Jim Lee Speaks about Alan Moore...

[steve bryant]

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

But Moore was less bothered by the idea of a Watchmen movie at the UK Comic Art Convention in London on September 21st, 1986 in a panel moderated by Neil Gaiman...

FROM THE AUDIENCE: I've heard a rumor that Watchmen has been optioned as a film and a screenplay's been prepared.

MOORE: The screenplay's not been prepared, but the rumor's absolutely true—it's been optioned for a film, and it's looking good. It was a substantial amount of money that was offered for the screen rights. We all know that a Silver Surfer movie has been being made for the past 20 years at least, so a lot of films get optioned, and I can't promise that it will ever get made, but everyone seems very eager with the project. It's not Walter Hill, and I don't know where this Walter Hill story came from. I think it's probably because 48 Hours was directed by Walter Hill and produced by Larry Gordon and Joel Silver who want to do it. I spoke to Joel Silver on the phone, and he seemed like a real nice bloke. He was saying that he wants me to write the screenplay, starting next year maybe, and he also said "Can you do it panel by panel like the comic book?" which I don't think will be possible because that would make a real crap movie, and they're not interchangeable, but the fact that he wants it done like that speaks volumes to me.

—The Comics Journal, number 116, July 1987, page 84, paragraphs 3 and 4

At this point, before the series is even done being produced, Moore sounds like he's okay with a movie, as long as it respects the source material.

How I feel about random aspects of this over-arching story:

• Moore and Gibbons were definitely screwed by the way that the changing market affected the terms of the contract. No doubt about it.

• Since "DC Comics" is not a person, it's hard to know exactly who to blame. Is Paul Levitz responsible for screwing Moore? The book didn't fall out of print on his watch, but he shielded the title from being exploited in the manner it currently is. Is it Dan DiDio? Or Jim Lee? Or Geoff Johns? Or Dianne Nielsen? Or someone even higher up? Or is there an Adrian Veidt at work here, pulling all the strings and orchestrating a villainous scheme? All are partially culpable, but is there a singular one to blame?

• Moore, by his own admission, states he didn't read the contract well. One could argue that Moore, who was a major supporter of the "What About Jack" campaign in the mid-80s, should have been acutely aware of contract terms—especially in light of the changes happening in the industry.

• Watchmen may have initiated a sea change regarding trade paperback reprints, but reprints have always been a part of comics. In fact, at the time of Watchmen, DC was trumpeting a line of reprints on baxter paper, featuring some of their most critically acclaimed runs. One could look at that as foreshadowing.

• Corporations have a long history of screwing people. Too much is justified in the name of "doing business."

• Alan Moore has a long history of falling out with his collaborators. I suspect that, like Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas before him, Moore has started believing his own hype.

• I'd rather see any creator on this list do creator-owned material instead of more work-for-hire; regardless of if it's Batman, Wolverine or Watchmen.

• I admire Chris Roberson for backing his words with action. It's easy to say "I won't work for DC," like many non-DC creators are doing, but it's a different story to actually do it.

• It's naive to expect a corporation to differentiate between "legal" and "ethical." Corporations aren't sentient. And it's both ridiculous and naive to expect a representative of a corporation to volunteer more information than a company line about following a contract.

[David]

But Moore was less bothered by the idea of a Watchmen movie at the UK Comic Art Convention in London on September 21st, 1986 in a panel moderated by Neil Gaiman...

That's crazy.  You don't think someone could change their mind over time, do you?  I mean, not after seeing his other comicbook work butchered for the screen and all.



I poke because I love.

[Julian Lytle]

• I admire Chris Roberson for backing his words with action. It's easy to say "I won't work for DC," like many non-DC creators are doing, but it's a different story to actually do it.

I think DC helped with that a bit.

[RedMoses]

DC expedited it, but he said he was leaving DC and the only thing left to see print was his Fairest arc.  All DC did was pull his Fairest arc as well.

[JimN]

That's debatable.

It's really not, David. I'm not trying to be difficult but Watchmen isn't comprehensive in telling us about it's characters past lives and histories. There are clearly untold stories implied in the text. The characters even talk about some of them. Whether those stories should be told is definitely debatable (and I suspect that's what you meant) but the potential to tell them is right there for anybody to see.

[steve bryant]

That's crazy.  You don't think someone could change their mind over time, do you?  I mean, not after seeing his other comicbook work butchered for the screen and all.

Great point. Moore also changed his mind on his contract from "It's fair," to "Now I'm being screwed. Poor me, I'm persecuted."     (Lighten up, kickers. I'm joking, like David was.)

I poke because I love.

Me, too!   

I think DC helped with that a bit.

I dunno. The more I think about it, the more I think Roberson was left with two options on how to quit: 1) Quit and only get paid for the vouchered, completed work, or 2) Badmouth DC and get paid for the completed, vouchered work AND get a kill fee for the rest. Kudos to the man for choosing the way that takes care of his family and puts food on his table! (I poke because I love, too.)

[Jeppe]

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!

Beyond Reasonable Doubt 

[thefreakytiki]

But Moore was less bothered by the idea of a Watchmen movie at the UK Comic Art Convention in London on September 21st, 1986 in a panel moderated by Neil Gaiman...

This is absolutely in line with his recent Hard Talk statement... I'll take the big option check (multiple actually as it kept starting and stopping) as long as it never gets made.  He can't play surprised when they follow through.  As I stated earlier, Zach Snyder's adaptation was pretty faithful.  Snyder specifically wanted to direct it because he respected the source material so much.


the Tiki

[David]

I'm not trying to be difficult but Watchmen isn't comprehensive in telling us about it's characters past lives and histories.

What I mean (great, I'm becoming one of those posters) is that everything I need is in those twelve issues.  I don't need to see what the characters were doing through someone else's Final Draft or Manga Studio.  Which is why, as I mentioned when it was announced, of the four of us that host the show, I'll be the last to read these stories, if I read them at all.

Watchmen is a tale where I respect the story brought to life by the creators (oh, but Dave Gibbons said he doesn't care and they can make more!) and I choose to not read beyond (or before) their story.

[JimN]

What I mean (great, I'm becoming one of those posters) is that everything I need is in those twelve issues.  I don't need to see what the characters were doing through someone else's Final Draft or Manga Studio.  Which is why, as I mentioned when it was announced, of the four of us that host the show, I'll be the last to read these stories, if I read them at all.

Watchmen is a tale where I respect the story brought to life by the creators (oh, but Dave Gibbons said he doesn't care and they can make more!) and I choose to not read beyond (or before) their story.

I figured that was what you meant.

[David]

I figured that was what you meant.

 

/high five/

[Wood]

This is about as long form an interview as you'll find, and it just happened..

http://www.seraphemera.org/seraphemera_books/Alan_Moore_Interview.html

There's a lot to digest in there, but what is crystal clear is:

1) He gets royalties, and continues to accept them
2) Dave Gibbons, acting as an intermediary for DC, told Alan that DC wanted to give him the rights back to Watchmen

Alan said no, because he thinks that Watchmen is a used husk of an idea now that DC has strip mined. Again, it's perfectly fine for him to think that. But this is NOT NOT NOT the case of a guy being bent over and screwed. There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many cases of that kind of thing happening in comics history that it frustrates me to no end that THIS case -- which isn't germane -- takes center stage.

Again, I love Moore. Think he's the best. But just because the quality of his work is on another level, too many people seem willing to overlook his own decisions and very clear thoughts on this whole soap opera.

[VinceB]

Lots of debate going on in this and other Watchmen-related threads and all of it becomes moot in light of the cold, hard fact that Alan doesn't own the characters. At this point, the hows and the whys concerning his lack of ownership don't matter all that much. He doesn't own the characters. End of story. The ethical questions that arise from DC doing Watchmen books without Moore and Gibbons are smoke to be fanned away by the paper granting DC ownership. Hell, I'm surprised it took DC this long to do something with them.

One can either do like David and pass on the prequels or buy and read them like myself and others. Embrace the project or walk away. Ethical grandstanding isn't going to stop the publication of these books or change the way DC does business.

Alan should have known what he was getting into. If you crawl into bed with the devil, don't be surprised when your ass gets burned.

[JimN]

Lots of debate going on in this and other Watchmen-related threads and all of it becomes moot in light of the cold, hard fact that Alan doesn't own the characters. At this point, the hows and the whys concerning his lack of ownership don't matter all that much. He doesn't own the characters. End of story. The ethical questions that arise from DC doing Watchmen books without Moore and Gibbons are smoke to be fanned away by the paper granting DC ownership. Hell, I'm surprised it took DC this long to do something with them.

Damn, I wish I'd come up with that line.

Great post!

[Wood]

Lots of debate going on in this and other Watchmen-related threads and all of it becomes moot in light of the cold, hard fact that Alan doesn't own the characters. At this point, the hows and the whys concerning his lack of ownership don't matter all that much. He doesn't own the characters. End of story. The ethical questions that arise from DC doing Watchmen books without Moore and Gibbons are smoke to be fanned away by the paper granting DC ownership. Hell, I'm surprised it took DC this long to do something with them.

One can either do like David and pass on the prequels or buy and read them like myself and others. Embrace the project or walk away. Ethical grandstanding isn't going to stop the publication of these books or change the way DC does business.

Alan should have known what he was getting into. If you crawl into bed with the devil, don't be surprised when your ass gets burned.

 

[Jeppe]

Lots of debate going on in this and other Watchmen-related threads and all of it becomes moot in light of the cold, hard fact that Alan doesn't own the characters. At this point, the hows and the whys concerning his lack of ownership don't matter all that much. He doesn't own the characters. End of story. The ethical questions that arise from DC doing Watchmen books without Moore and Gibbons are smoke to be fanned away by the paper granting DC ownership. Hell, I'm surprised it took DC this long to do something with them.

One can either do like David and pass on the prequels or buy and read them like myself and others. Embrace the project or walk away. Ethical grandstanding isn't going to stop the publication of these books or change the way DC does business.

Alan should have known what he was getting into. If you crawl into bed with the devil, don't be surprised when your ass gets burned.

I love ya, Vince 

[Dean S.]

Lots of debate going on in this and other Watchmen-related threads and all of it becomes moot in light of the cold, hard fact that Alan doesn't own the characters. At this point, the hows and the whys concerning his lack of ownership don't matter all that much. He doesn't own the characters. End of story. The ethical questions that arise from DC doing Watchmen books without Moore and Gibbons are smoke to be fanned away by the paper granting DC ownership. Hell, I'm surprised it took DC this long to do something with them.

Yeah....that's about how I've always felt about it.  It always seems like the arguments on this subject are about the way folks wish things were.

[David]

Ty strikes again.

[JimN]

Ty strikes again.

 

That was great, including his closing comments about Yanick Paquette.

Jim

[S. Earl]

That was great, including his closing comments about Yanick Paquette.

Jim

Eric Larsen was set off by that cartoon via Twitter, I thought it was well done and proved a valid point.

 I beginning to think it would just be in my best interest to start unfollowing creators I respect that feel the need to speak there mind on every issue loudly. Boycott's and Hyperbole are wearing me out.