I'm glad to see the mods took Mike's "Appleface" comments seriously. He is a bad influence on this community.

Quote: "And you think I or anyone needs to hear that from you because?"

I wouldn't think you'd need to. There's no reason you should care about my opinion of you one way or the other.

You know. Unless I'm right. Then I would expect my opinion of you to bother you a great deal.

Quote: "I mean, besides you being a condescending prick."

A great deal indeed.

[quote=Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]Quote: "And you think I or anyone needs to hear that from you because?"

I wouldn't think you'd need to. There's no reason you should care about my opinion of you one way or the other. [/quote]

So, then why do you feel the need, despite claiming to be so sick and tired of talking about the subject, to chime in? Somebody thinks your opinion matters a great deal, but I don't believe it's me.

And by the way, do you actually think I'm so dumb to not know what "passive-aggressive" means? Or is that you again?

Mike

Quote: "So, then why do you feel the need, despite claiming to be so sick and tired of talking about the subject..."

I never said I was sick of the subject. In fact, I already pointed that out to Joe earlier in the thread when he made the same mistake. As I explained then, what I'm sick of is not the subject; it's the mindless repetition of already-addressed arguments.

I'm sorry you can't understand the difference.

Quote: "And by the way, do you actually think I'm so dumb..."

Yes.

It doesn't really matter what you said next. The answer is yes.

[quote=Mr. Socko]Coming from the cheap seats, and from someone who doesn't have a bone to pick with you at all, Joe, you're not effectively communicating your side of the argument. Which is unfortunate.[/quote]

I wouldn't argue with that. I'm probably not a the most eloquent advocate on my best day and I would never claim to be. Is there a remedial discussion group somewhere I should be?

Ceci I didn't revise my stance.

The arguments in that thread, were made assuming the artist was the legal owner unless otherwise specified.

If I recall correctly I had clarified that at least once over there. But if the artist willingly and without any deception at work, sells those rights, which is within the artist's rights to do, then they have given up their rights. If they wanted to retain control, they best not sell their control. And to be clear, we are not talking about people who may or may not have been treated unfairly or bullied or swindled in some way or to some extent. That's a whole different argument.

Also, I believe what I said was more like, I picked up the first issue of Minutemen out of curiosity, fully expecting to put it back down. Not, "Ooh, out of the way, Alan! I've just gotta read The Further Adventures of Nite Owl: The Melty Man Cometh!"

And what's with the "Holy Wishes of the Artist," crap. If an artist makes something, they own it, and it's wrong for someone to take or use their work without permission. Why is that sentiment worthy of ridicule?

Quote: "If I recall correctly I had clarified that at least once over there. But if the artist willingly and without any deception at work, sells those rights, which is within the artist's rights to do, then they have given up their rights. If they wanted to retain control, they best not sell their control. But it was their choice to give up those rights."

Either way though, the fact of being the artist is not what you're defending; it's the fact of being the legal owner. Once the property is out of the artist's control, the fact that they are the artist doesn't keep their wishes relevant to you.

Quote: "I believe what I said was more like, I picked up the first issue of Minutemen out of curiosity, fully expecting to put it back down. I never said anything remotely like your quote, "Ooh, out of the way, Alan! I've just [i]gotta[/i] read [i]The Further Adventures of Nite Owl: The Melty Man Cometh!""

No. That, admittedly, was me exaggerating for comic effect. I'll make it right, though:

IF ANYONE THINKS THERE IS ACTUALLY A COMIC CALLED "THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF NITE OWL: THE MELTY MAN COMETH" AND THAT JOE WAS EAGER TO READ IT, PLEASE DO NOT BE CONFUSED. THIS IS NOT THE CASE; NO SUCH COMIC EXISTS.

Quote: "And what's with the "Holy Wishes of the Artist," crap. If an artist makes something, they own it, and it's wrong for someone to take or use their work without permission, and it's theirs to sell or not sell as they see fit. Why is that sentiment worthy of ridicule?"

Nothing. I just think that when standing up for "the artist," you should be accurate, and phrase it as, "the person who currently owns the work" (or "the copyright holder" or whatevs), since that's the principle you're actually defending.

If you're doing that, works for me.

>>>"No. That, admittedly, was me exaggerating for comic effect."

I know I was just being clear. I didn't even want to risk that ever being attributed to me.

>>>"Either way though, the fact of being the artist is not what you're defending; it's the fact of being the legal owner."

I probably didn't do it every time, I'm sure I didn't. I often shortened it to "artist" my fault, for not being clear.

[quote=Ceci n'est pas une chaussette] Sigh.

[quote=me, a week and a half ago] I'm willing to bet that if the characters from Watchmen were used how the existing characters were used in Lost Girls... as a metaphor to drive the remixed characters he was constructing, rather than a straight up cynical exploitation of the original stories... Moore wouldn't have minded.

I'm actually willing to bet a great deal on this because he didn't object when [URL=http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/26/when-things-were-friendly-rorschachs-first-apperance-in-the-dcu-back-in-1988/]that exact thing already happened.[/URL][/quote]

But hell, let's just keep hearing the same arguments over and over again until those of us on this side get exhausted enough to throw up our hands and say, "fuck it, enjoy your creatively bankrupt comics." [/quote]

What twaddle. Moore trots out yet another screed where he takes someone else's beloved childhood character and twists it into something dark and disturbing, yet it's DC and its fans that are creatively bankrupt?!?!?! Yeah keep pushing the Moore line that he's the original. I'm sure when someone else creates something beloved and uplifting Moore will be able to finally release another of his "original" deconstructions. Yeah, that's it, it's the deconstructionists that are the innovators, that's the ticket!

Quote: "What twaddle. Moore trots out yet another screed where he takes someone else's beloved childhood character and twists it into something dark and disturbing, yet it's DC and its fans that are creatively bankrupt?!?!?!"

Yeah, pretty much. Put simply: Alan Moore is using other people's characters to tell his stories. DC is using Alan Moore's characters to tell... Alan Moore's story.

The fact that you don't like things that are dark or disturbing* doesn't really change that.

Quote: "Yeah, that's it, it's the deconstructionists that are the innovators, that's the ticket!"

So just to be clear... are you suggesting that Before Watchmen is an innovative work? I ask because above, you seem to take a great deal of umbrage with the idea that Before Watchmen is a creatively bankrupt concept, and this statement follows close on it's heels.

---
*Neither of which accurately describes either League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Lost Girls, but whatevs.

Well, volume 2 of LoEG aside.

I enjoy Weird Al Yankovic, because he takes familiar (or unfamiliar) music and morphs into something reminiscent of the original yet it's own thing as well. I have also enjoyed many works by Weird Alan Moore, where he took something familiar (or unfamiliar) and turned it into something reminiscent yet clever in it's own way (like the first volume of LOEG, dunno about the fifth). But neither are "innovators", any more than Roy Liechtenstein was. All are artists, but since their art relies on someone else to innovate it in the first place they are derivative, not innovative.

Moore didn't even want to create Watchmen as his story was originally derived from other characters; it was only after he realized no publisher would let him do what he wanted with their characters that he reluctantly tweaked them (the characters, not the publishers) into something slightly distinct.

Is Before Watchmen innovative? How the hell should I know? The story isn't finished. I'm intrigued enough though to take the time and money to buy, read, and critique it and judge it for its own merits, and not judge it for what my biases tell me it will be. If you're not interested, so be it.