Abob Teff

Fixed. It is obligatory for prequels to contain components that make absolutely no sense within the context of the story and elements (plotlines, character behaviors, etc.) contradictory to the original.

That said, I have no real interest in the backstories of the "core" Watchmen characters. We already have that. I don't need "The Weekend Adventures of Rorschach" or "The Comedian's Summer Vacation" or "The Origin of Dr. Manhattan's Blue Balls" or "Ozymandias at Studio 54" or "Silk Spectre's College Experiment."

However, I would be interested to see a series going back to the beginning of it all -- the Minutemen (which I see will get a few of the issues). It would be awesome to see it drawn in the style of the time period ...

whotony

Has a date been set for release?

brayzie

I read that.

I'm disappointed though because Larsen is going to explain what happened to Liefeld's Supreme. But the Supreme in "Story of the Year" IS Liefeld's Supreme. It's explained in the first issue because we see him recognizing Lady Supreme and Kid Supreme and talking about Loki. The Supremacy explains that he's special because instead of fading out like the rest of them, he's given the chance to exist in the new continuity.

brayzie

That would be cool. There is going to be a Minutemen BEFORE WATCHMEN series by Darwyn Cooke. He's a good writer and artist, but I'm thinking it'll be too similar to New Frontier while not being as good.

slop101

Jay G.

Here's the interview that screencap is purportedly from:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAfXSgRxQEc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn95a3gGaW0

Pajiba

Ok, couple of thoughts.

JayG has written that Moore wrote The Killing Joke and Bolland drew it in 1988.

Unequivocally wrong. Moore and Bolland are both on record disparaging the story and both are also on record as stating how old it is. Moore wrote it in 1983 and sent it along to DC along with a note saying he'd like Bolland to draw it, as well as giving the script to Bolland. It took Bolland two years to do as he said in his recent book, which is well worth knocking old ladies down and grabbing.

Now as for Watchmen and Moore's whining and blubbing that he was screwed with his pants on by DC. I find it quite interesting that Gibbons hasn't come anywhere close to taking Moore's side of things, which is surprising seeing as how closely they worked on the damn thing.

Jim Lee had some interesting comments on Moore's whining, recently: .

Moore's attitude seems to be that of the 'true fan' who is resentful that this thing they love, in this case the comic book Watchmen is continually in print and thus reaching an ever widening audience. How and why this is considered a bad thing has never been adequately or even sanely explained to me. Perhaps those in tune with Moore on this issue here at DVDTalk could try and explain to it to me

bluetoast

Jay G, thanks for those videos.

ytrez

I don't know the particulars but Moore's contract says something to the effect that once Watchmen is out of print for some period of time the rights revert back to him. I presume Gibbon's says the same thing. DC has never let Watchmen go out of print and therefore has retained the rights. While Moore gets paid, as per the contract, for whatever DC does, the books, the movie, etc., DC still keeps a big chunk of the proceeds for themselves. I don't know if Moore would intend to keep Watchmen in print if the rights revert to him but, if he did, he'd pocket all the profit (with Gibbons) and not have to share with DC.

Jay G.

You're right that Moore wrote it earlier than 1988, although not as early as you stated.

Two separate interviews with Moore on when The Killing Joke was written:
http://www.salon.com/2009/03/05/alan_moore_q_a/
http://www.blather.net/articles/amoo...to-light1.html
Just throwing a possibility, but perhaps Moore wrote a proposal for the comic much earlier, possibly as far back as 1983, which is when he joined DC. Or perhaps you confused the year Moore started at DC with the year he wrote The Killing Joke. If you have references for the 1983 date, I'd like to read them.

Gibbons has been much more diplomatic about how DC handles Watchmen, and has worked with them on their various Watchmen projects. He's benefited financially from that arrangement.
http://www.denofgeek.com/comics/5980..._and_more.html
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/10...-interview.php

Jim Lee's an ass. Moore isn't complaining that he didn't read the contract, but that DC has acted underhandedly be following the letter of the contract while betraying the spirit of the contract, in regards specifically to the reversion clause.

I think ytrez explained this extremely well. It's not that Watchmen is still in print that Moore objects to: it's that DC has managed to hold onto the rights by keeping Watchmen perpetually in print (it has never gone out of print since its trade release, not even for a little while).

Pajiba

Yeah, it was probably a proposal or outline rather than the actual script, but I do know it took Bolland two years to draw so Moore probably finished the script in early 1986.

How has DC acted underhandedly by following the letter of the contract? That's why contract's exist, so that you follow the conditions and rules laid down in them.

And why should/would DC take Watchmen out of print when sales have always been steady for more than twenty years to the point that they have never lost money? Moore and you and others seem to refuse to accept the fact that this is a BUSINESS. I know, I know, capitalism is creepy and ugly and stinky and cruel and lame, and stupid, but too bad.


And ytrez is wrong about Moore not having to share any profits if the rights reverted back to him. He'd have to partner up with a publishing company of some kind and there isn't a legitimate publisher in the world that's going to say, "So let's get this straight, you want us to publish Watchmen for you and we have to pay all of the publishing and publicity costs and you take all the profits. Not a percentage, ALL of them. Gee, why wouldn't we do that?"

Please.

The only major comics company Moore hasn't burned not just the bridge, but the river as well with is Image. he isn't going to go with an independent because they don;t have the distribution network set up. Of course he could be a douche and throw it up on the Net for free.

whotony

Yeah I'm mot getting the complaining. On this.
Moore signed a contract and agreed to that. If it goes out of print he gets it. Why would DC give up on a property that still works for them?

"oh, here you go Mr. Moore. We make money in this but since you think you should get it just because, we thought you should have it."

fujishig

It's not as simple as him not reading the contract. He read the contract, but at that time nothing was in print perpetually, and the tpb concept was in it's infancy, if it existed at all.

They also sold buttons as Watchmen merchandise, but they called it promotional so they wouldn't have to share the profit with Moore. He also thinks that they hired and then fired one of his friends for a freelance job in an effort to get him to comply with something. He feels that, when he signed the contract, they lied to him (though I take issue with that, because I really don't think DC thought that Watchmen would continually be in print as long as it has... but who knows?)

He also has severed his relationship with Gibbons over him feeling that Dave did two things he promised not to do.

Moore has a gigantic ego, and it still seems like some of these slights are a bit on the miscommunication side, but it's not like DC and Marvel have just been at the epitome of class in respecting creator's rights over the years anyway (ie: Stan Lee for years refusing to give Kirby co-creator credit, etc.). Isn't that part of the reason Lee and Liefeld and co. started Image in the first place? Plus this is an obvious money grab for DC, despite the talent involved. It's not like the various creators came up to DC and begged to do a prequel because they had some fantastic ideas that would expand what Moore built in his story. That isn't to say it's not going to be good, because who knows?

I'll link the interview again:
http://www.seraphemera.org/serapheme...Interview.html

bluetoast

Yeah, Gibbons is a bit ore diplomatic, but he did said something like "You don't cry over spilt milk, but then again spilt milk doesn't appreciate 10 times in value over 20 years." The numbers are different, but it's in the book "Watching the Watchmen".

Pajiba

No, Moore DID NOT read the contract. he has said this and Lee confirmed it Speaking of which, when and why did Jim Lee become an asshole? I always thought he has always been a fan favorite, not just for his artwork but also for helping star Image. Is it his association at Image with Liefield and McFarlane?

Why exactly does it matter that the tpb side of things was in it's infancy and the idea that tpb's would stay in print was an unknown? Why is it DC's fault that Watchmen has continually stayed in print? Again, this seems to scream of fanboys blubbing because they want to keep something, namely Watchmen to themselves, so they can be all smug about having something that they and only they know about and can thus hold over all others.

Which, let's admit is one of the hallmarks of the dork/spazzoid/dweeb/nerd.geek crown and it's most loathsome.

The whole thing about a freelancer getting hired and fired sounds like straight up blackmail and thus complete and utter bullshit.

So he feels that DC lied to him when he signed the contract, which he admits he DIDN'T READ.

Fine.

Then what precisely did DC lie to him about? Did the suits/lawyers at DC explicitly say, "Ok, here's the deal, we're going to collect Watchmen in a paperback format, all 12 issues and publish it and you and dave get (insert % of royalties here) and we're going to keep it in print for five years, after which we will take it out of print and going by the contract you HAVE READ and signed, the rights to Watchmen will turn over to you and Dave and you can do what you want. You can sign another contract with us, you can take it to Marvel or one of the indy publishers or keep it out of print."

Do you realize how stupid that sounds and reads?

And what two things did Gibbons do that made Moore loathe him and cast magical spells against him?

Pajiba

What does this even mean? are you saying that DC has been cheating Moore and Gibbons out of their proper share of royalties, in violation of the contract?

Moore has earned about $2,000,000 in royalties from Watchmen over the years. If you are referring to monies from the movie and various tie-in's, the blame for any income being withheld there lies entirely with Moore for whining and blubbing and going on record numerous times as saying he would refuse to accept any and all such income.

Jay G.

Have the sales been always steady though? Nobody knows the sales numbers. It's possible that DC fudged the numbers at some point to keep the title technically "in print" when there might not have been a huge demand for it. They could've simply reduced the print runs, so that it'd sell out quicker and need another print run in the allotted time. It's hard to say without seeing the contract, but there's likely opportunities for DC to exploit technicalities and loopholes to retain the title "in print" while not selling more than other titles that they own outright and cease printing.

Capitalism doesn't have to be any of those things, but people are often too focused on one aspect of the system, profit (especially in the short term), to worry about any other pesky things, like treating people fairly.

However, if you want a purely economical reason for DC to give up Watchmen, I should point out that DC has already offered to hand back Watchmen to Moore and Gibbons, in exchange for the prequels. If DC had been smart, maybe they wouldn't have pissed off the artists that gave them the massive hit in the first place, and they could've been milking new titles for profit for decades.. Moore himself has stated that if DC had approached him with that offer a decade or so earlier, he probably would've taken them up on the offer.

Also, to be clear, I don't necessarily believe myself that DC has acting in an underhanded manner. I've merely been trying to articulate and explain what I feel is Moore's side of the argument, which is a legitimate one.

Maybe it's just confusion over what constitutes "profits." Moore did have his own publishing company for a while, but if he arranged a deal with another publishing company, they could've printed and distributed it for a straight fee. So any money left over from the publishing costs and fees would be profit, and Moore and Gibbons wouldn't have to share it.

Moore has stated he read the contract, but maybe not as closely as he should've. From the relevant interview:
And Jim Lee's an ass for mischaractarizing Moore's argument and "confirming" an event that took place long before he joined DC. However, I should clarify that what I mean is that he was acting like an ass when he made that statement; in general he may be a lovely person.

On the one hand, nobody could've predicted what a hit Watchmen became. On the other hand, it seems like an awful coincidence that two of the first comic titles to ever have a reversion clause, Watchmen and V for Vendetta, are also two of the first titles to ever not go out of print.

That part does sound unlikely to me, and from the telling of it he gives in the interview it seems like it could be a misunderstanding on his part, reading too much into some of DC's actions. However, this event occurred after DC legitimately attempted to screw him at least once (with the "promotional" buttons), so it's not surprising he views their motives with suspicion.

They probably didn't say any explicit dates or timelines, but they did insert the reversion clause into the contract, and likely told Moore and Gibbons that this was typical for how standard literature deals had worked for decades, and that trades never stayed in print for long, and that Moore and Gibbons would get the rights back in a reasonable amount of time, at which point they were free to do whatever they wanted with them (which would've included the possibility of licensing the title back to DC).

Moore took them at their word, and when DC managed to retain the rights due to the technicality of the title not going out of print, Moore viewed that (whether rightfully or not) as a dirty trick.

You should really read the relevant interview. It's been all we've been discussing for the past few pages of this thread, and is basically required reading for the discussion at this point.

bluetoast

Uhhh...I'm not saying anything dude. I'm quoting someone. But considering the lengths of posts in this thread, even doing that is going to lead to a response I don't want to deal with.

ytrez

Hmm. Lesson 1 - Profit is the amount of revenue left over after expenses. Expenses include what Moore would pay to publish the book. That is beside the point anyway because the point I was making is that Moore would not have to share with DC. Lesson 2 - Moore doesn't need to partner with a publishing company if he were inclined to do the work on his own. There is such a thing as self publishing. Some guy named Dave Sim knows a little bit about it.

brayzie

good explanation of Moore's pov, Jay G.

Pajiba

He also knows A LOT about misogyny and being one of the most vile human beings I've ever had to spend time with.

FUCK Dave Sim.

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

FUCK him.

Pajiba

JayG, You ask if the sales of the tpb of Watchmen have always been steady. That's kind of a two pronged question, the other one being how many copies were sold in an average month. Your statement that no one knows the sales numbers is, well wrong at least partly. Capital City Distributors, which was one of the major players in the comics field back in the 1980's 1990's, records show that initial orders for the first printing of the Watchmen tpb were 7650 and initial orders for the second printing were 2,335. Now you may argue that those are very low figures, but this is comic books we're talking about and the tpb format for comics was brand new. I'm sure that DC did have a number in mind which if sales of the TP had dropped below they would have taken it out of print, and yeah that number may have been in the low hundreds of copies, but I doubt sales have veer been that low.

brayzie

That was a good video. The interviewer asked some really good questions.

I disagreed with Moore saying that most movies based on books aren't very good, and that's one reason why he doesn't like seeing them adapted.
Dead Ringers, The Shawshank Redemption, Kiss of the Spiderwoman, Silence of the Lambs, Goodfellas, Godfather, Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner, Psycho are some excellent films based on books.

However, I think he makes a good point about some of his work is specifically tailored to the comic book medium.

Take Miracleman for example.

Hokeyboy

Unfortunately this is extraordinarily spot-on.

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.

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.

You cited an extremely small list of book adaptations. I bet if you went back and looked at the movies released the year one of those you listed were, you'd see that the bad book adaptations that year far outnumbered the good ones. The good ones tend to stick around and become classics, while the bad ones are largely forgotten.