The Comic Book Thread (spoilers)

[Skummy]

Is Moore writing it? Is he involved?

No. They asked his permission, he denied it. He's basically got sick of the back-and-forth legal bullshit he's been dealing with from DC for the last twenty years, sick of them throwing lawyers at him every time he objects to their use of his work, and he's just publicly denounced it, and will be receiving no royalties, much like the movie.

General rule of thumb - if CD or Marvel are doing anything, Alan Moore won't be involved.

[Skummy]

So, in the interest of a balanced argument, this guy has criticised Alan Moore's response to Before Watchmen;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/02/01/alan-moore-is-wrong-about-before-watchmen

Essentially the argument is that Watchmen itself was originally intended to use existing characters, and much of Moore's own work has used characters created by other authors, so he's a hypocrite for criticising Before Watchmen for doing the same.

So, perhaps there's some truth to that.

Frankly, though, it's missing the point. Part of Moore's deal with DC regarding the rights to Watchmen effectively forbade DC from ever writing any sequels or prequels without Moore's consent - something he hasn't given them - yet they've gone ahead and done it anyway, because they're the big rich corporation and can easily legally outmaneuver a slightly mad old man in Northampton. To give a very brief summary of the backstory to all this - the ownership of Watchmen is the reason Alan Moore will never write for DC again. In the past he's even tried to convince them to remove his name from the original graphic novel altogether.

Furthermore, the whole point of Alan Moore's use of Charlton comics characters (his intention with Watchmen), or established literary characters in Lost Girls or The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, is that he's purposely pushing them into a new medium, new situations, and using them to explore the nature of the medium he's writing in. Watchmen, in particular, is a fantastic deconstruction of the superhero genre. Watchmen prequels almost certainly won't be - they'll be bog-standard "dark" comic books, the likes of which we've seen a thousand times over. And, much like the Watchmen movie, without that deconstruction, it's not worthwhile as a standalone story. It needs the whole package to get its point across.

The problem, more than anything, is that DC feel they need to do this. They're not out there looking for a writer the calibre of Moore who could possibly give them something as groundbreaking, and as brilliantly written, as Watchmen was, they're just hoping in vain that lightning will strike twice. No original ideas. Welcome to the mainstream comic industry.

Watchmen redefined the comic book industry, and (for better or worse) gave us the graphic novel. It embraces every aspect of the comic book as a medium, and celebrates it, rather than using it as a poor man's substitute for film, or the written word. Aside from the conventional comic book format, there's the "comic within a comic" aspect, the case studies and newspaper "cuttings", and so many other aspects that would not work in any other medium, in any other story, with any other writer.

Even ignoring the stylistic choices that make Watchmen as great as it is - it's a self-contained narrative. This isn't a Superman or Spiderman story that's run as a serial and intended to be carried on as a series of unrelated stories by different writers, it's a complete story from start to finish. What could we possibly find out about Rorschach in a prequel that wasn't already explored fully in the original work?

The downside of Watchmen's influence is that it paved the way for twenty-five years of "dark and gritty" comic books that are as much of a pitiful cliché as the goody two-shoes all-American heroes that came before them. People saw Moore's study of Rorschach as a troubled, tortured young man, which was supposed to invite our pity, and what did they take away from it? Ultra-violence and a few "cool" quotes.

DC Comics have shown time and again that they care about nothing but mainstream attention. Like too many other people in the comic industry, they don't see the comic book as a solid medium on its own. They don't consider a comic a success unless it's bled dry with sequels and prequels, or until somebody makes a movie out of it. They can't accept a comic book being treated seriously as a piece of art on its own merits. To use a wrestling analogy, they're Vince McMahon trying to convince the world that what he does is a soap opera, not pro-wrestling.

NERD RAGE, but the tl;dr is that when someone says "I don't want you to do this", you're a dick for going ahead and doing it anyway. DC Comics are a dick.

EDIT:

Also, some of the reporting of this is hilariously missing the point. There's lots of "Alan Moore's against the Watchmen prequels, but he wanted to write them himself once! WHAT A HYPOCRITE!", which is just silly.

[Skummy]

A really good article summing up the Watchmen/Alan Moore situation, should anyone be interested;

http://www.themarysue.com/the-watchmen-prequels-allow-us-to-explain/

[TGC]

Here's the thing EVERYONE forgets....Alan Moore may have expressly wished for their to be no prequels, but Dave Gibbons (you know the COCREATOR) did not. In fact he signed off on it, and will be getting royalties.

[Skummy]

Here's the thing EVERYONE forgets....Alan Moore may have expressly wished for their to be no prequels, but Dave Gibbons (you know the COCREATOR) did not. In fact he signed off on it, and will be getting royalties.

That brings up an interesting debate, though - is it Moore's project because he wrote it, or is it equally Gibbons' because he drew it? Personally, as much as Gibbons' artwork is part of the complete package, and as important as he is to the project, at its core it's definitely Alan Moore's baby. He wrote it, he "created" the characters (or adapted them from the Charlton comics equivalents, anyway), he pitched it.

I don't think Gibbons approving of it carries quite the same weight as Moore disapproving of it. While he's vital to its creation, it wasn't his brainchild, he wasn't caught up in the two decades of legal bullshit surrounding it, and he's never been as outspoken against the terms of the ownership of the property as Alan Moore has. So, yes, he's agreed to it - but his mentality seems very much to be "we can't stop it, so hopefully we'll at least get some good comics out of it" rather than it being anything he especially wanted to happen.

Oh, and let's look at what good old Jim Lee of DC Comics had to say on the matter in 2010;

"DC Comics would only revisit these iconic characters if the creative vision of any proposed new stories matched the quality set by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons nearly 25 years ago, and our first discussion on any of this would naturally be with the creators themselves."

Ultimately, my main problems with it are that Alan Moore has expressly denied DC's requests for permission to write prequels and yet they've done it anyway, and that it just shows what a creative mire the comics industry is in. They've amassed a fantastic group of writers and artists for these comics, yet rather than give any of them the freedom to produce their own "Watchmen", they're asking them to rehash things that don't need rehashing.

[TGC]

Here's the thing EVERYONE forgets....Alan Moore may have expressly wished for their to be no prequels, but Dave Gibbons (you know the COCREATOR) did not. In fact he signed off on it, and will be getting royalties.

That brings up an interesting debate, though - is it Moore's project because he wrote it, or is it equally Gibbons' because he drew it? Personally, as much as Gibbons' artwork is part of the complete package, and as important as he is to the project, at its core it's definitely Alan Moore's baby. He wrote it, he "created" the characters (or adapted them from the Charlton comics equivalents, anyway), he pitched it.

I don't think Gibbons approving of it carries quite the same weight as Moore disapproving of it. While he's vital to its creation, it wasn't his brainchild, he wasn't caught up in the two decades of legal bullshit surrounding it, and he's never been as outspoken against the terms of the ownership of the property as Alan Moore has. So, yes, he's agreed to it - but his mentality seems very much to be "we can't stop it, so hopefully we'll at least get some good comics out of it" rather than it being anything he especially wanted to happen.

Oh, and let's look at what good old Jim Lee of DC Comics had to say on the matter in 2010;

"DC Comics would only revisit these iconic characters if the creative vision of any proposed new stories matched the quality set by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons nearly 25 years ago, and our first discussion on any of this would naturally be with the creators themselves."

Ultimately, my main problems with it are that Alan Moore has expressly denied DC's requests for permission to write prequels and yet they've done it anyway, and that it just shows what a creative mire the comics industry is in. They've amassed a fantastic group of writers and artists for these comics, yet rather than give any of them the freedom to produce their own "Watchmen", they're asking them to rehash things that don't need rehashing.

I would disagree that it is in fact more Moore's than Gibbons, mainly because comics are a visual medium as well. It's as much ones as the others in my opinion. But I've always felt way when it comes to comics.

As far as Moore goes, and I know this is what led to his parting ways with DC in the first place, he was doing work for hire and Watchmen has been in trade format ever since 1987 (I think). He had to know this was going to happen. He didn't create the characters from scratch, he re-imagined the Charlton characters when DC wouldn't let him fuck those characters over for good. Watchmen is a great story, Before Watchmen may or may not be worth it or even readable, but I think anyone who dismisses the books based soley because Moore didn't approve (of things he does not own), to me seems silly. Add to it that there is a great number of VERY talented people involved with BW (plus JMS who hasn't been talented for a long time), and it has in my mind every chance of being as creatively good as it will be a big hit (and make no bones about it, it will sell VERY WELL).

Also, I read a nice article where Warner Brothers has been trying to get this done forever. it was Paul Levitz who kept this from happening for 20+ years, as he didn't wish to make the impasse between Moore and DC greater than it already was, so as soon as he "stepped down" it was writing on the wall.

[Herr Matzat]

I´ll just ignore these new books. I am shure there will barly come any good of them so my mind is of best without knowing the contend.

[HailtotheYo]

JJust go read Byrne's Next Men and forget all about this ...

[TGC]

JJust go read Byrne's Next Men and forget all about this ...

Byrne's Next Men....the last good thing he did.

[caucasianheat]

I'll at least read Cooke's Minutemen book. I loved his revival of The Spirit and I feel like he can be trusted to produce something that is new and still faithful to source material at the same time. The rest I can probably do without ever reading, but we'll see.

I sympathize with Moore, but every writer learns very early on that the script or the treatment leaves your hands and then it's not yours anymore. It's just the nature of the business when you're doing mainstream projects and I imagine it's a huge part of why he works exclusively with independents at this point. He's spot on about the dearth of creativity at the major publishers, by and large, but DC still owns the characters and owns Watchmen and he'd spend a lot of money losing that battle in court.

[HailtotheYo]

JJust go read Byrne's Next Men and forget all about this ...

Byrne's Next Men....the last good thing he did.

Indeed ... although I didn't mind his Iron Man run and of course, his Hellboy stuff.

[TGC]

JJust go read Byrne's Next Men and forget all about this ...

Byrne's Next Men....the last good thing he did.

Indeed ... although I didn't mind his Iron Man run and of course, his Hellboy stuff.

Let's see, JBNM started in the mid 90's, before a 15 or so year hiatus, after a disastrous run at Marvel on The Avengers and a West Coast Avengers run that I liked, but that suffered from him walking off before resolving anything and Roy Thomas following him and undoing it all. You are right, his IM run was very good. I have zero memory of him working on Hellboy though. His work since IM has for the most part been bad. Wonder Woman, Doom Patrol, The Demon, The New Gods/Jack Kirby's Fourth World/Genesis, Spider-Man Chapter One (SO BAD), Amazing Spider-Man...all not good. I still am a fan of his work, but he certainly lost something in the last 15 or so years.

[HailtotheYo]

Let's see, JBNM started in the mid 90's, before a 15 or so year hiatus, after a disastrous run at Marvel on The Avengers and a West Coast Avengers run that I liked, but that suffered from him walking off before resolving anything and Roy Thomas following him and undoing it all. You are right, his IM run was very good. I have zero memory of him working on Hellboy though. His work since IM has for the most part been bad. Wonder Woman, Doom Patrol, The Demon, The New Gods/Jack Kirby's Fourth World/Genesis, Spider-Man Chapter One (SO BAD), Amazing Spider-Man...all not good. I still am a fan of his work, but he certainly lost something in the last 15 or so years.

Oh I'm in no way defending the man, but rather just mentioning the little bit he did manage after his Next Men.

The Hellboy stuff was early in the comic run and might have actually been at the onset (in fact, I think it was).

I didn't toss out the WCA/AWC stuff because .... well I wasn't sure anyone else in the world read an of it, ever

He's certainly an interesting figure simply for the fact that his good shit, is GOOOOOOD but holy hell is his bad shit BAAAAAAAD. He damn near ruined the Demon for me and I was really hoping that Jack Kirby's Fourth World was going to be a nice throwback.

[TGC]

Let's see, JBNM started in the mid 90's, before a 15 or so year hiatus, after a disastrous run at Marvel on The Avengers and a West Coast Avengers run that I liked, but that suffered from him walking off before resolving anything and Roy Thomas following him and undoing it all. You are right, his IM run was very good. I have zero memory of him working on Hellboy though. His work since IM has for the most part been bad. Wonder Woman, Doom Patrol, The Demon, The New Gods/Jack Kirby's Fourth World/Genesis, Spider-Man Chapter One (SO BAD), Amazing Spider-Man...all not good. I still am a fan of his work, but he certainly lost something in the last 15 or so years.

Oh I'm in no way defending the man, but rather just mentioning the little bit he did manage after his Next Men.

The Hellboy stuff was early in the comic run and might have actually been at the onset (in fact, I think it was).

I didn't toss out the WCA/AWC stuff because .... well I wasn't sure anyone else in the world read an of it, ever

He's certainly an interesting figure simply for the fact that his good shit, is GOOOOOOD but holy hell is his bad shit BAAAAAAAD. He damn near ruined the Demon for me and I was really hoping that Jack Kirby's Fourth World was going to be a nice throwback.

Oh yes he drew a few pages in the first few issues of Helboy when it launched, some sort of cross promotion thing if memory serves for the group that included himself, Mignola, Miller, and Art Adams at Dark Horse. I remember now.

I used to have a damn near complete collection of The Avengers, including WCA (fuck that Avengers West Coast name, they were WCA aka The Whackos), Avengers Spotlight and on and on from like issue 10 until Avengers Disassembled, so yeah I remember the early 90's, as did Bendis clearly when he referred to the Byrne story involving Wanda and her kids and The Vision and her insanity when he turned her nutso. If memory serves he also followed Walt Simonson's super short reign (and the first time The Avengers were disassembled in such a massive way, and far better) who in turn followed (minus a few fill in issues) Roger Stern's epic run on the book. Byrne had some massive shoes to fill and sadly was nowhere near up to the task based upon what we got.

My favorite Byrne runs are The FF, She-Hulk, X-Men (with Claremont), the first year or so of his Superman revamp, and Next Men. His short lived Hulk run was also a lot of fun, but like so many other titles he worked on he let some personal shit that always comes across as petty drive him off the book, in the middle of the story, much like he did with FF, Avengers, WCA, Superman, and on and on. In fact, he rarely finishes anything now that I think about it.

But yes, when he is good he is GREAT, and when he is bad he is AWFUL. His Doom Patrol reboot and run took one of my favorite books/teams (hell I liked the first 18 or so issues by Kupperberg, Lightle, and Larson before Morrison took over I was such a fan of the concept and characters) and all but ruined them for me until the most recent series that ended pre The New 52.

Going back to WCA, ultimately all in all such a terrible book from start to finish, minus the WCA mini by Stern that I really like even to this day, but it holds such fond memories of my earliest comic book reading.

[HailtotheYo]

Oh yes he drew a few pages in the first few issues of Helboy when it launched, some sort of cross promotion thing if memory serves for the group that included himself, Mignola, Miller, and Art Adams at Dark Horse. I remember now.

Yeah, he also did some of the writing with the early stuff too but Mignola drove most of it so he could kind of steer Byrne a bit.

My favorite Byrne runs are The FF, She-Hulk, X-Men (with Claremont), the first year or so of his Superman revamp, and Next Men. His short lived Hulk run was also a lot of fun, but like so many other titles he worked on he let some personal shit that always comes across as petty drive him off the book, in the middle of the story, much like he did with FF, Avengers, WCA, Superman, and on and on. In fact, he rarely finishes anything now that I think about it.

Next Men is easily my favorite work of his and the Iron Man run is probably second (I was big into IM at the time as well so ....)

Had actually forgotten about the Superman re-vamp ... that was the MOS launch yeah ?

Going back to WCA, ultimately all in all such a terrible book from start to finish, minus the WCA mini by Stern that I really like even to this day, but it holds such fond memories of my earliest comic book reading.

Pretty much. I've always been more of a "secondary" (outside of Spider-Man being my favorite) character/book/team follower. WCA was right up my alley. Today I've only got the 4 issue mini and #1 of the regular series. Passed the rest (about 45 in total or so) to a younger cousin.

[Johnny Latino Heat]

Spider-Man Chapter One question: Was it all Byrne, or was the general idea of the story (revamped origin and all that crap) all Byrne? I have to say, those were some of the worst Spider-Man books I've ever read, and I've read lots and lots of Spidey.

[HailtotheYo]

Spider-Man Chapter One question: Was it all Byrne, or was the general idea of the story (revamped origin and all that crap) all Byrne? I have to say, those were some of the worst Spider-Man books I've ever read, and I've read lots and lots of Spidey.

That was Byrne .... as evidenced by the "that never happened" stance of everyone since, including Marvel itself.

[Johnny Latino Heat]

Spider-Man Chapter One question: Was it all Byrne, or was the general idea of the story (revamped origin and all that crap) all Byrne? I have to say, those were some of the worst Spider-Man books I've ever read, and I've read lots and lots of Spidey.

That was Byrne .... as evidenced by the "that never happened" stance of everyone since, including Marvel itself.

I suspected it, but just because Marvel says it never happened doesn't actually mean it wasn't the higher-ups' idea, it could be that they were just sweeping their own crap under the rug, but still, what the hell was Byrne thinking? Those stories were horrid. Thanks for the answer, by the way (Y)

[HailtotheYo]

Spider-Man Chapter One question: Was it all Byrne, or was the general idea of the story (revamped origin and all that crap) all Byrne? I have to say, those were some of the worst Spider-Man books I've ever read, and I've read lots and lots of Spidey.

That was Byrne .... as evidenced by the "that never happened" stance of everyone since, including Marvel itself.

I suspected it, but just because Marvel says it never happened doesn't actually mean it wasn't the higher-ups' idea, it could be that they were just sweeping their own crap under the rug, but still, what the hell was Byrne thinking? Those stories were horrid. Thanks for the answer, by the way (Y)

Very true on that regard but even in the "sweeping it under the rug" vein, it's more like everyone pretends they were MIB mind blanked. Like it literally never existed rather than "hush hush" if you can catch what I'm getting at.

I dunno what Byrne was thinking ... Although, at that particular period I'm not so sure there just wasn't some "bad shit" making the rounds in the Marvel break room.

[TGC]

Yes that was the MOS revamp that lasted until I think the Birthright revamp undid it.

My favorite two runs on IM are the two David Michelinie/Bob layton runs btw.