espanolbot: (Default)
[personal profile] espanolbot posting in [community profile] scans_daily
Turns out that there's going to be a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen spin-off graphic novel, starring none other than Captain Nemo the Second, aka Janni, as she travels to the South Pole to revisit some mountains there that once drove her dad crazy.

"It’s 1925, fifteen long years since Janni Dakkar first tried to escape the legacy of her science-pirate father, only to eventually take on his mantle and accept her destiny as the new Nemo; the next captain of the legendary Nautilus. A thirty year-old Pirate Jenny, tired of punishing the world with an unending spree of plunder and destruction, is resolved to finally step from her forebear’s lengthy shadow by attempting something at which he’d conspicuously failed, namely the exploration of Antarctica. In 1895 her father had returned from that ice-crusted continent without his reason or his crewmen, all of whom appeared to have mysteriously perished or to otherwise have disappeared. Now Captain Nemo’s daughter and successor plans to take her feared and celebrated black submersible back to the world’s South Pole in an attempt to lay her sire’s intimidating ghost forever.

There are others, though, who have become as tired of Janni’s freebooting as she herself. An influential publishing tycoon, embarrassed by the theft of valuables belonging to a visiting Ugandan monarch, sets a trio of America’s most lauded technological adventurers on the pirate queen’s trail, commencing a nightmarish chase across the frozen landscape with the pinnacles of the forbidding mountains where Prince Dakkar’s sanity had foundered growing ever nearer…

In a fast-paced, self-contained adventure, Alan Moore and Kevin O’Neill thrillingly expand on one of Century’s most memorable characters, venturing into dazzling polar territories and fictional domains including those of Edgar Allen Poe and H. P. Lovecraft, with all of these vectors headed for an unforgettable encounter at the living, beating and appallingly inhuman HEART OF ICE."

Despite myself I am actually looking forward to this somewhat. I find Janni to be more interesting than Mina became in later storylines, even if what happened in her in 1910 due to Alan Moore apparently not knowing how to create drama for female characters outside of sexual assault made me lose patience with Moore's writing for a good while.

Wondering whether a reference to the Thing might occur, though I think it's probably unlikely. And I'm also interested as to who the American adventurers might be, though the publishing tycoon will probably be Charles Foster Kane. If not him then maybe Britt Reid?

Anyways, in addition to this, I'm also going to post what I thought was the best surprise cameo of last year, in which a certain magical lady appears to save the world from the Antichrist, aka Harry Potter (hohoho, it's a reference to stupid people's fears the books promoted Satanism, hohoho).

Amusingly, Robot Chicken also used "scary powerful" Mary Poppins for a sketch recently.

Date: 2013-01-12 05:51 pm (UTC)
mrstatham: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrstatham
For the problems that can arise in some of Moore's writing, there's few writers, I feel, that can mount a fairly epic situation and actually follow through on what it promises as well as he can. Moore's own Armageddon storyline in Promethea was wonderfully unexpected, and despite the fact that it's a complete and utter bit of Deus Ex Machina, I never felt the way he resolves the situation here - literally dropping God from the sky - was a cop out, because he'd put that much effort along with O'Neill into building this universe up.

I'm also very much looking forward to this spin-off, although I feel awful for scoffing at the notion that this will actually come out in February, given how long we had to wait between Century chapters. Janni was definitely one of the better things about 1910, unsavoury origin aside. It also makes me look forward to some more spin-offs, given Moore's talked about wanting to do a special for Orlando, and then the universe of LOEG is basically that rich, thanks to the way it's constructed, they could basically do anything.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:08 pm (UTC)
cainofdreaming: cain's mark (pic#364829)
From: [personal profile] cainofdreaming
Sherlock Holmes for 2010s... hey, we've come a full circle here, almost.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:13 pm (UTC)
cainofdreaming: cain's mark (pic#364829)
From: [personal profile] cainofdreaming
Oh, I actually meant Moffat's "Sherlock", so they'd both be from the same town too. I haven't heard much of the US version yet.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:37 pm (UTC)
silverhammerman: (Default)
From: [personal profile] silverhammerman
Wait wait wait, you mean they the two Sherlocks actually did a for real version of the Dead British Actors sketch from That Mitchell and Webb Look?
That's amazing.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:38 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] thezmage
Elementary is so much more than Sherlock with the numbers filed off. In addition to being a much different take on the character (this Sherlock has sexual needs, isn't an asshole to the people who have to work with him, feels actual emotions tht are as prominent as anyone else's, has a prominent father who looms large in the plot) the stories are new rather than being expanded adaptations of the short stories, and the bits from the original canon are dealt out much more thoughtfully (instead of dropping Moriarty's name in the pilot, they only just mentioned him, and it looks like they've got a very interesting take on Sebastian Moran that I look forward to seeing where they're going to take him) and just in general they're taking a much better approach to the story and the characters than Sherlock's, in my opinion. I can go read Scandal in Bohemia or the Hound of the Baskervilles if I really needed to see those stories.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:43 pm (UTC)
mrstatham: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrstatham
This. One of the reasons I find Sherlock as a show so boring is because Moffat seems to have given the lead the same treatment as Doctor Who, in that the character increasingly seems like a complete arse.

Date: 2013-01-12 07:46 pm (UTC)
terrykun: (Default)
From: [personal profile] terrykun

I also love how Joan challenges Sherlock, and while I love Martin Freeman's twitchy surprise-driven responsive acting, I also am routinely impressed by Lucy Liu's more subtle acting. (The talk about the thumbtack, the very precise narrowing of her gaze when she realized what Sherlock had set up with her mom and brother, etc.)

Date: 2013-01-12 06:42 pm (UTC)
turtlefu: (Default)
From: [personal profile] turtlefu
You know, I really resent that. How much of Elementary have you even watched? Based on the pilot alone it is vastly different, in tone, style, and direction, from Sherlock.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:46 pm (UTC)
mrstatham: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrstatham
Miller did actively apologise to Cumberbatch for starring in the show, from what I've heard, but given the massive differences between the shows that are evident already, I'm not entirely certain why. I'm also not entirely fond of the current need to bow down to Moffat for everything, like the guy is the first one to come up with the notion of a 'modern' Sherlock Holmes.
Edited Date: 2013-01-12 06:54 pm (UTC)

Date: 2013-01-13 01:02 am (UTC)
tammy_moore: (Default)
From: [personal profile] tammy_moore
If I remember right Cumberbatch actually came back and said that interview was taking what he'd said about a conversation with Miller out of context. It was one of those - he said all these words, but there were more words originally and in a slightly different order - situations.

Date: 2013-01-12 07:22 pm (UTC)
akodo_rokku: (Default)
From: [personal profile] akodo_rokku
Well presumably the reason it was hastily retooled was to no longer *be* just Sherlock with the numbers filed off.

It's still not interesting to me personally because 1) Sherlock is so good it can't help but pale in comparison and 2) Lucy Liu is terrible.

Date: 2013-01-12 09:49 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] thezmage
Have you heard the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" before? Because nothing in that article says that the show was changed due to the threat of legal action.

And even if they were, the result is still a completely different animal that is, to my mind at least, superior to the BBC version.

Total LOL on that threat to sue if the pl

Date: 2013-01-12 09:52 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] thezmage
Damn iPhone keyboard disappearing mid type

"Total LOL on that threat to sue if the plots are too similar. They weren't your plots to begin with."

Date: 2013-01-13 01:11 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] donnblake

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to- Sherlock took title names and some framing details from the Sherlock stories, but apart from that, they've failry little to do with each other.

A Study in Pink is about a serial killer who disguises his murders as suicides using an undisclosed version of the Iocaine Gambit. It is not about a roaring rampage of revenge against Mormons.

The Blind Banker uses elements from several Doyle stories, but certianly can't said to be merely an update of any of them, likewise the Great Game.

A Scandal in Belgravia starts with the same premise as a Scandal in Bohemia, but goes quite a bit further.

Need I really say that the Hound of the Baskervilles was not about a clandestine chemical warfare program?

The Reichenbach Fall is perhaps the closest in concept to its originator, both dealing with the final confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty, culminating in the apparent deaths of both. But where The Final Problem is concerned with Holmes's destruction of Moriarty's criminal empire, and Moriarty's attempt to first prevent that and then revenge himself upon Holmes, The Reichenbach Fall inverts that, with Moriarty setting out to destroy Holme's life and reputation from the beginning, and of course the method, the *plot* as it were, being completely different.

I haven't watched Elementary so I won't comment on the two shows' relative merits, and there are certainly valid critiques to be leveled against Sherlock, but to claim that the stories presented in Sherlock are simply setting-changed versions of Doyle's original stories is absurd.

Date: 2013-01-12 07:38 pm (UTC)
silverhammerman: (Default)
From: [personal profile] silverhammerman
I watched the pilot, and it was indeed pretty different from Sherlock however I didn't find it to really be different in a positive way.
It felt to me like a fairly standard modern detective show with the names Sherlock and Watson pasted on. Admittedly modern detective stories are all heavily influenced by Sherlock Holmes and the idea of one ultra-competent crimefighter, but it just felt very paint by numbers. The uptight female lead, the wild male lead, the sexual tension, all staples of the format. I like Lucy Liu as much as the next person, but the fact that Watson is a woman, seemingly to provide the requisite sexual tension and to avoid gay jokes, confirmed to me from the start that this show was probably not going to be to my taste.
Perhaps it's gotten better since then, and I'll admit that I was fairly prejudiced going in, but I think that just by virtue of being constantly compared to Sherlock, Elementary is always going to look like the ugly step-sister.

Date: 2013-01-12 08:30 pm (UTC)
turtlefu: (Default)
From: [personal profile] turtlefu
I disagree about Liu. I understand she went really minimal in her acting, and some people seem to think she is phoning it in, but I think she chose to go minimal because of how guarded Joan is around Sherlock, when she meets a friend and especially when she meets her family, the icyness begins to melt away. I'm not saying it's her best work, but I definitely think she's taking it very seriously.

As for sexual tension, I actually found it really refreshing how, to me, there really isn't any. The series has gone on to make it pretty explicit that Joan and Sherlock don't have that kind of relationship, and if you watch interviews Liu and Miller both say that is not how they are playing their relationship. That's part of the reason I like it so much, it's so refreshing to see a platonic male-female relationship without sexual tension.

I think its strongest elements are the relationship between Sherlock and Joan and the really solid direction. I love grimy they make everything seem. Too many crime shows make New York seem sterile like a crime scene, Elementary gives plenty of dirty shots.

The weakest elements are the crimes themselves, which is pretty bad in a crime procedural (they are pretty paint by numbers, but have gotten better), but to me it's forgivable because I enjoy watching Liu and Miller so much.

The other problem is central in many crime procedurals: part of the fun is figuring out the crime at home, but if you make it too easy you invalidate the skills of the detectives. If Sherlock is supposed to be this amazing detective, how come I can figure it out before he can? But then you risk alienating the audience if they don't show any clues. This is a problem that any Sherlock adaptation has (Doyle suffered from it sometimes, and it's one of the reasons why I don't enjoy Sherlock as much)

Date: 2013-01-12 09:13 pm (UTC)
mrstatham: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrstatham
This is why I enjoyed Columbo, of all things, above many, many other crime/detective shows. It was great fun seeing how the crime came together in the first ten minutes and then watching Peter Falk brilliantly 'fumble' his way through things to solving the case, and it removed the problem of us figuring things out before the show allowed the lead to.

Date: 2013-01-12 08:32 pm (UTC)
turtlefu: (Default)
From: [personal profile] turtlefu
I knew about the history, that kind of stuff happens all the time in Hollywood. It's how TV shows gets developed, there are always ideas being bounced around.

I thought you were insinuating that because Elementary developed out of the idea of an American Sherlock, that makes it a "rip-off" and thus automatically invalid.

Complaining about Elementary being a rip-off of Sherlock is like complaining about Ounce Upon a Time being a rip-off of Fables..

Date: 2013-01-12 06:10 pm (UTC)
starwolf_oakley: (Default)
From: [personal profile] starwolf_oakley
I'm a little surprised that Moore didn't reveal that Hilda Rumpole really *is* Ayesha, She-Who_Must-Be-Obeyed. Maybe he figured it was too on-the-nose. (Alan Moore thinking something is too on-the-nose? Really?)

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure if this is a Take That against Harry Potter, against Harry Potter's popularity, or against the fools who think Harry Potter is going to lead children into the occult.

Date: 2013-01-13 12:15 am (UTC)
glprime: (Default)
From: [personal profile] glprime
I also read Harry's language/speech as another commentary, like Armstrong and Miller's RAF Pilots.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:22 pm (UTC)
silverhammerman: (Default)
From: [personal profile] silverhammerman
Regarding these pages;
The first time I saw this on here I saw the red and green glasses and immediately assumed that Spider Jerusalem had shown up to hit the Anti-Christ with the ol' bowel disruptor. I was pretty disappointed to see that it was "just" Mary Poppins.
I'm still not too happy about the way that story wrapped up. One of the most beloved children's characters from Moore's childhood showing up to beat up one of the most beloved characters of today just reeks of "Things were better back in my day!" I think there are valid complaints one could make about the Harry Potter series, but a lot of what I've seen here and in other places really makes it seem like Moore didn't criticize the series so much as just say that it sucked and was terrible, without much actual backup.

On a lighter note, I wonder who the adventurers are going to be, I'm not familiar enough with literature from that time to even make a guess. Whoever Moore winds up using I hope he doesn't just write them as a bunch of unpleasant bastards, which seems like it's kind of his MO with this series.

Date: 2013-01-12 06:54 pm (UTC)
mrstatham: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrstatham
To be fair, at this point in Century's narrative, everything was being informed by Moore's 'Moonchild Antichrist' storyline and funnelling rapidly into that. It isn't really a valid representation of Harry Potter for Moore to even make a proper jab at, just like his version of Lord Voldemort wasn't the same Lord Voldemort as the one that appeared in Rowling's actual stories - presumably because Rowling's take had never been born during or in the midst of an actual Orwellian state. As such, everything is informed by the narrative Moore was making, and as such, it isn't just a potshot at Harry Potter, and Moore did enough with the older characters, to me, that he isn't even trying to make a case for 'Character X of my Childhood is better'. I mean, shit, look at his take on James Bond.

I also think it's distinctly unfair to suggest Moore's MO is just 'making characters unpleasant bastards', which to me, suggests that you've not read all of the series, frankly. Apologies if you have, but that's just the feeling I get.

Date: 2013-01-12 07:02 pm (UTC)
silverhammerman: (Default)
From: [personal profile] silverhammerman
You're right of course, I was unfairly generalizing.
I only ever read the first series and skimmed some of the rest, including the Black Dossier, since the artwork wasn't to my taste and the story was a lot less swashbuckling than I like my stories to be. Hyde, Doctor Griffin, and James Bond are really the only characters who spring to mind as characters with which Moore really dialed up the unpleasantness.
I just hope that whichever characters Moore uses here actually feel true to the original stories, instead of being kind of made to fit a role like Harry Potter was, if I understand you correctly.
Edited Date: 2013-01-12 07:05 pm (UTC)

Date: 2013-01-12 07:18 pm (UTC)
mrstatham: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrstatham
I understand. It is one of those things that it can be something of an unpleasant slog - the first chapter of Century, for instance, the 1910 episode, has an extremely unpleasant scene that did make me question Moore as a writer, although he made up for it later. I obviously can't speak for him, but I think even he has tropes and things that he considers it easy to go back to, at times.

So.. Yeah. I definitely understand, but I think that in some instances, these characters would be considered unpleasant. Griffin, for instance, declared "This is day one of year one of the new epoch—the Epoch of the Invisible Man. I am Invisible Man the First," in the original novel, showing that he was a distinctly unpleasant sort with delusions of ruling the world and abusing his newfound power even then. Hyde is, of course, Hyde, a monster born of the notion of siphoning off one's sins anyway, and Bond himself is someone who once declared 'the bitch is dead' of the woman he loved and proceeded to basically treat women the way he does because of that, including apparently feeling the urge to 'cure' a woman of being a lesbian. Of those, Hyde does actually have a heart, in a classic monster manner, which is revealed predominantly during the series take on War of the Worlds.

But in many ways, Moore is actually being honest about who these characters are. The literary Bond is not a pleasant person, nor is he meant to be likeable, after all - I think part of the reason we do see him as something of a 'hero' is more down to the films, especially Moore's tenure, who was slightly more noble than other iterations, in some ways.

Date: 2013-01-13 05:05 pm (UTC)
halloweenjack: (Default)
From: [personal profile] halloweenjack
I got the impression that the Harry Potter stand-in was meant to represent the wave of books where teenagers are not only the main characters, but have huge powers and end up saving the world, and that the real end result of giving a teen that much power without the accompanying discipline (and he makes it clear that he doesn't consider the faux-Latin and wand-waving of HP to be "real" magic), they're much more likely to end up destroying the world instead.

Date: 2013-01-12 07:07 pm (UTC)
biod: Cute Galactus (Default)
From: [personal profile] biod
As much as I loved Poppins' role in the story, I think you're right on the money with the "Old Man and Lawn" accusation.

Date: 2013-01-12 07:24 pm (UTC)
akodo_rokku: (Default)
From: [personal profile] akodo_rokku
I'm curious what the point of the red and green glasses is, myself. Perhaps both Mary Poppins *and* Spider Jerusalem are God.

Date: 2013-01-12 09:08 pm (UTC)
cainofdreaming: cain's mark (pic#364829)
From: [personal profile] cainofdreaming
I just saw a rerun of the Next Generation episode which featured a similar situation - Enterprise encountered a cloud of 2D beings, which they couldn't even see before they reconfigured their sensors. Just, you know, found the idea intriguing enough to mention.

Date: 2013-01-12 07:04 pm (UTC)
cainofdreaming: cain's mark (pic#364829)
From: [personal profile] cainofdreaming
Anyone else seeing a female OMAC on that cover? It's not just me, right?

Date: 2013-01-12 11:33 pm (UTC)
beyondthefringe: (Default)
From: [personal profile] beyondthefringe
I expect that we'll see Tom Swift and/or one of the Frank Reade family as part of the trio of American adventurers. Admittedly, 1925 is a little late for the usual Edisonade protagonists, but I could see Moore drawing from that sub-genre to make a point.

Date: 2013-01-13 01:18 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] donnblake
Doc Savage was my first thought, but then again, given this is Moore, it could as easily be John Sunlight.

Date: 2013-01-13 02:54 am (UTC)
mortimerwclankitybritches: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mortimerwclankitybritches
Hmmm, Moore finally going deeper into Lovecraft with this series should be good. At the very least he should have a field day with Lovecraft's views on race.

Still trying to figure out what Moore's take on HP was supposed to mean. If it's a critique on modern franchises or "phenomena" for being soulless and banal as some comic reviewers have suggested, I have to call bullshit, since the sole reason these have become franchises is specifically because they are accessible to kids/tweens, and once these kids/tweens finish reading them they will move on to more "serious" literature, and even think about writing their own books which make the whole "phenomena" thing a nigh unprecedented victory for pumping new life and imagination into literature. Hell on that level I will even defend the Twilight series.
Edited Date: 2013-01-13 03:23 am (UTC)

Date: 2013-01-13 10:07 am (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
I don't know if that's true, about kids moving on to more serious literature afterwards. It's not as if Harry Potter is a basic introduction to literature; it's really long and fairly complex in its own right. Someone who starts reading Harry Potter is already fairly literate, and if Harry Potter is what starts them reading, I would think it's because it's at the complexity level they're comfortable with.

I mean, heck, the next big YA fiction phenomenon following Harry Potter was Twilight, so that's what the YA readership as a whole moved on to.

Date: 2013-01-13 01:45 pm (UTC)
mrosa: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrosa
I always hoped Moore would get tired of the least interesting of the books he created for the defunct ABC line, so this is sad news. Fan fiction is fun, I suppose, for those who like to write it, but why has Alan Moore been writing it for over a decade now? When is he going to do something new again?

Date: 2013-01-13 04:56 pm (UTC)
mrosa: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mrosa
Converting old tv scripts into comics is certainly not what I expect from Alan Moore; it's what I'd expect from mediocre writers like Steve Niles who got his rejected crappy vampire film script recycled into a crappy but successful vampire comic and adapted into a crappy vampire film. I just expect something denser, more elaborate from Moore.

But he's obviously doing the best he can to distance himself from the genius who wrote From Hell and Promethea.

Date: 2013-01-13 05:09 pm (UTC)
halloweenjack: (Default)
From: [personal profile] halloweenjack
I believe that most of his current work is outside of comics; he's done a magazine, is still working on a big book about magic, directed a short movie, etc.

Date: 2013-01-13 08:49 pm (UTC)
silverhammerman: (Default)
From: [personal profile] silverhammerman
I hear ya, Moore's a great writer but LoEG is just so not for me. It'd be great to see him do something like Promethea or Tom Strong again. Some reconstructive stuff would be a nice change from insulting modern comics and doing classic literature fanfic.


scans_daily: (Default)
Scans Daily


Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, [community profile] scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, [community profile] scans_daily is probably not for you.

Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18192021

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags