In the KIMOTA book, when Dez Skinn was interviewed, he mentioned that early on when they were publishing MARVELMAN in WARRIOR, Grant Morrison came up to him and proposed a story where Kid Marvelman and a Preacher were just debating about religion, I believe. Skinn had to reject the idea because, according to him, Moore wanted to be the sole one writing Marvelman at that point.

In KIMOTA's Moore interview, the interviewer actually asked Moore about other British writers influenced by Moore in general, and just name-dropped Morrison as an example. Moore doesn't really say a thing about Morrison, but he did mention (and give praise to) Neil Gaiman, Garth Ennis, and Warren Ellis.

Also, if you read ANIMAL MAN, you can see that Morrison poked at Moore's MARVELMAN--In a dream sequence in one issue (can't remember) James Highwater makes a comment about "trotting out the Nietzsche and the Shakespeare to dignify some old costume claptrap", and there was Overman, who seemed to parody MIRACLEMAN #15 in ways.

As for Moore, did anyone see the early issues of his SUPREME? Billy Friday, the Jimmy Olson analogue, looked like a combination of Olson and Morrison.

Question, though: Didn't Morrison make some comment about Moore's ABC books as being "dadcomics?"

Would that be an insult? I don't know what "dadcomics" means.

Back when NextPlanetOver was up and had message boards, a guy who seemed to be a Grant Morrison fan (might've been a troll or something pretending to be a fan) came up and bashed Moore while praising Morrison, and also quoted Morrison as saying that Alan Moore's ABC comics were "your dad's comics." And if you check the solicitation for MARVEL BOY #1 by Morrison, Grant said that he was tired of seeing what he had been calling "dadcomics" and said that it was time to trash the past or something. It does sound more like hyperbole than an insult, but still...

Hmmm ... I'm no sure that that's such a bad thing. My dad's comics were pretty damn good. Moore's modern take on my dad's comics is outstanding.

More of my dad's comics, please!



Didn't Moore trash the past, oh, 15 years ago in the same way some of the modern "dark" superhero writers are doing now? But I digress.

I agree, it sounds less like a direct insult than it does an attempt at a catchy, "hip" slogan and rallying cry, but it has a rather self-infated ring to it, no? I think so.

Speaking of Byrne, he seems to have a lot of complaints about Moore's work often:

-numerous criticisms about WATCHMEN and the KILLING JOKE (too many to list)

-felt that the Mystery Incorporated from Moore's 1963 was stupid, and that the Fantastic Four weren't that dumb. (Also mentioned that 1963 couldn't be a tribute to 60's Marvel because it had a mean-spirited satire on Marvel's Bullpen in the Bullpen Bulletins parody pages)

-Felt that the Swamp Thing, Superman and Batman exhibited in Moore's works (from ST, "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", and KILLING JOKE, respectively) weren't the actual characters, and wished that writers would write the character as the way they were.

But what's very interesting is this...

There are some similarities between Moore and Byrne's works.

-Moore's MARVELMAN had Liz Moran and Marvelman's child develop rather quickly, and exhibited superpowers. In Byrne's STAR BRAND, Ken Connell and Debbie's child developed rather quickly as well, and gain Star Brand-esque powers.

-Both Moore's Marvelman and Byrne's Superman (and Gladiator, in the FF comic) utilized the idea of having a sort of force field exhibited around them (Can't really give an accurate description, though. Sorry). Plus, Marvelman and Gladiator exhibit rather similar powers (for this, check out FANTASTIC FOUR #249 and MIRACLEMAN #2)

-Did anybody get to read both the early Moore MARVELMAN stories and Byrne's NEXT MEN? Did anybody notice the idea of people in slumber living out a fantasy life?

-Moore's CAPTAIN BRITAIN had a character named Legion who made duplicates of himself by doubling back on his timeline. Byrne's ALPHA FLIGHT had a character named Flashback who did a similar trick.

Did Larry Niven utilize a lot of these ideas first before Moore and Byrne, just outta curiosity?

Yeah, that's pretty much the impression I got, too.

I don't know how anyone can look at Morrison's works and say he hates superheroes. While he may hate them, his superhero work so far gives no indication of this. His JLA was issue after issue of creative super action with no apologies for the lack of soap opera so often coveted by the "fans" of superheroes who always praise lack of fights, lack of plot, action, suspense and craziness, and praise downtime issues more than anything else.

On the contrary, it looks to me like Morrison is the fan of superheroes, and all the readers who didn't like his JLA and wanted him to concentrate more on romance or their days off are the ones who are weird about them. Morrison rightly puts his other ideas into different genres, leaving the superheroes to superheroics, but many fans refuse to stray from superheroes and want their comics to water down superheroes to accomodate the reasonable desire for more, but mixed with an unreasonable hesitancy to put the superheroes down and try something new.

Yes, comics fans are the only people who are entertained by celebrity feuds.

And by some strange twist of fate, I stumbled across this interview on Disinfo.com with Morrison. It's like 10 pages long, but I noticed the first creator Morrison mentions is Moore ... as in, "this is the guy who made me want to do the comics I do."

I've only just started reading, so we'll see what else is said.

It just stuns me that John Byrne, a guy known for completely altering characters and rewriting character histories to fit his own vision (no pun intended) of the characters, would have the gal to make such a criticism.



Moore's Captian Marvel also utilized the "personal force field," though that may have been a holdover from previous creators working with CB.