COMIC GEEKS Я US

[Samael]

On a more sombre note - RIP Jean Giraud, AKA Moebius, who sadly died today.

Oh no...
I loved his art, and as I was a kid, I was obsessed with his Time Masters (Les Maîtres du temps) movie.
RIP Moebius.
You will be missed.

[Rinzler]

^ His design work on Alien was every bit as important as that of Giger, IMO. And the cityscape of apparently endlessly tall skyscrapers in The Fifth Element was clearly inspired by his work.

[rick957]

Any respect I had for 52 just went out the window (and most of that would have been due to the Jonah Hex and Batman titles). Two Words:  Before Watchmen.

Just another step in corporate America's secret plan to drive Alan Moore even more crazy and paranoid than he was to begin with.  :)  DC is more or less stalking the poor man, by milking his creative work to death (and thereby damaging its integrity and lasting significance, IMO).



I recently discovered his "D.R. and Quinch" and cannot believe how awesome it is -- highest possible recommendations (along with everything else of his that I've read so far ... except Killing Joke, but that's another thing ...).

I still enjoy superhero stories immensely - though these days it's mostly through collections and graphic novels rather than the comics themselves - but I was always partial to a bit of American Splendor too. 'Everyday life is tough stuff' - Harvey Pekar will certainly be missed...

Major hit-or-miss stuff, but as to his hits -- I'm not sure that I've ever seen real day-to-day human life captured as sharply and exposed as nakedly as Pekar did.  And I'm not just talking in comics, I'm talking in all the arts.  (Maybe in solo Crumb tho, the biographical stuff.)

This seems to be the right spot to geek out about buying Amazing Spider-man 129 which is the first appearance of my personal favorite character.  The Punisher.

Sure, but the question is, how much did you pay for it?  :)  Also I hope you tracked down the first miniseries before getting his first appearance.  IMO it was the mini that made the character important and popular.

... Thank God someone realized that The Killing Joke was never meant to be canon.

Is this your take on Killing Joke, or someone else's?  I'm just curious.  I found KJ disappointing immediately.  No matter how good the art was, the story was less than great.  (Moore admitted it himself, someplace or other.)  And the story is at least as important as the art in comics, if not more.  IMO!

As to the Oracle vs. Batgirl thing ... Everyone here has made valuable and interesting points, pro and con.  For what it's worth, my take is that if Simone manages to make a good enough comic out of it, then it's all good (I haven't read it yet).  However, the fact is that Oracle was infinitely more interesting as a character, as opposed to the "female version" of Batman, fer crap's sake.  I.E., how important was it that Oracle was a physically handicapped character whose handicap was not the focus of her portrayal?  I thought the character was one of the most culturally significant characters to ever appear in comics, or any other popular media for that matter, as a respectful and nuanced cultural representation of a handicapped person.  Batgirl makes for better T-and-A covers, but who the fuck cares?  (Not that I don't enjoy that shit too, but aren't there enough other characters out there to keep Adam Hughes et al. in business?)

On a more sombre note - RIP Jean Giraud, AKA Moebius, who sadly died today.

+1.  Thanks for the (unfortunate) news.  (I heard about it elsewhere but wasn't sure if it was a real fact until now.)  You know, back in the mid-80s or so, many in the industry seemed to agree that Moebius was the most gifted and important person working in comics at the time, if not ever, as far as Artists with-a-capital-"A".  And that in spite of the fact that most or all of his best-regarded work remains out of print in the States ...

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

Batgirl has only been interesting once in her entire existence, and it sure as hell wasn't when Barbara Gordon was under the hood.
Not that I expect good decision making from DC of course, that way only madness lies.

Oh and it seems that the Before Watchmen issues are going to be $4 a piece. There goes the idea of me picking up the ones written by Cooke and Azzarello. Both of those guys may be stand out writers, probably two of the best DC have left in fact, but there's no way I'm hoisting over that kind of cash for stories that don't need to be told.

Also I'm so out of the loop that I only just found out DC cancelled my two favourite new 52 books. RIP Blackhawks and Men of War, you were both pretty damn good fun so the odds of survival were never in your favour:/

[ColdBloodedJellyDoughnut]

As to the Oracle vs. Batgirl thing ... Everyone here has made valuable and interesting points, pro and con.  For what it's worth, my take is that if Simone manages to make a good enough comic out of it, then it's all good (I haven't read it yet).  However, the fact is that Oracle was infinitely more interesting as a character, as opposed to the "female version" of Batman, fer crap's sake.  I.E., how important was it that Oracle was a physically handicapped character whose handicap was not the focus of her portrayal?  I thought the character was one of the most culturally significant characters to ever appear in comics, or any other popular media for that matter, as a respectful and nuanced cultural representation of a handicapped person.  Batgirl makes for better T-and-A covers, but who the fuck cares?  (Not that I don't enjoy that shit too, but aren't there enough other characters out there to keep Adam Hughes et al. in business?)

You see, that's my issue with the decision. If it was written as the struggle of someone to overcome their disability, if they showed her growth and change back to Batgirl it would make her into a fantastic character. Instead it was just BOOM! she can walk again! And that's just crap. As I've said, it was an ultimately shallow decision. It's only because Gail Simone is a fantastic writer that the whole thing hasn't turned to shit.

[Callie Del Noire]

Beyond Watchmen has been something that DC has come to look at several times. They asked Moore to consider things a decade or so ago, but they weren't willing to give him back the rights to the setting. Then by the time they were willing to, he had become so disgruntled and disgusted with the corporate people in charge.

Do I think he's gone to some extremes? Yeah.. Moore should be recognized as the creative talent behind things like the movie.. it wasn't HIS vision but he influenced it. I liked the movie for the most part. I'm reluctant to consider looking at the prequels.. I won't buy a sequel that is for damn sure.

I am curious to see who else that Jim Lee and Dan Didio approached to develop Before Watchmen.. I know that they asked Kevin Smith and he turned them down. I imagine several other writers/artists were asked.

[Rinzler]

Beyond Watchmen has been something that DC has come to look at several times. They asked Moore to consider things a decade or so ago, but they weren't willing to give him back the rights to the setting. Then by the time they were willing to, he had become so disgruntled and disgusted with the corporate people in charge.

Do I think he's gone to some extremes? Yeah.. Moore should be recognized as the creative talent behind things like the movie.. it wasn't HIS vision but he influenced it. I liked the movie for the most part. I'm reluctant to consider looking at the prequels.. I won't buy a sequel that is for damn sure.

I am curious to see who else that Jim Lee and Dan Didio approached to develop Before Watchmen.. I know that they asked Kevin Smith and he turned them down. I imagine several other writers/artists were asked.

As far as I'm aware, Moore personally requests that his name is removed from screen adaptions of his work, and that his royalty dues go to whatever co-creator (usually the artist) was responsible for the books in question. I'm quite pleased that Dave Gibbons must have made a bob or two out of it, considering what he had to go through for Tornado (a short lived British comic which was about when I was a lad):



;D

Interestingly, one of the people once mooted to direct a film version of Watchmen was Terry Gilliam. Now that would have been...something. According to what I read, when Gilliam asked Moore how it should be directed, Moore replied something along the lines of, "I wouldn't bother."

[Callie Del Noire]

As far as I'm aware, Moore personally requests that his name is removed from screen adaptions of his work, and that his royalty dues go to whatever co-creator (usually the artist) was responsible for the books in question. I'm quite pleased that Dave Gibbons must have made a bob or two out of it, considering what he had to go through for Tornado (a short lived British comic which was about when I was a lad):



;D

Interestingly, one of the people once mooted to direct a film version of Watchmen was Terry Gilliam. Now that would have been...something. According to what I read, when Gilliam asked Moore how it should be directed, Moore replied something along the lines of, "I wouldn't bother."

Indeed he does (ask to be left off the credits). I don't know why, though I expect there is an interesting story, but I just meant that he should be acknowledged. He's got talent (though a bit flaky at times). I respect his wishes on the thoughts he has about his creations in a different medium but.. damn the stuff of his I like.. I like.. he should be credited.

I don't understand why.

I do think that Watchmen is pretty much complete at the end of the comic series.  Lead ups to it.. I'm still out on. I'm approaching any prequel with cautious hope and a slight sense of misgivings.

[Rinzler]

Indeed he does (ask to be left off the credits). I don't know why, though I expect there is an interesting story, but I just meant that he should be acknowledged. He's got talent (though a bit flaky at times). I respect his wishes on the thoughts he has about his creations in a different medium but.. damn the stuff of his I like.. I like.. he should be credited.

I don't understand why.

I do think that Watchmen is pretty much complete at the end of the comic series.  Lead ups to it.. I'm still out on. I'm approaching any prequel with cautious hope and a slight sense of misgivings.

The more-or-less full story is here: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14937

In short - Moore was fairly apathetic towards screen versions of his books in the first place, but - as he confesses himself - he was happy enough to take the money and his share of the credit, in the belief that it wouldn't affect the integrity of the original works. However, after being dragged into a lawsuit involving a plagiarism issue as regards the movie version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and feeling right peeved about the way he was treated in the matter, he found cause to reassess his stance about movie adaptations of his work. Things probably came to a head when one of the producers of V For Vendetta spoke publicly about how Alan Moore was apparently quite enamoured of the film version, even though Moore himself had already told the producers that he wanted nothing to do with the film (which he regards as pretty contemptible), and that his name be removed from all material relating to the film version, and his share of the dues given over to David Lloyd.

This still stood with Watchmen, even though - AFAIA - he had no issues with the film-makers. He now disassociates from film adaptations as a matter of principle, by the looks of things.

[Callie Del Noire]

The more-or-less full story is here: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14937

In short - Moore was fairly apathetic towards screen versions of his books in the first place, but - as he confesses himself - he was happy enough to take the money and his share of the credit, in the belief that it wouldn't affect the integrity of the original works. However, after being dragged into a lawsuit involving a plagiarism issue as regards the movie version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and feeling right peeved about the way he was treated in the matter, he found cause to reassess his stance about movie adaptations of his work. Things probably came to a head when one of the producers of V For Vendetta spoke publicly about how Alan Moore was apparently quite enamoured of the film version, even though Moore himself had already told the producers that he wanted nothing to do with the film (which he regards as pretty contemptible), and that his name be removed from all material relating to the film version, and his share of the dues given over to David Lloyd.

This still stood with Watchmen, even though - AFAIA - he had no issues with the film-makers. He now disassociates from film adaptations as a matter of principle, by the looks of things.

I can imagine how he felt. I find when I get accused of 'stealing' someone's inspiration galling, to have a 10 hour disposition and all that would most likely scar me. I would be a bit ballistic.. and doing the things the way Warner Entertainment did after that would have been a stupid thing to do.

I know a lot of folks that would hold as epic a grudge as he did.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/13/if-dc-want-to-soil-themselves-in-public-and-kill-the-reputations-of-a-number-of-otherwise-possibly-halfway-decent-writers-and-artists-then-im-certainly-not-going-to-stop-them-and-i-shall-take/

Moore's outlook on Before Watchmen. He's definitely got opinions.

[Rinzler]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/13/if-dc-want-to-soil-themselves-in-public-and-kill-the-reputations-of-a-number-of-otherwise-possibly-halfway-decent-writers-and-artists-then-im-certainly-not-going-to-stop-them-and-i-shall-take/

Moore's outlook on Before Watchmen. He's definitely got opinions.

:o

Bloody Hell!

I mean...

Bloody Hell!

I can understand Moore's bitterness to an extent - but really, what did he expect when he started writing for DC all those years ago? I guess, just as we like to imagine our daily pint of milk arriving from a cow contentedly chewing on a daisy and delivered from the dairy by a rosy-cheeked milkmaid - when in fact it's an intensive and not at all cuddly industry - I guess we also like to imagine working for comics as fun and vaguely hippy-ish affair. But DC are an industry, and when it comes down to it, their artists and writers are basically working joes locked into employment contracts every bit as lousy as someone working at a car plant. I guess Alan must have felt that the contract he had when working on Warrior all those years ago - where artists and writers were allowed to retain the rights to their characters - would be pretty much standard for an outfit like DC. Looks like a case of naivety, and getting burned as a result. DC were as devious as fuck though, if Moore's POV is anthing to go by.

[rick957]

I've noticed that there's been public backlash against Alan Moore from comic fandom over the last few years (one notable example here).  I have no difficulty sympathizing with Moore based on all the facts I've heard about his personal history, but I do have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who questions his honesty, integrity, or intelligence -- not that I mistake him for a saint or anything, but I just haven't heard any good reasons yet to take DC's side as opposed to Moore's. 

So anyways, this comment intrigued me --

Looks like a case of naivety, and getting burned as a result.

-- and I'd love to hear any further comments or explanation from anyone who considers Moore to be a naive dupe, or to be some kind of jerk/asshole.  Honestly, those are viewpoints I'd like to understand better.  I concede that he may have some bats in the old belfry -- big ones, even -- but being eccentric doesn't call into question the man's character.

[Rinzler]

^Don't get me wrong, I like Alan Moore immensely, both through his work (From Hell remains one of my favourite books, and I can remember being so utterly wowed by his writing in Swamp Thing when I was a teenager). That said, I don't agree with all of his politics - I honestly don't see how anarchy could ever be a viable political system, given that non-goverment (or an administration so rarefied it barely exists) will likely leave a void ready to be occupied by political thugs such as nazis, religious extremists or whatever totalitarianism wins the seat. But that's a whole 'nother thread, in any case. Moore himself has declared, I believe, that his love of anarchy is more a romance than a practical reality - it least in terms of how the world currently is.

But in general, I think he's awesome. His writing is amazing, and he seems a really decent guy at heart - looks like he really enjoys a pint and a (vegetarian) pie. And besides, I don't think he himself would very much like a world where everyone agreed with him.

[Callie Del Noire]

:o

Bloody Hell!

I mean...

Bloody Hell!

I can understand Moore's bitterness to an extent - but really, what did he expect when he started writing for DC all those years ago? I guess, just as we like to imagine our daily pint of milk arriving from a cow contentedly chewing on a daisy and delivered from the dairy by a rosy-cheeked milkmaid - when in fact it's an intensive and not at all cuddly industry - I guess we also like to imagine working for comics as fun and vaguely hippy-ish affair. But DC are an industry, and when it comes down to it, their artists and writers are basically working joes locked into employment contracts every bit as lousy as someone working at a car plant. I guess Alan must have felt that the contract he had when working on Warrior all those years ago - where artists and writers were allowed to retain the rights to their characters - would be pretty much standard for an outfit like DC. Looks like a case of naivety, and getting burned as a result. DC were as devious as fuck though, if Moore's POV is anthing to go by.

Add in all the nasty inferences a lawyer suing for plagraism against the studio that made the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen made against him..and it's easy to see why he's bitter.

I don't know what the lawyers said.. but I'm sure it was nasty.

[rick957]

But in general, I think he's awesome. His writing is amazing, and he seems a really decent guy at heart - looks like he really enjoys a pint and a (vegetarian) pie. And besides, I don't think he himself would very much like a world where everyone agreed with him.

Right on.  :)  He's definitely got some out-there notions.  I've only read a small portion of his total ouvre oeuvre, considering that he seems to have written hundreds if not thousands of pages of comics, but the more I read, the more I'm impressed with him.  I used to think that he was overrated by some -- in fact, I might still think that, just because he's so frequently and unreservedly acclaimed -- but I'm starting to believe that he may truly be the best writer to ever work in comics.  (And that's no small feat IMO -- given that 95%-plus of all comics have always been poorly or even terribly written, there's also been remarkable genius in the field, in certain instances.)

[Rinzler]

Add in all the nasty inferences a lawyer suing for plagraism against the studio that made the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen made against him..and it's easy to see why he's bitter.

I don't know what the lawyers said.. but I'm sure it was nasty.

What got me was the attitude of Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd in these various matters. Fair do's, maybe Gibbons did just forget to give Alan his due 'thankyou' as regards the royalties, and it does strike me as likely that he didn't see DC's dealings as being quite so nefarious. However...David Lloyd slagging Alan off in front of his daughter??? I mean, bloody hell...what else is David Lloyd well known for, apart from V for Vendetta? Pretty bad form, if the incident was in any way as Leah described it.

Further to my point about Moore going into DC with a degree of naivety: this isn't so much based upon the idea of Alan being a doe-eyed dupe, more to the point of the fact that a good number of his comics experiences had, prior to that, been pretty good ones, or at least acceptable. Thing was, while working on Dr Who magazine - and this must have been way back in the early eighties, if I remember rightly - he worked with an editor that most creatives working in the comics industry would have killed for: Dez Skinn, who really seemed to value the efforts his artists and writers put into their stories. After Dr Who, Dez Skinn went on to found Warrior, the magazine in which V for Vendetta started, along with Moore's other work, Marvelman/Miracleman (which itself went on to have convoluted issues involving rights, etc. - with Skinn himself being one of the contesting parties. But it's way too complicated to get into here). One major point of Warrior was that Skinn allowed the writers/artists to retain the rights to their creations - so I'm guessing it's quite possible that after Warrior folded and Moore got into writing for American comics in a big way, that he expected treatment that was at least reasonable, if not perhaps as liberal as that which he got while working on Warrior.

But as it turned out, it was pretty...unreasonable, in the end.

EDIT: A quick look-over of the Warrior days via Wiki shows that Moore and Skinn did have a bit of a falling out over Marvelman/Miracleman, in that Dez initially approached Alan on the basis that the rights to the character (it had previously been the property of another publishing house) were available. As it turned out, they weren't. Skinn could have been mistaken - Moore thinks he was being duplicitious. That said, Moore's rights to V for Vendetta were never questioned post-Warrior, so it remains probable that he went into the American side of things with a belief that he could at least claim some rights to whatever characters/stories he created for DC.

[LunarSage]

Isn't Alan Moore the guy who is an outspoken anti-American?

[Rinzler]

Isn't Alan Moore the guy who is an outspoken anti-American?

Well, given that he's married to an American, probably not - at least, not in some crude xenophobic sense. If he's ever spoken out against US foreign policy or political administration - probably yes, though I can't recall any statements offhand. However, the satirical barbs in Watchmen (eg, the administration valueing Dr Manhattan as no more than the nation's primary strategic asset) certainly give an indication of his viewpoint in this respect. Bear in mind that Moore comes from a near militant left-wing background (which has since evolved into his strange 'romantic anarchy' thing) and isn't all that keen on the political and administrative apparatus of most countries as they stand, so he's pretty much anti...everything.

He's not massively enamoured of his own country, either. On the basis that most fictional dystopias are very much rooted in the concerns of the present, V for Vendetta is certainly a bitter polemic against the inequities of 1980s Britain. He said as much in his preface to the book edition I have of V. Indeed, when reading it, I found it certainly chimed with a lot of the attitudes prevalent when I was growing up. I do recall an era when AIDS was viewed by most people as the 'poofters' just reward', and I'm pretty sure that some political columnists did seriously venture the idea of special 'islands' or 'camps' for people suffering with HIV.

[Callie Del Noire]

V was definitely aimed at the UK government of its time.  I can't say too much about what was going on there since I had returned to the US by then and US media had started to take the 'not here, not important' outlook it 'still has today.

I know that some of the early Hellblazers were supposed to have some zingers as well.

[LunarSage]

Now I'm wanting to watch V for Vendetta again... >.>

[Callie Del Noire]

Now I'm wanting to watch V for Vendetta again... >.>

A lot of the points in the comic might not have made it to the screen. Check out Watcmenthe comic vs the movie, while similar there are some major changes.

[Novak]

Sure, but the question is, how much did you pay for it?  :)  Also I hope you tracked down the first miniseries before getting his first appearance.  IMO it was the mini that made the character important and popular.

I paid $80 for it.  I would guess it to be good condition 5.0 to 6.0.  Good enough that I don't want to go out and drop a ton more money on a better copy but not in to good of shape that I wont read through it.

I agree and have numbers 2-5 of that set with #1 one on its way.  I also have complete sets of volume 2 and 4 as well as most of volumes 7 and 5.  I am also current on volume 8 picked up the newest yesterday.  I also have a small stack of one shots and some of his minis.  I need to hunt down the war journal volumes and warzone series (not the mini).  I collected him for fun since he is my favorite but recently I've realized that I am about 40% complete with him and now have set a goal to finish him completely as well as picking up any guest spots I find.

[Cold Heritage]

I'd love to hear any further comments or explanation from anyone who considers Moore to be a naive dupe, or to be some kind of jerk/asshole.  Honestly, those are viewpoints I'd like to understand better.  I concede that he may have some bats in the old belfry -- big ones, even -- but being eccentric doesn't call into question the man's character.

Because I enjoy characters and want to see them continue to have adventures and have new stories told about them even if they are not by their original creators and am willing to pay for the privilege of consuming those stories, Moore says I lack ethical integrity and intelligence. He also says that I am brainless for enjoying contemporary products of the comics industry. And that it's okay for him to go write something like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen but it's totally different (and wrong) if someone else writes stories using characters that aren't their own.

A lot of the points in the comic might not have made it to the screen. Check out Watcmenthe comic vs the movie, while similar there are some major changes.

Watchmen was adapted with a lot more of the comic material intact. There is a lot in V for Vendetta that was omitted or created for the film.

[Chris Brady]

Well, given that he's married to an American, probably not - at least, not in some crude xenophobic sense. If he's ever spoken out against US foreign policy or political administration - probably yes, though I can't recall any statements offhand. However, the satirical barbs in Watchmen (eg, the administration valueing Dr Manhattan as no more than the nation's primary strategic asset) certainly give an indication of his viewpoint in this respect. Bear in mind that Moore comes from a near militant left-wing background (which has since evolved into his strange 'romantic anarchy' thing) and isn't all that keen on the political and administrative apparatus of most countries as they stand, so he's pretty much anti...everything.

He's not massively enamoured of his own country, either. On the basis that most fictional dystopias are very much rooted in the concerns of the present, V for Vendetta is certainly a bitter polemic against the inequities of 1980s Britain. He said as much in his preface to the book edition I have of V. Indeed, when reading it, I found it certainly chimed with a lot of the attitudes prevalent when I was growing up. I do recall an era when AIDS was viewed by most people as the 'poofters' just reward', and I'm pretty sure that some political columnists did seriously venture the idea of special 'islands' or 'camps' for people suffering with HIV.

He tells great stories, but the man's insane.  Let's not kid ourselves.