March 8, 2012

On Alan Moore's negative reaction to the WATCHMEN prequels...

39 comments:

  1. His recent work has been a pile of dog-shit, dude has a very solid point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm an idiot and don't care who knows it, dude has a very solid point.

      Delete
  2. I hope you're not insinuating that Watchmen was bad...

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you think about this for more than two seconds, it doesn't make sense. Alan Moore sucks, so DC should work on...more of his catalog? Alan Moore complains about DC reworking his old comics, so...he should do more of them? I have a feeling I'm less confused than this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am pretty sure he is referring to shit like Lost Girls and Necronomicon sucking.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All my patience, manners and common sense just flew out the window and I want to slap this guy's face around the other side of his head like he was Daffy Duck!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alan Moore can suck as much as he wants these days. That doesn't give DC the right to gut the things he created because they can't think of anything original on their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, but the fact that they hold the copyright does.

      Delete
    2. Well they might have the legal right, but they don't have the nerd justice right! Like how Alan Moore has the right to do as many shitty comics as he wants.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, obviously DC doesn't need Alan Moore to suck to get the right to do that. They already have that regardless. If he had a bit moore going on these days he might not care so much about the publisher's decision to rehash his best-sellers from fourty years ago.

      Delete
    4. "That doesn't give DC the right to gut the things he created because they can't think of anything original on their own."

      I'm sure authors like Bram Stoker , Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne et al might have similar things to say about Alan Moore's unauthorized use of their characters in his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

      Delete
    5. All of those authors have been dead for a good 100 years and all of their works are in the public domain.

      Delete
    6. And this particular work of Moore's is DC domain. Funny thing that. Plus Alan Moore is sixty years old so when you get down to it he'll be dead soon enough. Really at that point all you can accuse DC of is premature ejaculation.

      Delete
    7. "All of those authors have been dead for a good 100 years and all of their works are in the public domain."

      Legality doesn't equal morality.

      Delete
    8. And the character of Wendy from Peter Pan was owned by the Greater Ormand St. Hospital when he wrote Lost Girls, and the pornographic nature of the work was so objectionable that the hospital had to threaten to sue, so that the book was not completely published for several years until portions of the property went into public domain. The point is, Alan Moore thinks his work is precious and art, and at the end of the day, it's just money for the license holders.

      Delete
  7. Anon 10:10 - O SNAP! POT = KETTLE = BLACK

    As for the Watchmen...well, the story itself was something great (even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle), but the characters themselves were hardly a revolutionary idea; just a dysfunctional version of the Justice League/Society, which Alan Moore did NOT create.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geez. Ignorance really is popular these days, innit.

      Delete
  8. I'm Alan Moore and I approve this comic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Obviously anyone bitching about Moore's recent output is an idiot. Tally the fantastic things he's created and subtract the things you didn't like, and he's still second only to Jack Kirby in creative output and influence.

    but idiots gonna id...

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you can't appreciate Neonomicon, you're a fucking philistine.

    Same applies if you can't make the difference between what he's been doing with LoEG and what DC are doing with his stuff, but that also makes you a moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can never say the name of that book without calling it "Neo Comic Con" I know it's wrong, my brain tells me it's wrong, but I open my mouth and "Neo Comic Con" bursts forth.

      Delete
    2. What about what DC is doing with Bob Kane's stuff? Or Jerry Seigal's stuff? Or perhaps what he did with Len Wein's stuff? Or for that matter what's being done with any of the creations of Dwayne McDuffie? Exactly what is the proper comparison to draw here?

      Delete
    3. The only difference I see between LoEG and the Watchmen prequels is that LoEG is one guy telling new stories with a whole bunch of creators' characters and Before Watchmen is a bunch of creators telling new stories with one guy's characters.

      Delete
    4. Except that "one guy's characters" are actually parodies of a whole bunch of creators' characters. So, really, there's hardly any difference; Most of Moore's work involves reworking or retooling other people's characters, with rare exceptions like V for Vendetta.

      Delete
    5. @Thesandwich, A major difference is that Len Wein was the creator and editor of Swamp Thing and hired Moore to write Swamp Thing. He got the explicit approval of the creator to work on the character.

      Delete
    6. Oops. Is my lack of research showing? Well that one's certainly not the right comparison then. That's one down. Now to just tackle the rest of DC's storied history.

      Delete
  11. I just wish that mufugga had finished Big Numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There's an inherent difference between League, Lost Girls, etc. and Before Watchmen that isn't being discussed.

    Moore uses established characters to explore new ideas, concepts, and stories (whether or not we, the audience, think those are good stories). No one would ever consider Moore's works to be part of the history of these characters. Before Watchmen is DC's attempt to officially add to the lore of the Watchmen universe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't matter, Guy. Moore created characters knowing that they'd ultimately be controlled by the publisher. That he thinks that his work should be treated any differently than any other artist or writer for the industry is based upon nothing more than pure ego. If DC is committing an illegal act that goes against a contract he signed then he should either sue them or shut the hell up.

      Delete
    2. He worked for the company that gave the guy who created Superman chump change and then proceeded to milk the property for eighty years and put it through a series of dramatic image overhauls and then he complains when the same company gets their hands on his creations and doesn't treat them with the respect he feels they deserve. This is what DC does. It's been what they do since before they were DC. Got exposed to a radioactive artistic bastardization might as well be their origin story. Hard to get sympathetic for the guy who partook in that for years but is now on upset because he's been put on the receiving end of things.

      Delete
  13. If someone told me yesterday that there were people on the internet interested in comics who didn't already know the full story of Moore's contract disagreements and the ins and outs of various copyright laws and common practise I would haven't have believed it, and yet the evidence for such ignorance is above me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people on the internet are stupid.

      Delete
  14. Um, actually, the Watchmen characters were dysfunctional versions of Charlton characters, not the JL. And they WERE original anyway, so shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, OK Anon 05:52. Tell it to Bat-Owl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So now every hi-tech character who uses animal motives is a Bat? Funny. I bet Blue Beetle would laugh.

      Delete
  16. I should qualify, if any commenter from before is still paying attention. It's not the rehash of seemingly "sacred" characters and stories that is reproachable, but the fact that DC is not doing anything great with them. Every DC story for the past seven years has been Superfriends fanfiction with HBO-level ultraviolence, a smattering of blatant sexism and (in my opinion) a strange passive racism. If any of these stories didn't star ersatz versions of your favorite childhood characters, would you still find them good on their own merits? If they built upon the stories that Alan Moore wrote to take the characters somewhere new and interesting, like they used to do with the characters of Siegel/Shuster/Kane/Finger/et al, then I'd be at the front of the line every Wednesday buying up every amazing variant. Instead, they're content with excising continuity every ten years so new writers can have the thrill of retelling Superman's origin story or whatever other thing that's already been done to death. So yeah, judging from the way they've been handling the other characters in their line, I have reason to believe that Before Watchmen is just going to take these wonderful characters Moore created and cheapen them for the sake of making a buck or two. I understand that, from a business perspective, stunts like this can provide a big splashy pop in sales, but wouldn't logic dictate that taking the time to write a comic that doesn't suck and takes the characters in new directions would lead to a lasting and consistent rise in market share? Or is that just me?

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's Alan Moore. He can complain about what he wants, because he's so damn cool.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Alan Moore's probably just ticked off because he doesn't think there will be enough rape in the Watchmen Prequels. I wanna shake him and tell him, "Hey guy! It's DC! Of course there will be enough rape!"

    ReplyDelete

.

.