Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 109
  1. #91
    Astonishing Member Johnny Thunders!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    WGBS
    Posts
    2,535

    Default

    I might have posted this twice. I don’t think he is a hypocrite. I think his comics try to be evolved in their thinking. I don’t sign on everything he has done, but his best comics don’t make the mistakes of the culture he is criticizing.

  2. #92
    Astonishing Member Johnny Thunders!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    WGBS
    Posts
    2,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Kerouac was a racist, an anti-communist, who supported the war in Vietnam. Kerouac also liked smoking pot and having sex with guys so there's that, but the latter doesn't cancel the former.



    That's getting further away from this issue. The point is that people who read Watchmen and like Watchmen don't have any doubts where Moore stands on politics and other issues. That's not comparable to Kerouac because his relatively apolitical tribute to personal experimentation and drugs won over people who totally didn't get Kerouac's political opinions and views (which he cynically kept to himself by and large).
    Wait I change my answer that sounds like Roger Stone except he keeps that out there. And I’m not that invested in the comparison. ( Thats informative about Kerouac!)
    Last edited by Johnny Thunders!; 10-18-2020 at 07:25 AM.

  3. #93
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Moore is one of comics greatest creative talents. He's also a cranky old coot.

    If you read his Prometha, you get a pretty clear picture of how he views reality and capitalism. It's a really good read, BTW, if a bit of a skull bender.

    I don't think him a hypocrite. True, he made his fame on others' creations, but its not like he took ownership of that IP, and has sat around harvesting the surplus from those creations. I can see where your question comes from because he altered Swamp Thing and Marvel Man almost as much as Marvel Studios has Thor or Scarlet Witch. However, I think his real beef is about IP owners hoarding the monetary benefits of the comic creations.

    I do think his position on IP ownership unrealistic. That's not to say wrong, but given how the laws of IP ownership work, he shouldn't expect otherwise. Comic companies probably deserve his windmill-tilting a bit less than the society that sets the rules of intellectual property.
    Yeah, I think this is it; he’s not so much a hypocrite as much as an old guy who hates what the more leery side of capitalism has done to one of his favorite art mediums, but is more stubbornly cranky and grumbly at times than incisively targeted.

    Comics were a corporate-dominated medium long before he arrived, he made his name with the properties he was given to create with or be inspired by, and they remain corporate-dominated medium after he left the mainstream.

    He’s always going to be a legend, and he’s always going to have a point... but his point would be better made by guys like Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, or Bill Finger. And there’s a few things he’s done that have made the cranky old man aspect more clear for the time being.

    IP ownership is a funny thing - the ability to use older IPs, whether through public domain (like Moore’s usage of classic characters in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) or through corporate running of them (regular comics, with guys like Grant Morrison and Scott Snyder doing legendary things with soemone’s else’s character) allows mythos to survive, but it’s folly to pretend that the creators have ever reaped *all* the fruits of their labors.
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  4. #94
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    He’s always going to be a legend, and he’s always going to have a point... but his point would be better made by guys like Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster,
    Siegel and Shuster did make that point, repeatedly, multiple times.

    IP ownership is a funny thing - the ability to use older IPs, whether through public domain (like Moore’s usage of classic characters in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) or through corporate running of them (regular comics, with guys like Grant Morrison and Scott Snyder doing legendary things with soemone’s else’s character) allows mythos to survive, but it’s folly to pretend that the creators have ever reaped *all* the fruits of their labors.
    Again, that's not the point.

    WATCHMEN was intended to be, and understood to be, a standalone creative owned work whose rights were expected to be returned to Moore-Gibbons. The closest analogy is Kieron Gillen signing with Image to do The Wicked + The Divine but Image then screw him over (which Image hasn't done, that we know of).

    It's not the same thing as working on licensed IP.

    Moore doesn't want the rights of Swamp Thing, Superman, or even John Constantine (a character he co-created and introduced into the DC Universe). He wanted Watchmen which was his by right.

  5. #95
    Incredible Member Ishmael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post

    What do you mean by "fill-ins"? Your entire post is vague and suggestive, making airy references to stuff that feels insinuating in the McCarthyist fashion. If you can make specific charges and give examples and so on, then it might actually give something to respond to.
    Alan, is that you?

    How droll that a grammar Nazi would accuse someone else of "McCarthist fashion." Troll on, friend, troll on.

  6. #96
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    Alan, is that you?
    God I wish. That would make me a creative genius who has written masterpieces every decade of my career (which cannot be said of Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Neil Gaiman, among others).

    Sadly I am not.

    How droll that a grammar Nazi would accuse someone else of "McCarthist fashion."
    It's McCarthyist. The "y" is not silent, my dude.

    McCarthyist happens to be a real word, on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism). Also the Collins Dictionary (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us...sh/mccarthyist).

  7. #97
    Astonishing Member Johnny Thunders!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    WGBS
    Posts
    2,535

    Default

    I thought I would get called out for not knowing Wertham well enough?!?

  8. #98

    Default

    I don't know about hypocrisy per se, but his defensiveness over the inclusion of Gollywogs in LoEG and his willingness to take credit for Geoff Johns' Blackest Night sight unseen both indicate a lack of character that makes me unwilling to extend to him the benefit of the doubt

  9. #99
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Falz View Post
    No, he was not careful, or at least not careful enough, I'm afraid. He signed over his creations to DC Comics. If he didn't want to do that, he should have never done that. I would have never done that.

    It doesn't matter what he expected to happen, what matters is what was in the contract. As far as the law is concerned, it's really as simple as that. If his creations were THAT important to him, he could have taken the contract to a contract attorney to have them look it over for him and warn him of what could happen, if he didn't.
    Yes he could have used the magical comic book lawyer thats always existed to help him... jesus christ...


    He came out of british scene that didnt even have contracts. Judge dredd didnt even have a contract. Nothing... no paperwork at all. Thats why Zenith is hardly reprinted. Imagine the beatles without contracts. Imagine star wars without contracts. Thats what 2000ad looked like in the 70s and 80s. No rights. Not even a boilerplate to sign or give to a lawyer.

    No offense but you can only talk like that because 1000s have been shafted for decades to get any sort of rights at all for you.

  10. #100
    DARKSEID LAUGHS... Crazy Diamond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thezmage View Post
    I don't know about hypocrisy per se, but his defensiveness over the inclusion of Gollywogs in LoEG and his willingness to take credit for Geoff Johns' Blackest Night sight unseen both indicate a lack of character that makes me unwilling to extend to him the benefit of the doubt
    He was wrong on the Golliwog (no way to rehabilitate that) but what was wrong about what he said about Blackest Night? Johns took a story that was meant to be a one-off and turned into a bloated crossover.

    https://www.comicbookdaily.com/minut...mble-on-a-bit/

  11. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Diamond View Post
    He was wrong on the Golliwog (no way to rehabilitate that) but what was wrong about what he said about Blackest Night? Johns took a story that was meant to be a one-off and turned into a bloated crossover.

    https://www.comicbookdaily.com/minut...mble-on-a-bit/
    The story that was meant to be a one-off was just one of the influences on Johns' story that had very little impact, other than a handful of names. If Moore didn't want to read the book to know what he's taking credit for, he shouldn't be commenting on it at all. But instead he decided to take credit for a story he knew nothing about and had nothing to do with. Creators who aren't morally bankrupt don't do that.

    EDIT: I suggest you actually read the interview you linked, because if anything I'm being kind to Moore here.

    EDIT 2: Actually, thanks for that, because it firmly establishes that Alan Moore is definitely and inarguably a hypocrite. In that interview he gets upset about someone doing to one of his stories what he did to Victorian literature as a whole. LoEG volume 2 has more in common with War of the Worlds than Blackest Night has with the Alan Moore short story. It's rank hypocrisy for him to take credit for both stories
    Last edited by Thezmage; 10-22-2020 at 12:10 PM.

  12. #102
    Extraordinary Member Zero Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,716

    Default

    Of coarse he is. He gets pissed at DC for using stuff that he had come up with and then goes over to Image and turns Supreme into a straight up Silver Age Superman knock off. Even going so far as to give Supreme his own versions of Supergirl and Krypto.

  13. #103
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Diamond View Post
    He was wrong on the Golliwog (no way to rehabilitate that) but what was wrong about what he said about Blackest Night? Johns took a story that was meant to be a one-off and turned into a bloated crossover.

    https://www.comicbookdaily.com/minut...mble-on-a-bit/
    I agree golliwog is beyond rehabilitation but there is a very strong case that the creator got f'ed by history, cultural studies, and was hijacked by people during her own time.

    Alan had the balls to go back to the primary materials and try to raise awareness knowing full well how easy it would be to misrepresent what he was saying.

  14. #104
    Incredible Member cgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    But if you follow them from when you're a kid, you should give them up when you're a teen? That's the world I lived in. High school kids mocked me when they found out I still read comic books.

    I think for some of us, we go back to comics--especially those we liked as little kids--because we realize they had a primal appeal that formed our character. Studying story-telling for children isn't just confined to the few writers and illustrators that stuffed-shirts have decided are good. You can study any story for children--from Stumbo to Charlie Brown--and appreciate the artistic intention.

    This is one area where Alan Moore failed. I like the book FROM HELL very much. And a lot of his other work. But I think the underlying message in some of his later super-hero stories got it wrong. I was flipping through a book on Alan Moore in the store one time, and there was an essay that broke down the themes in a particular Tom Strong story. The essayist picked out all this stuff about fascism that went completely past me when I'd read it.

    Yes, if you're an adult and you interpret children's fiction, it can seem fascistic. In MY DINNER WITH ANDRE, Andre makes the same observation about THE LITTLE PRINCE. But that doesn't mean kid lit is fascistic. It's rather that a child's power fantasy becomes fascistic when it's transposed to an adult context. You're reading the story wrong. To understand the work--you have to understand it from a child's level. If you're imposing your own adult feelings on a children's fantasy--that says more about you than it does about the story.
    Jim, this is an excellent post. And I don't think you are just talking about nostalgia here. Context is important when talking about art. Anyway, I don't have much else to add other than nice movie reference there.

  15. #105
    DARKSEID LAUGHS... Crazy Diamond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iron chimp View Post
    I agree golliwog is beyond rehabilitation but there is a very strong case that the creator got f'ed by history, cultural studies, and was hijacked by people during her own time.

    Alan had the balls to go back to the primary materials and try to raise awareness knowing full well how easy it would be to misrepresent what he was saying.
    Tell that to any Black child who got compared to a golliwog.

    Little Black Sambo may have just been a kid's book but it relied on the stereotypes of the day regardless.

Posting Permissions

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