Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[SteppinRazor]

6 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

What about the movies story do you feel was destroyed? Or do you mean 'destroyed' as in the relation to the comic story?

I would define it as one having to do with superheroes, which Watchmen has, and I'm sure there are many who would agree with you. I don't, but of course it's all just personal preference. 

Of course, many here think 'Civil War' is the greatest superhero movie ever made and... ugh, I just found that to be garabage. 

I would definitely consider it a superhero movie, and for my money would be ranked #1.  It isn't just a superhero movie, it's a criticalview of the themes of hubris, might v. right, ends justifying means, noblesse oblige, and paternalistic corporate overreach.  Iron Man or Spider-Man can't hold an intellectual candle to that, they're just fun entertainment  with cool noise and visuals (which are great, but in a very different way).

[piper]

I love Watchmen the limited series, but I struggled to stay awake during the movie. I found the story wasn't adapted well to the medium. 

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

What about the movies story do you feel was destroyed? Or do you mean 'destroyed' as in the relation to the comic story?

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/148921-just-came-home-from-watchmen/?do=findComment&comment=2965381

(and my other posts in that topic)

[joe_collector]

On 4/2/2017 at 9:49 AM, romanheart said:

Marvel's Falling Sales

Marvel VP blames diversity for falling sales

Personally, I think hollow stories and never-ending series renumbering is killing them.

I think it was the "let's turn everyone female" that did it, and even the female readers hated it - they wanted NEW female characters, not retrofit the classic male ones.

[joe_collector]

4 hours ago, piper said:

I love Watchmen the limited series, but I struggled to stay awake during the movie. I found the story wasn't adapted well to the medium. 

The problem with Watchmen was that they made a hugely significant change to the ending (which is alright, given the medium) but then kept the rest of the story 99% loyal to the graphic novel.

The movie then made no logical sense, and you had characters (especially Manhattan) acting exactly the same and spouting the same dialogue as the GN when their entire character motivation should have done a 180.

Edited May 12, 2017 by joe_collector

[joe_collector]

On 5/11/2017 at 2:08 PM, kav said:

Aside from Watchmen, Miracleman and Top ten I find Alan Moore's stuff to be annoying.  It's 'look how clever I am' stuff.

I felt that way reading "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" which was pompous, irritating and quite hypocritical of Moore.

He constantly rails on about Hollywood and DC taking his creations and turning them into something else, and he goes and rapes (literally) some of the literary world's most classic and important characters, and seems to not understand the hypocrisy.

[Lazyboy]

50 minutes ago, joe_collector said:

I felt that way reading "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" which was pompous, irritating and quite hypocritical of Moore.

He constantly rails on about Hollywood and DC taking his creations and turning them into something else, and he goes and rapes (literally) some of the literary world's most classic and important characters, and seems to not understand the hypocrisy.

No, he doesn't. He has complained about DC legally stealing control of Watchmen and V for Vendetta (about which he is still clearly very bitter), but he has never complained about the use of his other creations. He simply wants nothing to do with Hollywood, especially after he was dragged into court over the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Lazyboy

[Bird]

59 minutes ago, joe_collector said:

I felt that way reading "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" which was pompous, irritating and quite hypocritical of Moore.

He constantly rails on about Hollywood and DC taking his creations and turning them into something else, and he goes and rapes (literally) some of the literary world's most classic and important characters, and seems to not understand the hypocrisy.

One of the key differences is you have to read LoEG or Lost Girls to know that he is using characters from previous works. He didn't exploit the connection by calling it Furthers Adventures of Captain Nemo and Allan Quartermain or Lost Innocence of Alice from Wonderland, or whatever. It may be a subtle distinction but an important one that many miss.

 

10 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

No, he doesn't. He has complained about DC legally stealing control of Watchmen and V for Vendetta (about which he is still clearly very bitter), but he has never complained about the use of his other creations. He wants nothing to do with Hollywood, especially after he was dragged into court over the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.

I think that he may have criticized Before Watchmen but you are generally correct (or maybe I am wrong and you are completely correct). I like that he gives the Hollywood money to the artists (but you have to thank him, don't forget thank him, e.g. Dave Gibbons). I am a fan obviously, and I like his approach to the films...he had nothing to do with them and they are separate things from the works that they are derived from. So Watchmen and V may be different in the movie but I appreciate them for the (good but not great) movies that they are. The League movie is abysmal though. I never saw, or read, From hell.

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Bird

[joe_collector]

2 hours ago, Bird said:

One of the key differences is you have to read LoEG or Lost Girls to know that he is using characters from previous works. He didn't exploit the connection by calling it Furthers Adventures of Captain Nemo and Allan Quartermain or Lost Innocence of Alice from Wonderland, or whatever. It may be a subtle distinction but an important one that many miss.

 

This sounds like Alan Moore fanboy-speak, as there is absolutely no disputing that Moore used and abused existing and extremely recognizable literary characters, created by giants of the literary world, and I don't care if he called it "My Butt in a Frying Pan". The title means absolutely nothing.

Edited May 13, 2017 by joe_collector

[joe_collector]

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

No, he doesn't. He has complained about DC legally stealing control of Watchmen and V for Vendetta (about which he is still clearly very bitter), but he has never complained about the use of his other creations.

And what other original creations would those be that were adapted into movies? LOEG is long-existing characters, so is From Hell, albeit non-fiction, and even so, he hated all those movies, along with Constantine, which he partially created. I have never heard a good word about anything that Moore was remotely involved with in comics, and was subsequently taken over and adapted by someone else.

[Lazyboy]

25 minutes ago, joe_collector said:

3 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

No, he doesn't. He has complained about DC legally stealing control of Watchmen and V for Vendetta (about which he is still clearly very bitter), but he has never complained about the use of his other creations.

And what other original creations would those be that were adapted into movies? LOEG is long-existing characters, so is From Hell, albeit non-fiction, and even so, he hated all those movies, along with Constantine, which he partially created. I have never heard a good word about anything that Moore was remotely involved with in comics, and was subsequently taken over and adapted by someone else.

If you're specifically talking about movies, you shouldn't have deleted the relevant part of my quote:

Quote

He simply wants nothing to do with Hollywood, especially after he was dragged into court over the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.

He doesn't talk about movies or creations he doesn't own unless he's asked about them and then his usual response is that he doesn't watch the movies or read the comics.

Even if he never offers praise, that's different than him "constantly railing on about Hollywood and DC taking his creations and turning them into something else ."

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, joe_collector said:

I think it was the "let's turn everyone female" that did it,

Except they DIDN'T turn ANYONE female....

This is exactly what I mean by someone commenting on these things who a) hasn't read any of it and b) is completely misinformed about what it is.

I'll break it down yet again in how completely misinformed your post is:

1. Thor has mysteriously lost his ability to yield the hammer. A woman, who remained a mystery in identity for some time, WAS able to take his place. Eventually these mysteries have been revealed. For anyone with a knowledge of the history of Thor, those answers make sense. 

2. Thor has remained one of Marvel's BEST SELLING regular titles throughout the entire run.

3. Tony Stark sustained serious injuries in his final battle with Captain Marvel at the end of the latest Civil War series, and as Doctor Doom has created his own version of the Iron Man suit and took to using it, he wanted to see a better temporary replacement and found it in a Riri Williams. A 15 year old engineering student who put together her own armor from parts taken from MIT, she originally called herself Ironheart.

4. Invincible Iron Man is one of Marvel's BEST SELLING regular titles through it's first 6 issues.

5. Wolverine is dead. X-23 his cloned 'daughter' has taken on the role.

6. It is currently one of Marvel's BEST SELLING regular titles, actually selling MORE copies as the run has continued (on #20) which is almost unheard of for Marvel comic these days.

6 hours ago, joe_collector said:

 

and even the female readers hated it

6 hours ago, joe_collector said:

- they wanted NEW female characters, not retrofit the classic male ones.

Once again...

Creators aren't making new characters for Marvel like they used to because if they come up with something good, they'd prefer to OWN it themselves. AND it saves Marvel the trouble of battling anyone legally by keeping the number of new characters reigned in and under control. It's just the nature of business now.

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

If you're specifically talking about movies, you shouldn't have deleted the relevant part of my quote:

He doesn't talk about movies or creations he doesn't own unless he's asked about them and then his usual response is that he doesn't watch the movies or read the comics.

Even if he never offers praise, that's different than him "constantly railing on about Hollywood and DC taking his creations and turning them into something else ."

Anyone who goes back and actually reads the interviews can see this to be true, and in one he goes into detail about the nightmare of dealing with the legal battle with LOEG, and the sneaky way it came about via one of the From Hell producers. Geez, talk about dealing with some snakes.

[Bird]

7 hours ago, joe_collector said:

This sounds like Alan Moore fanboy-speak, as there is absolutely no disputing that Moore used and abused existing and extremely recognizable literary characters, created by giants of the literary world, and I don't care if he called it "My Butt in a Frying Pan". The title means absolutely nothing.

well, you cannot abuse a literary creation. And Alan Moore used characters in the public domain from long ago. But the point is that he created wholly original works utilizing existing characters and sold them on their own merits. He did not exploit the works or creators by calling his books continuations of the earlier work; he actually created new things. The title is what people see when they by a book and he did not exploit the connections he had created with those books in their titles OR in their content. But Before Wacthmen did exactly that, continuing his stories with characters he created and calling the work an adaptation of his title. Very different. And no hypocrisy at all.

DC and the movies sought to enhance their work by association with the original creators by trumpeting  connections to Moore and the artist had to the crapola they were putting out. THAT is the exploitation. Moore never sought to trade off the authors of the prior works with his stuff. Is it a key difference, one of integrity.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Bird
2nd parapgraph

[joe_collector]

2 hours ago, Bird said:

well, you cannot abuse a literary creation. And Alan Moore used characters in the public domain from long ago. But the point is that he created wholly original works utilizing existing characters and sold them on their own merits. He did not exploit the works or creators by calling his books continuations of the earlier work; he actually created new things.

Welcome to the boards, Mr Moore.

Seriously, no one else could believe that utter BS. Seriously, he takes incredibly well know, classic, literary characters like Dr Jekyl & Mister Hyde, The Invisible Man, Prof. Moriarty, Fu Manchu, Captain Nemo, Allan Quartermain, Ishmael, among many others, and simply because he thinks of a more "superhero team name" for the characters, these are somehow "his own original creation"? Remember, this has nothing to do with public domain (which is based on monetary compensation), and even if these books are in the PD, I can't just scan a copy of Sherlock Holmes and put my name on it.

[joe_collector]

6 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Except they DIDN'T turn ANYONE female....

This is exactly what I mean by someone commenting on these things who a) hasn't read any of it and b) is completely misinformed about what it is.

LOL, you act as if these characters are real - here's a hint, the WRITERS create all this FICTIONAL content and can do whatever they want. So when Jane Foster suddenly becomes Thor, a writer, editor and likely publisher decided to do this. Get it?

[joe_collector]

9 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Even if he never offers praise, that's different than him "constantly railing on about Hollywood and DC taking his creations and turning them into something else ."

Come on, you've never read his comments about V for Vendetta or how he "put a curse" on the Watchmen production"? The guy lives to rail against the Hollywood adaptation machine, but then is the ultimate hypocrite by doing the same thing and Moore-adapting literary classics to comics.

Edited May 13, 2017 by joe_collector

[Bird]

2 hours ago, joe_collector said:

Welcome to the boards, Mr Moore.

Seriously, no one else could believe that utter BS. Seriously, he takes incredibly well know, classic, literary characters like Dr Jekyl & Mister Hyde, The Invisible Man, Prof. Moriarty, Fu Manchu, Captain Nemo, Allan Quartermain, Ishmael, among many others, and simply because he thinks of a more "superhero team name" for the characters, these are somehow "his own original creation"? Remember, this has nothing to do with public domain (which is based on monetary compensation), and even if these books are in the PD, I can't just scan a copy of Sherlock Holmes and put my name on it.

The original creation is the story of course. But clearly I have to spell things out for you.

[Ken Aldred]

What’s the general opinion about From Hell?

I read it once and found it quite heavy-going and miserable, and have never had the motivation to plough through it again.

I didn’t approach it under ideal circumstances, though, for some unfathomable reason reading it while I had a very bad dose of chicken pox during my mid-thirties, when I should really have been treating myself to something a touch lighter, such as Ambush Bug, maybe?

[Prince Namor]

7 hours ago, joe_collector said:

LOL, you act as if these characters are real - here's a hint, the WRITERS create all this FICTIONAL content and can do whatever they want. So when Jane Foster suddenly becomes Thor, a writer, editor and likely publisher decided to do this. Get it?

WTF are you talking about? No one said anything about any of these characters being real, especially not ME. 

And I'm well aware of how the process works, I explain it to people on a regular basis here who get their panties in a bunch over Captain America becoming a Hydra Agent or Wolverine 'dying'.

In THIS instances I corrected you on something you had no idea of what you were talking about. Plain and simple as that.