DC to publish Watchmen prequel?

[Josh-da-man]

Originally Posted by Pajiba

I don't care if he's the most successful self publisher in the history of the planet.

I would think that Jeff Smith would have overtaken Sim a while back.

Or does Smith lose his street cred since he lets Scholastic release his books?

[brayzie]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

I would agree with him. Most movies based on books aren't very good, but then most movie sequels and prequels aren't very good, nor are most remakes, nor most original movies. It's not necessarily the story's source that's the problem, just the realities of the creative process.
.

Which is why I find it odd that he would single out and criticize book-film adaptations since there's always much more average/mediocre output than there is high quality in every medium and genre, regardless of adaptations.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man

I would think that Jeff Smith would have overtaken Sim a while back.

Or does Smith lose his street cred since he lets Scholastic release his books?

I don't know about street cred, but I don't think you can count the Scholastic releases as "self published".

Originally Posted by brayzie

Which is why I find it odd that he would single out and criticize book-film adaptations since there's always much more average/mediocre output than there is high quality in every medium and genre, regardless of adaptations.

His reasoning is a bit faulty there, although I don't think he meant to single out book adaptations as being markedly different than other films in that regard. He may as well have railed against remakes if he had been asked about them, but he was asked about book adaptations, and specifically about adaptations of his books.

I suppose if I had a book and I learned it was being turned into a movie, I'd be, at the least, apprehensive about the result given the odds.

Also, adaptations are notable in that they are unique in that the story being adapted was already successful in another medium, and possibly some of that success is because it's uniquely suited for its original medium in some way. Moreso than a sequel, prequel, or remake, in which the original story was already a film, adaptations pose the question of whether it's possible, or even reasonable, to try and alter the story to work in another medium.

[Pajiba]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

Perhaps I should've stated we don't know the complete sales numbers. You provide two numbers, but those were for "initial orders" for a printing, and also don't state what the time span between printings was.

Part of the problem is that there isn't a clear definition for what "in print" means, and it's probably defined in this case, if at all, in either the contract or left to DC's discretion. It could potentially allow years between printings and still count as "in print."

Now, while you're "sure" that DC would take it out of print if it hit a certain low number of sales, keep in mind that doing so in this particular case would cause them to lose the rights forever. So is this number for Watchmen lower than the one DC sets for titles they own? And if it fell below even this lower number, would DC just hand it over, or would they fudge the numbers to make
it appear to be over, so that they could retain the rights. Would they possibly rush into production an ill-conceived run of "prequels" to the novel to help drive interest, and thus sales, up? These are all within the realm of possibility.

Couple counterpoints. I don't have a recent copy on hand but I believe the tpb has gone through at least 20 printings. And while you may not want to admit it, it has always been one of the best selling tpb's. Since I don't have 30 posts I'm not allowed to link to outside websites, which is beyond gay, but that's another matter. But if you go to comicbookresources.com and put John Mayo's name in the search box you should get a link to his sales estimate reports. For March 2012, he has the Watchmen tp ranked 131 interms of sales with 892 copies sold that month and 253,054 sold overall. It is far and away the top selling tp overall, with Walking Dead nearly 70,000 copies behind. Now of course you can say that selling 892 copies in a month is a miniscule amount
and yes the top selling TP for March sold nearly 6,000 copies, but from what I've been able to determine, Watchmen has ALWAYS been one of the bestsellers and yes you can go on all you want about DC manipulating the numbers to fuck over Moore and Gibbons, but is that really worth DC's time? Really?

It would be interesting to know if the contract specified an exact number of copies as the, let's call it a 'kill point' below which DC would take the book out of print. If the contract did say that, then I'd be more inclined to maybe believe DC is fucking with the numbers, but if it's just some vague, 'when sales drop below a certain point DC will take Watchmen out of print and the rights will revert to Moore and Gibbons,' then Moore is at fault and has to take a huge amount of blame for not demanding that DC be specific about the number of copies.

[slop101]

Originally Posted by Pajiba

Since I don't have 30 posts I'm not allowed to link to outside websites, which is beyond gay, but that's another matter.

How old are you? I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that the last time I used "gay" in such a context, I was 15.

[Philzilla]

Originally Posted by slop101

How old are you? I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that the last time I used "gay" in such a context, I was 15.

Of course you are

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Pajiba

Couple counterpoints. I don't have a recent copy on hand but I believe the tpb has gone through at least 20 printings.

The high number of reprints could actually count against DC, since that could mean that DC is doing a higher frequency of smaller print runs in order to keep the title "in print".

Originally Posted by Pajiba

And while you may not want to admit it, it has always been one of the best selling tpb's.

I'm sure over the years it has sold very well; DC likely wouldn't bother holding on to it if it wasn't still a profitable title. However, it's a nit of a stretch to say with absolute certainty that it has always been a bestseller, and that it never has had a drop in sales that may have drawn its continued printing into question. It's possibly true, but you can't say that with certainty.

Looked up John Mayo's sale estimates. Here's March 2012:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=38063

First off, it should be pointed out that these are estimates, Diamond doesn't give out actual sales numbers. Also, it's only for what Diamond has sold to stores, no other distributors (which actually may work in Watchmen's favor, since it's one of the few trades often seen in traditional bookstores as well).

Mayo's "overall" sales appear to only go back to Aug 2006, when he started posting the estimates on the site:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=8192

ICV2 has sales data going back further, but Watchment doesn't appear on them until they started listing the top 100 trades in Feb 2004, when it was #87 with an estimated 841 copies:
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/1850.html

The Comics Chronicles has annual sales data going back to 1991, but Watchmen doesn't show up on them until 2000, where it popped up to #13:
http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html

So maybe, maybe Watchmen has sold enough per month over the years to keep it "in print". What about V for Vendetta? It obviously hasn't sold as well as Watchmen.

Originally Posted by Pajiba

It would be interesting to know if the contract specified an exact number of copies as the, let's call it a 'kill point' below which DC would take the book out of print. If the contract did say that, then I'd be more inclined to maybe believe DC is fucking with the numbers, but if it's just some vague, 'when sales drop below a certain point DC will take Watchmen out of print and the rights will revert to Moore and Gibbons,' then Moore is at fault and has to take a huge amount of blame for not demanding that DC be specific about the number of copies.

I do agree that it'd be interesting to know the specifics of the contract; not just for the out-of-print clause but all the other aspects of it.

However, I don't agree that Moore would be at fault if he had failed to think of all the possible ways DC could screw him over with the contract. This line of thinking seems to assume that companies are out to screw everyone, and that as long as they do it within the established legal boundaries that's not only acceptable behavior, but the fault of the person getting screwed because they hadn't thought of all the possible angles they could get screwed from.

[PhantomStranger]

There was no set number of sales the book ever had to hit each month to stay in print. As long as DC keeps the book in print for any reason, it's owned by them in perpetuity. Moore signed the contract before trade paperbacks were very common and he just assumed DC would let it go out of print after a couple of years when sales started tapering off. It's telling they have kept no other trade paperback continuously in print that long. If it wasn't for that clause giving DC the rights, there would have been periods where Watchmen would have gone out of print since publication.

Moore made a bad business decision for allowing the loophole, but DC has definitely exploited it to their maximum advantage.

[Pajiba]

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger

There was no set number of sales the book ever had to hit each month to stay in print. As long as DC keeps the book in print for any reason, it's owned by them in perpetuity. Moore signed the contract before trade paperbacks were very common and he just assumed DC would let it go out of print after a couple of years when sales started tapering off. It's telling they have kept no other trade paperback continuously in print that long. If it wasn't for that clause giving DC the rights, there would have been periods where Watchmen would have gone out of print since publication.

Moore made a bad business decision for allowing the loophole, but DC has definitely exploited it to their maximum advantage.

Wow.

You certainly seem to have a lot of 'facts' that you claim are true, yet you also have precisely zero cites to back them up

So try again, this time with legitimate cites to back up some of those claims, especially the one about how the book would have gone out of print since sales were so dismal if not for the simple reason that DC owns the rights.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger

There was no set number of sales the book ever had to hit each month to stay in print. As long as DC keeps the book in print for any reason, it's owned by them in perpetuity. Moore signed the contract before trade paperbacks were very common and he just assumed DC would let it go out of print after a couple of years when sales started tapering off.

It'd be interesting to know if you could cite a source for this. Also, do you know how often they have to do a print run of the title for it to remain "in print," or was this not defined as well?

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger

It's telling they have kept no other trade paperback continuously in print that long.

This isn't entirely true, or only true in a technical sense. Watchmen may be in print the longest, but several other trades have never gone out of print. There's V for Vendetta for one, which has the same reversion clause. In this interview Neil Gaiman mentions Maus, The Dark Knight Returns, and of course Sandman as all never having gone out of print:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2008/...ream-a-little/

[PhantomStranger]

My information was based on things I've heard over the past twenty years, though I was unaware a few other things had been kept in print nearly as long. DC has let some other very popular classic trade paperbacks go out of print for brief periods of time to stoke demand, so I have to imagine keeping Watchmen continuously in print is almost entirely related to the reversion clause.

[Josh-da-man]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

Also, do you know how often they have to do a print run of the title for it to remain "in print," or was this not defined as well?

I believe "in print" simply means that there is still available stock at the publisher/distributor level. When that stock is depleted, the book either gets more copies printed (ie, second, third, fourth, printing) or they let it go "out of print."

Some things will be reprinted immediately, others may take a few weeks or months or even years.

In the case of "Watchmen," I think that the contract says if the book stays out of print for one year, then the rights revert to Moore and Gibbons.

The gist of it is that the creators get the copyright back when the publisher deems the property no longer has value to them. It is not a promise to return the property after a certain amount of time.

[majorjoe23]

While I do think using the revision clause as a way to do these new prequels is a shitty thing to do, I also believe Watchmen has stayed in print as long as it has because sales have been so good.

[Pajiba]

Ok, I started reading the seraphemera interview with Moore and right off the bat Moore comes across like the most retarded naive person in the history of the fucking planet.

They seemed to be delighted with the amount of extra comics they were selling. Even on that level, I thought, 'Well they can see I'm getting them an awful lot of good publicity and I'm bringing them a great deal of money.. So, if they are even competent business people, they surely won't go out of their way to screw us in any way. ... But, up until that point I'd trusted the company and thought that they were probably decent people who, as they said, were making a genuine effort to adapt to modern times and modern morality.

Christ, what a fucking moron. Moore had to have heard at least one story about how Marvel had been fucking over Kirby and DC had been fucking over Siegel and Schuster. But oh no, he was just SO innocent and SO virginal and SO pure.

Give me a fucking break.

But the most laughable bit is about modern morality. Seriously? We live in some of the most depraved times in history with the most vile disgusting puketastic shit imaginable available in seconds with the click of a mouse button.

But then we get to see Moore garagantuan ego as well as his blatant out and out lies like this one:

They started a whole comics line that seemed to be designed mainly as an "Alan Moore farm," where I believe that the early contributors to Karen Berger's Vertigo were pretty much--at least implicitly--being instructed to do work that was kind of like mine.

What a load of shit. I can only guess, since Moore is too much of a gutless coward to y'know, actually give examples that he's referring to Hellblazer and John Constantine. But all Moore did was specify that he should be a dead ringer for Sting and make him an asshole who led Swamp Thing around by the nose on a wild goose chase.

That's it.

And then later on, I get to read the spectacle of Moore acting like a spoiled brat 7 year old boy and a gargantuan fucking hypocrite who wants, NAY demands to have it both ways:

I said, "I'm more completely indifferent. As long as my name's not on it, then do what you want."

Dave said, "I don't think they were going to put our names on it anyway. I think they were going to use the fictitious names of the artist and writer that are mentioned in Watchmen."

I said, "In that case, how will anyone know that I'm not participating in it?" I just said, "Look, do it if you want Dave, but just put a little un-embarrassing, small print thing on the inside front cover of the thing saying that Alan Moore is not participating in this comic or anything to do with the film."

So Moore is completely indifferent to what DC/Warner does or doesn't do with Watchmen, except he wants the entire world to know that he, Moore doesn't want anything to do with nor did he co-operate in any way, shape, or form with DC/Warner as regards the Watchmen movie and related projects.

No, that's not gargantuan hypocrisy, not at all.


And let's not forget Moore's endless claims that DC stole Watchmen from him. How? How did DC steal Watchmen from him? It's not DC's fault that Moore refused to give even a summary glance to his contract or to spend a few hundred quid to have a solicitor read it over since doing so was so obviously beneath Moore, he had much more important things to do, like writing the latest script for Top Ten.

[bluetoast]

Originally Posted by Pajiba

So Moore is completely indifferent to what DC/Warner does or doesn't do with Watchmen, except he wants the entire world to know that he, Moore doesn't want anything to do with nor did he co-operate in any way, shape, or form with DC/Warner as regards the Watchmen movie and related projects.

No, that's not gargantuan hypocrisy, not at all.

You do realize that as the creator of the fake names for the comic, the inclusion of said names as the author/artist can lead people to believe that Moore was involved under a pseudonym right? Thus his desire for an extra disclaimer.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Pajiba

Ok, I started reading the seraphemera interview with Moore and right off the bat Moore comes across like the most retarded naive person in the history of the fucking planet.

It's pretty clear by this point that you have a strong negative opinion of Moore. So your comments about his statements will be viewed in this light.

Christ, what a fucking moron. Moore had to have heard at least one story about how Marvel had been fucking over Kirby and DC had been fucking over Siegel and Schuster. But oh no, he was just SO innocent and SO virginal and SO pure.

Give me a fucking break.

But the most laughable bit is about modern morality. Seriously? We live in some of the most depraved times in history with the most vile disgusting puketastic shit imaginable available in seconds with the click of a mouse button.

When Moore was saying that DC was apparently making efforts, I think he's specifically referring to their offering of a reversion clause, which is similar to how book publishing works. At the least, on the surface this would indicate that DC was willing to look past just work for hire arrangements with their creative talent. And since he had working relationships with these people in the past, and they'd treated him fairly before, he had little reason to suspect that they would screw him over.

As for the "click of a mouse button" material, I don't see how material that can be found online in 2012 has any bearing on the ethics of a company in the late 1980s.

Also, you do realize that with this argument, you are at the least tacitly acknowledging that DC would try and screw him over, if given the chance. You also appear to be holding Moore to a double standard: you mention that "DC had been fucking over Siegel and Schuster," but don't seem to blame them for not reading their contracts. So why Moore?

But then we get to see Moore garagantuan ego as well as his blatant out and out lies like this one:

What a load of shit. I can only guess, since Moore is too much of a gutless coward to y'know, actually give examples that he's referring to Hellblazer and John Constantine.

You should probably have read the entire interview before commenting. Moore specifically mentions Constantine later in the article, and is fine with other people working on it.

As for whether Vertigo authors were asked to ape Moore's style, that's hard to say. However, Moore's work at DC had a strong influence on the creation of Vertigo.
http://www.psicofxp.com/forums/comic...9-vertigo.html

Although some of the six titles: The Sandman, Doom Patrol, Shade, The Changing Man, Hellblazer, Animal Man, and Swamp Thing, started their run prior to 1993, those comics were the ones transferred to the Vertigo imprint...

...Karen Berger [said] "Although the line started in 1993, it evolved out of six primary titles where the writers and I basically had a shared sensibility. We all wanted to do something different in comics and help the medium 'grow up.' We never would have had Vertigo without Alan Moore and all the other creators working on those pre-Vertigo titles from the late '80s. But we couldn't have taken it any further without another generation of creators like Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis and Brian Azzarello getting involved in the '90s."

"My initial publishing plan included taking some offbeat DC characters and reinvesting them for Vertigo — like what had been done with most of the core titles. The other major part of the plan was to give creators the opportunity to create creator-owned books, and to pursue their own visions. Over the years, Vertigo has evolved more towards the creator-owned products."

Moore probably latched onto the "shared sensibility" as meaning his sensibility, so he may be overstating his importance, but it's not a complete fabrication on his part.

Originally Posted by Pajiba

So Moore is completely indifferent to what DC/Warner does or doesn't do with Watchmen, except he wants the entire world to know that he, Moore doesn't want anything to do with nor did he co-operate in any way, shape, or form with DC/Warner as regards the Watchmen movie and related projects.

No, that's not gargantuan hypocrisy, not at all.

That's actually the definition of indifference. He's neither supporting it, nor condemning it. He just wanted to make his lack of involvement clear. bluetoast already pointed out the trickiness of using pseudonyms. If Moore wasn't indifferent, he would've asked them to include that he didn't approve of the related works, instead of just stating that he wasn't involved in them.

[Pajiba]

Jay G. My opinion of Moore has changed for the worse for a number of reasons:

1) His absolute refusal to have any sort of warning or Adults Only label attached to Lost Girls and his bleating and whining when some bookstores put it behind the counter so that kids wouldn't open it and look at pictures of Alice and Dorothy eating each others pussies as if having kids do that was something to be applauded and a good thing.

2) His admission that he and his now wife did in his own words 'explicit' first hand research into every aspect of Lost Girls including the sexuality. This means pedophelia at the very least.

3) His whole paranoid/conspiracy theory about Dc acquriing Wildstorm just so they could fuck him over. Like he's that important or vital in the comic world.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Pajiba

Jay G. My opinion of Moore has changed for the worse for a number of reasons:

1) His absolute refusal to have any sort of warning or Adults Only label attached to Lost Girls and his bleating and whining when some bookstores put it behind the counter so that kids wouldn't open it and look at pictures of Alice and Dorothy eating each others pussies as if having kids do that was something to be applauded and a good thing.

2) His admission that he and his now wife did in his own words 'explicit' first hand research into every aspect of Lost Girls including the sexuality. This means pedophelia at the very least.

3) His whole paranoid/conspiracy theory about Dc acquriing Wildstorm just so they could fuck him over. Like he's that important or vital in the comic world.

I'd like cites for these. Off hand, claim 1 seems unlikely, as Moore has explicitly called Lost Girls pornography, and the publisher's own site lists the title as "ADULTS ONLY"
http://www.topshelfcomix.com/catalog...er-edition/219

[majorjoe23]

I agree, my local shop keeps the $75, shrink-wrapped hardcover of Lost Girls right at a three foot eye level next to The Tiny Titans display, with a Hey kids, do you like Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz? sign on it.

[PhantomStranger]

Originally Posted by majorjoe23

I agree, my local shop keeps the $75, shrink-wrapped hardcover of Lost Girls right at a three foot eye level next to The Tiny Titans display, with a Hey kids, do you like Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz? sign on it.

Kids stopped going to comic book shops long ago, so there is no fear a youngster will come across it...only partly joking. In reality, Lost Girls needs to be kept from everyone for how bad the entire thing ended up. Moore took a fun concept and implemented it very poorly. By far his worst written work.

[majorjoe23]

Eh, I don't know if it's Violator vs. Badrock bad.

[Jay G.]

Well, Pajiba hasn't posted in this thread again yet to defend his claims, but I feel like I should point out that his claim #2 is extremely strong, and isn't an accusation one should make lightly. I would have to see some strong evidence before believing Pajiba's claim of pedophelia.

As for claim #3, I did find a quote from Moore in "The Interview" that supports it:

But, I resolved that I didn't want to work for DC Comics ever again--or their subsidiaries. This worked fine for a number of years until I'd just signed contracts with Jim Lee's WildStorm Comics, at which point DC bought the whole of them--as they previously tried to buy the whole of Rob Liefeld's Awesome Comics, if I was part of the deal. So, it seemed that they'd bought a whole company just to have me working for them again.

Note that Moore tempers his claim with "it seemed"; he's not saying DC definitely did buy WildStorm just for him, just that it seems like it to him. Big ego? Yes. Something the vilify Moore for? Not in my opinion.

[PhantomStranger]

Moore has always insinuated in the press that DC bought out Wildstorm mostly to get him. It's one of those likely half-truths that no one will ever know unless someone at DC comes out about the deal. This would have to be years after Jim Lee has left DC of course.

[majorjoe23]

I think some of that is likely half joking as well. Moore throws out a lot of things that sound pretty funny in an audio/video interview but don't always translate so well to text.

[madcougar]

Originally Posted by Pajiba

Wow.

You certainly seem to have a lot of 'facts' that you claim are true, yet you also have precisely zero cites to back them up

So try again, this time with legitimate cites to back up some of those claims, especially the one about how the book would have gone out of print since sales were so dismal if not for the simple reason that DC owns the rights.

After reading this guy's hilarious posts I've come to the conclusion that "he" is a 13-year-old she. That explains the eyerolls the PMS 'tude.

Little girl, stop messing around on your daddy or mommy's computer please and go play dolls.