Watchmen...2?


Koete

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

Alan Moore interview, in which he goes out of his way to be an old curmudgeon and insult everyone possible.

"This is just purely me, but obviously in regard to any of the--what's the word? I don't want to use "creators." I feel that the industry employees who are actually working upon this book--I had only heard of about three of them--but I'm certainly not interested in seeing any of their work. But, I'm unlikely to because I don't read comics anymore and they're never going to do anything outside of comics. I think it's a shame. I can see why the people concerned are involved, having either never created anything original themselves or they did, but it wasn't good enough to get DC out of their current hole."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is basically why I'm cool with a Watchmen sequel, from a rights perspective. Alan Moore is a jackass who I don't think deserves 100% ownership over those characters. Every argument Moore has about DC ripping off his ideas are insane hypocrisy, as most of his most highly praised work (Swamp Thing, Watchmen, Superman, etc.) used other peoples' characters or ideas in new ways, just like he's criticizing these new people for doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KW, did you actually read the interview? He actually covered all of your points there and he wasn't quite as hypocritical as you claim he was. In particular, he understood fully that he was getting the characters from other creators and that they would probably pass to other creators once he was done with them whereas he did Watchmen with the understanding that he and Dave Gibbons would end up owning it in the same way that any author ends up owning their book. If what he says about a clause that gives DC power of attorney over his end of the contract is true, that is a shocking abuse of contract law.

At times he may sound like a paranoid fantasist, but really, why did DC want Wildstorm? Would it have been anywhere near as valuable to them if it was just Jim Lee, Gen13 and StormWatch?

Honestly, I think a more salient quote from the interview is this:

‎"Yeah, I know that people think I've been terribly mean to the poor little American comics industry. It's so unfair when you think about it, isn't it, that you've got a barely-educated fuck from the English midlands picking upon this huge multinational corporation. You know, I ought to be ashamed of myself."

I massively disagree with his position that nothing of value has come out of the comics industry in 25 years as we've had Criminal, Preacher, Sandman and 100 Bullets which have been fantastic series that will still be remembered decades from now. I do think it's unfair to say there's no talent in the industry whilst admitting that you've not read mainstream comics in a while.

Still, like I said, his stance on this is actually a lot more consistent and sensible than a lot of people give him credit for. if he comes off like a curmudgeon, it's because DC seem to have gone out of their way to piss him off to the point of contacting him about Watchmen even when he's made it abundantly clear that he wants nothing more to do with it or with them. He actually sounds a lot more positive when he's talking about his current projects, for instance here's an interview about his upcoming book Jerusalem.(www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/features/renowned-writer-alan-moore-pens-huge-book-based-in-historic-area-of-northampton-1-3617029) This book will be so esoteric, that I'm sure only a hundred people will buy it and thirty people will read it but he does sound incredibly enthused about it.

I think the final thing that's worth saying about this for my post would be this quote by Alan's daughter Leah Moore:

Bottom line for me is, when he wrote it he loved his job, the medium, the industry, and now he wants nothing to do with it. Whichever way you look at it, the publisher, the reader, the retailer is worse off as a result of all this. We all lose out. Shame it went this way. :/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KW, did you actually read the interview? He actually covered all of your points there and he wasn't quite as hypocritical as you claim he was.

Yes, and yes he was.

He's making himself out to be a victim. Every few paragraphs, he makes a dramatic statement about a falling out with either DC or an individual, like he's punctuating the points of a soap opera. I'm sure in his mind he's entirely justified, but the sheer level of arrogance he exudes and his intense disrespect for others makes me question everything he's saying. The fact that he's admitting he's never read anything by those other creators and yet he's sure they're nowhere near as good as he is (refusing to even acknowledge them as creators) proves that his ego is more important to him than the actual work that's being done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He IS a victim. He didn't always hold the position he does now. it was developed as a response to DC's shabby treatment and then further musings on how the industry treated creators before him, in particular Jack Kirby. The points he made about the industry firing writers and artists who even talked about unionising were entirely right.

The way that the Watchmen deal was supposed to work was that the rights were eventually supposed to go back to Moore and Gibbons. The creator owned aspect of it was part of the marketing.

The grain of sand that started this bitterness pearl was DC selling the badges and trying to get away with not paying Moore and Gibbons for it by classifying them as "promotional material".

I agree that ragging on the creators involved when he admits he's not familiar with their work was a shitty thing to do, but he was being hyperbolic and venemous about this project and everyone involved because of all the shit that's gone along with Watchmen since its publication. I'd imagine he'd feel a lot happier about other people working with these characters if a) DC had stuck to the spirit of the contract when Watchmen did become such a success [i venture that they'd still be reprinting it with his approval if they had] and b) said creator had actually generated the story idea and approached him or DC with it rather than DC deciding that they're going to "exploit their property" and hire in writers and artists to shore up the number of things you can stick the word "watchmen" on. These books seem like they're going to be the equivalent of straight-to-DVD sequels,

I really like a lot of the talent involved with these books, in particular I don't think anyone inks Andy Kubert's work as well as Joe Kubert and I really liked the issues of Darwyn Cooke's The Spirit that I read, but I just can't get excited about anything they're doing here.

I also feel really badly for Dave Gibbons as he doesn't seem to be coming out of this very well. I'm sure that DC probably did see Dave as someone who could be a peacemaker and it's fairly upsetting that Moore's ended their friendship over it. I really quite like Dave as he's always come off as a nice guy and he's provided a few webinars about Manga Studio that have been very useful. I wouldn't put it past DC to have offered Steve Moore the Watchmen novelisation as a way to lay some groundwork to try and repair their relationship with Alan.

Alan Moore may come across as "repugnant", "a raging dickweed", arrogant and disrespectful, but it only ever comes across like that when he's talking about this subject. On his current projects he always comes across as fairly jovial, quite pleasant and usually his speech is brimming with self deprecating humour. For instance here's a story about his upcoming book Jerusalem (http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/features/renowned-writer-alan-moore-pens-huge-book-based-in-historic-area-of-northampton-1-3617029). If you haven't watched it yet, I'd highly recommend "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" which is basically an hour and a half of him giving his thoughts on literature, culture and society.

If I'm coming across like a massive fanboy, it's because I am. There's a sizeable portion of my library which is filled with Alan Moore books and I can't give DC any slack on this one because it seems like they've never appeared to have any remorse over killing the golden goose on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't blame the man for any of the vitriol he has towards DC and what they've done to the Watchmen property, at all. He's definitely right to be angry on that front.

But at the same time, for fuck's sake, give the creators a chance and don't shit all over them. Is this going to be as brilliant as the original? No, highly doubtful, but I think that there are a few titles coming out of it that will be able to stand on their own legs. If it ends up being a massive failure, then yeah, Moore gets to look right. But if it's a moderate success, then he kind of looks like an ass. Yeah, the prequel's safe, as there's going to be major benchmarks for each of those characters that are hit, but there's still enough space in between the lines that the writers can tell their own stories and pay tribute to Moore.

Honestly, I think the fact that DC's pursuing this project in the first place has a lot to do with the new 52 not doing what they'd hoped it would revenue wise, and this is a surefire way to try and get bank. Does it suck? Hell yeah. But I'd like to think its indicative of a larger issue with the company as it is currently, and not something they've been secretly planning for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One, I don't blame you for being a fanboy. If this were a conversation, about Denny O'Neill, I'd be doing exactly what you are. But my issue comes from the way Moore flagrantly disrespects the entire industry, just becausr he's pissed off at DC. He's a hell of a writer, I can't deny that, but he consistently undermines any creator thay comes after him. I remember him using Blackest Night as an example of how DC is still milking his ideas, 25 years later. Despite the fact that it was basically a throw away line im a Green Lantern annual. Yes, the industry has fucked over countless creators, but it's Moore's incredible arrogance that irks me the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undeniable fact #1: Moore is one of, if not the, pre-eminent writer of comics of the past 30 years.

Undeniable fact #2: Moore was treated in about as shitty a fashion as humanly possible by DC Comics.

Neither of these facts mitigates the fact that Moore is not only attacking the company that legitimately did him wrong, but everyone else in the field, simply because they draw a paycheck. Darwyn Cooke, just as an example, has done nothing to harm Moore in any way. He did not tell Moore that the rights to Watchmen would revert back to him and Gibbons, only to ensure the circumstances that would lead to that happening would never come to pass. He did not sell Watchmen merchandise and cheat Moore and Gibbons out of the profits by claiming they were "promotional items" and therefore not eligible. Cooke was nowhere near the boardrooms where those decisions were taken. Moore has a legitimate beef with DC and with Warner. He does not have a legitimate beef with Cooke, or JMS, or Kubert, or anyone else involved in this new project.

Do I think the world needs more Watchmen? No. Do I begrudge DC for creating it? No. It's theirs. Moore took characters that belonged to Charlton (not Moore) and had been sold to DC (not Moore) and then put fresh coats of paint on them and told a STUNNING story which was then sold to DC (not Moore) and paid for and printed and publicised and shipped by DC (not Moore).

Moore is an unbelivably amazing and gifted writer. He is also egomaniacal, at least somewhat deluded, and in this particular case, a world-class asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That fresh coat of paint was as much Dave Gibbons as Moore. Gibbons doesn't get nearly enough credit for the way that book turned out. Moore's prose is strong, but honestly, parts of the plot (the stuff with the writer, the Pirate stuff), gets a little muddy. Gibbons' art does more for Moore's story than vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. One of the things I loved about the lead up to the Watchmen movie in 2009 was that FINALLY Dave Gibbons was getting a light shined on him. That story would not have worked with virtually any other artist. The only reason he was getting that light shined on him - that Moore was shouting "I'm going to stand in this corner and you can't play with me!" - notwithstanding, he was finally getting some of the recognition he was due. DC dicked him around every bit as thoroughly, but he was a grown-up about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed about Gibbons not getting the praise he deserves, but that was never due to Moore. He always went out of his way to say that it was his and Dave Gibbons' story and that it wouldn't have been possible with any other artist.

I've had some more thoughts on Moore denigrating all of the creators working on these books. Okay, imagine there's a book that is widely acknowledged as pretty much the most intelligent use of the comic medium ever. It's also widely acknowledged that the creators of the book were screwed by a pretty dodgy deal and one of them has been so upset by this company that he's been incredibly vocal about the matter. So all this is a given and a book which was meant to be a big step in moving away from the work-for-hire model has been kept from its creators and probably won't go back to them in their lifetime.

Now, given all this if the company decides that it's going to make more work based on this and they hire you to write or draw a part of it, wouldn't it be a pretty big insult to that writer, who has made his feeling on the matter very clear on several occasions, if you took that job? Is it not a tacit endorsement of the company's misdeeds?

The more I think about Moore's position, the more I end up agreeing with him. His idea of the industry hiring fans as scabs is especially ringing true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, I'd have to say we need to look at what the people involved with the project have to say.

“I don’t feel any more trepidation than Alan [Moore] did by refitting the Charlton characters,” Cooke said. “It feels like the right time and the right place and I think I have a strong idea.”

Cooke has taken on daunting legacy work before. He earned rave reviews for his revival of Will Eisner’s “The Spirit,” and his “Richard Stark’s Parker” comics, based on the hard-boiled crime classics, have been hailed as well.

Still, Cooke turned down the first “Before Watchmen” overture from DC.

“I said no out of hand because I couldn’t think of a story that would measure up to the original — and let’s face it, this material is going to be measured that way — and the other thing is, I frankly didn’t want the attention,” Cooke said this week. “This is going to generate a lot of a particular type of attention that’s really not my bag. But what happened is, months after I said no, the story elements all just came into my head one day; it was so exciting to me that, at that exact moment, I started seriously thinking about doing the book.”

Cooke declined to reveal too much about that story — there’s no upside to that at this early date — but he said that in going back to the original epic, he decided to push away from the bleak, dystopian aura of Moore’s tale for “Minutemen,” which will be set in the 1940s and 1950s.

“My instincts tell me that I should be bringing what I’m capable of bringing to this party,” Cooke said. “There’s a part of the characters that is heroic or they wouldn’t be together in this way. I know there’s a lot of self-interest involved but there’s got to be a heroic level to each of them. I realized that’s the part of the story I can tell, that side of it.”

http://herocomplex.l...-on-classic/#/0

Also, if we're going by that logic, then no superhero comics should exist beyond the original runs of the persons who created them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC dicked him around every bit as thoroughly, but he was a grown-up about it.

I'd put it more down to artists being less able to produce as many works in a career as a writer, so he didn't have Alan Moore's legacy of work to fall back on. Love Gibbons but Moore list of works is undeniably more impressive. It's a bigger deal for him to walk away.

Also, if we're going by that logic, then no superhero comics should exist beyond the original runs of the persons who created them.

Which isn't what Moore's saying. He created John Constantine, he's not raving any time someone does something with that character because it was created to continue existing beyond his attention. He doesn't complain that Geoff Johns bases a huge amount of the modern Green Lantern Mythos on a story he wrote. It's about the nature of the original concept of the Watchmen book, which was one of the first attempts at a major company doing something with a nod to creator ownership. It was only supposed to be 12 issues under the creators control, now DC is going back on that and it's purely because it was successful.

I tend to think Moore's partially nuts of his own accord but also nuts because the last decade every conversation he's had about comics has included talk of the movies he wants no part of and his shabby treatment by DC. Have that conversation 1000 times and you'll start talking like a nutcase wizard from Northampton too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moore has every right to be upset about the way he was treated. He does not have every right to lash out at uninvolved parties.

It boils down to this conversation moore had with DC in 1985:

MOORE: I have a story idea.

DC: We will pay you for this story.

MOORE: Excellent. Here's your story.

DC: Here's your money.

And... scene. DC paid Moore (and Gibbons, let's not forget him) 8% royalties on sales of the series, which was not an insignificant sum of money. DC also paid the creators for the rights to the characters. One year after DC stopped publishing the story, the rights were going to revert to Moore and Gibbons. This was absolutely unprecedented at the time. The fact that DC never stopped making money off this property was totally unforeseen by either party. And yes, this was artifically drawn out by DC and Warner, and they deserve every shred of vitriol they get for that action. But Moore signed that agreement with his eyes wide open. He wasn't (to quote a comparison I've heard before) a kid with no idea what he stumbled into and signed away his life's work for pocket change like Jerry Siegel. He was a grown man, well into his thirties, who was offered a contract that rewarded him handsomely. Which is not to say that money is the be-all and end-all, it's absolutely not. But Moore is throwing a tantrum and he's targeting people that absolutely do not deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well given the even shabbier treatment of Siegel, Shuster, Kirby and more there's an argument to say that perhaps they shouldn't. It's a complicated problem, after all there were quite a lot of good Spider-man stories after Lee and Ditko left (as well as quite a lot of shit ones.)

Superman, Batman and Spider-man et al have become a part of our cultural lexicon and deservedly so but you can't deny that there was some pretty horrible real history to go along with the great stories that we've gotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely don't deny that. As well as Bob Kane made out, what happened to Bill Finger is inexcusable.

However, DC/National bought Superman for a ham sandwich and a backrub, and allowed Joe Shuster to go blind and live out his life in abject poverty. They bought the rights to Watchmen for millions and gave Alan Moore the freedom to write whatever he wanted for the rest of his life. What happened to Moore and what happened to Shuster are not the same thing by a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(just so you know, your last post appeared after I started writing mine)

I agree that what happened to Siegel and Shuster was far, far worse than what happened to Moore and Gibbons. That doesn't excuse DC's treatment of Moore and Gibbons though and whilst it is easy to say now that he signed a contract therefore knew what he was getting into, we can be cynical about it because of the benefit of hindsight. If what Moore said about DC giving themselves his power of attorney in the contract is true (and I haven't seen anyone from DC dispute it yet) that is an incredible abuse of contract law. I would love to see that clause if there's any way to get that contract online.

I don't think it's fair to excuse DC's bad behaviour in the 80s because their behaviour in the 30s was far more monstrous. Certainly Alan did well financially out of Watchmen, but I don't think that was his main concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want to sound like I'm defending DC. What they did was wrong. Period. End of. Totally and utterly indefensible.

However, Moore needs to direct his anger at the people who did the wrong thing, and not the company, its past employees, its future employees, anyone who buys this series, and the tree in the back yard that won't stop looking at him funny.

I think we've reached the "agree to disagree" portion of the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.