Creator Bout 1: Battle of the Brits part 1 Moore vs Gaiman

[Elijya]

the two biggest literary brains in comicdom face off. who do you prefer?

[masteryoda]

Batman. :mad:

[Elijya]

hehe


oh, and Gaiman gets preptime, but Moore has the power battery

[Unthinkable]

Pssh, Moore.

[Elijya]

did you just "pssh" away neil gaiman?

[Unthinkable]

no, I pssh up Moore...There's a difference.

[Majin Boo]

condom face?

[Unthinkable]

:confused:

[DBM]

Gaiman all the way.

[Elijya]

bump

come on, this needs more than 6 votes

[DBM]

I'd vote but I already did.

Gaiman is far superior.

[Nightcrawler17]

This is a very hard decision.

Alan Moore - One of the greatest writers who started he beginning of Vertigo and the ideas of dark gothic characters and serial killers in Modern Age comics. Swamp Thing, Watchmen, League of Ex. Gentlemen, Promethea, ect. (just to name a few)

Neil Gaiman - Another one of the greats who created one of the bestselling and most popular Vertigo series so far. Also still writing great stories such as 1602 and upcoming Neverwhere.

It's a tough choice, but I'll have to go Alan Moore.

[X]

Moore. I personally think his work on MiracleMan was a lot better then Gaimen. I haven't read the Sandman series yet or 1602, not too too much of Gaimens work actually. But I prefer Moore from what I've seen. Neil's still great and all though. :up:

[DBM]

Moore. I personally think his work on MiracleMan was a lot better then Gaimen. I haven't read the Sandman series yet or 1602, not too too much of Gaimens work actually. But I prefer Moore from what I've seen. Neil's still great and all though. :up:

X, you've got to read the Sandman stuff. I was just describing it to one of my friends this weekend like this.

The Sandman is a story so good that you'll never read it more than once.

Because you'll remember it forever.


I honestly don't even read it anymore. I'll just pull one of the volumes off the shelf, flip through a few pages and remember how grand a story it was, in all it's glory without even reading a word.

[Archangel]

You're a LIAR DBM, I just took out the entire Sandman series from my library to read for the second time. :p

Oh, yeah, I vote Gaiman.

[CobraCommander]

Moore. Because he wrote Watchmen, and Gaiman didn't.

[Addendum]

I enjoy both

[DBM]

Moore. Because he wrote Watchmen, and Gaiman didn't.

Using the same kind of reasoning.

Gaiman because he wrote the Sandman and Moore didn't.

Hah!

[X]

Am I the only one that's read MiracleMan? I personally think it's overall better then Watchmen, it has a lot of the same ideas as well. Gaimen took over took over right after Moore left and he did flesh the MiracleMan world out a bit more among other things, but I still think Moore was overall better. Then again I don't think MM is Neil's usual stomping grounds, and I don't have much of his work to judge off of. Sandman, here I come...

[DBM]

Am I the only one that's read MiracleMan? I personally think it's overall better then Watchmen, it has a lot of the same ideas as well. Gaimen took over took over right after Moore left and he did flesh the MiracleMan world out a bit more among other things, but I still think Moore was overall better. Then again I don't think MM is Neil's usual stomping grounds, and I don't have much of his work to judge off of. Sandman, here I come...

I've read MiracleMan. I think it is an excellent read as well. I've never denied it. As to whether it is better than Watchman, I'd have to say I'm a little iffy on that one. I'm going to say they are equal in my opinion.

[Elijya]

I think it's absolutely sinful you've never read Sandman, X. it lowers my opinion of you as a comic reader

:(

[DBM]

I think it's absolutely sinful you've never read Sandman, X. it lowers my opinion of you as a comic reader

:(

Give him time. It's a good size read. I didn't even read it until last year. In fact until about a year and a half ago I hadn't read any Vertigo. Now I've read almost all of it.

[X]

Ah well. You fail to take into account I've only been a comic fan for a year, if that. I'm just as knowledgable as anyone, I don't care if you've been a fan for 20 years.

I personally would take MiracleMan over Watchmen, just by a bit. Then again MM ran 20 some odd issues, they had more opportunitys to do this and that.

[The Hero]

hehe


oh, and Gaiman gets preptime, but Moore has the power battery
But then Mark Miller throws him into the sun!:mad:

[DBM]

But then Mark Miller throws him into the sun!:mad:

Mark Millar doesn't even belong in the same thread as Gaiman and Moore.

[Union Jack]

alan moore..he did do captain britain,the story with the fury which i have read millions of times(ok,alot of times :))

[The Hero]

Mark Millar doesn't even belong in the same thread as Gaiman and Moore.
I know,I was just throwing a name out there.:o

[Elijya]

well, Gaimen has produced more work, and he doesn't throw ***** fits

[The Hero]

well, Gaimen has produced more work, and he doesn't throw ***** fits
Come on,who can say no to this face:

http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2003/jun/league/moore.jpg

[X]

Even when he met Jack Kirby at this convention years ago he looked super god damned scary. :o

[TheCorpulent1]

I have to vote for Gaiman over Moore. I've read a good amount from each of them and Gaiman's subject matter and style edges him out for me. Gaiman took the concept of the narrative and turned it into one of the greatest comic series of all time... I gotta go with him.

[CobraCommander]

Maybe I just never read enough Sandman... I read the first trade and wasn't too blown away by it. Whereas Watchmen rocks me everytime I read it.

[TheCorpulent1]

That's understandable, I guess, since Watchmen's one TPB and Sandman is 10. I thought the first one was good, but the later ones really blew me away. They get less oriented in the real world and more weird as you go.

[DBM]

Maybe I just never read enough Sandman... I read the first trade and wasn't too blown away by it. Whereas Watchmen rocks me everytime I read it.

When I recommend Sandman to people I typically tell them to read the first two Volumes before forming their opinions. Personally, I feel that Vol 1 (Preludes and Nocturnes) is the least strong of the series. It's a lot more setup and a place were Neil had to establish things to get everything else rolling. Volume two (The Doll's House) is where things get really good.

[fifthfiend]

Well, Gaiman's young and probably quicker, but Moore's a big lad, and much more hateful and all-around insane. I say it ends with Moore choking Gaiman to death with the screenplay from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

[Lackey]

I've read pretty much everything from both of them and it's definitely Alan Moore the better of the two, no question.

Both are extremely excellent writers, though, but there'd be no Gaiman (in the world of comics) if not for Alan Moore... Neil Gaiman follows in his steps. Alan Moore has set the bar for what modern comics should be.

[Elijya]

and there'd be no alan moore if his parents hadn't ****ed, so ha!

[Unthinkable]

I've gotta say Moore, even though I've read Sandman. Its not just Miracle Man (though I've read only 3 issues), Watchmen, and Captain Britain. Its V for Vendetta, Supreme, Tom Strong, and Swamp Thing. I mean, his weakest story is the Killing Joke, and it is still in the top 5 Batman stories for me. I mean, EVERYTHING this man touches turns to gold. EVERYTHING, hell he's taken a Superman ripoff by LIEFELD and made it more than amazing. I've got nothing agaisnt Gaiman, he's a great writer, but he'll be #2 in my eyes.

[The Hero]

What Superman rip-off?:confused:

[TheCorpulent1]

Supreme:
http://theages.superman.ws/users/supreme/images/new.gif

[X]

Well, Moore did write some of the best comics ever, taking a decent Rob Lifield character and making him into a retro/silver age great comic book character. I've actually read all of Supreme as well.

[Zenien]

Come on,who can say no to this face:

http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2003/jun/league/moore.jpg

In a fight to the bloody end, I would have to vote for Moore (in his full Rasputin glory), as he has more experience along with bucket loads more crazy.

But I haven't read enough from either of them...yet... to pass judgement on their litterary works. Although Alan Moore is is crazier than...well, uh, anyone else, I will have to admit that him being one of the greatest minds in comic book history should probably humble us enough to call him excentric, instead of outright insane.

[Elijya]

Gaimen's more versatile: He's written novels, children's books, given lectures, and he created an amazing TV show on the BBC called Neverwhere

[Bapman]

GAIMAN created SANDMAN.
'Nuff Said

That is probably THE BEST comicbook ever created.

[gildea]

double post

[gildea]

If we're talking purely in comic terms then it's moore.

He's done more to push the medium foward with amazing shifts in style, tone, scope and genre.

In comic land gaiman simply doesn't have the body of work or range to compete with moore. (though i confess I haven't read enough of either)

Gaiman:
Sandman (and associated spin offs)
Miracleman
Some spawn stuff
1602

(here is where my gaiman knowledge fails)

Moore:
Watchmen
V for Vendetta
From Hell
The Killing Joke
Swamp Thing
The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen 1 & 2
The entire sodding ABC line (promethea, tom strong etc etc)
Supreme

[Marc]

Gaiman:
Sandman (and associated spin offs)
Miracleman
Some spawn stuff
1602

(here is where my gaiman knowledge fails)


You should check out 'books of magic', I haven't read miracleman but its my favourite work by Gaimen. Well worth checking out IMO. If you read it before the harry potter hype you would be suspicious of Rowling, whether she lifted stuff from Gaimen. In anycase it is a poor imitation.

For me, its got to be Moore. Personally I think watchmen is one of the most overrated things I have read, but V for vendetta was perfect in my mind. Only Preacher gets higher kudos from me. Books of magic is just behind that though so not a cleansweep but good enough to beat out Neil.

[Addendum]

Alan Moore also did the 1963 miniseries at Image back in '93. Moore also wrote some comics in the main superhero titles. That's been collected in a tradeback entitled "Across the Universe. DC Universe Stories of Alan Moore." One that I know of off-hand is an issue of Superman, it may have been Action Comics, entitled "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?"

[gildea]

For me, its got to be Moore. Personally I think watchmen is one of the most overrated things I have read, but V for vendetta was perfect in my mind. Only Preacher gets higher kudos from me. Books of magic is just behind that though so not a cleansweep but good enough to beat out Neil.


V for vendetta is indeed marvellous (i dare say it resonates stronger for us because we're in the UK).

BUT read watchmen again.

and if you still think it's over-rated..... read it again.

;)

[CobraCommander]

Watchmen can never be overrated. If anything, I'd say it's UNDERRATED seeing as there are many new (hell, and old) readers who have never picked it up. If you read superhero comics, you MUST read Watchmen. It's that simple. End of story. You will never enjoy sub-par comics again. Your tastes will change instantly. For the better. Watchmen is the pinnacle of superhero comics. Everything that came after is walking in its shadow.

[Elijya]

when you say things like that, that encourages my thinking that it's overrated

[CobraCommander]

Man... your loss dude. You're missing out on something great. And coming from you, that's surprising.

[Barbelith]

Honestly, I think Moore wins by a good amount. I know I'm going to be crucified for this, but I read five volumes of Sandman and didn't really like it. I mean, a lot of my friends said that it's the greatest comic ever, and when I read it, I wasn't that moved. I mean, some of the stuff was good (I liked 'The Doll's House'), but overall I just didn't like it.

Moore, on the other hand, has written consistantly awesome stuff, no matter what genre it is. Whether it's superheroes, futuristic, fantasy, he can do it all. But I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Top Ten. I picked it up this summer and it was one of the best comics I've read in a long time and I'm pissed as hell that he's not going to do any more.

[Elijya]

Man... your loss dude. You're missing out on something great. And coming from you, that's surprising.

I've read it, and I enjoyed it, I just think it's overrated. And it's really not that original as people always shout that it is, it's built on ideas Mark Gruenwald established 4 years earlier in Squadron Supreme, and from the novel Superfolk

[Unthinkable]

Watchmen can never be overrated. If anything, I'd say it's UNDERRATED seeing as there are many new (hell, and old) readers who have never picked it up. If you read superhero comics, you MUST read Watchmen. It's that simple. End of story. You will never enjoy sub-par comics again. Your tastes will change instantly. For the better. Watchmen is the pinnacle of superhero comics. Everything that came after is walking in its shadow.

I know, when I read Watchmen, and then I read Maximum Carnage, I was like: "What is this crap?".

For me, Moore almost killed comics, because after I read his greatest stuff, everything else just seemed lesser, or just not intresting.

[Zeb Oswalt]

I have to go with Moore he writes some of the best messed up bizarre stories and he can also write some Great Super Man Stories. He can write both ends of the spectrum and write them well. Thanx for your time. :supes:

[TheSaintofKillers]

While I loved Sandman (all of it ;)), imo, Moore's run on swamp thing is THE pinnacle of american comic books. I've yet to read a run (I'm talking run here, not mini like Watchmen, etc) that equals (much less surpass) Alan Moore's phenomenal run on swampy the vegetable.

Then there's Watchmen, V for Vendetta and all of his older mini series, which, really, I don't have to talk about, their names only say it all. :cool:

If that wasn't enough, he made two of the best batman and superman stories: The killing joke (imo, the best batman comic of all time) and whatever happened to the man of tomorrow (which was such a great way to end such a huge saga).

He made fabulous comics 20 years ago, and he's STILL doing awesome work today. From Tom Strong to LXG to his soap opera Top ten, Moore might be the most versatile writer in comics of all time.

And so, all of this combine means Moore > Gaiman. ;) :p

[Elijya]

While I loved Sandman (all of it ;)), imo, Moore's run on swamp thing is THE pinnacle of american comic books.


um,. but he's british....

[TheSaintofKillers]

um,. but he's british....

But not the comic. So, what's that got to do with my statement ? :confused:

[Elijya]

I'd argue that that makes teh comic of british origin, especially since I believe a number of teh artists on his run were british, too

[TheSaintofKillers]

I'd argue that that makes teh comic of british origin, especially since I believe a number of teh artists on his run were british, too

So, i'm guessing Face-off is a chinese movie, since John Woo is chinese. :rolleyes:

Edit: No matter the origin of the writers/artists, this is an AMERICAN comic book. Don't change facts. ;)

I'm guessing if Spider-man was written by a chinese writer and a british artist, it wouldn't be american ? Guess what, if we go by that logic, few comics truly are american.

[Elijya]

you're twisting things. Woo is just a director, only a part of the production of a movie, and moore is a comicbook writer, a full half of the creation of the comic, and arguably moreso, since he controls the story

but I agree, it doesn't hold up. I certainly don't think of preacher as a british comic, despite both garth and steve being british. probably because the subject matter is so american

I dunno, moore just kinda pervades every aspect of whatever he writes, often causing me to identify it as an "alan moore comic", and vis-a-vis, a british comic.

so what determine's a comics' nationality? where it's published? that doesn't sound right

[QUOTE=thesaintofkille]
Edit: No matter the origin of the writers/artists, this is an AMERICAN comic book. Don't change facts. ;)
QUOTE]

um, what fact did I change?

[TheSaintofKillers]

you're twisting things. Woo is just a director, only a part of the production of a movie, and moore is a comicbook writer, a full half of the creation of the comic, and arguably moreso, since he controls the story

but I agree, it doesn't hold up. I certainly don't think of preacher as a british comic, despite both garth and steve being british. probably because the subject matter is so american

I dunno, moore just kinda pervades every aspect of whatever he writes, often causing me to identify it as an "alan moore comic", and vis-a-vis, a british comic.

so what determine's a comics' nationality? where it's published? that doesn't sound right

[QUOTE=thesaintofkille]
Edit: No matter the origin of the writers/artists, this is an AMERICAN comic book. Don't change facts. ;)
QUOTE]

um, what fact did I change?

The fact it's an american comic book. :p

But yes, I do agree, when I read an Alan Moore comic, it's always because I want to read an "alan moore" comic, rather than a character title or whatever else.
And yes, i'd argue that the place where the "book/movie/comic" is publish is the nationality of the product. Moore writes for an american audience, with an american character and under an american publisher. That's what determine's this comics' nationality.

[Marc]

V for vendetta is indeed marvellous (i dare say it resonates stronger for us because we're in the UK).

BUT read watchmen again.

and if you still think it's over-rated..... read it again.

;)

I have.. a friend said that to me as well as If I missed a big secret the first time, I still think it is quite poor compared to other stuff he has done. :) I thought LoTR was quite a poor book, so I know opinions I have are not always going to be in the majority. And I know re-reading it again and again isn't going to magically change my perception on anything (unless you put weight into that pirate tosh).

Cobra - Please don't speak for everyone, I certainly didn't appoint you to speak for me. I definitely did not think Watchman was the pinnacle of comics or anywhere close. I'd even rate stuff like the killing joke higher. The world certainly didn't change in front of me or anything. That kind of story has been told before and better in my opinion, not having to rely on monsters to do it. With what I consider deus ex machina's in certain parts. I thought it was ok, though I think V for Vendetta was far far superior. Maybe just me though. :D

[CobraCommander]

Killing Joke higher than Watchmen? Wow. You sir ARE misguided. Even Mr. Moore doesn't like Killing Joke. I thought it was ok. But I really didn't see the point in it at all. Whereas Watchmen touches on more topics than I can even name. Politics, superheroes, the real world, the comics medium as a whole, war, peace... It's all in there.

If you think that the kind of story Watchmen told has been told better somewhere else, I challenge you to name where. Give me the name of the book, and I'll gladly check it out. If you can name a book with as much substance, depth, commentary, realism, and re-readablility as Watchmen, then I will stand corrected.

[Marc]

Killing Joke higher than Watchmen? Wow. You sir ARE misguided. Even Mr. Moore doesn't like Killing Joke. I thought it was ok. But I really didn't see the point in it at all. Whereas Watchmen touches on more topics than I can even name. Politics, superheroes, the real world, the comics medium as a whole, war, peace... It's all in there.

If you think that the kind of story Watchmen told has been told better somewhere else, I challenge you to name where. Give me the name of the book, and I'll gladly check it out. If you can name a book with as much substance, depth, commentary, realism, and re-readablility as Watchmen, then I will stand corrected.

Not really, its not like the killing joke is in my top ten reads or anything either. Watchman may touch upon various topics, and genre's but it doesn't go anywhere with it... it thinks it does but I realy don't see where. The characters don't go anywhere, don't change, don't evolve, don't react in a 'real world' way and the end is extremely contrived. Its like he wrote this story not knowing the end, ran out of idea's and threw in some tosh about you know.

A story of the ends justifies the means? I can name episodes from TV shows with more weight, insight, character development etc.. Just about every series does some form of storyline about that. I'm sure even That 70's show accomplishes this. I already named some, I have yet to see where watchman has depth (where? I mean really... are you refering to the secret villain or something), realism (LOL!), commentary (what commentary is that, that humans need to be lied to in order to control... uhuh), re-readability (it revolves around the secret indentity of the villain, for me that does not make it re-readable) and you and I both know that I can name things all day and you will obviously detract from each one. If only for the purpose of proving your statement correct in your eyes.

A few examples of ends justifies the means stories (stuff you're likely to have read/seen) -

Kingdom come: Superheroes taking charge for the good of people.
V for Vendetta: Terrorism and killing to win a thread of freedom.
Preacher: Got someone to rip his genetalia off and stick it up his arse on the road to getting God to be held accountable.

Taking Kingdom come as an example. Depth wise you have a whole universe there, characters in every panel with their own history and story. Politics wise it goes over the idea of power and corruption in a much more realistic way than watchman. Real world wise, well as fantastical as it all was it wasn't as absurd as watchman (again the end, although stuff like the owl... c'mon). Commentary wise it has the same kind of message as above, a little more in-depth with the social commentary of the world around it as it actually involves human beings and the consequences. Which in watchman is only really looked at in the end and very briefly. As for rereading, as I said the key in watchman is the 'mysterious' villain behind things... once thats gone for you the rest of the story is rather bland. Like the rather poor attempt at love/romance/sex. Or the fact that these losers are supposed to be superheroes which is extremely hard to swallow. Then there's the remarkable character development of people like Dr Manhatten who by the end of the story are *gasp* no different. I felt that the only REAL character (as in background, purpose, depth, reason, evolvement, interaction etc.) was Rorschach. Even then at the end of the day he was a guy with an ink blot on his face, with a hat and coat who was angry (or over the top) a lot of the time. Various comics have more depth for the simple fact that they have history and have been through a butt-load of experiences. Stuff like Fables has more depth because it uses characters we know about and puts those things in a different concept.

Again though, I appreciate that I am very much in the minority in this... I just don't think it was anything special. I would expect that kind of story in an outer limits or twilight zone episode.

[Dr. Doomsday]

Having read 1602 and Watchmen, I can say with my own personal convictions that it is not possible to judge one better than the other. They both approach the same subject material, the superhero myth, and they go about it in different ways. 1602 is Marvel set in the past, and identifiably Marvel. Watchmen is a graphic novel about superheroes in the real world. Very different things, for me there is no comparison. As for who's better, Moore by far. Read League, Vol. II and tell me I'm wrong.

[Elijya]

you're wrong

[Lazarus440]

i picked moore because i thought it was a fight and damn have to seen him the guy looks like he lives in a cave and would kill you with his hands.

[primemover]

Moore, for his older work, but also for his newer work, I loves me some Tom Strong, Promethea, Tomorrow Stories, Terra Obscura, and TOP FREAKIN' TEN!

[Lackey]

Moore, for his older work, but also for his newer work, I loves me some Tom Strong, Promethea, Tomorrow Stories, Terra Obscure, and TOP FREAKIN' TEN!

:up:

[dbzmom]

Neil Gaimen - I love Sandman

[Sandman138]

You get one guess.

[rigel7soldiers]

In a fight to the death, Moore wiins. that beard is like a black hole. If you look into it, it will eat you very soul.

[The Question]

This is such a hard decision. But in the end, I've got to go with Gaiman. And then, I only think he's better by a veryveryveryveryveryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryve ryveryveryvery veryveryveryveryveryveryveryvery

VERY small bit.

[VOGLER]

Moore :up:

[Sandman138]

Honestly, I think Moore wins by a good amount. I know I'm going to be crucified for this, but I read five volumes of Sandman and didn't really like it. I mean, a lot of my friends said that it's the greatest comic ever, and when I read it, I wasn't that moved. I mean, some of the stuff was good (I liked 'The Doll's House'), but overall I just didn't like it.

Moore, on the other hand, has written consistantly awesome stuff, no matter what genre it is. Whether it's superheroes, futuristic, fantasy, he can do it all. But I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Top Ten. I picked it up this summer and it was one of the best comics I've read in a long time and I'm pissed as hell that he's not going to do any more.

I'm sorry, but Gaiman wipes the floor with Moore's cave man beard when it comes to fantasy. I can't comprehend how anybody could say otherwise. Why exactly did you not like Sandman and what tpb's did you read (if you haven't read Fables and Reflections, I'd highly recomend you read it). Give at least one reason before you go and say you just didn't like it.

Moore has done more for graphic storytelling as an artform, no question. However, that's not what this is about. Moore could reinvent the medium (if he hasn't already, it's arguable) I would still vote for Gaiman. Three Septembers and a January, Men of Good Fortune, and Ramadan are my favorite stories in all of comics. I have yet to encounter any story as moving as those in any comic. Moore is a great writer, but Sandman transcends it's medium. Now the only question is, why is Art Speiglman not on this poll?

[Elijya]

cause art speigelman is a self-righteous little ***** who thinks he's too good for regular comics

[The Joker™]

Alan Moore he did my favorite book of all time, The Killing Joke.

I hope someday he takes on a Batman and Joker story again.

[Elijya]

not likely...

he refuses to work for DC or Marvel

[The Joker™]

I know, it sucks hes a rebel.

[Lackey]

cause art speigelman is a self-righteous little ***** who thinks he's too good for regular comics


wow, where's that coming from?

[Elijya]

I was exagerrating a bit, but the core's kind of true. Come on, how many comics has the guy done, even if they were good? only a handful. And yeah, he does bash pretty much the entire comics industry all the time

[Xofenroht]

Hmmm I'm crazy about both of them. However, I chose Gaiman. In a fight though, it would have to be Alan Moore. His magickal skill I think would come in handy, even though I think Neil could possibly gain the upperhand by telling a really really convincing lie.
Anyway, the thing about Alan Moore is that he makes you feel as if your next door neighbor could be a superhero. His writing doesn't take you anywhere, it brings that place to you. When I got done reading Watchmen, I turned on the news expecting to see video footage of a Lovecraftian monster sitting in the middle of Manhattan. After "V for Vendetta" I felt pretty much the same way (just replace the monster with a vigilante). He is an excellent writer and creator. However, Neil Gaiman is better.

Neil makes you question reality. He reminds you that perhaps being rational is illogical. When I was in 10th grade, my science teacher lent me "Stardust". After that, I almost got in trouble for buying "The Sandman" when my mom (thinking along the lines of $2.25) said "Oh go buy yourself a comicbook!" (it's her fault, don't give me $50 and tell me to go buy a comicbook). Anyway...Neil Gaiman is a true storyteller. He isn't just a writer or a novelist. He IS a storyteller. He can tell you the same story over and over again if he wants to, but you will never feel like it's the same thing, because every time he presents it to you, it's completely different from anything you've ever seen before. You don't really know what will happen with Neil Gaiman. PLUS his stories have amazing continuity.

The Sandman series
Books of Magic
Death: Time of Your Life
Death: The High Cost of Living
Stardust
Black Orchid
Mr. Punch
Swamp Thing (I think he wrote a few issues)
1602
etc.

Then you have his novels

Good Omens
American Gods (the best)
Neverwhere
Smoke and Mirrors (collection of short stories and poetry)
Anansi Boys
Etc.

[BrodieBruce]

The difference for me is easy. Moore creates people I want to run away from, Gaiman creates peopel I'd like to hang out with.

[Elijya]

The difference for me is easy. Moore creates people I want to run away from, Gaiman creates peopel I'd like to hang out with.
LOL :D :up:

[The Leaguer]

Depends on the weapon of choice. Alan Moore is better with a battle axe and dual lightsabers, but give Gaiman a machine pistol or a rocket launcher and it's game over.

[Themanofbat]

Hmmm I'm crazy about both of them. However, I chose Gaiman. In a fight though, it would have to be Alan Moore. His magickal skill I think would come in handy, even though I think Neil could possibly gain the upperhand by telling a really really convincing lie.

Anyway, the thing about Alan Moore is that he makes you feel as if your next door neighbor could be a superhero. His writing doesn't take you anywhere, it brings that place to you. When I got done reading Watchmen, I turned on the news expecting to see video footage of a Lovecraftian monster sitting in the middle of Manhattan. After "V for Vendetta" I felt pretty much the same way (just replace the monster with a vigilante). He is an excellent writer and creator. However, Neil Gaiman is better.

Neil makes you question reality. He reminds you that perhaps being rational is illogical. When I was in 10th grade, my science teacher lent me "Stardust". After that, I almost got in trouble for buying "The Sandman" when my mom (thinking along the lines of $2.25) said "Oh go buy yourself a comicbook!" (it's her fault, don't give me $50 and tell me to go buy a comicbook). Anyway...Neil Gaiman is a true storyteller. He isn't just a writer or a novelist. He IS a storyteller. He can tell you the same story over and over again if he wants to, but you will never feel like it's the same thing, because every time he presents it to you, it's completely different from anything you've ever seen before. You don't really know what will happen with Neil Gaiman. PLUS his stories have amazing continuity.

The Sandman series
Books of Magic
Death: Time of Your Life
Death: The High Cost of Living
Stardust
Black Orchid
Mr. Punch
Swamp Thing (I think he wrote a few issues)
1602
etc.

Then you have his novels

Good Omens
American Gods (the best)
Neverwhere
Smoke and Mirrors (collection of short stories and poetry)
Anansi Boys
Etc.

I won't deny the pro-Gaimen stuff that you said, but give Moore credit.

First of all, Gaimen never wrote any Swamp Thing, that was all Moore (issues #20 to 64). Issue 21, "The Anatomy Lesson" will go down as one of THE best stories ever published by DC concerning one of its own from the DC Universe. And when Moore wrote the Killing Joke, he respected DC continuity from the Red Hood's origin from way back in Detective Comics #152, and used elements from that story. His Miralcleman/Marvelman was eons ahead of supe-hero storytelling back in 1981-82.

I like Gaimen, and read Sandman off the racks from issue 1 to 75, and they're great, but there were a few yawners in there as well.

However, as much as I love the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as well, Alan Moore wins this battle of the writers for his work on From Hell, one of THE best crafted comics ever told.

Just my 2 cents... :)

[The Question]

The difference for me is easy. Moore creates people I want to run away from, Gaiman creates peopel I'd like to hang out with.


Who doesn't want to hang out with Rorscach? He's the ****, man. And why would you want to hang out with Death? I mean, she seems fun and all, but hanging around her too long might start to give her ideas.

[BrodieBruce]

Who doesn't want to hang out with Rorscach? He's the ****, man. And why would you want to hang out with Death? I mean, she seems fun and all, but hanging around her too long might start to give her ideas.


I hope you're trying to be serious, cause that surely wasn't funny.

[The Question]

.....there's no need to be mean about it. :(

[Eric Draven]

I won't deny the pro-Gaimen stuff that you said, but give Moore credit.

First of all, Gaimen never wrote any Swamp Thing, that was all Moore (issues #20 to 64). Issue 21, "The Anatomy Lesson" will go down as one of THE best stories ever published by DC concerning one of its own from the DC Universe. And when Moore wrote the Killing Joke, he respected DC continuity from the Red Hood's origin from way back in Detective Comics #152, and used elements from that story. His Miralcleman/Marvelman was eons ahead of supe-hero storytelling back in 1981-82.

I like Gaimen, and read Sandman off the racks from issue 1 to 75, and they're great, but there were a few yawners in there as well.

However, as much as I love the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as well, Alan Moore wins this battle of the writers for his work on From Hell, one of THE best crafted comics ever told.

Just my 2 cents... :)

Actually, Neil Gaiman did write one issue of Swamp Thing. I think it was one of the annuals. It was Gaiman's first Swamp Thing issue and he and Delano were to follow Veitch on the regular series thereafter.

Unfortunately, that never happened :(

[The Watchman]

No, but Morrison is better than Gaiman at least.

[Elijya]

pfft, no way

[BrodieBruce]

Indeed!

[Not Jake]

Watchmen can never be overrated. If anything, I'd say it's UNDERRATED seeing as there are many new (hell, and old) readers who have never picked it up. If you read superhero comics, you MUST read Watchmen. It's that simple. End of story. You will never enjoy sub-par comics again. Your tastes will change instantly. For the better. Watchmen is the pinnacle of superhero comics. Everything that came after is walking in its shadow.
See, I don't feel this way. I read Watchmen, and I'd have to say that it's probably the best-written, best-crafted story I've read. But my favorite superhero comic is DKR. It's not as good as Watchmen, really. But I like it more. I think a character I've known for a long time resonates more with me on a base level than people I just familiarized myself over the course of a few issues. I read DKR first, if that matters. And I think that it is the pinnacle of superhero comics. In that I think Watchmen is a better story, but DKR is a better superhero story. Even though I only think it's a better superhero story because Miller was making Batman less superheroish. I won't be able to get my idea across, probably. Tired.

Again, I really respond more to the "classic" characters more. I fully know that I can pick Watchmen characters and fit characters I know and love into their shells, but it's not the same for me. I don't know if what I just said was a very clear statement or not. Fit them into Watchmen's archetypes? I dunno. Brain-fooked at 1:00 AM:down

[Elijya]

well, the watchmen characters were SUPPOSED to be the charlseton characters

[Not Jake]

i know, but that still wouldn't change that i had no connection with the characters.

[Elijya]

well, what if DKR was your first Batman story?

[Themanofbat]

well, what if DKR was your first Batman story?

I'd like to believe that could only happen if someone read the DKR nowadays as a TPB with no prior Batman comic reading. While not impossible, I'm sure it could happen.

But when DKR came out (and I was there), it was a $4.50 book at a time when regular comics were still a buck. So if you're a young reader looking to get into super-hero comics or Batman comics, chances are that DKR might have been a tad expensive to try out a Batman story. The same principal could also apply to an older reader who had yet to read a Batman story. Remember, at that time, Frank Miller was only known for his work on DareDevil, and his previous prestige format book, Ronin, was not that successful sales-wise, which also led to initial low orders for DKR.

Nonetheless, to answer your question... I think even IF The Dark Knight Returns was your first Batman read, you'd still have prior knowledge of who Batman is on the simple basis of media exposure... the movies, the cartoons, the bat-insignia on kids pj's & other clothing, action figures, colouring books, etc... thus giving someone a slight edge wjile reading DKR (or ANY Batman book) for the first time. But a person could go their lifetime without ever knowing who Dr.Manhatten was, or Rorschach, or heck, even the Blue Beetle, who was a Charlton character as well.

:)

[Not Jake]

Year One was my first Batman story other than a couple single issues over the years. DKR was my second.:up:

And yeah, I think if DKR WAS my first Batman story, it'd still be my fav, since everyone's pretty familiar with the general Batman story, whether it be through the flicks or the animated series. I watched cartoons long before I got into comics.

[Sandman138]

Hmmm I'm crazy about both of them. However, I chose Gaiman. In a fight though, it would have to be Alan Moore. His magickal skill I think would come in handy, even though I think Neil could possibly gain the upperhand by telling a really really convincing lie.
Anyway, the thing about Alan Moore is that he makes you feel as if your next door neighbor could be a superhero. His writing doesn't take you anywhere, it brings that place to you. When I got done reading Watchmen, I turned on the news expecting to see video footage of a Lovecraftian monster sitting in the middle of Manhattan. After "V for Vendetta" I felt pretty much the same way (just replace the monster with a vigilante). He is an excellent writer and creator. However, Neil Gaiman is better.

Neil makes you question reality. He reminds you that perhaps being rational is illogical. When I was in 10th grade, my science teacher lent me "Stardust". After that, I almost got in trouble for buying "The Sandman" when my mom (thinking along the lines of $2.25) said "Oh go buy yourself a comicbook!" (it's her fault, don't give me $50 and tell me to go buy a comicbook). Anyway...Neil Gaiman is a true storyteller. He isn't just a writer or a novelist. He IS a storyteller. He can tell you the same story over and over again if he wants to, but you will never feel like it's the same thing, because every time he presents it to you, it's completely different from anything you've ever seen before. You don't really know what will happen with Neil Gaiman. PLUS his stories have amazing continuity.

The Sandman series
Books of Magic
Death: Time of Your Life
Death: The High Cost of Living
Stardust
Black Orchid
Mr. Punch
Swamp Thing (I think he wrote a few issues)
1602
etc.

Then you have his novels

Good Omens
American Gods (the best)
Neverwhere
Smoke and Mirrors (collection of short stories and poetry)
Anansi Boys
Etc.


Couldn't have said it better myself. I just wanted to add to that by saying that many times, Delirium seems to make the most sense of anyone. Oh, and I like your avy.

[Sandman138]

When I recommend Sandman to people I typically tell them to read the first two Volumes before forming their opinions. Personally, I feel that Vol 1 (Preludes and Nocturnes) is the least strong of the series. It's a lot more setup and a place were Neil had to establish things to get everything else rolling. Volume two (The Doll's House) is where things get really good.

I tell them to pick up Fables and Reflections.

[The Hero]

Then there's the remarkable character development of people like Dr Manhattan who by the end of the story are *gasp* no different.
By the end of the book,Dr.Manhattan has learned to respect life again,while at the beginning he didn't see a difference between life and death,and didn't care.

[XwolverineX]

I gotta give it to Alan Moore.

[Harlekin]

I've read Gaiman's Sandman now up until the last volume, which I still have to buy, and after having IMO, read sufficiently of both writers, IMO, Gaiman is the superior one.

[Marc]

By the end of the book,Dr.Manhattan has learned to respect life again,while at the beginning he didn't see a difference between life and death,and didn't care.

Except he already knows about this at the beginning. So he can't really learn anything as he knows he is going to learn it in the future so 'learns' it in the present.

[The Hero]

Semantics.

[Deathlok2001]

Moore

[XwolverineX]

The only Gaimen book I have ever read was:

Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes.


So I cannot fairly judge,

[Deathlok2001]

The only Gaimen book I have ever read was:

Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes.


So I cannot fairly judge,

dude, you love my toenails all painted & stuff. Admit it dagnabbit! :spidey:

[Elijya]

there's no way you're in your thirties....

[Xofenroht]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I just wanted to add to that by saying that many times, Delirium seems to make the most sense of anyone. Oh, and I like your avy.

Thanks man, yours is quite nice itself.

[Seventh Soldier]

Gaiman. Gaiman makes me think, and imagine, and wonder, and question, and he makes what he writes feel...well, very often, epic. Moore is great...I love Promethea, and V for Vendetta is one of my favorite comics of all time. But, Gaiman has shown to me to be both a stronger writer, and a more persistently excellent one. For me, Gaiman has all of Sandman, and his novels, and all the little one-offs and stuff that's been STUNNING, while Moore has Promethea and V that's been stunning, then Top 10 and Watchmen that's been pretty good, then a lot of stuff that's been decent.

However, I've not yet read either person's Miracleman.

[The Question]

Well, I do think that V for Vendetta and Watchmen are definately up there with Gaimen's Sadnman books. But overall, Gaimen's produced more brilliant stuff.

[Marc]

Semantics.

Its a crucial element of change to you know... change. :D

The Q - See, I don't get this. Moore has done script after script of fantastic work for decades. Gaiman for me has Books of Magic, Stardust and maybe a couple of the Sandman books where he actually bothers to knuckle down to tell the actual story rather than another tangent. And those are 'comparable' to some of Moore's lesser work. What else is there? Black Orchid? Bleh. Perhaps 1602? Hahahaha.

Gaiman for the most part is in serious need of editing, he goes on tangents far too much and rarely finds focus for his stories. He hasn't got a great deal of work, and what he has is generally pretty weak when you poke it for more.

Moore on the overhand has claims for the best 'Batman' and Superman stories written, and he did this without 12 issue superarcs. That alone puts him on an almost untouchable echelon considering all the writers that have been and gone on those two characters with far less impact.

Then check out -

Halo Jones
Marvelman
V for Vendetta
Top Ten
A Small Killing
Swamp Thing
Tom Strong
Watchmen
Tomorrow Stories
Brought to Light
Another Suburban Romance
Promethea
Lost Girls
From Hell
Supreme
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Captain Britain

Most of this stuff trampling all over Gaiman for me. Far more content and far more consistency, and a focus that could burn through lead. I mean he has pushed the boundries until it bent over and called him Sir, way before their time for the most part as well.

EDIT: Oh and Lucifer>>>>>>Sandman :p

[Sandman138]

In response to this notion that Sandman is full of tangents. You sir are missing what the series is all about. Morpheus is not just the "Prince Of Stories" he is stories. And what happens to him? He is captured and taught that he is not as above humanity as he thought. The entire series is about humanity's relationship with the stories they tell and their attempt, specifically man's attempt, to exert control over stories, and this theme is present in every "tangent" for Calliope to A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest, to Rose Walker and Jim's attempts to define their stories as women in a world of literature that is tied to men.

Morpheus' fatal flaw was his lack of humanity, and a story that cannot be tied to those that it influences is worthless: the beleived requires a beleiver. When the beleived ignores the importance of the beleiver (in a futile attempt to resist the change that has been put into effect at the begining of the series) the character of Lyta Hall is born, as she resent being ignored and thus chooses not to beleive. My point in all of this is that without what you call "tangents" this great epic story has no meaning. Daniel's paradox of being both what is mortal and what is eternal and his survival by embracing said irony is only signifigant if we understand why stories are both seperate from and fundamentally joined to the people that tell them and that comes as much from the "interludes" from (I put that in quotes because they are actually part of) the "main" story.

It is folly to see stories as no more than a series of plots and plot devices since a plot is just a surface for the sea of themes, premises, and true stories that lie just underneath. In otherwords, if you just look at the waves in the ocean, you'll miss the majesty of Hob's Leviathan.

[Sandman138]

I was exagerrating a bit, but the core's kind of true. Come on, how many comics has the guy done, even if they were good? only a handful. And yeah, he does bash pretty much the entire comics industry all the time

The industry sure, not the medium. I thought the reprints of old strips at the end of In The Shadow Of No Towers was a real celebration of the power of sequential art. Prisoner On The Hell Planet was amazing, and Maus is not just a great work of art in and of itself, it has also opened up the door for more graphic novels to attempt to deal with similar subject matter (there's an amazing one that I can't remember the name of at the moment, but it's about growing up as a girl in fundamentalist Iran. The use of cartoon completly removes the girls' individuality when they are forced to wear the "partial" burkas). Honestly, the comics industry is keeping the medium back in many ways, and the image of the comic books as kids fare is as much the fault of said industry as it is of the medium's uninitiated critics. I think Art Speigleman has done a lot for the medium.

[Elijya]

there's an amazing one that I can't remember the name of at the moment, but it's about growing up as a girl in fundamentalist Iran. The use of cartoon completly removes the girls' individuality when they are forced to wear the "partial" burkas).
Persepolis

[Sandman138]

Thanks. Have you read it? If so, what did you think? I was reading a friend's copy and only had time to get through the first two chapters, but what I read was really good. I think it may have been a bit too much like Maus in that it used the cartoon to tackle the loss of identity (in Maus, all Jews are made to look like the single image of the mouse, implying that they are Jews first, people second) but I think that theme almost worked better for Persepolis than it did for Maus, which works on other levels.

[Elijya]

haven't read it yet. I own it, though, it's in my "to read" pile, but I dunno when I'm gonna get around to it

[Mr. Green]

I haven't really read any Gaimen, but I've read V for Vendetta and I am halfway through Watchmen...

Okay... The guys at the comic shop hyped up Watchmen SO MUCH, saying that after I read Watchmen "I will like everthing else less". Okay... I am SO dissapointed in it so far. Cool story and everthing, but there is so much to kill momentum. I had to quit reading the articles and exerpts in between "chapters". Not only that, but the newstand + pirate comic seens pretty much slam on the breaks EVERY SINGLE TIME the pace picks up. :( Man, I really thought it was going to be so much better.

[Sandman138]

Go back and read the articles, and definatly read the pirate comic sequences. I skipped over them and when I reached the end I wanted to kick myself for it. Watchmen expresses a bunch of ideas about the nature of the hero in different forms from different points of view. They do seem to slam the breaks on when you're interested in just figuring out who-dunnit, but that's not Watchmen's real story, or I should say, the mystery is one level but it cannot simply be solved by finding the "culprit". You start to realize as you get closer and closer to the end how much all these seemingly unrelated archs are actually moving in parrallel towards an inevitable conclusion that can only be reconciled if you can see the story from each vantage point. Trust me, the ending is not nearly as satisfying if you skip over those seeming interuptions. I know it can seem tedious, but it's definatly worth it.

[Sandman138]

Not really, its not like the killing joke is in my top ten reads or anything either. Watchman may touch upon various topics, and genre's but it doesn't go anywhere with it... it thinks it does but I realy don't see where. The characters don't go anywhere, don't change, don't evolve, don't react in a 'real world' way and the end is extremely contrived. Its like he wrote this story not knowing the end, ran out of idea's and threw in some tosh about you know.

A story of the ends justifies the means? I can name episodes from TV shows with more weight, insight, character development etc.. Just about every series does some form of storyline about that. I'm sure even That 70's show accomplishes this. I already named some, I have yet to see where watchman has depth (where? I mean really... are you refering to the secret villain or something), realism (LOL!), commentary (what commentary is that, that humans need to be lied to in order to control... uhuh), re-readability (it revolves around the secret indentity of the villain, for me that does not make it re-readable) and you and I both know that I can name things all day and you will obviously detract from each one. If only for the purpose of proving your statement correct in your eyes.

A few examples of ends justifies the means stories (stuff you're likely to have read/seen) -

Kingdom come: Superheroes taking charge for the good of people.
V for Vendetta: Terrorism and killing to win a thread of freedom.
Preacher: Got someone to rip his genetalia off and stick it up his arse on the road to getting God to be held accountable.

Taking Kingdom come as an example. Depth wise you have a whole universe there, characters in every panel with their own history and story. Politics wise it goes over the idea of power and corruption in a much more realistic way than watchman. Real world wise, well as fantastical as it all was it wasn't as absurd as watchman (again the end, although stuff like the owl... c'mon). Commentary wise it has the same kind of message as above, a little more in-depth with the social commentary of the world around it as it actually involves human beings and the consequences. Which in watchman is only really looked at in the end and very briefly. As for rereading, as I said the key in watchman is the 'mysterious' villain behind things... once thats gone for you the rest of the story is rather bland. Like the rather poor attempt at love/romance/sex. Or the fact that these losers are supposed to be superheroes which is extremely hard to swallow. Then there's the remarkable character development of people like Dr Manhatten who by the end of the story are *gasp* no different. I felt that the only REAL character (as in background, purpose, depth, reason, evolvement, interaction etc.) was Rorschach. Even then at the end of the day he was a guy with an ink blot on his face, with a hat and coat who was angry (or over the top) a lot of the time. Various comics have more depth for the simple fact that they have history and have been through a butt-load of experiences. Stuff like Fables has more depth because it uses characters we know about and puts those things in a different concept.

Again though, I appreciate that I am very much in the minority in this... I just don't think it was anything special. I would expect that kind of story in an outer limits or twilight zone episode.

What about seeing it in a political/historical sense? One in which the Star Wars (talking about Reagan's defence plans) style apocalypse that was a major fear of progressives in the 1980's, is used (actually appropriated by a progressive elite) to transcend the bounderies of nations/ethnicity/gender to find a greater sense of human unity. One in which the merger of technology/politics/and human inequalities (Nixon is still president, and there is an indication that the supreme court has granted him the powers of a monarch) has created a world where the super-hero is just another tool that the government appropriates as a means to exercise command and control. There is a reason it is refered to as a postmodern superhero comic.

[The Hero]

I haven't really read any Gaimen, but I've read V for Vendetta and I am halfway through Watchmen...

Okay... The guys at the comic shop hyped up Watchmen SO MUCH, saying that after I read Watchmen "I will like everthing else less". Okay... I am SO dissapointed in it so far. Cool story and everthing, but there is so much to kill momentum. I had to quit reading the articles and exerpts in between "chapters". Not only that, but the newstand + pirate comic seens pretty much slam on the breaks EVERY SINGLE TIME the pace picks up. :( Man, I really thought it was going to be so much better.
Sandman138 is definitely right.The between-issue excerpts provide a bit of exposition towards many of the characters(especialy Hollis Mason),and the pirate comic interludes seem dull but truly pay off in a way that made me love the book.

[Sandman138]

This thread was just starting to get interesting again, and then it died. So...

Bump

[KingOfDreams]

Gaiman by default. I've never actually read anything by Moore shocking as that may seem. The plots to his stories seem very interesting but every time I flip through a tpb of V for Vendetta or Watchmen I'm not grabbed. Maybe I should just sit down and seriously read it. I must admit, The Sandman didn't blow me away the first time I flipped through it either...and now I think it's one of the best if not the best comic series ever made. I guess the same could happen to me with Moore's work if I gave it more of a chance.

[Mr. Green]

Go back and read the articles, and definatly read the pirate comic sequences. I skipped over them and when I reached the end I wanted to kick myself for it. Watchmen expresses a bunch of ideas about the nature of the hero in different forms from different points of view. They do seem to slam the breaks on when you're interested in just figuring out who-dunnit, but that's not Watchmen's real story, or I should say, the mystery is one level but it cannot simply be solved by finding the "culprit". You start to realize as you get closer and closer to the end how much all these seemingly unrelated archs are actually moving in parrallel towards an inevitable conclusion that can only be reconciled if you can see the story from each vantage point. Trust me, the ending is not nearly as satisfying if you skip over those seeming interuptions. I know it can seem tedious, but it's definatly worth it.
Thanks! I might as well just start from the beggining again... :( It has NEVER taken me this long to get through a graphic novel like this. Oh well. I really liked V for Vendetta more than I'm liking Watchmen so far though. I loved the whole idea of it. The movie was pretty cool too. :up:

[Harlekin]

I recently re-read Watchmen, and I've gotta say, it's one hell of a ride. Still a very great comic. Just like the Sandman a tad more.

[Elijya]

Thanks! I might as well just start from the beggining again... :( It has NEVER taken me this long to get through a graphic novel like this. Oh well. I really liked V for Vendetta more than I'm liking Watchmen so far though. I loved the whole idea of it. The movie was pretty cool too. :up:
yup. I don't think anyone writes comics denser than moore does

[Sandman138]

Certianly not in the mainstream.

[Sandman138]

bump

Why hasn't Mr. Punch breen brought up?

[Xofenroht]

Because that's not what put Neil on the map...as good as it is.

[Sandman138]

Because that's not what put Neil on the map...as good as it is.

True, but neither did Books Of Magic or Stardust and they have been brought up.

[Xofenroht]

True, but neither did Books Of Magic or Stardust and they have been brought up.

You have a point, but I've never heard of A) Mr. Punch getting the media attention Books of Magic did once Harry Potter took off (we all know why) or B) Mr. Punch being made into a film with a high profile cast.
Basically, Mr. Punch is one of the last things general people think of when someone mentions Neil Gaiman. (You and I on the other hand are not included in that "general people" lump).

[Whirlysplat]

Moore gives us better comics - He gave us Miracleman and the Watchmen for christs sake.

Neils abilities have translated better into other mediums. I loved American Gods as a novel and enjoyed the nineties TV adaptation of Neverwhere. All adaptations of Alans works have fallen unsuprisingly short of the mark. He's such a damn tough act to get right probably because his works transcend the genre on their own.

:supes: - Whirly

[BrianWilly]

Gaiman, for sure.

I mean, Dream is Head Emo Freak of of Emoland which can get kind of annoying, but there's no denying the unique and uncomparable skill from which Gaiman crafts his stories. Not just writes, but crafts.

I recently read "The Dream Hunters," his collab prose with Yo****aka Amano, and it was simply one of the most exquisite things I've ever seen.

[Elijya]

I love it when Japanese names get censored :D

[BrianWilly]

What the mushroom?? I didn't even see that. So much for Yof**kaka.

[antonydelfini]

Alan moore is the greater comic book writer and propobly the greatest since he wrote some of the greatest in comics. but neil is better all in all as a writer since he is critically acclaimed not only in the comic medium but in other mediums as well

[Harlekin]

Alan moore is the greater comic book writer and propobly the greatest since he wrote some of the greatest in comics. but neil is better all in all as a writer since he is critically acclaimed not only in the comic medium but in other mediums as well
But Gaiman has written some of the greatest in comics as well, so he could probably be the greatest too.

[antonydelfini]

But Gaiman has written some of the greatest in comics as well, so he could probably be the greatest too.

yeah harlekin you made my point. that was actually what i was trying to point out with my post but it did not read like that. poor writing on my part.

[yenaled]

Gaiman by a tiny-tiny bit.

[UK_Stu]

I would say Moore by a tiny tiny bit.

I really like both, but think if you take the breadth of Moores work into account it does it for me

[TheFalcon]

Alan Moore

[Elijya]

dreambump

[CaptainCanada]

The only thing of Gaiman's that I've read in 1602, which was a lot of fun, but I'd probably give it to Moore anyway.

Of Moore's work, I've read Watchmen, both volumes of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Supreme, and the assorted stories contained in DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore (most notably "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", "For The Man Who Has Everything", and "The Killing Joke"). Watchmen, Supreme, and the two big Superman stories are my favourites. His work is just incredible; in particular, I can still remember the emotions that the Rorschach and Doctor Manhattan chapters of Watchmen evoked when I read then.

[Elijya]

IF you've read that much Moore, you really should get around to Sandman

[CaptainCanada]

I've considered it, but I don't like the art at all (same problem I had with The Dark Knight Returns).

[Sandman138]

Sandman has such a myriad of artists that you are bound to find one that you like. Personally, I think all of the art in the series is some of the best in comics.

[Elijya]

I've considered it, but I don't like the art at all (same problem I had with The Dark Knight Returns).

oy, I dunno how you manage to read any comics at all. Good stories always transcend art that doens't immediately appeal to you.

[CaptainCanada]

Comics are a visual medium; if the art is bad, then there's a problem.

[Arkady Rossovich]

My vote goes to Alan Moore.

[Elijya]

Comics are a visual medium; if the art is bad, then there's a problem.

but if all opinions are valid, there's no such thing as bad art, and it is merely your perception which is the problem standing in the way of you enjoying a comic ;)

[gildea]

The art is very important to the story though, the best of stories could not transcend if tied to the worst art.

but if all opinions are valid, there's no such thing as bad art, and it is merely your perception which is the problem standing in the way of you enjoying a comic

you could say that about anything mind you story and all.

[Elijya]

exactly

[Aristotle]

Easy decision. While Gaiman's work is equally strong as literature and art, Moore has had more influence on the entire body of the graphic form, from superheroes to erotica. Gaiman's influence is sort of restricted to the Grant Morrison mind**** set.

And The Watchmen is, for my money, what brought the literary underground comix to the mainstream.

[Sandman138]

I really don't know why people associate Watchmen with the underground comix scene. It was a DC Book about a group of thinly veiled DC Superheroes. It wasn't Zap or RAW.

[The Hero]

Technically they were thinly veiled Charlton characters. :o

[nite-owl]

I haven't read anything by Gaiman. So I voted for Moore.

[The Hero]

Surely you jest? :wow:

[nite-owl]

I jest not Hero it's because I haven't got around to read any of his work. I don't think I can be arsed either.