I dunno what to make of the new stories. Not sude where I stand on Moore's complaint either. I can see how he would feel a bit slighted. . . . but. . . . Rocket River http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/06/before-watchmen-watching-the-controversy/ 'Before Watchmen:' Watching the controversy Editor's Note: Vanessa Gabriel is a Florida-based writer, and the co-creator of the comics blog Girls-Gone-Geek.com. Even if you are not a regular at your local comic shop every Wednesday, there is a good chance that you have heard of “Watchmen.” For longtime comic fans, “Watchmen” has a biblical status. Since its publication in the mid-‘80s, the controversy surrounding Watchmen is as legendary as the book itself. At a time when comics were overcome with mutant superhero teams battling with the evils of their fictional worlds, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ “Watchmen” was an unprecedented social commentary on the anxieties of the real world. The artistic structure and thought-provoking content made creative, critical, and commercial waves that have extended through the decades. At the time, Moore and Gibbons signed a contract that gave DC Comics rights to “Watchmen,” with the rights (and subsequent revenue) reportedly returning to them when the book went out of print. But the success of the title was also unprecedented, and unexpected. Thus, DC has never stopped printing it. Moore has been unabashedly vocal over the years about this (and other) perceived injustices, “You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.” Moore isn’t the only one. In February, DC announced that it would be publishing “Before Watchmen.” The project consists of seven mini-series, prequel stories about Moore and Gibbon’s iconic characters in the Watchmen: Rorschach, the Comedian, Night Owl, Ozymandias, Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre. DC recruited a remarkable roster of comic industry talent for the project; Amanda Conner, Darwyn Cooke, Adam Hughes, J.G. Jones, Brian Azzarello, Lee Bermejo, J. Michael Straczynski, Joe Kubert, Jae Lee, and original Watchmen editor, Len Wein. This sent the comic book community into an Internet frenzy. In the wake of the Siegel family’s legal battle over copyright to Superman and Jack Kirby’s estate losing their case to Marvel for rights to his creations, particularly with the success of “The Avengers” film (characters Kirby created), the debate over creators’ rights has never been more alive. Chris Roberson, writer of the books “iZombie” and “Fairest” published by Vertigo (the imprint owned by DC) announced, via Twitter, that his current project would be the last time he writes for DC. In an interview with The Comics Journal, he explained his ethical concerns with the company. “… there were just a few general things about the way that it seemed that DC regards creators now that are working for them… but the real kind of proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back was the announcement at the beginning of February of Before Watchmen, which I just thought was unconscionable.” Roberson no longer works for DC. The more vocal members of the comics blogosphere view “Before Watchmen” as nothing more than an exploitative and unethical cash-grab by DC and more revenue that Moore and Gibbons will never see. In the spirit of that sentiment, some fans are opting to speak with their wallets, and will not only boycott “Before Watchmen,” but stop buying DC books altogether. I asked my comic shop owner what he had been hearing from customers. He said, “They are OK with DC doing the books. We have had people add it to their pull list. No great numbers though, not like the ‘Earth 2’ #2 sellout. DC did put out a nice set of promo posters, a poster for each book.” In what has been a dwindling comic book market over the last decade, DC wants a revival. It wants to bring in new consumers. There has been an increase in sales with the “New 52,” and DC means to push the market even further with “Before Watchmen.” At the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, DC Entertainment Co-Publishers Dan DiDio and Jim Lee had a Q&A on “Before Watchmen.” Lee stated, “During the market period of [the Watchmen movie] we sold about a million units [of the Watchmen graphic novel]. And at that point we assumed everyone who was a true comic book collector already had a copy of this trade so the vast majority of that new trade went to new readers and we’re always on the lookout for how do we expand our business … We felt that this would be a great opportunity for us to reach out to the new readers and see if we can convert them into long time readers.” In regards to the controversy over Moore and Gibbons’ rights, Lee goes on to say, “People will listen if it’s polarizing and one-sided enough. This is not a situation where we have taken things from Alan. He signed an agreement and yet he said ‘I didn’t read the contract.’ I can’t force him to read his contract. So there’s all these things that people don’t know and Alan has said that explicitly – there are all these things that mitigate or go into the analysis. It’s not as clear-cut as people want to make it seem… It’s not a situation where we’re using the characters and Alan’s not being compensated. For everything that’s been done for Watchmen from the books to the movie, money has gone his way. The right amount that he deserves based on the contract. So we have honored that part of the agreement.” Will it be the big success DC is hoping for? Will open the worlds of long-loved characters and create stories we will remember? Or will it fall to the wayside in a year like so many comic book events past? Can this really breathe fandom into the non-comic book crowd? Wherever you may fall on the spectrum in this ethical debate, the way that comic book fans, new and long-standing, choose to spend their money will decide the outcome.
I completely understand how Moore would have an ace to grind with DC and certainly would probably feel the same. But the way Moore ****s on pretty much everyone else in the comic industry and how he basically went bat***** insane makes it hard to keep sympathizing with him.
He sounds like a dumbass. He gets paid royalties for every copy sold. He just wants the ownership rights back so he can make more money off of them.
Well, not to mention that, but the fact that Watchmen is a pretty interesting read UNTIL you really start to think about it, and about how the story is constructed... and then especially with the way the movie seems to *emphasize* certain aspects of the story.. then you realize that the entire thing is a hack job, the whole thing hinges upon such a ridiculous contrivance, and without it, the story just never happens, the whole thing just sort of falls by the wayside. And I think this gigantic flaw is one of the reasons that the movie watchers just sort of instinctively rejected the film, whether they were previous fans of the comic or not.. well that, and horrible casting decisions, but that's a different issue.. lol What am I talking about? The whole thing hinges on the character of Dr. Manhattan. He is the lynchpin, he is the walking and talking 'Deus Ex Machina' of the story. And it is not that this character was suddenly endowed with the Godlike powers, that's not the problem. The problem is the notion that Dr. Manhattan was ever involved with the Watchmen in the first place. It is beyond ridiculous. The character as written, and also as portrayed in the movie, would not have ever stooped to become involved in such a small and petty endeavor. The ONLY reason it happens is 'because the writers say so'. And I'm sorry, but that is just piss poor writing. The problem is, without that one gigantic contrived circumstance, not one bit of the rest of the story happens. It was bad enough in the book, but when the movie changed the giant alien squid into a mysterious attack which bore the 'energy signature' of Dr. Manhattan, that just made the whole contrivance even more absurd. Doesn't mean I hate the book or anything, and the movie was probably about as good as that was ever going to be, but it DOES tell me that almost no one has turned a critical eye to the story over the years, instead just sort of falling into this sycophantic fawning and gushing about how great it is, without ever pointing out or questioning its very clear and large flaws. Ah well, how many comic books can even say they are talked about like this at all?
If I remember correctly weren't the Watchmen characters not originally Moore and Gibbon's creation but from a defunct comic line that DC bought?
They were thinly-veiled alterations of Charlton Comics characters that DC had bought out, combined with some aspects of more famous comic characters including DC's own. Moore had to change things around because DC decided that it would've been more profitable not ruining all of their new properties.
You are absolutely correct that Dr. Manhattan is the lynchpin of the Watchmen but I think you are missing the point of the story is about Dr. Manhattan's evolution. By the time of the events of the book it is clear that Dr. Manhattan has lost touch with humanity but the flashbacks are meant to show how he got to that point and the pivotal moment of the story is when he realizes he still has a connection to humanity. I actually liked that change as it added another aspect to the idea of the godlike nature of Dr. Manhattan. It played upon the Biblical idea of a vengeful god, a role that even though he didn't plan it was his greatest gift to humanity. It also gives him a further push to finally leave Earth altogether at the end.
So in that sense Moore can't actually claim they were original since they were based off of DC's intellectual property, with DC's consent of course. I think that weaken Moore's argument.
I thought that the changes in the movie made the plot even less plausible. Veidt's plot was the result of some new clean energy research that he was openly conducting with Dr. Manhattan, who was still working for the US government. Wouldn't the government suspect Veidt first thing after all those cities were nuked? The movie even made up a new scene of Veidt telling off some oil barons. Also, Manhattan was pretty much God. If he went bad, there was no hopefor the human race to defeat him. I think people would be more likely to commit mass suicide than fight him. The book's alien squid was at least shown to be killable.
Yeah, I think it sort of does. Moore hasn't avoided using other people's characters in other works either, such as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Lost Girls.
Yeah, the Manhattan stuff doesn't bother me, as he was more 'human' at the start and progressively lost touch, which was kind of the point. When he came into being at the start of the story the superhero movement had begun, so it made sense that someone who had developed powers (and lost so much that normal people could relate to) would go that route. At least as long as that humanity remained within him. Manhattan is an allegory for the 'godlike' attributes of many superhero comics; I'm fine with it.
You really come off as a douchebag in this post. I don't know whether it's your implication that other people don't understand it like you do, or your insistence that only you and a select few have turned a critical eye towards it, or you calling it "contrived" and "absurd" (d-bag alert), or just the fact that you dared compare the book to the piece of **** movie. Whatever it was, your opinion sucks.
Honestly - I think the story of the pirate in the book was very interesting. Hell they could have made a movie out of it! The thing with Dr. Manhattan is that - you are right he was necessary. Not because he could come in and solve everything but 1. To show how 'god hood' was not reality compatible with still being a common man. 2. To show possibilities. The main thing is that Dr. Manhattan is the ONLY SUPERPOWERED person in that world. He opened the minds of the scientist to the possibilities of the science [in this case teleportation] In the end - Three things stick out 1. The price of peace - world wide threat and many many deaths 2. removal of the simple solution. The fact that the simple solution is not always best 3. The fragility of peace - the implication that one book could undo all that was done. I think it is better than some give credit for but not necessarily as great as others thinks. It is still a good read Rocket River
Whatever. No it doesn't. And they are not opinions, they are observations. Maybe instead of attacking me personally, you can explain how it is NOT contrived? And, oh my, the incredible sin of actually comparing a book to the movie that was made.. of the book. Nobody in their right mind would ever do THAT.
It was more of a deal where the rights were supposed to revert to Moore and Gibbons once they had stopped actively publishing the book. But, though in a normal case, a comic series, even a great one will have a limited print run, DC kind of just kept it in print anyway and so a copyright that was supposed to convey to the creators in around two years (in 1989), instead DC keeps the rights to this day. Moore is maybe the best comic book writer ever. And he had a pretty good reason to get so pissed off at DC. But even if he didn't, they should have let him be right and given him Watchmen back. Because when they didn't, he stopped writing for DC Comics. That's like having a goose that lays golden eggs and then just eating the goose. There will be no more golden eggs at DC from Moore. They did that to themselves. And the did it to the fans too. Moore is a cranky man and an angry one but he is also touched with a great gift. I don't think he takes Watchmen royalties as someone mentioned above by the way. I know that he refuses all money from the movies made based on his comics because he thinks they will be bad and because he doesn't like that they make movies of his characters without asking him. He doesn't see them, he doesn't participate in them in any way, including cashing the checks. I think that's pretty rad. Right now I am so conflicted because I am enjoying DC Comics lately but I think they really suck over this Alan Moore thing. And they have been making snide comments to the press tweaking Moore's nose over their publication of the Before Watchmen series, reminding us all again that they're just a corporation and corporations suck. There was a time that Alan Moore and DC agreed that the Watchmen characters would never be used without his say-so. They found a loophole, changed their minds, flipped him off, and made a big to-do about revisiting the characters without his involvement. Reasonable people can disagree, but I quite obviously think DC stinks for this, if only because it effectively ended any more work in the genre from one of it's greatest creators, if not indeed the greatest. But I'm addicted to several of their new comics. I don't really believe protests matter anyway, as in voting with one's dollars, but even though so many of my favorite creators are involved and I know the comics will be great, I'm skipping Before Watchmen. I'm gonna keep getting the other ones I like but to buy or even 'enjoy' something whose very existence owes itself to something so icky is not for me. It's basically a case of corporate greed and the letter of the law superseding ethics and basic decency and fairness. At a company whose main stock and trade is superheroes. Putting aside for a moment the legality of the situation (which is on DC's side, it's true) think about this: Would Superman do a thing like DC is doing? Because it seems to me more like a Lex Luthor thing.
Other than the oversight of some drawers for Dr. Manhatten, I really liked the movie. I have nothing else to add to this thread.
My understanding of the movie ending was that humanity was uniting out of fear that if they kept on fighting that Dr. Manhattan would return and wipe out humanity. I liken it to the Biblical idea of the threat of a vengeful god prepared to meet out judgement and since it had been mentioned earlier that many people were looking at Dr. Manhattan as a god already he provided not only the technical means but also the philosophical methodology for Veidt's plot. Where as the book was more about uniting to fight the possible threat of alien squids. I think the movie was exploring a religious angle in addition to the idea of just uniting humanity.
Except the characters of the Lost Girls and League of Extraordinary Gentleman may be in the public domain whereas the Charlton Comic characters are not. If Moore, Gibbons and DC had agreed on basing The Watchmen on those characters I think then DC has some claim that creatively to The Watchman. Anyway I agree with BJ that Moore is a cranky genius and that DC is a greedy corporation who should've given in to Moore so they could keep him writing for them.
Alan Moore still writes.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore and he wrote in the superhero genre after Watchmen.
