11 O'Clock Comics Episode 94

[Farrell]

I'm seeing it more like the situation with the Cthulhu mythos: there's a lot of potential in the world HPL created and lots of writers would love to roll up their sleeves and play in it. It doesn't take away anything from Lovecraft, for me, when someone writes a splatter-punk Cthulhu story. (I think HPL would hate them and all of the films with his name on them, by the way.)
I don't want or need them, but my panties remain unbunched when they get collected and published, because I still have my Lovecraft stories. 

Great example.  This really is an issue that I'm of two minds on.  I guess part of it is that I can't help but think any followups to Watchmen will be virtually guaranteed to be inferior.  As it is, if someone says "I just read Watchmen", no one would ask "Which one?" or anything like that.  It is what it is, and it's instantly recognizable.  The original work would always be the original work in a sea of prequels, sequels and spin-offs, but there is a sense it might be drowned in them.

[Dave A]

Its not the samething because Moore was working for DC at the time he was writing it if Im not mistaking.

Not really, at least not in that lock-stock "I work for Disney, so every idea I come up with is owned by Disney automatically" kind of way. The deal was that they would do the book, DC would be the publisher, and then whenever the book eventually went out of print the rights would revert to the authors. Keep in mind that this was in a very different era of comics, when we weren't seeing trades of the last six issues of X-Men every half year... so the expectation was that the book would have a trade paperback that would go through one, maybe two printings, and then the rights would revert. The expectation certainly was not that the book would never go out of print, that the film rights would be sold without the authors' permission, or that there would be a toy line featuring your very own Rorschach action figures.

Well you certainly hit a personal note with me by comparing it to Salinger, because I will bulldoze someone's house if they try to sequelize Catcher, I'll tell you what. 

THAT said, I think the premise we have to go on isn't whether they SHOULD do it (I damn sure wish they would leave Watchmen well enough alone) but whether they WILL do it and, if they do, how would we react? As I get older I find it is just exhausting to be upset and angry about things, much less things I can't control.

I would say there's an EXCELLENT chance that I, along with my fine co-hosts, would be very unhappy with the finished product of a Watchmen 2 or whatever. BUT, conceptually, I can't in good faith totally disregard it until I saw it for myself to judge.

To be clear, I don't want more Watchmen. But if DC's going to make more Watchmen stories (which they will), I'd hope they put high-quality talent on them and do it anthology-style. I'm seeing it more like the situation with the Cthulhu mythos: there's a lot of potential in the world HPL created and lots of writers would love to roll up their sleeves and play in it. It doesn't take away anything from Lovecraft, for me, when someone writes a splatter-punk Cthulhu story. (I think HPL would hate them and all of the films with his name on them, by the way.)
I don't want or need them, but my panties remain unbunched when they get collected and published, because I still have my Lovecraft stories. 

Yeah, I mean, I don't want to seem like I'm irate and ready to boycott DC or anything... I'm just kinda grossed out by the continued sleaziness of the whole thing. Just because DC is a business doesn't give them carte blanche to play havoc with other people's art, IMO. They may have the legal right to do it, but no moral ground whatsoever, and that's a distinction I'm making for myself since the law can't or won't. I don't care if these follow-up stories are written by God, pencilled by Jesus, and inked by Budda... it's junk.

[Wood]

To be fair, Moore and Gibbons were also working under the assumption that they would get the rights to the work back eventually.

Let's be honest, that was a very foolish assumption. In business, you don't make assumptions like that. I'm not trying to be coy or dismissive. In an ideal world, the DC suit's word as they sat across the table would've been bond. But when it comes to protecting yourself, Gibbons and Moore should've never assumed good faith; you get things in writing and make sure you pay good lawyers to help ironclad your stake!

[VinceB]

They may have the legal right to do it, but no moral ground whatsoever...

When the former's in play, the latter has no sway.

[Wood]

When the former's in play, the latter has no sway.

Exactly. And believe me, it SUCKS that such is the case. But we're all adults, and we can accept reality. And the reality is, get it in writing, and then STILL hope that you didn't leave any outs that a crafty legal team could maneuver through.

[Andy Jewett]

The outro music is great.

[Dave A]

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I don't want more Watchmen myself, but I gotta ask....where do you think that line should be drawn?  Alan Moore created John Constantine in the pages of Swamp Thing, told his story with him, and (to my knowledge) never touched him again.  But DC took the character and gave him his own series, and the rest is history.  Would it have been better if that had never happened?

The thing there is that there was a different expectation... Moore was working on an established property (Swamp Thing) with the knowledge that anything he added to said character's mythos was fair game under the DC umbrella. And, to my knowledge, he's never balked at anything done with Constantine since then, or claimed ownership... he even hand-picked Jamie Delano to write the ongoing series when it started.

To me, it's the difference between Brubaker's Cap and Brubaker's Criminal. If Bru got upset with something Marvel did with some creation of his for Cap, I'd say, "What're you, retarded? What did you think would happen?" But if Marvel found some weird loophole that allowed them to retain all rights to Criminal, I'd say Bru would have a right to be a bit pissy.

Let's be honest, that was a very foolish assumption. In business, you don't make assumptions like that. I'm not trying to be coy or dismissive. In an ideal world, the DC suit's word as they sat across the table would've been bond. But when it comes to protecting yourself, Gibbons and Moore should've never assumed good faith; you get things in writing and make sure you pay good lawyers to help ironclad your stake!

I think that, based on the business model of the time, that was ironclad, and the best thing you could get out of a comic book publisher. It's easy to call it foolish in hindsight, but the deal was done when comics were still considered largely disposable. At that time, there probably had never been a comics work steadily in print for 5 years, much less 20.

Either way, DC having the legal right to do it doesn't mean I have to buy any of it, like it, or even accept it.

When the former's in play, the latter has no sway.

I know... that's why I say I'm making the decision for myself. I make up my own laws sometimes. 

[William Joseph Dunn]

Let's be honest, that was a very foolish assumption. In business, you don't make assumptions like that. I'm not trying to be coy or dismissive. In an ideal world, the DC suit's word as they sat across the table would've been bond. But when it comes to protecting yourself, Gibbons and Moore should've never assumed good faith; you get things in writing and make sure you pay good lawyers to help ironclad your stake!

I would agree with this up to a point, but I don't think anyone would have foresaw Watchmen being in print for over 3 years back in '86. this was a time before it was really common that monthly issues were collected for trade paperbacks.

loved the Afrodisiac talk. my comic shop sold out of it pretty quick. when everybody at work who went to the comicshop that day compared purchases, a lot of people had Afrodisiac on their pile.

[Wood]

I would agree with this up to a point, but I don't think anyone would have foresaw Watchmen being in print for over 3 years back in '86. this was a time before it was really common that monthly issues were collected for trade paperbacks.

loved the Afrodisiac talk. my comic shop sold out of it pretty quick. when everybody at work who went to the comicshop that day compared purchases, a lot of people had Afrodisiac on their pile.

Glad you enjoyed it, and THANKS A TON for the Act-i-vate primer. That was Dean Haspiel's signature right? I couldn't make it out, but the D was pretty obvious so that's what I took it to be.

[Julian Lytle]

Hey thanks for them shout outs guys. And yes chris there are TWO Julians. I for one do not embrace the Sentry. I do not endorse his bitchassness. Even in heroclix I kill him with Wolverine.

Also, this was the toughest page in the world last week.


Second toughest



And Wood Siege is the only marvel title I am buying and it is trill to death. But of course Vince, Jubilee with a Rocket launcher would be trill to the point of being OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!

The scene where Ares finds out he got played is like Omar in season 2 of The Wire.

[VinceB]

I make up my own laws sometimes. 

Me, too! You have to admit, though, because of that fact we do run the risk of being branded as nutjobs.

To hell with them, I say! All hands on deck! Full steam, ahead, Mr. A! FULL STEAM AHEADDDDDDDD!

[VinceB]

Oh, I do loves me some One Piece. 

Cartooning, large and loud. Nothing better.

[El Dave]

Just ordered Afrodisiac from InStockTrades. 

[Dotanuki]

My thoughts on the Bass vs. Harp argument:



 

Wicked karma for this.   This was on tap when my wife and I kicked around Soho and Trafalgar Square in London, August '08, in town to see my cousin marry a nice British gal/artist.

As a White/Puerto Rican dude who's always felt like he could pass as one culture yet has identification/connection to others I've often felt semi-conflicted about my enjoyment of blaxplotation media. The Mack was a staple of my fellow suburban Seattlite punk rock pals in the early 90s...I'm Gonna Get You Sucka and Hollywood Shuffle as well. I think I get what Wood and others are talking about re: the positive elements of this genre and its aftermath: taking the absurdity of stereotypes/legends/etc about a culture and taking them back from those who would use them to hurt others. I've been thinking about this lately while heading back to read Jack of Fables in trade-paperback through the library...

the "Sam" character is of particular interest to me. My wife clued me in to his identity...I was ignorant of his history beyond some early-90s rap that dealt with the Sambo myth. I had no clue that it originated in India.

[Julian Lytle]

Oh, I do loves me some One Piece. 

Cartooning, large and loud. Nothing better.

ain't it 

[deadcowaroma]

Yeah, I mean, I don't want to seem like I'm irate and ready to boycott DC or anything... I'm just kinda grossed out by the continued sleaziness of the whole thing. Just because DC is a business doesn't give them carte blanche to play havoc with other people's art, IMO. They may have the legal right to do it, but no moral ground whatsoever, and that's a distinction I'm making for myself since the law can't or won't. I don't care if these follow-up stories are written by God, pencilled by Jesus, and inked by Budda... it's junk.

I'm with you. Plus, I have no real interest in visiting the "Watchmen Universe" again anyways. I got everything I wanted from Moore and Gibbons.

[darrell]

I think Dave Gibbons is pretty happy with the popularity of the book and the money and recognition he has had because DC is doing so much with the property.

[HooHaH!]

Regarding the 'Watchmen 2' talk (and I haven't listened to the ep yet so forgive me if this has already been covered) but I think we're seeing the first volley from the new 'DC Entertainment'.  Its easy to imagine corporate looking at the number of Watchmen collections moving thru bookstores the last couple of years and bending Didio's ears.  I doubt if the comic division's new overlords are capable of making a distinction between the creators and their creation.  It's not Moore and Gibbons--it's Rorschach and Manhattan, the Comedian, etc.  Why (I'm assuming they would ask) are they any different then Batman, Superman and Spider-Man?

[darrell]

I tried to watch One Piece when it was shown on Saturday mornings but It just didnt keep me interested.

[Julian Lytle]

I tried to watch One Piece when it was shown on Saturday mornings but It just didnt keep me interested.

That version was heavily edited. I've also never seen it animated. I read it each week.