Jim Lee Speaks about Alan Moore...

[JimN]

Or create a series featuring Captain Atom, the Question, Peacemaker, Blue Beetle, Nightshade, and Thunderbolt.

LOL! Well-played.

Jim

[Jordan]

I don't know about idiot, but he doesn't always come across in the best light. In some interviews he comes across as childish, sometimes bitter. I don't know if I've ever heard or read anything involving him where I thought he sounded intelligent and together.

Maybe I'm going over the top but hear me out.  Alan Moore, at one time, seemed to want ownership and control of Watchmen, probably still does.  DC seemingly offers him a way to get it, but he doesn't take it, then complains and seems bitter about it all. 

What.  The.  Hell?

Just write the damn stories! 

[Ted Falconi]

Or create a series featuring Captain Atom, the Question, Peacemaker, Blue Beetle, Nightshade, and Thunderbolt.

So really, if DC hadn't told Moore "no, take these Charlton characters and change their names and costumes" we'd be arguing that Steve Ditko and Joe Gill's heirs were the ones being ripped off.

[William Joseph Dunn]

So really, if DC hadn't told Moore "no, take these Charlton characters and change their names and costumes" we'd be arguing that Steve Ditko and Joe Gill's heirs were the ones being ripped off.

no because Ditko and Gill were never promised ownership of their creations.

[Planck length]

no because Ditko and Gill were never promised ownership of their creations.

as a attorney i will tell you no matter how frank you are with your clients they will always come back complain that you "promised" them the most favorable outcome you said might happen if they were lucky. that is why you put things in writing. all we know is what Alan Moore thinks happened.

[Wood]

that's not true though. Moore and Gibbons were NEVER offered the FULL and COMPLETE rights to Watchmen EVER. Moore and Gibbons were offered the rights to reprint their own TPB collection of Watchmen in exchange for being involved in the prequels in some capacity. Keep in mind this was after it sold a million copies (pretty much anyone who wants a copy has it anyway), it would have to compete with the prequels on the shelf, and DC's version of the trade. Hardly a fair or respectful deal, more of a slap in the face.

Not saying you're wrong, but when I read quotes from Moore himself like this:

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/alan-moore-watchmen-rights-100721.html

I don't see much wiggle room from the notion that he balked at a significant financial deal as a matter of principle.

[Jordan]

no because Ditko and Gill were never promised ownership of their creations.

How is DC's fault the damn thing never went out of print? 

"O hey, that evergreen title that keeps selling... yah, lets not sell that anymore."

[malpractice]

Not saying you're wrong, but when I read quotes from Moore himself like this:

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/alan-moore-watchmen-rights-100721.html

I don't see much wiggle room from the notion that he balked at a significant financial deal as a matter of principle.

there was a big interview a month or two back where he explained in vivid detail to clarify exactly what was offered to him by DC and it was what i described above (i'll try and find the interview again for the exact quote).

[evaD]

Because he doesn't want anyone else to butcher his children?

I have a couple thoughts related to that.
1. This isn't a new complaint from him. He's had this same beef for what, 20 years? And they already butchered it with the movie.
2. Rather than railing against DC he should be kicking himself for signing that contract. The moment they told him he couldn't use existing characters, he could have taken that story to another publisher or self published. He didn't.
3. I can't remember if it's you, Chris, Jason or Vince who talks about creating something for one of the big two so that it will live beyond the life of the creator. You guys have had that conversation several times, and I don't recall where you personally come down on that, but isn't this an extension of that?
4. I wonder if Moore just wants Watchmen to go away and fade into obscurity. Maybe he doesn't view it as a masterpiece.

[evaD]

Not saying you're wrong, but when I read quotes from Moore himself like this:

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/alan-moore-watchmen-rights-100721.html

I don't see much wiggle room from the notion that he balked at a significant financial deal as a matter of principle.

Not only that, but it makes my take on all this pretty moot. He doesn't want Watchmen back and says he's pretty much washed his hands of the whole thing. Good for him.

[David]

I have a couple thoughts related to that.
1. This isn't a new complaint from him. He's had this same beef for what, 20 years? And they already butchered it with the movie.

Apples and oranges.  He doesn't feel any of his comicbook work should be turned into movies.

[evaD]

Apples and oranges.  He doesn't feel any of his comicbook work should be turned into movies.

That's what I'm referring to, though. DC has already done something to the property that he didn't want done. The prequel thing is the first time in however many years that they've done anything in comics, but they have butchered the content. You said he might want the properties returned to him so no one could ruin them. DC has been remarkably hands off for a long time. For the majority of the history of the Watchmen's existence, it has been left untouched. I'm just saying that as an argument, "he doesn't want anyone else to butcher his children", doesn't really hold water. In light of what Jason posted it's even less pertinent since Moore said he doesn't want anything to do with it any more.

[David]

I'm just saying that as an argument, "he doesn't want anyone else to butcher his children", doesn't really hold water.

If you feel it doesn't hold water, so be it.

The Batman and Robin movie didn't ruin the comicbooks for me.  Same thing with the Fantastic Four movies and Superman Returns.

I can separate the mediums.  The movies are not the comicbooks and vice versa.  Someone wants to adapt or translate a comicbook to a movie, that doesn't change the Absolute I have sitting on my shelf.  Which is similar to what Moore said when they made the From Hell movie.

[David]

3. I can't remember if it's you, Chris, Jason or Vince who talks about creating something for one of the big two so that it will live beyond the life of the creator. You guys have had that conversation several times, and I don't recall where you personally come down on that, but isn't this an extension of that?

No.

Watchmen was a finite story.  Moore and Gibbons weren't creating characters that were designed to live on after those twelve issues and meet the Justice League of America.

The whole deal structured differently than anything else the Big 2 had going on at the time.

[thefreakytiki]

The Batman and Robin movie didn't ruin the comicbooks for me.  Same thing with the Fantastic Four movies and Superman Returns.

Well said.  My feelings exactly.

 To be honest, I actually liked the Watchmen Movie, I thought it was as faithful a 2 hour movie can be to such a dense text.  Just my opinion.  


One thing that no one seems to point out is that during the HardTalk interview Alan Moore NAIVELY said he gladly signed all those movie options for the $$$ never expecting to have the movies made... and then he was upset when they were actually made.  The man baffles me.


the Tiki

[JimN]

No.

Watchmen was a finite story.  Moore and Gibbons weren't creating characters that were designed to live on after those twelve issues and meet the Justice League of America.

No, but they created characters that clearly had some untold history and that opens the door to stories... before Watchmen.

[Nojfotra (Jonathan D. Gordon)]

I am already tired of this. I have a feeling that Alan Moore would whine
about something else if this didnt happen. Moore is a professional Malcontent.
He wants to pretend like he's is this amazing independent creator and would
that none of his indy success has to do with the fact that DC helped get his
writing on shelves everywhere and making him a household name.

As bad as everyone wants to say the LXG and Watchmen movies were, more people
read his work because of those movies than had ever read them before.

Alan Moore, DC did a lot for you in making you well known and getting your
writing in front of as many eyes as could possibly be. You signed a contract.
DC is cutting you checks. They have earned the right to do what they want
with characters THEY OWN and they helped to popularize.

[David]

No, but they created characters that clearly had some untold history and that opens the door to stories... before Watchmen.

That's debatable.

But to those who want to read them, I hope you enjoy them.

[David]

Alan Moore, DC did a lot for you in making you well known and getting your
writing in front of as many eyes as could possibly be. You signed a contract.
DC is cutting you checks. They have earned the right to do what they want
with characters THEY OWN and they helped to popularize.

And therefore he doesn't have the right to bitch?

[Julian Lytle]

How about this, no one has the right to complain ANYMORE! EVER! So decrees the internets.
 

Also of late none of this is Alan Moore's doing it's people writing about Moore's situation and DC responding to it all.

Now I'm going to go over and Make Resonable Doubt 2 and it will be better than what Jay-Z did, then I'm going to go make Thriller 2 also. HOLLA!