Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities Lardy's Roundtable (Gym'll's Ed.): Grant Morrison

Yeah, I think what Lardy says is true about what this era will be remembered for. And as a huge comic book fan with a vast knowledge of the history of the medium, I'm pretty pleased and proud to be collecting comic books in this era for that reason.

Creators simply will not create new characters for these massive (and often soul-less) corporations to make tons of money for their investors. I say, good for them! The Golden Age, Silver Age and Bronze Age creators got screwed by businessmen and these creators have learned from their mistakes.

What that means is that there are less new creations appearing at Marvel & DC; though, there are still some. The companies will be hard-pressed to find another Firestorm or Infinity, Inc, but you will see the occassional Atrocitus or the Sentry (characters who can only work by borrowing from the decades long work of creators who built the respective comic book universes).

Now if only some genius with a ton of money could figure out a way of getting independent comic books in the hands of non-comic book readers. That could be a huge trigger.

I think Dev distills the essence of the Avengers pretty well here. Even when the Avengers had their Big Guns, it didn't feel like it was "Big Guns team". JLA has pretty much always been that way except for the Giffen/Dematteis JLI era and the Detroit era.

The Avengers is more of a family like the JSA is. Many of them lived in the mansion, dated each other, went to the mall together--maybe Bendis got around to all that eventually after I left (I know Spidey lived in their tower-thingy for awhile), but I doubt they ever felt like family. And of course, Bendis really put a huge nail in the family by making Wanda responsible for the deaths of several Avengers and later having them consider actually killing her in the pages of House of M. Not a good way to start!

That's what I liked about Mighty Avengers. Even without the Big Three, they had second-tier members like Hank, Pietro and Hercules along with legacy characters like USAgent, Jocasta, Stature and the Vision and a newbie or two like Amadeus Cho. It just felt like the Avengers! Sometimes Slott was off the mark, but I was happy to see him succeed more often than not. It made me realize that it wasn't the Big Three I was missing at all, just characters and stories that belonged in an Avengers book.

Exactly...and the Detroit era is either loved or hated...usually hated. Same with the JLI. Some loved it and totally bought into it, while others dispised what had been done. The humor of it all right after the Detroit league probably helped it a bit.

Another example of a book that got rebooted midstream and was hated was Thunderblots. Took a great concept and just changed everything...for no apparent reason.

So what does your dad still read avidly and enjoy? (I'm shocked he's been away from the Avengers that long!)

Honestly, he never forgave Marvel for Hank hitting Jan. And how far did he take it? He hasn't read a new Avengers story (other than JLA vs. Avengers) since the mid-80's.

He's pretty busy and works (no kidding) like 75 hours a week. He doesn't read near as many as he used to and he goes through periods where he's just not reading any comic books at all. He definitely doesn't read *most* comic books (unlike me, who reads almost all of them). He is an avid reader though, reading "regular" books (for lack of a better term?).

Over the last few years, I've handed him several comics to read and enjoy that he liked a lot. Note that I give him stacks of 30-40 issues of the same title at a time and even now he's probably not caught up. These were Captain America (Bru's whole run #1-25), Green Lantern (Geoff's run #1-20ish) and Daredevil (mid-Bendis to mid-Bru).

He thought New Frontier was spectcular.

He really liked the Jonah Hex stories he's read and the new Warlord series by Grell that unfortunately is being cancelled.

A lot of things discourage him to pick up new comics more than anything. DC killing off Ted Kord, one of his favorite characters basically ensured he wasn't going to be going out of his way to read any new DC Comics for awhile other than Batman or Superman. Even then, he only read All-Star Superman and random Batman stuff I've handed him.

He's more apt to read comics with his favorites and if they're good, he'll become more encouraged. These include Iron Man, Henry Pym (Giant-Man to my Dad) and Spider-Man. BTW, he was never a fan of the marriage to MJ in the first place so if you want to see a reaction by a huge Spider-Man fan that is completely non-caring, you should have seen his. He shrugged. I guess when you're a fan of a character from day one and he exists for 50 years, 20 years of history seems very short. I think the only storyline in Spider-Man he ever liked during the era where Spidey & MJ were married was Kraven's Last Hunt (which was like in the first 6 months of the marriage).

The last time he was truly enthusiastic about comic books was when the Superman comics were all really good leading up to Death of Superman and the Batman comics were all really good (with LoTDK and Shadow of the Bat having some really quality stories). But even then he was highly discouraged by Marvel.

You bring up a great new topic though Lardy. What do you recommend someone who used to love comics but hardly reads them anymore?

My Dad dislikes comics that are incomplete stories, or at the very most, don't run for more than three issues.

My Dad isn't going to be reading month to month--so the series needs to be relatively self-contained.

He has his favorites from his former experiences reading comics but doesn't want a retread of old ideas. Because frankly, he thinks the originals were better anyway.

What series does all this?

I can name dozens. For the sake or narrowing it down. What superhero series does all this?

Sounds like you're trying to describe Brave and the Bold, or any given three issue arc of Batman and Robin.

I'd have to concur with B&B as a terrific choice. It's usual done-in-one style combined with a classic yet modern feel would seem the perfect way to rope someone like your dad in. You don't have to worry about continuity or crossovers either.

Also, I keep thinking about Invincible. It also combines classic superhero formulas with modern sensibilities. I know you, Des, are not entirely sold on it, but he may feel differently. There are some multi-part storylines, but they tend to run about four parts max. Lots of done-in-ones sprinkled in as well and unreliant on crossovers (with the sole exception of a brief Astonishing Wolfman 2-parter). It's like a modern Spider-man series in tone but is definitely its own thing.

Astro City would be an easy recommendation. Yes, it has some multi-parters (especially Dark Age). I'd give him the original miniseries with its done-in-ones as a fine starting point.

And it's hard to beat Incredible Hercules for a singularly fun celebaration of superhero comics. As you know, it's far from just a comedy series, but the sense of fun is always there.

Otherwise, there's All-Star Superman, Ultimate Spider-man and Booster Gold that would seem like sure bets.

Who outside of the big two regulars holds the most "power"? They can be big two writers, but ignore that aspect of their work.

Kirkman?

He would be an easy choice.

I think Kirkman is unquestionably the writer outside of the Big Two with the most power. Just let two words roll thru your brain for one moment: Image Partner. Kirkman's the first non-artist ever to get a partnership in Image and the first to be allowed in who wasn't a founder. That's influence, my friend!

Who else is even in the ballpark? Ennis? Moore? Gaiman? Ellis? All of these guys can do whatever they want should they desire to. Moore writes very little these days, but he always does it on his own terms. Gaiman practically walked away but could write his own paycheck if he ever wanted to. Ellis still does a lot of work both inside and outside the big two. Ennis is still prolific but has recently focussed solely on creator-owned work.

Y'know, at some point we moved past Grant Morrison before I'd really delved into him enough. I wasn't through with him dammit!!!

Here's a sampling of some of the Morrison discussion a few pages ago:

Can we get more perspectives on Morrison and reactions to what's been said? I'd love to hear people expand more on his peaks and valleys and what makes his good stuff good and his not-so-good-stuff, well, not-so-good!

I'd love to hear from anyone who's read Alan Moore's Promethea and who'd like to compare it to Morrison's more high-concept works.

And I'd REALLY love to hear from anyone out there who actually liked Final Crisis!

My problem with Morrison is that he wants to recreate the sense of wonder of his beloved Silver Age but is too much of a smug cynic to pull it off. JLA felt too smug and calculated in its big-ness, and his take on Batman was all about being smug and calculating. That said, I did enjoy the "Crisis Times Five" arc because it struck a perfect balance that eluded Morrison on his other JLA arcs. I also think that "Seven Soldiers" had its moments (it's one of the few times I liked Zatanna), and that while I disagree with a lot of what he was saying in "Animal Man," at least he was still relatively unknown when he wrote it and he had not yet cultivated his mystique, which is one of the things I find most annoying about him (now, true, he was writing "Doom Patrol" at about the same time and I found what little I read of it excruciating -- weirdness for its own sake, and it was also chronologically where the smugness first surfaced.)

Animal an was personally the best thing I've read of his in mainstream super-hero comics. It was big conceopt and extremely well thought out.

We3 was great.

Seven Soldiers was good, and I thought he pulled off the no team team pretty well.

His JLA was good overall, but was like watching a Bruckheimer movie. Big budget action flicks without any real heart. Not to say I didn't enjoy them, just that, believe it or not, they usually felt rushed.

Have not read his Final Crisis, or Batman stuff. Just not interesting to me at this point. I want to read FC, but have to wait for the trade at the library...which I have not been to in a while.

First, Rogue and Lardy you guys have some good suggestions. Brave & Bold is a really good one, which I also considered. Astro City was also a really good one too which for whatever reason I hadn't thought about.

With my father, he puts a lot more focus on the artwork than I do. You'll recall that was one of the major gripes I have with Invincible, so I'm not sure if Invincible would work for him.

On the other hand, artwork is hardly the problem in superhero comic book these days. I feel for the most part, artists are doing great job. My major overall complaints in the comic book industry is many young artists grew up on comic books and don't draw from life (unlike the original artists in comics). This often leads to lack of backgrounds and limited scope of compositions. Also, there is no need to draw talking heads, there are dozens of ways to draw exciting things while people have conversations.

But I'm drifting again.

Fanfic Lass brings up a great point (I'll have to get used to calling you that, Stealth ). Morrison, like the other writers who crossed the pond in the 80's and 90's are very much a product of the Thatcher era. They often have a pessimistic view stemming from a sense of betrayal they felt during the Thatcher years. I've read quite a few great interviews with them to see that (Morrison, Moore, Ennis, etc.).

The Silver Age, on the other hand, had a great sense of optimism. I'd go as far as saying it also helped give the sense of unlimited scope and grandeur. There was nothing that could not be explored; anything was possible. The writers reflected real life issues as well, of course: Lee & Kirby were famous for this; Robert Kanigher wrote a multitude of stories on racism; Otto Binder wrote a multitude of stories on miscommunication between political entities resulting in tremendous loss of life; this list goes on and on. But the general sense of the Silver Age was man could overcome its flaws. The one exception to the rule was probably Steve Ditko.

So anything Morrison does reflects this dichotomy of influences. I actually think Morrison has softened up a bit as hes aged though. He's said as much during the writing of All-Star Superman, which served as a cathartic "letting it go" phase in which he reflected on other things beyond his younger cynicism (influenced by things such as the death of his father, having a longterm loving relationship, etc.).

All that being said, I generally love his work, as I stated above. I think the spirit of it captures the Silver Age, but the nuts & bolts of it is anything but; he's not derivative, rather, he's actually creative.

What would you like to hear?

I think FC, when read as a complete story, including the Superman 3D experiment (but not necessarily the Rucka minis,) was a great story. It was the exact opposite of All Star Superman. Here was a story very much a commentary on modern comics, full of the melodrama we've been mired in, struggling to find that bit of hope and joy we all keep wanting in our books.

Seeing Darkseid's subversive, grounded and almost urbane conquest of the earth was frightening and disturbing. The unternet is used to broadcast the anti-life equation to EVERYONE! Let's face it- we are all connected these days. The boundaries of reality collapse and worlds collide as story itself become weak and corrupted by something as evil as Darkseid winning. Every time we've seen Darkseid, he's defeated, you have to wonder how bad ass could he be? Now we know- his very existence is poison.

Superman, the champion of worlds (universes really) has to struggle, beyond his might, to grasp concepts on a GOD-LIKE level. The battle isn't for a soul, it's for IDEA.

I do think it was a grand undertaking, and Grant could have done a better job (maybe the storytelling of the art too.) But it was very enjoyable read.

Ceej, I will confess that Final Crisis had a few moments and scenes within it that worked for me. The problem was that they were few and far between and often went too long without follow-up.

Maybe part of the problem was the story was too BIG to be told in 7 issues, which may also be borne out with what I've heard is the essential nature of the Superman Beyond mini. If understanding or getting full enjoyment of the core story hinges upon reading what is supposed to be an auxiliary tie-in, then the core series would have to be considered a failure. I don't own and haven't read Superman Beyond, so I can only assume that what CJ and other reviewers hint at is true regarding its status as an essential piece of the puzzle.

Blackest Night had the reverse problem...it was too long in contrast to its story content. But none of its tie-ins were essential to the main story. If you just bought BN 1-8, I know that the reader woudn't be lost or feel they've missed something key to the story.

Of course, Final Crisis was also incredibly LATE, so it doesn't help the reader grasp Grant's concepts and retain the continuity when there are big delays throughout. Choosing J.G. Jones as artist was a mistake from the get-go. His track record spelled doom for FC being on time before issue one was ever published. Ivan Reis on BN was a sign from the beginning that BN wasn't gonna have that problem.

But even subtracting the delays and the Superman Beyond problems, Grant's script lacked clarity and suffered from rushed or incomplete characterization. Those are always the two big problems I've had with Grant's work as a whole. It's like I have to be on 'shrooms to see what he's doing while wondering why I should care about the characters in the first place!

Again, has anyone read Alan Moore's Promethea series? It's a textbook example of how a series can be both high concept and comprehensible while also giving you involving, sympathetic characters! It's an Alan Moore book that uses Morrison-like imagination but totally shows Morrison how it's done!

Never read it, actually. Have always meant to get around to it but still have not. I missed the boat on most of Moore's Image stuff and only have started working backwards toward in recent years...

Superman Beyond was actually pretty awesome and I think works great without FC. FC, however, needs it. I found FC to be a pretty boring event that was basically a waste of time. Maybe I'll reread and give it a second look--in the year 2017. LW posters, you can hold me to that then, but until then, I want to forget about it.

Final Crisis only really works with Superman Beyond (and Submit) - basically everything that's in the Hardcover. I loved FC, but can understand why people had issues with it and I hold it up as Exhibit A when it comes to how a great story can be deflated by external influences in the comic world. With FC you had:

- A years worth of stories and countless tie-ins leading up to it that ultimately had nothing to do with the story and even worse contradicted it. Shameless attempt by DC to cash in without regard for the story and setting up their readers to be confused and angry.

- Increasing delays. Obviously not the first book, or even the first event book to do so, but with such a complex story it created a sense of "Stalled out"

- Publishing what were essentially three chapters of the book as spin-offs and not indicating how essential they were. "Submit" gave a better idea of the world after Anti-Life, which seems glossed over otherwise in the series proper leading the reader to shrug it off, and the entire last half of issue #7 makes NO sense without "Superman Beyond" to provide context around who the Monitors or Mandrakk really are.

All of these factors lay outside the story itself, but are legitimate reasons for the audience to be upset and not enjoy the story.

Damn! FC needs "Submit" as well? That's just piss-poor storytelling! I don't really care what you do with all the tie-ins, but if the core story suffers because you didn't buy certain tie-ins, it's inexcusable!

Yes, Blackest Night milked the HELL outta the tie-ins, but NOT A SINGLE ONE was essential reading! GL and GLC had some great between-issue stories and what essentially amount to DVD deleted scenes, but I'm absolutely sure you could read and enjoy BN without them just as you could enjoy the Lord of the Rings films in their theatrical versions without ever watching the extended editions.

I had been thinking that maybe I would re-read FC at some point and see how it works read all together with a fresh look, but now--I'd have to buy MORE to get the full effect?!?! WTF!!!

Stupid Infinite Crisis had the opposite problem: Something else else like FIVE miniseries lead up to it, don't come to a definite close and become parts of the plot to it! More than all the deaths, villainizations of former good guys and retreading stories, that was just damn unforgivable! I read OMAC Project and the Donna Troy thing, so I was completely LOST by the elements from all those other minis that I didn't care to purchase! It was damned confusing and left me feeling like an absolute CHUMP for buying this crap!

By comparison to IC and FC, Blackest Night comes out smelling like an effin' ROSE! Yes, you could argue that the story is incomplete with the segue into Brightest Day, but I'd argue BD is accessible and looks to be its own thing and have its own hook. And BN did build and resolve its own conflict internally. Other than being too long, I'd say it was a big improvement.

As for Marvel, I have no real comment on the crossovers themselves. I didn't buy or read Civil War, Secret Invasion or Siege, so I can't evaluate them. I can, however, evaluate what crossovers and shared storylines have done to books I loved. Those and price factors have lead me to cut my Marvels on the pull list down to three. By comparison, I get in the neighborhood of 20-25 DCU books.

I'd really recommend the Superman Beyond issues, OT/Lard Lad, as based on previous discussions it seems it would be right up your ally. The last page is just killer and had me cheering.

Yes it's chalk full of heady ideas and crazy metatextual commentary (there's a scene where Superman literally reaches out to the reader), but it really does pull the whole thing together and meshed quite nicely with "All Star Superman" as well, in a themeatic sense.

Plus you get Captain Marvel, Dr. Manhattan, Superman, Ultraman and Nazi Superman all trying to work together (plus Merryman), how cool is that?

Here's a link to one of may favourite moments:

http://www.newsarama.com/php/multimedia/album_view.php?gid=802&page=5

"Two syllables, then the lightning. Repeat after me..."

Gives me chills every time.

Not saying Cobie, myself or anyone here should be running DC. But with DCU Legacies coming out, ya got to wonder if someone there is reading this board.

Lately, a lot of things have gotten me thinking about something.

Compare Len Wein's astonishing return to comics writing with his JLA arc and now with DCU: Legacies to the way that other writers lose their spark, seemingly for it never to return.

I'm thinking in particular of Peter David, who only a year ago was the subject of a lovefest in this very thread instigated by yours truly. In hindsight, he was already turning out work below his usual standards, but at the time it seemed only temporary. But now? Can anyone, even his biggest fans (and I'm one of them), say that his heart still seems to be in his comics work?

PAD has weathered many well-documented professional and personal setbacks over the years which have sometimes impacted his work. But so has Wein -- his disastrous early 90s stint as Disney Comics EiC as an example of the former, his house burning down last year as an example of the latter. And yet he's currently doing the best writing of his career.

Which makes me wonder: why do some creators go into freefall and never come back up, while others, albeit far fewer, do? Is there hope for the Mark Waids and James Robinsons...and the PADs? Is Wein a symbol of hope, or an exception to the rule?

I was all prepared to give PAD the benefit of the doubt, with all the crossovers, and characters being snatched away by editorial fiat (Rahne), etc. but, really, I can't even muster a convincing apology for this run.

Every 'fight' ends with some smarter / stronger / better threat that X-Factor never really beats, as it either gets bored and leaves, or something happens that makes it not be a total massacre.

At some point, I kinda want the heroes to win something. Conclusively. I'm beyond tired of deus ex machina villains *I've never heard of* like Tryp or the dude with all the mutant powers ever or the old lady with the book who nearly sank Utopia.

X-Factor's last *good* story was in the Madrox limited series, IMO.

As a fan of Peter David, that's not fun for me to admit.

Any thoughts on other writers who either have or have not lost it, Set?

Most of the writers I'm really familiar with, I haven't read much from lately.

We're a few months out before I can say whether or not Levitz has or has not 'lost it,' for instance, and I haven't read anything new from Wolfman or Alan Davis or Walt Simonson or Alan Moore for years.

From what I've seen of the new Chris Claremont X-Men launch, he's pretty much lost it, 'though, although I sometimes think that, without someone like Cockrum or Byrne to dress up his ideas, he's never been all that dazzling, since he's got a lot of storylines, even back in 'the old days' that are just spectacularly bad... I think he can work really well, on a good team, but, on his own, not so much.

Many hot trendy writers (Bendis, Millar, Winnick, Johns), I'm not entirely convinced ever 'had it,' so I'd be a poor choice to judge whether or not they 'lost it.'

I'm not sure if Frank Miller 'lost it,' or if he's still telling the same stories, and our tastes have changed enough that we don't like them anymore...