Quote Originally Posted by Bored at 3:00AM View Post
Or he's simply recontextualizing it. Given that Morrison is moving the Guardians away from the out-of-touch old bastard shtick they've been stuck with for the past few decades and back to the unknowable ancient cosmic beings that they originally were, there's likely going to be so much stuff going on with the Oans, whose lifetimes and knowledge span billions of years, that the mortal members of the GLCorps simply weren't aware of until know because they didn't need to know, or was being kept secret.

If you'd like to look at it as Morrison imposing his own view upon things, sure. When dealing with any property that spans decades and hundreds upon hundreds of often contradictory comics, that's the job of a good creator. That's what Geoff Johns did and look at how successful that was for the GL franchise.
I think he's re-contextualizing the idea. My question is why WOULDN'T I want Morrison to put his own view on the GL universe? If he's not doing that I don't see the point. If they just wanted more of the same they could have Venditti or Jurgens or any other company man on the title. I don't want to read a Morrison who is constrained very tightly by decades of conflicting and mostly forgotten ideas, I want him to have free reign to do what he wants and break molds and challenge perceptions.

I'm reading the book (I forget the title) where Frank Miller interviews Will Eisner over a period of several days. In one of their discussions Frank says (paraphrasing) "Why would I make a brilliant writer overly beholden to a story a lesser writer cranked out in a day in 1942"? That's pretty harsh and I don't totally agree (Amazing Fantasy #15 cranked out to fill pages of a cancelled title) but I do understand where he's coming from.

I hope Morrison has free reign. Change, erase, add, challenge, kill, resurrect, whatever. I don't think creators work better when they are tightly constrained, I think they work best when they have more freedom.