What's Alan Moore's Problem?

[Allyn Gibson]

I would gladly buy a Watchmen Babies comic.

[Yassim]

Noname Given wrote:

---

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).

Who are the comic writers of the 70's and 80's who retained creative control of their own properties?

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...

Moore just answers the question's he asked. He's never campaigned against the movies, he's never written an "I got screwed" book like Ellison, and as far as I can see, he's still politely answering the same questions time and again.

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).

Which part of removing his name from a movie to which he didn't contribute is hypocrisy? He didn't see a penny off V for Vendetta, and he won't take anything for Watchmen.

(I did enjoy your accusation of hypocrisy, with applause for his charitable donations, though. That's big of you.)

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

which isn't the case with Watchmen, because he doesn't own it

Actually, I think Moore and Gibbons did own the film rights to Watchmen and sold them. If DC had owned the film rights then they would've automatically gone to WB. That wasn't the case. The film rights were first sold to Fox, then went to Paramount, and only landed up at WB after Paramount put the film into turnaround.

[Greg Cox]

It's worth pointing out that, as far as I know, Moore has never tried to stop any of the films from being made. He's never sued anyone or backed out of a prior agreement.

That doesn't mean he's obliged to endorse every film based on his work. Or take part in all the media hype.

If he chooses to keep his distance from Hollywood, he's within his rights to do so.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Dream wrote:

---

[Goliath]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

Memo
Alan Moore to Zach Snyder

"But I don't think of you."

[Cary L. Brown]

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

---

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?

Ah, but there's the rub in the case of "Watchmen." Alan Moore isn't the SOLE CREATOR of Watchmen. Dave Gibbons was a co-creator.

The result of which is that Moore has stated that his share of any proceeds from this film will go to Gibbons.

Odd, certainly, but it makes his point quite clear. Gibbons gets the money... and Moore gets to keep his own "conscience" clear over the film. For Moore to refuse to allow Watchmen to be made, he'd essentially be taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children.

So, while Moore may be an odd guy, he's got a sense or honor and morality which he's applying here.

[Ethros]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwpO...eature=related

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Noname Given wrote:

---

Oh, please, give me a break.

Why is this the standard response on this board whenever someone posts about a disputed subject in a mature, nuanced or openminded way?

[CaptainCanada]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Ah, but there's the rub in the case of "Watchmen." Alan Moore isn't the SOLE CREATOR of Watchmen. Dave Gibbons was a co-creator.

The result of which is that Moore has stated that his share of any proceeds from this film will go to Gibbons.

Odd, certainly, but it makes his point quite clear. Gibbons gets the money... and Moore gets to keep his own "conscience" clear over the film. For Moore to refuse to allow Watchmen to be made, he'd essentially be taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children.

So, while Moore may be an odd guy, he's got a sense or honor and morality which he's applying here.

He actually did do the withholding thing for a while, albeit on a smaller scale, to Alan Davis, his collaborator on Marvel UK's Captain Britain; since the rights only applied to the UK, the transfer of any creations to Marvel proper required consent. Marvel initially reprinted some of his stuff in America, apparently unaware that consent was required (Chris Claremont, likewise, was planning on using some of the characters in Uncanny X-Men, operating under the assumption that since Marvel had published it it must be usable); Moore was annoyed by this mistake and forbid any further reprints, which led to a prolonged estrangement between him and the artist, Alan Davis, who thus couldn't get royalties for his work (Moore eventually allowed a trade printing a couple of years ago, which has since gone out of print).

[CaptJimboJones]

A lot of great artists are huge assholes. I'm a huge fan of Miles Davis, for example, and he was one of the biggest pricks to walk the face of the Earth. Didn't make him any less talented.

I think that's pretty much the case with Moore as well.

I have to say, though, I LOVE the "Baby Watchmen" bit from the Simpsons. Fucking hilarious.

[Thrall]

Alan Moore creeps me out honestly. Partly it's the Unabomber look. Partly it's the all the kooky "look at me imma zanny weird artsy fartsy crazy man! I'm a free spirit! Look how artisty I am! Whoooo!". But mostly, it's his bizarre sexual topics he likes to write about like turning iconic childhood story characters into slutty porn stars and his strange fascination with glorifying rape. Fucking weirdo.

[Cary L. Brown]

Thrall wrote:

---

Alan Moore creeps me out honestly. Partly it's the Unabomber look. Partly it's the all the kooky "look at me imma zanny weird artsy fartsy crazy man! I'm a free spirit! Look how artisty I am! Whoooo!". But mostly, it's his bizarre sexual topics he likes to write about like turning iconic childhood story characters into slutty porn stars and his strange fascination with glorifying rape. Fucking weirdo.

Never seen any of those things (though they seem in-character with what I DO know about the guy)... except for "glorifying rape." That seems pretty out-there, and not in-character with things I've read which he wrote. From his writing, he doesn't "glorify" it... but rather treats it as evidence of the "animality" of humanity as he sees it.

Of course, it's entirely possible (I'm not a huge fanboy!) that there's stuff about him I've just never seen... so... sources for your comments, above?

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

sources for your comments, above?

Well, by this

But mostly, it's his bizarre sexual topics he likes to write about like turning iconic childhood story characters into slutty porn stars.

Thrall is obviously referencing Moore's Lost Girls, which you can read about here.

[Jack Bauer]

I think he's just a crazy cranky bastard who is a brilliant writer.