|
Yeah I was confused by the one of the left. One of the right, I'm guessing that's Ozymandias' hand on Luthor's shoulder.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Lex/Ozy sounds awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Based on solicitation text, I would be utterly flabbergasted if New Super-Man #18 wasn't the final issue of the book. Which is a huge drat shame...but still, the book's had a pretty good solid run, and that's plenty of time to wrap up the storylines and give it a proper ending. And yeah I'm aware of how sad it is that I consider eighteen issues a pretty good solid run nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Those covers seem like they're just openly trolling Alan Moore at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Hopefully Lex offers Ozy some of that peach tea he's got on the desk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
forgive me if this is a stupid question, as my big 2 knowledge is patchy at best and i drift in and out, but this barbatos character in metal... this is that little dude that was in books of magic? i know he was actually a powerful demon who just chose to look like a weird baby thing, and i suppose if they're bringing in lots of the stuff from dc history that's obtuse to the angle of the main dcu like dream it makes sense, i just want to make sure i haven't got the wrong character entirely. edit: ah, never mind, some googling tells me barbatos is something from some batman comics in 89/90. probably not the same thing. the dream --> neil gaiman --> tim hunter --> barbatos connection made me assume otherwise. Neurosis fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Those covers seem like they're just openly trolling Alan Moore at this point. DC's been openly trolling Moore since
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:forgive me if this is a stupid question, as my big 2 knowledge is patchy at best and i drift in and out, but this barbatos character in metal... this is that little dude that was in books of magic? i know he was actually a powerful demon who just chose to look like a weird baby thing, and i suppose if they're bringing in lots of the stuff from dc history that's obtuse to the angle of the main dcu like dream it makes sense, i just want to make sure i haven't got the wrong character entirely. Completely different Barbatos. This one is probably better known as the Hyper-Adapter, though I understand that in expanding his role and scope (beyond already being a superweapon unleashed by Darkseid to hound Batman through time, then ultimately destroy reality), Snyder''s abandoned it in favor of Barbatos. Interestingly enough though, the Hyper-Adapter identity itself builds on Barbathos who in their first appearance in Milligan's "Dark Knight, Dark City" was a bat demon summoned by Thomas loving Jefferson in the 1700s. This was also where the whole "what if Bruce Wayne's hosed up life has a dark purpose behind it" idea dug it's roots, and subsequent authors like Morrison and Snyder latched onto it
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Based on solicitation text, I would be utterly flabbergasted if New Super-Man #18 wasn't the final issue of the book. Which is a huge drat shame...but still, the book's had a pretty good solid run, and that's plenty of time to wrap up the storylines and give it a proper ending. I am greatly enjoying the book and recommended it to everyone, unfortunately, it seems to have been a quiet gem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Don't they still solicit "FINAL ISSUE" if it's the final issue? It wasn't there and the paragraph ends with "Don’t miss this thrilling concluding chapter to see where this adventure ends—and where the next begins!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
That line is exactly what makes it sound like a final issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
This may be the wrong thread to ask but what is Alan Moore's relationship to DC/modern superhero comics in general? My understanding is he disliked how badly the adaptions of From Hell (absolutely nothing like the comic) and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (same, also just plain bad) were, but the main beef he has with them is the old deal which means he doesn't get rights to Watchmen back until the book goes out of print, and DC has very deliberately never allowed that to happen. There also seems to be the impression he really hates DC trying to bring back Watchmen poo poo though that seems to be based on nothing more than "he's a cranky old man who doesn't like what the comics industry has become". That about right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Pierson posted:This may be the wrong thread to ask but what is Alan Moore's relationship to DC/modern superhero comics in general? My understanding is he disliked how badly the adaptions of From Hell (absolutely nothing like the comic) and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (same, also just plain bad) were, but the main beef he has with them is the old deal which means he doesn't get rights to Watchmen back until the book goes out of print, and DC has very deliberately never allowed that to happen. There also seems to be the impression he really hates DC trying to bring back Watchmen poo poo though that seems to be based on nothing more than "he's a cranky old man who doesn't like what the comics industry has become". That about right? He loving despises DC for a lot of reasons, one of them is that the rights to Watchmen should have reverted back to him a long time ago, but DC are pricks. He's sorta okay with Marvel but he's never going to work there again. His attitude used to be just not giving a gently caress about movie adaptations, it was free money, but the changes Fox (I think) made to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ended up getting him involved in a lawsuit so now he doesn't want his name on anything and he gives the money to the artist. Air Skwirl fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Pierson posted:This may be the wrong thread to ask but what is Alan Moore's relationship to DC/modern superhero comics in general? My understanding is he disliked how badly the adaptions of From Hell (absolutely nothing like the comic) and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (same, also just plain bad) were, but the main beef he has with them is the old deal which means he doesn't get rights to Watchmen back until the book goes out of print, and DC has very deliberately never allowed that to happen. There also seems to be the impression he really hates DC trying to bring back Watchmen poo poo though that seems to be based on nothing more than "he's a cranky old man who doesn't like what the comics industry has become". That about right? Well he's not wrong, every time they bring back Watchmen characters it's been bad and stupid. Most of the adaptations of his work have missed the point or just been awful. But he's also pretty "old man yells at cloud" about comics these days even when it's not Watchmen. He's a great writer who's contributions to the medium can't be overstated. He's also an old crank who writes about rape way too often. People are complicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
I can't blame DC for not reverting the right back to Moore really. That was supposed to happen when the book goes out of print but because the book was such a great seller it never and never really went out of print in the first place. I think that surprised both Moore and DC and DC is right to keep it in print
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I can't blame DC for not reverting the right back to Moore really. That was supposed to happen when the book goes out of print but because the book was such a great seller it never and never really went out of print in the first place. I think that surprised both Moore and DC and DC is right to keep it in print "I can't blame this big company for screwing over a creator, it's the most profitable thing to do" might be true but doesn't make it not lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
I too cannot fault immoral behavior as long as it's technically legal
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
I've never been 100% on the nature of Moore's contractual dispute with DC over Watchmen; do they owe him money and haven't been paying him?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I've never been 100% on the nature of Moore's contractual dispute with DC over Watchmen; do they owe him money and haven't been paying him? The rights were supposed to revert to him when the book went out of print, it's never gone out of print in the last 30 years, basically purple death ray posted:I too cannot fault immoral behavior as long as it's technically legal
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:I too cannot fault immoral behavior as long as it's technically legal Can you fault Moore for signing the contract? If DC's job is to sell books that are popular and they sign a contract with creators to make popular books then DC wouldn't being doing their job by stopping to sell popular books. Creator rights are a serious issue and I agree to that, but DC and Moore both signed a contract that they thought was fair at the time. You can't blame either of them for how Watchmen exploded like the way it did. DC can't just say "we need to stop printing this extremely popular book now"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
How does Dave Gibbons feel about all this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Can you fault Moore for signing the contract No. Big corporations regularly make use of loopholes in contracts to screw people over. It being technically legal doesn't mean it is something I support. It also isn't something you would support in every situation either and nor should it be. Something being in a contract doesn't make it unimpeachable. Every argument you make is "Well, it's the most profitable thing for DC comics" which is true. If you're not a DC Comics shareholder though you should be also willing to go "Well, that's lovely still."
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Does Moore have a project he wants to do with the Watchmen characters and setting or does he just want it back so DC can't do anything with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Does Moore have a project he wants to do with the Watchmen characters and setting or does he just want it back so DC can't do anything with it? I always got the vibe that he has moved on from his Watchmen stuff but that isn't too say that that he doesn't want the characters back. I am curious now if DC has ever done a similar contract with other creators where the rights have reverted back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Just theorizing here but maybe if DC hadn't been so short sighted and money crazed they might not have pissed off Alan Moore so much that he's not going to ever work for them again? Maybe instead of humping Watchmen for decades with tie ins and sequels to transparently grasp for every possible cent they can wring from it, they could have had several other Alan Moore stories since then which would be providing massive sales in trades just like everything else Moore wrote for DC? Maybe being a poo poo to the talent just because you legally can is not actually a good business move even though the contract says it's OK? Maybe it's not 100% about the Watchmen characters so much as it is a gesture of gratitude and good will to the guy who is making you rich?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
The Watchmen contract is one of those contracts that hit at just the right point technology/media landscapewise to blow the initial meaning of it out of the water, and in pretty much every one of those cases the new interpretation/reality falls in favor of the corporations. When the contracts for Watchmen were signed in 1985, the concept of "trade paperbacks" or "graphic novels" or whatever barely existed. DC was still under Jeanette Kahn and Paul Levitz, who were pushing hard to make DC seem creator-friendly, both in the wake of the bad publicity over Siegel and Shuster being paupers while the Superman movie was a blockbuster, and to set themselves apart from Marvel in its battle with Jack Kirby over rights/art returns/royalties. The independent/small press/creator owned comics field was also still in its infancy (or young childhood) and this is supposition on my part, but these sort of reversion rights were likely seen less as "well if the trade paperback ever goes out of print, the rights to Watchmen will go back to you" and more in the lines of "well if we decide your book isn't selling well enough for us to publish it, or we go out of business or restructure, you're welcome to continue [Watchmen/Elfquest/Groo/Nexus/Flaming Carrot/whatever] at a different publisher, which in fact was happening a lot in the mid 1980s. Some of those contracts weren't very clearly delineated and resulted in some real messes, the most notable is obviously Marvelman/Miracleman. Having a cut and dry "when we stop publishing your book, everything goes back to you" clause would seem like a nice clear case that if DC had a regime change and canceled Watchmen after six issues, Moore and Gibbons would have been able to go to Eclipse or First or Renegade or whomever and publish the last six issues. Or if the series finished and Moore/Gibbons wanted to do a follow-up series that DC wasn't interested in, they could shop it around to other publishers. So the idea that in 1988 DC would published a twelve-issue collection that would continue to be reissue and sold constantly for thirty years wasn't something anyone was predicting in 1985. Maybe Dave Sim thought it might be a thing, but even he didn't publish his first Cerebus "phonebook" for another year or so. This isn't unique to comics, there have been countless contract disputes in media where contracts were signed without the idea of MP3s or streaming video or ebooks or whatever else would eventually existed. Before that, there were legal battles over whether or not creators were obligated to get paid much/anything for things getting rebroadcast on cable television, or when films/shows were released on home video, or if rental revenue needed to be shared, or when old albums were re-released on compact discs, or even within comics about whether or not creators deserved a cut of reprint books since they "didn't do any new work" when their stories were republished in 80 page giants or whatever in the 1960s. Everyone saying that legally DC is in its rights to do what they've done to Watchmen is technically correct, but this is also what has led contracts to say things like how their distribution rights perpetuate "for eternity across the universe" because god forbid intelligent life is found somewhere and it becomes clear that the rights to Deadpool are up for grabs on an alien planet. Madkal posted:I am curious now if DC has ever done a similar contract with other creators where the rights have reverted back. It's partially the reason why you keep seeing different editions of big books like Y the Last Man, Preacher, Transmetropolitan, etc. coming out of Vertigo, because if they stay in print it's impossible for the creators to try to get it to revert. It's almost definitely why DMZ got a deluxe reissue (so Wood couldn't drag it over to Dark Horse), and I am 100% confident it's why after being more or less completely forgotten for almost a decade (and right after Brubaker/Lark/Phillips successfully got the rights back to Scene of the Crime and republished it at Image) that DC announced a complete collection of Brubaker's other early Vertigo project Deadenders. Edge & Christian fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:How does Dave Gibbons feel about all this? Not sure how he feels about the contract stuff, but he is literally the nicest creator I've ever met, and seems happy with the money and fame the book gave him. Only guy at cons with a chair opposite him for fans to sit and chat. And to think that I was nervous about meeting him because of all the controversy involving Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Can you fault Moore for signing the contract? If DC's job is to sell books that are popular and they sign a contract with creators to make popular books then DC wouldn't being doing their job by stopping to sell popular books. Creator rights are a serious issue and I agree to that, but DC and Moore both signed a contract that they thought was fair at the time. You can't blame either of them for how Watchmen exploded like the way it did. DC can't just say "we need to stop printing this extremely popular book now" You can blame DC for taking advantage of it and not, you know, maybe trying to work on a more fair agreement with Moore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:You can blame DC for taking advantage of it and not, you know, maybe trying to work on a more fair agreement with Moore. Yeah, that's the thing that pisses me off, I don't think Alan Moore cares that much about the money or the characters, just that DC treated him like poo poo, and it's annoying that we don't have more DC work from him. He wrote one excellent Batman book and two excellent Superman stories, imagine if DC hadn't hosed him over and instead he wrote the main comic for either of those characters for a year and a half. I've read enough of Promethea that I bet his Wonder Woman would be pretty god damned amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah, that's the thing that pisses me off, I don't think Alan Moore cares that much about the money or the characters, just that DC treated him like poo poo, and it's annoying that we don't have more DC work from him. He wrote one excellent Batman book and two excellent Superman stories, imagine if DC hadn't hosed him over and instead he wrote the main comic for either of those characters for a year and a half. I've read enough of Promethea that I bet his Wonder Woman would be pretty god damned amazing. He also wrote several Green Lantern stories that basically became the blueprint for loving years of Green Lantern stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
It's also funny when you think Moore would have single-handedly turned a slew of their D-listers into powerhouses had DC just let him use the characters his Watchmen analogues were based on. And now they own his OCDNS's as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
I think it completely benefits the comic and it's longevity and popularity that it's an original/pastiche world. edit: And it let Pax Americana happen 
Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:It's also funny when you think Moore would have single-handedly turned a slew of their D-listers into powerhouses had DC just let him use the characters his Watchmen analogues were based on. TO be fair I'm pretty glad that Ted Kord managed to avoid becoming Nite Owl.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:TO be fair I'm pretty glad that Ted Kord managed to avoid becoming Nite Owl. Yeah because what DC did with him ended up being so much better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:Yeah because what DC did with him ended up being so much better. JLI owned super hard though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
I think Moore's happy for Gibbons to have his name on Watchmen stuff, which is why you get weird things like the credits for the motion comic including Gibbons but not Moore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:JLI owned super hard though? It did. What didn't own was DC promoting Blue Beetle as a breakout star then have him get shot in the head by someone from JLI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Blue Beetle appeared in hundreds of comics across twenty years before an entirely new editorial and creative staff killed him off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
He even got to keep appearing in the Booster Gold series after his death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
And without Ted Kord's prominence, we never would have gotten the excellent (first) Jaime Reyes comic. Also the second season of Young Justice pretty heavily involved Jaime, and that was also good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 05:32
|
|