EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW: "Supreme" #64

[Gavin Higginbotham, BotF]

I can't help but feel that a lot of the people moaning about Moore's stuff being wiped out are being hypocritical. Moore did the same thing with the introduction of The Supremacy. He simply ignored EVERYTHING that went before and started over. But it's ok if Moore does it? Erik has kept Moore's stuff AND the brought back what existed pre-Moore.

Best of both worlds.

[chastmastr]

Good Luck in the next few months, Mr. Larsen, and thanks for listening and interacting with readers -- that's a very, very cool thing.

I agree with everything Quasar's Bands says above, especially this last bit. :)

[Quasar's Bands]

I can't help but feel that a lot of the people moaning about Moore's stuff being wiped out are being hypocritical. Moore did the same thing with the introduction of The Supremacy. He simply ignored EVERYTHING that went before and started over. But it's ok if Moore does it? Erik has kept Moore's stuff AND the brought back what existed pre-Moore.

Best of both worlds.

They are not being hypocritical if they disliked or had no interest in what came before, Gav! :) Moore famously said he'd only take over the title if he could hit the reset button, because he thought the book "wasn't very good." Many Moore fans agreed with this assessment. Needless to say, the rest is history. No Hypocracy there. Now, the question is if Erik Larsen can actually pull some shining nuggets out of that unattractive swamp land, polish them off, and make parts of the old Supreme interesting for Moore fans. That will be the real challenge!

[Gavin Higginbotham, BotF]

They're moaning about Erik doing something that Moore did. But because they didn't like what came before, that makes it ok? I don't think so.

I've no problem with those guys not liking the pre-Moore stuff. It's the disapproval of actions yet championing those same actions by someone else. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

[chastmastr]

I don't think anyone's being hypocritical here (please debate the issue, not attack the poster, by the way). If they were saying that it was bad on principle for a new writer to remove or change the things another writer did, and then gave Moore a free pass for doing it, then yes, that would be hypocritical. But I don't think anyone is doing that. They are saying that to have those things that Moore created violently destroyed (without hope for their return, which I keep living in) would be bad, and that Moore switching gears (and, arguably, universes) from the Liefeld Supreme was good. If Erik had, say, wrapped up the Moore stuff and then said, "Now, all of that was over in the Supremacy, which lives on in its own world, but in this other continuity, where 90s Liefeld bad-guy Supreme lives, this other story is happening, and that's the universe we'll be focusing on," I don't think people would be upset in the same way.

[The Batman]

Let's not be so thin skinned and eager for offense please. Pointing out that someone's position bears a bit of hypocrisy isn't attacking a poster, it's pointing out that their position bears a bit of hypocrisy.

As to Supreme, why shouldn't Larsen have the same opportunity to keep what he wants and toss whatever he likes aside that Moore did? Why shouldn't he have the same opportunity to say what he wants to say that Moore did? Why should he have to coddle the pre-existing fanbase when Moore didn't?

[The Batman]

Also, while we're on the topic of what came before Moore, I wonder if we'll see any nods, oblique or otherwise, to what Kieth Giffen did with the character in Legend of Supreme and the Supreme Annual?

[chastmastr]

Pointing out that someone's position bears a bit of hypocrisy isn't attacking a poster, it's pointing out that their position bears a bit of hypocrisy.

Since hypocrisy is not merely an error in reasoning, but a personal moral failing, then by definition it is attacking the person accused of being hypocritical (even if it is in a large or small way), so I must stand by what I've said: What people are doing in this thread, on either side, need not be an act of hypocrisy in the slightest, but simply a difference of belief resting on an entirely different principle or set of principles than "new writer should never remove or change the things the previous writers have set up." At least in my own case, the question of how that is done is entirely what's at issue, and I think that's the case for many others here. (And, of course, I must add the disclaimer that I live in hope, etc., since having everything apparently be, or temporarily be, destroyed and then somehow restored is very different from having it forever be destroyed, but we haven't seen what happens next.)

[The Batman]

Since hypocrisy is not merely an error in reasoning, but a personal moral failing, then by definition it is attacking the person accused of being hypocritical (even if it is in a large or small way), so I must stand by what I've said: What people are doing in this thread, on either side, need not be an act of hypocrisy in the slightest, but simply a difference of belief resting on an entirely different principle or set of principles than "new writer should never remove or change the things the previous writers have set up." At least in my own case, the question of how that is done is entirely what's at issue, and I think that's the case for many others here. (And, of course, I must add the disclaimer that I live in hope, etc., since having everything apparently be, or temporarily be, destroyed and then somehow restored is very different from having it forever be destroyed, but we haven't seen what happens next.)

Call it hypocrisy or a "difference of beliefs" but it kinda reads like a double standard given that Moore was pretty upfront about wanting to toss everything out and Larsen's said and done almost the exact opposite given the same opportunity. If it's a matter of how it's a done, how is Larsen's method any worse than Moore's? Where Moore waived his hand and did away with something like forty-odd issues of adventures, Larsen's left everything on the table (except maybe the Giffen stuff ;)) albeit in the direst of circumstances. But then, aren't the direst of circumstances when superheroes are supposed to thrive?

I guess my previous questions still stand: Why shouldn't Larsen have the same opportunity to keep what he wants and toss whatever he likes aside that Moore did? Why shouldn't he have the same opportunity to say what he wants to say that Moore did? Why should he have to coddle the pre-existing fanbase when Moore didn't?

[chastmastr]

...Larsen's left everything on the table (except maybe the Giffen stuff ;)) albeit in the direst of circumstances. But then, aren't the direst of circumstances when superheroes are supposed to thrive?

I'm not sure--though again given my hopes mentioned above--that dead, destroyed, and incinerated ordinarily counts as "left on the table."

And, yet again, in answer to your questions, I'm going to repeat that there is a critical difference in method. Apart from some kind of resurrection/rebirth/transcendence/things-not-being-what-they-seem, wonderful cool things were horribly killed and destroyed apparently forever in this issue. Not "tossed aside." Burned to charred skeletons, on-camera, literally. Apart from the possibility of something bringing them back etc., those scenes were sickening and horrible. Now, perhaps they are meant to be, so that the redemption/renewal of it all will be all the more glorious--that's what I'm hoping for. But if that doesn't happen, then something wonderful has been pointlessly destroyed, and I don't think the two situations are remotely comparable.

[gregesis]

Not to mention that the Supreme storyline change took place from one monthly issue to the next. And the book itself was an ongoing title with at least 4 years of steady publishing history.

Moore's Supreme, in spite of its popularity and critical acclaim, had to go on hiatus for business reasons! Twice!! First it was a year plus. Then the second time for 12 years!!

Thats a long time to wait for a storyline to resume only to have 80% of the cast and settings be destroyed in the second issue!

Some are saying basically anything can happen in comic book storytelling, so why worry? Well the publishing history of Awesome/Extreme has been spotty. No one can be sure how long the title will last. So each issue that does see print is precious. This isn't like bringing Phoenix back every 3-4 years just so they can kill her/it off again.

[The Batman]

I'm not sure--though again given my hopes mentioned above--that dead, destroyed, and incinerated ordinarily counts as "left on the table."

All of Moore's stuff is still on the table. It's still part of the story.

The Supremacy is still there, waiting to be reaccessed and rebuilt. Yes, many of the characters from Moore's run were killed, but save for Radar, most of them were little more than one-note references or jokes. Many of the Supremes that were developed as characters are still around including the new Supreme that Moore introduced. More Moore remains than does not and certainly more than when Moore took over. Those characters that were killed, their deaths are still part of the story.

Yes, there was a lot of destruction and it was horrible, but maybe that reaction was the point? Maybe Larsen meant to bring things to a place where the Supremes would need to unleash the worst themselves? Maybe it's part of what he's trying to say now that it's his turn to tell Supreme stories? Just as ignoring everything that came before was part of what Moore was trying to say when it was his turn to tell Supreme stories.

If you didn't like the issue that's fine, it wasn't perfect in my books either; but I'm not going to judge Larsen's entire run and whatever he's got planned based on one issue and because he killed off a few characters who only ever existed as references to other characters.

[Adam O. Pruett]

Some are saying basically anything can happen in comic book storytelling, so why worry? Well the publishing history of Awesome/Extreme has been spotty. No one can be sure how long the title will last. So each issue that does see print is precious. This isn't like bringing Phoenix back every 3-4 years just so they can kill her/it off again.

The history of Maximum Press/Awesome/Arcade has absolutely no bearing on the ability of Image Comics to publish Supreme. And if you're still worried that Liefeld has left projects unfinished in the past -- well, Rob's not even working on this book. The only things that will make or break this title are Erik, Cory, and the interest of the marketplace.

Thats a long time to wait for a storyline to resume only to have 80% of the cast and settings be destroyed in the second issue!

But Moore's Supreme was over anyway. He wasn't going to continue it. He wrote one final script which was intended to pass the baton to the next writer. Liefeld didn't care for what the next intended writer (Steve Moore, no relation to Alan) was going to do. So rather than end the book on the transition issue -- which concludes with a complete cliffhanger -- it was decided to close the title a chapter earlier, on an issue that actually ends with a little bit of closure.

It's probably best to realize that Alan Moore was essentially done with Supreme with that issue (The Return #6, or in terms of the new numbering, #62) and to think of the #63 script as a transition from one story to the next -- because that's what it was. It's not as though Erik and Cory are robbing us from what would have happened; we were never going to see more Moore Supreme. Rather, they're picking up the cliffhanger and running in an entirely new direction.

And it's also worth noting that without Erik, we wouldn't even have seen Moore's transition issue -- he's the one who pushed to use it.

[The Batman]

But Moore's Supreme was over anyway. He wasn't going to continue it. He wrote one final script which was intended to pass the baton to the next writer. Liefeld didn't care for what the next intended writer (Steve Moore, no relation to Alan) was going to do. So rather than end the book on the transition issue -- which concludes with a complete cliffhanger -- it was decided to close the title a chapter earlier, on an issue that actually ends with a little bit of closure.

It's probably best to realize that Alan Moore was essentially done with Supreme with that issue (The Return #6, or in terms of the new numbering, #62) and to think of the #63 script as a transition from one story to the next -- because that's what it was. It's not as though Erik and Cory are robbing us from what would have happened; we were never going to see more Moore Supreme. Rather, they're picking up the cliffhanger and running in an entirely new direction.

And it's also worth noting that without Erik, we wouldn't even have seen Moore's transition issue -- he's the one who pushed to use it.

Great point. Rather than complain that Erik's doing away with Moore's Supreme, he should be thanked for his efforts to keep it around.

[Quasar's Bands]

Great point. Rather than complain that Erik's doing away with Moore's Supreme, he should be thanked for his efforts to keep it around.

Why do I feel like people are talking past each other, rather than with each other? No one is complaining Erik Larsen is "doing away with Moore's Supreme." No one. Erik Larsen is also not a fool, he knew that by continuing to use the popular Moore-created characters, he could also maintain some of the existing fan base. Not sure if that deserves a "thank you," in so much as a nod to intelligent forethought. If you are going to write a comic, why immediately throw away existing fans? He didn't do that. As several posters keep repeating, and others don't seem to want to hear, it APPEARED from 64 that Erik Larsen did something worse than ignoring the Moore characters, he destroyed most of them and depowered the rest, while bringing back an idiotic testosterone-infested early-90s bully and put him in the spotlight. However, Erik Larsen has now said multiple times that yes, he killed off SOME characters, and depowered SOME characters, but there are many more that have not been killed or depowered, and it appears that maybe Jerk Supreme is NOT necessarily going to be the only, or even main, hero of this title. There are stories and plotlines to come that might make this turn of events not as disappointing or discouraging as it first appeared. For now, those of us who were dispirited by the ending of 64 should maintain a certain degree of faith, and of course, if it doesn't work out, no one is forcing us to spend our money. I agree with chasmastr, btw -- there is no hypocracy here, but there are certainly folks that want to see it, so respond to that strawman instead of the actual posts.