I'm not sure what is the connection between Jodorowsky and Moore or Morrison? That they do "weird" stuff? That their work is often mentioned as top tier comics stuff?
Being influential and held in high esteem is a part of it. Another is that all three explore themes of religion, mysticism, metaphysics. Their work often comes close to being metafiction too.
By saying "do weird stuff" you are overgeneralizing. People like Pat Mills, Gaiman, Miura, and Ito are held in high regard and "do weird stuff" too. At the same time, their subject matter and style are not very similar to Jodo, Moore, and Morrison's.
Then there is the fact that all three creators consider themselves mystics, and talk about magic as if it were real. Morrison is trying to cast spells or sigils or whatever with his literary work. Moore also tries to cast spells, but he does so through rituals and worship of snake god Glycon. Jodorwsky dabbles in shamanism and magic too, but his psychomagic seems more like a life philosophy focused on self improvement rather than spectacle of Moore's and grandiose aims of Morrison's. Magical aspects are trash, but at least Jodorowsky's preaching encourages valid techniques like meditation and art to improve your mental health. At least that's my perspective based on limited exposure to each writer's brands of magic.
Lastly, I said in my previous post that Moore and Morrison are not ideal equivalents to Jodorowsky.
Nepotism might be why King is employed, but it does not explain why some higher up decided that Adam Strange should be turned into traitorous war criminal. From what I know King doesn't chose characters, editors pick them for him.
Nepotism not only allows you to get a job, but affects the way your superiors treat you. Someone with more connections can get away with more, management is more likely to listen, and has more protection from getting sacked. That's how some writers avoid consequences of tanking sales numbers and upsetting readers. Some of them even end up in important creative roles.
Generally, big two are protective of popular characters but much less so of smaller ones. Batman makes a lot of money, so DC is hands on with the character. That's why bat dick and bat cunnilingus get censored. Niche characters do not make much money so the possible loss is low, and risky ideas might pay off. For example, Gaiman's Sandman happened because DC let Gaiman run wild with The Sandman revamp. In case any of them are fail, people will forget quickly.
Sometimes DC picks characters, and sometimes writers pitch their own ideas to DC. Someone well connected will be more likely to get his idea approved. Same goes for situations when a writer wants to use a specific character in their story. King likes Keiff Giffen and De Matteis' work, and coincidentally he gets to use quite a few characters they worked on. In addition, he gets to write major heroes too and DC even sanctions his non-superhero work. Not only that, but King seems to get to do what he wants with them too. That mostly ends up in a repetitive, mopey stories about PTSD.
My point is actually different. Dixon is commenting on creatives. Writers and artists. I'm talking about editors.
Brief rant, Dixon and Cooke are exhibits A and B of the writer ends problem.
Dixon kept trying to make DC superhero titles into pirates, Westerns, and shit. Batman isn't a fucking pirate book anymore than its a place for you to exorcise your years of murdering muslims. Dixon doesn't really prefer capes and cowls.
I don't think it's 'fanboys.' The fanboys put out good comics. Geoff Johns, Mark Waid, and Jeph Loeb were all actual fans and put out good work.
It was the next generation, the current one that's the problem.
Scott Snyder, Gail Simone, Greg Rucka, and Tom King. Fake Geek Girls. They don't give a fuck about heroes. Many of them actively despise superhero. They write them because you can make more off one issue of Batman than thirty of your indie horror comic at Image.
My point is that beginning around the 90s, the editorial mindset changed. Archie Goodwin may have loved Challengers. But he wasn't going to keep it alive rebooting it and putting talent on it. He took Loeb and Sale and put them on Batman; leading to some really hot selling batman books. Today, editors like Archie don't exist.
Maybe we saw different interviews and articles Dixon wrote. In this one he mentions fanboys' ascent into both creative and managerial positions as a factor that harmed the industry.
He said as much in his interview with Ethan Van Scriver too.
Besides that, big problem with fanboys is that they sometimes like characters or certain versions of them to the point it becomes detrimental. That can extend to both writing and company's management. These sentiments led to Marvel and DC ditching most of their non-superhero titles, writers playing favorites with characters, writing stories inaccessible to someone who is not as obsessed with characters, or writing bad self-inserts so they can live vicariously through them and hang out with their favorite superheroes.
Of course, people obsessed with ideology are even worse. They see art as little more than means to spread their propaganda.
