OP
OP
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Grant Morrison Opens Up About Feuding With Alan Moore and Why He Still Doesn't Like Watchmen
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
OP
OP
The guy pretty much wrote all of the stories that I read in my formative years.
Never read it. Reading stuff like his Batman run and Final Crisis turned me off of reading anything else from him.
sin City really is overrated. The Dark Knight is his pinnacle, but people really overlook RONIN. That was his other gem. Well, that and obviously Daredevil.
The Filth is incredible but very Morrison. Have you tried We3 or Joe the Barbarian?
My favourite line was Moore's description of Morrison as "a Scottish tribute band". XD
Can anyone specify what exactly he means by Ozymandias being an idiot? I can't tell if he means that he sees some obvious plothole in his plan, or that ozymandias himself ignores possible alternatives (which is more of a character flaw to him specifically rather than him being 'dumb'), or something else.
Read it from the middle outwards in both directions and be confused about the fact that it still makes sense.
Bruh i read jojo's bizarre adventure
Crazy Stuff making sense stopped confusing me yeara ago.
I'm 47 and English. I grew up with both. For me Watchmen was one of the most important pieces of literature of the 20th century. Arkham Asylum was better, but only because of Dave Mckean's interpretation of Morrison's writing. They argue about writing but the media is visual. Arkham Asylum as a story was nothing that hadn't already been brought up or questioned in the DC universe. Dave McKean made it so much more. Watchmen had the unquestionable professionalism of Dave Gibbons, he drew what he was told, yes it was wonderful but imagine if Gibbons drew Arkham. You cannot seperate artist from writer, both create the story. At the end of the day Neil Gaiman made them both look like noobs because he evolved.
"The world's smartest man is an idiot. He makes a plan all his life that is undone by the end of the book in an instant. "
that's, kinda, like, the point?
that's, kinda, like, the point?
And even if it wasn't, it's not as simple as it looks. If the idiot at the end of the book does decide to publish Rorshoch's journal, it's essentially going to be published in the Watchmen equivalent of Breitbart news, the sort of outlet that today pushes "Hillary ran a child prostitution ring in a pizza shop's basement" sort of conspiracies. The narrative published as is would be viewed as uncredible except to a small amount of nutjobs that want to see Veidt fail. Keep in mind that Rorschoch doesn't actually know any details. They found out that Veidt is at the top of the conspiracy they've been following, but they don't know how or why or even specifically what he did.
All that publishing Rorschoch's journal will amount to is a largely baseless accusation. It's just Rorshoch screaming "HE DID IT, HE'S THE ONE" without anything to back it up.
Nevertheless, one of the major points of the book is that small actions can eventually lead to monumental changes. Doctor Manhattan would have never existed if his father hadn't pushed his son into the nuclear field over watchmaking, Nite Owl II would have never happened the original didn't decide to just put on a suit and fight bad guys. The possibility being presented here isn't a straightfoward "The idiot at the news shop might unravel all of Viedt's plan", but "What possible outcome could come from the idiot at the news shop publishing Rorshoch's journal", and yeah, ONE of those might be Viedt's plan being unraveled, eventually, if the right sort of person believes it, follows the money, comes to the right conclusion, and then is able to prove it to the rest of the world.... but it just wouldn't be so simple as "story published -> Veidt ruined"
So, Rorshoch's journal does represents the possibility of Viedt's actions being futile, but it's not so much a reflection on Veidt being stupid so much that Veidt isn't as infallible as he'd like to be and this possibility, however small it may be, CAN come back to bite him in this chaotic, unpredictable world.
I dunno if this is coincidence or maybe youve seen it. But a certain hbo series that just started last week takes this idea and runs with it interestingly enough
Also i love some of morrisons works but he can miss me with his watchmen criticism. To this day still one of the best comics ive read. Narrative structure is really dope in it and i love the extremes they take with some of these hero archetypes and the political repercussions of their existence
Edit: didnt look at the time of your post haha
Last edited:
I guess I don't see why that's inherently a bad thing. You could say the same thing for most Coen brother movies.
I still think it's interesting that people hold Watchmen as a sacred work of fiction that nobody should touch. But the creators of the graphic novel both absolutely hated it.
I have a love hate relationship with Morrison because of his style.
That quote about Moore trying to outsmart his readers was some grade A projection, I am sure people could see it on the moon.
I don't know if I think it's good or not, but I do enjoy Nameless, his recent-ish cosmic horror comic.
Some really gruesome and fucked up stuff.
Again, it is needlessly obtuse and has a ton of tarot imagery, that he just explains in full text after each chapter in some editions. Like, why even put that shit in there? It's bad writing if you are just going to explain it all in some edition of the book down the road, and turns out it's all superficial BS anyway.
That quote about Moore trying to outsmart his readers was some grade A projection, I am sure people could see it on the moon.
I don't know if I think it's good or not, but I do enjoy Nameless, his recent-ish cosmic horror comic.
Some really gruesome and fucked up stuff.
Again, it is needlessly obtuse and has a ton of tarot imagery, that he just explains in full text after each chapter in some editions. Like, why even put that shit in there? It's bad writing if you are just going to explain it all in some edition of the book down the road, and turns out it's all superficial BS anyway.
That is why Kurt Buisek is one of the writers i can remember
On one hand, I tried Moore's Lovecraft stuff awhile back, and after all the talk and jokes and memes, there was still. more. rape. On the other, I'm still anxiously anticipating the last League of Extrordinary Gentlemen book out this year.
That said, I love Morrison, will read anything he writes, and will still reread all of Invisibles every few years. Also, still pissed he killed off Aztek.
That said, I love Morrison, will read anything he writes, and will still reread all of Invisibles every few years. Also, still pissed he killed off Aztek.
Yeah Neonomicon had the most nightmarish rape/abuse scenes I have ever seen, couldn't bother with looking up the rest of his Lovecraft shit because of that.