MORRISONCON: Morrison and Artists Talk "Batman Inc," "Happy!" & "Multiversity"

[CBR News]

At MorrisonCon's "Third Millennium" panel, Grant Morrison, Darick Robertson, Frank Quitely and Chris Burnham dished details on "Batman Incorporated," "Happy!" and "Multiversity."


Full article here.

[EMeadow]

Once again, Morrison brings up the whole "Would you rather wait for a book or have it rushed?" question without mentioning the main crux of the situation:

Don't you think its a different situation when instead of us just waiting for a book to be released that isn't solicited until its ready based on what's usually been happening with expectations given with an actual solicitation and release date and then nothing?

Its fine for us to wait as long as it takes, as long as the pre-ordering isn't floating around the system and those of us who prepay have already done so and then have to sit and wait.

[Jim Thompson]

I'll probably get crucified for writing this here, but I think Morrison and Gaiman are the most enjoyable creators in the comics business, bar none. I'll get anything either one of those two are associated with.

[squashmaster]

So, Morrison's trying to do his own Watchmen. I'm definitely interested enough to read it. They seem pretty confident about it. I seem very skeptical.

[Lexrules]

Did DC pay for this convention or did Morrison do it out of his own pocket. A convention revolving around 1 artist is kinda well a little over kill don't you think.

Also this is the 3rd year for this. WOW. Maybe I'm just missing all the greatness of Grant Morrison but he is a good writer to me not great. Sorry.

[csis]

Did DC pay for this convention or did Morrison do it out of his own pocket. A convention revolving around 1 artist is kinda well a little over kill and Lebron James I love myself in a way don't you think.

Neither Morrison nor DC paid for it, and it isn't a convention revolving around Morrison. Other people organised the convention, but they wanted a big name draw to it and Morrison agreed.

[Lexrules]

Neither Morrison nor DC paid for it, and it isn't a convention revolving around Morrison. Other people organised the convention, but they wanted a big name draw to it and Morrison agreed.

Ahh Ok, That makes more sense then.

[Allen T]

Okay, Morrison want to discuss spiral dynamics, which would be, in his own words, the opposite of Objectivism. Yet to do that he will be using an character who created by his creator, an Objectivist himself, to be an Objectivist? The Question was created by Ditko as an Objectivist. That was only changed to a zen character because O'Niel couldn't do an Objectivist character.

Why explore the opposite to Objectivism using an Objectivism character?

[gwangung]

Okay, Morrison want to discuss spiral dynamics, which would be, in his own words, the opposite of Objectivism. Yet to do that he will be using an character who created by his creator, an Objectivist himself, to be an Objectivist? The Question was created by Ditko as an Objectivist. That was only changed to a zen character because O'Niel couldn't do an Objectivist character.

Why explore the opposite to Objectivism using an Objectivism character?

The exercise is left to the student.

[Mr. Holmes]

Both in the O'Neil Zen version and the Spiral Dynamics version here, the idea was that Question goes through a life-changing experience that makes him rethink his philosophy. It's not that O'Neil couldn't write objectivism so much that objectivism is bullshit, as Alan Moore pointed out with Rorschach.

[Allen T]

Both in the O'Neil Zen version and the Spiral Dynamics version here, the idea was that Question goes through a life-changing experience that makes him rethink his philosophy. It's not that O'Neil couldn't write objectivism so much that objectivism is bullshit, as Alan Moore pointed out with Rorschach.

There is an O'Neil quote that specifically stated that he couldn't do it not because it was wrong or bullshit but he couldn't relate to it. Unfortunately I can't find it, that is why he change it.
Also, in Moore's OPINION and yours apparently, objectivism is bullshit. Any writer, unless he is really looking at pro and cons of any political theory, is really going to set up straw man arguments

[Mr. Holmes]

There is an O'Neil quote that specifically stated that he couldn't do it not because it was wrong or bullshit but he couldn't relate to it. Unfortunately I can't find it, that is why he change it.

I'll take your word on O'Neil. What I said in the previous post was based on the actual story, where he's 99% beaten to death in an episode, which makes him decide he needs to change.

Also, in Moore's OPINION and yours apparently, objectivism is bullshit. Any writer, unless he is really looking at pro and cons of any political theory, is really going to set up straw man arguments.

I think the fact that people took a liking to Rorschach (despite Moore's intentions) reveals that he wasn't really a strawman. In any case, it looks like Morrison and Moore are on the same page on the issue, and not on the same page as Ditko, which is the essence of the situation here. Morrison isn't interested in making objectivism work to counter Rorschach, so he's doing the opposite of it.

[hondobrode]

Morrison and Moore are probably my two favorite writers. I'll buy practically anything by them. At the very least I'll be entertained.

Multiversity is going to be epic.

[Allen T]

I'll take your word on O'Neil. What I said in the previous post was based on the actual story, where he's 99% beaten to death in an episode, which makes him decide he needs to change.

And the reason behind that story was that O'Neil took on a character who he could not relate to and changed him fundamentally nearer his own politics. That a writer injerjecting their own politics into someone else's character, made more egregious that, unlike O'Neil other political change, Green Arrow who was a blank slate politically, the Question was explicitly an Objectionist. Who would you like it if Green Arrow was written as a card carrying Republican as long as his change was story driven?

I think the fact that people took a liking to Rorschach (despite Moore's intentions) reveals that he wasn't really a strawman. In any case, it looks like Morrison and Moore are on the same page on the issue, and not on the same page as Ditko, which is the essence of the situation here. Morrison isn't interested in making objectivism work to counter Rorschach, so he's doing the opposite of it.

If you do a search you would see that Moore despised Objectivism, Rand, and Ditko (he based Rorschach's paranoia on Ditko). Look I have no problem with Morrison exploring spiral dynamics. But he specifically states he that it is the direct opposite of Objectivism and he is using the Question to explore that. Again injecting poltics into a character that was designed for Objectivism. Again, would you like it if Green Arrow was used to explore neoconservativism (the actual political theory, not catchall dirty word it has become) with Green Arrow becoming a neocon?

[sobek]

Did DC pay for this convention or did Morrison do it out of his own pocket. A convention revolving around 1 artist is kinda well a little over kill don't you think.

Also this is the 3rd year for this. WOW. Maybe I'm just missing all the greatness of Grant Morrison but he is a good writer to me not great. Sorry.

Morrison didn't set it up himself, he's not that vain (he actually comes across as quite a modest and nice guy in interviews and in his book, Supergods), it was set by other people, and he agreed to be a part of it. Out of curiosity what work of his have you read?