Watchmen's Alan Moore and His Opinions on Adults and Superheroes
 

I admit that I don't know a lot about this guy, but it's hard to ignore some of his comments, apparently made in 2017, regarding adults and superhero comics/movies.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/11...tankerousness/

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/newsbeat-50473092

https://comicbook.com/blog/2013/11/2...lly-subnormal/

I'm not as young as I used to be, but I know who I am, and therefore I don't subscribe to his theories.

Devils advocate response: He's not wrong that they are for children/teens. Perhaps there is something telling about our culture by the kind of movies we prop up?

Full response: While he is correct that comic book superheroes were intended to be for children, movies tend to be made for a general audience. And no matter which generation, every body looks back at what they enjoyed as children for any reason from nostalgia to it being the foundation of their character as an adult. A good source of media is a media that can cross demographic barriers. Children's media should not only inspire but appeal to a more general audience as their parents are usually exposed to the media as well, and the child should be challenged of their world view and to think constructively. Superhero comics should serve as needed drama, action, moral ambiguity, and creative liberty that a child can reflect upon not only as a child but once one reaches adulthood as well. And with films made for a more general audience, yes how the topics are handled tend to be more juvenile, still can appeal to adults who appreciate the message far more that what a child can comprehend.

His comments are no less hypocritical, coming from a man who wrote the adult comics Watchmen, and V For Vendetta. His further comments become political so I'll refrain from stating too much, but to address it shortly, all media tends to be regional. If the region is of a majority ethnic group, then the majority of the media from that region reflects that. That by no means is there some kind of conspiracy for a particular ethnic supremacy.

Alan Moore is considered to be a high art writer in the comic book world. Watchmen was a huge hit in the 80s because it had a great story. In the 80s, you had comics made not for kids and that titles like Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, etc should that you can make comics for grown-ups.

I do have a lot of respect for Alan Moore because I love most of his work, but I can see where he is coming from. I see nothing wrong with liking superheroes like Spider-Man, The Avengers, Superman, etc. as an adult because those characters have stories that can be enjoyed all ages. Also, I somewhat agree with him on "Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century".

I do think our modern day nerd culture does have an obsession with childhood nostalgia and it is hurting our main industry. Most of the movies we get today from Hollywood are Marvel, DC, Transformers, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, etc. Not saying those movies are bad, but too much is not a good thing.

Makes sense to me.

Considering how most MCU movies blend together, scared of taking risks of untold stories and making sure to make it's audience feel comfortable instead of provoking thought, one can hardly blame Moore. Doesn't help that the MCU action scenes are always done by Marvel's seperate team to avoid diversity in the fight scenes as seen when they didn't allow Ryan Coogler direct his own fight scenes in Black Panther despite Coogler knowing damn well how to direct fight scenes. I think the best way to summarize his thoughts is to compare superhero movies to Friends, a sitcom made to make people feel comfy and handwave any potential issues society may have even if it's a message relevant to the audience, because that may cause the audience to actually think, big nono.


Also, Moore's been a negative influence on the comic industry due to people missing the point entirely with his work, with people seeing Killing Joke and Watchman sell well and ignore all the care taken into every single panel which Moore gave incredibly detailed instructions for being seen as "wow edgy is cool"

Moore's daughter issued a statement on the matter and her stance makes a degree of sense, even if I still don't fully agree with ALL of Moore's conclusions!

https://www.cbr.com/alan-moore-leah-...-aversion/amp/

Recent article on what the Watchmen series on HBO was trying to say.

https://screenrant.com/watchmen-hbo-...ow-reason/amp/

If I may, on a side note, it is crazy how Yahya Abdul-Mateen II now technically has two DC characters under his acting resume; Black Manta and Dr. Manhattan. He has become DC's Josh Brolin. :rock:

My interpretation of Watchmen (the Series) is that it's a superhero show (mainly) for those who are opposed to superheroes!

To quote the link I included previously:"...anyone who puts on the mask is made crueler by it".

An "Alan-Moore-Was-Right" type of article which isn't making me feel good right now, but it is food for thought at least.

https://comicbook.com/comics/news/al...roes-watchmen/

I do wonder if it's oversimplifying things.

Of course, this is an oversimplification. In fact, if anything, it is a deliberate or accidental omission of fundamentals that causes the whole construct to go in the wrong direction in the first place. Superheroes are not only a fantasy about power and building an ideal world, but also about morality. We root for Batman not because we like the BDSM bat suit, but because he does good things.
In essence, comics are fairy tales for those who consider themselves too cool for fairy tales.
In fact, I would say that Moore's main problem (and that of other comics authors) is a lack of faith in the wisdom of the people. He considers the masses to be a mindless crowd, lemmings running into the abyss. For him, any decision they make is a priori the worst, and therefore he must make decisions for them. Returning to the topic of the site, it is akin to the amorphous society in Geats, which doesn't give a damn about survival games that sound like faces in the sky, even when they are forced there.
Returning to the topic of the site, it is akin to the amorphous society in Geats, which does not give a damn about survival games, proclaiming face in the sky, even when they are dragged there by force.
Also, there are several obvious holes in the article, namely the unfounded identification of superheroes and leaders. I think almost no Spiderman fans would want to live in a world created by this slacker.
There is also an obvious misunderstanding of the difference between strength and power. That is, by analogy with the article, looking at the current situation in the United States, there is a cowardly weakling in power, whose whole life contradicts the ideas that he promotes. And yet, it was he who was raised to the top. So the rise of superheroes to power would lead either to maximum resistance, or to the transformation of superheroes into a ruling elite with minimal differences from the current one.

I don't subscribe to this idea that we're supposed to love something for the early years of our lives and then suddenly start to hate it. I don't see how enjoying comic books as an adult is any different from growing up playing baseball with your dad and then turning around and playing baseball with your kid, for example. The things that we enjoy in our youth do a lot to shape who we will become as adults.

I also don't subscribe to the idea that comic books are only for kids. They're simply a storytelling format - some stories are for kids, some are for adults.

Here we are not talking about comics in general, but specifically about superheroics. After all, all the cases when people in reality tried to fight crime (and sometimes even in costumes) have very sad consequences. Well, and let Scorsese be an old greedy grumbler, it is still a fact that due to the popularity of the MCU, cinema, and therefore its viewers, have noticeably become dumber. In the sense, not so long ago, adventure films were about solving all sorts of quests.

I think Moore witnessing first-hand how Rorschach, a viscously critical portrayal of fascist ideology, was co-opted by actual fascists radicalized him against all fans of super heroes. He sees us all as comics-gate-adjacent fascist-sympathizers, and while he's right that a large portion of the super hero-consuming populace does use super heroes to support their underlying fascist tendencies, he ignores the larger percentage of us who took away the intended, positive messages from super hero stories.

The thing is... fascists are capable of perverting anything to support their ideologies. I've seen them twist Star Trek, of all things, to prop up their beliefs. Fascists exist, and a lot of them are drawn to super heroes because of their longing for a strongman to lead them to some kind of fictionalized, ideal past. This is true. But super heroes do not create fascists any more than violent video games create school shooters.

All this being said, despite the thesis being interesting, the linked article's argument is very poorly delivered.

The thing is that it is in principle human nature to seek confirmation of one's ideas even in works that criticize these ideas. The fans of the Empire in Star Wars are proof of this. Hell, I remember watching Rocky IV with my friends as kids and rooting for Ivan Drago, even though he was shown as a scoundrel.There are actually two forks here. If the work has no direction, then the author should think about why the fascist character turned out to be so attractive. Is it really the readers or did he himself endow him with traits that make this character likeable? If this is an anti-fascist work, then it is obvious that the fascist should not be depicted in such a light that he would be suitable for an icon.There are a lot of ways, but, unfortunately, then you have to be prepared for commercial murders. That is, the condition "The Boys" bribe liberals with their ideological direction, and fascists with the charisma of the antagonists, and therefore rake in money from everyone. Plus, there is such a thing as "opposition". At one time, it was actively used in Soviet cinema by the pro-Western secret opposition.
The essence of this concept is that when making ideologically neutral or even propaganda films, communist ideas/characters/life are intentionally depicted in a disgusting way. If it is done with enough talent, it will inevitably cause imitation, even without ulterior motives. I think this also takes place in modern (or perhaps already past) Western cinema.
I immediately remember the incredible number of movies and shows where there was a female boss, which is supposed to promote feminist ideas. But at the same time, she was portrayed as wrong in most situations and just an unpleasant person, which is why she fueled misogyny much more. And the "woke" Disney remakes were more repulsive to the ideas of subversion and multiculturalism than attractive to them.

Thanks for the clarification. I admit, I skimmed a lot of it. I still stand by my points, but after reading some of these comments more thoroughly, I don't think I have enough knowledge or a strong enough opinion for it to be worth contributing any further.