Grant Morrison S/D

his disingenuously inaccurate early-decades-of-superheroes stuff.

this was the part I preferred, tbh

wow

This review actually guarantees I'll be making my purchase of issue #8 (and soon - like after work) a priority.

haha that looks awesome!

RT @jollybaez: A glimpse at some of the new artwork from the expanded deluxe WE3!

this was the part I preferred, tbh

lying about Siegel & Shuster to shill for his employers during the lawsuit is gross to me, so

Wtf is that new WE3 panel? It doesn't even look like Quitely's art. And how does it fit into the story?

that's a joke, it's from the new issue of Inc

Ah, okay.

lying about Siegel & Shuster to shill for his employers during the lawsuit is gross to me, so

What did he say? I don't recall this at all, so I'm thinking I must have missed something potentially interesting.

yeah I don't recall that either...?

http://twiststreet.tumblr.com/post/7831373160

That's the dick move? I read that interview and it seemed pretty damn innocuous.

Whatever.

Even that quote doesn't seem like he's being a dick, only that he doesn't delve into the reasons why Bob Kane got a good deal at that point. Kane was the outlier, not S&S! I thought that was pretty clear when I read it.

I think he also mentions that Bill Finger was rather screwed over by history and finances.

it's the context of totally glossing over them being fucked, 1) while a lawsuit is going on that DC are paying lawyers more to file paper on every month than they ever paid S&S while they were alive, and 2) Grant is actively redesigning Superman's costume and origin to be potentially legally distinct from the S&S creation, while being 3) ickily disingenuous about their situation, that I find unpleasant.

So he's supposed to just avoid the franchise right now due to a lawsuit, or forever?

he can make whatever employment decisions he chooses, I'm not talking about that. I'm saying I personally find it distasteful to lie about the situation of creators of said franchise in this context, and thusly find his position on the backstage history of early superhero comics untenably compromised and proven inaccurate, so I'm unlikely to even read those aspects of the book.

So you're saying you haven't read those parts of the book, or what he actually said? I think he's a little vague, but I think people are stirring the bucket and reading more into it than is there.

I have really enjoyed Supergords, it's got everything you love about Morrison comics: big ideas, lots of heart inconsistently spread out, misdirected spite, and glossing over of elements he finds boring or inconvenient. Not surprised that he has little sympathy/empathy for S&S considering the jackpot he scored with Arkham Asylum, which succeeded more because it was published at the absolute height of Keaton/Burton Bat-Mania than on its own merits. As humble as his writing/cartooning beginnings may be, the ordeal of Siegel & Shuster beyond his imagination. Which is a pity, considering his fascinations.

Caleb Mozzocco stirs the bucket.

I wasn't super-impressed with that, actually

Morrison to put the sex back into Wonder Woman comics --

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/10/13/grant-morrisons-wonder-woman-series-planned-for-2012-or-thereabouts/

Just finished Supergods. Overall, I thought it was entirely inessential. It seemed to me like two books rather poorly integrated; his life through and in comics, and an overview of superheroes. I enjoyed reading the sections where he talked about what inspired him along the way, but thought he gave little insight into his own work (except for his admitted chickening out on pushing Final Crisis as far as he had initially planned), and his overall "history of the superhero" is, um, unique.

Grant just got an MBE.

I wonder if he's gonna give the Queen the issues of Inivisibles where he honours the royal family...

On a more serious note, is he the first superhero comic writer to get one of those? Do Gaiman or Moore have one?

Moore would turn it down, surely. (but that then raises the question of whether he'd say publically he'd turned it down, which is bad form iirc.)

I've read it twice now, very slowly and carefully the second time, and I think Nameless is up there with his best stuff. Which is nice, given I thought he wouldn't produce anything that good again. A fair bit of the credit definitely goes to Chris Burnham, though.

ok lol
http://i.imgur.com/cmzDlhV.png

Wow! Is Morrison writing GL now, or is that just a one-off gig?

No, GM is writing one of the GL books. IMO it's not really lived up to the hype, some neat ideas but really doesn't hold together - it's more like a handful of 2000ad ideas in search of a character.

It's pretty silly but I like it! It's like Batman Incorporated In Space (although not quite as good as that sounds). It's the first thing he's done since Batman that I've enjoyed. although Liam Sharp doesn't really do anything for me - it's a bit sub-Gene Ha.

This cover sums it up really

https://files1.comics.org//img/gcd/covers_by_id/1237/w400/1237279.jpg

Great cover, eh?

Or, er:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/cmx-images-prod/Item/737712/737712._SX1280_QL80_TTD_.jpg

ASTOUNDING Sci-Fi style Green Lantern as dopey police procedural sums it up pretty well; I'm having a great time with it! The art is maybe overly florid in a Bart Sears way but it gets the job done.

would it be possible to execute the good and funny idea for a superhero cover any worse than they have done there?

(like, there are many ways that you could make it just as bad. but from art to trade dress to layout to lettering, every element collaborates to render the dynamism and joke utterly inert

not sure what the "'joke" is exactly but the covers seem like (occasionally witless) stabs at pulp homage more than anything. computer coloring certainly doesn't help.

the junkie cover is clearly a terrible defenestration of something that could have been much funnier

the god one tickles me, ugly fonts and all

It's Liam Sharp, guys, govern yr expectations.

Not that we saw this contextless cover itt with any expectations, but a) Sharp isn’t responsible for the rigid trade dress, right-to-left layout, bad balloon, awkward speech lettering, mixed fonts or font choices, and b) why do DC keep lumbering Morrison with primary artists who draw lumbering steroid cases & have no sense of humour or wit?

Case was a good match on Doom Patrol and Burnham was a gift from the heavens, perhaps the most “gets it” artist Morrison has ever had on any ongoing project, but apart from that the chasm between artists he brings himself and ones that DC assign to him is yawping.

See also: Quitely (obvs), Cameron Stewart

Quitely he brought himself; Stewart campaigned to get his Invisibles fill-in.

Just checked, and Morrison invited Burnham to do his first 7-page fill-in after seeing Officer Downe; DC signed Burnham to a 2-year contract after his first full issue. Shoulda figured.