Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (3428.1)
    That's from an IGN Interview, and it makes exactly my point.

    IGN Comics: I don't know if you saw it, but Robert Kirkman recently posted a video editorial on CBR that was sort of a call to arms for creators to work on creator-owned projects as opposed to company-owned characters, and how that would save the comic book industry. What's your take on the state of the industry right now?

    Morrison: I suppose I'm slightly amused by the reformer's zeal with which each new generation approaches the problem of 'saving' comics. It reminds me of humanity's charming, self-regarding notion that it's our job to 'save' a planet which has survived fine without us through several mass extinction events, climactic overhauls and planetary disasters.

    I've been listening to people talk about 'saving' the 'industry' for over 20 years while comics have continued to be published and have, in fact, become better, to the point where the only conclusion I've come to is that comics are best 'saved' by sealing them in Mylar bags! Everything else is just messianic inflation. Just do good books and stop trying to be the savior of a whole medium that's been doing okay without you and will continue long after you're gone.

    Yes, I think Kirkman's right, in that I'd like to see more of our creative community unleashing their wild imaginations onto the page and less of the obvious 'movie pitch on paper stuff' that's come about recently as a result of comic creators chasing the Hollywood dollar but I don't have a problem with writers and artists working on Marvel and DC properties if they enjoy it. I'd rather read a good Green Lantern story by someone who cares than work my way through a 'creator-owned' project that's been created solely to appeal to lowest-common-denominator movie executives.

    Otherwise, he's possibly being slightly disingenuous by issuing this 'call to arms' at a time when, to be honest, I can't think of any significant comic book writer for Marvel or DC who doesn't have creator work on the go. Apart from Geoff Johns, who's told me he much prefers writing DC superhero books, everyone else - me, Warren Ellis, Mark Millar, JMS, Garth Ennis, Matt Fraction, Brian Bendis, Kurt Busiek, etc etc - seems to be hard at work creating new properties, so I'm not entirely sure where the problem lies.

    IGN Comics: You've done a lot of that with stuff like Invisibles and We3. You definitely plan to get back to the creator-owned work?

    Morrison: Yeah, I've got a new Vertigo book that's being drawn as we speak and two more getting off the ground. So as of next year, I won't be in Wizard's Top Ten anymore, I'll be that weird Vertigo guy again. [laughs]

    PS: Sorry for my bad english in the other (now closed) topic. I'm a bit rusty with the language.
    •  
      CommentAuthortexture
    • CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
     (3428.2)
    I'll be that weird Vertigo guy again.


    Bring it on. I miss Grant's Vertigo stuff. I've been pining for Seaguy 2 for ages now. Screw Final Crisis. It's time!
    •  
      CommentAuthorIan Mayor
    • CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
     (3428.3)
    I'll be that weird Vertigo guy again.


    Recently, Morrison's Batman has been about as batshit crazy as 'mainstream' comics can get.
  2.  (3428.4)
    Ah Grant, for such a kooky character, he continues to surprise me with his sage like pragamatism. I, also, look forward to the new stuff...
  3.  (3428.5)
    So, Morrison says that people in comics should make the comics that they want to make, regardless of who owns them. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can argue against that. Geoff Johns only wants to do DC superhero comics? That's just fine - he loves what he does and he does a good job at it.

    And he's right about the whole "saving comics" thing. Saving them from what? It usually comes down to saving them from comics that the person saying it doesn't like.
  4.  (3428.6)
    Grant Morrison lets us know that this isn't the comic industry's "Final Crisis".

    Love it.
  5.  (3428.7)
    I firmly believe that in the holy trinity of British comic writers, Grant is the Christ.
  6.  (3428.8)
    "Saving comics" is a monetary thing not an artistic one. Which I think is kind of what Morrison hits at here pretty well. The industry could go bottom up, but if you see that other thread, there's a ton of people out there making their own comics now. The medium is viable and mainstream enough, that I think it's kind of the best grassroots medium. Both in terms of how easily it can grap people's attention, and for the ease with which one can now screw together a comic. Even if there wasn't money in it, I'd still be making comics. Hell there's no money in it for me now, but I still hustle together a weekly strip every week while writing several other books with other artists.

    The medium will live on regardless of what the industry does, or where the money shuffles.

    I also noticed he took another shot at scripts being done in that hollywood, come make a movie out of my shit, style. This and his anti-soldier comic stance are something he's brought up in just about every interview the last couple months.

    I agree with him on both of those fronts pretty hardcore, at least as a reader. As a culture we've kind of moved past the soldier era of comics that Ultimates is kind of the apex of. And the cinematic direct to movie stuff that's really just a movie script dressed up as a comic can be a little irksome, but whatever, a lot of those are still fun to read.

    But I like comics more for the weirdo technology in it. Stuff like Freakangels, Doktor Sleepless, Umbrella Academy, Hickman's stuff ect. I like to see really crazy stuff and have idea beams shooting out at me from the pages. And whether that's Superman and New Gods in 3-D or Desolation Jones--I think Morrison is right in that at least for the time being you can do absolutely bonkeres shit in comics that you couldn't do believably in any other medium. I don't know if that's because of the traits of the actual medium, or if it's because of the culture of comics, and the history the medium is built on--but it's what's there for sure.
  7.  (3428.9)
    his anti-soldier comic

    As a culture we've kind of moved past the soldier era of comics that Ultimates is kind of the apex of.


    I really don't know what you are talking about here, can you please elaborate a bit more?
  8.  (3428.10)
    Yeah. Post 9-11 we saw a militarization of comics that we hadn't seen to that extent in awhile. In Ultimates the Avengers are an arm of the government. In Civil War the entire Marvel U, almost is made an arm of the government. Wonder Woman in the DCU starts to work for the government. 300 is made into a movie. It's this trend of heroes as soldiers fighting a war. And while it's something that has sort of flitted in and out of comics over the decades, it had been back and in vogue, a lot because of the climate of the times. That patriotic, don't question the government spin.

    Then as far as the hollywood angle. Basically a lot of slick kind of mundane productions that don't really push the medium, and just for the most part are almost being optioned off as movies before they are even out as comics(not to pick on Millar either, but Kick-Ass is already casting for a book that we haven't even seen in comic form yet fully).

    Also it probably isn't a coincidence that the two things that Morrison has been complaining about in comics, are also the two things that Mark Millar is most principally associated with for better or worse.

    I like both of them, but I tend to enjoy the weird stuff that they'd never make into a movie. Like Unfunnies is my favorite Mark Millar book. And I would like to see as many books as possible that utilize either the structural advantages of the medium, or the contextual advantages of the medium. As more and more movies make comic books, I think the pressure is higher and higher to do things in these books that you won't see on a big screen. Because if I'm just watching a screenplay, then why shouldn't I just wait for the movie?
  9.  (3428.11)
    Yeah. Post 9-11 we saw a militarization of comics that we hadn't seen to that extent in awhile. In Ultimates the Avengers are an arm of the government. In Civil War the entire Marvel U, almost is made an arm of the government. Wonder Woman in the DCU starts to work for the government. 300 is made into a movie. It's this trend of heroes as soldiers fighting a war. And while it's something that has sort of flitted in and out of comics over the decades, it had been back and in vogue, a lot because of the climate of the times. That patriotic, don't question the government spin.


    I'm still not sure of what's morrison point on this matter, anyway I believe the examples you are mixing are fairly different in their patriotic and militaristic value. 300 is very militaristic, of course, but even if WW is also working for the governement Gail Simone makes it very clear that her goal is peace and that she sees herself as a diplomat. Ultimates being so militaristic was very criticized inside the book in the second volume of the series, with the team of many heroes from all over the world coming to america to stop the Ultimates and the american imperialism. But it was a bit messy maybe and so the point was not that clear and remained ambiguous. In the MU during CW, however, Millar made unequivocably clear that the registration act was very dangerous and probably wrong, as Ellis' Thunderbolts made even more clear. So I believe CW and most of the initiative stuff was more antimilitaristc than militaristic.
    There are two more examples that comes to mind: the new War Heroes by millar, but it's too early to speculate on that, and the nephew of Roosvelt character introduced recently in JSA by Johns. He is a soldier in Afghanistan and there isn't even a single line of discussion about the war. That was implicitly militaristic considering he is depicted as a real hero. At least for now, in the future I suppose Johns will say something more specific about this character, because he usually does single issues devoted to analyze the characters of JSA.
  10.  (3428.12)
    Here's Morrison from ComicCon talking about these things again if it helps:
    "One of the themes that both men touched on throughout the panel was the idea of creating comics because you want to create comics, rather than creating something that can be adapted into a film down the line “You don’t write it for the film,” Way said. “You dictate it, not them,” meaning Hollywood.

    Morrison added that many comics nowadays were “cheesy pitch documents for movies that were never going to get made. We really want comics to be comics.”

    Morrison also said he thought the world was starting to change in regards to the types of stories people want to read.

    “People are getting a little fed up with the last few years of the war on terror,” he said. “Soldiers as heroes and soldiers as superheroes ... Y’know, we all love soldiers, God bless them, those guys have a hard job to do, but I’ve had enough of the soldier as a hero, the fetishized soldier.”

    He said those types of stories grew out of the Sept. 11 attacks, and it’s time to start telling new stories that give some hope for the future. “Right now there’s not a lot of hope for the future, or so it seems, but that’s only because we’re telling ourselves really shitty stories about soldiers killing each other,” Morrison said."

    http://www.newsarama.com/comics/080726-comiccon-morrison-way.html
  11.  (3428.13)
    “People are getting a little fed up with the last few years of the war on terror,” he said. “Soldiers as heroes and soldiers as superheroes ... Y’know, we all love soldiers, God bless them, those guys have a hard job to do, but I’ve had enough of the soldier as a hero, the fetishized soldier.”

    He said those types of stories grew out of the Sept. 11 attacks, and it’s time to start telling new stories that give some hope for the future. “Right now there’s not a lot of hope for the future, or so it seems, but that’s only because we’re telling ourselves really shitty stories about soldiers killing each other,” Morrison said."


    Thanks, now I got it. I don't think I agree, like, at all. I believe that the whole marvel Initiative thing, for example, was mostly (a part for the thunderbolts and the first arc of avangers: initiative, maybe) a huge underdeveloped chance to really delve into the matter of the war on terror. I believe there's has been too much silence in fiction about the war. USA it's practically still in denial: many of the movies dealing with that stuff (Redacted, in the vally of elah to name a few) bombed at the box office. Maybe I'm just a pessimistic kind of guy, but hopeful stories usually sound just naive to me.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhowyadoin
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2008
     (3428.14)
    Recently, Morrison's Batman has been about as batshit crazy as 'mainstream' comics can get.
    Shame about the generic art, then.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSt.Wanger
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2008
     (3428.15)
    Recently, Morrison's Batman has been about as batshit crazy as 'mainstream' comics can get.


    and while Miller's "All Star Batman" is at least good for a laugh but crap, Morrison's current Batman run is jast silly crap without even giving me something to laugh about.
  12.  (3428.16)
    Fanboyism closes thread.