Al Cook wrote: Rance, I believe the reference was to Moore and Lost Girls, not to the Bendis Luke Cage episode.

Ah my apologies, I didn't catch that.

Al Cook wrote: And on that front, Moore stuck characters he didn't own into a porno book! I, too, can't believe someone can even begin to defend him!!!

He wanted to do it, and there are people that want to read it, it doesn't hurt anybody. If it ain't your cup of piss, don't read it. It's simple really. 

Casey Sager wrote: I can't believe people would defend him either. I also can't believe the mindset that would be interested in seeing Dorothy from the Wizard of friggin Oz getting her kitty licked. What the hell is wrong with these people???

Just because you don't understand the mindset doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them.

Matt Reed wrote: Quite simply, that's bullshit.  Luke Cage. Entire history=all-ages, mainstream superhero.  One, count 'em, one comic he is depicted having anal sex with another character.  Then he returns to being an all-ages, mainstream superhero.  He's not an adult character.  He's not intended to be written for adults except for one issue.  An issue that uses an all-ages-friggin' character to depict a sexual act.

Wrong. He is not an adult character when he is not being portrayed as an adult character. Once he crosses a certain line, he becomes a character intended for an adult audience. I'd say anal sex is definately a topic intended for adult audiences. The book in question did have a disclaimer on it saying it was intended for an adult audience I presume? Just because he has been portrayed as an all ages character in the past does not mean he cannot be portrayed otherwise, especially only because you don't like it. Hey, I didn't like it when I heard about it either, that's why I didn't rush out and buy the issue. But I don't care if someone else wants to buy it. I say go for it if that's what you like.

Matt Reed wrote: No reason, at all, to do this save that someone thought it'd be cool to write about a superhero having anal sex and how that would play on the mind of the character with whom he was having sex with.

Well, if that is true, and I'm not saying it is, then why isn't that reason enough? Why should the writer have to justify his reasons to you in any way? Apparently M****l didn't have a problem with it. Why should you? Don't like it, don't read it.

Matt Reed wrote: I read the issue, Rance, and I feel comfortable enough with my position with regard to all-ages, mainstream superheroes to say that it was wrong.  Black and white.  Plain and simple.  You don't like it? Tough.

Why would I like or dislike what your position of the matter is? All it is after all, is your opinion. You can say it is wrong until you are blue in the face, and I believe that you really, really feel that way. It doesn't make it true and it doesn't make it anything more than your opinion. It's good to have opinions, just remember that not everyone thinks the same way you do.

Wow.  Thanks for the enlightenment, Rance.  Now that you put it that way...

Nah.  You're still wrong.

Jim O'Neill wrote: Merely aging a group of characters created by others~ characters whose appeal (and magic) disappears the moment you write them as adults~ is nothing more than a gimmick.

Obviously the appeal doesn't disappear for some people, written as adults or not. Apparently, there is an audience for this sort of thing.

Jim O'Neill wrote: By the same token, taking super heroes~ or little girls from children's fantasy books~ and saddling them with "real world" problems, revelations and realizations diminishes those stories and drags the characters down. They weren't created to be able to handle it.

They are being recreated however, so that they can handle the more complex situations of the "real world".

Matt Reed wrote: Wow.  Thanks for the enlightenment, Rance.  Now that you put it that way... Nah.  You're still wrong.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion Matt. Obviously I don't agree with yours either.

"Obviously the appeal doesn't disappear for some people, written as adults or not. Apparently, there is an audience for this sort of thing."

I didn't say it held no appeal for some people. I said it was a gimmick. And it is. If you've got a good story that can stand in its own, you don't need this. Lots of people like gimmicks. I don't. Especially after the same writer has fallen back on the same gimmick over and over.

                               *****************************************

They are being recreated however, so that they can handle the more complex situations of the "real world".

Bullshit. They're being SWIPED and subsequently bent to somebody else's will. This is no different than a schmuck like Rob Liefeld "creating" a character who just happens to live under the sea and who just happens to go by the name of "Roman".  (Because Rob couldn't spell "Namauqa" the same way twice if his life depended on it).

The word "creator" has lost all meaning in comics these days, thanks entirely to this kind of dreck.

Lastly... don't look now, Rance, but you've already got your hands full with Matt & Joe~ you don't want to start with me, too.

Jim O'Neill wrote: I didn't say it held no appeal for some people. I said it was a gimmick. And it is. If you've got a good story that can stand in its own, you don't need this. Lots of people like gimmicks. I don't. Especially after the same writer has fallen back on the same gimmick over and over.

I didn't say it wasn't a gimmick. of course it is. And lots of people are going to fall for it. Big deal. I didn't say it was a good story that could stand on it's own either. I haven't read it, so I can't say whether it is or not. Given what I know about it, I doubt I'd like it. But there are people out there who will like it, and why not let them?

Jim O'Neill wrote: Bullshit. They're being SWIPED and subsequently bent to somebody else's will. This is no different than a schmuck like Rob Liefeld "creating" a character who just happens to live under the sea and who just happens to go by the name of "Roman".  (Because Rob couldn't spell "Namauqa the same way twice...).

They are characters, they can't be bent to someone else's will. That would imply they had a will of their own to begin with. They are being written as adults, which means they have been recreated. In the sense they are someone else's creation that Moore is taking and using to tell his own stories they are being swiped, yeah. Our own Mr. Byrne could be accused of swiping if that's the way you want to look at it.

Jim O'Neill wrote: Lastly... don't look now, Rance, but you've already got your hands full with Matt~ you don't want to start with me.

What does that even mean? I disagree with you, and I disagree with Matt. I have no expectations that you will sway me to your POV or vice versa. So how exactly do I "have my hands full"?

edited to fix quotes.

"Who in their right mind would bing interested in a cup of piss? Who in
their right mind would buy a cup of piss? Who in their right mind would
defend the production and sale of a cup of piss? It's a cup of piss after
all, isn't it?

It bears repeating: Characters he doesn't own. Into a porno book" - Al Cook

Again freedom of expression and the public domain (UK excluded).  Get over it.

"I'm not against Moore's right to express himself. I'm just being critical of how he is going about it. I'm sure there is nothing in the Lost Girls he could not have explored without the use of Alice, Wendy, Dorothy, etc." - Joe Zhang

Fair enough, but since Moore has said he was interested in using Oz, Wonderland, and Neverland as the specific metaphors for sex or whatnot I don't see original characters working as well.