viagra 24 hours delivery

Wait, What? Ep. 143: The Score

Jeff Lester

 photo alan-moore-message-to-extraterrestrials-mystic-fnord-coolest-shit-ever_500x375.jpg
Simpsons Alan Moore: Knows it; wishes to settle it.

Happy New Year, fellow Whatnauts! Graeme and I are back with another installment of the external manifestation of the constant internal chatter constantly haunting your brain.  After the jump: the link and some hasty show notes written by a dude with a cold trying to get this wrapped so he can take a nap!

So, first and foremost:  you do remember we’ve shifted to a fortnightly/biweekly recording schedule, yes?  You’re not going to miss us that much, I know, what with the hundreds of hours of entertainment pouring at you like candy-colored magma, but we do appreciate you continuing to tune in, and hope our latest round of agreeable disagreements will provide your day with a bit of pleasure…

00:00-16-49: Greetings? Our first podcast of the new year and on the plus side, we’re on it within the first ninety seconds, talking about that lengthy Alan Moore interview (that as of recording time, Graeme had read in its entirety, but Jeff, alas, had not).  Unfortunately, for the first ninety seconds, there are subjects we are not nearly as “on it” (such as talking and saying the proper year out loud, etc.)  But make sure you listen to Jeff and Graeme have a very polite dispute on Alan Moore/Grant Morrison’s far less polite dispute.
16:49-34:22: As much as we probably could’ve lingered on Moore’s interview forever (had Jeff read it, anyway), we had other fish to fry: we were recording on the day of the Image Expo.  We go over the announcements and our impressions. (Sadly, they’re not, like, actual impressions.  We don’t alternate trying to talk like Robert Kirkman or whatever, but I think you know what we mean.)
34:22-1:06:02: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…  Marvel got the Star Wars license! (yes, we have some old ground to catch up on.)  Jeff frets about his digital collection and talks about why (in the face of mounting evidence that he should not).  Also discussed:  whether or not we’re excited about Marvel having the rights, age differences and Return of the Jedi, the book market, and more. [Note:  the Marvel exec whose name Jeff couldn’t remember — and whom Graeme couldn’t remember at all –  is Ruwan Jayatilleke and some of the stuff Jeff is talking about comes from here.
1:06:02-1:30:43:  Discussion of the rumors that the Amazons are Kryptonian descendants in the Man of Steel sequel!  Jeff wanted to talk about this rumor (originally mentioned and clarified here).  Naturally, we talk a bit about The Man of Steel (since Jeff finally saw it), Star Trek Into Darkness, plans, theories, ideas, and stuff.  Because I grew up in the ’70s, I re-read the last part of that previous sentence and realized how much I sound like my fifth grade teacher.
1:18:23-1:30:43: “Hulk Hates Puny Relaunches!”  With its third reboot in as many years, is The Hulk a title that just can’t work?  Or is this barely any different than Marvel’s relaunch of Daredevil? There’s a brief lull in the conversation for 2014’s first mini-Techpocalypse but it’s actually surprisingly small.  Would that it were our only one.
1:30:43-1:45:27:  Other topics, covered a bit more quickly:  the leaked cover of Amazing Spider-Man!  Original Sin, the upcoming Marvel crossover event!  Shia LaBeouf!  This should’ve led to a more in-depth conversation about comics we’ve read recently, including the Astonishing Spider-Man & Wolverine miniseries by Jason Aaron and Adam Kubert; and Detective Comics #27 by a mess of people including Brad Meltzer, Bryan Hitch, Francesco Francavilla, Gregg Hurwitz, Neal Adams, Peter J. Tomasi, Ian Bertram, John Layman, Jason Fabok, Scott Snyder, Sean Murphy, and others.  But then we get derailed by another tech problem so instead we change gears and talk about…
1:45:27-1:54:28: Misfits!  That cheeky bastard of a show recently wrapped up and Jeff finally caught up on it, and we discuss the finale.  (Despite a lot of complaints on Jeff’s part, the show is worth digging up over on Hulu and having a watch, if you can put aside any preference on your part for internal logic of any kind whatsoever.)
1:54:28-end: Closing comments! Apologies! Reminders we have moved to that fortnightly schedule, so we will be back in two weeks! Closing show music!

Well, that wrapped things up, didn’t it?  Okay then, we’ll see you — oh, what’s that?  The actual podcast?  Oh yeah, well, that’s available by now probably on iTunes, and our RSS feed (and I was supposed to look into that other RSS service Al from House to Astonish wanted us to consider but I haven’t done that yet) and, in fact, directly below:

Wait, What? Ep. 143: The Score

As always, we hope you and enjoy and thank you for listening!  And now, if you’ll excuse us, it is naptime in the hopes of a speedy recovery.

39 Responses to “ Wait, What? Ep. 143: The Score ”

  1. “mmhm, mmhm” – Jeff Lester, every single podcast

  2. “IN-tresting.” ;)

  3. Has Alan Moore become the Armond White of the Comics industry? I really hope not.

  4. The guy at Marvel who talked about the different metrics Marvel employs appered in the comics section of the Beat.

  5. hey Jeff, I’ve been replaying the Telltale Sam and Max games lately and I couldn’t help but notice your name in the writer’s credits… Uhm, was that you or is there another Jeff Lester out there?

  6. The fact that Jeff was a freaking elitist as far back as junior year of high school (with Jedi) surprises me not. Good stuff guys.

  7. And yes, guys, that was a joke.

  8. Re: Image Expo: Love that middle class taxcut analogy. I would even go a bit further and call it an upper class tax cut. Just speculation, but I suspect a lot of the names among the creative teams are people who’ve made > 1 million dollars making comics. It’s a testament to the power of PR that Image has been able to spin making white homeowners more successful into a “Revolution.” I don’t object necessarily to finally letting these proven creators follow their respective muses. It’s the dissonance between Image’s marketing and their actual publishing strategy which leaves a bad taste.

  9. Jury nullification?

  10. During voir dire, I was asked point blank if I objected to U.S. drug law policy. I said I did (going so far as to mention the David Simon situation/petition/whatever), and I was still selected to serve in a drug trial. I was bummed at the time, but it was actually pretty fascinating. I recommend NOT trying like hell to avoid it.

  11. Just CBR the stuff you purchased. They will screw you over, even with the best intentions. You purchased it. Torrent the CBR of those Star Wars issues just in case.

    - G

  12. As for linking Superman to the rest of the JLA, I believed that’s exactly what they did for J. Michael Strazynski’s Supreme Power.

    - G

  13. Jeff, how did you know I love “candy colored magma?”

  14. But “rape vans?” Not so much.

  15. I disagree with Jeff’s assessment of “Man of Steel” (I liked it a lot).* That said, I completely agree with his theory behind the “Justice League”movie.

    I think that not only do all the breadcrumbs lead toward the scenario he described (all/most of the other characters are derived from Superman/Krypton in some way), but I also think it’s kind of a brilliant streamlining of a bunch of otherwise unrelated characters/powers that could potentially create a much more satisfying and coherent long-form narrative arc than the Marvel films have been able to do thus far (like them though I do).

    I also think (as Jeff suggests) that it’s a nice way to differentiate the DC Cinematic Universe from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

    We’ll see if they actually go in that direction, but I’m kind of hoping that they do.

    —-

    *For what it’s worth I can’t stand Silver Age Superman (and I hated “All-Star Superman” with a passion), but I quite liked: John Byrne’s “Man of Steel” from the 1980s, “It’s Superman” by Tom DeHaven, the Max Fleischer “Superman” cartoons, and “Superman Returns”.

  16. Christopher Nolan actually poo-pooed the neck snapping, and it sounds like it may not have been in the original script but something that came up in development.

    I was kind of bummed that you guys were running with the assumption of Nolan’s Batman’s films as being dark and cynical as opposed to optimistic despite being very self-reflective about the violence inherent to the character.

  17. re: Being “comically racist”: There’s no such thing, and feeling bad about saying racist things, even as satire, is the right place to be.

  18. Just starting the episode gents (by the way, very happy to have you back – not that you were gone for more than the proscribed fortnight, but, y’know, there it is).

    And I wanted to comment on Moore’s interview, noting that I have drunk the Moore kool-aid and do, for the most part, take his side in many of these online arguments.

    Now, I don’t want to argue Graeme’s point of it being sad that Moore took so much time to respond to the “Morrison controversy.” It is that. And the disconnect between Moore stating that he does not think of Morrison and following that with a long screed is a totally valid point to make. That said, though, this is fully in keeping with Moore’s approach to questions/controversies of this nature. He has stated that, rather than taking a more rational/calm approach, he tends to skew far, far, far off toward the extreme, in order to not just make his point, but also to give him no wiggle room to backtrack on his principles/points.

    Not unlike Harlan Ellison, Moore likes to utilize a scorched earth policy, in this regard. I cannot say it is the best way for him to handle these types of issues, but I certainly admire him for not muddling about with his responses.

    As always, love the show – the chemistry between you two is what keeps me anticipating future episodes and puts the newest ones at the top of the “pile.” Thanks again for all you guys do.

    chris

  19. I think that not only do all the breadcrumbs lead toward the scenario he described (all/most of the other characters are derived from Superman/Krypton in some way), but I also think it’s kind of a brilliant streamlining of a bunch of otherwise unrelated characters/powers that could potentially create a much more satisfying and coherent long-form narrative arc than the Marvel films have been able to do thus far (like them though I do).

    You lost me at the notion that Warner Bros and DC were remotely capable of doing something more coherent and satisfying than Marvel Films. They’re incompetent chickens running around with their heads cut off, making it up as they go along. Let’s not get it twisted. The movies will do okay for the same reason DC comics will keep doing okay despite lack of quality: they have the resources to keep the product looking slick, and the characters are iconic enough and their fans addicted enough that people will overlook lack of quality.

    I was kind of bummed that you guys were running with the assumption of Nolan’s Batman’s films as being dark and cynical as opposed to optimistic despite being very self-reflective about the violence inherent to the character.

    What do you mean by “assumption?” That’s kind of insulting. So when people disagree with you about something you like by calling it dark and cynical, they are operating off of “assumptions?” Yet when you came to the conclusion that “it’s very self-reflecting about violence supposedly inherent to the character,” that’s somehow more based on scientific fact or something?

    Seriously, think about the implications of what you just wrote. That your opinions are so undeniably gospel that the only way a person can possibly come to a conclusion that’s different from yours is if they are making assumptions? Here’s a crazy idea: maybe they thought very long and hard, gave it a fair shake, were objective, are well-versed in the history of the character, and went in with a totally open mind, and through deep thought, reason and personal judgment came to the conclusion that Nolan is dark and cynical and that the violence portrayed wasn’t inherent to the character.

    Better that than chastising them for being too intellectually incompetent or dishonest to get the correct answer you did.

  20. Jeff: were you thinking of jury nullification?

  21. Regarding Layman’s Gothtopia arc in Detective: I glommed onto Layman’s run because I’m a big CHEW fan, and it’s all been decidedly enjoyable in the way kinda-OK batman is–and he writes a fairly smart Bats, which I like. He did a very good little Jim Gordon story for a Zero Year tie-in. I’ve not gotten to the shop yet, so #27 is still languishing in my pulls, but I’m actually really excited for Gothtopia. He hasn’t really gotten a chance to do anything nearly as offbeat as CHEW is, and Gothtopia looks right in his wheelhouse in that respect.

  22. Apparently? Checking wikipedia, the term looks like what I mostly had in mind although I think my goofy mind taffy-pulled it so it doesn’t read *quite* right.

  23. Fuck: that instant reply didn’t do much good. Okay, let me try this, in reverse order:

    @A.L. Baroza and RM Rhodes: Yeah, apparently that was the term. Thanks!

    @T: Dude, you kind of went in with claws bared on those two commenters, jeez. For what it’s worth, I’m on board with Steely Dan, in part because he agrees with me on my beautiful theory. But, T, I should add that I would normally agree with your ‘incompetent chickens’ theory *until* we get to Nolan: the dude has enough juice that his production company should be able to be left alone from all the interference and back-stabbery jammed into the Warners lot.

    Also, you jumping on Joe for his assumptions — as much as it seemed like a noble defense — came off as just plain mean…which tends not to give anyone pause on the Internet but seemed a bit unnecessary here. Also, it’s worth pointing out that while Graeme and I dislike different parts of Nolan’s Batman trilogy for different reasons so we’re not quite the unified front of careful consideration you paint us as.

    @Chris Beckett: Yeah, we started later than the fortnight, which made me do the Homer Simpson antsy dance, but I think it’s going to end up working out just right, especially if we keep alternating with House To Astonish.

    And good point about Moore, even if you do end up comparing him to Harlan Ellison which is usually not a good way to defend a person, I think.

    @David Sanchez: (comment #2): Well, I do think there is such a thing as being comically racist as a way to mock racist opinions and ideals…but I very much think it should be left to the professional comedian-types, which Graeme and I most certainly are not. So I think we can say that you and I agree on the important points on this one.

    (comment #1): Yup, that’s me! (Although there are lots of Jeff Lesters out there, including the guy who married Suzanne Anton and was on Seinfeld and ST:TNG. That guy is pretty much the King of the Jeff Lesters.) Although I contributed a very minor design solution or two, the majority of what I did was contribute Sam & Max-like dialogue, which I think I enjoyed tremendously and think I did pretty well. However, then TTG got Chuck Jordan who did an even better job with their dialogue and is an awesome designer as well, which is part of why the games really get great, in my opinion. But, yes! that’s me!

    @Joe: I think Nolan’s Batman movies are actually optimistic about violence and about human nature (as the whole boat sequence in Dark Knight was supposed to prove) but that third movie left a *really* bad taste in my mouth about his depiction of democracy, which at its best seems to subscribe to Hamiltonian elitism.

    Anyway, if you read this far, please do me a favor and don’t let me be a thread-killer, eh? I thought it would be a good idea to jump in, answer a question, and thank some helpful types, but I worry I’ll strangle the conversation in the crib (again).

  24. The conversation appears to be on life-support…

  25. Best way to avoid jury assignment is to be VERY interested in the case and being appointed.

    On poor old Image comics, I always thought that the A list books were subsidizing the indie-er titles, but that’s clearly not the case. So yeah, image is certainly the place for non big 2 books, but not quite an anarchist bookshop either. I still hope they take a big piece of the pie, but I’d like to see more new names and ideas coming out of there. They also need a little more reliability as far as false starts and irregular schedules are concerned. They certainly have the corporate narrative down. Now they need a little more commitment.

    Good show guys! Keep them coming!

  26. Contra Graeme’s interpretation of what interested Nolan about Goyer’s take on Superman, it’s been reported that Nolan was resistant to the idea of Superman killing Zod, and that Snyder and Goyer had to talk him into it.

  27. @Jeff: hah, wow, that’s pretty awesome about the S&M games. I think you did a good job! :-D

    The racism thing is just my opinion, but yeah I think it takes a lot to pull it off… Like the problem often becomes that although the person saying the joke doesn’t mean it, it feels weird because no matter how exaggerated you try to be, you just know someone out there actually feels like that…

    I like jokes about racism, like about fear of being seen as racist, such as seen in Curb and Seinfeld. I also think some PoC comedians do jokes about racism quite well, and a comedian I really like here in Norway named Otto Jespersen used to do a pretty great tv-show that was mainly about racism, and it was really well-done. So yeah, not impossible, but hard, especially for white people.

  28. Regarding the Star Wars license, can any armchair lawyers out there explain to me if there’s any reason that Dark Horse couldn’t slash prices ridiculously low on the digital stuff during their last days publishing the stuff? It would’ve been pretty tough back in the print-only days, what with costs for warehousing, production, etc. But digitally, I mean, why not just say “100 issues for five bucks!” in a desperate attempt to grab as much cash as you can before the money tree withers and dies?

  29. You guys ask why Moore seems so pointedly upset with Morrison specifically, when he’s experienced greater, more understandable wrongs from other parties. I think a lot of Moore’s seemingly out-of-proportion perturbation with Morrison comes down to art and aesthetics. A lot of this is on an artistic level, not a realistic level that outsiders can appreciate. Morrison obviously has gone out of his way to construct a sort of Oedipal relationship between himself and Moore. And though Morrison, despite his huge creative successes in other regards, tends to “lose” in most confrontations with Moore (i.e., Morrison’s work repeatedly invokes the spirit of Moore without ever being able to exorcise it fully), in some sense Morrison has gotten under Moore’s skin in this weird way that none of us can relate to. Though I think Moore is hugely delusional about a LOT of things, I think he should get a free pass in some regards, particularly when it comes to how writers feel about their work as it is basically challenged (however futilely) by otherwise capable writers (in this case, Morrison). I don’t really think anyone else can know what it feels like to be Alan Moore, known as the greatest comic book writer ever *for work he basically disavows now*, and how the same company that screwed him over employs another British writer who, in addition to his other work, has had quite a habit of invoking and interpellating Moore’s work, again and again, over the years. You have to add in the element of how Morrison tries to be rebellious while remaining a company man to really understand why Alan Moore would find him so offensive. Moore did great work by juxtaposing the nostalgia of superheroes with more “realistic” considerations; Morrison’s tact was to tell people to worship childhood nostalgia as if it were composed of gods. My point here is not to besmirch Morrison but simply to show that Morrison’s aesthetic seems to bait what people know about Moore’s work, and then twist it into something that Moore personally would disagree with greatly. That’s gotta hit Moore on a very unique level.

    Lastly, I don’t see how Moore should be criticized for writing so much about Morrison here, when a) Morrison has been talking about Moore for years, while reimagining aspects of Moore’s work within his own for years as well; and b) when all of you/us comics critics guys have spent untold hours gossiping about both of these guys. Moore would have to do another ten interviews like this to match what Morrison has said about him over the years. And he’d have to do another fifty interviews to match the gossippy Moore content of this (great!) podcast in its history.

    I really enjoyed what you guys had to say about the Image Expo. I think you guys attacked the dismaying problematic nature of this from all the right angles. Unlike you guys, however, I wasn’t interested in many of the actual projects. I can’t fault Image for wanting to put out books by these creators, but hardly any of it looked very interesting (much less innovative/”forward-thinking”) to me. The Scott Snyder and “Jock” book (I put his name in quotes because I think it’s just effing pretentious) is like something Tony Daniel would have done for McFarlane Studios in 1996. I just don’t see much about this line-up that’s “Revolutionary” in any way. Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful discussion on it. For a while there, it seemed like all that other sites had to say about it only ran along the lines of “15 white guys (who happen to be huge names in the industry) all on stage together? If I, your humble aging white correspondent with a million unfulfilled comics dreams of my own, pretend to be ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIED AND OUTRAGED TO MY VERY MORAL CORE by that insulting and exponentially racist spectacle, then will you please tell me how great I am?” Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but that’s what a lot of those editorials seemed like to me. Though race obviously does play into the sameness factor, and I think the problem is a little deeper than that.

  30. About my Nolan comments

    @T I’m sorry, I wasn’t using assumption in the sense of Graeme was making a guess rather that the large conversation has taken it as a given that Nolan’s Batman is dark and cynical. Like it’s not even a thing that is really discussed. For a lot of conversations, it’s the baseline.

    @Jeff TDKR is a really weird and flawed film, but ultimately I don’t think it really offers any particular ideology beyond Liberal Democracies with social contracts are good.

    Bane is a pretender to the new, a fascist in Marxist clothing. The Bloombergesque Gotham mayor puts the prosperity of the few on the backs of the many. And Batman ultimately works best as metaphor.

    With the rise of Robin though, there is a chance for the new. Throughout the film, Blake questions Batman’s tactics, especially when it comes to deception and theatrics which are shown to be flawed tools of diminishing returns. He also seems to dislike the idea of the secret identity making the revelation of his name actually being Robin an interesting one which ties into Selina’s comments of us living in a world with anonymity.

    Robin has the drive and morality of Nolan’s Batman while rejecting his mentor’s tactics. He is a hero for the Age of Transparency. He is Robin of the comics stripped down to his most core and important role: As a promise of a new hero for the better Gotham that Batman fights for. And that is what the film is ultimately championing above all us, for the new.

  31. “…another British writer who, in addition to his other work, has had quite a habit of invoking and interpellating Moore’s work, again and again, over the years.”

    @wattan
    i’m not sure what you mean by this. other than perhaps his very first few issues of ANIMAL MAN (which morrison himself acknowledges were purposefully written in a moore-like prosey style, because he thought that’s what DC wanted; but by issue five, with THE COYOTE GOSPEL, Morrison was definitely writing in his own distinct voice; other than that, i’m not sure what morrison works you believe have invoked or interpolated moore’s work, over and over. the fact that moore sees parallels between FROM HELL and BIBLE JOHN, or LOST GIRLS and SEBASTIAN O, is kinda amusing as he is accusing grant of ripping off “general vibes” for stories from early chapters/press, since both of grant’s stories were completed long before alan’s were.

    having been a huge fan of both writers for over two decades now, i’ve never found them to be all that similar as writers (no moreso than the raft of other writers who were grant’s peers and were ALL influenced by alan — milligan, ennis, ellis, et al). if i were moore, i would save my Glycon snakey wrathful ire for people like JMS with the godawful hot mess of a WATCHMEN rip-off that was RISING STARS. hoo boy, now THAT was hugely derivative while utterly missing the point.

    grant’s work has always been messy and highly idea-driven, in a meta and stream of consciousness sort of way, from ANIMAL MAN to THE INVISIBLES to THE FILTH to WE3. Alan’s work is the opposite of messy and it’s generally NOT about the ideas. one of the “bitchy” (Alan’s word) comments i recall grant making about the ABC line when it first launched was that they were “Dad comics”; meaning, the ideas were lackluster, backward looking, recycled comic pitches that could have (or did) already exist in some form or another. and this was true enough, if harshly worded and reductive. but at the same time, PROMETHEA turned out to be, ultimately, stunningly progressive and the “Dad comics” that were LOEG, TOP 10, and TOM STRONG were still immaculately carved jewel boxes, in their ways. anyway, all i’m saying is this:

    as heartbreaking as it feels, alan moore’s rant is inarguably petty and vindictive and bullying. all of these are the opposites of the qualities that i (and i assume, others) have always adored about alan’s work, which at its best has been large-hearted and empathetic and inclusive (SWAMP THING, V, PICTOPIA, THE BIRTH CAUL, the moving 9-11 short story he did for that tribute book). nothing new here, i suppose, to say that an artist can often be their best self in their art, but it’s harder in the messiness of “real life.” the stuff alan said about grant reaching out and trying to bury the hatchet sounded a lot like grant was just trying to make peace, you know, err… like an adult. alan’s interpretation of all this was just so damn mean.

    “…Morrison’s tact was to tell people to worship childhood nostalgia as if it were composed of gods.”

    No, I think this is actually grant morrison’s GENUINE BELIEF, not just a “tact” or “tactic” or “schtick”… It is, as you point out, another line of demarcation, between he and alan. grant has become, if anything, MORE of a positive person as he’s grown older; whereas, alan has withdrawn from the world in a way that appears to have made him feel bizarrely persecuted for someone who is more universally hailed as “the greatest writer ever” than perhaps anyone else in any other medium. i don’t think grant is telling anyone to worship anything. he’s just writing with a strong VOICE, which i’d argue, is uniquely his own. look, they’re my two favorite writers, and i’d feel just as sad if grant suddenly started ranting and raving vituperative nonsense (at considerable length) directed at alan; but that’s not what happened. grant has sucked happily at the corporate teat for longer than alan did, but again, that’s another discussion. alan is a bit like the smoker who smokes two packs a day for TWENTY YEARS and then acts like you’d have to be a drooling buffoon to touch a cigarette.

    FLEX MENTALLO, btw, is jaw droppingly good. and again, way too messy and “incomplete feeling” to ever be mistaken for an alan moore story.

  32. One thing… I think Moore was being honest when he said he doesn’t much think about Morrison, as his rant smacked of his not having thought about Morrison that much. This is different from thinking a lot and coming to the wrong conclusion, which is what a lot of people are suggesting.

  33. I always think its weird that people keep on asking him stuff about the current comic industry. He’s said he doesn’t follow things. He said he doesn’t read comics. So why keep on asking him about stuff that he doesn’t really know anything about. Asking him about craft or how the industry was in the past. No one goes to Steve Ditko and asks him about the current working conditions at Marvel. Why are people surprised that Moore doesn’t really have a good opinion of the current comics industry.

  34. I just saw some predictions for 2013 that included Disney buying Hasbro and Marvel putting out new Transformers and GI Joe. It sounds like fans really want a 80′s era Marvel licensing program!

    I don’t have any interest in Star Wars but i will take a look at whatever Dark Horse comes up with to fill the void. A new license that is amenable to an expanding universe (Star Trek?), something that hasn’t really been exploited before (eg. Dune?), maybe even some original Sci-Fi?

  35. I really like Dark Horse as a publisher and it’s sad to see them in post-Star Wars depression. I wish they could survive on the merits of Shaolin Cowboy, The Victories, and the good stuff that comes out of DHP, as well as random minis and one-shots but it’s not gunna rake in the dough like a Star Wars.

    Q: Is Scott Snyder shrewdly picking his projects for commercial success? Not blaming him. Just saying of late it’s been Vampires, Batman, Superman, Mermaids, and Wytches… (is wytches some olde spelling that is is sooo Snyder). If we’re using the Hibbs bucket theory then Snyder hasn’t really had to fill a bucket on his own in quite some time.

    @bad wolf: That Dune license would be too good to be true. I came across a page of Dune illustrated by Paul Pope recently, holy shit it whet my appetite for Dune comics that wasn’t there before.

    @Jeff: Heh, that G-Mo Burnham book is going to be worth a read, but. I suspect Morrison is calling it a horror book just so it gets an audience outside of the G-Mo fanclub. I predict that it will be less horror and more Morrison.

    @Graeme: Doesn’t that Gillen McKelvie book sounds like a bore on the surface? Hope they pull it off though.

  36. Re: the Alan Moore / Grant Morrison feud… perhaps the most depressing aspect of Moore’s bitchy comments is that they’re far, far from the first time that he’s mad most of these EXACT charges against Morrison. And Morrison countered most of these EXACT SAME POINTS here… way back in 2012. Check it out: Morrison attacks not only Moore’s opinions, but his presentation in the facts of the chronology and of their various encounters over the years. Check it out:

    http://comicsbeat.com/the-strange-case-of-grant-morrison-and-alan-moore-as-told-by-grant-morrison/

    On a sad-state-of-comics journalism note, Padraig O’Mealoid [insert appropriate accent marks], who conducted the “last interview” with Moore, pretty much HAD to have known about this response from Morrison — since it was a coda/response at ComicsBeat to the same charges from Moore that Padraig had quoted in an exhaustive 3-part article on the Moore-Morrison feud and its relationship to the ’70s novel SUPERFOLKS! by Robert Mayer.

    I’m kind of shocked / bummed that Padraig didn’t attempt to counter or question Moore on the exact points of fact that Morrison had already cited 2 years ago during the last major dust-up.

    (But this isn’t the only place where Moore’s facts are dodgy… his version of the Golliwogg’s 19th century origins is problematic as well. He seems to assert that the Golliwogg was an original creation of Florence Utpon, when in fact other sources claim that daughter/illustrator Kate Upton actually devised the character based on a minstrel-inspired doll that she owned as a child. So the racial connotations would have already been inherent in the character’s dress / appearance, not applied to him by later readers, as Moore asserts.)

  37. Also, you jumping on Joe for his assumptions — as much as it seemed like a noble defense — came off as just plain mean…which tends not to give anyone pause on the Internet but seemed a bit unnecessary here. Also, it’s worth pointing out that while Graeme and I dislike different parts of Nolan’s Batman trilogy for different reasons so we’re not quite the unified front of careful consideration you paint us as.

    I wasn’t saying you and Graeme were on a united front on the Nolan thing. My annoyance with Joe was about the use of the word “assumption.” It’s just an online pet peeve I’ve had the past few years where when someone finds you don’t like something they consider deep or profound, they make assumptions about how you were unwilling to do the work to comprehend the greatness of the material or were mentally incapable of taking in its genius. Grant Morrison fans do that a lot, but it annoys me coming from anyone. My problem isn’t with him loving Nolan’s work or finding it deep. That’s perfectly valid if he can back up his view. It’s the dismissive notion that anyone who didn’t come to the same conclusion must have done so because they were too lazy or inept to digest the material properly. My point was that regardless of whether or not you and Graeme are united or not, whether you liked the movies or not, I just found it annoying to presume that you guys weren’t coming to your conclusions in an informed, engaged, well thought-out way, even if they were not the conclusions he preferred to hear.

    In fairness, this is such a pet peeve of mine from seeing it on the internet so often that I may have gone overboard in responding to Joe specifically. My intentions were not to be mean to the man.

  38. @ 3. little kon-el : well he’s certainly the Emmanuel Goldstein for Oceania Comics.

  39. Great show! As I was listening to you explain how WB could create the entire JLA from Superman for the movies, I was reminded that it had already been done before by Marvel. Have you guys ever read Supreme Power?

Leave a Reply


four × 6 =