Alan Moore on superheroes, and other things

[Cain]

Courtesty of Wired.  A small extract (its a long interview)

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa

It does seem to me that massive tactical superiority might be a key to the superhero phenomenon. That, if it's a military situation, then you've got carpet bombing from altitude, which is kind of the equivalent of having come from Krypton as a baby and to have gained unusual strength and the ability to fly because of Earth's lesser gravity. I don't know, that may be a simplistic interpretation, but that's the way I tend to see superheroes today.

That wasn't what it used to mean. That wasn't what it used to mean to me when I was a child. What I was getting out of it was this unbridled world of the imagination, and the superhero was a perfect vehicle for that when I was much younger. But looking at the superhero today, it seems to me an awful lot like Watchmen without the irony, that with Watchmen we were talking very much about the potential abuses of this kind of masked vigilante justice and the kind of people that it would in all likelihood attract if these things were taking place in a more realistic world. But that was not meant approvingly.

I have to say that I haven't seen a comic, much less a superhero comic, for a very, very long time now—years, probably almost a decade since I've really looked at one closely. But it seems to be that things that were meant satirically or critically in Watchmen now seem to be simply accepted as kind of what they appear to be on the surface. So yeah, I'm pretty jaundiced about the entire "caped crusader" concept at the moment.

If you remember back in the '80s, there was an incredible spate of monumentally lazy headlines in British and American magazine and newspapers. But also something along the lines of "Bam! Sock! Pow! Comic Books Aren't Just for Kids Anymore." I used to think those headlines were just irritating, but it's only recently that I've looked back and realized how incredibly inaccurate they were. Comics had not grown up, bam-sock-pow. What had happened was that you'd gotten two or three comics that had gotten, perhaps for the first time, serious adult elements in their compositions. This was judged as miraculous as a dog riding a bicycle back in the 1980s. It doesn't matter whether he's riding it particularly well; it matters that he's riding it at all.

I think that a lot of people, irrespective of whether they'd ever read a book like Watchmen, took it basically as a form of license. I think there were a surprising number of people out there who secretly longed to keep up with the adventures of Green Lantern but who felt they would have been socially ostracized if they had been seen reading a comic book in a public place. With the advent of books like Watchmen, I think these people were given license by the term graphic novel. Everybody knew that comics were for children and for intellectually subnormal people, whereas graphic novel sounds like a much more sophisticated proposition.

[Aufenthatt]

...well that was boring

[Cain]

Good thing I'm not forcing you to read it then, isn't it?

[Faust]

Alan Moore has come off as dismayed for a good few years now. He is of course right.
Edit, this has less to do with his view on superhero success because of tactical advantage and more with the current 'Dark trend in comics
The GRITTY ADULT worlds of frank millars writing popularized the idea of 'grown up comics. The current mainstream comics are nothing but real-life-issues™ badly hammered into a story like a square peg in a round hole. Firstly its bad because its killing the escapist romance aspect of comics, while somehow destroying peoples suspension of disbelief more then the ridiculous older generation.
When EVERY superheros life is shit, its hard to believe in them or associate with them. Marvel are terrible for this.
Secondly those real life issues are badly implemented parallels of actual events. Civil was made me cringe as characters persona's drastically changed to suit what at the time was the big event. when its done everything resets, theres no cohesion.
I think the only marvel comic that I have read in the last few years that was genuinely fun with actual interesting characters in a world that wasn't over top Dark was the great lakes avengers.
I mean there is still good stuff. But currently bleak sells.

[Faust]

...well that was boring

got a problem with alan moore, bitch boy?

[Jasper]

...well that was boring

A thoughtful critique on comics by a celebrity in the industry is boring?

[Template]

Thanks.

Where do we obtain myth (to subvert) any more?

[Pope Lecherous]

Read Hellblazer.  Constantine is not much like Keanu at all, he's much more of a badass.  Not nearly as brooding or gloomy either.  British "humour" is pretty damn funny too.  check it out

[Faust]

Read the issues of Hellblazer by warren ellis or alan moore everything else is shit.  Constantine is not much like Keanu at all, he's much more of a badass.  Not nearly as brooding or gloomy either.  British "humour" is pretty damn funny too.  check it out

fixed

[Cain]

I heard the film was a bad representation of the comic (what's new, hey?).  And if there is one thing the British can do, apart from riot over football matches, its dark humour.  Anyone who doubts this should watch the BBC comedy, the League of Gentlemen.  People wonder why my sense of humour is twisted, and that show pretty much explains it, perfectly.

[Faust]

I heard the film was a bad representation of the comic (what's new, hey?).  And if there is one thing the British can do, apart from riot over football matches, its dark humour.  Anyone who doubts this should watch the BBC comedy, the League of Gentlemen.  People wonder why my sense of humour is twisted, and that show pretty much explains it, perfectly.

The british have the greatest divide in their humor too. Legaue was one of funniest shows ever made, faulty towers despite only being 12 episodes long will live on forever, but then theres stuff like little britain which is nothing but repetition as far as I can tell and the I.T croud which is trash.

[Cain]

Yeah, you're right.  I think it depends on the genre of humour, a lot.  Dark, surrealist and deadpan humour tend to be done quite well, character and slapstick, not quite as much.

[Faust]

Yeah, you're right.  I think it depends on the genre of humour, a lot.  Dark, surrealist and deadpan humour tend to be done quite well, character and slapstick, not quite as much.

Especially true in the case of stand up, Jack Dee and Stephen Fry are in a masterclass but then in the slapstick side theres Lee Evans who is appalling.

[LMNO]

I heard the film was a bad representation of the comic (what's new, hey?).  And if there is one thing the British can do, apart from riot over football matches, its dark humour.  Anyone who doubts this should watch the BBC comedy, the League of Gentlemen.  People wonder why my sense of humour is twisted, and that show pretty much explains it, perfectly.

Best thing(s) about the movie: Tilda Swinton as Gabriel, and some dude as Satan.


Also, the story the ripped off for the movie has a much better ending on how Constantine wins.  Trade Paperback is called Dangerous Habits

[Tempest Virago]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with him. I do respect Alan Moore and like a lot of his work (though I haven't read Watchmen), but he himself admits that he doesn't read superhero comics anymore, so how does he know what they're like? I'm a big comics fan personally, so I might (probably will) come off as defensive, but I still think I'm right.

Yes, a lot of them are pretty "edgy" and unintentionally ridiculous, but a lot of them are really good, too, and really do examine the ethics of superpowers.

And if he wants something more classic and light-hearted, there's always things like Marvel Adventures: The Avengers, which is intended for kids but awesome for everybody, and definitely doesn't go for the same 90s trying-too-hard antihero thing.

I wonder if the root of the emergence of the superhero in American culture might have something to do with a kind of an ingrained American reluctance to engage in confrontation without massive tactical superiority.

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, yes superheroes have a massive advantage over civilians, but in the Marvel universe at least (which I read exclusively) there are always entities that have as much or more power. For example, many government agencies don't have many superheroes on the staff, but they do have highly superior intelligence (the secrets kind, not the smart kind) and technology to most superheroes. Most superheroes can't stand up to a tank. And there are many superheroes that are "underdogs", which seems like it wouldn't agree with his theory.

The average age of the audience now for comics, and this has been the case since the late 1980s, probably is late thirties to early fifties—which tends to support the idea that these things are not being bought by children. They're being bought in many cases by hopeless nostalgics or, putting the worst construction on it, perhaps cases of arrested development who are not prepared to let their childhoods go, no matter how trite the adventures of their various heroes and idols.

This is true to some extent, but I think hating on a hobby just because some of the people who follow it are losers and nutcases is inherently flawed. There are people like that in every hobby, whether it's comics, watching sports or stamp-collecting. I know plenty of young, awesome people who read comics.

I hate to say it, but I think Alan Moore has a lot of bitterness towards the comics industry that he is letting color his view. His bitterness is perfectly understandable for a lot of reasons, of course, and I feel bad for what DC in particular has put him through, but he still can't exactly be considered an unbiased observer. He seems to have this idea that he and the people he work with are the only people doing anything creative and original in comics, and that's just completely untrue.

I'm obviously a big comics fan, so I might (probably do) come off as defensive, but I still think I'm right.

That said, I agree completely with him on the excesses of the film industry, Promethea was awesome, and also I'm really looking forward to the Bumper Book of Magic.

But Lost Girls was edgy, pretentious shit.