Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    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.

  2. #17
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    The problem is for some of these ideas is that they are really at the very core of the franchise especially the question over the exact nature of the Guardians (imo). And the arguments of whether the Guardians are benevolent or lawful order extremists are ideas that preceded even Geoff Johns. Morrison could easily ignore these things, but then the next guy who takes over will just pick up where he left off and continue running with the old ideas of the Guardians being morally questionable. Grant Morrison kind has to present a new take on the Guardians or you are just going to get backsliding to them being evil since that plot is so simple and tempting for most writers.
    Last edited by Bruce Wayne; 11-13-2018 at 08:14 PM.

  3. #18
    Astonishing Member j9ac9k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel22 View Post
    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.
    This might be neither here nor there, but this reminds me of Moore on "Watchmen" and how DC felt his story would have made the Charlton heroes unusable in the future, so he was asked to make them new characters. Who knows how that would have turned out if he hadn't? I agree that creators like Morrison should be given a lot of room, but having some constraints is just part of the conventions of this shared universe.

    And I would love for Morrison to rehabilitate the Guardians for future writers, essentially giving them a template for how to write then in this vein.

  4. #19
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j9ac9k View Post
    This might be neither here nor there, but this reminds me of Moore on "Watchmen" and how DC felt his story would have made the Charlton heroes unusable in the future, so he was asked to make them new characters. Who knows how that would have turned out if he hadn't? I agree that creators like Morrison should be given a lot of room, but having some constraints is just part of the conventions of this shared universe.

    And I would love for Morrison to rehabilitate the Guardians for future writers, essentially giving them a template for how to write then in this vein.
    Yeah I see where you're coming from. It can work both ways for sure. There's definitely been times where I've thought "Maaaaaybe a second set of eyes on this might have helped". And it's true that they are using toys that they have to eventually share with others. I believe that special people get special treatment though, so I'm more willing to let someone like Morrison (who I consider special) run wild than I am someone who I don't hold in as high esteem.

    I would be fine with the Guardians going on the shelf for a good long while. As Bruce Wayne pointed out, this idea of "Guardians:Good or Nah"? seems to be something most writers can't pass up. If they're off the table for a while maybe that aspect can get a rest.

  5. #20
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    34,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel22 View Post
    I would be fine with the Guardians going on the shelf for a good long while. As Bruce Wayne pointed out, this idea of "Guardians:Good or Nah"? seems to be something most writers can't pass up. If they're off the table for a while maybe that aspect can get a rest.
    Well, the Guardians as the Guardians (or at least as people recognize them) have kind of been on the shelf for a a few years since Johns ended his run.

  6. #21
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel22 View Post
    Yeah I see where you're coming from. It can work both ways for sure. There's definitely been times where I've thought "Maaaaaybe a second set of eyes on this might have helped". And it's true that they are using toys that they have to eventually share with others. I believe that special people get special treatment though, so I'm more willing to let someone like Morrison (who I consider special) run wild than I am someone who I don't hold in as high esteem.

    I would be fine with the Guardians going on the shelf for a good long while. As Bruce Wayne pointed out, this idea of "Guardians:Good or Nah"? seems to be something most writers can't pass up. If they're off the table for a while maybe that aspect can get a rest.
    One of the reasons I think Morrison is so special is that he can both (a) run wild and (b) leave the "property" more or less intact by the end. JLA was kind of nuts (ancient gods, a death machine, angels, multiple time travel tales) and it was easy for Mark Waid to step in and do his thing. Batman the same (during his run, the property was topsy turvy and made the ancillary titles a little weird). Maybe you can argue he changed the property a bit for New X-Men (breaking up Scott and Jean, destroying Genosha, etc.), but those changes were all more or less in line with the soap opera of X-Men comics. Even Final Crisis didn't cause great upheaval despite massive deicide.

    Morrison left enough pieces laying around that those that wanted to could pick them up and take them in new directions. Metal has heavy RoBW/Final Crisis influences. Tomasi revived Damian Wayne. Grayson picked up on some threads regarding Spyral. If Morrison's take on the Guardians clicks, it'll be easy for the next writer to come along and work with it.
    Blue text denotes sarcasm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •