If I sell a car, and get good money for it, but then decide that I would rather have my car, then damn right I’m doing to whine about it.

Fair enough. My only caveat would be that Moore is akin to a guy who sold his ’67 Ford Mustang for $10 grand, used the money to pay the bills and then, years later, saw that the new owner has sunk $50 grand into restoring it. It is human nature to say, “wow, I wish I still owned that car”. What Moore was saying was more akin to “I hope that bastard totals it”.

Now, to extent the metaphor a bit further, the new owner found some old CDs (i.e. the “promotional badges”) in the glove box and sold them at a garage sale rather than returning them. So, I get where the anger comes from. It is just that the sentiment seems disproportionate to the offense.

Poor behavior? Are you actually suggesting Alan Moore should had talked good things about the movies they´re producing based on his creations just to be supportive?

It is a pretty well established custom that a writer who sells their work to Hollywood is supposed to RAVE about the resulting film. That is why those quotes get disregarded. So, when a writer goes the other way and says that it is crap, it is treated as news. What effect that has on the box-office is hard to tell, but I’d say it has some.

I’d say the odds of Alan Moore ever selling anything to Hollywood again are about zero percent. However, based on what I have read, he already has all the Hollywood money he needs or wants.

Yes, Moore is a better artist than the people that made his movies. That’s irrelevant since he sold those rights, willingly in the first place to people he knew were inferior artists. Basically, he’s dealt in bad faith with people out of a sense of superiority. And, about that “used car” analogy, I’d say the same thing. That’s not staying neutral and not caring, that’s sabotaging someone you did business with out of spite. Arguably, misdirected spite. Moore didn’t think Watchmen was “unfilmable” when he sold the rights. Heck, considering Watchmen was actually filmed and received many favorable reviews, I’d say Moore has been proven wrong, even if the adaptation is an inferior work. Most adaptations are anyways.

And, yes, Moore did give up some “sentimental value” in the ownership of Watchmen, although I’d say he didn’t lose it, but rather he sold it. And there are 20 years of royalty checks compensating him for that sale. Sentiment doesn’t put food on the table. Or give one the luxury of basically retiring from the monthly drudge at a relatively young age. I’m not sure that the lofty ideal of a deal where Moore got all the money he’s earned over the years and all of the sentimental value exists. (Heck, I’m not sure that Dave Gibbons isn’t secretly happy with the way things turned out. He doesn’t seem to place as much sentimental value on ownership, he’s made a lot of money, and he doesn’t have to deal with Alan Moore in a business sense, which seems to consistently turn out badly. Neil Gaiman seems to have found a way to navigate the same waters without burning bridges and looking childish.) And, to be fair, I do think that interviews have distorted Moore’s views to some extent. All accounts are that he’s a happy nice guy in private life and he has more things on his plate than dwelling on imperfect contracts he signed in the 80s.

I’m also not saying that DC has always been up and up, (i.e. the “promotional” button set) although my understanding is that they’ve always sent their royalty checks on time, for the full amount, without having to be asked. But, it seems to me, that DC’s intention was always to print as many copies of Watchmen as they could sell until demand dried up. That the demand far exceeded the expectations of either side is where the issue is, as noone thought of the case where the demand would justify keeping it in print for over 20 years. Yeah, it was mostly unprecedented in comics at the time, but it hardly was without precedent in the larger book world. And part of that success is DC’s doing in marketing and distribution, which complicates matters as to what’s actually fair.

Poor behavior? Are you actually suggesting Alan Moore should had talked good things about the movies they´re producing based on his creations just to be supportive?

Did you ever watched any of those movies? They´re awful. They´re crap. “V for Vendetta” is the better of the bunch, and it´s still pretty forgettable. “League of Extraordinary Gentleman” was so embarrassingly bad I never managed to watch it until it recahed the end. And I have a pretty high tolerance for subpar cinema.

I think “poor behavior” in this case would be actually to lie and say these movies were worth watching, just fatten the bank account a little bit more at the fan´s expenses.

Alan Moore sold the “sentimental benefit” of owning the Watchmen.

THAT’S my point. Moore LOST something when he sold Watchmen. He gained something too, but that didn’t stop what he lost. Robert seemed to be saying that Moore would have got the same (or less) money had he kept the property, so he didn’t lose ANYTHING. “Moore appears to hate feeling powerless.” That’s reason enough to regret the deal that was made. Whether or not we fell sorry for him shouldn’t depend on whether he would have made the same profit had he retained the work, or whether he would have done the same things with the work, but whether the loss of sentimental value was equivalent to the gain in monetary value. How much money he would have made and what he would have done don’t seem to enter into it.

If I sell a car, and get good money for it, but then decide that I would rather have my car, then damn right I’m doing to whine about it.

They are full of marketing ideas and marketplace analysis.

OK, that may well be the case. What I do know is that he didn’t think that Watchman was filmable, so I’m not sure how he was supposed to give “constructive feedback” to that movie. If you sold the rights to one of your works, I still don’t see why you would be required to say that it’s great if you don’t think that it’s great. If you think it’s crap then you should say it’s crap. And the idea that by saying something is crap is “actively sabotaging” the work is ridiculous. Otherwise all movie critics would be going around sabotaging work. You may reply that Moore, as an author, has more clout that a movie critic, but he only has clout because he tells the TRUTH (as he sees it). If he had come out saying that LXG was an awesome movie, like Robert suggested he HAD to do no matter what he thought of it, then no-one would have cared what he said about Watchman.

To use you metaphor, Robert seems to be suggesting that if you sell your car, and then another person wants to buy it from the guy you sold it to, then you MUST tell that guy that it was a great car. If I sold a shitty car and someone asked me what it’s like I’m going to tell the truth and I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

I still don’t think you get it. It doesn’t matter what MONETARY benefit they got, what we are talking about is the SENTIMENTAL value of owning the characters and work you created. Whether or not we care about Moore’s sentimental concerns, it really doesn’t matter how much money he got. EVEN IF Moore had done everything DC did, he still would have had the sentimental benefit of owning the characters and work you created.

Ted, I am afraid that you don’t understand. Alan Moore sold the “sentimental benefit” of owning the Watchmen. In accounting, it is called Good Will. A company like Time-Warner has literally billions of dollars in assets that are largely recorded as Good Will on the balance sheet. That is why he got a monetary the benefit he did. Nobody forced Moore to sign the contract, or cash the checks. He could have taken Watchmen to Marvel, or Eclipse, or First, or Comico. Any one of them would have bid on it and he might have gotten a better deal. Doubtful, since Moore is a pretty smart business man. My guess is that DC had the greenest money.

It is the roughly equal to me selling you my car and later complaining that you won’t let me drive it or park it in my garage.

Yeah, I’m sure Hollywood studios would listen to what the author thinks of a work they are adapting. As if. And anyway, Moore’s HONEST artistic opinion is that the works CAN’T be filmed. What other advice should he give? Oh, I forgot, you want him to lie.

Have you ever read one of Moore’s scripts?

They are full of marketing ideas and marketplace analysis. He routinely refers to possible film adaptations. Moore was and is a very savvy businessman. Part of what made him angry was that DC used his idea for Watchmen badges and didn’t PAY HIM. Reasonable enough. DC should have paid him.

It just bothers me to hear him talked about like he is a naive babe-in-the-woods when he clearly isn’t. Moore wrote “League of Extra-Ordinary Gentlemen” with the intent of getting it adapted, so his qualms did not surface until after 2000. He has no leverage in Hollywood, because he no track record for producing source material for hit movies. Therefore, once he cashes the check, he has no power. Moore appears to hate feeling powerless and has a better sense of how to tell a story than any of the people who have adapted him.

It would make me crazy too. Just because his behavior is understandable doesn’t make it acceptable. I lost a lot of respect for him during the run up to the release of “Watchmen”.

In what way has DC ever used Watchmen in ways the creators wouldn’t?

We’ll never know.

Why are they comparable to Siegel and Shuster and not Bob Kane or Marston, both of whom seem to have prospered under their agreements?

Because Bob Kane got the deal he thought he was getting, where as like Siegel and Shuster, they entered with good faith, and the company abused that – legally or not, they bused the good faith that wouldn’t have been there had they known how the company would act.

There’s certainly an argument to be made that in the long run they got a good deal.

But not the deal they thought they were agreeing to.

Howard Chaykin’s experiences with getting American Flagg! reprinted is the other side of the coin in why ownership of an acclaimed property isn’t synonymous with financial success.

That’s his property to do with as he pleases – he’s at least got that.

Actively trying to sabotage a project that people paid good money for and spent a lot of time on is not dealing in good faith, regardless of outcome.

Not being supportive, or speaking against something isn’t sabotage in any shape or form.
He was asked what he thought, he responded truthfully.
Actively sabotaging would be hiring out actors to other jobs, trying to get the union to strike etc.

“The reason Moore didn’t do anything to stop or halt the production is that the contracts were valid.”

You DON’T know that. Moore, in all his comments, seems not to give a stuff. Reporters go to HIM to ask what he thinks of the movies, and he tell the TRUTH.

“Actively trying to sabotage a project that people paid good money for and spent a lot of time on is not dealing in good faith, regardless of outcome.”

Good faith should NOT require Moore to LIE. And merely giving an opinion is NOT actively trying to sabotage a project.

“Heck, maybe some of those projects would have turned out more to Moore’s liking if he actually had given constructive feedback rather than complaining about them from afar.”

Yeah, I’m sure Hollywood studios would listen to what the author thinks of a work they are adapting. As if. And anyway, Moore’s HONEST artistic opinion is that the works CAN’T be filmed. What other advice should he give? Oh, I forgot, you want him to lie.

In what way has DC ever used Watchmen in ways the creators wouldn’t? (I’ll note that Gibbons and Higgins even went to the trouble of recoloring the work for modern printing.) They’ve merely reprinted the work in quality editions and paid royalties. Watchmen Babies in “V for Vacation” has no basis.

Moore and Gibbons were big boys with their own lawyers. And, by all accounts, they’ve been receiving consistent and significant royalties over the years for Watchmen. Why are they comparable to Siegel and Shuster and not Bob Kane or Marston, both of whom seem to have prospered under their agreements? They may not have gotten the best deal, then again considering how many copies Watchmen has sold under DC marketing and distribution maybe they did get the best financial deal, but they made a deal 50 years after Siegel and Shuster, Kirby, etc., and it was above industry standard for the time. There’s certainly an argument to be made that in the long run they got a good deal.

I tend to think that there are plenty of emotions wound up in the contract which distorts the perception of how good or bad it is. Howard Chaykin’s experiences with getting American Flagg! reprinted is the other side of the coin in why ownership of an acclaimed property isn’t synonymous with financial success.

I’ll add that I second the notion that just because Moore wasn’t doing work for DC, doesn’t mean he was being unproductive in the 90s. From Hell is an achievement in itself. However, I do suspect that the consistent royalties he received gave Moore the freedom to work with whomever he wanted on whatever he wanted. Even if you wanted to do a From Hell, how many creators truly could afford something that was destined never to be more than a niche thing in the direct market?

“But that’s not actually doing anything to stop or halt the production is it?
As I said, he’s never halted or hindered a project, so who cares?
And to be quite honest, not one of them has actually made a film worth watching from any of his properties, so why get defensive over those poor filmmakers like Don Murphy or Joe Silver?”

The reason Moore didn’t do anything to stop or halt the production is that the contracts were valid. They didn’t include a “we’ll agree to stop production if the fickle author changes his mind 15 years later clause”. Instead, he created bad pr for them by badmouthing them from the sidelines. At some point, you have to ask the question whether he was trying to sabotage projects he’d already been paid for.

Actively trying to sabotage a project that people paid good money for and spent a lot of time on is not dealing in good faith, regardless of outcome. It’s selfish and childish. Heck, maybe some of those projects would have turned out more to Moore’s liking if he actually had given constructive feedback rather than complaining about them from afar. Yes, Moore’s a better artist than the people that made films based on his works, but how does that excuse poor behavior on Moore’s part?

Moore’s a fabulous writer. One of the most influential and important to the industry. And, reportedly, a nice guy in real life. That said, he’s also mercurial and extremely tempermental, especially in regards to business. I wouldn’t necessarily take Moore’s business dealings and his opinions of them as a model to follow.

You took a quote from me out of context and questioned it.
I pointed out that it’s quite clear that’s not what I was actually saying.

I wish I could follow my own advice with your posts, BUT, there was no context – only one sentence.

For general information, this concludes the remarks I will direct at Funky Green Jerusalem on this thread. Period.

Man, what the hell did they ever do to you, that would make you say such an awful and mean-spirited thing?

Put it in context you dill.

Read the sentences around it, look at what is being said as a whole.

Man, what the hell did they ever do to you, that would make you say such an awful and mean-spirited thing?

It’s completely ludicrous to compare Moore and Gibbons to Siegel and Shuster. Or Kirby. Or Ditko. Or Bill Finger. That’s a straw man.

Except for the fact that with all of them, a company took control of their work, retained the ownership and used the properties in ways the creator wouldn’t.
He got it better than the others sure, but that’s still what happened.

You’re straw man accusation is a straw man, man.

Moore and Gibbons get paid royalties on everything related to Watchmen. Period.

Except they don’t get ownership on it as would have been expected.
There’s a big difference between royalties and ownership.

As for Moore’s relations with moviemakers who have legitimately purchased his rights, I’d say Moore has gone much farther than simply “removed his name” from the projects. He’s hardly resisted the opportunity to bash their efforts. He’s even jokingly talked about putting curses on them.

But that’s not actually doing anything to stop or halt the production is it?
As I said, he’s never halted or hindered a project, so who cares?
And to be quite honest, not one of them has actually made a film worth watching from any of his properties, so why get defensive over those poor filmmakers like Don Murphy or Joe Silver?

However, I think Moore is very careful when he does use rape not to make it look titilating. Moore clearly uses rape as an act of violence. And he’ll often cut away from the actual rape itself, so as not to show the victim in the act half naked or otherwise. I certainly would defend his use on artistic grounds far more than I’d defend how it was handled in Identity Crisis, for instance. It’s merely a device he’s used too much.

Screw the Siegels and the Shusters and screw Alan Moore to – DC pays them some money, so why should they get upset for not having control over their creations?”

It’s completely ludicrous to compare Moore and Gibbons to Siegel and Shuster. Or Kirby. Or Ditko. Or Bill Finger. That’s a straw man.

Moore and Gibbons get paid royalties on everything related to Watchmen. Period. We can argue about whether they get paid enough, we can agree that the “promotional” button set was anything but (although my understanding was that situation was eventually corrected), but the actual contract is way above a standard work-for-hire contract. For the time, it was an above industry standard contract. In many ways, it still is, since the conditions of the reversion clause are still in place even if they haven’t been triggered.

I’m not even sure that in the long run, Moore and Gibbons would have made more money if they owned the rights outright to Watchmen. From Hell is as equally impressive a work, but it’s never approached the sales of Watchmen. DC’s marketing and distribution, along with the resources to upgrade the coloring and printing over time, does have value. It’s very ironic, but DC and the movie companies have probably paid Moore more money than anyone else over the years.

Moore’s mad at DC. I don’t begrudge him that. Gibbons has made his peace with DC. Is there anything wrong with that?

As for Moore’s relations with moviemakers who have legitimately purchased his rights, I’d say Moore has gone much farther than simply “removed his name” from the projects. He’s hardly resisted the opportunity to bash their efforts. He’s even jokingly talked about putting curses on them. He’s not been indifferent, he’s been against the latest movies. Yeah, it’s his right to change his mind about selling the rights in the first place, and I do appreciate his honesty, but I think he’s certainly being unreasonable towards people that did purchase those rights in good faith.

well, he did do the bulk of LOST GIRLS during that time, and BIG NUMBERS, and 1963, and A SMALL KILLING, and a few SPAWNs and WILDCATS. he worked on VOICE OF THE FIRE (which came out either 1996 or 1998, and he had been writing it for more than half a decade). granted, no REGULAR MAINSTREAM SUPERHERO COMICS SERIES (which is how i’m generally reading your comment), but i wouldn’t say he lost years of productivity postWATCHMEN. in fact, it actually pushed him to rethink stuff about comic books.

if you look at his late80s – 90s rundown, it’s a list of almost entirely nonsuperhero nonmainstream work which came out fairly regularly, or at least far more regular than, say. PLANETARY (which was for the most part a regular mainstream superhero comics series). his major postWATCHMEN work were all rejections of the superhero mainstream concept. even WILDCATS was a sort of critique of the IMAGE trad.

and right after that (1998-1999?) he did ABC, and that was one solid productive stream of stuff, stuff that we never would’ve read if it weren’t for moore’s prior “sabbatical.” so, again, not really lost years of productivity.

i do agree with people here saying moore has a habit of using rape as a device far far far too often than he should, the cheapest being jenny diver’s rape in LOEG: CENTURY – 1910. it felt very very very tacked on, as if moore merely needed to give diver a motivation to turn towards his dad’s philosophy. i mean, yeah, something as extreme as rape will probably do it, but the book was simply far too thin for decent elaboration that moore should’ve given the story a few more twists of the screw than just having it really glossed over as how it is in the book. and it doesn’t help that they won’t be elaborating on it in the next two books – the next two and a half years! – so it’ll remain as glossed over as it is for quite a while.

and i’m a huge huge huge moore fan, with signed lithographs and a copy of THE WORM with his signature in it, and an original paperback print of VOICE OF THE FIRE, and i’m from the philippines, so if you have those things here, you’re actually pretty much a diehard fan, seeing as the regular comic book floppies here are 200 pesos, which is a day’s worth of food for an average filipino family. filipino comic book fans have screwed up priorities.