IMO Moore was largely justified in a lot of his beefs with the industry and a lot of people in it. BUT The same guy who made a lot of fun of Steve Ditko for following a philosophy that didn't allow for compromise refusing to compromise himself? Never was a good look for him.
He didn’t make fun of ditko. Moore respected ditko for sticking to his principles. He makes of objectivism but his criticism is not deontology nor Steve. People love to bring up Rorschach but forget that Dan Garret is also a ditko homage
I mean, if you look at how he's treated by publishers (putting aside the money and accolades) it's pretty bad for someone of his stature. And it's not just comics, but movies too. Is there a good movie adaptation of his work? I can't think of one. Again, it's all the context and the history that has been examined, not one specific quote. Yeah, that example with Ditko ran through my mind while writing this script. But it was a deviation from the topic. I agree...not a good look, all things considered.
That’s something people attribute to Moore that he never really said himself, tho. A direct quote from him on Ditko: “Steve Ditko is completely at the other end of the political spectrum from me. I wouldn't say that I was far left in terms of Communism, but I am an anarchist, which is 180° away from Steve Ditko's position. But I have a great deal of respect for the man, and certainly respect for his artwork, and the fact that there's something about his uncompromising attitude that I have a great deal of sympathy with. It's just that the things I wouldn't compromise about or that he wouldn't compromise about are probably very different. Even if they have morals you don't agree with, a person with strong moral code is a person who has a big advantage in today's world.” I think people tend to think of Moore as making fun of Ditko for being uncompromising as an overcorrection to people seeing Rorschach as purely heroic.
I always thought this series was a hidden gem. It falls somewhere in the middle on the Alan Moore deconstruction/reconstruction continuum for me. It’s not exactly reverent, not celebrating the antiquated ideas it presents, but it is an affectionate parody that is more serious than a spoof. It’s kind of like a tongue in cheek “best of this era” thing that really takes you back.
I look at Alan Moore's ending of Tom Strong and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Tempest as maybe what he had in mind for the last issue of 1963, or at least probably as close to what we will get.
Thanks for providing great documentation of the accounts and the overall behind-the-scenes. I actually took some time to read Simpson's blog post. Indeed very revealing to Alan's perspective on wanting to distance from comics as a whole, I can't help but feel both sad that he suffered that much that there's no joy in even remembering any good from that era along as being angry at him in a way from allowing the grime to win him out of his enjoyment. I do respect his decision and do wonder what must have changes in the last couple of years for him to want to come back to comics if the news are to be true of a new comic project. I would hope that maybe this is a form of closure for him and to have at least a good memory when thinking about comics as a whole. Although I'm unfamiliar with Donald Simpson, I did find it quite odd he pointed out that he was under no obligation to take Alan's wishes, implying he could have easily gone to reprint the story with the writer's name and then being angry at the poor quality reprints, in his opinion, done when there was a re-coloring done and no one had given him a notice whatsoever. I take this as bit hypocritical to be mad at something that he himself stated would have done if given the choice to him but didn't realize it. I'm not sure what the legal proceedings are for the re-coloring, but I would assume that the right holders for that reprint essentially had the same onus to either follow up on his wishes to keep it black and white as he was told but changed their minds, as although slimy, still is within their decision to do so. I think it was also somewhat passive aggressive, in trying to make Alan see his point and then bitter towards his choice as the years went on. Any Alan Moore caricature is funny in my book but I can't help but feel that it came about over nothing more than not being OK with Alan's own personal choice to not be associated with his work. Heck, if Marvel could have respected that and still make good money out of it, I'm sure that any other publisher can. That bit with fans not knowing why he took his name out and then calling the In Pictoria reprint a quick money grab by fans on social media is such an outlandish scenario to put on the other's court that it does feel a tad passive aggressive.
In my opinion, I genuinely don't think Mr. Simpson was doing a money grab. Sure, he would profit from In Pictopia (as would all collaborators) but it's a story he should be rightly proud to have been a part of and I think he sincerely wanted it preserved in its best possible form. I'm glad you read the blog post! I think it's worth everyone's time to read. I thought it was quite helpful and revealing.
There is a TH-cam interview with Bissette where he says that a transcript of the Comics Journal Interview was sent to Moore so that he could approve or disapprove of any parts of the interview that he didn't agree with. I can't remember exactly what Moore's response was but he either approved everything or just didn't respond.
Only thing I would add is that Alan Moore has had decades of interactions with Fantagraphics and their publication The Comics Journal beyond the Bissette interview you cite as the reason for his negative feelings. I can think of at least one other negative public interaction he had with the Comics Journal which may have contributed to his decision. Not trying to claim inside knowledge, just saying that given that both entities have been in the industry for decades and the Comics Journal covers the industry Moore used to work in, there can be multiple interactions which contributed, including ones that didn't take place in public forums that we can't possibly know about.
I'm sure there were private interactions with Gary Groth or Kim Thompson, not to mention pieces in The Comics Journal that I've not read, that could have contributed to Moore's displeasure with Fantagraphics. I have no knowledge of this, but it might be safe to presume.
@@StrangeBrainParts Yeah. And I feel like I should clarify that I didn't mean to imply Fantagraphics are bad people or that Moore's decision was correct. I agree that it seems like he's unfairly treating his collaborators by refusing them the ability to use his name to draw attention to the work they did together.
Glad to see this video. I read the Don Simpson blogpost a while back, the funniest thing i found in his blog was him revealing he got into arguements on the Alan Moore subreddit about the Pictopia topic.
Wonderful video. 👍👌 I learned a lot today. I need to get myself a copy. Btw...are you ever going to give an overview/review on Big Bang Comics?? The closest thing we will ever get to 1963 but without the satire.
I bought this. I really enjoyed it. I hadn't really noticed Don Simpson before this. But after all the information you provided I realized that I have been buying his stuff from dollar bins for years. Apparently I do like his stuff. I will definitely be looking for more in the future.
Moore is a brilliant writer, but he is also quite possibly insane. He seems a fascinating guy, but also difficult as all get out to deal with. Love Don Simpson's stuff, and had a nice interaction way back when I was tracking down back issues of his stuff, but this feels more like airing grievances in comic book form than an entertaining story. It would be interesting if all the other 1963 guys pooled the characters they have rights to into some project, but I think that ship has sailed and all we can do is enjoy the stories we got.
Despite Allan Moore's distaste Fantagraphics publishes a lot of interesting and weird books, I'd certainly love to see some more content on that even if I guess it's not your niche.
The thing is Alan Moore doesn't hate comics, I don't think so at least. It's just way he was treated. If DC had given more respect he probably would've become a very different person, but as things stand, he can't see any of the good in comics, and how they're made. I'm honestly right alongside him a lot of the time, always wanted to make a movie or a comic, but ever behind-the-scene story is a horror about creators getting trampled over, good ideas being rejected, and not the mention the seedier parts of business that need not be mentioned. Moore's right, the industry lets you down, comics'll break your heart, and yet something keeps drawing readers and writers and artists back again and again.
Ah! Here's the poop on 1963&1/2 from the bulletin page of 1963 number 6: "ITEM! In addition to the roster of rascals recounted above, we should perhaps plug the publicly petrifying personage who personally and primarily postulated the puzzling parade of peculiarities posted on page 19, none other than that paragon of preposterousness, that prince of paradox, that pataphysical poet of painterly pandemonium, PEERLESS PAUL MAVRIDES!!! PEERLESS PAUL is the preen- ing paranormal playboy prankster presently penning the punishing prod in the privates to propriety that is 1963 1/2!!! Imminent from those industrial-intrigue-indulging imps at KITCHEN SINK/TUNDRA, 1963 1/2 tells the total, terrible truth about cattle mutilations, Presidential assassinations, Space Aliens, Marilyn Monroe and much, much more!! Served up soon by PEERLESS PAUL and his cinematically celebrated co-conspirator AGREEABLE ALEX COX, 1963 1/2 is a pinnacle of paranoiac perfection that will be prized by our politically peculiar pundits to the point of perversity!! 1963 1/2: The Comic Book That They Don't Want You To Read!!! (Uh...not Paul and Alex. They want you to read it. And John F. Kennedy didn't have anything against you reading it either. And we all know what happened to HIM!!!)"
The early Savage Dragon is ok for what it is, I guess, but 00s and beyond SD is one of the worst ongoing comics of all time. I can´t say that reading any new statements from Moore that were made in the last 10 to 15 years manages to endear me too much. Some of the publishers truly fucked him over but also made him rich. At some point, you have to let it go yet he chooses to be bitter toward people at let´s say DC whom he has never met. Not forgiving the editors who were there from the 80s to the ABC days is fine and all but he keeps shotgun-blasting an entire medium at this point. He may not be a miserable man but Moore is petty to a fault and misses the press to advertise his novels through hyperbolic statements against comics. I have an easier time respecting Ditko and that man was certifiably bananas. I can´t say that I am a fan of Moore´s novels or his final works in comics either. Morrison is lastly right, he wrote about rape way too much and too often for no reason. Still one of the all-time great authors but there is an undeniable point of no return where the quality and readability of his crafts die. And it´s not his Image days. He made Wildstorm good even if he discredited his Wildc.a.t.'s run only years later. It´s good.
His Kamala khan comic feels rushed. IDK the death of Kamala in retrospect isn’t even fridging it’s a lazy marketing and judging from all the controversy it worked big time
Part of me kinda wonder if blowing up Ultimate Universe was a bad idea hearing Kamala Khan story. Like that universe might have worked as dumping ground and “modern heroes” section, which is what Ultimate was created. Finding ironic that the moment when those writers migrated to mainstream that shenanigans happened (Bendis for example).
To be honest, while I think it's honestly a little fucked on Don's part to illustrate that whole "Affable my ass!" drawing, I have to admit I think it's a really funny drawing.
Neither. On the other hand, the lists for people he respects, people he would work with again and people he doesn’t have a grudge with all have just one entry each and it’s the same person. Unless he now has a thing with mirrors and breaks all the ones he gets in contact with.
Yeah great video. Forgot to add to a comment to support the aligithrom but have now. Interesting views on Mr Moore which I largely share. He strikes me as a person of massive principal but utterly unforgiving of folks who caren't live up to those lofty ideals - well ideals for most. Moore does seem to practice what he preachers. Just a shame something doesn't twig that there's one common factor in all the friendships that have ended. Still he has every right to live his life the way he does. Its a shame he dislikes comics so much but nowt anyone other than Aln can do to change that.
Boy, creators (as with many humans) can sure get petty. And spiteful. And we occasionally get to enjoy the fruit of that nonsense-such as with this project, and your excellent video on it! Thanks for posting
I am sure Don Simpson has fair complains about his work with Moore but this 1963 thing rubs me wrong as a bit misleading. I don't think anyone heard about "Don Simpson doing the 1963 annual" and thought "it will be an expression of his negative views about Alan Moore". I wasn't expecting him to "finish" the 1963 stories but thought he would do something fun with analogue characters, some satire like his Megaton Man and even some criticism of Moore but not as the main thing in the story. And overall is that something I'd be interested reading? It ends up reading as gossip of people who know each other arguing over personal stuff I have no involvement, personal knowledge, stakes and neither want to be in the middle of it. As a reader I feel like watching the couple that invited you for dinner starting to argue with each other. It has his place, it is on his right to do so but I feel better hearing that from an interview, a post expressing these views than being fooled into buying a comic I thought would be something else. I wouldn't hold against Don Simpson getting this stuff out of his chest but it is not the material by him I personally have interest. I'd rather this personal stuff stuff to be discussed among the people directly involved with.
My nutshell response is this: It's quite good. Sandman was a rare series that elevated the medium by approaching it as literature organically adapted to the medium.
I feel like when you're working in the industry it can feel like "sorting out petty differences" is more of a trap than anything else you know so everyone can pat themselves on the back and keep going as usual with the balance of power still unfair and unchallenged. It's a shame it ended up affecting his fellow creators but it was clearly against the publishing company, he must see this as publishers wanting to make money on his name.
If you ever meet Alan Moore in real life, just remind him that the big conspiracy in Watchmen was a rip-off of the Outer Limits episode "Architects of Fear".
I wonder what that red beetle Hulk character would've been like. When I read 1963, he didn't seem that interesting, maybe it woudn't have made a big difference but still.
What are the odds that Steve Bissette, Alan Davis, Dave Gibbons, Ian Gibson, David Lloyd, Don Simpson & Dez Skinn were in the wrong, and Moore and Moore alone in the right? Vanishingly small I'd say.
Alan Moore may be one of the most talented assholes in comics. He wrote some great works but its hard to find anyone who’s worked with him that does think he’s a complete ass
It deeply saddens me to constantly listen to Moore’s bitter thoughts on comics, feeling so much shame and embarrassment over his time with it. He should feel proud of what he has accomplishment and what he contributed is greatly appreciate by so many people. It’s true that greedy companies have treated him horribly and a lot of his hate seems justified, but to look at as a “waste of his life” just sounds miserable. It’s almost like he chooses to stay miserable and bitter over the industry, rather than being proud of what he has done and move on.
I suspect Moore, the private person, doesn’t consider his own work a waste of time considering, among other things, a nice income. It seems to me he is tired of fans or even pros who insist in printing and/or the net that Moore is not allowed to have grown up opinions on his own past or present stuff. There’s even a PhD guy with a Batman dissertation that looked him up just to ask imbecile Batman questions.
I really think that Moore is legitimately mentally ill. No doubt he's been treated shabbily by some of his collaborators and publishers and I don't fault him for not wanting to deal with it but the way he talks about certain things is not entirely sane. He honestly reminds me of people I know who are paranoid and have PTSD.
@@nekiyia Being incredibly bitter and viewing your work through an industry sounds pretty miserable to me. It leaves with so much regrets that I can’t see any further outcome other than bitterness. How about instead of insults, be mature and stop acting like a child.
@@nekiyia What the hell are you talking about, little dude? You called me miserable because of my impression of someone who you seems to be devoid of criticism, someone whose work I admire and respect. Again, stop acting like a child.
@@nekiyia I’m a big fan of Alan Moore’s work, dude. Just because I love his stuff doesn’t exempt him from criticism. Being bitter and regretful of a great portion of your life sounds miserable to me, little dude.
@@StrangeBrainParts Hmm... must have just been a glitch in the matrix so! I commented that, it was a shame that such a well researched and constructed video was so flawed in both individual aspects and the underlying basis for your analysis; 'Moore's principles'. There's a bias, even if it's unconscious, driving your thesis where every time you ascribe Moore as being 'petty' or 'spiteful' there's always a caveat and none where Don Simpson is concerned. Moore has NO 'principles other than 'Moore, Moore, Moore' and he always been focussed on himself above all others. I think it's a shame you didn't see my own video; far inferior to your own, but with contributions from some of Moore's oldest Co-Creators and fact checked by uncredited others, that showed he's a narcissist sociopath (yes I have a clear bias, but based on facts) without any principles where his peers are concerned, when putting together this otherwise professional and polished piece. th-cam.com/video/C9QQmcCg9s0/w-d-xo.html
If you carry too many beefs in the business, separate yourself from other creators, and state that you will no longer be working with some of the biggest companies in the world due to events that occurred 40 years ago (most of which involving individuals who don’t even work for said companies anymore), you find yourself working for the indiest of the Indy companies, telling stories about how fairy tale princesses lost their virginity.
As a point of accuracy, The Maxx was written by Bill Messner-Loebs, not Jeph Loeb
I though Maxx was written by Sam Keith himself.
@@thefvguy5648 No sir, at least not fully
Yeah I was wondering what was up with that one, but I'm sure it was an honest mistake.
IIRC, Keith did the plotting and art while Messner-Loebs scripted.@@thefvguy5648
Yup, I screwed up. It was definitely William Messner Loebs. Not Jeph Loeb. I suck.
I feel like 1963 is basically what we would have got in an alternate universe where DC bought Marvel instead of Charlton.
IMO Moore was largely justified in a lot of his beefs with the industry and a lot of people in it.
BUT
The same guy who made a lot of fun of Steve Ditko for following a philosophy that didn't allow for compromise refusing to compromise himself? Never was a good look for him.
I feel like Alan Moore is the anti-Ditko.
He didn’t make fun of ditko. Moore respected ditko for sticking to his principles. He makes of objectivism but his criticism is not deontology nor Steve. People love to bring up Rorschach but forget that Dan Garret is also a ditko homage
I mean, if you look at how he's treated by publishers (putting aside the money and accolades) it's pretty bad for someone of his stature. And it's not just comics, but movies too. Is there a good movie adaptation of his work? I can't think of one. Again, it's all the context and the history that has been examined, not one specific quote.
Yeah, that example with Ditko ran through my mind while writing this script. But it was a deviation from the topic. I agree...not a good look, all things considered.
That’s something people attribute to Moore that he never really said himself, tho. A direct quote from him on Ditko:
“Steve Ditko is completely at the other end of the political spectrum from me. I wouldn't say that I was far left in terms of Communism, but I am an anarchist, which is 180° away from Steve Ditko's position. But I have a great deal of respect for the man, and certainly respect for his artwork, and the fact that there's something about his uncompromising attitude that I have a great deal of sympathy with. It's just that the things I wouldn't compromise about or that he wouldn't compromise about are probably very different.
Even if they have morals you don't agree with, a person with strong moral code is a person who has a big advantage in today's world.”
I think people tend to think of Moore as making fun of Ditko for being uncompromising as an overcorrection to people seeing Rorschach as purely heroic.
I will have to go back and rewatch that piece. If I remember correctly, that's from the Jonathan Ross documentary.
I always thought this series was a hidden gem. It falls somewhere in the middle on the Alan Moore deconstruction/reconstruction continuum for me. It’s not exactly reverent, not celebrating the antiquated ideas it presents, but it is an affectionate parody that is more serious than a spoof. It’s kind of like a tongue in cheek “best of this era” thing that really takes you back.
Yeah woukd have loved for it to get finished
Don Simpson is a unsung genius. Megaton man is a classic parody masterpiece 😂❤
I agree! And I think everyone should give Border Worlds a try, too.
I look at Alan Moore's ending of Tom Strong and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Tempest as maybe what he had in mind for the last issue of 1963, or at least probably as close to what we will get.
I never knew that this even existed! Will have to find this before finishing the video. Plus I get to read the mini series again.
Glad you covered this. I think you gave a very balanced and interesting read of the material and it's history in retrospect.
Thank you! I did try to be fair to Mr. Simpson and his efforts (because I like his work) and to Mr. Moore, too.
Thanks for providing great documentation of the accounts and the overall behind-the-scenes. I actually took some time to read Simpson's blog post. Indeed very revealing to Alan's perspective on wanting to distance from comics as a whole, I can't help but feel both sad that he suffered that much that there's no joy in even remembering any good from that era along as being angry at him in a way from allowing the grime to win him out of his enjoyment. I do respect his decision and do wonder what must have changes in the last couple of years for him to want to come back to comics if the news are to be true of a new comic project. I would hope that maybe this is a form of closure for him and to have at least a good memory when thinking about comics as a whole.
Although I'm unfamiliar with Donald Simpson, I did find it quite odd he pointed out that he was under no obligation to take Alan's wishes, implying he could have easily gone to reprint the story with the writer's name and then being angry at the poor quality reprints, in his opinion, done when there was a re-coloring done and no one had given him a notice whatsoever. I take this as bit hypocritical to be mad at something that he himself stated would have done if given the choice to him but didn't realize it. I'm not sure what the legal proceedings are for the re-coloring, but I would assume that the right holders for that reprint essentially had the same onus to either follow up on his wishes to keep it black and white as he was told but changed their minds, as although slimy, still is within their decision to do so. I think it was also somewhat passive aggressive, in trying to make Alan see his point and then bitter towards his choice as the years went on. Any Alan Moore caricature is funny in my book but I can't help but feel that it came about over nothing more than not being OK with Alan's own personal choice to not be associated with his work.
Heck, if Marvel could have respected that and still make good money out of it, I'm sure that any other publisher can. That bit with fans not knowing why he took his name out and then calling the In Pictoria reprint a quick money grab by fans on social media is such an outlandish scenario to put on the other's court that it does feel a tad passive aggressive.
In my opinion, I genuinely don't think Mr. Simpson was doing a money grab. Sure, he would profit from In Pictopia (as would all collaborators) but it's a story he should be rightly proud to have been a part of and I think he sincerely wanted it preserved in its best possible form.
I'm glad you read the blog post! I think it's worth everyone's time to read. I thought it was quite helpful and revealing.
There is a TH-cam interview with Bissette where he says that a transcript of the Comics Journal Interview was sent to Moore so that he could approve or disapprove of any parts of the interview that he didn't agree with. I can't remember exactly what Moore's response was but he either approved everything or just didn't respond.
That's what I read. Although, I don't think it was ever specified exactly what he objected to.
Only thing I would add is that Alan Moore has had decades of interactions with Fantagraphics and their publication The Comics Journal beyond the Bissette interview you cite as the reason for his negative feelings. I can think of at least one other negative public interaction he had with the Comics Journal which may have contributed to his decision. Not trying to claim inside knowledge, just saying that given that both entities have been in the industry for decades and the Comics Journal covers the industry Moore used to work in, there can be multiple interactions which contributed, including ones that didn't take place in public forums that we can't possibly know about.
I'm sure there were private interactions with Gary Groth or Kim Thompson, not to mention pieces in The Comics Journal that I've not read, that could have contributed to Moore's displeasure with Fantagraphics. I have no knowledge of this, but it might be safe to presume.
@@StrangeBrainParts Yeah. And I feel like I should clarify that I didn't mean to imply Fantagraphics are bad people or that Moore's decision was correct. I agree that it seems like he's unfairly treating his collaborators by refusing them the ability to use his name to draw attention to the work they did together.
Agreed!
Though X-Amount was made from spite, it's got more passion than Ruin's.
I can agree with that.
When the industry giants clash, the readers are always the ones left frustrated.
Glad to see this video. I read the Don Simpson blogpost a while back, the funniest thing i found in his blog was him revealing he got into arguements on the Alan Moore subreddit about the Pictopia topic.
I saw those posts, too. And I screenshot them, thinking I'd use them in the video, but it didn't seem necessary.
@@StrangeBrainParts they weren't, but its still funny to point out
Wonderful video. 👍👌
I learned a lot today. I need to get myself a copy.
Btw...are you ever going to give an overview/review on Big Bang Comics?? The closest thing we will ever get to 1963 but without the satire.
I have to say, maybe not. I actually haven't read much of it.
I bought this. I really enjoyed it. I hadn't really noticed Don Simpson before this. But after all the information you provided I realized that I have been buying his stuff from dollar bins for years. Apparently I do like his stuff. I will definitely be looking for more in the future.
I should really get around to reading Moore's 'Twilight of the Superheroes' pitch.
It is not that long, from what I remember. I mean, in comparison to what his other scripts are like.
Moore is a brilliant writer, but he is also quite possibly insane.
He seems a fascinating guy, but also difficult as all get out to deal with.
Love Don Simpson's stuff, and had a nice interaction way back when I was tracking down back issues of his stuff, but this feels more like airing grievances in comic book form than an entertaining story.
It would be interesting if all the other 1963 guys pooled the characters they have rights to into some project, but I think that ship has sailed and all we can do is enjoy the stories we got.
Despite Allan Moore's distaste Fantagraphics publishes a lot of interesting and weird books, I'd certainly love to see some more content on that even if I guess it's not your niche.
The thing is Alan Moore doesn't hate comics, I don't think so at least. It's just way he was treated. If DC had given more respect he probably would've become a very different person, but as things stand, he can't see any of the good in comics, and how they're made. I'm honestly right alongside him a lot of the time, always wanted to make a movie or a comic, but ever behind-the-scene story is a horror about creators getting trampled over, good ideas being rejected, and not the mention the seedier parts of business that need not be mentioned.
Moore's right, the industry lets you down, comics'll break your heart, and yet something keeps drawing readers and writers and artists back again and again.
I think collaborators being mad about Alan Moore after him leaving for being wronged speaks more about them than himself.
great video as always
Thank you!
I wonder if this means that the Subgenius Church spin-off issue, which I believe was to be called 1963 & 1/2, will also somehow sneak out one day...
Ah! Here's the poop on 1963&1/2 from the bulletin page of 1963 number 6:
"ITEM! In addition to the roster of rascals recounted above, we should perhaps plug the publicly petrifying personage who personally and primarily postulated the puzzling parade of peculiarities posted on page 19, none other than that paragon of preposterousness, that prince of paradox, that pataphysical poet of painterly pandemonium, PEERLESS PAUL MAVRIDES!!! PEERLESS PAUL is the preen- ing paranormal playboy prankster presently penning the punishing prod in the privates to propriety that is 1963 1/2!!! Imminent from those industrial-intrigue-indulging imps at KITCHEN SINK/TUNDRA, 1963 1/2 tells the total, terrible truth about cattle mutilations, Presidential assassinations, Space Aliens, Marilyn Monroe and much, much more!! Served up soon by PEERLESS PAUL and his cinematically celebrated co-conspirator AGREEABLE ALEX COX, 1963 1/2 is a pinnacle of paranoiac perfection that will be prized by our politically peculiar pundits to the point of perversity!! 1963 1/2: The Comic Book That They Don't Want You To Read!!! (Uh...not Paul and Alex. They want you to read it. And John F. Kennedy didn't have anything against you reading it either. And we all know what happened to HIM!!!)"
The early Savage Dragon is ok for what it is, I guess, but 00s and beyond SD is one of the worst ongoing comics of all time.
I can´t say that reading any new statements from Moore that were made in the last 10 to 15 years manages to endear me too much. Some of the publishers truly fucked him over but also made him rich. At some point, you have to let it go yet he chooses to be bitter toward people at let´s say DC whom he has never met. Not forgiving the editors who were there from the 80s to the ABC days is fine and all but he keeps shotgun-blasting an entire medium at this point. He may not be a miserable man but Moore is petty to a fault and misses the press to advertise his novels through hyperbolic statements against comics. I have an easier time respecting Ditko and that man was certifiably bananas. I can´t say that I am a fan of Moore´s novels or his final works in comics either. Morrison is lastly right, he wrote about rape way too much and too often for no reason. Still one of the all-time great authors but there is an undeniable point of no return where the quality and readability of his crafts die. And it´s not his Image days. He made Wildstorm good even if he discredited his Wildc.a.t.'s run only years later. It´s good.
1:02 The Maxx by Sam Kieth and *Jeph* Loeb
Yup, I screwed up. I suck.
Please do a review of "Void Rivals", I would love to hear your take on this comic.
That might be forthcoming as a Quick Review. :)
This video is almost like a comic in itself with the see previous video here moments.
It kind of it, isn't it? :)
Alan Moore, a brilliant creator at times , has always been a self important grump.
Thank you!
At this point I think you're physically incapable of creating a bad video. I've yet to see one, anyway .
Thank you. That might hold true for as long as my ancient computer holds out. :)
His Kamala khan comic feels rushed. IDK the death of Kamala in retrospect isn’t even fridging it’s a lazy marketing and judging from all the controversy it worked big time
Well, the w0rdltr33 one was pretty insignificant.
Anything that's a Hot Take is definitely a rush job.
Part of me kinda wonder if blowing up Ultimate Universe was a bad idea hearing Kamala Khan story.
Like that universe might have worked as dumping ground and “modern heroes” section, which is what Ultimate was created.
Finding ironic that the moment when those writers migrated to mainstream that shenanigans happened (Bendis for example).
Paul Nabisco as Byron Starkwinter the Effable One
X-Amount is such a weird niche comic and while the comic itself isn’t quite stellar, it has a wild story behind it all
1963 easily the best book to come out of Image. I often wished each of those titles were turned into ongoing series.
I guess the black suit made a much earlier appearance.
To be honest, while I think it's honestly a little fucked on Don's part to illustrate that whole "Affable my ass!" drawing, I have to admit I think it's a really funny drawing.
What would be a shorter list, entities that Moore doesn't have problems with or entities that Moore has problems with?
Neither.
On the other hand, the lists for people he respects, people he would work with again and people he doesn’t have a grudge with all have just one entry each and it’s the same person. Unless he now has a thing with mirrors and breaks all the ones he gets in contact with.
@@OM19_MO79.....damn😂
6:46 Because of course he would be.
I do enjoy Moore but he is an odd duck
Yeah great video. Forgot to add to a comment to support the aligithrom but have now. Interesting views on Mr Moore which I largely share. He strikes me as a person of massive principal but utterly unforgiving of folks who caren't live up to those lofty ideals - well ideals for most. Moore does seem to practice what he preachers. Just a shame something doesn't twig that there's one common factor in all the friendships that have ended. Still he has every right to live his life the way he does. Its a shame he dislikes comics so much but nowt anyone other than Aln can do to change that.
9:50 Yet such petulance is in ever great abundance throughout this industry.
Boy, creators (as with many humans) can sure get petty. And spiteful. And we occasionally get to enjoy the fruit of that nonsense-such as with this project, and your excellent video on it! Thanks for posting
Great video
Thank you! Great comment. :)
I am sure Don Simpson has fair complains about his work with Moore but this 1963 thing rubs me wrong as a bit misleading.
I don't think anyone heard about "Don Simpson doing the 1963 annual" and thought "it will be an expression of his negative views about Alan Moore". I wasn't expecting him to "finish" the 1963 stories but thought he would do something fun with analogue characters, some satire like his Megaton Man and even some criticism of Moore but not as the main thing in the story.
And overall is that something I'd be interested reading?
It ends up reading as gossip of people who know each other arguing over personal stuff I have no involvement, personal knowledge, stakes and neither want to be in the middle of it. As a reader I feel like watching the couple that invited you for dinner starting to argue with each other.
It has his place, it is on his right to do so but I feel better hearing that from an interview, a post expressing these views than being fooled into buying a comic I thought would be something else.
I wouldn't hold against Don Simpson getting this stuff out of his chest but it is not the material by him I personally have interest. I'd rather this personal stuff stuff to be discussed among the people directly involved with.
Editors opinion question: what’s your opinion on Neil Gaimans best, The Sandman?
My nutshell response is this: It's quite good. Sandman was a rare series that elevated the medium by approaching it as literature organically adapted to the medium.
Hay Strange Brain Parts Have you ever heard of Alterna Comics and if you have could you ever talk about them on this channel?
I don't think I have heard about them. But I'll take a look at see what I can see. Everything is open to be covered on this channel.
Also it’s best to buy their comics on their website.
I feel like when you're working in the industry it can feel like "sorting out petty differences" is more of a trap than anything else you know so everyone can pat themselves on the back and keep going as usual with the balance of power still unfair and unchallenged. It's a shame it ended up affecting his fellow creators but it was clearly against the publishing company, he must see this as publishers wanting to make money on his name.
Love Moore, but he's cranky. Reasonably.
If you ever meet Alan Moore in real life, just remind him that the big conspiracy in Watchmen was a rip-off of the Outer Limits episode "Architects of Fear".
I wonder what that red beetle Hulk character would've been like. When I read 1963, he didn't seem that interesting, maybe it woudn't have made a big difference but still.
Thank you very much! And thank you for watching.
What are the odds that Steve Bissette, Alan Davis, Dave Gibbons, Ian Gibson, David Lloyd, Don Simpson & Dez Skinn were in the wrong, and Moore and Moore alone in the right? Vanishingly small I'd say.
Alan Moore may be one of the most talented assholes in comics. He wrote some great works but its hard to find anyone who’s worked with him that does think he’s a complete ass
It deeply saddens me to constantly listen to Moore’s bitter thoughts on comics, feeling so much shame and embarrassment over his time with it.
He should feel proud of what he has accomplishment and what he contributed is greatly appreciate by so many people. It’s true that greedy companies have treated him horribly and a lot of his hate seems justified, but to look at as a “waste of his life” just sounds miserable.
It’s almost like he chooses to stay miserable and bitter over the industry, rather than being proud of what he has done and move on.
I suspect Moore, the private person, doesn’t consider his own work a waste of time considering, among other things, a nice income. It seems to me he is tired of fans or even pros who insist in printing and/or the net that Moore is not allowed to have grown up opinions on his own past or present stuff. There’s even a PhD guy with a Batman dissertation that looked him up just to ask imbecile Batman questions.
I really think that Moore is legitimately mentally ill. No doubt he's been treated shabbily by some of his collaborators and publishers and I don't fault him for not wanting to deal with it but the way he talks about certain things is not entirely sane. He honestly reminds me of people I know who are paranoid and have PTSD.
@@nekiyia
Being incredibly bitter and viewing your work through an industry sounds pretty miserable to me. It leaves with so much regrets that I can’t see any further outcome other than bitterness.
How about instead of insults, be mature and stop acting like a child.
@@nekiyia
What the hell are you talking about, little dude?
You called me miserable because of my impression of someone who you seems to be devoid of criticism, someone whose work I admire and respect.
Again, stop acting like a child.
@@nekiyia
I’m a big fan of Alan Moore’s work, dude. Just because I love his stuff doesn’t exempt him from criticism.
Being bitter and regretful of a great portion of your life sounds miserable to me, little dude.
Did my comment get deleted?
I didn't delete any comments.
@@StrangeBrainParts Hmm... must have just been a glitch in the matrix so! I commented that, it was a shame that such a well researched and constructed video was so flawed in both individual aspects and the underlying basis for your analysis; 'Moore's principles'. There's a bias, even if it's unconscious, driving your thesis where every time you ascribe Moore as being 'petty' or 'spiteful' there's always a caveat and none where Don Simpson is concerned. Moore has NO 'principles other than 'Moore, Moore, Moore' and he always been focussed on himself above all others. I think it's a shame you didn't see my own video; far inferior to your own, but with contributions from some of Moore's oldest Co-Creators and fact checked by uncredited others, that showed he's a narcissist sociopath (yes I have a clear bias, but based on facts) without any principles where his peers are concerned, when putting together this otherwise professional and polished piece.
th-cam.com/video/C9QQmcCg9s0/w-d-xo.html
If you carry too many beefs in the business, separate yourself from other creators, and state that you will no longer be working with some of the biggest companies in the world due to events that occurred 40 years ago (most of which involving individuals who don’t even work for said companies anymore), you find yourself working for the indiest of the Indy companies, telling stories about how fairy tale princesses lost their virginity.