|
Post by dupersuper on Dec 10, 2015 3:29:41 GMT -5
The best defence of Lost Girls I've come across is a statement from Canada Customs in response to a query from the publisher: I'm more than a little embarrassed to hear that Canada has obscenity guidelines for importing books...
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Dec 10, 2015 3:32:34 GMT -5
No one, who has a soul, would think that anyone deserves to be ripped off. Ever. What about the casino owner in Oceans 11?
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Dec 10, 2015 3:33:06 GMT -5
I'm bowing out of this because I don't really care, and I've never actually read anything by Alan Moore, so that is another reason I don't care. You really really should.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 10, 2015 3:37:46 GMT -5
I think Moore's overall point is valid. Artistically, it makes zero sense to do anything with those characters, given it's finite scope and ambitions, without the direct and sole involvement of the original creators. Watchmen wasn't part of DC's main continuity, so the "sharing" thing doesn't apply. I applaud Paul Levitz for holding out as long as he did. DC used to have people in charge with a bit of integrity when it came to these things.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 10, 2015 5:38:35 GMT -5
I have the exact opposite view: for me some of the worst Darkseid stories are those in which he does take "an active role in physically beating down his opponents", while standing in the background or far away on Apokolips "with his hands behind his back observing" is just the way I think he's best portrayed. Although, in a way, that means I agree with you that Darkseid is a bad villain for Superman or the JLA - because to get him to play that role the writer usually does end up making him just another powered-up fistfighter in order to give Superman someone to beat up.Waste of the great character, IMO. yes indeed, and to put it to a more extreme comparison, it would be like saying Hitler or Kissinger were lame villains because they never were violent warriors. The stock and trade of superhero comics books is physical confrontation. There are villains that do not engage physically, like the Penguin, Puppetmaster but I don't know if you would call them exciting.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 10, 2015 5:42:17 GMT -5
I guess that's why I really like Thanos as a character, he can beat you with his mind AND his physical power set.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 6:43:29 GMT -5
I'm bowing out of this because I don't really care, and I've never actually read anything by Alan Moore, so that is another reason I don't care. You really really should. I'm sure I will one day. I'm not intentionally avoiding reading Moore's work as I do not care about personal stuff like this. But I think it's tacky. But it won't stop me from reading something of his, especially if I end up liking his stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 10, 2015 7:05:45 GMT -5
You really really should. I'm sure I will one day. I'm not intentionally avoiding reading Moore's work as I do not care about personal stuff like this. But I think it's tacky. But it won't stop me from reading something of his, especially if I end up liking his stuff. When I first noticed the name of Moore, it was because his first few Swamp Thing scripts were lauded on Dick Giordano's editorial page. I didn't actively look for them, but as an old Swampy fan I eventually picked one... and my reaction was "why aren't comics always written like this?" I'm not that fond of the most recent League of Extraordinary Gentlemen volumes (everything after the second one, the one with Dr. Moreau, John Carter and the War of the worlds martians)... but Moore's Swamp Thing, Watchmen, Superman, From Hell, and the first two LoEG... they're amazing! The super-hero stuff, in particular, remains true to the concept; it's not a meta-analytical deconstruction of a mythical construct of the American id, it's plain super-hero fun... but intelligent super-hero fun. I find it very sad that a lot of what Moore introduced in comics was not quite understood by many later writers. The more realistic horror, the obscure and arcane references, they were a means to an end, not an end in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 7:30:47 GMT -5
I think Moore's overall point is valid. Artistically, it makes zero sense to do anything with those characters. Does it make any sense at all to take Frank Baum's Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz and turn her into a nymphomaniac cocaine whore who has sex with her own father in Lost Girls? Cuz that's what he did with her...along with Peter Pan, Tinkerbell, Captain Hook, Alice from Wonderland. Throw in other Moore ingredients like rape and bestiality...but Moore fans probably consider this artistic. Others try to legitimise this by saying, oh, those characters are there for the taking because they're now in the public domain...but the fact remains, he has mined well known characters created by others to achieve his own ends.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 10, 2015 8:07:35 GMT -5
I think Moore's overall point is valid. Artistically, it makes zero sense to do anything with those characters. Does it make any sense at all to take Frank Baum's Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz and turn her into a nymphomaniac cocaine whore who has sex with her own father in Lost Girls? Cuz that's what he did with her...along with Peter Pan, Tinkerbell, Captain Hook, Alice from Wonderland. Throw in other Moore ingredients like rape and bestiality...but Moore fans probably consider this artistic. Others try to legitimise this by saying, oh, those characters are there for the taking because they're now in the public domain...but the fact remains, he has mined well known characters created by others to achieve his own ends. To be honest, I have zero interest in Lost Girls on a personal level. It's just not something I'm interested in. I have read a lot of interviews and reviews on the book and from what I gather it's Moore intentionally slinging mud all over nostalgia. He also has ideas about how societies that aren't prudish about pornography are healthier. I think he has some good points, and I do feel that his motivations are artistic, but I have almost total apathy for the subject matter. Is he being disrespectful to the original creators? That depends on what the original creators would have thought if they could see it. Without question, some would have been appalled. Then again, Moore is a self-proclaimed anarchist, and since he can't do it to Superman or Batman without getting sued into oblivion, he makes his statements with public domain characters. I tend to view what Moore was doing with something like Lost Girls as a social satire, as opposed to the literal continuation of plot, story and themes that was Before Watchmen. I think this is the key point that irks Moore. Obviously he's not opposed to people using established characters to tell stories; he did it with Swamp Thing and with Len Wein's enthusiastic approval. However he created something total new with his reworking of Swamp Thing and DID create great new characters like John Constantine in the process. What John's did with his Green Lantern ideas and certainly what happened with Before Watchmen was nothing more than creator's playing around with the framework of his stories and concepts without doing anything innovative with it. From what I've read of his responses, this seems to be his overarching point.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 10, 2015 8:07:39 GMT -5
I think Moore's overall point is valid. Artistically, it makes zero sense to do anything with those characters. Does it make any sense at all to take Frank Baum's Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz and turn her into a nymphomaniac cocaine whore who has sex with her own father in Lost Girls? Cuz that's what he did with her...along with Peter Pan, Tinkerbell, Captain Hook, Alice from Wonderland. Throw in other Moore ingredients like rape and bestiality...but Moore fans probably consider this artistic. Others try to legitimise this by saying, oh, those characters are there for the taking because they're now in the public domain...but the fact remains, he has mined well known characters created by others to achieve his own ends. Hmmm... Here we go again, sigh... OK, so you admit you haven't actually read Lost Girls since nowhere is Dorothy a whore in it? Again, if I'm wrong, what did you think of it, of all the smart techniques wthin it, the wonderfull artwork? We're not saying those characters are for the taking, we're saying exactly how it is : they are in hte public domain, which means that they 've become so popular and part of our myths that they belong to everyone, and it's only fair it is like this. So the fact that he used those charcters is only a problem for you if you don't like the work, but the vitriol you use dismissing it is just personnal : you keep repeating and repeating that he used characters that weren't created by him and implying that he's therefore not the great writer most people see him as, then you admit that you took personnal insult in answers he made about the state of modern mainstream comics when asked so, and stated that you'd stand by authors who took the same ombrage. Seriously... You seem to simply just don't like Moore and be on a small ongoing crusade to undermine him and ignore any counter arguments to your weird attacks (rape, bestiality, really, that's where you want to attack Moore from???) If you feel more comfortable with the 616 and regular DC universe, with the occasional visit to Carrie and her rape fantasies, it's perfectly fine, just ignore Moore, but if you want to debate his merits, listen and take in account others views instead on slamming over and over the same arguments we've already told you we see zero ground with.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 10, 2015 8:15:06 GMT -5
yes indeed, and to put it to a more extreme comparison, it would be like saying Hitler or Kissinger were lame villains because they never were violent warriors. The stock and trade of superhero comics books is physical confrontation. There are villains that do not engage physically, like the Penguin, Puppetmaster but I don't know if you would call them exciting. To each his own : this aspect of Physical confrontation is what personnaly distracted me for many years from superhero comics. ALas, I was then reading Sandman and was mesmerized by the confrontations between Morpheus and Lucifer. My first real exposure to Darkseid was in the late 90ies with Morrison's JLA, and I thought he was an excellant character. I guess why I was never able to get into the X-Men was that it seemed to only be about soap and fighting, and yes Pengun is one of my fave bats villain, because he manages to somehow make you believe he could be an ally. Non physical confrontational villains can be really good since you never know where the blow is going to come from. But as with everything superhero related, I guess it's all mostly down to the capacity of the writer and the artist.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 8:17:12 GMT -5
Hmmm... Here we go again, sigh... OK, so you admit you haven't actually read Lost Girls since nowhere is Dorothy a whore in it? Again, if I'm wrong, You are, I read it back around 2008 or 2009. You don't understand my use of the word whore. You've also admitted English isn't your first language (although you're quite fluent articulating yourself). I cannot give you a detailed discussion on Lost Girls simply because it's too graphic to reproduce scans here, or to describe things in detail. You above anyone else who've read it should understand that. I didn't like the artwork though. If you want to console yourself that my 'attacks' are personal and weird, whatever dude...I just see a dedicated Moore fan who cannot understand that I am referring to Moore's hypocrisy above anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 10, 2015 8:25:15 GMT -5
If I'm a fan just because I like his work when it's successfull (OMG that horrible Deathblow mini!) than you have a very loose use of the word "fan" Indeed I'm french, so english only is my third language. I don't see how it's impossible to get a detailed discussion on Lost Girls : You already gave most of the most polarizing details in a most negative way. People who have read it have been discussing it here for pages now. I'm just trying to follow you there dude, to try to find where discussion starts instead of confrontation because you keep saying the same weird thing about his supposed hypocrisy and we keep giving you counter arguments you dismissed with Jason Aaron and Grant Morrison tribunes against him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 9:14:07 GMT -5
If I'm a fan just because I like his work when it's successfull (OMG that horrible Deathblow mini!) than you have a very loose use of the word "fan" Indeed I'm french, so english only is my third language. I don't see how it's impossible to get a detailed discussion on Lost Girls : You already gave most of the most polarizing details in a most negative way. People who have read it have been discussing it here for pages now. I'm just trying to follow you there dude, to try to find where discussion starts instead of confrontation because you keep saying the same weird thing about his supposed hypocrisy and we keep giving you counter arguments you dismissed with Jason Aaron and Grant Morrison tribunes against him. She's already stated what she thinks, and she's explained it (from what I have read). She didn't even owe you that.Why keep badgering her until she gives you an explanation you are satisfied with? If she wants to discuss it any further with you, consider it a gift.
|
|