What's Alan Moore's Problem?

[Samuel T. Cogley]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I would gladly buy a Watchmen Babies comic.

 

[Yassim]

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]

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]

 

[Goliath]

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

Memo
Alan Moore to Zach Snyder

"But I don't think of you."

 

[Cary L. Brown]

^^^
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?

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]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwpOgXNRhY&feature=related

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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]

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).