What's Alan Moore's Problem?

[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]

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]

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.

 

[Broccoli]

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

At least Moore seems to have a sense of humor about everything for him to come on the Simpsons and parody his irritations like that.

 

[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.

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?

Read Lost Girls. Truly terrifying.

And in every work I've ever read there comes a point where a female main character gets sexually assaulted or raped. It's to the point where I pretty much expect it to happen in any story he writes. "Oh look there's Mina Harker, and oh hey, there's 20 horny Arabs with massive hard on's looking for a good ol' fashioned gang bang. Oh what fun we shall have!" I don't think Bram Stoker would would much care for that.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

^^^
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.

My understanding is that Moore is voluntarily giving his share of the proceeds to Gibbons, essentially to make a statement and/or to distance himself from the project.

If Moore had chosen to keep his share, Gibbons would still have been paid Gibbons' share.

So, in no scenario would Moore be "taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children," any more than I would be taking food out of the mouths of your children if I don't donate a portion of my salary this year to you.

 

[CaptainCanada]

My understanding is that Moore is voluntarily giving his share of the proceeds to Gibbons, essentially to make a statement and/or to distance himself from the project.

If Moore had chosen to keep his share, Gibbons would still have been paid Gibbons' share.

So, in no scenario would Moore be "taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children," any more than I would be taking food out of the mouths of your children if I don't donate a portion of my salary this year to you.

No, what he means is that if he had refused consent, he would be denying Gibbons money by not allowing the film to be made.

 

[Trent Roman]

Read Lost Girls. Truly terrifying.

Well, I suppose it's a more perilous subject matter than samurai with magic swords ().

Seriously, though, I'd partialy recommend "Lost Girls", as long as the hypothetical person asking for a recommendation isn't a prude, puritan or overly attached to the original versions of Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan or Wizard of Oz. It's a very funny send-up of the contemporary cultures (and the works it bases itself off), traditional 'morality' and sexual hypocrisy. The downside is the art, which is done in blurry pastels and far too often strays into a kind of pretentious 'avant-guardness'. Moore calls it 'benign pornography', which is accurate enough: the art is explicit, but not particularly enticing. "Lost Girls" is better as satire than it is as erotica.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[stj]

Maybe it's just me, but---isn't craziness inferior art? Now I'm not that familiar with Moore's work, only reading The Watchmen, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Promethea. The Watchmen was marred by the peculiar treatment of Rohrschach. Presumably the perverse sexual motive of the superhero psyche is exposed in him. But the book basically loves him in a way it doesn't love any other character. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen seems extraordinary only for the way that Moore rewrites well known characters. Nemo as a government agent is so extraordinary a perversion it is remarkable no one seems to notice.
Whatever could the point be? And Promethea---occultism is stupid. Period. I think you must moderate praise for Moore.

As for his rants about comic book companies or whatever, I've forgotten who has the signature quote from Moore about how he was treated worse than someone who gave heroin to a busload of kids or something. I'm afraid that even without being in the business I'm sure that's gross exaggeration. Since he seems to be sincere (not joking,) he comes across
as neurotically sensitive. But, since I'm not in the business, I see no need at all to berate Moore for abusing comic book companies.

 

[CaptainCanada]

The Watchmen was marred by the peculiar treatment of Rohrschach. Presumably the perverse sexual motive of the superhero psyche is exposed in him. But the book basically loves him in a way it doesn't love any other character.

Moore's point is that he's a monster; but he's very compelling, so fans love him.

Nemo as a government agent is so extraordinary a perversion it is remarkable no one seems to notice.

He's an uneasy member of the group trying to help for the greater good, and ultimately resigns over Britain's use of germ weapons.

And Promethea---occultism is stupid. Period.

That's your opinion; he can express his own beliefs however he wishs, and the book is certainly a triumph of artistry.

As for his rants about comic book companies or whatever, I've forgotten who has the signature quote from Moore about how he was treated worse than someone who gave heroin to a busload of kids or something.

That pertains to the court proceedings surrounding the LoEG lawsuit, I believe.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

My understanding is that Moore is voluntarily giving his share of the proceeds to Gibbons, essentially to make a statement and/or to distance himself from the project.

If Moore had chosen to keep his share, Gibbons would still have been paid Gibbons' share.

So, in no scenario would Moore be "taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children," any more than I would be taking food out of the mouths of your children if I don't donate a portion of my salary this year to you.

I think you missed my point. The thing is, Moore is refusing to be associated, even financially, with the making of the film, and is also refusing to turn over his rights to people who aren't involved.

This basically gives him two choices... either (1) refuse to allow the materials to be used (which would be "taking the food out of the mouths of his co-creators' children") or do what he's doing now.

Clearer?

 

[stj]

CaptainCanada---Moore has the right to express his beliefs. But any "artistry" in Promethea is like putting a silk gown on a pig. Doing it for a joke is one thing. Really thinking it beautiful mocks the very idea of beauty. Expanding the idea of art to include nonsense devalues art. Obiously that's my opinion.

 

[TheArsenal]

My problem with Promethea had nothing to do with Moore's beliefs being either "art" or "occultism"; it had everything to do with taking two and a half books to have the character meander about while he explored these beliefs instead of moving the story along. In my opinion, the books went nowhere.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Promethea either; it's a phenomenal work of technical art, but as story it's not especially compelling.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

My understanding is that Moore is voluntarily giving his share of the proceeds to Gibbons, essentially to make a statement and/or to distance himself from the project.

If Moore had chosen to keep his share, Gibbons would still have been paid Gibbons' share.

So, in no scenario would Moore be "taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children," any more than I would be taking food out of the mouths of your children if I don't donate a portion of my salary this year to you.

No, what he means is that if he had refused consent, he would be denying Gibbons money by not allowing the film to be made.

Didn't someone already say that Moore didn't have the right to keep Watchmen from being made? That he didn't own the rights?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

My understanding is that Moore is voluntarily giving his share of the proceeds to Gibbons, essentially to make a statement and/or to distance himself from the project.

If Moore had chosen to keep his share, Gibbons would still have been paid Gibbons' share.

So, in no scenario would Moore be "taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children," any more than I would be taking food out of the mouths of your children if I don't donate a portion of my salary this year to you.

No, what he means is that if he had refused consent, he would be denying Gibbons money by not allowing the film to be made.

Didn't someone already say that Moore didn't have the right to keep Watchmen from being made? That he didn't own the rights?

He wasn't the sole rights holder, only partial.

 

[Bishbot]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Promethea either; it's a phenomenal work of technical art, but as story it's not especially compelling.

I'm the same - I think its a pretty good read, once, because its very pretty and comics are incredibly quick reads anyway, but I'm glad I only borrowed it rather than bought it. I have no real desire to read it again.

Watchmen, however, is perfect.

 

[JoeZhang]

No, what he means is that if he had refused consent, he would be denying Gibbons money by not allowing the film to be made.

Didn't someone already say that Moore didn't have the right to keep Watchmen from being made? That he didn't own the rights?

He wasn't the sole rights holder, only partial.

He doesn't hold any rights to watchmen, it was work for hire. People tend to forget, that when it was published it was just another comic.