|
Post by Duragizer on Jan 23, 2018 5:19:19 GMT -5
I'd like to see Sliders relaunched/rebooted. There aren't enough sci-fi TV series exclusively devoted to parallel universes in existence.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 23, 2018 9:09:17 GMT -5
It would be nice if plank number two of DC's business plan wasn't apparently 'Screw with Alan Moore.' Why shouldn't they ? He created Watchmen in a work-for-hire deal and thought he was going to outfox them, when, surprise, they outfoxed him. You of all people should appreciate the fact that it's all in writing and legal. It's not like Moore wasn't a seasoned professional and didn't know what he was getting into. As long as Moore's pissed off saying he'll never work for DC again, why the hell wouldn't they fully leverage whatever IP's he created ? Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. Me ? I'm happy to see yet another layer of flavor added to my favorite universe. As far as DC not publishing the JH Williams oversized edition, that's beyond stupid why they haven't made that happen.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 23, 2018 12:07:24 GMT -5
It would be nice if plank number two of DC's business plan wasn't apparently 'Screw with Alan Moore.' Why shouldn't they ? He created Watchmen in a work-for-hire deal and thought he was going to outfox them, when, surprise, they outfoxed him. You of all people should appreciate the fact that it's all in writing and legal. It's not like Moore wasn't a seasoned professional and didn't know what he was getting into. As long as Moore's pissed off saying he'll never work for DC again, why the hell wouldn't they fully leverage whatever IP's he created ? Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. Me ? I'm happy to see yet another layer of flavor added to my favorite universe. As far as DC not publishing the JH Williams oversized edition, that's beyond stupid why they haven't made that happen. The fact that it’s legal doesn’t make it moral. The reserve clause was legal. Personal services clauses were legal. Slavery was legal. None of them were moral. Beyond which, Watchmen was not a standard work for hire. There was a reversion clause which would revert ownership of Watchmen to Moore and Gibbons if it was not published for a given period of time. It was an unprecedented deal at the time. DC then went on to be sure that Watchmen never went out of print so that clause never kicked in. Which was absolutely unprecedented. Up to that time comics went on sale for a month and they were done. What DC did with Watchmen had never been done before. Now you can can say that Moore should have foreseen that happening. But that’s 30-plus years of hindsight talking. As an attorney I’ll say that in 1986 the idea that a comic would be continually in print for two years, much less thirty, was something very few attorneys would contemplate, much less a comic book writer. So DC got Watchmen and lost Alan Moore. Maybe it was a good trade. It wasn’t a moral one. They backdoored him on ABC also. And Moore worked out his contract and then the line folded. I’m perplexed at the characterization that Moore was going to “outfox” them. He negotiated a deal with a large corporation to protect his work product. DC found a loophole by doing something that had never been done before.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 14:30:09 GMT -5
DC has a long habit of exploiting their talent and screwing them over (see Siegel & Shuster, Bill Finger, et. al.) The thing was under Jeanette Kahn in the 80s when Watchmen came out, they were trying hard to rehabilitate that image and do right by creators, a movement spearheaded by Kahn and Giordano, but as soon as they were gone, it was back to screw the creators and exploit them for all they were worth. It's amazing though, that a creator who was trying to protect his interests in the long line of history of creators being screwed by DC is being portrayed as the bad guy in all of this. Corporations will be corporations is no more a justifiable defense than boys will be boys, and the law itself is often not a guide as to what is right or wrong (as Slam, pointed out) to channel Dickens, The Law is an ass, and it can be made to do whatever people in power want it to do.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 14:36:13 GMT -5
As an addendum, it is curious to me too that many (if not most) of the works that have gone on to be evergreen sellers remaining in print were produced in that era under Kahn & Giordano where creators were given better treatment. The result was invested creators producing better work, but before and after most of the stuff feels more disposable and assembly line throw away product that appeals only to the hardcore audience of super-hero comic book fans rather than to a wider (and more profitable) audience.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 23, 2018 15:02:03 GMT -5
Kahn. Her name is Jenette Kahn.
Same as Bob Kane's real last name. Not related to Genghis or Noonien Singh.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 15:03:56 GMT -5
K ahn. Her name is Jenette Kahn. Same as Bob Kane's real last name. Not related to Genghis or Noonien Singh. oopsie, will fix. Mea culpa -M (self-proclaimed king of typos-never look at my from/form it's always wrong until I edit it)
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,041
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 23, 2018 17:02:59 GMT -5
Beyond which, Watchmen was not a standard work for hire. There was a reversion clause which would revert ownership of Watchmen to Moore and Gibbons if it was not published for a given period of time. It was an unprecedented deal at the time. DC then went on to be sure that Watchmen never went out of print so that clause never kicked in. Which was absolutely unprecedented. Up to that time comics went on sale for a month and they were done. What DC did with Watchmen had never been done before. I'm very much on Moore's side of this fight and I do think that DC have taken advantage of him. That said, I'm always a bit dubious about just how conniving and "villainous" DC really were -- at least, initially. First of all, although you're quite right that no American superhero comic book had continually been in print prior to that, the paperback sales of MAD magazine reprints, Will Eisner's graphic novels, and even Schultz's Peanuts proved that there were precedents for a serialised comic strip or more "intellectual" comic work to do well enough to stay in print for years in paperback form. In addition, plenty of European bande dessinée comics, such as Tintin or Asterix had been in print continually in Britain for decades by the point that Moore wrote Watchmen - a fact Moore would surely have been aware of. I do wonder if Moore was perhaps just a bit naive to assume beyond all doubt that his comic would eventually go out of print. However, a more important mitigating factor in DC's defense for me is that it seems that Moore simply became a victim of his own success. Had Watchmen sucked, or not been as utterly groundbreaking as it was, it very likely would have gone out of print a year or two later and the rights would've then reverted to Moore. Did it stay in print just because DC wanted to keep the characters? That's possible, but I'm dubious about that being the only reason. It's much more likely, at least initially, that the book stayed in print because it was selling like hot cakes. Like I say, I do wonder if DC were really being that scheming from the start and, actually, the success of Watchmen and demand for the TPB surprised them as much as it did Moore. If you're a publisher and you have a hit book on your hands, what do you do? Keep reprinting it, of course! Retaining the rights to the book's characters would've been a very attractive bonus for DC, but what were they gonna do? Ignore consumer demand and discontinue the book? They're a business first and foremost. That was never gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 23, 2018 18:14:36 GMT -5
It's hard to say what was in Moores mind, but he should have gotten better terms for the work. He was at the top of his game and he could have demanded what he wanted. Miller jumped to DC to publish his Ronin book, I suppose Moore could have gone to Marvel with this project. When it comes to these types of situations, trust no one.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 23, 2018 18:42:13 GMT -5
It's hard to say what was in Moores mind, but he should have gotten better terms for the work. He was at the top of his game and he could have demanded what he wanted. Miller jumped to DC to publish his Ronin book, I suppose Moore could have gone to Marvel with this project. When it comes to these types of situations, trust no one. An interesting "What if?" Had Moore done Watchmen at Marvel, which past characters might he have used as his models?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 23, 2018 18:42:39 GMT -5
It's hard to say what was in Moores mind, but he should have gotten better terms for the work. He was at the top of his game and he could have demanded what he wanted. Miller jumped to DC to publish his Ronin book, I suppose Moore could have gone to Marvel with this project. When it comes to these types of situations, trust no one. Again, you're looking at this with 35 years of hindsight. The deal that Moore got on Watchmen was pretty much unheard of in American comics. It was the kind of deal that top comic strip creators were rarely able to get. Was Moore big in 1985? Yes. But Watchmen was what put him through the stratosphere. He was trying to protect himself and Gibbons. He got a deal that was better than anyone else was getting at the time. And he still got screwed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 18:45:52 GMT -5
It's hard to say what was in Moores mind, but he should have gotten better terms for the work. He was at the top of his game and he could have demanded what he wanted. Miller jumped to DC to publish his Ronin book, I suppose Moore could have gone to Marvel with this project. When it comes to these types of situations, trust no one. An interesting "What if?" Had Moore done Watchmen at Marvel, which past characters might he have used as his models? I think this thought is worthy of it's own thread...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 18:51:04 GMT -5
It's hard to say what was in Moores mind, but he should have gotten better terms for the work. He was at the top of his game and he could have demanded what he wanted. Miller jumped to DC to publish his Ronin book, I suppose Moore could have gone to Marvel with this project. When it comes to these types of situations, trust no one. Marvel was embroiled in the Kirby artwork controversy at the time and many creators wanted nothing to do with Marvel at the time because of the way they were doing things and because no one wanted to work under Shooter. Marvel was not doing anything to try to refurbish their image and reputation on how creators were treated and Shooter was even imposing his will on supposedly creator-owned projects at Epic (which led Starlin to take Dreadstar to First among may projects started at Epic and taken elsewhere by dissatisfied creators), so Marvel was not an option for something like Watchmen nor was it realistic to try to use Marvel as leverage in negotiations at the time because everyone knew where Marvel was it in terms of treating creators at the time. -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 23, 2018 21:20:33 GMT -5
Beyond which, Watchmen was not a standard work for hire. There was a reversion clause which would revert ownership of Watchmen to Moore and Gibbons if it was not published for a given period of time. It was an unprecedented deal at the time. DC then went on to be sure that Watchmen never went out of print so that clause never kicked in. Which was absolutely unprecedented. Up to that time comics went on sale for a month and they were done. What DC did with Watchmen had never been done before. I'm very much on Moore's side of this fight and I do think that DC have taken advantage of him. That said, I'm always a bit dubious about just how conniving and "villainous" DC really were -- at least, initially. First of all, although you're quite right that no American superhero comic book had continually been in print prior to that, the paperback sales of MAD magazine reprints, Will Eisner's graphic novels, and even Schultz's Peanuts proved that there were precedents for a serialised comic strip or more "intellectual" comic work to do well enough to stay in print for years in paperback form. In addition, plenty of European bande dessinée comics, such as Tintin or Asterix had been in print continually in Britain for decades by the point that Moore wrote Watchmen - a fact Moore would surely have been aware of. I do wonder if Moore was perhaps just a bit naive to assume beyond all doubt that his comic would eventually go out of print. However, a more important mitigating factor in DC's defense for me is that it seems that Moore simply became a victim of his own success. Had Watchmen sucked, or not been as utterly groundbreaking as it was, it very likely would have gone out of print a year or two later and the rights would've then reverted to Moore. Did it stay in print just because DC wanted to keep the characters? That's possible, but I'm dubious about that being the only reason. It's much more likely, at least initially, that the book stayed in print because it was selling like hot cakes. Like I say, I do wonder if DC were really being that scheming from the start and, actually, the success of Watchmen and demand for the TPB surprised them as much as it did Moore. If you're a publisher and you have a hit book on your hands, what do you do? Keep reprinting it, of course! Retaining the rights to the book's characters would've been a very attractive bonus for DC, but what were they gonna do? Ignore consumer demand and discontinue the book? They're a business first and foremost. That was never gonna happen. No I get it. I don't think that DC were necessarily being purposefully nefarious at the time. I do think that as time has progressed however that DC has gone out of its way to f*#& with Moore. I probably do have to disagree with you regarding your second paragraph though. The American examples you give are all readily distinguishable from Watchmen in that none of them were ever continuously in print. Yes, Mad would do paperbacks. But that work was both demonstrably work for hire and none of it was continuously in print. Peanuts strips were likewise never continuously in print. Eisner's graphic novels were always his copyright and again were not continuously in print. Even in prose work, a book that stays continuously in print is the exception and not by any means the rule. I think SF is arguably the closest parallel to comics (leaving aside pulps which are even closer) and you can see the work of Grandmasters like Simak, Van Vogt and even Zelazny going out of print for extended periods of time. I admit I'd never considered things like Tintin or Asterix, but as far as American Comics what happened with Watchmen and DKR was unprecedented.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,041
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 23, 2018 22:16:09 GMT -5
I do think that as time has progressed however that DC has gone out of its way to f*#& with Moore. Oh, without doubt.
|
|