What's Alan Moore's Problem?

[Bob The Skutter]

I read that he said that are works that he doesn't have the sole rights to, and he doesn't want his collaborators losing out, so any work he can't refuse the rights to he wants his name removing from them, and his portion of the royalties to either go to the artists, etc. he worked with, or charities of his choice.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Bob The Skutter wrote:

---

I read that he said that are works that he doesn't have the sole rights to, and he doesn't want his collaborators losing out, so any work he can't refuse the rights to he wants his name removing from them, and his portion of the royalties to either go to the artists, etc. he worked with, or charities of his choice.

That's the stance he takes now. He won't take any further money from film adaptations and his portion goes to the artists. But on most of these films he participated along with the artists in selling the film rights and he took money for them at the time. It's in the last couple of years that he hasn't been taking money and won't allow his name on the films.

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote:

---

^^^
That deal with DC wasn't over Watchmen. It was over V for Vendetta, and it wasn't to do with the film rights (Moore had those and he sold them).

Assuming this is true, here's the first place -- and only place so far -- where I see an inconsistency.

If Moore is so convinced that movies can't be made from his work; that Hollywood will fuck it up; and he doesn't care about the money, why would he ever sell the film rights to any of his projects?

He would hold tightly to the film rights (on only the projects where he owns those rights, of course) and never let them go for any reason.

Or did he sell them long ago, maybe when he needed to pay the rent and/or before he decided that Hollywood was such a disaster?

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I think he made most of these deals in the late 1980s and early 1990s (he wouldn't have been hard up for cash at the time, but the big checks for the film rights certainly would have been enticing). It was after the films started coming out that he took a hard line against film adaptations of his work.

He also now takes a position that the film adaptations damage his original work by changing them into a shape other than that which he intended, changes which become lodged in public perception. Some accuse him of hypocrisy on this since he freely appropriates other people's creations and reshapes it in his own work (such as in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Lost Girls).

[Temis the Vorta]

I think he made most of these deals in the late 1980s and early 1990s (he wouldn't have been hard up for cash at the time, but the big checks for the film rights certainly would have been enticing). It was after the films started coming out that he took a hard line against film adaptations of his work.

Then he shouldn't have signed on the dotted line. The fact that he did means he has no right to bitch about the situation now (or more specifically, of course he can bitch all he wants, but nobody needs to take it seriously). He was greedy, he took the money and lost control over the property. What a crybaby.

If the movies are somehow inhibiting sales of the graphic novels (because they are bringing the novels into disrepute), then that's something for the corporate bean counters to take into consideration. But I sincerely doubt that sales of graphic novels could ever compete with sales of movie tickets, plus movies are going to be such a publicity boost for the novels that even if the movies suck, they will drive graphic novel sales up.

I suppose in theory there's a case where you would hold off on doing a movie for fear of hurting graphic novel sales (or real novel sales) if the movie sucks but I have never heard of suck a case happening in real life and would be astounded if the economics of it ever made sense.

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Then he shouldn't have signed on the dotted line. The fact that he did means he has no right to bitch about the situation now (or more specifically, of course he can bitch all he wants, but nobody needs to take it seriously).

I disagree.

We all learn from our experiences (or we should, anyway). It's entirely possible that he has learned over time that certain decisions were mistakes based on how they ultimately turned out.

Or, he could just be a crabby bastard who cashed in early on and now he pees in everyone's cornflakes whenever he's given the opportunity.

Hell, he has two strikes in his favor. He's old, and he's an artist. I'd be disappointed if he wasn't a crabby bastard.

[Lapis Exilis]

Camelopard wrote:

---

Are we sure his name isn't really Howard Roark?

Memo
Alan Moore to Zach Snyder

"But I don't think of you."

[JoeZhang]

Alan Moore is a gentleman and a scholar - I've meet him a number of times and it's always a pleasure. He still lives in his local area and does good works for local causes.


So he gets crappy at big business - so what! We need more people like that, not more corporate drones.

[JoeZhang]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

If the movies are somehow inhibiting sales of the graphic novels (because they are bringing the novels into disrepute), then that's something for the corporate bean counters to take into consideration. But I sincerely doubt that sales of graphic novels could ever compete with sales of movie tickets, plus movies are going to be such a publicity boost for the novels that even if the movies suck, they will drive graphic novel sales up.

I suppose in theory there's a case where you would hold off on doing a movie for fear of hurting graphic novel sales (or real novel sales) if the movie sucks but I have never heard of suck a case happening in real life and would be astounded if the economics of it ever made sense.

It's never been about them affecting them the sales of his graphic novels - no idea where you that strange concept from.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

For the sake of accurateness: the deal where he sold the film rights for LXG would of course have been a lot more recent since the comic only began publication in 1999, but it still most likely would have been a deal made before he'd seen the results of any film adaptations of his work. It was the one-two punch of From Hell in 2001 and LXG in 2003 that soured him. He's never seen V for Vendetta, but has read the screenplay.

According to Don Murphy he tried to get Moore involved in protecting his work and guiding it in a way he saw fit in the adaptation to film, even offering to let Moore write the screenplay for From Hell, but Moore had a "just give me the money and don't talk to me anymore about the film" attitude.

[JoeZhang]

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

---

Hell, he has two strikes in his favor. He's old, and he's an artist. I'd be disappointed if he wasn't a crabby bastard.

I actually own two posters that he did as an artist - one in the 1990s and the other back in the 1980s. Both were special things to raise cause for social causes.

[Dream]

I loved the joke the Simpsons did about this a while back. Crazy Moore!





Notice the Lost Girls poster in the back.

[Noname Given]

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

---

I disagree.

We all learn from our experiences (or we should, anyway). It's entirely possible that he has learned over time that certain decisions were mistakes based on how they ultimately turned out.

Or, he could just be a crabby bastard who cashed in early on and now he pees in everyone's cornflakes whenever he's given the opportunity.

Hell, he has two strikes in his favor. He's old, and he's an artist. I'd be disappointed if he wasn't a crabby bastard.

Oh, please, give me a break. He KNEW what would happen to his properties once he sold the movie rights (and believe me, in te 1970ies and 1980ies, there were A LOT of examples he could look at and watch on TV and in the theatres of the day). It's just a fact tht the money offered was TOO GOOD to pass on; and now that he fells he probably has enough, he now does the whole 'I'm OUTRAGED!(tm)' stchick (much like Harlan Ellison - who's mde a good deal of money off of the whole 'Gene Roddenberry destroyes my 'City on the Edge of Forever' script, and acting shocked and surprised as IF it were the first script he ever sold for TV, and was thus 'unaware' of how that industry worked - which is BS as he sold a number of scripts previously to shows like 'The Outer Limits', etc.)

he's just a raging hypocrite (imo); a;though I do applaud him if he IS at least donating a share of proceeds to charities).

[CaptainCanada]

He initially felt he could sell the rights and then ignore what was done with them (which isn't the case with Watchmen, because he doesn't own it), but after his experience with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, where he ended up getting sued by some other screenwriters, he became very bitter about Hollywood.

I've heard that he liked Timm and DeMatteis adaptation of For The Man Who Has Everything on JLU (Timm specifically approached him to ask permission to do it, something that wasn't legally necessary).

[ancient]

Some people are just not celebrities and handle fame in a pissy manner. Albert Einstein was angry about being famous, for example. Not everyone is an attention whore. That might make him appear more harsh than he actually is in person, much like Ellison. A lot of people like that are walking PR disasters, but are actually nice people to meet personally.

Moore seems to be grumpy about the movies getting made, and that's his right, even if he let it happen by signing a contract years ago. People do make mistakes, you know. He hasn't really been overly critical, but he's also not fawning over other people making different versions of his stuff. It might seem a little selfish, but that's ok by me, especially if he is simply redirecting money towards charity.