The Great Fables Crossover

[Travis Herrick (Modular Mod)]

Having finished Vertigo's Fables crossover I come away with a big, "it was okay". It wasn't bad or anything, and there were some very cool ideas and moments. Once everything was said and done though I came to the conclusion I would have enjoyed separate stories more.

I think the Literals mini would have been better if they had had their own self-contained story. I would have enjoyed the Fables continuing their own story with the new antagonist, and Jack of Fables just doing his thing. After two mediocre arcs I am this close to dropping Jack of Fables

[ClarkKent_DC]

Travis Herrick said:

He also said that the Adversary was originally going to be Peter Pan. He's always thought of Peter as an evil character, a self-centered abductor of children. But the UK copyright issues with the character (which hit the news when Alan Moore's Lost Girls came out) prevented him from using Peter right away, so the puppet master seemed an obvious replacement.
I had heard that Peter Pan was going to be the Adversary originally, but I never knew why ti was changed. I always figured it was because people figured out who it was so he changed it. Now I know the reason.

Right. My understanding of the matter is a little hazy (even after having read about it more than once), but it seems that the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in England has something akin to a perpetual copyright on the play -- at least, it is entitled to collect royalties on the U.K. edition of the play (per James Barrie's wish) for as long as the hospital exists or until that exception to the copyright law is changed legislatively. With that, the hospital has asserted that it has some rights over the United States version of the story, even though outside of England it is in public domain.

In any event, Willingham didn't want to get into that thicket of legalese.

[Mike Williams]

Close enough - copyright law in the UK is for a period of seventy years for written work, including plays. J M Barries will also stated that any and all profits fromt he use of the characetrs in Peter Pan had to go to Great Ormond Street Hospital - but when the copyright was abotu to run out, ti was realsied that any use after that point did not legally have to lead to profits going there. When Steven Speilberg shot Hook, before that point, he made a sizable donation to GOSH and kept that in the contracts drawn up.

What happened was a codicile was added to the Copyright Law, especially for Peter Pan, gauranteeing the terms of Barrie's will were met. The problem with Lost Girls was more around the way Wendy was portrayed than the use of Peter Pan himself.

ClarkKent_DC said:

Travis Herrick said:

He also said that the Adversary was originally going to be Peter Pan. He's always thought of Peter as an evil character, a self-centered abductor of children. But the UK copyright issues with the character (which hit the news when Alan Moore's Lost Girls came out) prevented him from using Peter right away, so the puppet master seemed an obvious replacement.
I had heard that Peter Pan was going to be the Adversary originally, but I never knew why ti was changed. I always figured it was because people figured out who it was so he changed it. Now I know the reason.

Right. My understanding of the matter is a little hazy (even after having read about it more than once), but it seems that the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in England has something akin to a perpetual copyright on the play -- at least, it is entitled to collect royalties on the U.K. edition of the play (per James Barrie's wish) for as long as the hospital exists or until that exception to the copyright law is changed legislatively. With that, the hospital has asserted that it has some rights over the United States version of the story, even though outside of England it is in public domain.

In any event, Willingham didn't want to get into that thicket of legalese.

[Figserello]

Travis Herrick said:

He also said that the Adversary was originally going to be Peter Pan. He's always thought of Peter as an evil character, a self-centered abductor of children. But the UK copyright issues with the character (which hit the news when Alan Moore's Lost Girls came out) prevented him from using Peter right away, so the puppet master seemed an obvious replacement.

I had heard that Peter Pan was going to be the Adversary originally, but I never knew why ti was changed. I always figured it was because people figured out who it was so he changed it. Now I know the reason.

Was there anything in the early chapters to suggest the Adversary might be Peter Pan?

I happened to just have reached the unmasking of the Adversary in my reading of Fables btw.

[Mike Williams]

Nothing overt - there were hints and clues, but to be honest in the early days it was more a case of "Who's not been seen yet and may have taken on the role."

As to the crossover - coming as it did off the back of two strong tales in the main book, it was a bit of a downturn and it's not my favourite tale in the saga.

Figserello said:

Travis Herrick said:

He also said that the Adversary was originally going to be Peter Pan. He's always thought of Peter as an evil character, a self-centered abductor of children. But the UK copyright issues with the character (which hit the news when Alan Moore's Lost Girls came out) prevented him from using Peter right away, so the puppet master seemed an obvious replacement.

I had heard that Peter Pan was going to be the Adversary originally, but I never knew why ti was changed. I always figured it was because people figured out who it was so he changed it. Now I know the reason.

Was there anything in the early chapters to suggest the Adversary might be Peter Pan?

I happened to just have reached the unmasking of the Adversary in my reading of Fables btw.

[Rob Staeger (Grodd Mod)]

More than anything, I just think the two titles didn't play well together. The premise of Fables is that the people in fairytales are actually real people. One of the main premises of Jack around that time (and The Literals) is that they aren't real people, but fictional creations. Playing with those concepts undermines the emotional attachment we have to the Fables cast.

[Travis Herrick (Modular Mod)]

What, Mike said, there was nothing that pointed directly to Peter Pan, but once I heard that was who it was going to be (damn internet spoilers) it made sense to me. It made sense to what they had shown us to that point.

[Dagwan]

Mark Sullivan said:

He said that his target for the Fables run is 301 issues, one more than Dave Sims' Cerebus, the longest-running comic series.

Surely you mean longest-running creator-owned or single-author comic series, right?

---

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -Groucho Marx

Check out the Secret Headquarters (my store) website! It's much better now!

Listen to WOXY.com, it's the future of rock-n-roll!

---

[Mark Sullivan (Vertiginous Mod)]

Dagwan said:

Mark Sullivan said:

He said that his target for the Fables run is 301 issues, one more than Dave Sims' Cerebus, the longest-running comic series.

Surely you mean longest-running creator-owned or single-author comic series, right?

---

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -Groucho Marx

Check out the Secret Headquarters (my store) website! It's much better now!

Listen to WOXY.com, it's the future of rock-n-roll!

---

Yes, of course. That was the context, but I should have spelled it out.

[Mark Sullivan (Vertiginous Mod)]

Rob Staeger said:

More than anything, I just think the two titles didn't play well together. The premise of Fables is that the people in fairytales are actually real people. One of the main premises of Jack around that time (and The Literals) is that they aren't real people, but fictional creations. Playing with those concepts undermines the emotional attachment we have to the Fables cast.

I was looking back on this thread, and I meant to comment on this earlier. I think you've explained what was bothering me about Fables vs. Jack. Thanks!