Terry%20Wood

July 15, 2012 12:18 pm Obviously there are fans of the Stephanie Brown character that are upset about this because they are fans of Stephanie Brown. I totally understand. I lived through the 90s with Hal Jordan being my favorite character, and I've always loved the JSA, which has had its struggles, too. But to assert there are more fans that want Brown as Batgirl than Barbra Gordon in the New 52 is just an opinion. Certainly, the disgruntled or angered fan is going to make more noise, but is the New 52 Batgirl book selling fewer copies now than the the Stephanie Brown Batgirl book? I'm guessing its not, but I could be wrong. I don't really follow such numbers. Nevertheless, DC has decided to do its best not to cloud the waters with its characters and to go with its most iconic versions. For years critics and readers said DC's continuity was too convoluted to understand, which was the reason its books weren't as popular as Marvel's. I tend to agree that such a theory is wrongheaded and doesn't give readers enough credit. Any average or even below average comic reader who wanted to understand the parallel earths could have. Even Marvel has multiple iterations of its characters now and parallel universes are used broadly across all forms of entertainment. But, if it is DC's intent to maximize the use of its most known characters, then Didio's decision to veto the use of Stephanie Brown in lieu of Gordon was just following the policy that was established only a year more or less ago. Part of the continuity issues that began to rise within a few years of Crisis on Infinite Earths came about because DC's editors did not make the tough decisions to follow the course it had set. Now, the Earth 2 book and the fact that the character is going to be Nightwing and not Batgirl also seems to go against the policy, but that's another argument. I do hope at some point characters like Brown and Wally West and Donna Troy will eventually be used because I liked them, too, but I don't think Didio made the decision to spite fans but rather to follow DC's stated strategy with its characters.

February 29, 2012 8:57 pm "Alan Moore did not deny L Frank Baum, Lewis Carroll, or Sir James Barrie the rights to their works, nor prevent them from making a profit on them as they saw fit, as was the case with Watchmen." The only problem with this argument is that Alan Moore has never owned the rights to the Watchmen. DC has owned the Watchmen from inception. Moore was paid to invent the characters and write the story for DC on a work for hire basis. DC owns the characters by contract and has never lost that ownership. That contract had stipulations for Moore to eventually take control of the work if certain conditions were met (the work being out of print for 5 years). Those conditions were never met. Moore never owned the rights to the Watchmen. Someone(s) designed and made the couch in your living room for a company. That company sold the product to a retail. You bought the couch from the retail store. Who owns the couch in your living room? While someone(s) designed, crafted, distributed and sold the couch, those people don't own it. You do because your receipt is a contract that says you own it. For a time the company owned the couch, so did the retailer, but at no point did the designer or the craftsman own the couch because they were paid to produce the work for the company.

February 29, 2012 1:17 pm There's no two ways around it, Moore is a hypocrite in this instance, but being a hypocrite isn't a crime. In fact, if we are all honest, we all have things we are hypocritical about. Sometimes there are good or defensible reasons for hypocrisy. What gets me about the whole fuss about Before Watchmen and other works of Moore's that may be adapted to another media or be expanded upon in the future is why it is still an issue. Moore has been clear that he would rather others not expand or adapt his material. He want it to stand for itself. He's also clear in that he doesn't want to have anything to do with these expansions and/or adaptations. So, why do reporters chase after the same story and get the same answer every time it happens? It's obvious DC/Warners isn't going to turn over the rights to Watchmen to Moore and contractually Warners/DC is on solid ground. So what does it matter what Moore thinks? Is it fair? Legally, it is fair. Morally? It's certainly debatable. Under the circumstances, DC/Warners has been silly not to exploit the Watchmen property further than it already has. I think the reason it hadn't is that Levitz and Kahn before him were in a way trying to honor Moore's wishes and keep an olive branch extended. But, Moore knows he's not going to get control of the characters and he doesn't need DC's money, so why should he play nice with them. As for the argument over Blackest Night, Moore had a throwaway line in an 8-page story that sparked Johns' imagination of what the Blackest Night prophecy might be. Johns then developed it into what it ultimately became, but Blackest Night is purely Johns' work even though Moore's throwaway line was the inspiration. Moore is again being hypocritical because just like Johns, his idea about a Blackest Night prophecy was inspired by whomever wrote Green Lantern's oath back in the 1940s. Again, he is criticizing DC or Johns for doing the exact same thing he did. I don't think Moore is fooling himself with these shots at DC. Moore is just using whatever ammunition he can find to fire across DC's bow. It's childish, but because Moore's considered a genius a lot of folks are rallying to his defense. But I'm guessing some if not a lot of his defenders will be picking up the Before Watchmen material in some format once it's released, making them hypocrites, too.

February 7, 2012 4:55 pm "That guy" could probably buy the DVD or maybe even the Blu Ray of the FF movie for less than the hard back. Why not just say the book is for a general audience?