|
Lightning Lord posted:You mean here or in general? The mouthbreathing contingent of comics readers think its some kind of sick own on that beard guy who said mean things about superhero comics Huh? What's an own on who? Geoff Jones writing his Watchmen fan fic is a sick own on Alan Moore, which is great because he said mean things about superhero comics?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
Lick! The! Whisk! posted:After a year away from comics I'm gonna try to get back in. Going back to my old pull lists can someone tell me what of these comics are worth catching up on/still ongoing? That's my recommendation. Especially so the ones asterisked. Also go back and read Black Bolt. One of the best comics coming out right now. It's by Saladin Ahmed, his first comic writing job, and it's fantastic. X-O fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Lick! The! Whisk! posted:Wait It is in my book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:Huh? What's an own on who? Geoff Jones writing his Watchmen fan fic is a sick own on Alan Moore, which is great because he said mean things about superhero comics? A lot of dumb dumbs are mad at Moore because he is clearly no longer interested in superheroes, yet he is constantly asked about them for obvious reasons, so he responds truthfully. Moore doesn't like the continual exploitation of Watchmen because he feels (and I agree) that DC are violating the spirit of their contract with him and Dave Gibbons because they kept it in print, despite that being unheard of at the time. Therefore, the best way to strike back at the mean wizard is to support DC's Chief Armripper pinching a loaf shaped like the famous smiley face button onto the world. Hope his helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Tom King's Batman is very very good
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:A lot of dumb dumbs are mad at Moore because he is clearly no longer interested in superheroes, yet he is constantly asked about them for obvious reasons, so he responds truthfully. Moore doesn't like the continual exploitation of Watchmen because he feels (and I agree) that DC are violating the spirit of their contract with him and Dave Gibbons because they kept it in print, despite that being unheard of at the time. Therefore, the best way to strike back at the mean wizard is to support DC's Chief Armripper pinching a loaf shaped like the famous smiley face button onto the world. Hope his helps. I can't wait for the inevitable Watchmen Omnibus that includes all the prequel stuff and this current story bookending the actual Watchmen which is credited only to The Author.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:I can't wait for the inevitable Watchmen Omnibus that includes all the prequel stuff and this current story bookending the actual Watchmen which is credited only to The Author. Have you seen the insane hardcover slipcase?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:A lot of dumb dumbs are mad at Moore because he is clearly no longer interested in superheroes, yet he is constantly asked about them for obvious reasons, so he responds truthfully. Moore doesn't like the continual exploitation of Watchmen because he feels (and I agree) that DC are violating the spirit of their contract with him and Dave Gibbons because they kept it in print, despite that being unheard of at the time. While the constant new editions of Watchmen is a bit silly, it is the best selling comic of all time. Of course it's still in print.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:42
|
|
Alhazred posted:While the constant new editions of Watchmen is a bit silly, it is the best selling comic of all time. Of course it's still in print. They kept it in print at a loss several years in a row just so they could hold onto the license. Don't try to act like this is just market forces.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:They kept it in print at a loss several years in a row just so they could hold onto the license. Don't try to act like this is just market forces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Speaking of video game adaptions, I seem to recall the Brazilian Mega Man adaption has acquired an infamous reputation. I have no idea how they got away with half of the poo poo that apparently happened in that book - I guess back in the 90s, people didn't give a crap. Yeah, there was recently an episode of Desk of Death Battle that dove into this series and it's... something. For those who don't know if it, it's like Ken Penders' Sonic the Hedgehog run, only more unhinged and with lots and lots of naked Roll. It was originally written by a guy who didn't care for Mega Man at all and he actually intended to kill off the entire cast and replace them with his own original characters. Then he got removed and his replacements weren't much better. Somehow it lasted around 15 issues. Meanwhile, Capcom axed Malibu's Street Fighter comic in three issues for being too violent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Capcom forgetting Mega Man exists is hardly news
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Himuro posted:So what happened to the other Jughead title? Oops, I missed a rousing round of Archie chat! The main Jughead title is on "hiatus", which is a shame because it got quite fun once Zdarsky dropped the dream gimmick, and Ryan North's brief run was great. Mark Waid and Ian Flynn took over for a few issues after that, then it stopped. Based on one of the gags in Sex Criminals, I'm guessing Archie couldn't really pay a lot, and they were doing it out of love more than anything. The first two Archie horror titles are technically still ongoing but in practice are a yearly event if we're lucky, since the guy who writes those is busy running Riverdale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Do you have any sources for this? Watchmen has been a pretty popular/evergreen trade for decades, I've never heard about them keeping it in print at a loss. So it was Moore's decision to sign a contract that screwed him over, not a fundamental lack of respect from DC? The way I heard it, the in print thing was a standard clause back then, but the subsequent refusal for 30+ years to reach a more equitable arrangement seems to well justify the bridge burning. Kirby got his original art back eventually, right? And the Ohio boys got their names on every Superman comic and some cash to boot, iirc. Is there any truth to DC offering Alan Moore a million dollars to say he approved of the movie and him looking down and whispering 'no'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:So it was Moore's decision to sign a contract that screwed him over, not a fundamental lack of respect from DC? quote:The way I heard it, the in print thing was a standard clause back then, but the subsequent refusal for 30+ years to reach a more equitable arrangement seems to well justify the bridge burning. Kirby got his original art back eventually, right? And the Ohio boys got their names on every Superman comic and some cash to boot, iirc. The difference between Vertigo books and Watchmen is a couple of decades and a more clearly delineated "creator-owned" clause, which did not exist in 1986. The "fall out of print after X period" thing was probably seen as more of a fait acompli in 1986 than in 1996/2006/2016 because in 1986 there was not a "trade paperback" market to speak of, so the expectation was basically that awhile after the series concludes, it would fall out of print. Obviously it never did, and millions of copies of Watchmen have been sold in collected form in the past three decades. This in itself wasn't Moore/Gibbons "signing a contract that screwed them over", or DC crafting a dastardly plot to gently caress them over. It was a change in the market, in the same way that thousands of contracts across media didn't factor in MTV or home video or iTunes or syndication or streaming services or ebooks or whatever else before it existed. Pretty much all of these went to court because the default position of media companies is not to pay creators more than they're legally obligated to. I'm not defending this, and lots of lawsuits have resulted in victories for creators like the ones you mentioned in the comic book industry. The difference between Moore and most of these other cases is that Moore has very strict principles and he sticks to them. This in itself is admirable, but the vast majority of people in his position (including his collaborator Dave Gibbons) would ultimately be happy with being paid (maybe they're not getting paid enough, I have no idea) for all of the use and exploitation of their IP, at least up to the point that you start doing stupid-rear end prequels/sequels, which is where Gibbons sort of jumped off of the train too. It's still lovely that DC isn't following his wishes and are barreling along with these things sans his blessing, and that it takes lawsuits for corporations to accept that whoops, just because this contract said we give you royalties on [format X] but did not mention [heretofore uninvented format Y], you have to sue us to pay you for both, but that's completely unrelated to the claim Lurdiak made, that DC was pumping out collections of Watchmen beyond all market demand and losing money just to gently caress over Alan Moore, which again, I have never heard before, is counter to the overwhelming "we want to make money and not share it" motive of DC and similar companies, and also counter to the fact that Watchmen has been a consistent best seller forever. That was the only thing about this I was questioning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 03:22
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Do you have any sources for this? Watchmen has been a pretty popular/evergreen trade for decades, I've never heard about them keeping it in print at a loss. I heard it was doing pretty poorly in the early 2000s for at least 3 years.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Has anybody read the Mars Attacks! comics? I got the first collection and it was pretty boring. It was significantly less violent, wacky, and fun than the cards themselves. Do the later comics get better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I heard it was doing pretty poorly in the early 2000s for at least 3 years. It looks like Diamond didn't include back catalog/"Star System" stuff in their top sellers of the year until 2000. In 2000, Watchmen was the 13th best selling trade of the year. 2000: 13th best selling trade 2001: 33rd 2002: 49th 2003: 23rd 2004: 18th 2005: 15th 2006: 8th 2007: 4th 2008: 1st 2009: 1st The Bookscan charts Brian Hibbs put together for most of these years were wiped from Newsarama and a pain to track down on archive.org but in 2003 and 2004 Bookscan (which tracks a bunch of retail bookshops but not all, significantly not Amazon) had sales of 14,000 for Watchmen in 2003 and 11,000 in 2004, can't find the numbers for 2001-2 where direct sales numbers were hypothetically the 'lowest' but DC was still selling more copies of Watchmen than the majority of new trades they were issuing. I am not a forensic accountant or anything but again, I don't see how this is printing the book at a loss just to gently caress over Moore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
I’m not saying If This be My Destiny is the best comic story ever told, but if it’s not, it’s close. Talk about a story that lives up to the hype. Another one that lives up to the hype: the coming of Galactus. Marvel was on some kind of wonderful high in late 65 / early 66.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Your quest to read all Marvel reminded me of the 60s Marvel homage 1963 that Alan Moore did. Was that ever collected in a trade?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:Your quest to read all Marvel reminded me of the 60s Marvel homage 1963 that Alan Moore did. Was that ever collected in a trade? No, and it was never completed either. #6 ended on a cliffhanger that promised to be completed in a 1963 Annual, with art by Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld. Back in 1993. Bwah ha ha! (The miniseries was excellent, though. I still have it and love it.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:No, and it was never completed either. #6 ended on a cliffhanger that promised to be completed in a 1963 Annual, with art by Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld. Back in 1993. Didn't Rob claim he had the script and would one day publish the book?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Didn't Rob claim he had the script and would one day publish the book? I've never heard that, but I would love to see it one day. Have you noticed how Ed Piskor holds Rob Liefeld in the highest regard? I'm a huge Piskor fan, and he's caused me to reevaluate everything I ever thought about Liefeld, to the point where I have a much higher opinion of his work now -- more like how I felt about him when I was in middle school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
I think I only ever saw the 1963 Annual rumor posted here, we had a Rob superfan back in the early days but I don't recall his username. And really there's quite a few people who love Rob, he has this crazy energy about him and he's genuinely a nice guy, it's kind of hard to hate him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Question: was there a particular movie (or other bad experience) that put Alan Moore off adaptations of his comics or is he just against them in principle? I know for Watchmen, he maintained for a long time that he didn't see much sense in making it a film because in his view there are things in it that only work in a comic, but st the same time, I remember reading an older interview he gave (maybe the early 90s) where he mentions a putative From He'll adaptation that he seems quite enthusiastic about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Question: was there a particular movie (or other bad experience) that put Alan Moore off adaptations of his comics or is he just against them in principle? He got sued because of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (as far as I know the only movie adaption of his work where he's credited). Joel Silver told people that Alan Moore was really exited about the movie adaption of V for Vendetta when Moore had repeatedly said that he didn't want to be involved and thought that the script was rubbish. He also believes that Warner Bros tried to blackmail him into endorsing Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:And really there's quite a few people who love Rob, he has this crazy energy about him and he's genuinely a nice guy, it's kind of hard to hate him. He tried to rip off an elderly widow so he could continue making his Captain America fanfic. He may really love his fans but I don't think that makes him overall a nice person. EDIT: I shouldn't make that claim like I know it's a fact, but I did read it in quite a few places. joehonkie fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
To be fair, the film adaptations of Moore's work have been bad going back all the way to Return of the Swamp Thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Senior Woodchuck posted:To be fair, the film adaptations of Moore's work have been bad going back all the way to Return of the Swamp Thing. Motherfucker I know you did'n just say that
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Oh yeah, that Swamp Thing show that was on when I was a kid. Did that have anything to do with Alan Moore? I only vaguely recall one episode and it had something to do with satanic messages in some rock band's songs or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Alan Moore's favorite thing: http://youtu.be/3H5zXh6MVvg There was also this. Kari Wuhrer played Abby Arcane, and I remember her being really hot way back then: http://youtu.be/uLSghgZxIHA Big Bad Voodoo Lou fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
He actually did say nice things about the JLU episode "For The Man Who Has Everything."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
It's impossible to say anything bad about that episode. Even DT can't complain about Jason Todd not being in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:It's impossible to say anything bad about that episode. Even DT can't complain about Jason Todd not being in it. Probably because he never thought about it like that before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:He got sued because of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (as far as I know the only movie adaption of his work where he's credited). Oh, yes, that's right. I remember that now. He was accused of plagiarising the concept, wasn't he? Odd, since he neither did it first (Philip José Farmer) nor, while I think LoEG is in the upper quartile of things he's done, best (Kim Newman).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Oh, yes, that's right. I remember that now. He was accused of plagiarising the concept, wasn't he? This kinda poo poo happens all the time. There was a woman claiming Terminator and The Matrix were both based off an original script of hers. At Harry Potter signings fans would try and hand Rowling their own fiction and her agent would grab them and get rid of them before she could even touch them on the off chance there was any coincidental similarities between one of them and some future book she wrote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:This kinda poo poo happens all the time. There was a woman claiming Terminator and The Matrix were both based off an original script of hers. At Harry Potter signings fans would try and hand Rowling their own fiction and her agent would grab them and get rid of them before she could even touch them on the off chance there was any coincidental similarities between one of them and some future book she wrote. Yeah, I remember in the early 90s, Terry Pratchett interacted a lot with fans online, but had to stop when people started accusing him of stealing their ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
The Terminator one is kinda funny if accurate because Harlan Ellison had enough of a potential claim to get a settlement from the story that also was an Outer Limits episode (Soldier). The thing is it's completely possible that whoever wrote Terminator saw that episode as a kid, has no memory of seeing it, but some details stuck in their brain until writing the script as an adult. Or they totally plagerized it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
so uh, not so into the whole comics game these days, and I only just discovered Doomsday Clock is a thing. what in the gently caress is going on? how is this happening? how are people not straight-up revolting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:so uh, not so into the whole comics game these days, and I only just discovered Doomsday Clock is a thing. Comic nerds are dumb bad people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 00:33
|
|