Though John Carter of Mars appears prominently in the first issue of the second volume, his love interest Dejah Thoris apparently dies before the story starts (it's implied that she was killed by the Molluscs). But then John Carter's children, Prince Carthoris and Princess Tara, are also never seen or mentioned. So then...were they never born in this universe?
This might be referring to the end of The Gods of Mars in which Dejah Thoris is imprisoned in a room that can only be opened once a year.
That doesn't help — Carthoris was born before that, and is a major character in The Gods of Mars.
Or maybe they aren't seen or mentioned...and thats it? Hardly means they don't exist.
Does it bother anyone else that Nemo does basically nothing for the entire series, yet is still considered a full flegeded member of the team. He goes out to help once, gets mistaken for a servant, and then spends the rest of the mission adamantly refusing to carry his own weight. The only help he brings to the table are all his cool toys, and if the League had enough clout to not only identify Nemo AND goad him into working for them (a pretty damn impressive task, if 20,000 Leagues is to be believed) you'd think they'd be able to reverse engineer most of it, or find someone else with similar tech who was more of a team player.
I was kind of bothered by that too, and it seemed to me that Moore maybe didn't know whether he wanted to deconstruct Nemo or present him in basically the same way as the source material, and so the end result is that Nemo doesn't really mesh with other characters. It's kind of odd too since Ozymandius of course of Watchmen is a great deconstruction of your "Ra's al Ghul" type of Affably EvilWell-Intentioned Extremist / Omnicidal Maniac of which Nemo is kind of the original.
Okay let me think
1- Nemo saves Mina and Quatermain from being lynched by the locals in Cairo
2- Nemo provides the league both with transport and a HQ (the Nautilus)
3- Nemo recovers the other league members from the Thames following their escape from Fu Manchu's lair
4- Nemo figures out that something is wrong with M and dispatches Griffin to investigate, thus revealing Moriarty's involvement.
5- Based on Griffin's intel, Nemo deduces Moriarty's plan (note that Mina, the team leader, and the one who usually figures this sort of thing out stares dumbfounded during this)
6- Nemo provides the balloon, harpoon-machine guns and general battle-plan for the league's assault on Moriarty's airship.
7- Said harpoon-machine gun, combined with Nemo's hatred of all things English makes him even more effective in slaughtering Mooks during the climactic battle of volume 1 than the superstrong, Nigh Invulnerable Edward Hyde (an awed Quatermain notes that "Nemo's worse than Hyde.")
8- Throughout most of volume 2, Nemo's Nautilus is the only thing Britain has that fights the Martian tripods on an even field, and probably would have been successful in holding them off, had Griffin not explained the concept of a submarine to the Martians, leading to them deploying the red-weed to cripple it.
So yeah, Nemo pretty much did nothing...
Nemo's stereotypical Indian appearance, and he works for the BRITISH EMPIRE generally voluntarily. I just can't get over with this massive contradiction with 20,000 Leagues.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. MILLIONS of Indians worked for the British Empire. The only contradiction is between Nemo's stated goals (i.e. the destruction of the British Empire) and what he actually does (i.e. he ends up working for the country he has vowed to destroy).
Except he spends much of the time complaining about it, uses the opportunity in the first volume to destroy as many Englishmen as possible, and notes several times that he is in it purely for his own survival. The fact that he quits without wanting to hear any explanations or excuses at the end of Volume 2 also hints that he had been wanting to quite for some time - Hyde's brutality and the Empire use of disease weaponry were the final straws.
Confirmed in the most recent series as we learn he's been raising his daughter to carry on where he left off. In the end it turns out she's WORSE, though with what she's been through you could argue the people she went after had it coming.
Nemo explains in Volume 1 and in the Black Dossier, Mina's own journal notes reveals that he joined the league because he was getting old, he disliked domestic life and resented the fact that his wife gave him a daughter instead of a son and that he was longing for a great adventure. He explains himself that he no longer feels connected to any nation, India included.
What's the deal with that scene in volume one, where the league is sitting around a table in the Nautilus and everybody but Jekyll is smoking? Why are they all smoking there, when there is no indication that any of them smoke anywhere else in the entire series?
Deliberate Values Dissonance. When a Victorian character sits and thinks, he or she lights up. Sherlock Holmes' pipe is simply the most notable example — and as far as Watson was concerned, it was notable only because of his foul-smelling Turkish tobacco. Remember, this was the era when smoking was compulsory for students at some schools.
Griffin, and Quartermain are seen smoking in several other scenes. Nemo is smoking a cigar and its likely that like many other cigar smokers he only smokes occasionally. Murray is shown smoking during the Black Dossier.
Griffin. Crazy yes. But he never struck me as suicidally crazy. Yet he willingly sides with a species seeking to wipe out mankind, assuming that they'll let him live when they no longer need him? If he was playing both sides against the other it would make sense but he ONLY helps the Martians. And makes his treachery very obvious when he attacks Mina but lets her live. You'd really think he'd have been a bit smarter about the way he went about things.
Thinking really isn't his strong point. Remember how Nemo sends him on a fact finding mission to learn who M is? And he instantly forgets everything he heard? Or the time he kills a policeman solely for his outfit, wafting along dressed like that where anyone can see him? Don't forget he views himself as an entirely different life form; it might not have occurred to him that the Martians would put him in the same camp.
Griffin switching to what he thought was the stronger side makes sense, but what really bugged me was how he thought was ever get his point across to the aliens, let alone before they just simply killed him before he could. I mean, they obviously don't speak our language, and he attempted to illustrate a complex double cross in exchange for his life through pictures in the sand that would only really make sense to us.
His sketches presumably wouldn't really be that difficult to pick up on, not least for a species that had developed interplanetary travel, since he's pretty much just drawing the solar system, not something you really need the Rosetta Stone for; big round thing is the sun, smaller round things are planets, they're currently on the third smaller round thing from the big round thing, and the stick figures are those two legged things they're currently massacring a lot of. As for his double cross plan, it's hardly that complex; you let me live, I'll give you what you need. The Martians are intellects far vaster than any human's, and he's not exactly summarising À la recherche du temps perdu there; they can no doubt pick it up. As for why they didn't just kill him, they were probably startled by the fact that an invisible man had just walked into their base and started chatting with them.
Griffin probably figured that if the Martians turned nasty, he could just sneak off - the Martians can't see him any more than the humans can. He's also completely insane, and generally seems to think that his invisibility makes him immune to consequences (witness his reaction when Hyde reveals that he can see him), so he probably didn't think he was in any danger.
According to Word of God, Moore couldn't resist the symmetry of having a character created by H. G. Wells join forces with another set of characters created by H. G. Wells, so there's a meta-motivation there as well.
The Black Nautilus in Century 1910: Look at the panel in which it appears and then compare it to the "classic" Nautilus Mk II from the original stories, and the cutaway in the Black Dossier. Is this a newer Nautilus or a rebuild of Nautilus Mk II, or did Nemo simply upgrade the one we see? With lots and lots of guns? I can understand the changing of the hull section between the eyes and the Ruleof Cool spiky bits across the back (But the smokestacks, on a submarine? "Funny Aneurysm" Moment!) but the forward hull and the tentacles are confusing me; At first, I was happy that we finally found out the main use of the two that are stowed in the Hull, but the place where they are stowed has vanished, as well as the various docking apparatus and the Ruleof Cool blowhole. The number of tentacles has changed (seriously, count them) and the configuration also - they used to roll up at the end and now they roll down! So yeah. I feel robbed - I wanted * The Nautilus* to show up, but the more I look at it, the more it is apparent that something has changed. Is this an oversight on O'Neil's part, or the first stage in the "Ship of Theseus" that the Nautilus must surely undergo before the final chapter?
The smokestacks, at least, are explicable. In real life, early submarines often ran on the surface and dived only to sneak up on a target or escape pursuit. That was partly because of their limited air and power supply for underwater movement, and partly because running on the surface is faster and puts less strain on the hull than running underwater. In any case, these submarines used normal fossil-fuel engines when on the surface, relying on batteries and electric motors underwater. Build a Victorian submarine with steam engines and you're going to need some kind of smokestack.
Why does the color of Mina's eyes and hair change in every book?
Her eyes have always been green and her hair was brown in the first two books, and dyed blonde in the Black Dossier. They looked the same in Century, as well.
Moore Didn't put Dracula or Sherlock Holmes in the original books because he feared they'd "over shadow" the rest of the team, yet he had no problem with James Bond and Big Brother Overshadowing The Black Dossier's story line in the slightest!
And they didn't. But Dracula and Sherlock Holmes have been done to death in this sort of Victorian patische style. And they technically did have an effect through Moriarty's 'death' and Mina's backstory, so does it even matter? Also, Big Brother was only in the background of The Black Dossier.
And a general Victorian fictional clusterfuck crossover with Dracula as a major player would basically be, er, Anno Dracula.
This raises up interesting ideas of how far one can push lit cross overs, since everyone has as much right to use the characters if you wanted to cross over, people are bound to have similarities. But if this ever turned into a lawsuit, Disney and Universal could have a lawsuit field day over all the people that crossed over the same public domain characters and had similar events and relationships.
I think the point was that they'd overshadow the main characters even as side characters. James Bond, Big Brother and the Martians were supposed to be big parts of the story.
Let's call a spade a spade here. Moore's main characters are clearly his more self-serving versions of Mina and Alan. (and then Orlando), any stronger more rounded character would very much overshadow them, as regardless we still ask "why" of Moore a lot. Also a bit of the divide on the film, if YOU would rather see no powered woman Mina lead the league and loaf old Alan slugging through life, good for you, but are we really surprised that some people preferred vampire and badass grandpa to that?
Also, Sherlock Holmes shows up in a flashback. Not to mention his brother Mycroft is an important character As is Moriarty, of course.
Moore's interest is in Deconstruction, in the original Dracula, Mina is the real hero, the one who has serious character development while the Count is largely a distant villainous figure, so foregrounding that over the Spotlight-Stealing Squad was The Plan all along. Then Sherlock Holmes in Conan Doyle's book was cold and had No Social Skills outside his friendship with Watson, not the kind of character that can fit in a Crisis Crossover like this, outside of Rule of Cool appeal.
While it certainly is true that deconstruction is the very meat to Alan Moore's work, this troper disagrees with any assertion it can't be done in other ways. Moore chose his versions of these characters in a lot of cases choosing to showcase their biggest flaws. While this may seem really cool or really lame to the individual, it's Moore's choice not that he had his hands tied.
Simple answer is — it's Moore's choice, since he's the one writing the thing. Moore decided that doing a Victoriana pastiche involving Sherlock Holmes and Dracula showing up as main characters battling each other / someone else was something he wasn't interested in doing because it had been done a lot before and he thought it would take away from the things he was interested in doing, so he didn't include them. In later volumes, Moore decides it'll be interesting to contrast James Bond with the earlier pulp adventure heroes who inspired him, so Bond shows up. Like any author of any work of fiction, Moore's writing about what interests him, and that's all the motivation he needs. You can disagree with what Moore is and isn't interested in and what he chooses to and not to include, and that's fine, but it's not gonna change the fact that Moore's writing this, not you, so you either put up with it or you stop reading. Or you write your own version where Holmes and Dracula do show up, of course. Those are pretty much your only choices here.
And true to form, while a police box doesn't appear those of us with familiarity to the classic series may recognize a certain gentleman in a black coat and bow-tie who shows up in one panel of "Century: 1969"...
as well as a Dalek during Mina's Acid trip in Hyde Park.
2009 has the Eleventh Doctor pop up in the background.
With what is apparently the First Doctor walking with him. Sometimes, I love time travel.
And two panels before that, captain Jack Harkness can also be seen.
It bugs me that Mr. Hyde is illustrated as a big, brutish man. In the original material, when Dr. Jekyll became Mr. Hyde, he actually shrank, so it would follow that Mr. Hyde's transformation would still follow that. It's just weird that Alan Moore would ignore this bit, but pay close attention to everyone else in terms of their original characterization.
Well, it shall bug you no longer- Hyde, I believe during his speech after raping Griffin to death, expands upon his origins. He indeed mentions that, at first, Jekyll was actually quite fit, and he was practically a "dwarf"... But, as he was all Jekyll's excesses, powered by all his emotional and biological drives, he quickly grew bigger and stronger as moral old Jekyll, deprived of these same motivations, withered away. Over time, he simply grew more powerful, more deviant, and generally larger.
Moore's decision to make him hulk like though as a creative choice can very much still bug us for many more years on
Jekyll also mentions in Volume 1 that Hyde was originally smaller than Jekyll, in a "can you imagine?" sense.
Also remember the idea of Hyde growing comes from ONE interpretations of one line in the original story. Others use the same line just to assume Hyde got healthier not taller and muscular.
Why is Campion Bond still around in Volume 2 and not in some jail cell or executed? He worked for Moriarty and betrayed Britain, and if Griffin hadn't followed and spied on him, he and Moriarty would have succeeded.
Lampshaded by the new M on the penultimate page of Volume 1: "It is often useful to have employees one knows to be treacherous" (probably not the real reason, though, it does seem likely that Mycroft was somehow involved in Moriarty's schemes).
If anything, the implication is that Mycroft was opposing Moriarty and his plans; Moriarty remarks that he received his promotion to the head of British Intelligence over the protests of "embittered toads" like Mycroft, which suggests that the two weren't exactly buddy-buddy (since Moriarty is, as far as he's aware, talking only to a trusted underling and so has no real reason not to be forthcoming about it). Not that Mycroft clearly isn't a bit amoral at the least, but what little evidence there is suggests that he was opposed to Moriarty's plans and took over once Moriarty had proved himself a nutcase willing to bomb his own country.
In addition to the above, Bond was working for Moriarty in his official capacity as Moriarty's aide in British Intelligence; he no doubt managed to weasel out of punishment by following the "I was just obeying orders!" defence. By 1910, however, it's made very clear that he's been reduced to little more than a dogsbody who gets the tea, so presumably they decided that punishment via humiliating him and completely stymying any possible chances for career advancement was satisfactory for whatever part he played.
In the first volume of Century, The 14th Earl of Gurney is named as a possible Jack the Ripper suspect. Century takes place in 1910. But The Ruling Class, from which the Earl of Gurney is taken, is set in the 1960s.
I haven't read / seen the original work, but the 'Earl of Gurney' is presumably a hereditary title, so the one who appears in the 1960s is probably a later descendant (unless the later one is specifically identified as the 14th Earl, in which case we can probably chalk this one up to a continuity error).
He is indeed specifically referred to as the 14th Earl of Gurney.
Explained by Alan Moore thinking the movie took place in around 1910.
So.... Didn't bother anyone else that Mina Harker, the vampiress, WATCHED A FRIGGIN SUNSET?
So... you're unaware, then, that in the original Dracula, sunlight did not kill him?
Sunlight killing vampires is a relatively recent take on the myth — in most pre-twentieth century variations, it just weakens them to a degree that they can't use many / any of their powers.
Who said she's a vampire?
Would be explained by the fact that she's still looking the same age many decades later.
The movie is very explicit about it.
The movie is an In Name Only adaptation. In the book, being bitten doesn't immediately make somebody a vampire. Think about it: it might be a little inconvenient if you couldn't feast on somebody's blood without turning them into an undead creature that's powerful enough to fight you on your own terms. It would be like not being able to eat a hamburger without it turning into some amorphous, blobby beef-monster that could hunt you down and murder you with a chainsaw.
All of which is beside the point: In the movie, which this Headscratcher is about, she's definitely and explicitly a vampire, and we don't know the exact circumstances of her turning anyway.
If we go by text though then we should assume Dracula didn't really die, as if Dracula was alive she had the risk of becoming a vampire, and since in movie League she did. The Count's out there somewhere.
Whether or not she's explicitly a vampire, the fact remains: the portrayal of vampires in the book and the movie is based on Bram Stoker's Dracula, where the character Mina Harker first appeared. In Stoker's version, sunlight doesn't immediately kill vampires. Because of the nature of the League 'verse, there are probably numerous breeds of vampires, all hailing from different works of fiction. In all likelihood, many of them probably are killed by sunlight—but the one that bit Mina wasn't.
In Century: 2009, it's clear at some point Harry Potter went on a murderous rampage, including Ron and Hermione begging him to stop in one panel, but just when are we supposed to believe the change from the books happens? I don't see a clear point to diverge from. And who was the old man who told him that his adventures were all to prepare him. I mean before he confronted Haddo/Voldermort. And was God also Mary Poppins?
I thought that man was intended to be Argus Filch. What I don't know is who the portly man with the bald top of his head who insults Harry was intended to be, because he can't be Snape at all, and I don't think anyone else fits.
The man who curses the Antichrist is a character who is being portrayed by Michael Gambon. The teacher in red is being played by Sheila Hancock. One is Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series, the other is Mrs Windergast from the adaptation of Groosham Grange.
It's explained that in this world, Haddo!Voldemort basically went to Hogwarts in 1969 and essentially groomed Harry to be his antichrist once he was born. As such, Moore basically seems to negate the whole 'horcrux' element, but it's stated that Harry was thirteen, I believe, which places him around... Prisoner of Azkaban? And yes, Mary Poppins is basically God. It makes perfect sense. Who better than a nanny with bizarre levels of power who descends from the clouds to look after children?
In answer to the previous question, the man who curses Harry before dying could be Horace Slughorn, with his look based on the movie portrayal.
Then again, in the books Harry *was* groomed from birth to kill Voldemort. Dumbledore all but admits that to Harry before shuttling off to the afterlife. I'm not sure how Dumbledore's plans fit with Haddo's, but in both versions Harry is duped into a prophecy and groomed from birth to bring about someone's downfall. The goals are different, but the methodology is the same.
Whilst we're on the subject, does it seem to anyone else that Alan Moore created the entire Century storyline just for an extended Take That at Harry Potter? That's... rather less than I expected from the man.
Might just be my interpretation of it, but it seemed to me more of a Take That aimed at the Moral Guardians' endless accusations that Harry Potter was written to seduce children over to devil worship and black magic — mainly by showing just how completely ridiculous such claims would be if they were true. Then again, Alan Moore has been pretty crazy for a while now, so it could go either way.
I agree with this. I mean, isn't Moore openly an occultist? It wouldn't make sense for him to accuse Harry Potter of corrupting children.
I was referring more to the constant criticisms by Mina and Orlando about Hogwarts Castle being dervied from "Comforting imagery from the forties" and stale and artifical and so on, as well as outright having Haddo call Potter a banal and boring Anti Christ. It just all seems so petty and shallow, for some reason.
There's definitely a bit of snide commentary around the characters and world of Harry Potter, but there's also a bit of sympathy there as well — the Anti-Christ, after all, is ultimately depicted as a lost and bewildered young man who has been lied to and corrupted by everyone around him for reasons he never fully understands and is ultimately callously destroyed without every really knowing why. It's possible that Moore, as much as he clearly disdains the source, is commenting on what he sees as a rather sweet little idea being twisted to form part of a massive juggernaut that seeks to milk everything of value out of it before dismissively casting it aside.
Moore himself hammers home some of the problems with what happens when you mix elitism with criticism and literature head view points. While his work to put in references are clearly awe inspiring, we must wonder if Mr Moore ever actually picked up a logic textbook in his life. As it seems he's a posterboy for missing the boat in a lot of respects.
A lot of Century seems to be a Take That against what has become of a whole of fiction, but if we can do a Deconstruction of Moore's own thesis, we need to realize something. If he is trying to relate that the older times when his older literature was making up the world it was better and that the further implosion of others had a negative effect, then there's a very elephant in the room question. Where exactly are a lot of the popular books of the modern era in the League world? Certainly some would be harder than others to include, but the lack of references to a bunch of the modern big hits questionable. Is Mr. Moore afraid to touch that stuff on legal issues, or is he just an old man that's ignorant that there's more to modern literature than what he sees being made into blockbuster movies?
In The Movie, if "M"'s plan was to basically steal and exploit the league's knowledge and supernatural powers, why did he even bother to invite Quatermain? It would've made a tad of sense if his plan went more along the lines of the first Volume, coaxing them into helping him subdue another supervillain, but the only real 'mission' he sends them on is directed against himself! When did Professor Moriarty become so stupid?
Quartermain was brought in to capture Hyde. I think M says as much during his little 'between you and me' recording.
He does. He says he needed Quatermain to capture Hyde. Quatermain also seems to have ably kept the League from collapsing before all the samples could be taken, which may also have figured into Moriarty's plot. It just worked too well.
Where is Don Quixote? He is the main character of the first modern novel in history, which is widely considered to be the best of all time, but he only gets one mention as a member of Prospero's league (and, if I recall correctly, he physically appears exactly once). It may seem like an odd complaint here, but it is just quite surprising from a man as devoted to fiction and literature like Moore and a series as devoted to the same like this one.
He's shown has a member of Prospero's Men
Yes, that is mentioned in the above, but nothing is ever described about him. He is mentioned maybe once or twice in The Black Dossier when Orlando talks about Prospero's Men and he is depicted in precisely one picture, but otherwise he is completely skipped over. Would it not be interesting to see this delusional knight errant wannabe in a world where his fantasies of giants are actually real?
Indeed it might have been interesting, but at risk of stating the obvious, Moore can't fit EVERYTHING in.
Very little is ever actually revealed about Prospero's Men other than the members, and the departure of Christian and Prospero to the Blazing World, as well as some of Captain Robert Owe-Much exploration logs in the Travellers Almanack. All that is known of the group is that they were formed by Prospero at the behest of Queen Gloriana, that they found Christian in a madhouse in London, and that Orlando was a member. Quixote isnt the only member to get virtually no exposure, Owe-Much, Amber St Clare and Christian are only mentioned in passing as well.
Is it my imagination, or does Alan Moore seem to get his kicks outta bastardizing heroic characters these days? Granted I can see why he did it to James Bond (and that was the original anyways, his successors may not have been so vile), can kinda see why he chose to do it to Harry Potter (though I still object to it) but in the newest comic he does this to Tom Swift...I hope this isn't developing into a pattern or else we may have the Evangelion of massive crossovers on our hands and not in a good way.
Well, Allan Quatermain is certainly dealt with in sympathy, even with his Mighty Whitey deconstructed, and Sherlock Holmes is given a very respectful depiction in his brief cameo and Michael Caine from Get Carter is awesome and Emma Peel is also treated well. So a good number of "heroes" are dealt with in a positive way.
To be fair, this is Moore's version of a fictionalized cross over world, so it's clearly got lots of his own preferences and hang ups often involved, which would be true no matter who the writer is.
The claim that all fiction is (somehow) true in the LOEG 'verse. Are they aware how much fiction exists? Including the equivalent of The Legend of Rah and the Muggles? Of which there is a lot more than of good fiction? Or did they really mean "all the fiction a substantial number of Anglos still knows today"?
Since Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neal are not idiots, they probably do have a fairly good idea of how much fiction exists in the world, in an intellectual sense even if they haven't managed to read all of it. However, consider how many people have existed and currently exist in the world today; according to some estimates the figure numbers somewhere in the tens of billions across the entire globe. That's plenty of room for a lot of fictional characters.
Personally, this troper feels that it's really more "all fiction can be true," depending on what can be consistent with each other. Of the major characters' series in just the first volume (Literature/Dracula, The Invisible Man, King Solomon's Mines, Literature/The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, etc.) none of them necessarily conflict with each other as the actual areas they cover are very narrow, in contrast to one like Assassin's Creed which almost literally covers all of history and most definitely does not involve fantastical elements like the LOEG-verse does. The further you go along in history, the more you'll find fiction that can conflict with one another and could affect the rest of it very drastically—this may well be the in-universe reason, for instance, that Harry Potter is the Antichrist, considering that he lives in a Britain which, for a time, was ruled by Big Brother. This also isn't counting fiction which takes place in straight-up fantastical worlds rather than Earth like most/all of the fiction thus far crossed-over do. Chances are, we wouldn't see a LOEG story set in Westeros or Amestris, since those are explicitly set in worlds that are not our own, unless they're visited as alternate dimensions (especially because those two in particular bear many resemblances to Earth and, in the 2003 FMA anime at least, the world in which Amestris is located is explicitly a parallel world to ours.
It's important to also be real, I'm not sure there'd be a way to "get it right" to have it all happen. You are bound to run into continuity and timeline issues if you just keep adding sources. So you obviously are going to have to assume some of your sources weren't entirely accurate to what your true version is. Both Comic and Movie League do this. Once Upon a Time, Penny Dreadful, Anno Dracula, Into the Woods, etc ALL do the same thing. So I don't think it's too much to chastise anyone for the PRACTICE. But each and every one of the decisions you make could very much kill the interest in your merged world for individual fans. So technically anything could pop up in the League world, but it might not be exact same as source. So it's best to assume "it might be there in some form" rather than "it's all there"
Along the lines of the "all fiction is true" point above, how do the massive world-changing events of science fiction fit in? For instance, in 2001: A Space Odyssey, (which is mentioned in Minions of the Moon) the point is First Contact. But in the League 'verse, aliens have been well known for over a century by 2001. And that's before we've got on to the number of works of apocalyptic fiction set in the twentieth century - surely the world hasn't ended twenty times?
Its shown several times that a lot of "world changing events" from fiction did happen, but had a much more limited effect than described in the source material. Big Brother took over, but only controlled Britain and only lasted for a few years, the existance of Cthulhu and the Elder Gods are common knowledge but did not cause the end of the world, and so on. The events of 2001 most likely did happen ,especially with the hints that the remains of a Monolith being the source of the immortality pool, but clearly, it did not dramatically change the world by 2009.
Where is Mina and Jonathon Harker's son? In the epilogue of Dracula, Harker mentions that they had a kid.
The child could have died of some disease later, which might have even led to Mina's decision to divorce Jonathan.
It's also possible that he was simply never born in the League-verse. Bear in mind that the epilogue to Dracula is set seven years after the events, while Moore's chronology implies that Mina and Jonathan divorce shortly after their adventure in Transylvania. It wouldn't be the only time Moore retconned the ending of a source novel (or made some on purpose alterations)
In the movie, why doesn't Dorian Grey just close his eyes when Mina shows him his picture?
On that note, why - if looking at the picture would kill him - did he keep it in his entrance hall???
This Dorian isn't too bright....although while maybe with a harsher rating there would be ways for Mina to fix the eyes shut problem if she really wanted to.
If Adenoid Hynkel was the one who started WW2, then how do the various references to Hitler fit in? (IE, The Doctor meeting Hitler in the episode "Let's Kill Hitler" Eddie from Bottom's last name being Hitler with his mother being called Adolph Hitler)
In the League-verse versions of those stories, Hynkel would have taken Hitler's place. This is confirmed in The Black Dossier, in which the events of The Boys from Brazil are alluded to, only in this universe the story involved a plan to clone Hynkel.
Is there really much point to Campion Bond other than to add more James Bond Take That from Moore. Given the many upon many printed books, there has to be at least one not-so well likable stooge that could have that role or adapt another one into it. And for that matter the movie gives Moriarty two original stooges as well....picking one/two obscurer characters shouldn't have been that hard for Moore or the screen writers here.
Something about Moore and Century 2009 is bothering me. In it it's obvious Moore is hammering us with his thesis that the fictional world has fallen apart. However is anyone else ticked off how few lit references there are for stuff written like 1950s-2009? I tried off-hand counting on Jess Nevin's annotations, and if my dates are right there's only like 15 or so of them, compared to the vast larger number of things from other sources. Did this comic not start off by combining lit characters, so where the hell are the rest of the stars of all those decades worth of books? If you want to say our fiction has suffered, why is the spotlight not on them? And if you are trying to say that film-centrism has stolen the soul out of fiction, why not use more of those characters to make the point? What i'm basically getting at here is more or less what's wrong with Alan Moore on this? Is he afraid other authors are more likely to sue him so he makes us deal with bastardized Harry Potter and guys people like Ian Sinclair and Michael Moorcock out of fear, or is he just that much of a jerk he doesn't read much of anyone else modern work to be able to work them into the League world?
A bullet earlier also addressed this. It's again Moore's choice. For whatever reason he clearly has chosen not to include as many literature references after a while. Which I think is a tad unfair. While the book may not be the force it once was, we do have a thing called Amazon (among others) that doesn't make it that hard to find all the new fiction that comes out. I don't know if I agree with Moore's general thesis of fiction or literature in general. But i can see how some people would have preferred he'd have stuck to things with printed books. (Since so much has been novelized, you wouldn't have to cut that much out all things considered)
Copyright considerations are definitely a concern, but ultimately as mentioned above Moore's writing about what interests him and offering his view on the world, just as any writer does. As far as Moore's concerned, a lot of modern fiction doesn't really interest him, and he thinks it's indicative of a decay in culture. To be honest, I don't really agree with him on this either, but he's the one writing it, not me; he's under no obligation to reflect my own views of the world back to me. And if he doesn't think modern fiction is as interesting to include as fiction from the 1890s-1960s, that's his decision.