Not a good time for Alan Moore...

floopy123 · 01/02/12 - 16:37

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/comics/news/a363283/before-watchmen-prequel-confirmed-by-dc.html

Can't imagine he's happy.

be more pacific · 01/02/12 - 16:55

Moore knows very well how the industry works. As he does not own the rights to Watchmen, I very much doubt he expects DC to do nothing further with its lucrative property in reverence of his sterling work.

bob187 · 01/02/12 - 18:55

I saw him last week, and while he said he was pretty bummed out about it, he then saw a picture of the new Judge Dredd uniform, which he really liked, so that made up for it.

floopy123 · 01/02/12 - 23:08

Judge Moore would be a scary sight. Dredd would disapprove of his shaggy beard.

[Deleted User] · 01/02/12 - 23:23

Alan Moore as Dirty Frank?

[Deleted User] · 02/02/12 - 02:45

The problem with Alan Moore is that he believes his own hype and he thinks he is far better than he actually is. I suppose if you have enough people telling you that you will start to believe it, which is very worrying.

There's a quote comparing Watchmen with Moby Dick. I mean, that says it all. He doesn’t recall “that many prequels or sequels to Moby-Dick.” What a plonker. I don't recall Herman Melville basing all his characters from Charlton Comics.

Read this article for some sort of balance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/02/01/alan-moore-is-wrong-about-before-watchmen/

floopy123 · 02/02/12 - 03:37

Writer J. Michael Straczynski speaks out about Moore's hypocrisy (although he doesn't use the H word):

Before Watchmen: Dr. Manhattan and Before Watchmen: Nite Owl writer J. Michael Straczynski, via The Hollywood Reporter:

The perception that these characters shouldn't be touched by anyone other than Alan is both absolutely understandable and deeply flawed. As good as these characters are – and they are very good indeed – one could make the argument, based on durability and recognition, that Superman is the greatest comics character ever created. But I don't hear Alan or anyone else suggesting that no one other than Shuster and Siegel should have been allowed to write Superman. Certainly Alan himself did this when he was brought on to write Swamp Thing, a seminal comics character created by Len Wein.

Leaving aside the fact that the Watchmen characters were variations on pre-existing characters created for the Charleton Comics universe, it should be pointed out that Alan has spent most of the last decade writing very good stories about characters created by other writers, including Alice (from Alice in Wonderland), Dorothy (from Wizard of Oz), Wendy (from Peter Pan), as well as Captain Nemo, the Invisible Man, Jeyll and Hyde, and Professor Moriarty (used in the successful League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). I think one loses a little of the moral high ground to say, "I can write characters created by Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle and Frank Baum, but it's wrong for anyone else to write my characters."

The whole point of having great characters is the opportunity to explore them more deeply with time, re-interpreting them for each new age. That DC allowed these characters to sit on a shelf for over two decades as a show of respect is salutary, but there comes a time when good characters have to re-enter the world to teach us something about ourselves in the present."

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/02/01/alan-moore-dave-gibbons-before-watchmen-creators-quotes-ethics-prequel/

I use the Michael Jackson system...

Michael Jackson may or may not have been familiar with boys but do I still like his music? Yes. Alan Moore may or not be a total arrogant hypocrite but do I like Halo Jones, Dr and Quinch and Watchmen? Yes. I don't care much for talented people's personalities. It's what they create that matters.

I guess all the adulation he's got over the years has addled his brain.

I'm sure history will regard him as a talented but bitter writer. Which is better than being a non-talented but sweet writer.

JCR · 02/02/12 - 15:27

This maybe borderline blasphemy, but I'll probably buy the Brian Azzarello issues at least. He's a really good writer....

DRAGON LANCE · 02/02/12 - 18:24

I read Watchmen many moons ago when I was into comics and, whilst I don't hold with the belief that its some sort of flawless masterpiece like some do, I still think its pretty lame that they've done this.

The whole point of Watchmen was it was a brutally satirical piss take on super heroes and well, more or less ripped its own genre to shreds. It was in places tearing into all the hopeless sequels and desperate over merchandising of comic book characters. It was one of the first comics to imagine what super heroes would really be like if they really existed, and that reality wasn't a very good one. All of them were deeply, deeply flawed characters. I remember seeing Moore say in an interview that the series best character Rorschach was based on what he thought Batman would be truly like in real life: an utterly deranged, mentally ill vigilanty psychopath, that was as bad as the villains he was taking down.

It was a self contained story and really there is nowhere else to go with that story.

Now DC think its a great time to do a prequel; reducing the "great characters" into what they were actually supposed to be parodies of in the 1st place.

The series doesn't stand up to re-examination, its not like pulp heroes like Superman or Batman where they can be reinvented to suit the needs of the age they are written in. Or for that matter all the characters Moore himself has re-imagined in his own later work. Whilst Watchmen might not be Moby Dick, Moore is right in what he says. Everybody involved in this production has totally missed the point by a long, long margin. The only motivation is $$$.

[Deleted User] · 02/02/12 - 21:08

Alan Moore has been a lucrative snide all his career, ripping from this and that! And he hate's everything "Commerical"
Well mate, why do a voice over on The Simpsons? The most commerical TV show ever!?
Probably for "£££"

I find his views hypocritical and fairly narrowminded!

I am personally looking foward to seeing these prequel. I'm hoping for more Comedian basaed action, time's in 'Nam etc!

I see this going places, probably a movie in a few years too! That'll really piss off old Al' :

floopy123 · 02/02/12 - 23:18

The more I read about the backstory to Watchmen the less regard I have for Alan Moore. For example, I did a Wikipedia search on comic character Captain Atom:

"In all incarnations, the character initially worked for the military. In the Charlton Comics continuity, he was a scientist named Allen Adam and gained his abilities by accident when he was seemingly "atomized" and then somehow reformed his body, now existing as an atomic-powered being. In both DC Comics incarnations, he is Air Force pilot Nathaniel Adam who was used as a test subject in a scientific experiment and wound up seemingly disintegrated in the process, only to reappear later as Captain Atom, now blessed with superhuman abilities."

This is exactly the same as Moore's Dr Manhattan! Outrageous copy/homage! :eek: It's certainly lowered my regard for Mr Moore (although I do like his 2000AD work). Many of the main characters in Watchmen are based on Charlon Comics characters. I never knew that until a few days ago and I've had Watchmen in my comic collection since the late 1980s! It's really changed my view of Moore and his work.

[Deleted User] · 03/02/12 - 00:28

floopy123 wrote: »

This is exactly the same as Moore's Dr Manhattan! Outrageous copy/homage! :eek: It's certainly lowered my regard for Mr Moore (although I do like his 2000AD work). Many of the main characters in Watchmen are based on Charlon Comics characters. I never knew that until a few days ago and I've had Watchmen in my comic collection since the late 1980s! It's really changed my view of Moore and his work.

Yep, my opinion of Mr.Moore has also dropped a level or two aswell!

floopy123 · 03/02/12 - 13:05

If this is true, it's a very revealing insight into the character of Alan Moore:

We all know his reaction to any adaptations, movies, continuations of any sorts of his work. Although, I don’t fault the guy on most of his “rants”, there is a dichotomy here with Alan Moore. I was recently watching the extra’s DVD for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Don Murphy the producer of that film and Moore’s other adapted work “From Hell”, stated that he was on the phone with Moore discussing Hell when he asked him what else he was working on? Now Moore, knowing Murphy was a movie producer, proceeded to tell him he was working on what would later become The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comic book. He faxed him over the very same treatment he had sold to Wildstorm and Murphy took that and ran with it to 20th Century Fox, where he got the green light for the film adaptation. So, I’m sometimes baffled at Moore’s objection to the films, when he is soliciting the very people he disdains.

If this is accurate then it shows Moore to be a big hypocrite. I think everyone can be hypocritical - perhaps life forces us to be like that from time to time - but if Moore really did want League... to made into a film it does go against all his rants about film being an inferior medium to comics. I suspect deep down Alan Moore would love much of his work to be adapted to film but with him as the sole screenwriter. I'm sure that's the real reason he rants on. He wants Hollywood to respect him and let him adapt his work. This is most likely why he's upset about DC thinking they can do new Watchmen material without him! Moore believes DC should beg him, pay him loads to write the stuff when the reality is they (DC) like Hollywood only want to use Moore's work, the general storylines, rather than hire him to adapt it.

You can bet the bosses at DC are so happy they can get away with new Watchmen material without having anything do with Moore! "We can milk his work but never speak to him again!" It's a win win scenario for them even if some Watchmen fans will refuse to buy the new material.

I'm sure an Alan Moore written Watchmen film would be great - I'm sure he's got the talent to adapt his work to the big screen. The same would be true of John Wagner adapting Judge Dredd to the big screen but, sadly, it's not going to happen.

dadioflex · 03/02/12 - 14:05

Wow, Straczynski really nailed him. But whatever. Alan Moore is a creative. They're all nuts. I'm sure he passionately believes everything he says, however flawed his logic is. Just let him get on with it. I actually preferred the Watchmen film ending more than the comic book ending, but it was still a great series at the time.

not_the_doctor · 03/02/12 - 15:04

jackbell wrote: »

The problem with Alan Moore is that he believes his own hype and he thinks he is far better than he actually is. I suppose if you have enough people telling you that you will start to believe it, which is very worrying.

There's a quote comparing Watchmen with Moby Dick. I mean, that says it all.

Yes, I've always thought Alan Moore was ridiculously overrated.

Although Watchmen was fairly revolutionary for the comic book genre at the time, which was still largely aimed at children, in literary terms, it's really a very banal, crass, and at times laughably naive piece of work. Although I have no interest in the prequels, and obviously don't expect them to be as "important" as the original, I would imagine at least some of them will be better reads.

[Deleted User] · 08/02/12 - 21:14

Those dissing Moore for "ripping off" Carlton characters are missing the point. DC employed him to write a series using Captain Atom, The Blue Beetle et al. They then changed their mind and decided to use them within the main continuity and asked Moore to change the characters names within watchmen to allow this. Ergo there are similarities between Carlton charactes & Watchmen

be more pacific · 08/02/12 - 23:30

Interesting blog about Gibbons and Moore's original contract:
http://it-sparkles.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-fun.html

Apparently, the creators would have acquired full rights a year after Watchmen went out-of-print. Which didn't happen, of course, because the book has never been out-of print.

Residents Fan · 12/02/12 - 22:49

be more pacific wrote: »

Moore knows very well how the industry works. As he does not own the rights to Watchmen, I very much doubt he expects DC to do nothing further with its lucrative property in reverence of his sterling work.

Legally, Moore can't do anything about this. However, since
he and co-creator Dave Gibbons have no involvement
in creating the "Watchmen" prequels, I have no interest in reading them, and I suspect quite a few people will feel the
same way.

be more pacific · 13/02/12 - 12:05

Residents Fan wrote: »

Legally, Moore can't do anything about this. However, since
he and co-creator Dave Gibbons have no involvement
in creating the "Watchmen" prequels, I have no interest in reading them, and I suspect quite a few people will feel the
same way.

I must admit, I was initially unsympathetic to Moore's bitching about what the rights-holders do with their properties. However, I have since learned that Moore and Gibbons were contracted to receive full rights when DC's run of Watchmen had been out-of-print for 12 months. Back then, the idea of a comic or graphic novel remaining in-print continuously for 25 years was preposterous.

Of course, we now know that Moore and Gibbons never did (and possibly never will) get the rights to Watchmen. Subsequent administrations at DC have taken full advantage of a contract drawn up at a time before perpetual publication was an option.

I might look at the new stories out of curiousity, but I'll try not to pay good money for them.;)

floopy123 · 14/02/12 - 02:46

Alan Moore has written about Alice in Alice in Wonderland having sex and other disgusting stuff involving the Mad Hatter and a banana. The guy is a perv and has silly hair.

And anyway, everyone knows John 'Judge Dredd' Wagner is the greatest comic book writer ever. Even if he is Scottish.

Still, no-one's perfect, eh?

not_the_doctor · 14/02/12 - 04:45

be more pacific wrote: »

I must admit, I was initially unsympathetic to Moore's bitching about what the rights-holders do with their properties. However, I have since learned that Moore and Gibbons were contracted to receive full rights when DC's run of Watchmen had been out-of-print for 12 months. Back then, the idea of a comic or graphic novel remaining in-print continuously for 25 years was preposterous.

But by that same token, it's not like DC deliberately screwed Moore and Gibbons. They couldn't have known they had one of the most popular comic books ever on their hands, or how long they could keep it in print. They just lucked out on a very common contract clause.

Royce · 14/02/12 - 14:13

So am i the only one actually excited for these books? At least DC have given them to their A list talent.

Residents Fan · 14/02/12 - 23:56

floopy123 wrote: »

Alan Moore has written about Alice in Alice in Wonderland having sex and other disgusting stuff involving the Mad Hatter and a banana. The guy is a perv and has silly hair.

And anyway, everyone knows John 'Judge Dredd' Wagner is the greatest comic book writer ever. Even if he is Scottish.

Still, no-one's perfect, eh?

So anyone who tries to write fiction about human sexuality
is a "perv" then? Are D. H. Lawrence, Anais Nin,
Guillaume Apollinaire, James Joyce, and
Erica Jong all "pervs"?

SXTony · 26/03/12 - 11:02

adprob wrote: »

Those dissing Moore for "ripping off" Carlton characters are missing the point. DC employed him to write a series using Captain Atom, The Blue Beetle et al. They then changed their mind and decided to use them within the main continuity and asked Moore to change the characters names within watchmen to allow this. Ergo there are similarities between Carlton charactes & Watchmen

The way I heard it, it was Moore who wanted to write something using those characters but wasn't allowed so tweaked it to become the watchmen.

Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But the situation you describe would be a purely work-for-hire situation. If DC asked him to do it with those characters, why should he expect any of the rights to be his?

[Deleted User] · 26/03/12 - 11:47

The origin of the Watchmen / Charlton characters shown here.

UKMikey · 14/04/12 - 13:34

Has he actually said he expects the rights to still be his? The only quote I've heard from him so far is that it's a shame DC can't move on from a book published 25 years ago.

After Joe Straczynski's last Superman run I think I'll be leaving his books on the shelf. I wonder how he'd feel about a Babylon 4 prequel being made without his involvement.

The Darwyn Cooke titles look OK though.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Not a good time for Alan Moore...

Comments