fubarthepanda wrote:
videofarmer wrote:
For the record, I'm not itching to see "Watchmen 2" and can't imagine myself buying it. But... I don't think it's right for someone to use other writers characters while saying newer writers should not have that same privilege, just because that someone is more skillful. Although the current crop of writers may not say something great using established characters there is a chance they may say something good. All comic book readers aren't 40 year old white guys either, there is nothing inherently wrong with "derivative" Daredevil stories if there are people that are entertained by them. My son is 15 and thoroughly enjoys Captain America and Daredevil stories as he hasn't seen 'em all before. I read in another thread that snapple thinks that every story should have a message, so I'm not expecting any agreement here. Just getting it off my chest. 
I agree -- never make an apology for something that you personally like!  Derivative works definitely have there place (I loved Miller's Daredevil, the recent Battlestar Galactica television series, and the new Star Trek film as much as anyone).  I also don't think Moore was addressing "skill", per se -- I think for much of the 80's and early 90's, there was a period where we had extraordinary creators like Moore, Miller, Gaiman, Mignola, Jim Lee, McFarlane, etc., cut their teeth on traditional work-for-hire and then progress on to more original and creator-driven work -- be it in comics or prose.  In today's industry, though, we're seeing a lot more seasoned creators settle for work-for-hire instead of pushing forward with more transformational work.  In fact -- it's almost become inverted -- where new talent breaks in with creator-owned work in order to get into Marvel and/or DC.  Having lived through both time periods, I can say that the industry that we have today has a fraction of the excitement that we had back then, so whether you agree with Moore's exact words or not, there is a general point in there that I think is worth observing.
I hear that a lot. Who are all the great creators in the super-hero field that are doing this? Geoff Johns? If the guy likes working at DC, why can't he just work at DC? He seems to have done alright for himself by sticking with them. It's certainly not Ellis, Bendis, Brubaker, Fraction or Hickman. Heck, some those guys (and Mark Millar) have even brought "mainstream" Marvel artists over to creator-owned work. Why do they put such a bee in the bonnet of Robert Kirkman? Shouldn't older creators like Alan Moore be glad that "the big two" have changed enough over the years that current creators actually like working for them and seem to even feel some loyalty? Isn't that the change that they fought for?