|
Post by berkley on Jan 23, 2018 22:21:50 GMT -5
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... This may be a false impression but I've always thought that a little too much is made out of Moore having based the individual Watchmen members on pre-exisiting characters - from Charleton, was it? I think it was just a convenience that saved him the trouble of thinking up some generic superhero types on his own, the way he did with the Superman-based Supreme later on. Had the Charleton characters never existed, I doubt much would have been different about Watchmen, apart from some superficial details about the individual characters.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 22:32:17 GMT -5
I think this thought is worthy of it's own thread... This may be a false impression but I've always thought that a little too much is made out of Moore having based the individual Watchmen members on pre-exisiting characters - from Charleton, was it? I think it was just a convenience that saved him the trouble of thinking up some generic superhero types on his own, the way he did with the Superman-based Supreme later on. Had the Charleton characters never existed, I doubt much would have been different about Watchmen, apart from some superficial details about the individual characters. The story I read somewhere though is that Moore was asked tp pitch a story for the Charlton heroes, and Watchmen was the pitch that resulted. Giordano liked the pitch, but felt it was wrong for the Charlton heroes (he was protective of "his" babies after all) and asked Moore to do something to file off the Charlton trappings and create analogues and not use the real things before it got greenlit, and if so I think you may be off there as the Charlton heroes and their powers/roles were integral to the conception of that story. I am pretty sure I read that in one of the 80s zines (maybe the Four Color debut issue on the DC Renaissance or some piece on Giordano and the transition of the Charlton heroes to DC, but it's been so long I can't remember exactly where). -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 23, 2018 23:29:04 GMT -5
This may be a false impression but I've always thought that a little too much is made out of Moore having based the individual Watchmen members on pre-exisiting characters - from Charleton, was it? I think it was just a convenience that saved him the trouble of thinking up some generic superhero types on his own, the way he did with the Superman-based Supreme later on. Had the Charleton characters never existed, I doubt much would have been different about Watchmen, apart from some superficial details about the individual characters. The story I read somewhere though is that Moore was asked tp pitch a story for the Charlton heroes, and Watchmen was the pitch that resulted. Giordano liked the pitch, but felt it was wrong for the Charlton heroes (he was protective of "his" babies after all) and asked Moore to do something to file off the Charlton trappings and create analogues and not use the real things before it got greenlit, and if so I think you may be off there as the Charlton heroes and their powers/roles were integral to the conception of that story. I am pretty sure I read that in one of the 80s zines (maybe the Four Color debut issue on the DC Renaissance or some piece on Giordano and the transition of the Charlton heroes to DC, but it's been so long I can't remember exactly where). -M According to Moore (Comic Book Artist #9) he was toying around with reinventing an existing set of heroes. Initially he was playing with The Mighty Crusaders from MLJ and it would have been The Shield who was initially found dead. Following DC buying the Charlton heroes Moore and Gibbons decided to work with that instead (the reason being that DC owned them and he was working mostly for DC at the time). He's said if it had been The Thunder Agents it would have been them. The work wasn't solicited by DC. He and Gibbons worked up an initial proposal and pitched it to DC. Giordano liked the proposal (it was still in its infancy at that point) but didn't want it to be the Charlton heroes...basically because they were his babies. So Moore and Gibbons went on to create Watchmen and ultimately Moore admitted it was much better to have the original characters in the book, whereas initially he felt he needed that familiarity from the reader for it to have an impact. So I kind of agree with Berk. Moore didn't really care which heroes he was using. He just wanted to have his own line/universe of heroes to mess with and see where it led him too. Originally it was MLJ, it could have been Tower, ultimately it was a bit of a riff on Charlton, but it really didn't matter, and in the end it was something new.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 24, 2018 1:31:34 GMT -5
Yeah, mrp's account seems to me to confirm rather than undermine my impression that it didn't really matter too much where the characters initially came from. He could just as easily have made up a bunch of new characters from scratch. Most superheroes fall into certain broad types anyway - the Superman type, the Batman type, etc - or else are mixed and matched from various combinations. But Watchmen as an overall concept was far greater than the sum of its influences.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 24, 2018 2:10:48 GMT -5
I have to post this, It's awesome Cracking song, but they sure don't make variety TV like that anymore. I kind of miss the variety shows that were so common on tv in the 60s and 70s. I suppose what's taken their place is those audition shows, UK has Talent, stuff like that, which I dislike for the most part. Anyone know which particular show or special this Barbara Eden bit is from? I don't think I knew she sang, until now.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 24, 2018 2:28:51 GMT -5
Moore figured it had never happened before and he was safe.
I don't think DC deliberately tried to screw him.
This was a revolutionary work and it sold more and more over time; perennially one might say.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, which is what Moore was crying about.
Sure he's pissed off, and always will be, but Levitz tried to smooth things out with him.
Why wouldn't he ? but Moore was not having it.
I admire Moore as a creator greatly, but not the crying after the fact.
I don't blame DC later for opening up and using his other characters if he's not going to try to work things out with them.
He's never coming back. They've tried repeatedly. Oh well, here's some IP's I can get some mileage out of.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 2:35:30 GMT -5
Moore figured it had never happened before and he was safe. I don't think DC deliberately tried to screw him. This was a revolutionary work and it sold more and more over time; perennially one might say. You can't have your cake and eat it too, which is what Moore was crying about. Sure he's pissed off, and always will be, but Levitz tried to smooth things out with him. Why wouldn't he ? but Moore was not having it. I admire Moore as a creator greatly, but not the crying after the fact. I don't blame DC later for opening up and using his other characters if he's not going to try to work things out with them. He's never coming back. They've tried repeatedly. Oh well, here's some IP's I can get some mileage out of. In other words, corporations being corporations as long as we profit it doesn't matter who we screw over or what the human cost is. Using the Watchmen IP has as much integrity as making After M*A*S*H did, and in time will be held in the same regard as other blatant money grabs like that which have no creative or artistic purpose other than to exploit a brand name for short term profits from customers who buy based on brand rather than quality, and often the short term cash doesn't make up for the lasting negative impression it has on the customer base. -M
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 24, 2018 2:38:12 GMT -5
That kind of thinking would mean we'd never have Frank Miller's Dark Knight cause it wouldn't be fair to Bob Kane.
Kane, like Moore, made a deal with a publisher.
The publisher owns the rights in a work-for-hire environment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 2:53:16 GMT -5
That kind of thinking would mean we'd never have Frank Miller's Dark Knight cause it wouldn't be fair to Bob Kane. Kane, like Moore, made a deal with a publisher. The publisher owns the rights in a work-for-hire environment. If Moore created it and brought it to DC and not under their initial auspices, it's technically not work-for-hire. And since Moore was a freelancer and not a staffer, it's not automatically a work-for-hire arrangement if he does work for them either. By taking an idea brought to them and making it work-for-hire is exploiting the creator and stealing their IP to begin with. And why do comics publishers have to own what they publish-the big 7 book publishers make money over fist for years publishing stuff but they don't get ownership of the rights, they pay the creator to publish their works and everyone makes money, but comics publishers choose not to work that way. -M
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 24, 2018 11:26:42 GMT -5
I'm not saying they have to own the rights; just that that's how it's been for decades.
That's why other publishers like Image have done so well.
DC did nothing wrong in their contract with Moore. He knew the industry, was a seasoned professional, not some teenager like Jerry Siegel, and signed the contract.
You're argument that he already had the story when he came to them wouldn't hold up in court. Not sure how you came up with that train of thought. I've never heard of it but don't think it applies to the situation we're discussing. Creators have done that for years. It has no bearing whatsoever on the terms of the contract.
I'm all for creator's rights, but, when the creator signs a contract with terms that differ from that, and the creator is an adult, especially a seasoned, intelligent professional, then I have a problem with that creator later crying foul when it doesn't go his way.
Moore is my single favorite comics author. I love the guy's work, but I've never agreed with him on this matter and never will.
DC did nothing wrong. Yes they shot themselves in the foot by alienating Alan who has had a tantrum about the whole Watchmen thing, but Levitz tried to make it right with him and he wouldn't play ball.
We don't know what the terms were, but Paul Levitz is a good man and one I respect immensely. Frankly, he's part of the reason I really like DC.
I'm sorry Moore is so bitter and are barely produces any work any more.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 24, 2018 11:32:30 GMT -5
Moore figured it had never happened before and he was safe. I don't think DC deliberately tried to screw him. This was a revolutionary work and it sold more and more over time; perennially one might say. You can't have your cake and eat it too, which is what Moore was crying about. Sure he's pissed off, and always will be, but Levitz tried to smooth things out with him. Why wouldn't he ? but Moore was not having it. I admire Moore as a creator greatly, but not the crying after the fact. I don't blame DC later for opening up and using his other characters if he's not going to try to work things out with them. He's never coming back. They've tried repeatedly. Oh well, here's some IP's I can get some mileage out of. That kind of thinking would mean we'd never have Frank Miller's Dark Knight cause it wouldn't be fair to Bob Kane. Kane, like Moore, made a deal with a publisher. The publisher owns the rights in a work-for-hire environment. The idea that Moore would ever come back to DC is laughable. "Well they've consistently f*@$ed with me. But I guess maybe this time they won't. And if they do I can just lay back and think of England." I'll cop that maybe they didn't set out to screw him in the first place. But if a dog bites you once you should be leery of it. If it bites you multiple times you probably either stay away or shoot the damn thing. Interesting how pointing out injustice is crying. Bend over and take it y'all. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're crying about ill treatment. Curt Flood...you stop crying about modern indentured servitude. Just go play like a nice little boy. At this point Moore just ignores it unless he's directly asked in an interview. So he's really not crying. He's creating. Which is a hell of a lot more than the multinational conglomeration that is making money off his work has ever done. I'm not sure what part of Moore negotiating to get a pretty much unprecedented deal you aren't understanding. It's probably the same part where you're having a hard time understanding that neither Watchmen nor Batman were traditional work for hire. And DC found a loophole...so they're clearly the winners and and we should cheer the winner even if the "win" was within the rules but far far outside the spirit of the game. It's good that the poor downtrodden multi-national corporations of the world have supporters to help keep the nasty creators from stomping all over them. We wouldn't want them to have to give up a penny of their billions of dollars to actually act in a moral and socially valuable manner...or live up to the spirit of the agreement they made.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 24, 2018 11:44:25 GMT -5
I'm not rooting for huge multi-national corporations at all.
You being an attorney should appreciate the fact that both parties are bound by that contract.
Moore signed it and later is pissed because he doesn't get it both ways.
I understand not going back and trusting DC after what he perceives as being wronged by them.
It's not the principle of the the thing here, it's the law.
Corporations are in the business of making money. They did it fairly despite Moore later being upset with it.
Do you really think any corporation would later reverse themselves on this ?
Who would ?
Marvel ? Anyone else ?
If Moore felt so strongly about his creation, why didn't he self-publish it ?
I'm sure if he wanted to he could put that together somehow. In fact, the only way he could ever be absolutely positively that nothing like this could ever happen is to self-publish.
Why didn't he ever do that ?
He's Alan Moore. He's like a comic book god. He could have done it if he wanted to.
It would have sold and he would have had complete control over his baby then, but that's not what he did.
DC had treated him fairly in the past and they had an amicable relationship, thus, he signed the Watchmen contract.
If he didn't want the loophole in the contract, he either should have had fought to not have it in there before signing it or not signed it at all, but he took the money along with the terms, thinking them not letting it lapse would happen, cause hey, it's never happened before, right ?
He assumed wrong. The contract stands and both sides have met their contractual obligations.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 24, 2018 11:59:00 GMT -5
In a perfect world Alan Moore would have self published Watchmen and everything would have worked out the same sales wise, But He DID have the DC comics machine pushing the series and I think sales were a lot more than if he wasn't under the DC banner. From what mrp says, independent books sell at barely 5000 units a month. I know we're talking about 1986, but even then, I doubt any of the independents were selling anywhere near the big two. It's possible that in 1986 Moore would have written the same book and it might be largely forgotten like some of the really good books from back in the day. (Elfquest , I'm looking at you.)
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 24, 2018 12:15:09 GMT -5
I agree with everything you just said, except, this being Alan Moore, I think it would have sold more copies, but that's pure speculation.
If you want to completely control everything then don't go to the Corporate Publisher unless the contract you agree to signing gives you the absolute authority that you want.
You might even want to have an attorney that specializes in this field guide you for the very reasons I've stated earlier.
If it weren't under DC's vast publishing and marketing machine, using the Charlton characters, would it have been the same success it ended up being ?
I agree with icctrombone that it would've largely been a curiosity footnote much like other non-Big Two writing that Moore has done, despite the actual quality of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 24, 2018 12:26:59 GMT -5
Alan Moore 1985 =/= Alan Moore 1987 and beyond. Why? Watchmen.
It just seems clear that you're simply not going to understand that Moore's contract on Watchmen was unprecedented and that he clearly believed he was protecting himself because American comics had never before been kept constantly in print. I don't know why this is so hard.
I'm well aware that both parties are bound by the contract. I'm well aware that DC found a loophole that really couldn't reasonably be anticipated in 1985. I'm also well aware that the law is frequently immoral. And I'm well aware that contracts can have provisions that while legal are also immoral.
I'm constantly amazed that super-hero fans who look up to those paragons of truth and justice and looking out for the little guy are so incredibly quick to jump to the defense of corporate giants over creators. I'll never get it.
|
|