DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
#126
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 29,261
Received 1,245 Likes
on
856 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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 ...
#128
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
#129
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
#131
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Here's the interview that screencap is purportedly from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAfXSgRxQEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn95a3gGaW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAfXSgRxQEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn95a3gGaW0
#132
Cool New Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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
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:
This is not a situation where we have taken things from Alan. he signed an agreement and he said, 'I didn't read the contract.' I can't force him to read his contract, or the people (who were in charge) back then. Secondly, it's not a situation where we're exploiting or using the characters and Alan's not getting compensated. For everything that's been done with Watchmen, from the books to the movie, money has gone his way, the right amount he deserves, based on his contract.
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
#134
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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
#135
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
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.
Two separate interviews with Moore on when The Killing Joke was written:
http://www.salon.com/2009/03/05/alan_moore_q_a/
I was doing it at roughly the same time I was doing “Watchmen”; a lot of my storytelling ideas are identical to the ones in “Watchmen.” I was pretty much under the influence of the other book, and also I thought that it was very, very nasty.
[You then went and did Batman: the Killing Joke.
Yeah, it was done while I was doing Watchmen, or just after or something, I'm not sure which but it was too close to Watchmen. I mean, Brian [Bolland] did a wonderful job on the art but I don't think it's a very good book.
Yeah, it was done while I was doing Watchmen, or just after or something, I'm not sure which but it was too close to Watchmen. I mean, Brian [Bolland] did a wonderful job on the art but I don't think it's a very good book.
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.
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.
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
#136
Cool New Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
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).
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).
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.
#137
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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."
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."
#138
DVD Talk Hero
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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
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
#139
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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".
#140
Cool New Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
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.
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?
#141
Cool New Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
#142
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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?
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?
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.
And, they'd got this new contract worked out which meant that when the work went out of print, then the rights to it would revert to us--which sounded like a really good deal. I'd got no reason not to trust these people. They'd all been very, very friendly. They seemed to be delighted with the amount of extra comics they were selling. Even on that level, I thought, "Well, they can see that 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 be going out of their way to screw us in any way." Now, I've since seen the Watchmen contract, which obviously we didn't read very closely at the time. It was the first contract that I'd ever seen--and I believe that it was a relatively rare event for a contract to actually exist in the comics business.
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.
#143
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
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.
#144
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
Please.
#146
Cool New Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
FUCK Dave Sim.
I don't care if he's the most successful self publisher in the history of the planet.
FUCK him.
#147
Cool New Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
#148
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
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.
Spoiler:
#150
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.