Grant Morrison interview

[carabas]

Neonomicon is a horror comic book, one that takes itself very seriously and genuinely desires to horrify.While this is true it is true that the story aims for genuine horror, I see it also as somewhat tongue in cheek up to a point, more a Lovecraft pastiche than a proper Cthulhu mythos story.

Mind you, I have no problem with The Invisibles' use of rape; I understand why it's there and how it serves the story. Morrison was writing a literal battle between good and evil - an evil that isn't just Evil but the small evils of the quotidian: shame, fear, humiliation, insecurity, mediocrity, hopelessness. The Outer Church is all about turning Man into a bestial, mindless, cowering creature. Of course half the series is going to be full of very disturbing material.


Moore's blasé, darkly comical attitude to rape is right in line with the way it's treated in the work of many respected novelists.That's not much of an excuse.


Learn to accept that or continue to pine for the moralising comics of your childhood, with their simplistic solutions for wife beating, nuclear weapons proliferation and Africa's plight.Accepting that it's cool and funny to watch the Invisible Man rape Pollyanna means I can get over the moralising comics of my childhood, which I didn't read to begin with until I was 30 or so anyway, and take the problems of the world seriously?

Frell that.

[Jody Garland]

There is a point to be made about absurdity with Moore's work, too. The Invisible Man raping Pollyanna claiming to be the Holy Ghost is so far removed from reality the absurdity alone is humorous, IMO. It's not like the dark and ugly rape in, say, Watchmen.* Moore may be obsessed with rape, but he can treat it differently from work to work, so you have to keep that in mind.

*Sorry, I must confess I haven't read a lot of Moore.

[PastePotPete]

I don't have a problem with either of them using rape as an element in a story. Serious, comic, horrifying -- I'm cool with it as long as it's not prurient.

The problem for me stems from Morrison criticizing Moore and claiming that he has never touched on the subject. He should have qualified his statement about Moore's work, saying, "look I've talked about rape in my comics but I've tried to do it in such-and-such a way so that I've handled it with care..." or he should have just defended Moore as an artist.

I greatly enjoy the work of both writers and I would be very disappointed if stuff like The Invisibles and Neonomicon wasn't available on the shelves. I think it's good stuff. I don't want censorship.

But the fact is, fans recommend this stuff to non-fans, and the non-fans read it and they arch an eyebrow and go "ooookay, there's quite a bit of rape in this!" Morrison did have a point there.

What if there was a female writer who constantly wrote about castration? How would that make everyone feel?

[king mob]

In the 90's you could'nt have Millar without Morrison (Vice versa on the other hand, sure). However, in the early 2000's it seems like Millar was tired of being on Morrison's shadow and then aparently ended the partnership abruptly. Morrison is obviously still pissed of by that.

He's not exactly telling the full story here, and neither is he admitting any fault in his part. Mark did let his ego grow out of control, and he did grab whatever credit was thrown at him even when it wasn't earned, but frankly Grant needs to admit his own wrongs as well. It's not from what I understand it, as black and white as it's been portrayed.

[king mob]

Comic book groupies.......This is the first time I've heard of this. I can't even grasp the concept. I also don't want to picture what the majority of them would look like.

I'm almost wondering if Morrison was joking about that.

He's not. I can testify to dozens of occasions at British conventions over the years seeing young girls (some very young indeed) throw themselves at creators, and those creators taking them up on their offers. It's not spoken about openly, because frankly I know some of the creators I've seen are married and have kids, so there's an unspoken rule that this sort of thing isn't spoken about outside of certain circles.

Brian Talbot left these stories out his book, The Naked Artist, for exactly that reason.

[king mob]

OTOH, Michael Moorcok has accused Morrison of plagiarism (though I haven`t read his work, so I will abstain from commenting it) in Invisibles and other books, and there are similarities between Invisibles and stuff from Carlos Castañeda, so, I really can`t tell if Grant is completely innocent here (as much as I love his work, and his public persona).

That said, Morrison may or may not be innocent here, but I`d say that, IMHO, the Wachowski brothers are certainly not.
The Matrix took huge chunks of the Invisibles, but the Moorcock 'influences' in Morrison's work has been skimmed over by a lot of fans recently, but they're there and yes, he probably (along with Alan Moore who admits he's taken from Moorcock) a few quid.

[king mob]

Well, here's the scene:

http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy132/dcbloodlines/DC75RalphDibnyCantKeepItTogetherIdentityCrisis1200 4.jpg

That one page that convinced me that mindlessly buying superhero comics was no longer worth it as frankly, they'd become so serious in trying to be dark and 'mature' that the joy was gone from them.

[king mob]

I love Grant interviews. Especially reading them as if I were Grant. He cracks me up. And I never thought about the Alan Moore/rape thing before but...yeah...he does seem a tad obsessed with using rape in his stories.

To be fair to Moore he's answered why he does in several interviews where he's laid out that if murder is used as a common plot device then why is rape seen as more taboo as both are equally vile crimes?


I don't especially agree with him, and he has used rape purely as a shock tactic (LOEG volume 2 for example), but it's Mark Millar who uses rape, and the threat of rape as a throwaway plot device in a hell of a lot of his work.

[king mob]

A subservient interview, an employee still afraid of talking against his company, even after he's reached the zenith of his career. That's my impression of the interview.

I'm working through Supergods, and frankly his dismissal of Siegel and Schuster's ownership of Superman is depressing & somewhat at odds with someone whose worked so much with DC on creator owned titles.


He puts down Alan Moore and Chris Ware, who do not work for DC, but is very mild with Braz Meltzer. Perhaps because Identity Crisis was a big success for DC. He makes excuses for Meltzer's sexist comics but fails to mention that Moore is also a father and a husband.




Frankly Identity Crisis was the template of DC in the 21st century, and it was also a massive mistake, not to mention an amazingly badly done comic. However it's a key part of what DC are at the moment.



Oh, and in his selective memory he failed to mention that Doom Patrol, The Invisibles and The Filth have rape too.

Yep, I found that a bit odd that none of that was brought up.



What happened to the man who made Mystery Play, Bible John, The Invisibles, Doom Patrol? He used to be amazing but now he breathes and eats happy-go-lucky superheroes as if they're the greatest thing in the world. When and how did his view of the world become so narrow?
He says 911, but frankly I'm not buying that.

[king mob]

Secondly, he doesn't extend the same courtesy to Moore. With Maltzer he's all jokey, with Moore he burns with indignation. And yet one could easily argue that Moore's treatment of rape as a sickening act is more mature than Meltzer's retcon of rape in a character for shock.


Moore's never written anything as horribly crass and unintentionally offensive as the Sue Dibney rape scene. That should have been universally derided by fans but sadly, it wasn't and that gave DC the bollocks to run with turning their superhero comics into a much, much darker thing than they'd been previously.



I wouldn't deny him that right. But why must his right to do so be built on criticism against people who don't share his optimism and irrational love for comics? One thing is to say you like comics, another is to claim they're Mankind's greatest invention! One thing is to be optimistic, another is berating creators for not finding the world an optimistic world and for having different sensibilities.

From what I remember of Grant in the old days before he started on the pills, booze and various drugs, he was often subject to mood swings, but I'd not call him depressed, though I'd say he's possibly suffering from some sort of epilepsy which would explain his visions.

[king mob]

Oh dear, I've spoken against the all-mighty, holy and anointed All-Star Superman... yes, dear comic book fans, there is someone who doesn't think it's the greatest comic book in the history of comic books. It is a pointless retelling of Superman's life. It's just Silver Age Superman with slightly better dialogue and excellent art. It's still a retread of old stories. A well-told Superman story is still just a Superman story.

Never have I seen a medium so beholden to the same stories, over and over. You'll buy the same story ten times and then mourn the death of comics. You deserve the moribund industry you've helped create.

I agree the superhero comic industry is dying slowly and painfully, but ASS was a wonderful example of how good superhero comics can be if people put a wee bit of effort and creativity into it. Yes, it was the Mort Weisenger Superman, but thats the point. It was a hymn to days long gone, and an example you can do relevant stories with those 60's versions of superheroes today without resorting to rape or ridiculous amounts of violence.

[king mob]

Which you neglect to mention Moore has done with Geoff Johns.

Moore's done nothing to Geoff Johns outside what some fans think he's actually said or done.

[PastePotPete]

That one page that convinced me that mindlessly buying superhero comics was no longer worth it as frankly, they'd become so serious in trying to be dark and 'mature' that the joy was gone from them.

At the time I was just getting back into comics and I loved this scene. I thought it had an emotionality I'd never seen in a comic book before.

I hear where you're coming from, especially now so many years later, but I think your testimony speaks more to your own fatigue than it does the quality of the work here.

For me, Identity Crisis was the event that got me hooked on comics again after a long hiatus. Did it have problems? Oh yes. And I acknowledged them. But it was so different and real compared to the comics I had been reading 10 years earlier. I was also blown away by Bendis and Avengers Disassembled at the time. This stuff is not my favorite stuff now, but I also don't think it's fundamentally flawed. You can tell dark, mature stories with these characters. Not everything needs to be fun. And sometimes new audiences are going to respond to something a little darker, more shocking, more mature.

I'm just saying that while this scene may have taken you out of comics, it probably brought as many people in. It did me.

[king mob]

Remember Love and Rockets New Stories where Xaime created the Ti-Girls? Or when Xaime and Beto both worked on Mr. X? Or when they both did stories for Strange Tales vol. II along with a bunch of other alt comics heavy weights? Hopey is a pissed off punk who hates authority, not surprised he would have her do that but he also had, I think, Maggie working to fix an alien spaceship and running from dinosaurs while she had a romantic affair with a Steve Canyon lookalike.

And TCJ doesn't hate superheros, they were responsible for bringing Fletcher Hanks work into the light, they just wrote a glowing review of Bulletproof Coffin, and they were the ones who helped fight for the rights of Kirby, Gerber, and other artists when they tried to get their fair share. Yeah, some of their writers over the years have definitely been dismissive of the genre, and Groth could get especially vitriolic over damn near anything, but TCJ is one of the reasons that people think Lichtenstein was a hack. TCJ does have a problem with Marvel and DC as companies and the way they have treated their creative talent over the years in the name of elevating their brands and this has led to the sentiment over the years that the two companies are not going to publish artistically worthwhile comics because they care about marketing much more than they care about the medium. Keep in mind that TCJ has been covering the comics industry as an industry for going on forty years now so that sentiment is informed by a lot of first hand accounts.

Finally, I think its hilarious to see so many people berating Ware, TCJ, and "hipsters" for elitism when, in this very thread, the common defense of Morrison against any and all criticism is "you obviously just didn't understand it".

Bingo.


The problem is that fans are happy to see snobbery when in fact, it's actually legitimate criticism of a genre which really needs new life, and especially in the big two. Publishing 52 #1's is frankly 25 years too late.

[king mob]

At the time I was just getting back into comics and I loved this scene. I thought it had an emotionality I'd never seen in a comic book before.

I hear where you're coming from, especially now so many years later, but I think your testimony speaks more to your own fatigue than it does the quality of the work here.


Actually it speaks volumes for the quality of work as this was a last straw and a half. Yes, I'd been annoyed by how things were going and the general decline of superhero comics, but IC was an abortion of a comic which frankly should have been rewritten not only make it make sense, but make it actually tasteful for a supposed superhero comic for all ages.


You can tell dark, mature stories with these characters. Not everything needs to be fun. And sometimes new audiences are going to respond to something a little darker, more shocking, more mature.

It's not especially mature though. It's the same sort of glamourised violence and misery you see in Hollywood films trying to be mature when they're really just power fantasies for kids, or as they are now, teenagers or 30/40 somethings.


I'm just saying that while this scene may have taken you out of comics, it probably brought as many people in. It did me.

The thing is the sales figures for DC show them bleeding readers as the market contracts further back and the readership ages further. The readers of superhero comics are not getting any younger, and we're seeing the lack of creativity with DC pulling a gimmick they should have done 20 odd years ago.

No, the problem is there's people stopping reading superheros, and although some are being attracted to the, it's nowhere like the numbers needed to make the big two bother to do anything but pander to the same fans.

[PastePotPete]

Actually it speaks volumes for the quality of work as this was a last straw and a half.

The last straw and a half for you.

Look, the art in that particular scene is very strong. Morales put in some of his best work on that book, in my opinion. The dialogue is appropriate to the scene. It's not florid or overly sentimental. The only thing you can be objecting to is the scene itself. Which I understand. But you're objecting to it within the context of the rest of the miniseries or superhero comics going 'darker' on the whole.


Yes, I'd been annoyed by how things were going and the general decline of superhero comics, but IC was an abortion of a comic which frankly should have been rewritten not only make it make sense, but make it actually tasteful for a supposed superhero comic for all ages.

Yeah, see, this is you objecting to the entire miniseries. I get it. The ending sucked and I understand people having issues with the rape.


It's not especially mature though. It's the same sort of glamourised violence and misery you see in Hollywood films trying to be mature when they're really just power fantasies for kids, or as they are now, teenagers or 30/40 somethings.

Right, I knew someone would come back with that. That it's not actually mature. I'll even concede that. But do you think teenagers today want All-Star Superman or Batgirl or Powergirl or any of the brighter comics that are being published? No. The darkness is not what is keeping younger readers away.

Novels like Twilight, the Hunger Games...even Harry Potter...have a dark edge to them. They have all done very well with teenagers.


The thing is the sales figures for DC show them bleeding readers as the market contracts further back and the readership ages further. The readers of superhero comics are not getting any younger, and we're seeing the lack of creativity with DC pulling a gimmick they should have done 20 odd years ago.

Yeah, but making comics brighter or trying to inject more "joy" is not necessarily the answer to pulling those readers back in. Hell, it might be too late to pull them back in by just publishing great stories.


No, the problem is there's people stopping reading superheros, and although some are being attracted to the, it's nowhere like the numbers needed to make the big two bother to do anything but pander to the same fans.

Yeah, well, I'm with Morrison on this one. If mainstream superhero comics die...so be it. Maybe when things get really bad we'll finally see them try out some material that is truly new and progressive. Sometimes you have to burn it all down before something better can rise from the ashes. Or maybe superhero comics will just go away. I love love love connected-universe superhero comics, but I have other ways to spend my time, other types of comics I can read.

[madhunter]

As for GM's rape quote, maybe he was mis-quoted or didn't count Vertigo books, or felt pressured,or had a bad day,or thought he was Gideon Stargave or just knew that it would be a lot of publicity. I don't want to play the defend game because its not my battle. But I do think its interesting how much people HATE GM. There are people posting the same negative comments on different blogs and forums, one post on this thread is also on the 4th letter blog. It just seems weird that people hate him so much. Some people seem disillusioned by him,that hes not perfect.Is that really a surprise?

[PastePotPete]

As for GM's rape quote, maybe he was mis-quoted or didn't count Vertigo books, or felt pressured,or had a bad day,or thought he was Gideon Stargave or just knew that it would be a lot of publicity. I don't want to play the defend game because its not my battle. But I do think its interesting how much people HATE GM. There are people posting the same negative comments on different blogs and forums, one post on this thread is also on the 4th letter blog. It just seems weird that people hate him so much. Some people seem disillusioned by him,that hes not perfect.Is that really a surprise?

It's called Celebrity Feeding Frenzy. As in, we feed on them. And it's 24/7.

People hold celebrities to moral standards they themselves would never be able to maintain. They pick over every sentence the celebrity utters, searching for a sign of weakness. Celebrities are gods that we created not for worship but for hate. So yeah, people are unfair to Morrison because he's a star (in the comics world at least) and that means he represents something bigger than himself. People are going to unload on him.

That said, as an artist myself, I've found that you need to be very, very careful about criticizing people in your own industry. Not just because you want to get ahead and be able to call on them for favors, but because there are ups and downs and we all make mistakes or experiment with a style that doesn't work. An experienced artist understands that. Being fair-minded and even a bit apologetic about the work of other artists is a sign of professionalism. It says "I support what you're trying to do even if I don't agree with how you're doing it." Many people forget to do this the second they reach a certain level of success.

Of course, sometimes I also like to see someone strip away all the BS and just tell it like it is.

[madhunter]

It is a bit ironic that the man who wrote The Invisibles, a work that tries to see beyond a simplistic black and white world, would produce so much binary thinking. Any conversation about GM devolves into a "you drank the cool aid" -"you just don't understand his work " argument. Even the comments about TCJ started that. Groth was helpful in promoting Kirby's plight and has done some pro superhero stuff. His main gripe is with the Big 2 and non creativity. But since then it has into more of a superheroes suck mentality, and I don't completely disagree. But it does piss me off when a book (Xombi) gets a bad review because its a serialized superhero book. Xombi was an intelligent book that could have used some help with sales, but was discounted as being unsatisifing. And Groth himself didn't help Kirby that much by publishing the interview that had lies and exaggerations in it. That Kirby interview is still used to portray Kirby as mean ,bitter and a liar. Now everybody suffers, and even hipsters cry. It just that it gets annoying when depression is considered heavy and art and superheroes crap. I don't even personally like Arkham Asylum but it seems silly that Mckean thought he was too good to paint Bats.

[Kiryu]

I hear where you're coming from, especially now so many years later, but I think your testimony speaks more to your own fatigue than it does the quality of the work here.
.

Personally I think IC stands pretty well on it's own as a testament to poor storytelling, immature exploration of "mature themes" and in my opinion, a basic failure of storytelling. The even more terrible attempts by DC's bottom feeders to emulate it are more like bonus. The story itself, from my view of course, isn't one that pushes Superheroes into a darker place or explores edgy territory in pursuit of an amazing story. It reads more like "The-Justice-League-After-School-Rape-Special", kinda like whenever Winick pushes his agenda poorly. Like the America's Most Wanted issue of Outsiders.

It's possible to explore more mature themes like rape and violence in way more interesting and thoughtful ways then how Meltzer explored them. I think IC gets a lot of credit for being this "Big dark mature thing" but I feel it's just kind of a stupid story. And that scene with Elongated Man's face losing it, looks pretty stupid. I get that maybe the intent Meltzer was trying to convey or explore was how this serious dark subject matter works in this nonsensical superhero word, and I think that answer was poorly.

Dr Light and his dumb hat pounding away and Sue's ass, Elgongated mans face going all funny, him clutching his wifes smoldering arms in his elasti-hands? I don't think any of it works. It's done with this odd creepy reverence Meltzer has for the Superfriends mixed with this childlike view on "serious" matter. It creates a clash that, I dunno, instead of making superheroes more dark and serious and mature kinda accentuates how ridiculous and silly they are by painting them against this backdrop that doesn't at all fit. With these gaudy characters in their stupid costumes standing around referring to each other by their grown up names, attending funerals in costume. And not like gigantic services in the vein of Death of Superman, but in a church in a personal funeral and it just feels..dumb.

And I can't applaud Meltzer because rape or dark subject matter in superhero comics is nothing new. Deadshot's kid was raped to death by some creepy retarded guy in Suicide Squad back in the 80s. Alan Moore had Joker stripping off Babara Gordon's clothes and photographing as she bled out long before Meltzer crept into comics. Hell Swamp Thing had a subplot of Arcane trying to come back from hell to rape his daughter to make a new body for himself if I remember correctly. Meltzer hardly revolutionized anything, he just made a lot of sales and that spurred DC to do what they do, try to catch lightning in a bottle over and over. And they only ever end up with broken glass.

[Julian Fine]

A few TCJ links. First up an interview with Chris Ware:

http://classic.tcj.com/alternative/interview-with-chris-ware-part-1-of-2/
http://classic.tcj.com/alternative/interview-with-chris-ware-part-2-of-2/

And then there's this review of Morrison's Seaguy:

http://www.tcj.com/beta/superhero/rich-kreiners-yearlong-best-of-the-year-seaguy-slaves-of-mickey-eye/

And some stuff on The Invisibles:

http://www.tcj.com/bomb-light-in-faraway-windows-the-invisibles-and-hauntology/
http://www.tcj.com/hauntology-and-the-invisibles-part-ii/
http://www.tcj.com/hauntology-and-the-invisibles-3-the-mirror-we-made-to-see-ourselves-in/

And here's an old review of Batman and Robin:

http://www.tcj.com/guttergeek/?p=75

[4thHorseman]

Personally I think IC stands pretty well on it's own as a testament to poor storytelling, immature exploration of "mature themes" and in my opinion, a basic failure of storytelling. The even more terrible attempts by DC's bottom feeders to emulate it are more like bonus. The story itself, from my view of course, isn't one that pushes Superheroes into a darker place or explores edgy territory in pursuit of an amazing story. It reads more like "The-Justice-League-After-School-Rape-Special", kinda like whenever Winick pushes his agenda poorly. Like the America's Most Wanted issue of Outsiders.

It's possible to explore more mature themes like rape and violence in way more interesting and thoughtful ways then how Meltzer explored them. I think IC gets a lot of credit for being this "Big dark mature thing" but I feel it's just kind of a stupid story. And that scene with Elongated Man's face losing it, looks pretty stupid. I get that maybe the intent Meltzer was trying to convey or explore was how this serious dark subject matter works in this nonsensical superhero word, and I think that answer was poorly.

Dr Light and his dumb hat pounding away and Sue's ass, Elgongated mans face going all funny, him clutching his wifes smoldering arms in his elasti-hands? I don't think any of it works. It's done with this odd creepy reverence Meltzer has for the Superfriends mixed with this childlike view on "serious" matter. It creates a clash that, I dunno, instead of making superheroes more dark and serious and mature kinda accentuates how ridiculous and silly they are by painting them against this backdrop that doesn't at all fit. With these gaudy characters in their stupid costumes standing around referring to each other by their grown up names, attending funerals in costume. And not like gigantic services in the vein of Death of Superman, but in a church in a personal funeral and it just feels..dumb.

And I can't applaud Meltzer because rape or dark subject matter in superhero comics is nothing new. Deadshot's kid was raped to death by some creepy retarded guy in Suicide Squad back in the 80s. Alan Moore had Joker stripping off Babara Gordon's clothes and photographing as she bled out long before Meltzer crept into comics. Hell Swamp Thing had a subplot of Arcane trying to come back from hell to rape his daughter to make a new body for himself if I remember correctly. Meltzer hardly revolutionized anything, he just made a lot of sales and that spurred DC to do what they do, try to catch lightning in a bottle over and over. And they only ever end up with broken glass.

The only thing that worked for me in that entire story was the Batman and Tim scene in issue...what was it, 5 or 6 (?), where they were rushing to Tim's home. That was the only scene in the entire series that had me feel really anything.

[Mat001]

They could wear a regular suit one'd wear to a funeral, with a simple mask instead of going as a halloween party on acid.

Except that they've worn their costumes for Superman, Hal Jordan, Metamorpho and others who have died. It's not that uncommon for them to do that and it was in keeping with continuity.

[Kiryu]

Except that they've worn their costumes for Superman, Hal Jordan, Metamorpho and others who have died. It's not that uncommon for them to do that and it was in keeping with continuity.

Superman had the gigantic public funeral for a friend thing so the costumes seemed more appropriate there. Seeing them in a huge parade made sense. Seeing them in church with Ralph's goofy elastic face? Kinda sorta pretty dumb.

I can't speak to Jordan or Metamorpho's funeral.

[Mat001]

To be fair, Superman's was so huge because of what his existence meant to the world. Sue Dibney's would be smaller due to her being important to her friends and family. No church in Metropolis would be big enough for that, hence Lex arranged for it to be held in Centennial Park. When it came to Rex's funeral, Clark was the only one there and he was in costume. The service was outdoors and at the graveyard where heroes are buried, which was recently seen in "Blackest Night". J'onn's service, while it was held on Mars, everyone was in costume for it. Same with the ceremony for Conner and the fallen in Metropolis in "52" week 1.

[madhunter]

Its pretty funny if you go to the 2nd Ware interview and see the piece that says " I HATE YOU and I DON'T CARE IF I EVER SEE YOU AGAIN , and I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY TO YOU''. That's some real life affirming stuff right there.

[Julian Fine]

Its pretty funny if you go to the 2nd Ware interview and see the piece that says " I HATE YOU and I DON'T CARE IF I EVER SEE YOU AGAIN , and I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY TO YOU''. That's some real life affirming stuff right there.

It's a Quimby Mouse strip which is a riff on Krazy Kat and the abusive relationship between Krazy and Ignatz. The joke is that "the lady doth protest too much". It's one of his first comics, done when he was still a student, and he encourages people not to buy it because he doesn't think that much of it. I mainly posted that interview because he talked directly about superheros and why they don't work for him, he completely owned up to the criticism of his work being self involved even as his country is starting wars to keep him and the rest of us in the USA pampered, recognized issues of class and his own blind spots, and he did it all while apologizing for offending anybody or talking out of turn... I just don't see the snobbery there.

[Schnitzy Pretzelpants]

Personally I think IC stands pretty well on it's own as a testament to poor storytelling, immature exploration of "mature themes" and in my opinion, a basic failure of storytelling. The even more terrible attempts by DC's bottom feeders to emulate it are more like bonus. The story itself, from my view of course, isn't one that pushes Superheroes into a darker place or explores edgy territory in pursuit of an amazing story. It reads more like "The-Justice-League-After-School-Rape-Special", kinda like whenever Winick pushes his agenda poorly. Like the America's Most Wanted issue of Outsiders.

It's possible to explore more mature themes like rape and violence in way more interesting and thoughtful ways then how Meltzer explored them. I think IC gets a lot of credit for being this "Big dark mature thing" but I feel it's just kind of a stupid story. And that scene with Elongated Man's face losing it, looks pretty stupid. I get that maybe the intent Meltzer was trying to convey or explore was how this serious dark subject matter works in this nonsensical superhero word, and I think that answer was poorly.

Dr Light and his dumb hat pounding away and Sue's ass, Elgongated mans face going all funny, him clutching his wifes smoldering arms in his elasti-hands? I don't think any of it works. It's done with this odd creepy reverence Meltzer has for the Superfriends mixed with this childlike view on "serious" matter. It creates a clash that, I dunno, instead of making superheroes more dark and serious and mature kinda accentuates how ridiculous and silly they are by painting them against this backdrop that doesn't at all fit. With these gaudy characters in their stupid costumes standing around referring to each other by their grown up names, attending funerals in costume. And not like gigantic services in the vein of Death of Superman, but in a church in a personal funeral and it just feels..dumb.

And I can't applaud Meltzer because rape or dark subject matter in superhero comics is nothing new. Deadshot's kid was raped to death by some creepy retarded guy in Suicide Squad back in the 80s. Alan Moore had Joker stripping off Babara Gordon's clothes and photographing as she bled out long before Meltzer crept into comics. Hell Swamp Thing had a subplot of Arcane trying to come back from hell to rape his daughter to make a new body for himself if I remember correctly. Meltzer hardly revolutionized anything, he just made a lot of sales and that spurred DC to do what they do, try to catch lightning in a bottle over and over. And they only ever end up with broken glass.


The universe must have righted itself, as we are back to agreeing with each other.

The depiction of the rape was unnecessary to the plot of this story, as was it's presence period, and the sheer brutality of what happened to Sue, in terms of her death was already pretty grim - not just killed, but burned to a crisp. Not just killed and burnt to a crisp but killed and burnt to a crisp while pregnant!

You're looking good, DC Comics.

My god, the actual depiction of the rape - while certainly not explicit - seemed like it would have almost been at home in a JLA: Tijuana Bible.

The page that someone posted of the funeral and Ralph crying and losing composure highlights yet another aspect of Meltzer that drove me bananas in this story - the sheer macho-bullsh*t of his writing.

You've got two characters saying crap like 'Hold it together' and 'Be strong' - indicating that on some level were being told that crying and losing your composure at the death of your wife is the antithesis of showing strength.

This page, and the writing on it is a watered down version of the same macho-bullsh*t writing over Ralph recounting the rape - which if memory serves was something like: "Sue told me she resisted him. I pray that she resisted him."

What the hell?

Sorry, but in regards to IC, I have said it before, and I will say it again - maturity in subject matter isn't a matter of purely depicting a given act or using an 'adult' plot device. The maturity reveals itself in HOW you use or depict those things.

Loudly proclaiming you are 'above' childish things isn't a sign of maturity - it's proof of your adolescence.

[Eumenides]

As for GM's rape quote, maybe he was mis-quoted or didn't count Vertigo books, or felt pressured,or had a bad day,or thought he was Gideon Stargave or just knew that it would be a lot of publicity. I don't want to play the defend game because its not my battle. But I do think its interesting how much people HATE GM. There are people posting the same negative comments on different blogs and forums, one post on this thread is also on the 4th letter blog. It just seems weird that people hate him so much. Some people seem disillusioned by him,that hes not perfect.Is that really a surprise?

If I seem to hate Grant Morrison - and I acknowledge my posts have a very angry tone - it's because I've long admired and so I'm baffled by his about-face. I'm disillusioned that a writer who used to bring so many influences from outside comics - literature, art, fairy-tales, science, history, etc. - has fallen into the dark abyss of incestuous continuity and pointless revamps and doesn't seem to have any interest in getting out. I'm disillusioned that the writer who used to criticise big corporations and conformism in his comics has become a corporate tool. I'm disturbed that Morrison prefers we worship Superman than the men who created Superman. I'm disturbed Morrison prefers to write Kirby's characters than being as great as Kirby, who was great exactly because he created his own characters. I'm disturbed that a man who has written awesome non-superhero comics now thinks comics are only about superheroes. I'm disappointed that a man who seemed to have such a good understanding of the complexity of life, now thinks comics should only be light-hearted, moralising escapism.

I don't recognise Grant Morrison anymore. I don't know who he is now, but he's certainly not the person who wrote Doom Patrol and The Invisibles. As time goes by, I have less reasons to admire Morrison.

[Julian Fine]

So why didn't you like Seaguy? That seems like it would have been your thing. I'm still at a loss as to how the man who wrote Supergods is the same man who wrote Seaguy, they seem so antithetical to each other.

[Ben D]

Moore's done nothing to Geoff Johns outside what some fans think he's actually said or done.

http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-reflects-marvelman-part-2_article_117529.html

[Julian Fine]

Haha Moore still covets his Herbie comics.

[carabas]

I don't recognise Grant Morrison anymore. I don't know who he is now, but he's certainly not the person who wrote Doom Patrol and The Invisibles. As time goes by, I have less reasons to admire Morrison.
He seems to have realised an inescapable truth about American comics. You wanna make money doing them, you goota do capes, and ancient capes at that.
He's just lucky he really loves capes.

He still does creator-owned, non-superhero books. And he's moved out of comics and into screenplays for more non-superhero work.

But he seems to honestly and truely love superheroes, and still creates more new characters than any 5 writers at Marvel and DC put together.
It's not that he hasn't tried, but come on, once you do x number of comicbooks about new characters that you can't finish because the audience simply loaths new characters, why keep running into that wall?

[Theozilla]

Grant Morrison is still creating a lot of new characters. Just because he enjoys writing about superheroes and does more of them currently than vertigo-esque stuff does not make him a sell-out.

[pariah-1972]

Personally I think IC stands pretty well on it's own as a testament to poor storytelling, immature exploration of "mature themes" and in my opinion, a basic failure of storytelling. The even more terrible attempts by DC's bottom feeders to emulate it are more like bonus. The story itself, from my view of course, isn't one that pushes Superheroes into a darker place or explores edgy territory in pursuit of an amazing story. It reads more like "The-Justice-League-After-School-Rape-Special", kinda like whenever Winick pushes his agenda poorly. Like the America's Most Wanted issue of Outsiders.

It's possible to explore more mature themes like rape and violence in way more interesting and thoughtful ways then how Meltzer explored them. I think IC gets a lot of credit for being this "Big dark mature thing" but I feel it's just kind of a stupid story. And that scene with Elongated Man's face losing it, looks pretty stupid. I get that maybe the intent Meltzer was trying to convey or explore was how this serious dark subject matter works in this nonsensical superhero word, and I think that answer was poorly.

Dr Light and his dumb hat pounding away and Sue's ass, Elgongated mans face going all funny, him clutching his wifes smoldering arms in his elasti-hands? I don't think any of it works. It's done with this odd creepy reverence Meltzer has for the Superfriends mixed with this childlike view on "serious" matter. It creates a clash that, I dunno, instead of making superheroes more dark and serious and mature kinda accentuates how ridiculous and silly they are by painting them against this backdrop that doesn't at all fit. With these gaudy characters in their stupid costumes standing around referring to each other by their grown up names, attending funerals in costume. And not like gigantic services in the vein of Death of Superman, but in a church in a personal funeral and it just feels..dumb.

And I can't applaud Meltzer because rape or dark subject matter in superhero comics is nothing new. Deadshot's kid was raped to death by some creepy retarded guy in Suicide Squad back in the 80s. Alan Moore had Joker stripping off Babara Gordon's clothes and photographing as she bled out long before Meltzer crept into comics. Hell Swamp Thing had a subplot of Arcane trying to come back from hell to rape his daughter to make a new body for himself if I remember correctly. Meltzer hardly revolutionized anything, he just made a lot of sales and that spurred DC to do what they do, try to catch lightning in a bottle over and over. And they only ever end up with broken glass.I agree with everything you are saying but another fault i had was that it felt like it was trying to rip off Watchmen in a lot of ways and only getting the surface stuff and none of the depth.

[Julian Fine]

Grant Morrison is still creating a lot of new characters. Just because he enjoys writing about superheroes and does more of them currently than vertigo-esque stuff does not make him a sell-out.

No, but his attitude towards Siegel and Shuster, and very likely helping DC screw their heirs out of royalties for the rights they have won back just might.

[Eumenides]

He seems to have realised an inescapable truth about American comics. You wanna make money doing them, you goota do capes, and ancient capes at that.
He's just lucky he really loves capes.

He still does creator-owned, non-superhero books. And he's moved out of comics and into screenplays for more non-superhero work.

But he seems to honestly and truely love superheroes, and still creates more new characters than any 5 writers at Marvel and DC put together.
It's not that he hasn't tried, but come on, once you do x number of comicbooks about new characters that you can't finish because the audience simply loaths new characters, why keep running into that wall?

Comnpared to many other writers, he does very little creator-owned work. Greg Rucka, Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis and Ed Brubaker are always starting new ongoings. There are creators who work a bit in the mainstream to support their creator-owned series. Morrison seems to be the opposite: he's all mainstream and once in a while puts a 3-issue mini out for appearences.

It's a fact mainstream fans can't stand new characters at DC and Marvel - it's hopeless to expect Aztek or Zuriel to ever be popular. But new characters do well in Dark Horse and Image and other companies. And they do make money - some are turned into movies, TV series, turned into merchandise. It's not easy but no one said it had to be. But you have better chances with these companies than with Vertigo. Warner didn't allow a channel to turn DMZ into a TV show, Brian Wood was just discussing that on the Vertigo section the other day.

If Morrison doesn't have the courage to make it on his own, if he needs to lean on DC forever, don't expect me to praise him eternally while his peers boldly take chances with the smaller companies with excellent results. Once again it comes down to this: King Mob has become a company stooge. All that counterculture, non-conformist, mind-expanding stuff in The Invisible is looking like rubbish right now. If he wrote it again today the Outer Church would be the good guys...

[pariah-1972]

Am i the only one who thinks Morrison is just dissing Moore cause he is jealous of him?

[BlueLily]

Am i the only one who thinks Morrison is just dissing Moore cause he is jealous of him?

You are. They are both amazing writers who have covered slightly similar subject matter with vastly different approaches, and I'd include Neil Gaiman in that too. Morrison is my favorite, but none of them are jealous of each other. They've carved out their niches and they deserve all the acclaim they get.

[pariah-1972]

You are. They are both amazing writers who have covered slightly similar subject matter with vastly different approaches, and I'd include Neil Gaiman in that too. Morrison is my favorite, but none of them are jealous of each other. They've carved out their niches and they deserve all the acclaim they get.Slightly similar? and i don't see Neil in the same company at all since he rarely works on Superhero's.

[king mob]

The last straw and a half for you.


Yes, which was also the case for a lot of readers as DC have still been bleeding readers, which is why they've done this huge relaunch as a last chance to make DC successful again.


Look, the art in that particular scene is very strong. Morales put in some of his best work on that book, in my opinion. The dialogue is appropriate to the scene. It's not florid or overly sentimental. The only thing you can be objecting to is the scene itself. Which I understand. But you're objecting to it within the context of the rest of the miniseries or superhero comics going 'darker' on the whole.

I'm objecting to it because it's emotionally stunted and the sort of thing a fan would write if they'd had no experience of the real world. The entire set up of that scene is just dreadful, and the art is fine, but the script is just awful.




Yeah, see, this is you objecting to the entire miniseries. I get it. The ending sucked and I understand people having issues with the rape.


The thing is you can't ignore the rape and the ending which makes no sense at all and say 'this was a great comic' because it's excusing a logical flaw in the end, and an exploitative rape scene using kids characters, not to mention the dripping misogyny in the entire series. It's impossible to be objective about the thing and ignore these points to make it seem like it was a good comic: it wasn't. The rape alone should have had someone at DC going 'hang on a bloody minute', but it passed and that means there was an editorial decision to allow that scene. That's frankly unforgivable.



Right, I knew someone would come back with that. That it's not actually mature. I'll even concede that. But do you think teenagers today want All-Star Superman or Batgirl or Powergirl or any of the brighter comics that are being published? No. The darkness is not what is keeping younger readers away.

It's not the only reason, but it's a contributory reason.


Novels like Twilight, the Hunger Games...even Harry Potter...have a dark edge to them. They have all done very well with teenagers.

I started reading comics from 4 or 5, and superhero comics about 6 or 7. I'd never consider giving a 5 year old a DC comic now to read.

Superhero comics are pitching away from children and younger readers, and frankly this lust for a 'dark' edge is just a wee bit sad. Introduce it when it makes sense as a storyline, or a lot point but this arbitrary 'things have to be dark' bollocks isn't making comics especially enjoyable, especially when much of what's deemed 'dark' is really just pointless sex and violence.




Yeah, but making comics brighter or trying to inject more "joy" is not necessarily the answer to pulling those readers back in. Hell, it might be too late to pull them back in by just publishing great stories.

It might but we'll never know while the big two pitch their comics to a decreasing amount of readers who are mainly adults.

[king mob]

As for GM's rape quote, maybe he was mis-quoted or didn't count Vertigo books, or felt pressured,or had a bad day,or thought he was Gideon Stargave or just knew that it would be a lot of publicity. I don't want to play the defend game because its not my battle. But I do think its interesting how much people HATE GM. There are people posting the same negative comments on different blogs and forums, one post on this thread is also on the 4th letter blog. It just seems weird that people hate him so much. Some people seem disillusioned by him,that hes not perfect.Is that really a surprise?

Do take into account Grant and Mark Millar called Alan Grant one of the 'old men who live in castles' who used to write comics in an infamous interview in the early 90's. He's got form for sticking it into creators before.

[T Hedge Coke]

Do take into account Grant and Mark Millar called Alan Grant one of the 'old men who live in castles' who used to write comics in an infamous interview in the early 90's. He's got form for sticking it into creators before.

Shortly after Millar was staying in Alan Grant's home, as a guest, wasn't it? Wasn't that a "Summer Offensive" interview, and hence, more offensive than legitimate? (However poorly or well-conceived, depending on your take.)

[henrymalredo]

Comnpared to many other writers, he does very little creator-owned work. Greg Rucka, Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis and Ed Brubaker are always starting new ongoings. There are creators who work a bit in the mainstream to support their creator-owned series. Morrison seems to be the opposite: he's all mainstream and once in a while puts a 3-issue mini out for appearences.

It's a fact mainstream fans can't stand new characters at DC and Marvel - it's hopeless to expect Aztek or Zuriel to ever be popular. But new characters do well in Dark Horse and Image and other companies. And they do make money - some are turned into movies, TV series, turned into merchandise. It's not easy but no one said it had to be. But you have better chances with these companies than with Vertigo. Warner didn't allow a channel to turn DMZ into a TV show, Brian Wood was just discussing that on the Vertigo section the other day.

If Morrison doesn't have the courage to make it on his own, if he needs to lean on DC forever, don't expect me to praise him eternally while his peers boldly take chances with the smaller companies with excellent results. Once again it comes down to this: King Mob has become a company stooge. All that counterculture, non-conformist, mind-expanding stuff in The Invisible is looking like rubbish right now. If he wrote it again today the Outer Church would be the good guys...

I think Morrision like to write superhero comics and that's all their is to it. It's silly that you curse him as a sell-out because he's been able to go in this different direction since the start of his career. Honestly, You're starting to sound like the old folkies who heckled Dylan for going electric.

[king mob]

http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-reflects-marvelman-part-2_article_117529.html

Yes, he's insulting Johns personally here.


Bloody hell.


Read the relevant paragraph.


AM: That’s it. It’s the paucity of imagination. I was noticing that DC seems to have based one of its latest crossovers [Blackest Night] in Green Lantern based on a couple of eight-page stories that I did 25 or 30 years ago. I would have thought that would seem kind of desperate and humiliating, When I have said in interviews that it doesn’t look like the American comic book industry has had an idea of its own in the past 20 or 30 years, I was just being mean. I didn’t expect the companies concerned to more or less say, “Yeah, he’s right. Let’s see if we can find another one of his stories from 30 years ago to turn into some spectacular saga.” It’s tragic. The comics that I read as a kid that inspired me were full of ideas. They didn’t need some upstart from England to come over there and tell them how to do comics. They’d got plenty of ideas of their own. But these days, I increasingly get a sense of the comics industry going through my trashcan like raccoons in the dead of the night.

He's got a point, and he makes that point well, but this isn't a slight against Geoff Johns lack of imagination by itself, as frankly I don't think Moore especially cares, but the lack of imagination on show is bloody obvious for all to see.

[king mob]

No, but his attitude towards Siegel and Shuster, and very likely helping DC screw their heirs out of royalties for the rights they have won back just might.

That was the shock to me as frankly it's hugely hypocritical considering how much Grant's tried to hold onto trademarks he's created such as Zenith, or his creator owned work for DC. I can only surmise his position in Supergods is that of a DC employee, rather than someone whose enjoyed the benefits of creator owned comics, and some healthy WFH contracts which allowed him royalties from characters he's created.

[king mob]

Am i the only one who thinks Morrison is just dissing Moore cause he is jealous of him?

No, far from it. Without Moore, Morrison wouldn't be writing comics, but they're entirely different writers with their own styles.

[king mob]

Shortly after Millar was staying in Alan Grant's home, as a guest, wasn't it? Wasn't that a "Summer Offensive" interview, and hence, more offensive than legitimate? (However poorly or well-conceived, depending on your take.)

It was in the Glasgow Herald or the Scotsman, but I've been trying to track it down and can't find it online, and yes, it was around that time and frankly neither have ever apologised in public as far as I'm aware. Alan Grant gave Morrison his break in 2000AD, and helped Mark Millar so much from teaching him how to write scripts to giving him his big break on 2000AD after his earlier work with Trident. The pair of them had no right to slag Alan Grant off because it'd make good copy in an interview, but this is going back the role certain Glaswegian journalists have played in creating the myths circulating round Morrison and Millar.

[pariah-1972]

No, far from it. Without Moore, Morrison wouldn't be writing comics, but they're entirely different writers with their own styles.Ok just so i don't sound stupid can you detail for me the differences between the two?

[T Hedge Coke]

The pair of them had no right to slag Alan Grant off because it'd make good copy in an interview, but this is going back the role certain Glaswegian journalists have played in creating the myths circulating round Morrison and Millar.

No, they didn't. I didn't mean to imply that they did or that it was warranted, though it pr'y did (along with things like the young-rebel-Morrison vs Moore-the-elder-statesman-and-rape-writer or "Mark Millar created Apollo and Midnighter, superviolent gay Batman and Superman") well for their careers at the time. In the long(er) run, it just looks mean, if nothing else.

Cheap shots are cheap shots.

Semi-apropos, it was well executed of Warren Ellis, not too long ago, to point out that for all the bashing of "old guard" being done by Didio and Lee in the hype for the DCnU, they were and are the old guard, too.

[T Hedge Coke]

No, far from it. Without Moore, Morrison wouldn't be writing comics, but they're entirely different writers with their own styles.

Morrison has admitted to this before, though he says with Watchmen, it's simply that he doesn't really like it. A position I can understand.

Alan Moore is the elephant in the room. He's done work that remains in print and top-selling for decades. He's left the major comics presses without it damaging his ability to publish widely. He's been on The Simpsons. And, even when he's joking, many many people take him deathly serious.

[king mob]

Ok just so i don't sound stupid can you detail for me the differences between the two?

Well you can tell a Moore or a Morrison script because they have different voices, unlike a huge number of mainstream superhero writers who are frankly interchangeable. Both have influences outside of comics and many of those same influences are the same, but for example you'll see Morrison use surrealism more than Moore, and although both use magic as a theme in their writing, they use it differently.

I'm sure someone else will provide you with a longer post but the major differences are pretty clear.

[king mob]

No, they didn't. I didn't mean to imply that they did or that it was warranted, though it pr'y did (along with things like the young-rebel-Morrison vs Moore-the-elder-statesman-and-rape-writer or "Mark Millar created Apollo and Midnighter, superviolent gay Batman and Superman") well for their careers at the time. In the long(er) run, it just looks mean, if nothing else.

Cheap shots are cheap shots.



It was exceptionally mean and I know Alan Grant is still pissed off at the pair of them, as are a number of people in the Scottish comics scene because of what they've said at various points since then.


Semi-apropos, it was well executed of Warren Ellis, not too long ago, to point out that for all the bashing of "old guard" being done by Didio and Lee in the hype for the DCnU, they were and are the old guard, too.
Absolutely and Morrison is now as much 'old guard' as Alan Grant was nearly 20 years ago, and he'd better hope some bright young gun doesn't come along and decide to play the same tricks upon him in order to get a name for themselves.

[ReservoirDawgs]

What short story is Moore talking about when he references Geoff Johns using a story for Blackest Night?

[king mob]

Alan Moore is the elephant in the room. He's done work that remains in print and top-selling for decades. He's left the major comics presses without it damaging his ability to publish widely. He's been on The Simpsons. And, even when he's joking, many many people take him deathly serious.

Moore still makes DC an awful lot of money, not to mention he gives them an awful lot of prestige for printing Watchmen and completing V For Vendetta, so it's understandable (though not excusable) that DC would mine Moore's back catalogue of DC work to create new events and stories so they can still say they're being creative, when in fact, they're not.

But Moore's a huge elephant in the room as he had the bollocks to leave superhero comics behind him and move on, mush to the dismay of some fans who can't see why he'd want to do some so sacrilegious. Truth is he'd said his piece, and now he's able to do what he wants, including this wonderful bit of TV. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcG2t_idcTA)

[king mob]

What short story is Moore talking about when he references Geoff Johns using a story for Blackest Night?

A story he and Kev O'Neill did for a Green Lantern Corps annual in the 80's, and I'll bet you that neither of them received a penny for it. Considering they're using Kev's designs still that's a bit off to say the least.

[pariah-1972]

It was exceptionally mean and I know Alan Grant is still pissed off at the pair of them, as are a number of people in the Scottish comics scene because of what they've said at various points since then.

Absolutely and Morrison is now as much 'old guard' as Alan Grant was nearly 20 years ago, and he'd better hope some bright young gun doesn't come along and decide to play the same tricks upon him in order to get a name for themselves.Which is weird cause i don't know of anyone in American Comics that would blatantly diss the old guard, i mean Byrne hates everyone and everything, but you couldn't force him to say anything negative about anyone that came before him.

[Kyle Anderson]

A story he and Kev O'Neill did for a Green Lantern Corps annual in the 80's, and I'll bet you that neither of them received a penny for it. Considering they're using Kev's designs still that's a bit off to say the least.

I read the story. What designt are they using? The oracles from Atrocitus' planet only show up in one issue. Atrocitus is new.

[ReservoirDawgs]

A story he and Kev O'Neill did for a Green Lantern Corps annual in the 80's, and I'll bet you that neither of them received a penny for it. Considering they're using Kev's designs still that's a bit off to say the least.

I mean, what specific parts did Johns use for Blackest Night?

[T Hedge Coke]

Not to be a hypeman, but king mob, you (and others) may want to check out Pop Mechanics in a few months, when we run some comments from Alan Grant (and others) on responsibility and integrity in comics and doing comics.


I mean, what specific parts did Johns use for Blackest Night?

A prophecy, the "Blackest Night" prophecy and some other ancillary bits.

Really, considering the best thing Johns could think to do with Mogo was kill him, I think Moore probably had a stronger point than I had thought at the time.

It's worth noting that Moore is self-criticizing as well, there, claiming the only real quality of those stories is the art and maybe some of the stings ("Mogo doesn't socialize" or "F-Sharp Bell" are the point). One-offs.

[Ramage]

--I read We3 for the first time last week. It was good. He can still do nonsuperhero stories.

I don't blame the guy for writing superheroes, making a little money and having some fun

[pariah-1972]

I don't think Geoff ripped off or whatever anything Moore did he just took something someone else did and made it his own or expanded on it which is a lot of what playing in the big sandbox is all about.

It's not like Alan Moore invented the whole Green Lantern Mythos or the oath.

[punkfrodo2009]

I feel exactly the same as grant does regarding trends in comics. Very few writers have their heads on straight. Pple i like are Johns, Bendis, Jerry Ordway, Jeff smith, Scott snyder (for his project superman. really gripping and kind of a gothy alternate history for Superman. I think Tim burton would've gone for snyder's flashpoint superman), steve niles and Matt Fraction.

[direction9]

If I seem to hate Grant Morrison - and I acknowledge my posts have a very angry tone - it's because I've long admired and so I'm baffled by his about-face. I'm disillusioned that a writer who used to bring so many influences from outside comics - literature, art, fairy-tales, science, history, etc. - has fallen into the dark abyss of incestuous continuity and pointless revamps and doesn't seem to have any interest in getting out. I'm disillusioned that the writer who used to criticise big corporations and conformism in his comics has become a corporate tool. I'm disturbed that Morrison prefers we worship Superman than the men who created Superman. I'm disturbed Morrison prefers to write Kirby's characters than being as great as Kirby, who was great exactly because he created his own characters. I'm disturbed that a man who has written awesome non-superhero comics now thinks comics are only about superheroes. I'm disappointed that a man who seemed to have such a good understanding of the complexity of life, now thinks comics should only be light-hearted, moralising escapism.

I don't recognise Grant Morrison anymore. I don't know who he is now, but he's certainly not the person who wrote Doom Patrol and The Invisibles. As time goes by, I have less reasons to admire Morrison.

man what a bunch of drivel. dude creates more of his own characters and fleshes them out quicker and more successfully than anyone in the business, for one. and his comics are pretty much never ever light-hearted. the influences from outside comics never left. where do i even start with this post, damn.
listen you don't recognize him anymore because you aren't paying attention.

[direction9]

No, but his attitude towards Siegel and Shuster, and very likely helping DC screw their heirs out of royalties for the rights they have won back just might.

guys i read supergods too, and morrison doesn't have some unhealthy attitutde towards these guys. his point about the sacrifices required by these gods doesn't excuse anyone for screwing them out of royalties.

[Julian Fine]

The truth, as ever, is less dramatic. The deal was done in 1938, before Superman boomed. Siegel and Shuster were both twenty-three whenthey sold the copyright to Superman. They had worked together forseveral years in the cutthroat world of pulp periodical publishing, and,like so many artists, musicians, and entertainers, they were creating a product to sell. Superman was a foot in the door, a potential break that might put them in demand as big-time pop content providers. Superman was a sacrifice to the gods of commercial success. If my own understanding of the creative mind carries any weight, I’d suspect that both Siegel and Shuster imagined they’d create other, better characters.

But by 1946, they realized how much money their creation was raking in. They sued National, unsuccessfully, and then tried to repeat Superman’s success with the unendearing, short-lived Funnyman (a crime-fighting clown). Siegel was also responsible for the gruesomely vindictive avenging super ghost the Spectre and cyborg hero Robotman. He would even write that quintessential British superhero strip The Spider , but the relative obscurity of those perfectly well-conceived characters tells its own story. Jerry Siegel failed to create any more features with the primal impact of Superman, but he and Joe Shuster had done something spectacular—established the rules and foundations upon which new universes could be built.

(In 1975, in the face of mounting bad publicity, Warner Bros. [DC’s parent company] finally awarded Siegel and Shuster each a $20,000 per year compensation along with an assured creator credit on every subsequent Superman comic, TV show, movie, or game. I’m sure it helped, but as an example of how far the business has come, today a prolific and pop-ular comics writer could make the same amount in a week. Legal battles between the Siegel estate and DC over the ownership of Superman con-tinue to this day.)

And of course, once they had sold the rights and Superman started tothrive in other media, Siegel and Shuster were no longer sole arbiters of their brainchild’s destiny. Te radio writers had added new essential ele-ments to the lore, such as the killer space mineral kryptonite. on the comics side a team of studio assistants helped keep the furnace fed.Superman needed the power of ten men, and more, to supply the demandfor his incredible feats. Set free of his creators, he was to change radically and constantly over the next seven decades, to keep up with—or, in somecases predict—seismic shifts in fashion, politics, and audience demographics. Superman now had a metamorphic, elastic quality that would allow him to survive. Forty years later, with a big-budget Superman movie on the way in 1978, Siegel was employed as a clerk and Shuster was partially blind in a California nursing home. As for Superman, he hadn’t aged a single day. Whatever those boys made, it was made to last: stronger, faster, fitter, and more durable than any human being.

Actually, it’s as if he’s more real than we are. We writers come and go,generations of artists leave their interpretations, and yet something per-sists, something that is always Superman.

At least somebody decided to cut out the italicized line saying "They wanted to be bought!".

[direction9]

was there supposed to be some counterargument there? because there wasn't

[Mat001]

I don't think Geoff ripped off or whatever anything Moore did he just took something someone else did and made it his own or expanded on it which is a lot of what playing in the big sandbox is all about.

It's not like Alan Moore invented the whole Green Lantern Mythos or the oath.

That's the issue that Moore has. Right or wrong, Moore believes that Johns isn't talented enough to come up with his own story to create "Blackest Night" with and instead used his work. He'd have the same issue with the Clone Saga being mined from Gerry Conway's Amazing Spider-Man run, if he had read either storyline. Much less had wrote it.

[king mob]

I read the story. What designt are they using? The oracles from Atrocitus' planet only show up in one issue. Atrocitus is new.

That's still using Kev's designs, and that's on top of using the whole prophesy element Moore had in his story.

[king mob]

Not to be a hypeman, but king mob, you (and others) may want to check out Pop Mechanics in a few months, when we run some comments from Alan Grant (and others) on responsibility and integrity in comics and doing comics.




I'll have a look at that actually, thanks for the heads up.


A prophecy, the "Blackest Night" prophecy and some other ancillary bits.

Really, considering the best thing Johns could think to do with Mogo was kill him, I think Moore probably had a stronger point than I had thought at the time.

I don't understand the lack of imagination in killing Mogo as there's a lot a writer could do with a planet as a character.


It's worth noting that Moore is self-criticizing as well, there, claiming the only real quality of those stories is the art and maybe some of the stings ("Mogo doesn't socialize" or "F-Sharp Bell" are the point). One-offs.
Moore's well known for taking the piss out of his earlier work, and being quite hard on it. Let's be honest though, as fun as those GL stories were, they were nice pieces because of Kev's art rather than Moore doing something new with superhero comics. They helped paid the rent.

[king mob]

I don't think Geoff ripped off or whatever anything Moore did he just took something someone else did and made it his own or expanded on it which is a lot of what playing in the big sandbox is all about.

It's not like Alan Moore invented the whole Green Lantern Mythos or the oath.

Nope, Moore didn't but he came up with a nice wee story 25 years ago which Johns used as the basis of a huge DC event. That's not running with an original idea.

[king mob]

--I read We3 for the first time last week. It was good. He can still do nonsuperhero stories.


It's a decade old nearly.


I don't blame the guy for writing superheroes, making a little money and having some fun

I know where one of Grant's houses are and he's making more than a 'little' money out of comics, which is fair enough as I can remember the days of him signing on the dole and scraping a living together, but I'm not sure if he's doing it for the money first these days.

[king mob]

At least somebody decided to cut out the italicized line saying "They wanted to be bought!".

I stopped myself reading the book after that point because it's an incredibly jarring segment that handily ignores the financial realities of the comics industry of the 1940's.

I'd have thought Morrison with his knowledge of the music industry and how bands routinely get ripped off, that he'd see things a bit more sympathetically than he did.

[Mat001]

Nope, Moore didn't but he came up with a nice wee story 25 years ago which Johns used as the basis of a huge DC event. That's not running with an original idea.

Neither was any of his other work. Hell, half of it is based on someone else's ideas that he's mined. "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen" owes to a number of literary novels from the 19th and 20th centuries. "Lost Girls" features characters from famous children's tales. And while "Watchmen" has new characters, they're all based on archtypes of established comic book characters. He's a hypocrite of the highest order.

[pariah-1972]

Nope, Moore didn't but he came up with a nice wee story 25 years ago which Johns used as the basis of a huge DC event. That's not running with an original idea.Boy you really missed my whole point didn't you? Once again kiddies MOORE didn't invent the Green Lantern Mythology !

He contributed a story to an established character and that story was built on stuff that other people( namely the original creators of Green Lantern) did that came before him which is exactly what Mainstream comics do.


Geoff Johns whole work is based on using other peoples stories and characters and then retconning it in a way to make it his own which is exactly what Moore did on Swamp Thing.

[Jody Garland]

I don't understand the lack of imagination in killing Mogo as there's a lot a writer could do with a planet as a character.


It actually looks like Geoff is doing something with that. The ending to War of the GL Aftermath #2 hints at something, and Geoff has said that we will see where baby Mogos come from in the upcoming series. At least, I think it was Geoff- might have been Bedard or Tomasi.

[Ben D]

Yes, he's insulting Johns personally here.


Bloody hell.


Read the relevant paragraph.

Bloody hell.

Read the relevant post that started the Moore vs Johns discussion


Which you neglect to mention Moore has done with Geoff Johns.

In fact I didn't say one things about Moore personally insulting Johns.


He's got a point, and he makes that point well, but this isn't a slight against Geoff Johns lack of imagination by itself, as frankly I don't think Moore especially cares, but the lack of imagination on show is bloody obvious for all to see.

Again, first of all, the part specifically using Moore's prophecy was written by Dave Gibbons (with one issue written by Peter Tomasi).

The white lobe? That was in the prophecy?
That was only in a Gibbons' comic.
Ranx the sentient city? That was in the prophecy?
That was only in a Gibbons' comic.

Blackest Night?
None of the characters that were in Moore's prophecy were major characters in that except for in all, three pages.
Which weren't even in the main book, just tie in issues (admittedly the major tie ins.

All Johns did was give hints and nods to the story the "Tygers" while adding his (overused) emotional spectrum idea. Really only two issues in Green Lantern even had the character from the prophecy...

and they were underused. Two issues. Seriously, if these were supposed to be the ones to bring the Corps down, as said in the prophecy, then the Corps is one hell of a terrible army.

[Eumenides]

man what a bunch of drivel. dude creates more of his own characters and fleshes them out quicker and more successfully than anyone in the business, for one.

Oh yes, The Pink Flamingo was a really well-fleshed out villain. I learned oodles about him in Batman & Robin. And Fantomex had such a detailed backstory in his run of New X-Men.


and his comics are pretty much never ever light-hearted.

Batman & Robin, Batman, Inc., All-Star Superman are very light-hearted. But perhaps I exaggerated when I complained about this. I do like his light-heartedness. I think it's sincere. I just object to the fact all (superhero) comics have to be like it. And Morrison comes close to making this point.


the influences from outside comics never left. where do i even start with this post, damn.
listen you don't recognize him anymore because you aren't paying attention.

Back in Doom Patrol's days, a guy created a website (http://homepages.rpi.edu/~bulloj/Doom_Patrol/issue19.html)annotating the countless references to art, literature, philosophy, cinema, music, etc. It's very interesting and shows Morrison's erudition. I remember reading his intro to the first volume of DP and becoming curious about filmmakers he claims inspired him, like Jan Svankmajer and Maya Deren. I went and watched their work and my life has become richer. Where does All-Star Superman direct me? Avant-garde cinema? Obscure works of literature? No, Showcase Presents volumes...

Don't tell me I'm not paying attention!

[Julian Fine]

Oh man, Svankmajer. That's the pure stuff.

[Julian Fine]

And I'm still curious what you have against We3 and Seaguy, Eumenides.

[Theozilla]

Oh yes, The Pink Flamingo was a really well-fleshed out villain. I learned oodles about him in Batman & Robin. And Fantomex had such a detailed backstory in his run of New X-Men.



Batman & Robin, Batman, Inc., All-Star Superman are very light-hearted. But perhaps I exaggerated when I complained about this. I do like his light-heartedness. I think it's sincere. I just object to the fact all (superhero) comics have to be like it. And Morrison comes close to making this point.



Back in Doom Patrol's days, a guy created a website (http://homepages.rpi.edu/~bulloj/Doom_Patrol/issue19.html)annotating the countless references to art, literature, philosophy, cinema, music, etc. It's very interesting and shows Morrison's erudition. I remember reading his intro to the first volume of DP and becoming curious about filmmakers he claims inspired him, like Jan Svankmajer and Maya Deren. I went and watched their work and my life has become richer. Where does All-Star Superman direct me? Avant-garde cinema? Obscure works of literature? No, Showcase Presents volumes...

Don't tell me I'm not paying attention!

I would not call his Batman And Robin stuff lighthearted, maybe campy, but a very dark twisted camp. And just because he is not referencing non-comic literature in his work as much as he used to does not lessen the quality of his work at all. And he still does references as well Batman And Robin had a bunch of Demonology uses and his Seven Soldeirs work is choke full of different hero literature references as well. And referencing older superhero comics is perfectly appropriate when one is writing superhero comics.

[Ben D]

Oh yes, The Pink Flamingo was a really well-fleshed out villain. I learned oodles about him in Batman & Robin. And Fantomex had such a detailed backstory in his run of New X-Men.

I actually agree with you on this, though I just don't think you used good examples. Flamingo was meant to be a side story, next to the Jason vs Dick story (which I will say, besides Scarlet is the low point of his Batman run).

Fantomex was supposed to be like Wolverine in that he was badass, and part of his badassness was that we didn't really know anything about him.

Actually, imho, Morrison is actually bad at back-stories. We don't know much about Pyg, Nova (her fighting Xavier in the womb is not a fleshed out back story), Parasite was more of a plot device in ASS, etc.

[Mr. Holmes]

Actually, imho, Morrison is actually bad at back-stories. We don't know much about Pyg, Nova (her fighting Xavier in the womb is not a fleshed out back story.

Choosing not to reveal a backstory doesn't reflect how good or bad he is at it. I think Morrison has said that he wants his new villains to debut like the Joker, where there was no origin written until decades later, when Alan Moore gave some plausible hints at his origin in Killing Joke.

[pariah-1972]

Oh yes, The Pink Flamingo was a really well-fleshed out villain. I learned oodles about him in Batman & Robin. And Fantomex had such a detailed backstory in his run of New X-Men.



Batman & Robin, Batman, Inc., All-Star Superman are very light-hearted. But perhaps I exaggerated when I complained about this. I do like his light-heartedness. I think it's sincere. I just object to the fact all (superhero) comics have to be like it. And Morrison comes close to making this point.



Back in Doom Patrol's days, a guy created a website (http://homepages.rpi.edu/~bulloj/Doom_Patrol/issue19.html)annotating the countless references to art, literature, philosophy, cinema, music, etc. It's very interesting and shows Morrison's erudition. I remember reading his intro to the first volume of DP and becoming curious about filmmakers he claims inspired him, like Jan Svankmajer and Maya Deren. I went and watched their work and my life has become richer. Where does All-Star Superman direct me? Avant-garde cinema? Obscure works of literature? No, Showcase Presents volumes...

Don't tell me I'm not paying attention!Are you saying that a man can't reference avant-garde cinema and Silver age comics?
i'm confused.

If you are a comic book fan then i don't see what's wrong with leading to to the showcase comics (unless you don't like them)

But anyways i mean the whole point of All Star Superman was to show that the silver age Superman could still be relevant and new.

At least that's what i got out of it.

oh and Lois looks hot in a superhero costume:biggrin:

[Eumenides]

Neither was any of his other work. Hell, half of it is based on someone else's ideas that he's mined. "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen" owes to a number of literary novels from the 19th and 20th centuries. "Lost Girls" features characters from famous children's tales. And while "Watchmen" has new characters, they're all based on archtypes of established comic book characters.

He's a hypocrite of the highest order.

No, he's not.

The value of the short-stories he wrote about the Green Lanterns lies exactly in the fact that the prophecy should never have been brought to life in the DC universe. That's the marvel of the apocalyptic prophecy genre. It works through implication, suggestion, insinuation and is best left vague so we can fill it in with the details from our imagination. When it's brought to life, it becomes cheap. At the end of the day, Blackest Night was a typical, run-of-the-mill superhero slugfest.

Incidentally, since we're discussing Grant Morrison, I believe he made the same mistake in Final Crisis. In trying to bring about the prophecy of the Fifth World, he cheapened the wonder of it. Metron's words were fascinating in the old JLA issue, but the real thing was kind of underwhelming. It just couldn't match expectations because a prophecy is seen individually by each reader. The way it was brought about was certainly not as magnificent and resplendent as I imagined. It was small and insignificant.

But getting back to Moore: he's not a hypocrite because his work is fresh and individual enough to stand on its own. It's true Lost Girls gathers three existing characters, but it was Moore who decided to have the three together in a hotel room on the eve of World War I talking about sex; not Carroll, not Barrie, not Baum. Moore. And the same can be said about everything else he's written.

Johns, on the other hand, followed Moore's ideas almost to a T. It's like he was following a blueprint, more engineer than artist. That does show a poverty of the imagination. He'x just expanding a story. Moore, on the other hand, takes existing characters to places they've never been.

[J. Robb]

Alan Moore is the elephant in the room. He's done work that remains in print and top-selling for decades. He's left the major comics presses without it damaging his ability to publish widely. He's been on The Simpsons. And, even when he's joking, many many people take him deathly serious.
And he's joking a lot. I doubt he really cares what DC does with his old Green Lantern stories.

[pariah-1972]

I actually agree with you on this, though I just don't think you used good examples. Flamingo was meant to be a side story, next to the Jason vs Dick story (which I will say, besides Scarlet is the low point of his Batman run).

Fantomex was supposed to be like Wolverine in that he was badass, and part of his badassness was that we didn't really know anything about him.

Actually, imho, Morrison is actually bad at back-stories. We don't know much about Pyg, Nova (her fighting Xavier in the womb is not a fleshed out back story), Parasite was more of a plot device in ASS, etc.But Parasite isn't a new character so that doesn't really count.. i mean unless you wanna pretend his backstory is different..

[pariah-1972]

No, he's not.

The value of the short-stories he wrote about the Green Lanterns lies exactly in the fact that the prophecy should never have been brought to life in the DC universe. That's the marvel of the apocalyptic prophecy genre. It works through implication, suggestion, insinuation and is best left vague so we can fill it in with the details from our imagination. When it's brought to life, it becomes cheap. At the end of the day, Blackest Night was a typical, run-of-the-mill superhero slugfest.

Incidentally, since we're discussing Grant Morrison, I believe he made the same mistake in Final Crisis. In trying to bring about the prophecy of the Fifth World, he cheapened the wonder of it. Metron's words were fascinating in the old JLA issue, but the real thing was kind of underwhelming. It just couldn't match expectations because a prophecy is seen individually by each reader. The way it was brought about was certainly not as magnificent and resplendent as I imagined. It was small and insignificant.

But getting back to Moore: he's not a hypocrite because his work is fresh and individual enough to stand on its own. It's true Lost Girls gathers three existing characters, but it was Moore who decided to have the three together in a hotel room on the eve of World War I talking about sex; not Carroll, not Barrie, not Baum. Moore. And the same can be said about everything else he's written.

Johns, on the other hand, followed Moore's ideas almost to a T. It's like he was following a blueprint, more engineer than artist. That does show a poverty of the imagination. He'x just expanding a story. Moore, on the other hand, takes existing characters to places they've never been.Wow you are really taking this to whole other level.

[Julian Fine]

Eh, Moore's tirades against writers for working with his ideas has always rung hollow and petty with me. He can be just as much of a self aggrandizing blowhard as the rest of them. I do appreciate how vocal he is about creators rights and the importance of opening the market up beyond corporate brands, but he could do with a bit of humble pie. It does make me wonder what kind of interviews Morrison is going to be giving five or ten years when he's in the same position.

[Eumenides]

Are you saying that a man can't reference avant-garde cinema and Silver age comics?
i'm confused.

I very much liked the nods to older comics in Doom Patrol, like the one paying homage to a Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four issue, and DC One Million, just when I was getting into DC, was an amazing crash course on the wonder and beauty of the company's rich history.

But I do get the impression the old erudition is missing from Morrison's recent comics. He's looking too deply into the past of DC and writing with too much nostalgia for my taste. I think he's becoming too reclusive, too defensive about comics. And I don't think that's a good idea, creatively speaking.

[Eumenides]

Wow you are really taking this to whole other level.

I'm a serious man. Like Sy Ableman.

[pariah-1972]

I very much liked the nods to older comics in Doom Patrol, like the one paying homage to a Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four issue, and DC One Million, just when I was getting into DC, was an amazing crash course on the wonder and beauty of the company's rich history.

But I do get the impression the old erudition is missing from Morrison's recent comics. He's looking too deply into the past of DC and writing with too much nostalgia for my taste. I think he's becoming too reclusive, too defensive about comics. And I don't think that's a good idea, creatively speaking.Ok i understand that.

Me personally the thing that annoys me about Moorison's recent work is he just throws stuff out there just to see but he doesn't seem to care if it sticks or doesn't.

I think the great thing about Damien is wither you love him or hate him he's not just some random idea thrown in just to be cool he was developed and that's why he has gone on to become popular and has crossed over into other non- Morrison books.

[king mob]

Neither was any of his other work. Hell, half of it is based on someone else's ideas that he's mined. "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen" owes to a number of literary novels from the 19th and 20th centuries. "Lost Girls" features characters from famous children's tales. And while "Watchmen" has new characters, they're all based on archtypes of established comic book characters. He's a hypocrite of the highest order.

And you've not read any of those from what you've typed.


Neither use existing plots, and Watchmen did indeed start as using the Charlton characters but DC wanted to use these characters after Moore was finished with them. The comic changed from being about the Charlton characters to something entirely different.

And LOEG isn't reusing stories as Johns did, it's using characters yes, but the ideas as pure Moore, especially in the latest one.

[king mob]

Boy you really missed my whole point didn't you? Once again kiddies MOORE didn't invent the Green Lantern Mythology !

He contributed a story to an established character and that story was built on stuff that other people( namely the original creators of Green Lantern) did that came before him which is exactly what Mainstream comics do.


He added something new to the GL comics, something Johns took and ran with. That's not an original idea.



Geoff Johns whole work is based on using other peoples stories and characters and then retconning it in a way to make it his own which is exactly what Moore did on Swamp Thing.


No, Moore threw out everything that Swamp Thing had been and started again. Johns just took a Moore story and developed a story from there. That's what Moore means when he says there's a lack of creativity in superhero comics.

[king mob]

Back in Doom Patrol's days, a guy created a website (http://homepages.rpi.edu/~bulloj/Doom_Patrol/issue19.html)annotating the countless references to art, literature, philosophy, cinema, music, etc. It's very interesting and shows Morrison's erudition. I remember reading his intro to the first volume of DP and becoming curious about filmmakers he claims inspired him, like Jan Svankmajer and Maya Deren. I went and watched their work and my life has become richer. Where does All-Star Superman direct me? Avant-garde cinema? Obscure works of literature? No, Showcase Presents volumes...

Don't tell me I'm not paying attention!

Do be fair ASS is Morrison doing Weisenger's Superman, and he is making it as accessible as possible without drenching it in references from outside the ghetto of superhero comics. It doesn't need any more references than that.


However you'll get few writers of superhero comics referencing anything but past comics, Geoff Johns for example, and that's a pity.

[Ben D]

He added something new to the GL comics, something Johns took and ran with. That's not an original idea.




No, Moore threw out everything that Swamp Thing had been and started again. Johns just took a Moore story and developed a story from there. That's what Moore means when he says there's a lack of creativity in superhero comics.

Have you read the run?

Because that's not what happened.

[king mob]

Eh, Moore's tirades against writers for working with his ideas has always rung hollow and petty with me. He can be just as much of a self aggrandizing blowhard as the rest of them. I do appreciate how vocal he is about creators rights and the importance of opening the market up beyond corporate brands, but he could do with a bit of humble pie. It does make me wonder what kind of interviews Morrison is going to be giving five or ten years when he's in the same position.

Morrison is in the same position now in that he's the biggest writer in superhero comics unless Moore decides to have a huge change of mind and return to DC. However Moore doesn't have a go at writers (outside of this ongoing slanging match between him and Morrison) personally, he just decries the paucity of original writing in superhero comics which is perfectly valid.

Also, I don't think Moore's tone and general self depreciating nature comes through well in interviews on the printed page.

[king mob]

Have you read the run?

Because that's not what happened.
I did and that's did what happen. Wein and Wrightson's Swamp Thing was a man trapped in a monsters body, Moore, Bissette's and Totleban's wasn't. It moved away from that to the elemental, and much of the early Moore issues deal with this.

There was a difference. Johns as far as I see just took the old Moore story and developed it into a huge crossover. Now he added his own ideas, but that basic starting point was Moore's.

[Ben D]

I did and that's did what happen. Wein and Wrightson's Swamp Thing was a man trapped in a monsters body, Moore, Bissette's and Totleban's wasn't. It moved away from that to the elemental, and much of the early Moore issues deal with this.

There was a difference. Johns as far as I see just took the old Moore story and developed it into a huge crossover. Now he added his own ideas, but that basic starting point was Moore's.

The basic starting point didn't even have anything to do with Moore though. The starting point for his run was with Rebirth and the hints of the Emotional Spectrum.

[Lancerman]

He added something new to the GL comics, something Johns took and ran with. That's not an original idea.




No, Moore threw out everything that Swamp Thing had been and started again. Johns just took a Moore story and developed a story from there. That's what Moore means when he says there's a lack of creativity in superhero comics.

Not really though. When you read what Moore wrote and what John's wrote he didn't really lift much if anything at all from Moore. At most he took one character from the Five Inversion concept and built a piece of the mythology around him. This also happened to be a character (Atrocitus) which Moore never bothered to develop, flesh out, or characterize. But John's did, so for all intents and purposes thats his character. As well the only other thing was maybe the big doomsday prophecy from Moore's story which was completely different from the Blackest Night we saw in John's story. But it was a doomsday prophecy (like we haven't seen a million of those in comics) and it came from the same prophetic group from Moore's story so I guess we should just credit the entire thing to Moore.

And if we're talking about a lack of creativity, John's came up with the entire emotional entities/spectrum/corps concept. That was all him and it has probably become one of the most popular/important ideas in the recent GL mythos.

[Ben D]

And if we're talking about a lack of creativity, John's came up with the entire emotional entities/spectrum/corps concept. That was all him and it has probably become one of the most popular/important ideas in the recent GL mythos.

This, however, I will say has begun to become very "uncreative", by accident

Ever since the Sinestro Corps War that's basically ALL Johns' has been focusing on (besides minor guest appearances) and it got old after Blackest Night, if not before.

[Lancerman]

This, however, I will say has begun to become very "uncreative", by accident

Ever since the Sinestro Corps War that's basically ALL Johns' has been focusing on (besides minor guest appearances) and it got old after Blackest Night, if not before.

Well if you really look at John's entire run he's only told TWO full stories since SCW. Blackest Night and War of the Green Lantern's. All the other arcs were just build up to those two. And to be fair the entire multi colored corps thing wasn't even fleshed out completely until the very start of Blackest Night.

He told Rage of the Red Lanterns which was build up to Blackest Night and built the Red and Orange Corps.

He told Agent Orange which was build up to Blackest Night and explained the Orange Corps.

He told Blackest Night which was the culmination of every plot point that came out of SCW and everything since.

Then he did New Guardians which was build up to War of the Green Lanterns

And lastly he did WotGL which barely used the multi colored corps at all. The biggest thing was that the main heroes used different rings because the GLC was possessed.

But all in all, since the concept was fully developed there's only been two real stories in the main run.

And at that. The entire thing is Geoff John's baby, it proved to be extremely popular amongst fans, has become a staple of the GL mythos, and is relatively new. So why shouldn't he still exploit it. He made it.

[Ben D]

And at that. The entire thing is Geoff John's baby, it proved to be extremely popular amongst fans, has become a staple of the GL mythos, and is relatively new. So why shouldn't he still exploit it. He made it.

I'm not saying he shouldn't use it, just that a little bit of a break (secret origin doesn't count as it directly gives prologue to the rest of the run) and maybe some down time. I mean most of the New Guardians was filler, why not write a team up or something? Those always seemed to be one of Johns' strengths as a superhero writer.

[pariah-1972]

He added something new to the GL comics, something Johns took and ran with. That's not an original idea.




No, Moore threw out everything that Swamp Thing had been and started again. Johns just took a Moore story and developed a story from there. That's what Moore means when he says there's a lack of creativity in superhero comics.It's like you almost completely don't understand how the big two works anymore.

There is nothing completely "original" almost at all it's all built on other people's stuff and if Alan Moore was actually reading the comics he is so heavily criticizing i'm sure he would understand that.

[Ben D]

Now, just because so many people on this thread are talking about Johns' Green Lantern run, saying they've read it I want you to answer these questions, as they've been answered throughout the run.

1) What does the Cyborg Superman want?
2) Which GL does the Indigo Tribe apparently worship?
3) Saint Walker? Who's that?
4) Name the entities of the Green Lantern Corps and Sinestro Corps
5) Soranik Natu's father? Her partner?
6) Cowgirl?
7) What's different with the new model of Manhunters?

If you can't answer any at least five of those, I honestly don't believe that you've read the run.

[pariah-1972]

Trivia Time Kiddies !!!!!!

[Mat001]

No, he's not.

The value of the short-stories he wrote about the Green Lanterns lies exactly in the fact that the prophecy should never have been brought to life in the DC universe. That's the marvel of the apocalyptic prophecy genre. It works through implication, suggestion, insinuation and is best left vague so we can fill it in with the details from our imagination. When it's brought to life, it becomes cheap. At the end of the day, Blackest Night was a typical, run-of-the-mill superhero slugfest.

That's what it would've been. One great big slugfest.


Incidentally, since we're discussing Grant Morrison, I believe he made the same mistake in Final Crisis. In trying to bring about the prophecy of the Fifth World, he cheapened the wonder of it. Metron's words were fascinating in the old JLA issue, but the real thing was kind of underwhelming. It just couldn't match expectations because a prophecy is seen individually by each reader. The way it was brought about was certainly not as magnificent and resplendent as I imagined. It was small and insignificant.

So? It's not about what we take from it, but about what is presented.


But getting back to Moore: he's not a hypocrite because his work is fresh and individual enough to stand on its own. It's true Lost Girls gathers three existing characters, but it was Moore who decided to have the three together in a hotel room on the eve of World War I talking about sex; not Carroll, not Barrie, not Baum. Moore. And the same can be said about everything else he's written.

Johns, on the other hand, followed Moore's ideas almost to a T. It's like he was following a blueprint, more engineer than artist. That does show a poverty of the imagination. He'x just expanding a story. Moore, on the other hand, takes existing characters to places they've never been.

You can paint it up any way you want, but the fact is the he has mined some else's work for his own creation, rather than coming up with someone completely new in each story. And you know it.


And you've not read any of those from what you've typed.


Neither use existing plots,

He used existing backstories to tell the new ones. In LOEG, he picked up Mina Harker's story that she was bitten by Dracula and was on the verge of turning, only now she is turned. He picked up Alan Quartermain from the latter adventures and went off from there. And so on. Sure, he created original stories, but he used someone else's work to get things started. You don't have to read them all the way through to know this.


and Watchmen did indeed start as using the Charlton characters but DC wanted to use these characters after Moore was finished with them. The comic changed from being about the Charlton characters to something entirely different.

Yes, I am aware of that and did read that series. But he's still using the archtypes of the Question, Blue Beetle, Batman, Superman, Black Canary and Captain Atom. Even with the whole original storyline and universe, you can see the resemblances clearly.


And LOEG isn't reusing stories as Johns did, it's using characters yes, but the ideas as pure Moore, especially in the latest one.

Either way, it's not entirely new. And besides, Johns did change things. He added in the multiple Lantern corps, which were not part of the original story. He added in Nekron as well. Mogo wasn't destroyed then. The Children Of The White Lobe weren't even involved in BN, but in SCW where they attempted to destroy Mogo and failed. He added the story that Earth was where life truly began, changing GL continuity.

[Ben D]

Trivia Time Kiddies !!!!!!

Sorry, but these are mentioned just about every other page of his run. Honestly, if you've actually read the run....

you would probably be sick of being reminded the answers to those questions.

[Julian Fine]

Morrison is in the same position now in that he's the biggest writer in superhero comics unless Moore decides to have a huge change of mind and return to DC.

I meant in a few years when DC passes him on for greener writers like what happened at Marvel. Then he'll be in somewhat the same position as Moore is now except he will have had the luxury of working in an industry that was more friendly to creator rights than it ever was to Moore, or Siegel, or Shuster, or Kirby. I wonder what Morrison's interviews will sound like when that happens.