Watchmen Prequels - It's Official

[RickV]

So far you have taken shots at the people he writes with or the place that publishes his articles but not any of his specific posts.

That seems 100% above board to me.

The newsarama piece he is talking about isn't being done by a guest writer it is an editor, that is quite a different situation too.

[Wood]

So far you have taken shots at the people he writes with or the place that publishes his articles but not any of his specific posts.

That seems 100% above board to me.

The newsarama piece he is talking about isn't being done by a guest writer it is an editor, that is quite a different situation too.

You say tomato, I say tomato. I have no interest in "winning" this argument. I'm merely relaying that, as a writer and someone who has a reasonable amount of experience in public analysis and critique, I had some major problems with David's article.

[RickV]

Fair enough.


It is weird Alan Moore isn't even Top 10 for me when it comes to comics writing. It is very much like all the possible film sequels/prequels that get planned that also make no sense.

[Wood]

Fair enough.


It is weird Alan Moore isn't even Top 10 for me when it comes to comics writing. It is very much like all the possible film sequels/prequels that get planned that also make no sense.

Art is subjective, obviously. But to me this viewpoint almost guarantees that I can't fathom having much common ground with you on the industry. I get not thinking he's the best, being THE #1 is always going to be tough to build consensus. But to say that Moore isn't in your Top 10 speaks to either someone who is REALLY contrarian, or someone who's tastes are diametrically opposed to all I hold dear about the craft.

 

[RickV]

Don't get me wrong I love his comics but most of them I can't feel the heart all that comes across is the cold hard craft of the storytelling (If I was to pick favorites it would be V For Vendetta and Top Ten, because these two are the most focused on character at least to me.)

I just tend to shift more towards writers who are also the artists of their comics because usually they are more organic.

[Julian Lytle]

He has the RIGHT to do lots of things. But when you're writing about someone else's journalistic integrity, you better be 100% above board. When people blog or write about publicly traded companies, they note if they have any relationships with them or their competitors -- it's just the right thing to do.

The fact it was written on his own site makes the issue even more troublesome, IMHO, because a lot of people are going to read that and not see it as a guy who is a direct competitor taking shots when the site he has a long association with does the same stuff.

If I were to publish a scathing piece on Comic Book Resources (just picking this out of thin air) and the way they handled Big 2 press releases and treated them all like articles, but never mentioned that I am friends with, and sometimes write for, iFanboy -- you don't think that would be gully?

Ok I usually only see people make a note of that on a station or publication where they are talking about usually their owners i.e. when CNN talks about EW or Time about DC. But not really on everything else and I'd say I consume more news than most people my age. I'll read his post I haven't read it yet.

Would I think it was Gully, why yes but I may ask what context we are using the term. The community is so small in the whole comics "press" game that it's hard not to know or be friends with someone.

I personally think that David Brothers has enough standing in the game that people knows he writes about comics and he's linked by all the comic blogging elite. It's no less seeing a pundit on tv talking about News Corp while still have a piece in the Times that same morning. I don't attribute those views on the Times but to that person. If people can't get that then maybe... let me not even go there.

[LA Rabbit]

Great thread, lots of great things to thinkg about.  I really enjoyed Jim's posts as his arguments developed, but one small issue.

Somehow I think if the characters in Watchmen were being re-purposed as Moore has re-purposed characters by Baum, Stoker, Wells and others the uproar would be even greater than it is over these prequels. 

I do not think the uproar would be greater. I think it would be awesome. I think what people DON'T want to see is just some middling BS that is trying to be watered-down Watchmen. If the creators promised to totally go nuts and play with these corporate toys in a completely unrelated manner to Watchmen, then I think it would be very exciting. Maybe I am just projecting my attitude on others.  Right now the project feels more like a PR exercise that originated at corporate rather than some creators with some crazy, unchained visions that will destroy our minds.

As to Steve's very comprehensive and thoughtful post, I love that he threw in footnotes. Oh yeah, just need to add numbers instead of "*" and I am in heaven.  I mainly have an issue with two elements:

5) You're making yourself look like a douche. Moore hasn't exactly made himself a sympathetic character in the last couple of years. In addition to talking about how DC Comics has screwed him over the Watchmen rights, Moore has made it known how creatively bankrupt the company is by milking his creations (regardless of the fact that he turned in his share of work that was built on the backs of Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson, Dick Sprang, Jerry Seigel, Joe Schuster, Steve Ditko, Len Wein, Bernie Wrightson, and others). That sentiment is ironic in light of the fact that, with the exception of V for Vendetta and The Ballad of Halo Jones, Moore has built a career around playing with other people's toys. Corporate IPs, public domain work, thinly-veiled analogues, historical figures—you name it, it's all fair game for Alan to cut, paste and rearrange. The results are frequently brilliant, but the fact remains that he's playing with other creators' characters—often with no regard for the creators' original vision.**

7) Hindight is 20/20. If Moore had tried to work with Levitz, none of this would be an issue.

** Yes, I've heard the argument that they're not direct sequels, or that it's not canon, or that Moore is crafting something new out of these mash-ups, but it's a semantic argument to rationalize the work by Moore apologists. Once Dorothy Gale goes down on Alice's looking glass, you've lost the argument. 

I think that whether Alan Moore is a douche or not should not matter when it comes to discussing creator's rights. It would be great if he was a really nice guy about everything but he doesn't have to be. It is much easier to feel empathy and identify with the plight of a nice guy but it is irrelevant. I am not saying that his behavior has no consequences and I would completely understand if charities refused aid to him because he was an ass but whether his right's were invoked.

Moore seems to attack DC on at least two separate fronts, (1) the lack of new ideas front and (2) the screwing him out of Watchmen front.  The former is just him slamming DC and I think your arguments regarding his hypocrasy hold up quite well in that context.  Exploring those depths have been done quite well by Jim and the like so I leave it to them to continue exploring those facets. As to the second line, you could certainly take the line that you and Dean have espoused, he signed the contract, he is screwed.  That appears to legally be the case¹, but I as noted to Dean, it does raise the question of whether it is fair and you raise the question of how should one respond in a situation.

Moore's point regarding Watchmen seems to be that DC screwed him and they should just do what he wishes without any additional consideration given by Moore to DC. He wants a big something for nothing based on the idea that the "spirit of the deal" was violated. This is very unrealistic but I do not think it is a stance that is not without merit².

You point out that DC has made overtures that Moore has refused to even acknowledge, much less negotiate. From a practical standpoint, working with Levitz would have acheived the END results that Moore wants, however I can't fault someone who finds the compromise unacceptable. Personally, I have always compromised to acheive the desired ends, but I also feel that it is not a crime to hold fast to your principles. I have met a few of those people, and like Moore, those people have paid the price for taking the principled stand. I would also not have faulted him, if he banged out a quick sequel under Levitz to get his original rights back. Both approaches to the situations have their merits in my mind. Under my compromise ethic, shit gets done, but under the principled stand approach it has helped changed society at times and establish new rights for some.  Loving this thread, sadly there is a chance that this thread may be more entertaining than the comics that are discussed.     

¹I don't care about getting into nitty-gritty legal discussions, I, and I think most others here, care more about the ideas behind those concepts.
²I do not blindly support all principled stands. While this somewhat undercuts my original argument, I am just trying to avoid the inevitable hypothetical where Alan Moore is a Nazi who wants to kill millions of people.

[RickV]

I have crystallized my reasons for distaste when it comes to this project especially in relation to LoEG

In the case of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, comics fans were not clamoring for more adventures of Allan Quatermain or any of the other characters in those stories however Alan Moore had an idea for a cool story so he did it.

In the case of Before Watchmen DC had the idea and contacted the creators secondary. The impetus of the idea was selling more Watchmen product.

[legion of daves]

guys, this means we're getting more darwyn cooke.  say what you will about any of the other creators, but more darwyn cooke is only a good thing. 

[Wood]

guys, this means we're getting more darwyn cooke.  say what you will about any of the other creators, but more darwyn cooke is only a good thing. 

We would be getting more Darwyn Cooke regardless, he's a regularly working artist. It's just that we're getting Darwyn Cooke doing Watchmen prequels instead of Darwyn Cooke doing...something else he's interested in.

[legion of daves]

in my opinion, the more darwyn cooke out there, the better, regardless of what it is.  we're gonna get more parker, we're gonna get BW, doesn't matter, in the case of darwyn, more = better.   

[S. Earl]

We would be getting more Darwyn Cooke regardless, he's a regularly working artist. It's just that we're getting Darwyn Cooke doing Watchmen prequels instead of Darwyn Cooke doing...something else he's interested in.

Like more Parker...

[steve bryant]

As to Steve's very comprehensive and thoughtful post, I love that he threw in footnotes. Oh yeah, just need to add numbers instead of "*" and I am in heaven.  

Ha! The asterisks are an homage to comic footnotes. And besides, actual footnotes, with super-script and smaller font-sizes, take too long. (said the moron who spent 2 hours crafting a "comprehensive and thoughtful post" earlier today)  

I mainly have an issue with two elements:
I think that whether Alan Moore is a douche or not should not matter when it comes to discussing creator's rights. It would be great if he was a really nice guy about everything but he doesn't have to be. It is much easier to feel empathy and identify with the plight of a nice guy but it is irrelevant. I am not saying that his behavior has no consequences and I would completely understand if charities refused aid to him because he was an ass but whether his right's were invoked.

I threw that in for the "court of public opinion" front, and also why I find him tiresome at this point. I usually side with the creators, but he's demonstrated hypocrisy with how he appropriates others' ideas—as well as how he's impeded some of his former collaborators' efforts—that I now find myself rooting against him. Actively, in fact.

Moore seems to attack DC on at least two separate fronts, (1) the lack of new ideas front and (2) the screwing him out of Watchmen front.  The former is just him slamming DC and I think your arguments regarding his hypocrasy hold up quite well in that context.  Exploring those depths have been done quite well by Jim and the like so I leave it to them to continue exploring those facets. As to the second line, you could certainly take the line that you and Dean have espoused, he signed the contract, he is screwed.  That appears to legally be the case¹, but I as noted to Dean, it does raise the question of whether it is fair and you raise the question of how should one respond in a situation.

Moore's point regarding Watchmen seems to be that DC screwed him and they should just do what he wishes without any additional consideration given by Moore to DC. He wants a big something for nothing based on the idea that the "spirit of the deal" was violated. This is very unrealistic but I do not think it is a stance that is not without merit².

You point out that DC has made overtures that Moore has refused to even acknowledge, much less negotiate. From a practical standpoint, working with Levitz would have acheived the END results that Moore wants, however I can't fault someone who finds the compromise unacceptable. Personally, I have always compromised to acheive the desired ends, but I also feel that it is not a crime to hold fast to your principles. I have met a few of those people, and like Moore, those people have paid the price for taking the principled stand. I would also not have faulted him, if he banged out a quick sequel under Levitz to get his original rights back. Both approaches to the situations have their merits in my mind. Under my compromise ethic, shit gets done, but under the principled stand approach it has helped changed society at times and establish new rights for some.  Loving this thread, sadly there is a chance that this thread may be more entertaining than the comics that are discussed.

Regardless of how you or I feel about compromise, Moore has spent the past decade painting himself as The Last Honest Man, unwavering in his adherence to principles and scruples. Moore has only looked at the conflict in absolutes. Paul Levitz, however, was trying to guard the integrity of the project (and the creators), while adhering to his company's contract. That's a tightrope act, and certainly a principled one.

Without that buffer (Levitz), I think Moore is about to face some real absolutes, and get a lesson in the difference between a comic company run by professionals who were fans and a multi-billion dollar entertainment conglomerate.

[Kenney]

I have crystallized my reasons for distaste when it comes to this project especially in relation to LoEG

In the case of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, comics fans were not clamoring for more adventures of Allan Quatermain or any of the other characters in those stories however Alan Moore had an idea for a cool story so he did it.

In the case of Before Watchmen DC had the idea and contacted the creators secondary. The impetus of the idea was selling more Watchmen product.

I think this sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME, but doesn't negate the work that comes as a result. As Vince likes to suggest, judge the work, and the work alone. It's not totally the same, but Batman: The Animated Series came to light in not that dissimilar of a way to cash in on the success of the movie. It just so happened that things fell into place that put Bruce Timm and company in the right place, at the right time, to make something spectacular.

[Wormworth]

Like more Parker...

But is it any more original material? He's doing a straight adaptation, however well crafted and told.

In the same vein it's interesting that Leah Moore demands more OGNs when much of her work is with loyal adaptations of old material (Dracula and Alice in Wonderland) and new stories for old characters (Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, Darkness).

Like Cooke, who has mostly done stories with Batman, Spirit and DC characters which are very much fused with nostalgia.

I hope the people who criticize the Watchmen prequels heavily try to support the original ideas and stories in comics in other ways too. There are a lot of great new series and minis from Image, for example, which are not derivative of old ideas and characters, but pave new ground.

[S. Earl]

But is it any more original material? He's doing a straight adaptation, however well crafted and told.

In the same vein it's interesting that Leah Moore demands more OGNs when much of her work is with loyal adaptations of old material (Dracula and Alice in Wonderland) and new stories for old characters (Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, Darkness).

Like Cooke, who has mostly done stories with Batman, Spirit and DC characters which are very much fused with nostalgia.

I hope the people who criticize the Watchmen prequels heavily try to support the original ideas and stories in comics in other ways too. There are a lot of great new series and minis from Image, for example, which are not derivative of old ideas and characters, but pave new ground.

I don't care if it's adapted or it's original, I just love the first Parker collection with all my heart, no matter it's genesis. Of course this is also found in my living room:

[Julian Lytle]

Like more Parker...

we do get more Parker. Life is good.

[David]

Over on the Grantland blog, Alex Pappademas writes:

Yesterday—in a press release that accomplished in seven paragraphs what could have been taken care of with a list of titles and street dates and the words Tell your god to ready for blood—DC Comics announced plans to revisit the Watchmen universe in seven new miniseries that will act as prequels to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ revered, massively influential work of superhero eschatology. Gibbons, the artist of the original series, gave his blessing in the form of a measured statement wishing all the best to the A-list talent DC’s talked into throwing their bodies on this grenade; writer Moore grumbled something about the company’s continuing dependence on ideas he had 25 years ago and then went off somewhere to burst into flames. Noted reactor-to-things Adolf Hitler—who was not exactly enthusiastic back when chatter about a sequel to Watchmen ramped up in 2010—had yet to weigh in at press time, but comics fans on the Internet were—well, look, nearly everybody saw this coming, so the reaction was less of a der-Fuhrer-pounds-the-table meltdown and more of a deep collective sigh. Expecting a major publisher not to do stuff like this because cool people will think it's gauche is as bad a bet as airport sushi.

Read the rest here.

[Planck length]

"All of this, then, makes it a bit hard to take seriously his anger today and his pronouncements about his original work being taken and used by other people in ways he wouldn’t want. This man frankly made quite a career in comics using other people’s characters and works, and is angry about the reuse of characters whom he explicitly modeled — in very obvious ways — on other people’s existing characters and work."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/02/01/alan-moore-is-wrong-about-before-watchmen/

[LA Rabbit]

Regardless of how you or I feel about compromise, Moore has spent the past decade painting himself as The Last Honest Man, unwavering in his adherence to principles and scruples. Moore has only looked at the conflict in absolutes. Paul Levitz, however, was trying to guard the integrity of the project (and the creators), while adhering to his company's contract. That's a tightrope act, and certainly a principled one.

I do echo your sentiments with regard to Paul Levitz, who certainly appears to have done all he could. He could not just give Moore back the Watchmen property without anything in return and he appeared to offer many options. I would not expect him or anyone to lose his job over this.  

That being said, I still don't have a problem with Moore deciding to not compromise. Some may concur that he is a hypocrite but from my seat he has stood firm. He is going to lose and he is going to continue to pay the price. It isn't going to change whether I buy/read/enjoy the books, but I can't knock a guy for holding to what he believes¹.

¹Subject to my earlier conditions about no Nazis, etc.