Moore Unsupportive of Synder's Watchmen

[Doctor Jones]

Perhaps I'm in the wrong place, I thought we were discussing Alan Moore's grouchiness.

We are. But what's every thread without getting a little off topic? t:

 

[the_tortel]

Oh, SNAP! t:

Democrats = "Yeah I care about you, but you're really all idiots and I just want to be the President. There hasn't been a Democrat president since Clinton."

Yeah, I wonder why? "Save the enviroment!" F*** the enviroment, what about us?! Actual human beings who actually give a ****.

Like my friend tells me, Democrats have heart, but Republicans have brains.

right!

Kids, no bringing political debates here, the mods, never care for it, so keep it to yourself.

that wasn't really my point, to start an argument, it was how you say, small joke

And both have very big pockets.

yeah, don't I know it!
why can't there ever be a poor man's politician?

how about we don't turn this into a pointless political debate (especially one that involves nothing but ridiculous mud slinging)...

I second that...

 

[S.D. Plissken]

right!

that wasn't really my point, to start an argument, it was how you say, small joke

yeah, don't I know it!
why can't there ever be a poor man's politician?

I second that...

What the hell happened in here?

It's BEDLAM!!!

 

[deathfromabove]

Like my friend tells me, Democrats have heart, but Republicans have brains.

hahaha! yeah that sarah palin is pretty bright. and george w is a true intellectual.

wait, which candidate went to harvard again?



you shouldnt listen to your friend.

and to anyone who thinks an artist shouldnt have control over thier own creations and ideas is a fool.

i may not think moore is right about the film industry but he wrote the god damn book!

why is that so hard to understand? why shouldnt he have a say how his creation should be used?

i havent yet heard anyone answer that.

 

[DarkReflections]

hahaha! yeah that sarah palin is pretty bright. and george w is a true intellectual.

wait, which candidate went to harvard again?



you shouldnt listen to your friend.

and to anyone who thinks an artist shouldnt have control over thier own creations and ideas is a fool.

i may not think moore is right about the film industry but he wrote the god damn book!

why is that so hard to understand? why shouldnt he have a say how his creation should be used?

i havent yet heard anyone answer that.

i agree. if it wasnt for alan we wouldnt even have the graphic novel in the first place.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

i agree. if it wasnt for alan we wouldnt even have the graphic novel in the first place.

Lest we forget the creative imput of co-creator Dave Gibbons?

 

[DarkReflections]

Lest we forget the creative imput of co-creator Dave Gibbons?

i apologize for not putting dave. by the way didn't you used to post over at imdb? your name sounds familiar.

 

[the_tortel]

What the hell happened in here?

It's BEDLAM!!!

me think m never tell lame jokes again

bad idea on my part
---------
nyways, I think it's almost as much gibbons' as it is moore's, almost, I'm guessing this whole thing is due to some major loopholes in moore's contract or something of the like

oh I don't know..

 

[S.D. Plissken]

i apologize for not putting dave. by the way didn't you used to post over at imdb? your name sounds familiar.

Yeah, I sometimes go on IMDB to pick fights with people and generally waste time. But I don't use this name. I use.....another one.

and don't worry, no apology needed on the Gibbons thing. It just irks me sometimes that he gets left out and he is literally half the creative team...actually more than half. He did more than illustrate our favorite book and plus he's really ****ing friendly and cool.

me think m never tell lame jokes again

bad idea on my part
---------
nyways, I think it's almost as much gibbons' as it is moore's, almost, I'm guessing this whole thing is due to some major loopholes in moore's contract or something of the like

oh I don't know..

No worries, Tortel. People piss on each other all the time on these boards. That's why I always bring a raincoat.

t:

 

[the_tortel]

Yeah, I sometimes go on IMDB to pick fights with people and generally waste time. But I don't use this name. I use.....another one.

and don't worry, no apology needed on the Gibbons thing. It just irks me sometimes that he gets left out and he is literally half the creative team...actually more than half. He did more than illustrate our favorite book and plus he's really ****ing friendly and cool.



No worries, Tortel. People piss on each other all the time on these boards. That's why I always bring a raincoat.

t:

dang, and I had one of those cheap disposable ponchos in my truck the whole time!

next time! dang it, next time...

 

[The Navigator]

and to anyone who thinks an artist shouldnt have control over thier own creations and ideas is a fool.

i may not think moore is right about the film industry but he wrote the god damn book!

why is that so hard to understand? why shouldnt he have a say how his creation should be used?

i havent yet heard anyone answer that.

Had he not signed away all those rights to his work years ago, he would still have a say.

 

[DarkReflections]

Yeah, I sometimes go on IMDB to pick fights with people and generally waste time. But I don't use this name. I use.....another one.

i remember you now...maybe lol. click the link in my sig and tell me if you know that comic strip it links to. if you do and you are who i think you are i just want to let you know john gave me permission to help advertise it. im not making it look like its mine.

 

[Bubastis]

and to anyone who thinks an artist shouldnt have control over thier own creations and ideas is a fool.

i may not think moore is right about the film industry but he wrote the god damn book!

why is that so hard to understand? why shouldnt he have a say how his creation should be used?

i havent yet heard anyone answer that.

I knew I liked you.

 

[deathfromabove]

Had he not signed away all those rights to his work years ago, he would still have a say.

he didnt knowingly sign away anything mr. yojimbo.

mtv:So why sell the film rights in the first place?

Moore: My position used to be: If the film is a masterpiece, that has nothing to do with my book. If the film is a disaster, that has nothing to do with my book. They're two separate entities, and people will understand that. This was very naive because most people are not bothered with whether it's adapted from a book or not. And if they do know, they assume it was a faithful adaptation. There's no need to read the book if you've seen the film, right? And how many of the audience who went to see "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" thought, "Hmmm, I've really got to go read 'The Odyssey' "?

When you're talking about things like "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen," I don't have a choice. Those were works which DC Comics kind of tricked me out of, so they own all that stuff and it's up to them whether the film gets made or not. All I can do is say, "I want my name taken off of it and I don't want any of the money." I'd rather the money be distributed amongst the artists. But even though [the filmmakers] were aware that I'd asked that my name be taken off "V for Vendetta" and had already signed my money away to the artist, they issued a press release saying I was really excited about the film. Which was a lie. I asked for a retraction, but they weren't prepared to do that. So I announced I wouldn't be working with DC Comics anymore. I just couldn't bear to have any contact with DC Comics, Warner Bros. or any of this shark pool ever again.

and from the new york times:

"I don't want anything more to do with these works," he said in a recent telephone interview, "because they were stolen from me — knowingly stolen from me."


...by 1989, Mr. Moore had severed his ties with DC. The publisher says he objected to its decision to label its adult-themed comics (including some of his own) as "Suggested for Mature Readers." Mr. Moore says he was objecting to language in his contracts that would give him back the rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" when they went out of print — language that he says turned out to be meaningless, because DC never intended to stop reprinting either book. "I said, 'Fair enough,' " he recalls. " 'You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.'

 

[Evil Twin]

What does that have to do with film rights? Moore had no problem selling away the film rights in the 1980s, where the two properties entered a long period of development hell. That he changed his mind much later about film adaptations doesn't invalidate the initial decision or the rights of the people that bought those rights in good faith. A whole bunch of people that spent countless hours working in good faith on the project. How is Alan Moore changing his mind more than a decade after selling the rights and cashing the check fair to any of them? Is Alan Moore willing to refund the cash outlayed by the rights holders for development that's been done prior?

I'll note that Eddie Campbell, David Lloyd, Kevin O'Neill, and Dave Gibbons have a far different opinions.

I'm sympathetic to Moore to a degree, but it's not like DC is keeping WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA in print to spite Moore, only because there's demand that the initial printings didn't satisfy. As far as contracts go, Moore signed one that was above industry standards of the time. Heck, given the fine presentation that DC has given WATCHMEN over the years and the fact that they haven't gone overboard exploiting WATCHMEN, "Watchmen Babies" is a figment of the imagination of The Simpsons as there hasn't even been a serious spinoff, DC has really treated the property with respect, kept it available to an evergrowing list of readers, and provided a steady flow of royalty income.

 

[Mercurius]

What does that have to do with film rights? Moore had no problem selling away the film rights in the 1980s, where the two properties entered a long period of development hell. That he changed his mind much later about film adaptations doesn't invalidate the initial decision or the rights of the people that bought those rights in good faith. A whole bunch of people that spent countless hours working in good faith on the project. How is Alan Moore changing his mind more than a decade after selling the rights and cashing the check fair to any of them? Is Alan Moore willing to refund the cash outlayed by the rights holders for development that's been done prior?

I'll note that Eddie Campbell, David Lloyd, Kevin O'Neill, and Dave Gibbons have a far different opinions.

I'm sympathetic to Moore to a degree, but it's not like DC is keeping WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA in print to spite Moore, only because there's demand that the initial printings didn't satisfy. As far as contracts go, Moore signed one that was above industry standards of the time. Heck, given the fine presentation that DC has given WATCHMEN over the years and the fact that they haven't gone overboard exploiting WATCHMEN, "Watchmen Babies" is a figment of the imagination of The Simpsons as there hasn't even been a serious spinoff, DC has really treated the property with respect, kept it available to an evergrowing list of readers, and provided a steady flow of royalty income.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? Or want to be, right? DC should hire you.

Now I get this "Evil Twin" fantasy name.

 

[Evil Twin]

You're a lawyer, aren't you? Or want to be, right? DC should hire you.

Now I get this "Evil Twin" fantasy name.

No, but I have had experience with contracts. And know, contrary to opinion, that they are extremely hard to get out of. And they protect certain rights of both parties. How have the filmmakers not fulfilled the terms of the contract they signed when they bought the film rights?

I'm fully on the sides of Moore and Gibbons in regards to the "merchandise vs. promotional material" BS DC tried to pull. And while I understand Moore's point that he and Gibbons expected the material to go out of print at a certain point, I don't think DC is pulling anything underhanded by keeping the book in print because demand is obviously there. Moore could have protected himself by putting a sunset clause in the contract, say 10 printings or 10 years. Gibbons has pretty much owned up that they weren't teenagers at the time and that their mistakes are on them. (I'm not even sure that Gibbons regards it as a mistake. Or at least is able to see the positive aspects, like getting a regular check.)

 

[Mercurius]

No, but I have had experience with contracts. And know, contrary to opinion, that they are extremely hard to get out of. And they protect certain rights of both parties. How have the filmmakers not fulfilled the terms of the contract they signed when they bought the film rights?

I'm fully on the sides of Moore and Gibbons in regards to the "merchandise vs. promotional material" BS DC tried to pull. And while I understand Moore's point that he and Gibbons expected the material to go out of print at a certain point, I don't think DC is pulling anything underhanded by keeping the book in print because demand is obviously there. Moore could have protected himself by putting a sunset clause in the contract, say 10 printings or 10 years. Gibbons has pretty much owned up that they weren't teenagers at the time and that their mistakes are on them. (I'm not even sure that Gibbons regards it as a mistake. Or at least is able to see the positive aspects, like getting a regular check.)

But that's not the point.

The point is, as all of us in our daily lives know well, that greedy companies really trick people naïve in, as you say, "contracts" into believing that's ok and that's the thing to do.

There's a number of cases quite similar to Moore's.

 

[The Guard]

I would tend to agree with Evil Twin.

"And if they do know, they assume it was a faithful adaptation."

What is Moore basing this on? And why would such an intelligent man give a damn about the ignorant assumptions of people?

 

[I Am The Knight]

What does that have to do with film rights? Moore had no problem selling away the film rights in the 1980s, where the two properties entered a long period of development hell. That he changed his mind much later about film adaptations doesn't invalidate the initial decision or the rights of the people that bought those rights in good faith. A whole bunch of people that spent countless hours working in good faith on the project. How is Alan Moore changing his mind more than a decade after selling the rights and cashing the check fair to any of them? Is Alan Moore willing to refund the cash outlayed by the rights holders for development that's been done prior?

I'll note that Eddie Campbell, David Lloyd, Kevin O'Neill, and Dave Gibbons have a far different opinions.

I'm sympathetic to Moore to a degree, but it's not like DC is keeping WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA in print to spite Moore, only because there's demand that the initial printings didn't satisfy. As far as contracts go, Moore signed one that was above industry standards of the time. Heck, given the fine presentation that DC has given WATCHMEN over the years and the fact that they haven't gone overboard exploiting WATCHMEN, "Watchmen Babies" is a figment of the imagination of The Simpsons as there hasn't even been a serious spinoff, DC has really treated the property with respect, kept it available to an evergrowing list of readers, and provided a steady flow of royalty income.

Excellent post. Agred on pretty much everything

 

[Evil Twin]

But that's not the point.

The point is, as all of us in our daily lives know well, that greedy companies really trick people naïve in, as you say, "contracts" into believing that's ok and that's the thing to do.

There's a number of cases quite similar to Moore's.

Dave Gibbons really doesn't seem to think they were "tricked" as much as they were unable to forsee how successful WATCHMEN would be. And, let's not go into thinking that Gibbons and Moore were naive and unaware of what they were getting into. They weren't Siegel and Shuster, Bill Finger, or Jack Kirby. And they were well aware of those cases and signed a contract that was above industry standards. Most contracts didn't even have a rights reversion clause.

I'm not even sure what Moore and Gibbons would really gain by having the rights back. It's doubtful that they would have made any more money over the years, certainly DC has done a good job presenting and marketing the material which probably makes up some of having a better percentage, and I don't even think they want to make spinoffs or prequels/sequels. Other than making sure DC didn't make any money, what's the real gain for them? Heck, Gibbons might be happier that he has to deal with DC instead of Alan Moore for business and it doesn't get in the way of their friendship.

I will say that I don't think Alan Moore really spends much time thinking about the movie or the business. He airs his greivances when someone interviews him and asks him about it, but seems perfectly content otherwise. He probably thinks more about having sex with Melinda Gebbie than he does about DC Comics and movie adaptations.

 

[Mercurius]

Dave Gibbons really doesn't seem to think they were "tricked" as much as they were unable to forsee how successful WATCHMEN would be. And, let's not go into thinking that Gibbons and Moore were naive and unaware of what they were getting into. They weren't Siegel and Shuster, Bill Finger, or Jack Kirby. And they were well aware of those cases and signed a contract that was above industry standards. Most contracts didn't even have a rights reversion clause.

I'm not even sure what Moore and Gibbons would really gain by having the rights back. It's doubtful that they would have made any more money over the years, certainly DC has done a good job presenting and marketing the material which probably makes up some of having a better percentage, and I don't even think they want to make spinoffs or prequels/sequels. Other than making sure DC didn't make any money, what's the real gain for them? Heck, Gibbons might be happier that he has to deal with DC instead of Alan Moore for business and it doesn't get in the way of their friendship.

I will say that I don't think Alan Moore really spends much time thinking about the movie or the business. He airs his greivances when someone interviews him and asks him about it, but seems perfectly content otherwise. He probably thinks more about having sex with Melinda Gebbie than he does about DC Comics and movie adaptations.

Of course, because the whole thing ain't about the money, but about the attitude towards the work and, particularly, himself as writer.

Ozymandias' line of toys is the satyre of that attitude.

And it's pretty obvious that Gibbons and Moore have different opinions on the issue.

But here is necessary to understand Moore's.

 

[Mercurius]

And why would such an intelligent man give a damn about the ignorant assumptions of people?

Intelligent men tend to know it is normally useless trying to make ignorant unwilling people understand. t:

 

[chosen1]

Alan Moore is a great man. Boycott this movie because it is not watchmen.

 

[the_tortel]

right...