoff-johns-there-will-be-a-shazam-book/