Shortened it for you! And accurately, too.

A few years ago, out of curiosity, I pored through Time Warner's annual report to shareholders to see what it had to say about DC Comics.

The answer is, almost nothing. DC Comics was mentioned only twice (I think) in the lengthy report, and then, only in passing. Tellingly, it wasn't included with the Time Inc. magazine line, although it prints periodicals. It was held by the Warner Bros. research and development line.

In other words, the value of DC Comics, to its owner, isn't comic books published monthly, or trades published throughout the year.

It's those trademarked characters and the library of stories, which serve as R&D for movies, TV shows and video games.

All the shit that Dan DiDio, Jim Lee & Co. promote at cons and online -- that's meant for an audience of maybe 100,000 remaining geeks, tops. It's not what the business is.

In two seperate interviews, I believe, Moore criticized Blackest Night as a crappy big epic, and that they need to rely on an old story of his from 20 years ago to sell comics.




I doubt that since he didn't single out the writer or compare Johns career to his own. He referred only to Blackest Night, and how is that any different than what was going on when he was at DC?

Marv Wolfman based COIE on the old Crisis on Earth 2/3etc stories.

Alan Moore based The Killing Joke on an old Silver Age Batman story titled "The Red Hood."

Isn't that what most comic writers do, including Moore? Continuing form what previously was established? Moore himself said he has no problem with writers continuing what he did in Hellblazer or Swampthing because those titles and characters were meant to be serialized, unlike Watchmen. So he's being a hypocrite.

And Geoff Johns has added MUCH to Green Lantern, including the Emotional Spectrum, the various new Corps and the new characters within them.

to be a hypocrite? I guess to you.



Again, no. I agree with some of his points and critcisms regarding Watchmen 2, but not all of them.




League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Look at the iZombie thread I made, and compare that to the threads we make about books we hate like Meltzer's JLA, Final Crisis, Infinite Crisis, etc.

How did the comics industry chase you away?

Jolly Joe's not the only one not paying attention, apparently.

The disagreements are all stemming from some weak-kneed accusations of hypocrisy. If we were talking about the ABC serial characters, or if the Watchmen characters were being separated from their narrative somehow, or even if DC were "re-imagining" the whole thing from the ground up, you might have a point. But we're talking about padding out a finished story. Ergo, you are wrong.



Try again.

He said that self contained stories/novels should not have sequels. There's no sequel to Moby Dick, he argued.

I disagree because he himself was toying with the idea of a Watchmen prequel featuring The Minutemen. He's also on record saying that he would have written a sequel to Watchmen in exchange for the rights, had DC offered it to him 10-15 years ago.

He's also not against other writers making sequels to other people's novels in the case of Jules Verne and Edgar Allen Poe. Only if it's in the public domain though. Yet, he argues that another public domain novel Moby Dick shouldn't have a sequel.

Try again. [/quote]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen consists of characters created by Jules Verne, H. Rider Haggard, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Bram Stoker, among others.

His privilege.


That's called a deal with the devil.



The first two volumes, sure. But what he's done since this controversy is not about the "further adventures" of anyone else's characters. It's about trying to find clever connections between them. Which you might know if you'd read it.

I did.

Says you?

Either make an actual case for your assertion that there is no moral gray area here, or STFU yourself.