| Author |
|
David Brunt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 4:49am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
IMoore clearly had a direct hand in deconstructing superhero comics himself
And as such Moore is only to 'blame' for the work he did. Just because it was popular and other people thought they could do it as well isn't Moores fault. You don't like my example? Fine. But I really don't think in this case that the person who set the example has any responsibility for the people who copied him. If blame is to be apportioned, and I don't think it is, then look to the people who thought to follow suit rather than do their own thing, blame the editors who either instigated it or didn't veto it, blame the audience who biought it.
And anyway what damage did it do? There's still whizz bang, bright and light, positive, optomistic comics about superheroes produced in abundance.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 5:23am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Unlike Matt Linton, I figured you had the ability to type "Chewbacca Defense
South Park" in Google's search window on your own. Guess I was wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Brunt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 6:47am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Well when I briefly looked through John Byrnes F.A.Q. there were lots of terms he'd made up and assumed it was referring to one of those. When I learnt it wasn't and was given a context I realised it was being used in a derogatory against my post. Should I then have gone to the bother of googling an insult just to find out how I was being insulted. And if anyone was using that defence it was Emery in the first place. His objection against Moore being what others did in his wake.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 6:49am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Easy, David. When I told you it was from South Park, I didn't explain what it
was specifically because I figured you could Google the term on your own.
Edited by John Mietus on 18 June 2006 at 6:50am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Lloyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 May 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 486
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 6:53am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Swamp Thing debuted in 1971(Alex Olson version). The book with Alec Holland came out in 1972
***
It's interesting that the character's origin (though admittedly not the core concept) was revised so soon after his first appearance. At least the "plant elemental" storyline reconciled the two Olsen & Holland versions of Swamp Thing in an entertaining way.
***
And anyway what damage did it do? There's still whizz bang, bright and light, positive, optomistic comics about superheroes produced in abundance.
***
That's true. And unlike Marvelman Swamp Thing was never a bright, positive or optimistic character to begin with.
I like JB's stuff and Alan Moore's, too - both have been highly influential on the genre, which means both have made changes to it over the last few decades. John is perhaps more respectful, less iconoclastic when handling other creators' work.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 6:56am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
It seems like one of the things you run into with the retconned origin is creator intent vs the core concept of the character. Which has greater weight? To use another example, what if Stan Lee and Steve Ditko had gotten back together and done the Spider-Totem storyline? Would people be more accepting of it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 7:02am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
A bad idea's a bad idea, Matt.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 7:05am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Oh, I know. But often the arguments against certain stories are either that they violate core concept of the character or they go against the creator's intent. Basically, I'm just wondering what happens if the creator violates the core concept (or allows it, as was seemingly the case with Wein, Moore, and Swamp Thing). Probably shouldn't have used such a loaded example, though.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 7:14am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
No, I got what you were saying. I was speaking generally, not specifically as
per your example.
[edited to add] For instance, use the aforementioned Alan Moore Swamp
Thing stuff. As Eric Kleefeld said, I have no problem with the whole "Swamp
Thing is a plant that thinks its Alex Holland" story so long as Len Wein
oversaw it as editor -- Interesting change made to the character. Shook
things up. Didn't make total sense based on what we'd seen before, but
whatever.
But the whole Plant Elemental thing was where I said, "Okay, now it's getting
silly."
Edited by John Mietus on 18 June 2006 at 7:17am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 7:17am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Sorry. It's early.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ian M. Palmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 1342
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 11:39am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
It's minor, perhaps, but Alan Moore wasn't responsible for the version of Adam Strange he presented. Man Of Two Worlds had been submitted and approved, and Alan was asked to make his version consistent with that.
I think Moore's version of Swamp Thing was "better" than the previous. Current changes to characters like Spider-Man, if they improve him or his stories in some way, are likely to become acceptable (to someone like me). If they don't improve something, they were the wrong changes.
IMP.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 18 June 2006 at 11:42am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Swamp Thing was never a bright, positive or optimistic character to begin with. *** Long time since you read the first series?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
