• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

Started by Mac Man,

195 posts in this topic

foul_play-migration

foul_play-migration

Posted
Posted
Some men don't like to see ex-girlfriends going out with other people and Alan Moore doesn't like seeing the current DC hierarchy using his previous work as a cash money making machine because they can't come up with anything else that is interesting.

 

There is no real correlation between that and him being inspired by things that he has read.

 

It just tends to be something that certain Moore haters would like to hang him by.

 

Marvelman/Miracleman

V for Vendetta

Killing Joke

Watchmen

Swamp Thing

Supreme

Cpt Britain

From Hell

LOEG

Tom Strong

Promethea

Top Ten

 

As a comic book reader if you don't like just one of the above then I'm not sure why you are even reading comics.

 

+1

 

I also enjoyed his run on WildCATS with great Travis Charest art, but I don't think this makes many people's Moore top ten list.

 

And anyone who's interested in The Authority should get Ellis' run on Stormwatch that led into The Authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mac Man

Mac Man

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

:makepoint: Where have you been? The rest of us have already read all four parts, all of the comments, all the links to other articles and other interviews and some of us are working our way through the novel itself.

 

If you hit him with a mallet, he won't be able to read Superfolks. (tsk);)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjrjr

rjrjr

Posted
Posted
I see this as a double standard - where it's "hands all over" any/all "influences" when they're eventually masterminded into Moore's opus, but "hands off" when it's Moore's work that is being purposed in a different manner or direction than he may have wanted or intended.

 

Somewhat related to the subject at hand is this article discussing the recent trouble on middle earth. I found it interesting how the estate is taking a firm stance on control over merchandising. Especially this quote:

 

In an article in Wired about the litigation, Erik Wecks wrote that with this suit, Christopher Tolkien, who manages his father’s legacy, "doesn’t want to see the intellectual tour de force that is his father’s work reduced to slot machines and hack-and-slash online games."

Christopher himself told the magazine Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing."

 

To me, this line of thinking captures the essence of what bothers me most about what Moore did with League of Extraordinary Gentleman, to say nothing of the way the whole Beyond Watchmen debate gave rise to a lot of issues with Moore's creative liberties, and which are again being drudged up in The Beat post.

 

I would imagine you're a pretty well read person. You seriously may want to read Watchmen, Miracleman, and Swamp Thing and seriously take the time to see the way it's put together to understand it's place in comics. His -script, which you can find online is the polar opposite of the 'Marvel Method' and goes into great lengths to use the comic form of storytelling and help the artist to tell the story.

 

To me. all of this is simplified as such:

 

Stan Lee/Jack Kirby: influenced by literary content outside of comics like Jekyll/Hyde, Norse Gods, Sci-Fi magazines = GOOD

The Modern Comic Book writer: Influenced by the Green Goblin returns! Professor X dies/walks! Reboot the Universe! = BAD

 

So, anyone who comes from the 'literary influence' group, who creates something unique, FOR THE MEDUIM OF COMICS, might see the constant reworking of those ideas as BORING.

I do. I see it all as BORING.

Mainstream Marvel and DC comics are nothing more than the same ideas retold over and over and over again.

Scott Snyder may be the greatest writer in the world, I can't take ANOTHER JOKER STORY. I don't want to read anymore about the GREEN GOBLIN or babies born from clones or Galactus returns! or the same old stuff I've read a million times before.

 

The need to try and vilify Alan Moore is nothing more than fans trying to justify the garbage they buy from the Big Two. Garbage thrown together by 2 companies trying protect their market share by bully tactics and keep the status quo of characters in place for later use in movies; written by people too afraid to share the real creative side of their abilities for fear that Marvel/DC will own something good they come up with.

 

Is THAT the side you want to take in this?

 

 

You know, this is the best defense of Alan Moore I've ever seen. I always came down on the side of the Moore detractors, but this has definitely made me rethink my position.

 

My biggest problem with Moore has been his use of other intellectual property. That has always smacked me as being hypocritical. Thoughts on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
I see this as a double standard - where it's "hands all over" any/all "influences" when they're eventually masterminded into Moore's opus, but "hands off" when it's Moore's work that is being purposed in a different manner or direction than he may have wanted or intended.

 

Somewhat related to the subject at hand is this article discussing the recent trouble on middle earth. I found it interesting how the estate is taking a firm stance on control over merchandising. Especially this quote:

 

In an article in Wired about the litigation, Erik Wecks wrote that with this suit, Christopher Tolkien, who manages his father’s legacy, "doesn’t want to see the intellectual tour de force that is his father’s work reduced to slot machines and hack-and-slash online games."

Christopher himself told the magazine Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing."

 

To me, this line of thinking captures the essence of what bothers me most about what Moore did with League of Extraordinary Gentleman, to say nothing of the way the whole Beyond Watchmen debate gave rise to a lot of issues with Moore's creative liberties, and which are again being drudged up in The Beat post.

 

I would imagine you're a pretty well read person. You seriously may want to read Watchmen, Miracleman, and Swamp Thing and seriously take the time to see the way it's put together to understand it's place in comics. His -script, which you can find online is the polar opposite of the 'Marvel Method' and goes into great lengths to use the comic form of storytelling and help the artist to tell the story.

 

To me. all of this is simplified as such:

 

Stan Lee/Jack Kirby: influenced by literary content outside of comics like Jekyll/Hyde, Norse Gods, Sci-Fi magazines = GOOD

The Modern Comic Book writer: Influenced by the Green Goblin returns! Professor X dies/walks! Reboot the Universe! = BAD

 

So, anyone who comes from the 'literary influence' group, who creates something unique, FOR THE MEDUIM OF COMICS, might see the constant reworking of those ideas as BORING.

I do. I see it all as BORING.

Mainstream Marvel and DC comics are nothing more than the same ideas retold over and over and over again.

Scott Snyder may be the greatest writer in the world, I can't take ANOTHER JOKER STORY. I don't want to read anymore about the GREEN GOBLIN or babies born from clones or Galactus returns! or the same old stuff I've read a million times before.

 

The need to try and vilify Alan Moore is nothing more than fans trying to justify the garbage they buy from the Big Two. Garbage thrown together by 2 companies trying protect their market share by bully tactics and keep the status quo of characters in place for later use in movies; written by people too afraid to share the real creative side of their abilities for fear that Marvel/DC will own something good they come up with.

 

Is THAT the side you want to take in this?

 

 

You know, this is the best defense of Alan Moore I've ever seen. I always came down on the side of the Moore detractors, but this has definitely made me rethink my position.

 

My biggest problem with Moore has been his use of other intellectual property. That has always smacked me as being hypocritical. Thoughts on that?

 

Why? He always cites his influences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
My biggest problem with Moore has been his use of other intellectual property. That has always smacked me as being hypocritical. Thoughts on that?

 

What do you think about the title "Fables"?

 

 

Or Tomb of Dracula, Monster of Frankenstein, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
My biggest problem with Moore has been his use of other intellectual property. That has always smacked me as being hypocritical. Thoughts on that?

 

What do you think about the title "Fables"?

 

 

Or Tomb of Dracula, Monster of Frankenstein, etc.

 

Can of Worms.

 

That was a good book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjrjr

rjrjr

Posted
Posted
My biggest problem with Moore has been his use of other intellectual property. That has always smacked me as being hypocritical. Thoughts on that?

 

What do you think about the title "Fables"?

 

Are the writers of Fables out there complaining about a corporation using characters they created?

 

Not sure I see the comparison ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted
My biggest problem with Moore has been his use of other intellectual property. That has always smacked me as being hypocritical. Thoughts on that?

 

What do you think about the title "Fables"?

 

Are the writers of Fables out there complaining about a corporation using characters they created?

 

Not sure I see the comparison ...

You said your biggest problem was his using existing characters. FP then asked if you're equally bothered by similar use in Fables. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted
What's Planetary?

 

Planetary is Warren Ellis' masturbatory deconstructionist manifesto. I absolutely loved it. I viewed Ellis as the natural progression of what I enjoyed most about Moore's deconstruction of comic tropes. Ellis did it with everything - 50's monster movies, Doc Savage, Ka-Zar/Tarzan, the DC Universe, the Fantastic Four - hell he even did an issue where deconstructed the entire 80's grim and gritty movement. All wrapped around a pretty cool group of quasi-hero sleuths with beautiful John Cassaday art.

 

In short . . . :cloud9:

Is he the guy who wrote Supergod? Or something like that? That kinda blew.

I'd still be willing to trust you that Planetary is good. Enough to have just ordered the first trade on amazon. :)

It arrived in the mails yesterday. It'd better be good, or you owe me a couple fivers, son. :sumo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MisterX

MisterX

Posted
Posted

Fun Fact:

 

In 1982, Alan Moore wrote a Tharg's Future Shocks for 2000 AD entitled "All of Them Were Empty," which is pretty much totally ripped off from Stephen King's "Trucks," (first written in 1973 and appearing in the girly mag Cavalier) which is the story that begat the movie Maximum Overdrive and a decent AC/DC song.

 

That particular story aside, I think the rest of Moore's Future Shock stories are really very good. In fact, they're totally zarjaz!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing