Anyone Else Catch This Article on Alan Moore's Source Material?

[Mac Man]

Pretty interesting stuff over on The Comics Beat. Really raises the question as to how original Moore's work was, and when taken in light of his problems with the "Before Watchmen"... well, yeah.

 

http://comicsbeat.com/alan-moore-and-superfolks-part-1-the-case-for-the-prosecution/

 

Be warned: This 3-part article is a bit lengthy; however, it seems well-researched and thought out.

[Prince Namor]

Holy Moly. You mean a writer was influenced by someone else's work?

Better round up George Lucas next, cause none of THAT is original either.

[Mac Man]

Holy Moly. You mean a writer was influenced by someone else's work?

Better round up George Lucas next, cause none of THAT is original either.

 

No kidding, right? It just really make me look at the whole Before Watchmen controversy in a new light. Not so much about corporate doing what corporate does to make a buck. Business as usual there. Instead, I find I'm really reconsidering Moore's moral ground here... in the most recent article on the subject on The Beat, Grant Morrison provides a response to this one, and it has a highly relevant discussion about Moore's criticism of Geoff Johns, his work on Green Lantern, and the acceptability of using past work in present continuity.

 

In any event, interesting and thought-provoking stuff once... once you plow through it all!

[500Club]

Holy Moly. You mean a writer was influenced by someone else's work?

Better round up George Lucas next, cause none of THAT is original either.

Nothing new there. (thumbs u

 

I think the point is more in regards to Moore's hostility to anyone building upon his own works.

[dupont2005]

Holy Moly. You mean a writer was influenced by someone else's work?

Better round up George Lucas next, cause none of THAT is original either.

You mean every super powered muscleman with a cape, briefs, a spandex bodysuit, gloves, boots, a mask, a logo on his chest, and an animal theme isn't a completely unique creation all on it's own in some vacuum where nobody had been influenced by existing work?

[Prince Namor]

Holy Moly. You mean a writer was influenced by someone else's work?

Better round up George Lucas next, cause none of THAT is original either.

 

No kidding, right? It just really make me look at the whole Before Watchmen controversy in a new light. Not so much about corporate doing what corporate does to make a buck. Business as usual there. Instead, I find I'm really reconsidering Moore's moral ground here... in the most recent article on the subject on The Beat, Grant Morrison provides a response to this one, and it has a highly relevant discussion about Moore's criticism of Geoff Johns, his work on Green Lantern, and the acceptability of using past work in present continuity.

 

In any event, interesting and thought-provoking stuff once... once you plow through it all!

 

Thank you for the article, I hadn't seen that yet! It does bring some thought-provoking topics to light, even though I think some of them are misguided.

I'm just not sure they understand Moore's point, which is really him saying that there aren't a lot of new ideas in comics. Which there aren't. It's all pretty stale at Marvel and DC by pretty much anyone's standards that remembers the Silver Age of comics.

We hear it here on the boards from those of us who miss the excitement of that period.

These companies just keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and it isn't really helping to create anything lasting.

And this need to vilify Alan Moore over it by Big Two apologists is kinda sad really.

His influence and the way he told his stories, regardless of what the influences were, will remain important in the history of this hobby, while I think tripe like Before Watchmen and One More Day will be retconned or forgotten very quickly.

The book Superfolks, itself directly influenced by other writers works from comics, didn't have any impact on the comic industry. The way Moore incorporated some of those ideas did.

It's no different than Stan and Jack creating their own Jekyll & Hyde with the Hulk, or Norse God in Thor or even Jack's own Challengers of the Unknown with the Fantastic Four.

It's the way they did it and turned it into something new and exciting in comics.

There's a difference and some of these critics don't seem to understand it.

 

 

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Anyone ever read Joseph Campbell's stuff on the hero's journey? I taught a traditions in literature course and found it difficult at times to talk about anything else. Elements of Gilgamesh can be found in just about every story.

 

In theory no story is new.

[Ogami]

Holy Moly. You mean a writer was influenced by someone else's work?

Better round up George Lucas next, cause none of THAT is original either.

 

No kidding, right? It just really make me look at the whole Before Watchmen controversy in a new light. Not so much about corporate doing what corporate does to make a buck. Business as usual there. Instead, I find I'm really reconsidering Moore's moral ground here... in the most recent article on the subject on The Beat, Grant Morrison provides a response to this one, and it has a highly relevant discussion about Moore's criticism of Geoff Johns, his work on Green Lantern, and the acceptability of using past work in present continuity.

 

In any event, interesting and thought-provoking stuff once... once you plow through it all!

 

Thank you for the article, I hadn't seen that yet! It does bring some thought-provoking topics to light, even though I think some of them are misguided.

I'm just not sure they understand Moore's point, which is really him saying that there aren't a lot of new ideas in comics. Which there aren't. It's all pretty stale at Marvel and DC by pretty much anyone's standards that remembers the Silver Age of comics.

We hear it here on the boards from those of us who miss the excitement of that period.

These companies just keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and it isn't really helping to create anything lasting.

And this need to vilify Alan Moore over it by Big Two apologists is kinda sad really.

His influence and the way he told his stories, regardless of what the influences were, will remain important in the history of this hobby, while I think tripe like Before Watchmen and One More Day will be retconned or forgotten very quickly.

The book Superfolks, itself directly influenced by other writers works from comics, didn't have any impact on the comic industry. The way Moore incorporated some of those ideas did.

It's no different than Stan and Jack creating their own Jekyll & Hyde with the Hulk, or Norse God in Thor or even Jack's own Challengers of the Unknown with the Fantastic Four.

It's the way they did it and turned it into something new and exciting in comics.

There's a difference and some of these critics don't seem to understand it.

 

 

 

Haven't read the article yet, (off to now) but this is a great post.

[Ogami]

Alright, I'm halfway through and I've formed my opinion.

 

Grant Morrison is an angry, bitter shadow of Alan Moore and knows it.

 

Homer ripped off other poets to create The Iliad and the Odyssey. He just did it with ten thousand times more style, wit and talent. (See my first statement)

 

 

 

 

Alan Moore isn't upset at all the clones that have followed him. He's upset at someone taking his template and playing with it. (and in his own lifetime, no less- I think Moore understands there comes a point when even that is allowed)

[Ogami]

This is the actual interview between Alan Moore and the writer of the Superfolks article.

 

This belongs in this thread.

 

Pay special attention to what Moore says about Morrison.

 

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/boy-from-the-boroughs/

[bb8]

I don't think that Morrison is an Alan Moore clone any more than Alan Moore is a product of his experiences and influences. Perhaps his work does not have the same impact on pop culture that Moore's work has, but he's written some darn good stories IMO. I like both guys' work; I don't think to enjoy one is to preclude enjoying the others'.

 

This is really a question of originality and where it all begins. I'm a big proponent of what has already been said: it's not the story you tell, it's how you tell it. And both these writers have written some well-crafted stories that have enriched the industry.

[Comicopolis]

Holy Moly. You mean a writer was influenced by someone else's work?

Better round up George Lucas next, cause none of THAT is original either.

 

No kidding, right? It just really make me look at the whole Before Watchmen controversy in a new light. Not so much about corporate doing what corporate does to make a buck. Business as usual there. Instead, I find I'm really reconsidering Moore's moral ground here... in the most recent article on the subject on The Beat, Grant Morrison provides a response to this one, and it has a highly relevant discussion about Moore's criticism of Geoff Johns, his work on Green Lantern, and the acceptability of using past work in present continuity.

 

In any event, interesting and thought-provoking stuff once... once you plow through it all!

 

Thank you for the article, I hadn't seen that yet! It does bring some thought-provoking topics to light, even though I think some of them are misguided.

I'm just not sure they understand Moore's point, which is really him saying that there aren't a lot of new ideas in comics. Which there aren't. It's all pretty stale at Marvel and DC by pretty much anyone's standards that remembers the Silver Age of comics.

We hear it here on the boards from those of us who miss the excitement of that period.

These companies just keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and it isn't really helping to create anything lasting.

And this need to vilify Alan Moore over it by Big Two apologists is kinda sad really.

His influence and the way he told his stories, regardless of what the influences were, will remain important in the history of this hobby, while I think tripe like Before Watchmen and One More Day will be retconned or forgotten very quickly.

The book Superfolks, itself directly influenced by other writers works from comics, didn't have any impact on the comic industry. The way Moore incorporated some of those ideas did.

It's no different than Stan and Jack creating their own Jekyll & Hyde with the Hulk, or Norse God in Thor or even Jack's own Challengers of the Unknown with the Fantastic Four.

It's the way they did it and turned it into something new and exciting in comics.

There's a difference and some of these critics don't seem to understand it.

 

 

 

This.

[Comicopolis]

Alright, I'm halfway through and I've formed my opinion.

 

Grant Morrison is an angry, bitter shadow of Alan Moore and knows it.

 

Homer ripped off other poets to create The Iliad and the Odyssey. He just did it with ten thousand times more style, wit and talent. (See my first statement)

 

 

 

 

Alan Moore isn't upset at all the clones that have followed him. He's upset at someone taking his template and playing with it. (and in his own lifetime, no less- I think Moore understands there comes a point when even that is allowed)

 

And this.

[Theagenes]

Interesting article Forrest. Thanks for posting it. I'll be tracking down a copy of Superfolks now. I would also agree with those who don't really see why this is a big deal and I think the article writers accusatory tone is off-putting, This book was one of his big influences in doing superhero-deconstruction. Okay, cool. :shrug:

 

That said, Moore does seem to be downplaying how much of an influence it was, but frankly he was forced on to the defensive by the way people frame the discussion as him "ripping off" someone. But at least he acknowledges it as an influence. Perhaps it would have bee better if he had been more proactive in acknowledging Superfolks as one of his sources of inspiration (the way Garth Ennis makes no bones about occasionally "ripping off" Cormac McCarthy).

[Zonker]

See I don't think the Superfolks bruhaha is at all similar to the Before Watchmen thing. If someone were to come along and do another deconstruction of super-heroes in the style of Watchmen or using the same ideas as Watchmen, then no big deal. In fact, Mark Waid pretty much lifted his core ideas of Kingdom Come from Moore's unpublished Twilight of the Superheroes pitch.

 

The deal with Before Watchmen is trading off the good name created 25 years ago by Moore & Gibbons.

 

Now... bring up Moore's Lost Girls as a counterexample of him in turn trading off the good name of beloved public-domain characters, and you've got me.

[Ogami]

Oof. All done and I retain my earlier thoughts.

 

The more I read of Morrison, the less I like him.

 

The funniest bit to me, is that I now realize that Moore has become a conservative in his old age! That may not be funny to anyone else, but it has me rolling on the floor.

[comix4fun]

I don't think that Morrison is an Alan Moore clone any more than Alan Moore is a product of his experiences and influences. Perhaps his work does not have the same impact on pop culture that Moore's work has, but he's written some darn good stories IMO. I like both guys' work; I don't think to enjoy one is to preclude enjoying the others'.

 

This is really a question of originality and where it all begins. I'm a big proponent of what has already been said: it's not the story you tell, it's how you tell it. And both these writers have written some well-crafted stories that have enriched the industry.

 

 

 

While it may be true that Moore and Morrison have both written some stories that people enjoyed I struggle to compare one against the other in any way that is favorable to Morrison.

[comix4fun]

Oof. All done and I retain my earlier thoughts.

 

The more I read of Morrison, the less I like him.

 

 

 

 

Batman R.I.P. wasn't enough to do that already?

[Comicopolis]

Oof. All done and I retain my earlier thoughts.

 

The more I read of Morrison, the less I like him.

 

 

 

 

Batman R.I.P. wasn't enough to do that already?

 

Morrison is a terrible hack but Batman R.I.P I have yet the pleasure to read.

[Comicopolis]

What next? Harry Potter is really Tim Hunter?

 

Oh wait...