Why does this make Sup Forums so mad?

Why does this make Sup Forums so mad?

Also, people are eating this crossover event up! So when the actual sales numbers turn up and it's amazing will Sup Forums be infinitely butt blasted?

I'm not mad about it. I think it sounds interesting. I just read comics for fun stories I don't sperg out about affecting or tarnishing another books canon continuity

>Sup Forums is a hivemind meme

sacred cow drama

I'm not mad. I'm excited to eat that juicy steak from the rump of a sacred cow.

Dark Knight Strikes Again doesn't diminish my love for The Dark Knight Returns; why should Doomsday Clock diminish my enjoyment of Watchmen?

To continue on from this there's are only two Alan Moore stories I've enjoyed (though I haven't read his Swamp Thing run), and more than two stories from Geoff Johns I've enjoyed. So in a way I kind of prefer Geoff over Alan.

This. If it's bad then just ignore it, it doesn't hurt Watchmen if it's good then it would be a great addition to the watchmen mythos

you should read that Swamp Thing run, its pretty good.

You're probably right.

Me too. My favorite kind of stories comes from the cutting up of sacred cows.

Seeing characters from classics interact with lesser characters is fascinating and entertaining as well as fun for me. Those who feel like Watchmen shouldn't be touched can honestly go fuck off.

Do you read cape stuff only?
That's the only way this comment would make any sense at all. Not that Moore wasn't better than Geoff at big two capes as well (Miracle Man and Swamp thing alone are better than anything Johns has ever writter and ever will), but at least I could understand someone having such opinion.

>Those who feel like Watchmen shouldn't be touched can honestly go fuck off.
Agreed, though before Watchmen is by and large garbage.

The willingness to eat this shit up by general audiences as well as so many of the people who post here is the main reason why mainstream American comics suck so much.

Of course Watchmen won't be ruined by whatever they do with this, but we could potentially have some new story, with new ideas and maybe even new characters, and all we get is rehashed shit over and over again. And they go so low as to rehash a standalone story that was outside the DC universe in order to get some quick bucks from an event that will be forgotten as quick as Before Watchmen was.

But don't let that get in the way of your contrarianism that's making you side with a cynical corporation that couldn't care less about the quality of their comics. It's all justified by the tears of Moorefags!

I don't purely read cape stuff, but I've mainly read cape stuff. I have read a reasonable amount, though not all of Alan Moore's stuff and mostly I find it meh or pretentious as fuck!

The two pieces of Alan Moore's stuff I've read which I have truly enjoyed are Watchmen and For the Man Who Has Everything.

Sorry, I haven't read a comic where Superman and Dr Manhattan fight before. Have you? No, so shut up about new ideas.

Have you read a story about Watchmen characters messing with the DC Universe/Multiverse? No, shut up about new ideas.

If you've read From Hell and still think that Johns is better than Moore, then I honestly kinda feel sorry for you. Not in a condescending way but in that there's so much more interesting stuff out there that you're missing out. Writing smart stuff that makes you think and leds you to read other books and such is not being pretentious. It's what writing is supposed to be. Even in his shittiest comics, Moore gives food for thought and drives you to do some reading of your own. Johns has never done that, probably because he doesn't read much himself.

From Hell is pretentious as shit with bad art.

Bad art actually does matter in comics. Is that Alan Moore's fault that the art is bad? Not exactly, but as he isn't a company man he can actual choose what artist he works with. As far as it being pretentious as fuck, and boring to boot, that is entirely Moore's fault.

If this is what you think are "new ideas", then you're the perfect Geoff Johns fan. Enjoy.
I would like to see mainstream American comics move forward after all these years, but it won't happen as long as those in charge are nothing but businessmen and fanboys.
It's not only the writers, but editors like Denny O'Neil, Len Wein and Karen Berger are definitely what's missing in nowadays comics. There's nobody trying to push the envelope anymore.

>From Hell is pretentious as shit with bad art.

I see, you're one of those who call anything somewhat challenging "pretentious". And your comment about Eddie Campbell's art does nothing but cement your stance as a proud idiot, the worst kind there can be.
I hope you're under 25.

I don't even disagree with you about this especially as far as editors are concerned. But how is holding up Watchmen as some sacred cow which no one can ever touch help that at all?

His art is fucking garbage and makes the book a goddamn eyesore. Sure, that is a subjective criticism and you're welcome to your opinions dude. But how does Alan Moore jerking off to Victoria occult literature make the book deep?

user when someone comes up with an idea often times there is usually a moment of reflection where they reflect on it and decide if it truly has merit. Neither of these new ideas are anything but trite reclycled trash.
>pretentious as shit
Please give me example of non Alan Moore works that are also pretentious in your eyes? Because I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean.

I don't know if there's many people out there who think so. My point is not that Watchmen is a sacred cow, but that this does nothing but show the creativity bankrupcy of mainstream American comics. They ran out of shit to rehash for an event in the DC universe so they went to their next most popular property. It's just sad.

It like making a sequel/prequel to space odessey 2001 or taxi driver, or what ever stand alone great classic film you think is good.

Superhero comics are a pretty shallow medium so to see one of the note worthy works be treated like a disposable franchise speaks about the state of the industry

>how does Alan Moore jerking off to Victoria occult literature make the book deep
The book is a really good look at the turn of the century mentality and at many things that would shape up the then current 20th century.
Have you read it complete, along the notes and epilogue? It's a very rich piece of work. Saying that it's just jerking off at Victorian occult literature is a pretty shallow read of the book.

Watchmen is also super pretentious, not as pretentious but also pretty pretentious. The difference is the story of Watchmen is good, while the story of From Hell isn't.

Sandman is pretentious obviously, and pretending it isn't it bullshit. Doesn't mean it's bad (some) of the art of Sandman is good, and some of the story is good too. Unlike From Hell.

I just don't understand the point, but whatever I guess - It's not what I want, but if it's well written, I'm sure I'll enjoy it

Part of my disdain for From Hell is its anglocentric look at world. There is more than enough literature about that where I honestly don't need Alan Moore's look at it with rape thrown in so he can show off his edginess.

>its anglocentric look at world.
This is the only valid criticism of it you've made so far. I don't see it as something that really damages the work since it's impossible to grasp absolutely everything in a single piece of art, and there has to be some point of focus, but it is a valid criticism. Too bad you threw it away with the rape and edginess bullshit, and the "there's more then enough literature". Even more so if we're considering that you're saying you like Geoff Johns better than Moore. You must have some pretty big double standards if you're willing to support Johns rehashes and constant use of shallow "edginess" without any substance but shit on Moore when he attempts to use any of that to actually say something.
Specially when Moore is constantly telling you that there's a bigger world out there than his comics and constantly tries to drive you to read other shit than his books while Johns is just about how awesome superheroes are.

Sup Forums and 4cham in general is designed for nerds to rage all day since they're incapable of enjoying things.

Or maybe it's seeing it for exactly what it is and not seeing Jesus in your burnt toast.

>Alan Moore's stuff and mostly I find it meh or pretentious as fuck!
Couldn't you call most stories that try to convene greater meaning pretentious? Shouldn't we praise people for trying, at least, to be pretentious. At least they are trying to make something with impact...

Sorry that I don't find glorified violence against women "cool", I know this is Sup Forums. Also, my disdain for the artwork is a valid criticism. Each panel is a fucking eyesore. If you don't feel that way that's totally fine, we have different tastes and perspectives.

Also, for speaking of how things should be new as a problem with modern comics, why is another story set in Victoria London "new" or "fresh"?

What if reading about how awesome superheroes are is exactly what I enjoy? Why do I have to read your Moore "art" when I find it about as enjoyable as running sandpaper all over my body. You do what you enjoy and I will enjoy what I enjoy. It it likely you are missing messages in Johns work that are more subtle just as I miss the subtleties of Moore.

There's a difference between something trying to aim for depth and something which so many "smart" references put in so the writer can say "look how fucking smart I am".

If somebody draws Jesus in a toast, that's what it is. If the comic itself touches upon more themes than Victorian occultism, then it does. There's philosophy, society, sexuality and other themes explicitly touched upon in the comic. And even moreso if you read the notes and the epilogue, where it comments about the book itself. It's not even hidden, it's right there in the surface.

I mean, I understand. But shouldn't we welcome people and praise them for trying?
Alan Moore did a fantastic job with the Watchmen, and it didn't feel like he was trying to whip his massive literary dick around in that story.

>Sorry that I don't find glorified violence against women "cool"
If you think the violence in Moore's comics is somewhat glorified and intended to look "cool", you're really dumb. And again, it's a really hypocritical point to even raise if you're defending Johns.

>why is another story set in Victoria London "new" or "fresh"?
Again, did you even read the whole book? Because the whole epilogue is exactly about this, and reflecting on itself in such a way is one of the things that does make it fresh and somewhat new. It certainly is within the world of comic books.

Because this kind of mentality is what brought us to the repetitive and cannibalizing current scene of American comics. You're supposed to grow up, to want more, to evolve. This doesn't mean that you can't still enjoy silly people in spandex anymore, but if that's all you expect from comics it's just a pretty sad state for a grown man. And that's why the industry is so stagnant. It's full of conformists patting each other's in the back instead of people trying to push comics into new territories, like it happened in the 80s and early 90s.

>and it didn't feel like he was trying to whip his massive literary dick around in that story.

The chapter titles feel a bit too on the nose as far as pretentiousness is concerned. At least for me.

>OMG you used Shelly? Wow I never saw that coming with your character named after the poem and all
That's me though. I still like Watchmen, but some of the smartness is a bit on the nose.

Yeah, I can understand that. Just gets on my nerve a little bit that people critique people for being pretentious instead of praising them for trying. This is what I perceive to be hurting comics and making it into "mindless capeshit" that so much of it is now.

That's why I am a Tom King fan despite him having some obvious flaws. At least he tries...

>trying to push comics into new territories, like it happened in the 80s and early 90s.
Describe how comics were revolutionized in the 80s/90s. Do you mean how they went from people in spandex fighting crime, to people in spandex and pouches fighting crime? Comics haven't changed in any significant way since they were first created.

You just sound like an obnoxious indiefag.

I'm just tired of Johns. It's going to be like Forever Evil and Darkseid War where it's gonna be a couple decent issues of set up, nothing dragged out for forever, and then everything is crammed into the last two issues.

>>OMG you used Shelly? Wow I never saw that coming with your character named after the poem and all
It's almost like it's on purpose, isn't it? You know, like a theme in the book. Are you gonna say that any reference to the Odyssey in Joyce's Ulysses is stupid because we already got the point when he decided to call his book Ulysses?
And again, if you're so demanding with Moore, how can you like Johns? Simply because he doesn't try to improve himself and the medium he works in? Do you think that's better than Moore attempts at broadening the scope of comic books?

Not him but have you or have you not read First Comics? Or any of the Epic/Vertigo imprints? People attempted to branch out from Capes and had a lot of critical success. And if you're going to say that comics have stayed the exact same since the golden age and have always been superhero comics you know nothing about comic book history.

You must be trolling. If you can't appreciate how American comics evolved greatly in the 80s and early 90s compared to the previous decades, then you're helpless. The fact that they felt hard in the following years doesn't deny that.

And sure, expecting more comics to be like Moore's Swamp Thing, O'Neils Question, Morrison's Animal Man, or even Ennis's Hitman makes me an indie fag for sure. Enjoy your lenticular covers, buddy.

Nothing Moore has written is anything near Ulysses and don't try and pretend it is.

Nah, I hear you. While I think King relies too much on nostalgia he does try.

I personally find The Dark Knight Returns a much deeper than Watchmen even though it isn't as obviously "smart": it captures post 9/11 media perfectly even though it was written 15 years before; speaks on anarchism more than Moore could ever hope too; and tells a Götterdämmerung story without anyone noticing. And it doesn't need Shelley telling you how smart it is.

This is true, and I'm one of those shitting on Moore.

...

This seems to be Sup Forumsmblr in a nutshell.

I love DKSA desu

They should have put more effort into the design, rather than none at all.

Most of you who are looking forward to this thrash may have started reading since rebirth, but we are tired of shitty hyped up events that won't ever live up. Especially when DC is in the middle of an event itself.

Broad generalizations are the tactics of asshats, asshat.

Been reading comics since the mid 90s and it's the most excited I've been for an event since Final Crisis.

Even in terms of Capeshit, Moore's Tom Strong and Supreme are much better than anything Johns could ever manage.

it seems to me that any story that takes itself seriously is pretentious by default.
No wI might see why a pleb would find Moore pretentious, but fucking Sandman? KYS

Batgod's bullshit is not something I'm reading. I'm mildly curious to see what fan wank fan fic tier dumbass crap Johns is going to pull, but only in the same walk people gawk at car wrecks on a freeway.

And I've been reading comics since 1999 and no-inuniverse book has been as interesting or as good an event as Final Crisis (Multiversity isn't in-universe, particularly given that everyone save Tomasi is generally ignoring it or downright contradicting it (Johns and others).