Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
#596982 - 04/27/12 11:35 AM Actually, no, it was Joe Simon
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
I'm glad the Avengers movie is winning great reviews in Europe. Should be a hit in the U.S. next week.

But -- gah -- again, just like with last summer's Captain America movie, we're getting a load of people crediting every single one of the Avengers to Stan Lee.

“Over the years, the character of Captain America, as created by iconic graphic novelist Stan Lee, has been used to represent the ultimate military warrior and leader."

"Even if you have never opened a comic book, you are probably familiar with characters created by Stan Lee: Spiderman, Captain America, The Fantastic Four, The Silver Surfer, Thor and The X-Men."

Etc., etc.

I know it's anal-retentive fanboy behavior, but ...

CAPTAIN AMERICA WAS CREATED BY JOE SIMON AND JACK KIRBY.

Not Stan Lee. Simon and Kirby.

As for the other Avengers in the movie, Lee co-created them with artists Kirby and Don Heck.

That is all.

Top
#596983 - 04/27/12 12:01 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Exactly and wasn't Lee an intern or some such thing when the first Captain America comic was published?

Regarding the Avengers credits, Stan Lee himself answers the question, "He's not the guy to talk to..."
http://news.moviefone.com/2012/04/24/sta...l?ref=moviefone

Top
#596984 - 04/27/12 12:26 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Wait, so the Avengers movie doesn't even list Kirby's name in the credits? So far, he's been credited in the other Marvel movies.

I don't know why there wouldn't be a bit saying, "Based on the Marvel Comics characters. Avengers created by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Joe Simon and Don Heck."

Top
#596987 - 04/27/12 01:48 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Reading Mr. Lee dodge the question was almost worse than Rick Santorum trying to dodge the "will you endorse Romney" question on CNN.

Top
#596988 - 04/27/12 01:54 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
There is an editorial here where they give a nice overview of the Kirby Avengers, and the Alan Moore Watchmen ethical questions...

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/04/18/creator-rights-before-watchmen-avengers-moore-kirby/

Top
#596989 - 04/27/12 02:47 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
billybates Offline
Member

Registered: 10/02/00
Posts: 389
Loc: ON, CAN
"Graphic Novelist?" Polish that turd, lazy media.

Top
#596991 - 04/27/12 05:44 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Lawson
Wait, so the Avengers movie doesn't even list Kirby's name in the credits?


Kirby does get a "created by" credit along with Stan.

Mike

Top
#596992 - 04/27/12 05:46 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
There is an editorial here where they give a nice overview of the Kirby Avengers, and the Alan Moore Watchmen ethical questions...

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/04/18/creator-rights-before-watchmen-avengers-moore-kirby/




If by "nice overview" you mean "self-righteous tripe", I completely agree.

Mike

Top
#596994 - 04/27/12 09:31 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
You really don't like any outside concerns to affect your entertainment, eh?
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#596999 - 04/28/12 12:44 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
There is an editorial here where they give a nice overview of the Kirby Avengers, and the Alan Moore Watchmen ethical questions...

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/04/18/creator-rights-before-watchmen-avengers-moore-kirby/




If by "nice overview" you mean "self-righteous tripe", I completely agree.

Mike
Well, as much I as I'm willing to admit your expertise when it comes to "self-righteous tripe" an expertise so thorough I dare say "self-righteous tripe" must be your first language, as you are extremely fluent, but I wasn't referring to the opinions and conclusions. When I mentioned the "nice overview" I was talking about the actual overview of the facts, that was part of the editorial. Did you find any of the information to be incorrect?

Other than when he mistakenly says "Jack Kirby co-created most of the cast of that film, alongside Stan Lee and others." He was obviously meaning to say the "characters" not "cast." But his summary of Kirby's contractual dealings with Marvel, Marvels contracts in general, the history itself, was any of that out of line or factually incorrect?

Top
#597001 - 04/28/12 02:26 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Mike, I'm curious, what's your take on this interview with Chris Roberson, one of the topics is creator rights...

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38395

Top
#597002 - 04/28/12 02:49 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Originally Posted By: Lawson
Wait, so the Avengers movie doesn't even list Kirby's name in the credits?


Kirby does get a "created by" credit along with Stan.

Mike

Yes and no. Maybe you've seen it and can confirm, but from what I've heard Kirby will be credited on the closing crawl only. Not in the opening credits.

I hope that's not accurate.

My understanding is there was some confusion over whether or not his name would be included at all, despite the film’s press kit, Kirby’s name didn't appear on any promotional materials and then adding fuel to the fire was Stan Lee's cryptic response when asked about Kirby's credit, “I don’t know how to answer that, because in what way would his name appear?”

Top
#597003 - 04/28/12 03:13 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
I know the issue is about exploiting the man's work, long after he's been on the payroll. The question I have regarding Moore's complaints about Watchmen prequels, except for time, how are they any different than his own use of characters he didn't create nor get permission to use, in LOEG or Terra Incognita?

Top
#597004 - 04/28/12 05:19 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
He has a bad way of putting it: he's "stealing" rather than "adapting" them. What I gather he means is that he's appropriating them for his own individual aesthetic purpose, not mining the same terrain as the creator of the characters. For Moore, a film adaptation is aesthetically worthless, but borrowing tropes or characters or ideas (as long as it's been disconnected from the originator's usage) is part of what art is all about.

There was a discussion of this, with links, elsewhere. And here's my problem with Moore's position.


Edited by Charles Reece (04/28/12 05:27 PM)
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#597005 - 04/28/12 06:41 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Charles Reece]
Alexander Ness Online   shocked
Member

Registered: 09/17/03
Posts: 3841
Loc: Minnesota
Having sold everything I own of value, I'd be fucking happy to be paid residuals for anything I created for DC. Some of the arguments of people come from pride, and I get that. Some comes from having the ability to say no, and then watch as the corporation plows over their objections. But for me, if I made something, I'd have to be fucking rich to decide no thanks to further exploitation.

On the other hand, I don't create for DC. Everything I do is my own. So if I exploit myself, that sounds dirty.

Top
#597006 - 04/28/12 08:49 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Charles Reece]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece

Please tell us what exact issues of any Charlton comics Moore's Watchmen story was adapting, extrapolating upon, sequelizing, prequelizing or even referring to. Like Moore said, he stole the characters to tell his own story. That's his basic point.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597007 - 04/28/12 09:38 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
I wasn't thinking of the Watchmen (which are about as original or not original as most superheroes), but The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which as a team make a collective sequel to their original creators' works. This is particularly true within Moore's philosophy, since these characters really exist in idea space (that's really Mina, really the Invisible Man, etc.). I don't see an aesthetic problem with other creators doing prequels to Moore's books. The problem is based on his immoral treatment by DC, not some aesthetic notion that other people should never do a Superman story if they're not the creators. That's a pretty silly idea, and one that contradicts Moore's own past and theory of creativity.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#597009 - 04/28/12 10:28 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Charles Reece]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
I saw a Watchmen lunchbox today.

No kidding, an actual Watchmen lunchbox-and-thermos set, featuring Dr. Manhattan. No blue penis, though.

Please let me be a fly on the wall the first time Alan Moore sees this lunchbox.

Top
#597010 - 04/28/12 10:35 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
billybates Offline
Member

Registered: 10/02/00
Posts: 389
Loc: ON, CAN
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Other than when he mistakenly says "Jack Kirby co-created most of the cast of that film, alongside Stan Lee and others." He was obviously meaning to say the "characters" not "cast."


There is a definite resemblance between Kirby and Mark Ruffalo.

Top
#597011 - 04/28/12 10:58 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Charles Reece]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which as a team make a collective sequel to their original creators' works.

The novelty is simply in shoving them all into one goulash, not in continuing their stories or creating new canonical continuity. I've read very few of the original works, so I don't know how well Moore's story dovetails into them.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597012 - 04/29/12 12:05 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Charles Reece]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
I don't see an aesthetic problem with other creators doing prequels to Moore's books. The problem is based on his immoral treatment by DC, not some aesthetic notion that other people should never do a Superman story if they're not the creators. That's a pretty silly idea, and one that contradicts Moore's own past and theory of creativity.
That's were I think I'm ending up on the whole thing. I think guys like Kirby would want their characters to live on and remain popular, they just wish they would also have been treated more fairly. But having the character go out of print would serve no purpose either.

Better to fight for the old guys getting fair credit at this point than to boycott anything, (Easy for me to say, except for the occasional Essential or Showcase reprints, the cartoons and movies are my sole connection to Marvel and DC anymore).

Originally Posted By: Alexander Ness
Having sold everything I own of value, I'd be fucking happy to be paid residuals for anything I created for DC. Some of the arguments of people come from pride, and I get that. Some comes from having the ability to say no, and then watch as the corporation plows over their objections. But for me, if I made something, I'd have to be fucking rich to decide no thanks to further exploitation...
So you can relate to Kirby desperately agreeing to Marvels outrageous terms back in the '70's, in order to get at least some compensation?

Originally Posted By: billybates
"Graphic Novelist?" Polish that turd, lazy media.
I've seen worse. Some reporter credited Lee with inventing the comic book. I assume she just misread the tele-prompter that may have said, "reinvented the comic book." Which is a little more in line with the reality, if a bit vague.

Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
The novelty is simply in shoving them all into one goulash, not in continuing their stories or creating new canonical continuity. I've read very few of the original works, so I don't know how well Moore's story dovetails into them.
It's not about how well "Moore's story dovetails into them." Or about quality at all. It's about the idea of using characters created by another author, for your own story.

Philip José Farmer does this sort of thing all the time as well, he's sort of the grandfather of it I suppose with his whole Wold Newton Universe. I just discovered his ancient Opar novels, great fun. So in principal I see nothing wrong with this sort of thing.

My point being is if anyone writing new stories using Moore's characters doing anything different than Moore did himself by using the characters' created by other authors in LOEG, or Terra Incogita for that matter?

Top
#597013 - 04/29/12 01:37 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Alexander Ness Online   shocked
Member

Registered: 09/17/03
Posts: 3841
Loc: Minnesota
I have a blue penis.

Top
#597014 - 04/29/12 02:00 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Alexander Ness]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Alexander Ness
I have a blue penis.
Blue or blew?

Top
#597015 - 04/29/12 02:06 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Alexander Ness Online   shocked
Member

Registered: 09/17/03
Posts: 3841
Loc: Minnesota
Trust me blue as the balls beneath it.

Top
#597016 - 04/29/12 04:08 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
My point being is if anyone writing new stories using Moore's characters doing anything different than Moore did himself by using the characters' created by other authors in LOEG

The point of continuing Watchmen is exploiting the fanbase's awareness and adulation of Alan Moore. Most people can't name the authors Moore stole the principle LoEG characters from.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
or Terra Incogita for that matter?

Terra Obscura. And once again, name the creators of those characters and any original appearances Moore was referring to.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597017 - 04/29/12 11:27 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
"The point of continuing Watchmen is exploiting the fanbase's awareness and adulation of Alan Moore. Most people can't name the authors Moore stole the principle LoEG characters from."

The point of LOEG is to use characters from popular fiction to tell a new story. Before Watchmen is trying to tell further stories of popular characters by Alan Moore, not Moore himself. It's really not that categorically different. Moore applied the shared universe idea of corporate superhero comics to characters from old popular fiction. That brought the individual worlds of the various original creators into Moore's world. The Before Watchmen creators are adding to Moore's world. And the fact is: these creators aren't much concerned about how Moore might've been treated. However, Moore became famous by working at the same company at a time when his "previous creators" were treated even more poorly than Moore himself. He seems to regret that now, but that's after his name was made. Nor is he concerned about what those long dead creators might've thought about having him use their characters in such a way. Would Carroll or Baum have likely approved of having their characters for children turned into porn stars? I don't see a problem with it, but if Moore's going to slam these current creators for not caring about his wishes, maybe he should have.

My mind isn't made up about whether one should not buy work from creators you like because they're working for an exploitive company. (I'm not buying any of the BW because it will be pure shit, but I'm speaking "in principle.") I like Joss Whedon's work -- should I not buy his X-men or pay to see his Avengers, because of how the company treated Jack Kirby? Is it immoral to work for Volkswagon or buy a Bug because of how the company started? Is there anything in the capitalist world that isn't tainted by blood, oppression and death? Old school Christians had it right: we're born into this world as sinful creatures -- that is, we're inherently compromised under capitalism. We can't start with a clean slate.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#597018 - 04/29/12 12:23 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Alexander Ness]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Alexander Ness
I have a blue penis.


Take off the rubber band!

Top
#597019 - 04/29/12 02:39 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Charles Reece]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
That brought the individual worlds of the various original creators into Moore's world. The Before Watchmen creators are adding to Moore's world.

Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
It's really not that categorically different.

Other than being the complete inverse, yeah, not that categorically different.


Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
However, Moore became famous by working at the same company at a time when his "previous creators" were treated even more poorly than Moore himself.

I'm not sure how badly Bernie Wrightson was treated, but at least Len Wein is getting revenge.


Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
Would Carroll or Baum have likely approved of having their characters for children turned into porn stars?

Once again, Moore isn't creating canonical continuity. The very idea that Neverland, Oz and Wonderland all exist in the same reality is a bit much.


Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
I like Joss Whedon's work -- should I not buy his X-men or pay to see his Avengers, because of how the company treated Jack Kirby?

I have the opposite problem. I hate Joss Whedon's work and I don't want to give him any money at all. I downloaded a bootleg of Cabin in the Woods, and it was very much that same mish-mash superficial elements lifted from other genres that made me dislike Whedon in the first place. Sort of the opposite of what Moore was originally doing with LoEG (telling a solid story with lifted characters), Whedon just waves around some lifted material and that's his whole story. Which is, sadly, what Moore is now doing with LoEG, Black Dossier forward.


Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
Is it immoral to work for Volkswagon or buy a Bug because of how the company started?

If you're an American, I'd say it's immoral to buy anything other than a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler vehicle.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597020 - 04/29/12 03:06 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Alexander Ness]
MightyQuin Online   content
Member

Registered: 01/26/02
Posts: 1068
Loc: Tallahassee,FL
Originally Posted By: Alexander Ness
Everything I do is my own. So if I exploit myself, that sounds dirty.



Well, that's what turned your penis blue, indulging in too much self-exploitation. Alex, just set a max of three times a day, you're not a teenager, chrisakes!

Top
#597021 - 04/29/12 03:54 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MightyQuin]
Alexander Ness Online   shocked
Member

Registered: 09/17/03
Posts: 3841
Loc: Minnesota
Sigh.

I gave myself repetitive motion disorder of the wrist.

Top
#597022 - 04/29/12 04:33 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Terra Obscura.
Yeah, that's the one!

Top
#597023 - 04/29/12 04:39 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
My point being is if anyone writing new stories using Moore's characters doing anything different than Moore did himself by using the characters' created by other authors in LOEG

The point of continuing Watchmen is exploiting the fanbase's awareness and adulation of Alan Moore. Most people can't name the authors Moore stole the principle LoEG characters from.

Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
or Terra Incogita for that matter?

Terra Obscura. And once again, name the creators of those characters and any original appearances Moore was referring to.
Irrelevant. Everything you are saying is irrelevant.

This is corporate owned comics.

Do you think the point of publishing Omnibus editions of Kirby and Ditko works is not exploiting the fanbase's awareness and adulation of Kirby and Ditko?

Most people can't name their own Governor, or tell you when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Most people don't know a lot of things...

People who do know enough to know who Alan Moore is read enough to probably know H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson.

But again this is all irrelevant.

My point is, if you feel strongly that Watchmen prequels are wrong, wrong enough to not buy them, then most Marvel and DC comics are wrong aren't they? But is Alan Moore on solid ground for condemning the prequels given his works on Swamp Thing, LOEG and Terra Obscurra? I think that's a fair question. Anyone working on new comics created by Kirby, Joe Simon, Siegel and Shuster, or anyone who was ever screwed by the publishers is doing the same thing, you can't single out Alan Moore, it's either all or nothing, EVEN working on new Watchmen comics is nothing that wasn't done by Alan Moore reinventing Swamp Thing, using public domain characters in LOEG or Terra Obscurra.


Edited by Joe Lee (04/29/12 04:58 PM)

Top
#597024 - 04/29/12 06:51 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Do you think the point of publishing Omnibus editions of Kirby and Ditko works is not exploiting the fanbase's awareness and adulation of Kirby and Ditko?

If they're collections of just those artists' work, sure, that's what it is. If they're not just those artists' work — and most Thor or Spider-Man collections aren't — then it's recognition of the properties.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
My point is, if you feel strongly that Watchmen prequels are wrong, wrong enough to not buy them, then most Marvel and DC comics are wrong aren't they?

The people who created the staple Marvel and DC characters weren't hired to do so because of who they were. Alan Moore was given the platform to create Watchmen specifically because he was fan-favorite writer Alan Moore.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
But is Alan Moore on solid ground for condemning the prequels given his works on Swamp Thing, LOEG and Terra Obscurra?

Alan Moore is on solid ground for condemning the Watchmen prequels, full stop. His Swamp Thing was WFH, the other two are classical intellectual theft, as he has already explained.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
it's either all or nothing, EVEN working on new Watchmen comics is nothing that wasn't done by Alan Moore reinventing Swamp Thing

Except 1)that was WFH on a clearly corporate owned and controlled property; and 2)one of the co-creators served as the editor.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
using public domain characters in LOEG or Terra Obscurra.

ONCE AGAIN. Classical Intellectual Theft, making reference only to the general memories of the characters and not to any specific story elements, with no intention of adding canonical continuity.




You are one hard-headed little bitch.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597028 - 04/29/12 08:32 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
You are one hard-headed little bitch.
Can't you have a conversation with someone you disagree with, without being an ass?

Top
#597029 - 04/29/12 11:30 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Quote:
Once again, Moore isn't creating canonical continuity. The very idea that Neverland, Oz and Wonderland all exist in the same reality is a bit much.


According to Moore's philosophy, these are the same characters, existing in the same idea space. And, really, something is canon if people say it's canon. Wells isn't around to dispute it (but that's irrelevant to my point).

Quote:
If you're an American, I'd say it's immoral to buy anything other than a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler vehicle.


Ford was hardly any more moral than the Nazis he supported.

Quote:
Other than being the complete inverse, yeah, not that categorically different.


Try reading the rest. Hint: Creative worlds are getting mixed in all the situations. The BW creators aren't actually building a garage inside Moore's head. They're using their own ideas and merging them with Moore's creations -- the same thing that Moore does in LOEG.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#597031 - 04/29/12 11:56 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
The question I have regarding Moore's complaints about Watchmen prequels, except for time, how are they any different than his own use of characters he didn't create nor get permission to use, in LOEG or Terra Incognita?




I agree with Moore that DC is desperate with it's BEFORE WATCHMEN series, and very possibly kept WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA continuously in print to keep the movie/merchandise rights, but complaining about adaptations, and the difference between when he does it and everyone else is pretty silly.

He has created a lot of new characters like in TOP 10, V FOR VENDETTA, and others.

But other times he's just like the comic writer's he criticizes. They all want to play with other peoples toys. John Byrne gets to write his favorite characters he grew up with like The Fantastic Four, Captain America, etc. Moore gets to write Captain Nemo, Alan Quatermain [sp?], Superman/Supreme, Peter and Wendy and others. And even when someone objects like in the case of Lost Girls he'll wait it out, and then have it publisehed in that region.

It's easier to wrtie a story using someone else's characters that already have a previously established history and motivations.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597032 - 04/30/12 12:10 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
A lot of Moore's work is pretty much aimed at the same market Marvel and DC cater to, except it's extremely well written.

Miracleman was someone else's creation and he added adult themes to it.

Batman: The Killing Joke was someone else's creation and he added adult themes to it.

Watchmen was originally going to be the Charltan heroes with adult themes but a DC editor decided against it.

Lost Girls is someone elses characters with adult themes added to it.

His more original work is much better and less reliant on fanboy nostaligia which he categorizes as a mental illness. V FOR VENDETTA, and FROM HELL are the ones I'm thinking of.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597033 - 04/30/12 12:21 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Anyone working on new comics created by Kirby, Joe Simon, Siegel and Shuster, or anyone who was ever screwed by the publishers is doing the same thing, you can't single out Alan Moore, it's either all or nothing, EVEN working on new Watchmen comics is nothing that wasn't done by Alan Moore reinventing Swamp Thing, using public domain characters in LOEG or Terra Obscurra.


Well, Alan Moore says he was wrong to work on all those corporate owned characters.

However, if it's simply a matter of readers not knowing who created Doc Strange, DareDevil, the Black Terror, etc, why even use them then? Why not create brand new characters? Probably because there's still a degree of recognition with these characters. When I was 10 and started reading comics I started finding out about all those obscure golden age characters.

Basically it's better to steal lesser known characters and ideas rather then well known ones in Moore's eyes. And as long as it's legal, it's okay. If not, just create a very thinly veiled version of that character like Supreme and his girlfriend Diana Dane. If they sue, you can just claim it's parody.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597039 - 04/30/12 07:26 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Charles Reece]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
something is canon if people say it's canon.

No one is saying LoEG is canon to any of the characters Moore lifted.


Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
Ford was hardly any more moral than the Nazis he supported.

But he was American.


Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
They're using their own ideas and merging them with Moore's creations -- the same thing that Moore does in LOEG.

If they're taking the MLJ heroes, the Fawcett heroes, the Gold Key heroes, etc., and merging them with the Watchmen characters, then sure. But that's not what they're doing. They're taking ONE STORY and extrapolating it into however many other miniseries. They're taking ONE STORY and padding it out into many. Like how Bendis took the seven-page origin of Spider-Man and spread it into seven issues.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597040 - 04/30/12 07:28 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
John Byrne gets to write his favorite characters he grew up with

Not anymore!
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597041 - 04/30/12 07:35 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
Miracleman was someone else's creation and he added adult themes to it.

How deep do you want to go? Marvelman? Captain Marvel? Superman? Hugo Danner? Gilgamesh?


Originally Posted By: Gerald
Batman: The Killing Joke was someone else's creation and he added adult themes to it.

The back character of the Joker was entirely Moore's invention, abandoned immediately thereafter.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
Watchmen was originally going to be the Charltan heroes with adult themes but a DC editor decided against it.

Again, please cite the exact issues of Charlton comics that Watchmen makes reference to.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
V FOR VENDETTA, and FROM HELL are the ones I'm thinking of.

??? Moore's resolution of the Ripper mystery is largely taken from another book.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597042 - 04/30/12 07:38 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
If not, just create a very thinly veiled version of that character like Supreme and his girlfriend Diana Dane.

Moore didn't come up with those characters. That was a time period where he was writing whatever anyone would pay him to work on. He also took money from Todd McFarlane and Dave Sim around that time.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597043 - 04/30/12 07:39 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Can't you have a conversation with someone you disagree with, without being an ass?

Can you have a conversation with someone without deafening yourself?
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597044 - 04/30/12 09:02 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Stephen Parkes Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/09
Posts: 390
Loc: The Bristol, Cuba St
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Originally Posted By: Lawson
Wait, so the Avengers movie doesn't even list Kirby's name in the credits?


Kirby does get a "created by" credit along with Stan.

Mike

Yes and no. Maybe you've seen it and can confirm, but from what I've heard Kirby will be credited on the closing crawl only. Not in the opening credits.


There are no opening credits. All the credits appear at the end. Kirby gets credited with Stan as creating the Avengers (they mean in terms of the overall team idea I guess.) Also, Joe Simon and Kirby get a credit for creating Cap.

Quote:
... adding fuel to the fire was Stan Lee's cryptic response when asked about Kirby's credit, “I don’t know how to answer that, because in what way would his name appear?”


Yeah, someone came to the misunderstanding that Kirby wasn't going to be credited at all, and put that to Stan Lee, who gave that fucking bizarre answer. Seriously, he doesn't know how Kirby would be credited?

Meanwhile, Lee continues to receive an utterly meaningless "Executive Producer" credit on every Marvel film.

By the way, David Brothers is right about the crassness of the official title, Marvel's The Avengers. It highlights the shamelessness of corporations in subsuming individual creativity - capitalism can be pretty darn anti-individualistic.

(It's a daft title in any rate, leading to a ridiculous title card, whereby Marvel presents itself producing itself making its movie.)

Top
#597048 - 04/30/12 11:39 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Stephen Parkes]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Stephen Parkes
Kirby gets credited with Stan as creating the Avengers (they mean in terms of the overall team idea I guess.) Also, Joe Simon and Kirby get a credit for creating Cap.
Thanks that's good to know.

Originally Posted By: Stephen Parkes
...someone came to the misunderstanding that Kirby wasn't going to be credited at all, and put that to Stan Lee, who gave that fucking bizarre answer. Seriously, he doesn't know how Kirby would be credited?

Meanwhile, Lee continues to receive an utterly meaningless "Executive Producer" credit on every Marvel film.
That surprised me.

I would think the answer is obvious, and I understand Mr. Lee might need to be mindful of not pissing of Marvel's lawyers and be very careful how he words his responses to these things, but I would think Mr. Kirby's involvement would be obvious. And there should be a way to graciously say something, giving a tip of the hat as it were, without sounding evasive. I mean if all else fails play the old man card, "I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I remember working on that first issues of the Avengers comic with Jack Kirby... Good times." Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy, but it just seems like he won, he's got tons of money, all the notoriety, the media, sees him as the Walt Disney of comics, why not be a bit more gracious. And he does it sometimes. Maybe the lawyers at marvel have everybody crazy or maybe he's just not as quick on his feet as he used to be.

Top
#597049 - 04/30/12 12:46 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I agree with Moore that DC is desperate with it's BEFORE WATCHMEN series, and very possibly kept WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA continuously in print to keep the movie/merchandise rights, but complaining about adaptations, and the difference between when he does it and everyone else is pretty silly.

He has created a lot of new characters like in TOP 10, V FOR VENDETTA, and others.

But other times he's just like the comic writer's he criticizes. They all want to play with other peoples toys. John Byrne gets to write his favorite characters he grew up with like The Fantastic Four, Captain America, etc. Moore gets to write Captain Nemo, Alan Quatermain [sp?], Superman/Supreme, Peter and Wendy and others. And even when someone objects like in the case of Lost Girls he'll wait it out, and then have it publisehed in that region.

It's easier to wrtie a story using someone else's characters that already have a previously established history and motivations.

I totally agree with you here.

If Moore, as you pointed out, says he was wrong to work on all those corporate owned characters. And he did it at a time when common knowledge creators had been screwed, he was willingly part of the system that he knew exploited the works of others.

But now someone else is doing it him. Isn't that part of the price you need to pay in order to NOT be a hypocrite?

If you work for Marvel and/or DC and you DON'T get exploited, aren't you part of the exploitation? If you get to play with the company toys, as long as you leave a bit of your own sweat and blood creations behind, you've paid the karmic debt.

Allen is trying to make the argument that when Moore writes a story using characters created by other authors, even if those characters have been passed on through many authors, they somehow become unique, and anyone who uses the same characters after Moore, is just trying to exploit Moore's versions, not doing the same thing he did.

Allen claims that in the LOEG, "The novelty is simply in shoving them all into one goulash, not in continuing their stories or creating new canonical continuity. I've read very few of the original works, so I don't know how well Moore's story dovetails into them." His argument as best I can guess is that the sum of the parts creates a new whole, if that were the case why just use public domain characters? If the end result were truly a unique creation, how would copyright apply.

Moore didn't invent the idea of creating a shared universe with literary characters, nor did he create any of the lead characters, so how is Moore NOT exploiting these characters, but people making Watchmen prequels are exploiting Moore?

But it's all exploitation. How is Moore unique? All corporate owned comics and comics merchandise are exploiting the creative people who worked on them before. All of Marvels movies exploit Kirby to some extent, but the general public doesn't know his name, so according to allen it's different, like a Batman movie exploits Frank Miller, (especially one called The Dark Knight).



Top
#597050 - 04/30/12 01:29 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
How deep do you want to go? Marvelman? Captain Marvel? Superman? Hugo Danner? Gilgamesh?

I don't need to. He was continuing Mick Anglo's MARVELMAN for Warrior Magazine. It's not like he created a completely new character inspired by those others. He was writing Mick Anglo's characters except with the twist of EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!!!


Originally Posted By: Gerald
The back character of the Joker was entirely Moore's invention, abandoned immediately thereafter.

Batman, The Joker, Barbara Gordon, Commisioner Gordon, the Red Hood Identity, the chase throught the chemical factor along witht the chemical bath were all created by someone else.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
Again, please cite the exact issues of Charlton comics that Watchmen makes reference to.

I didn't say it does or does not make exact references to any exact Charlton issues. I said Moore originally just wanted to play with Charlton characters and do his MO of adding adult themes to characters aimed at kids/teenagers.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
??? Moore's resolution of the Ripper mystery is largely taken from another book.

Oh well, then that's not a good example of Moore being unique.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597051 - 04/30/12 01:48 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee

But it's all exploitation. How is Moore unique? All corporate owned comics and comics merchandise are exploiting the creative people who worked on them before. All of Marvels movies exploit Kirby to some extent, but the general public doesn't know his name, so according to allen it's different, like a Batman movie exploits Frank Miller, (especially one called The Dark Knight).

Yup.

Alan Moore keeps finding excuses for himself. He says that MOBY DICK never got a sequel, why should Watchmen? Let these self contained masterpieces stand on their own, dammit!

But if you're taking characters from self contained stories it's okay because you're not making DIRECT sequels.

But in the case of Jules Verne and other authors like him, then direect sequels are okay, as long as you don't title it THE NARRATIVE OF ARTHUR GORDON PYM PART II.

Moore creates very narrow parameters of what is okay and what isn't in literature, and these parameters convienently fit with what he and his favorite writers have done.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597052 - 04/30/12 01:59 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
I'll let you intellectual heavyweights decide the complicated morality issues involved in WATCHMEN 2.

Me, I'm going to avoid these comics simply because I thought WATCHMEN was a fine piece of work, and the story ended to my satisfaction in 1987, and I've no interest in seeing what Jim Lee or anyone else wants to add to the story at this late date.

If Warner Bros. announced CASABLANCA 2: PLAY IT AGAIN AGAIN, starring Seth Rogan and Lindsey Lohan, I would not dispute the studio's right to do so. But I wouldn't open my wallet for it, either.

Top
#597055 - 04/30/12 02:20 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
If Alan Moore and DC had put out Minutemen, the original prequel to Watchmen, I so would have bought that.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597056 - 04/30/12 02:41 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
If Alan Moore and DC had put out Minutemen, the original prequel to Watchmen, I so would have bought that.


At the time, I would have, too. Of course, it was the 1980s and I was an adolescent fanboy. Frank Miller had yet to show us the perils of letting even the original creators muck about with a sequel.

But Moore, for whatever reason, discarded his plan for the Minutemen project. I think some of the source material ended up in a Watchmen role-playing game.

Twenty-five years have passed since WATCHMEN. The story ended. The creators moved on to other things. For DC to return to that well at this late date shows that it's as creatively exhausted as Moore likes to say it is.

Top
#597059 - 04/30/12 04:42 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Moore says he was wrong to work on all those corporate owned characters.

Yes. Swamp Thing, Superman, Green Lantern, etc. Not Watchmen.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Allen is trying to make the argument that when Moore writes a story using characters created by other authors they somehow become unique, and anyone who uses the same characters after Moore, is just trying to exploit Moore's versions, not doing the same thing he did.

Okay, I'll try and use small words and a lot of paragraph breaks so maybe you can understand.

Moore stole characters for LoEG and Lost Girls.

Stealing characters is a common literary tradition.

Moore stole from many sources, for the purposes of creating a mash-up.

Moore refers primarily to the public's images of the characters he stole.

Moore rarely refers to specific story elements in the original works.

Moore is not attempting to build additional events that anyone should consider fitting into the continuity of the original works.



---Watchmen 2, on the other hand...

...takes only from one source: Watchmen.

...is attempting to expand the canonical continuity of Watchmen.

...is only being put out to capitalize on the current popularity of Alan Moore.

(note: there is no Camelot 4000 in the works)

(also note: the Marvel rip-off of Watchmen, Squadron Supreme, was spearheaded by JMS)



Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
if that were the case why just use public domain characters? If the end result were truly a unique creation, how would copyright apply.

What difference does legality make to right and wrong?


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
All of Marvels movies exploit Kirby to some extent

I agree. However, Kirby exploited himself when he played into Lee and Goodman's hands. Dan DeCarlo did the same at Archie.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
like a Batman movie exploits Frank Miller, (especially one called The Dark Knight).

Miller didn't do anything different with Batman other than make it a little more bloody. Miller rode on Batman's cape, not the other way around. It's kinda hard to make the argument that Moore owes anything to the Blue Beetle.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597060 - 04/30/12 04:48 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
Moore creates very narrow parameters of what is okay and what isn't in literature, and these parameters convienently fit with what he and his favorite writers have done.

Let's say WB wants another Harry Potter series. They own HP outright, so it's within their legal rights to do so. Rowling says: Bad Idea, I won't be involved and you should forget it since the story is done. WB hires somebody else to write it. I'm sure you would have no problem with this.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597061 - 04/30/12 06:27 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Lawson
If Warner Bros. announced CASABLANCA 2: PLAY IT AGAIN AGAIN, starring Seth Rogan and Lindsey Lohan, I would not dispute the studio's right to do so. But I wouldn't open my wallet for it, either.
What you missed the 1983 Casablanca TV series starring David Soul, (Yes that David Soul from Starsky and Hutch).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084994/

Top
#597062 - 04/30/12 06:35 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery

Let's say WB wants another Harry Potter series. They own HP outright, so it's within their legal rights to do so. Rowling says: Bad Idea, I won't be involved and you should forget it since the story is done. WB hires somebody else to write it. I'm sure you would have no problem with this.
There are way too many problems with that hypothetical.

The situation here is whether Moore is being a bit hypocritical given his specific career history of exploiting the works of other writers himself. Had Rowling done anything in her career similar to Moore, and as frequently as Moore?

And again not saying it's right or wrong to have done so, just saying it creates some moral gray area to the question of Moore's position on DC exploiting his creations, when he's exploited the creations of other authors so often in his career.


Top
#597063 - 04/30/12 06:48 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Lawson
Twenty-five years have passed since WATCHMEN. The story ended. The creators moved on to other things. For DC to return to that well at this late date shows that it's as creatively exhausted as Moore likes to say it is.
I absolutely agree.

But couldn't something along the same lines be said of most DC and Marvel comics these days. How many comics are being published by either company that don't exploit the creations and concepts of authors and artists from decades past?

They were doing it long before Moore originally worked for DC. His outrage now is a little like Captain Renault in Casablanca, (see what I did there!), "I'm shocked, shocked to find that comic companies screwing me over here!"

Top
#597064 - 04/30/12 07:19 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald
Alan Moore keeps finding excuses for himself. He says that MOBY DICK never got a sequel, why should Watchmen? Let these self contained masterpieces stand on their own, dammit!


The Wind Whales of Ishmael
by Philip José Farmer
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/435294.Wind_Whales_Ishmael

Ahab's Wife
by Sena J. Naslund
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7742.Ahab_s_Wife_or_The_Star_Gazer

Top
#597065 - 04/30/12 07:46 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Alexander Ness Online   shocked
Member

Registered: 09/17/03
Posts: 3841
Loc: Minnesota
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Originally Posted By: Lawson
If Warner Bros. announced CASABLANCA 2: PLAY IT AGAIN AGAIN, starring Seth Rogan and Lindsey Lohan, I would not dispute the studio's right to do so. But I wouldn't open my wallet for it, either.
What you missed the 1983 Casablanca TV series starring David Soul, (Yes that David Soul from Starsky and Hutch).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084994/


Allan should thank Lord Jesus in heaven for missing that.

Top
#597066 - 04/30/12 09:04 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Lawson
For DC to return to that well at this late date shows that it's as creatively exhausted as Moore likes to say it is.


This is where I disagree with Moore. I don't believe that DC is creatively exhausted, it's that the market is made up of middle aged fan boys who mostly are only interested in the further adventures of Batman and X-Men. Just look at our own posts. We spend more time talking about and criticizing Marvel and DC superhero comics than we do Vertigo, and others.

When they put out new material like iZombie for example, it still doesn't sell as well as Fury of Firestorm, despite the former having better art and a brand new idea.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597068 - 04/30/12 10:18 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
The situation here is whether Moore is being a bit hypocritical given his specific career history of exploiting the works of other writers himself.

Oh, so THAT'S the reason DC is doing this? Payback because Moore did WFH and stole literary characters? No, I don't think so.

Holy fuck, you are fucking hard-headed.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
it creates some moral gray area to the question of Moore's position on DC exploiting his creations, when he's exploited the creations of other authors so often in his career.

No, it does not. He created a thing that was complete in and of itself; and now they're trying to add more to something that was already complete.

I'm guessing you also don't see a problem with the Book of Mormon.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597069 - 04/30/12 10:22 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
How many comics are being published by either company that don't exploit the creations and concepts of authors and artists from decades past?

How many comics are being published by either company that weren't conceived as serials? How many comics are being published by either company that were created as one finite story?
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597070 - 04/30/12 10:25 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I don't believe that DC is creatively exhausted

Your belief is a non-sequitur. DC is a company, not a person, and doesn't create anything.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597071 - 05/01/12 01:16 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
So you believe that DC IS creatively exhausted?
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597072 - 05/01/12 01:34 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Oh, so THAT'S the reason DC is doing this? Payback because Moore did WFH and stole literary characters? No, I don't think so.


I'm sure that's NOT what Joe Lee is saying. Most of the people here aren't going to be buying Watchmen 2 for the obvious reasons. However, if you read Moore's overall criticisms of DC as a whole, the superhero genre, not to mention the entire American comic industry as well as the fanbase, he does come off as hypocritical.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597073 - 05/01/12 03:35 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
I don't care if Moore is a hypocrite, or a thief or even a serial murderer. With Watchmen, he created a narrative that was intended to be one cohesive arc and that's it. If someone wants to steal the characters to use in their own story, fine. The problem is tacking on parts to a story that is already complete. Your argument that he somehow deserves it is absolute fucking rubbish.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597074 - 05/01/12 04:04 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Uh, that's not my argument.

I'm not saying that his past works justifies WATCHMEN 2.

I'm saying that his overall criticisms of the industry, the writers and artists within it, and the fanbase is hyporcritical considering his work and method.

He criticized Geoff Johns for using parts of an old GLC backup for Blackest Night. But then he goes on to say that he has no problem with writers adding to Swamp Thing or Hellblazer.

He criticizes older comic readers for buying superhero comics, based on nostalgia, calling it a "mental illness," but had not problems using that same nostalgia to appeal to that readership when writing The Killing Joke, Superman, Supreme, etc.

In regards to Watchmen 2, I agree with him that it shows a lack of integrity on DC's part considering the circumstances involved.


It seems like a case of commercial exploitation vs creative exploitation.

I think Moore's a great writer, but his romps through fan fiction can become tiresome, and too self indulgent for my taste. He complains about the comic industry and Hollywoods lack of new ideas, yet he's perfectly fine writing the further adventures of other people's characters.



Edited by Gerald (05/01/12 04:07 AM)
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597075 - 05/01/12 04:41 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Stephen Parkes Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/09
Posts: 390
Loc: The Bristol, Cuba St
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Originally Posted By: Stephen Parkes
Kirby gets credited with Stan as creating the Avengers (they mean in terms of the overall team idea I guess.) Also, Joe Simon and Kirby get a credit for creating Cap.
Thanks that's good to know.


Actually, on second thoughts, I should note that while there was no opening credits (just studio logos and the movie title), there is nevertheless a distinct main block of credits that are the equivalent of 'opening credits', where all the big name actors go etc. It's done against a background of close-ups of Avengers paraphernalia - its actually a pretty cool sequence. Then after that is the "mid-credits" teaser.

Then, we get the rest of the credits rolling, and that's where Kirby's credits go. Which is a bit shit, really.

Top
#597076 - 05/01/12 06:26 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I'm sure that's NOT what Joe Lee is saying.
It doesn't matter to Allen.

No one is saying Moore "deserves" to have his work and legacy treated as it is, but that statement would be easier to fight with. So that's what he hears. From him more often than not, it's straw men and ad hominem, yadda yadda.

All I've been trying to say is I think there are some serious moral questions regarding Moore's own work history, and he may not have the firm moral ground to stand on to complain about new Watchmen books. Is it the readers? I guess the sales figures will tell what they think.

Me, I'm just interested in discussing the topic, but to Allen this isn't a conversation, it's a debate, and he wants to win. To him, winning is getting the last word. He often brags about having won these exchanges at later dates, how he handed Erik Larsen, or that Green Lama dude his ass...

I probably won't read or buy the new Watchmen books, but I gotta say I'm surprised at all the surprised fans. They really didn't see this coming? I agree that Watchmen should be left alone, it was one of those things. Comic book sacred cows, for certain things in comics. Death being what it is in comics, Bucky was the standard by which we judged dead in comics, I remember asking about the great Superman publicity stunt, "Is he dead or Bucky dead?"

Top
#597077 - 05/01/12 06:36 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald
It seems like a case of commercial exploitation vs creative exploitation.

I think Moore's a great writer, but his romps through fan fiction can become tiresome, and too self indulgent for my taste. He complains about the comic industry and Hollywoods lack of new ideas, yet he's perfectly fine writing the further adventures of other people's characters.
Absolutely.

See unlike you I really think DC IS creatively exhausted. Not that it has to be, just that it currently isn't all that creative. New character idea, Red Arrow? Marvel isn't much better Red Hulk and Red She-Hulk? Lets restart all the continuity... yeech

I just looked up iZombie, after reading your post above "When they put out new material like iZombie for example, it still doesn't sell as well as Fury of Firestorm, despite the former having better art and a brand new idea." I go to the comic shop at least twice a month, and don't think I ever saw or heard of that book, and I would have loved it. I'm a huge Allred fan, but apparently I don't read enough about what's coming out from DC. I sure did see a lot of publicity for the new 52 though. (Is that why I haven't seen any Madman issues lately, i figured it was because I had been going to the LCS on weekends). It's one thing to have to hunt down indy comics, but DC should be promoting these things better.

Going over to Amazon to see about any iZombie trades...

Top
#597079 - 05/01/12 10:20 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
He criticized Geoff Johns for using parts of an old GLC backup for Blackest Night. But then he goes on to say that he has no problem with writers adding to Swamp Thing or Hellblazer.


I'm not as familiar with Alan Moore's criticism of Geoff Johns.

However, I don't get the impression Moore is mad at Johns for using one or two elements from his old Green Lantern stories. I get the impression he's exasperated that Johns somehow has built an entire portion of his writing career out of appropriating a few backup stories Moore wrote 30 years ago.

And it really is stunning, when you consider it. Roy Thomas' stories provided the first half of Johns' career, and Moore's stories provided the second half.

At some point, it would be interesting to see if Johns is capable of creating characters and stories all by himself.

Top
#597080 - 05/01/12 10:41 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I'm saying that his overall criticisms of the industry, the writers and artists within it, and the fanbase is hyporcritical considering his work and method.

Rank has its privileges.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
I'm not saying that his past works justifies WATCHMEN 2.

But considering he's a hypocrite, he should just STFU, right?


Originally Posted By: Gerald
He complains about the comic industry and Hollywoods lack of new ideas, yet he's perfectly fine writing the further adventures of other people's characters.

I'm trying figure out what he's done since he's made those points which would fall into that category.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597081 - 05/01/12 10:44 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
I just looked up iZombie ... I go to the comic shop at least twice a month, and don't think I ever saw or heard of that book

You've gotta be fucking kidding. I've been saying over and over here that this is one of the last DC books I still get for how long?
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597082 - 05/01/12 10:48 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
I just looked up iZombie, after reading your post above "When they put out new material like iZombie for example, it still doesn't sell as well as Fury of Firestorm, despite the former having better art and a brand new idea." I go to the comic shop at least twice a month, and don't think I ever saw or heard of that book, and I would have loved it. I'm a huge Allred fan, but apparently I don't read enough about what's coming out from DC. I sure did see a lot of publicity for the new 52 though. (Is that why I haven't seen any Madman issues lately, i figured it was because I had been going to the LCS on weekends). It's one thing to have to hunt down indy comics, but DC should be promoting these things better.


Heidi MacDonald agrees with you. Says she:

BEFORE WATCHMEN makes me sad because what we really, really need in comics is NEW successful ideas.

A new book by Darwyn Cooke, a new book by Brian Azzarello, a new book by Adam Hughes. Amanda Conner telling DC “Here is my new project I want you to publish,” should be cause for excitement and high fives.

But it isn’t.

Did you know that when SPACEMAN, the new book by Azzarello and Eduardo Risso came out last fall, in the middle of the New 52 firestorm, only a single preview was published anywhere on the internet?

One week before the book came out, Io9 put out a five page preview. I know because I had been looking for preview pages to run to promote it and there weren’t any.

In terms of prestige, this is like the new movie by Alexander Payne. The new book by Junot Diaz. The new TV show by J. Michael Straczynski.

In a world where creators were the story, a new project by an award winning team should be just as big as The New 52. It should be greeted with huzzahs and champagne.

What it did get: a $1 #1 issue and a five page preview on i09.

Top
#597083 - 05/01/12 10:49 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
All I've been trying to say is I think there are some serious moral questions regarding Moore's own work history, and he may not have the firm moral ground to stand on to complain about new Watchmen books.

And thus, Moore should STFU about about it. Take your statement to its logical conclusion.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Me, I'm just interested in discussing the topic

No, you just want to have people agree with you that it's a "difficult issue." When it's not.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597084 - 05/01/12 11:26 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Lawson
Heidi MacDonald agrees with you. Says she:

BEFORE WATCHMEN makes me sad because what we really, really need in comics is NEW successful ideas.

A new book by Darwyn Cooke, a new book by Brian Azzarello, a new book by Adam Hughes. Amanda Conner telling DC “Here is my new project I want you to publish,” should be cause for excitement and high fives.

But it isn’t.


And you know why it isn't? Because none of those people can sell comics the way Stephen King sells books or James Cameron sells movie tickets. And that's not DC's fault.

It's the audience's fault. SPACEMAN #4 sold 13,394 copies. It was outsold by the latest issues of THE TWELVE, AMERICAN VAMPIRE, DARK TOWER, ARCHIE, THE BOYS, FABLES and it sold over 10,000 fewer copies than FEAR ITSELF: FEARLESS #8 and #9. A spin-off series from a widely panned Marvel "event" that ended over 4 months ago came close to doubling SPACEMAN'S sales.

It's also the creators' fault. No one's forcing Azzarello or any other creator to take their latest project to DC. No one's forcing them to toil away in the Direct Market. There's a whole world outside the DM that just become nigh infinitely larger thanks to web comics.

I mean, there's a trillion prose authors who wish they could walk into a publisher and say "Here is my new project I want you to publish" and not get laughed at or ejected from the building by security.

None of which excuses money grubbing comic publishers or how they've unfairly exploited creators, of course.

Mike

Top
#597086 - 05/01/12 11:36 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: MBunge
It's the audience's fault.


To a degree, yes.

But promotion is one of the responsibilities of a publisher -- to advertise a comic, to make potential readers aware of it, and to get it out there where potential readers will see it.

DC spends most of its effort flogging the superhero crap. So that's what the audience mostly is aware of, and that's mostly what sells.

It would be nice if everyone who read comics took the time every week to scour the Previews listings and all of the online solicitations, studied the hundreds of offerings, compiled a lengthy list of many and varied titles, and dropped $100 a week, minimum, buying this stuff.

In other words, if there were more Allen Montgomeries.

But for many of us -- we've got jobs and families, homes and cars and chores to take care of, other hobbies -- and we're going to spend, at the very most, a few hours and $20 a week on comic books. My own comics habit is largely satisfied by whatever cheap trades and graphic novels I find in local used bookstores, much of it older stuff.

If you publish a cool comic for a year and I somehow don't hear about it, ennh, shame on both of us, I guess. Of course, I'm not the one whose livelihood depended on my buying your comic.

Top
#597087 - 05/01/12 11:44 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Lawson
If you publish a cool comic for a year and I somehow don't hear about it, ennh, shame on both of us, I guess. Of course, I'm not the one whose livelihood depended on my buying your comic.
You're a good example of a good target audience to try and reach, for off brand commercial and indy stuff. You are open, willing to buy trade without a regular issue test drive if you like the look of something or get a good recommendation.

How would a publisher or an indy comic creator reach a guy like you?

I stopped reading previews a few years ago, I read comic headlines off twitter, I don't actively seek out anything but I take recommendations from people I respect, so failing that if it's not on the shelves at the LCS by the time I get there I miss out.

Top
#597088 - 05/01/12 11:48 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Ceci n'est pas une chaussette Offline
Member

Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 2840
Originally Posted By: Lawson
But promotion is one of the responsibilities of a publisher -- to advertise a comic, to make potential readers aware of it, and to get it out there where potential readers will see it.


I'll go you one further: in an age of digital and on-demand publishing, promotion is the only job a publisher has; the only thing that keeps them remotely relevant.

The publisher exists to increase the number of eyes on a book. Everything else can be accomplished with an internet connection and the pack-in software on a desktop computer. If publishers want to exist ten years from now,* then they need to haul ass on the areas where they actually add value to the process.

---
*And lord knows they complain about the possibility that they won't.
_________________________
"When one says 'Africa,' it refers to Africa in the Euro-colonized sense, not the damn bush country or whatever."
- Ed Gauthier, DCP

Top
#597089 - 05/01/12 11:51 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Lawson
DC spends most of its effort flogging the superhero crap. So that's what the audience mostly is aware of, and that's mostly what sells.


Super-hero crap has consistently outsold everything else in comics for about 50 years now. And since DC owns all its super-hero crap, pending further legal decisions, and can also exploit it with merchandising crap, how does it make sense to spend less time flogging that and more time pushing stuff that...

1. Sells less.
2. Is not merchandizable.
3. They do not own and will not get any benefit if it's monetized in some other fashion, like a movie or TV deal.

Mike

Top
#597090 - 05/01/12 11:56 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Let me try and put it this way.

Who originally published THE ROCKETEER? Are they still in business? Would they be if they'd gotten some of that movie adaptation money? Would Dave Stevens have even done the book if he'd had to self-publish it?

Mike

Top
#597091 - 05/01/12 11:58 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
How would a publisher or an indy comic creator reach a guy like you?


I'm afraid I've fallen off the comics "grid" in recent years, since I no longer visit a comics shop with regularity or spend as much time on comics Web sites as I used to.

As I say above, I'm content much of the time to pick up a stack of old trades at a used bookstore for $5 each and let that serve as my comics reading for six months. Meanwhile, a dozen new titles like iZOMBIE are coming and going, but my radar isn't really turned on.

The comics industry chased me away after a 25-year affair.

Best way to reach me now is free previews on the more heavily visited comics Web sites, like Bleeding Cool and Comic Book Resources, and maybe even a placement here on Comicon. Let me take a look at five or six pages, get a feel for it. Get it in my face. But those little banner ads, I tune those out.

Top
#597092 - 05/01/12 12:00 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Who originally published THE ROCKETEER?

Pacific Comics! The Rocketeer was a backup feature in Mike Grell's Starslayer.

I still have those issues! grin

Top
#597093 - 05/01/12 12:02 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
And thus, Moore should STFU about about it. Take your statement to its logical conclusion.
Asking "Should someone STFU, given a particular set of variables and context," is a different, different thing than telling someone to STFU. Like I said above, you just like to skew peoples posts to the argument you want to have.

Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
No, you just want to have people agree with you that it's a "difficult issue." When it's not.
If I really wanted to talk to people that only "agree" with me why would I be here at Comicon, and for that matter talking with you?

You actually made a few valid points, but as a whole your argument doesn't hold up for me. It seems to be just a lot of hairsplitting and even some of that is contradictory. So somehow despite your best efforts I remain unconvinced. I see way more gray area in this mess than you, I'd say we should agree to disagree but that usually pisses you off.

Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
You've gotta be fucking kidding. I've been saying over and over here that this is one of the last DC books I still get for how long?
Actually, I honestly don't recall, I try to not pay much attention to your posts anymore. Only when you're part of a discussion I'm interested in, and even then I've usually regretted it in the end anyway. So yeah, even if i read it, I probably didn't pay attention to your recommendations.

Top
#597094 - 05/01/12 12:02 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Ceci n'est pas une chaussette Offline
Member

Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 2840
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Super-hero crap has consistently outsold everything else in comics for about 50 years now.


That really depends on how loosely you define "superhero."
_________________________
"When one says 'Africa,' it refers to Africa in the Euro-colonized sense, not the damn bush country or whatever."
- Ed Gauthier, DCP

Top
#597095 - 05/01/12 12:06 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Great point, how much of the total US comic market is Manga, and what about Archie and Bongo, things like that...

That Popeye book that just came out was great fun, and does The Goon count as superhero, love that Goon (incidentally there was a nice anti-superhero comics rant in this months Goon, a little preachy, but there are a lot of choir here).


Edited by Joe Lee (05/01/12 12:10 PM)

Top
#597096 - 05/01/12 12:10 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Ceci n'est pas une chaussette Offline
Member

Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 2840
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Great point, how much of the total US comic market is Manga, and what about Archie and Bongo, things like that...


Yeps. I remember around the time the Watchmen movie came out, something like five out of BookScan's top 10 graphic novels for the month were Naruto volumes. American superhero comics haven't been a reliably dominant force for some time.
_________________________
"When one says 'Africa,' it refers to Africa in the Euro-colonized sense, not the damn bush country or whatever."
- Ed Gauthier, DCP

Top
#597101 - 05/01/12 01:46 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Who originally published THE ROCKETEER? Are they still in business? Would they be if they'd gotten some of that movie adaptation money? Would Dave Stevens have even done the book if he'd had to self-publish it?

Bad example. Pacific was a distributor (I would say "fly by night" distributor, but in the comic book DM they were all fly by night operations) with a poor artist relations/editorial side. Stevens didn't even want to do the book at all, other than to draw some cool airplanes and lingerie, felt it was something of a burden. Then he barely got enough out of the Disney movie for a downpayment on a house (which he later lost in an earthquake).
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597102 - 05/01/12 01:49 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Super-hero crap has consistently outsold everything else in comics for about 50 years now.


That really depends on how loosely you define "superhero."


Which merely emphasizes that there's plenty of other places creators can go other than DC or Marvel.

Mike

Top
#597103 - 05/01/12 01:51 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Asking "Should someone STFU, given a particular set of variables and context," is a different, different thing than telling someone to STFU.

Then say what you mean. Either Moore is a hypocrite with no room to criticize; or Watchmen bears no relationship to his other work and should be left alone as an integral work. One or the other. There is no in-between.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
It seems to be just a lot of hairsplitting and even some of that is contradictory.

Examples.


Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
even if i read it, I probably didn't pay attention to your recommendations.

Your loss, homo.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597104 - 05/01/12 02:07 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: MBunge]
Ceci n'est pas une chaussette Offline
Member

Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 2840
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Which merely emphasizes that there's plenty of other places creators can go other than DC or Marvel.


Yes, more American cartoonists should try drawing imported Japanese reprints.

Kidding aside though, I actually agree with you on this one. If DC and Marvel are only interested in acting as as a trademark zoo, then... well, it ain't thirty years ago. An aspiring cartoonist has other means to get their work out there.
_________________________
"When one says 'Africa,' it refers to Africa in the Euro-colonized sense, not the damn bush country or whatever."
- Ed Gauthier, DCP

Top
#597106 - 05/01/12 02:28 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette
DC and Marvel are only interested in acting as as a trademark zoo.


Shortened it for you! And accurately, too.

A few years ago, out of curiosity, I pored through Time Warner's annual report to shareholders to see what it had to say about DC Comics.

The answer is, almost nothing. DC Comics was mentioned only twice (I think) in the lengthy report, and then, only in passing. Tellingly, it wasn't included with the Time Inc. magazine line, although it prints periodicals. It was held by the Warner Bros. research and development line.

In other words, the value of DC Comics, to its owner, isn't comic books published monthly, or trades published throughout the year.

It's those trademarked characters and the library of stories, which serve as R&D for movies, TV shows and video games.

All the shit that Dan DiDio, Jim Lee & Co. promote at cons and online -- that's meant for an audience of maybe 100,000 remaining geeks, tops. It's not what the business is.

Top
#597108 - 05/01/12 08:43 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Lawson
I'm not as familiar with Alan Moore's criticism of Geoff Johns.


In two seperate interviews, I believe, Moore criticized Blackest Night as a crappy big epic, and that they need to rely on an old story of his from 20 years ago to sell comics.


Quote:
However, I don't get the impression Moore is mad at Johns for using one or two elements from his old Green Lantern stories. I get the impression he's exasperated that Johns somehow has built an entire portion of his writing career out of appropriating a few backup stories Moore wrote 30 years ago.


I doubt that since he didn't single out the writer or compare Johns career to his own. He referred only to Blackest Night, and how is that any different than what was going on when he was at DC?

Marv Wolfman based COIE on the old Crisis on Earth 2/3etc stories.

Alan Moore based The Killing Joke on an old Silver Age Batman story titled "The Red Hood."

Isn't that what most comic writers do, including Moore? Continuing form what previously was established? Moore himself said he has no problem with writers continuing what he did in Hellblazer or Swampthing because those titles and characters were meant to be serialized, unlike Watchmen. So he's being a hypocrite.

And Geoff Johns has added MUCH to Green Lantern, including the Emotional Spectrum, the various new Corps and the new characters within them.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597109 - 05/01/12 08:46 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Rank has its privileges.

to be a hypocrite? I guess to you.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
But considering he's a hypocrite, he should just STFU, right?

Again, no. I agree with some of his points and critcisms regarding Watchmen 2, but not all of them.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
I'm trying figure out what he's done since he's made those points which would fall into that category.


League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597110 - 05/01/12 08:48 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
You've gotta be fucking kidding. I've been saying over and over here that this is one of the last DC books I still get for how long?


Look at the iZombie thread I made, and compare that to the threads we make about books we hate like Meltzer's JLA, Final Crisis, Infinite Crisis, etc.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597111 - 05/01/12 08:52 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Lawson

The comics industry chased me away after a 25-year affair.


How did the comics industry chase you away?
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597116 - 05/01/12 10:28 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Jolly Joe's not the only one not paying attention, apparently.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597118 - 05/01/12 10:36 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I agree with some of his points and critcisms regarding Watchmen 2, but not all of them.

The disagreements are all stemming from some weak-kneed accusations of hypocrisy. If we were talking about the ABC serial characters, or if the Watchmen characters were being separated from their narrative somehow, or even if DC were "re-imagining" the whole thing from the ground up, you might have a point. But we're talking about padding out a finished story. Ergo, you are wrong.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Try again.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597120 - 05/01/12 11:08 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Ergo, you are wrong.


He said that self contained stories/novels should not have sequels. There's no sequel to Moby Dick, he argued.

I disagree because he himself was toying with the idea of a Watchmen prequel featuring The Minutemen. He's also on record saying that he would have written a sequel to Watchmen in exchange for the rights, had DC offered it to him 10-15 years ago.

He's also not against other writers making sequels to other people's novels in the case of Jules Verne and Edgar Allen Poe. Only if it's in the public domain though. Yet, he argues that another public domain novel Moby Dick shouldn't have a sequel.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Try again. [/quote]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen consists of characters created by Jules Verne, H. Rider Haggard, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Bram Stoker, among others.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597121 - 05/02/12 12:12 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I disagree because he himself was toying with the idea of a Watchmen prequel featuring The Minutemen.

His privilege.

Originally Posted By: Gerald
He's also on record saying that he would have written a sequel to Watchmen in exchange for the rights, had DC offered it to him 10-15 years ago.

That's called a deal with the devil.


Originally Posted By: Gerald
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen consists of characters created by Jules Verne, H. Rider Haggard, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Bram Stoker, among others.

The first two volumes, sure. But what he's done since this controversy is not about the "further adventures" of anyone else's characters. It's about trying to find clever connections between them. Which you might know if you'd read it.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597122 - 05/02/12 12:21 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Then say what you mean.
I did.

Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Either Moore is a hypocrite with no room to criticize; or Watchmen bears no relationship to his other work and should be left alone as an integral work. One or the other. There is no in-between.
Says you?

Either make an actual case for your assertion that there is no moral gray area here, or STFU yourself.



Edited by Joe Lee (05/02/12 12:28 AM)

Top
#597124 - 05/02/12 12:25 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I disagree because he himself was toying with the idea of a Watchmen prequel featuring The Minutemen. He's also on record saying that he would have written a sequel to Watchmen in exchange for the rights, had DC offered it to him 10-15 years ago.
That's a pretty significant contradiction to his assertion the work should stand alone.

Top
#597132 - 05/02/12 01:01 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
The first two volumes, sure. But what he's done since this controversy is not about the "further adventures" of anyone else's characters. It's about trying to find clever connections between them.


Ok, so using your logic, he's okay writing the further adventures of other people's characters so long as he does it BEFORE he critizes the practice.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597136 - 05/02/12 01:35 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Timing is everything.

Top
#597156 - 05/02/12 09:24 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
Originally Posted By: Lawson

The comics industry chased me away after a 25-year affair.


How did the comics industry chase you away?


The prices got ridiculous. Four bucks for 22 pages?

The stories got so decompressed that every issue was one part of an 18-part story arc, and combined with blown deadlines and late shipping, it could take years for one story to be completed -- long after I'd forgotten how it started.

Many of the superhero characters for whom I felt a nostalgic affection got dropped into "adult" stories involving ass-rape and graphic decapitation and disembowelment.

Once I canceled my pull list, it was easy to break ties with the new comics business. Now I can grab, from Amazon, the occasional trade collection of new material that interests me, such as the Ed Brubaker/Sean Phillips crime-noir stuff, and avoid the latest rebooting of Nu Superman.

Top
#597164 - 05/02/12 12:42 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
I did.

What you did was talk out of both sides of your mouth.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597165 - 05/02/12 12:44 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
That's a pretty significant contradiction to his assertion the work should stand alone.

Unless it was a necessary experiment to test the critical understanding of why the work should stand alone.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597166 - 05/02/12 12:46 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
Ok, so using your logic, he's okay writing the further adventures of other people's characters so long as he does it BEFORE he critizes the practice.

Nope. He's okay to do it whenever. Because what he did was Classical Intellectual Theft to place those characters in his own work, not attempting to expand canonical continuity of the original works.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597174 - 05/02/12 01:30 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Lawson



The prices got ridiculous. Four bucks for 22 pages?

The stories got so decompressed that every issue was one part of an 18-part story arc, and combined with blown deadlines and late shipping, it could take years for one story to be completed -- long after I'd forgotten how it started.

Many of the superhero characters for whom I felt a nostalgic affection got dropped into "adult" stories involving ass-rape and graphic decapitation and disembowelment.

That's pretty much what got me to take a big break from comics as well.

But I was thinking, why is it that when Marvel and DC superhero comics get too expensive, too padded, and too "adult," do we give up on comics altogether?

Why not just start buying and reading other comics from Vertigo, or Image (which is still 2.99 mostly), and all the other independents?
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597184 - 05/02/12 04:53 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
Why not just start buying and reading other comics from Vertigo, or Image (which is still 2.99 mostly), and all the other independents?


I wish Image success, but it's not publishing anything that interests me. I followed THE WALKING DEAD for a while, but ... eh. I liked TRUE STORY SWEAR TO GOD and BRONZE AGE, but a hundred years passed between issues, so I stopped caring.

I enjoyed Vertigo for the first decade of its existence, through the run of PREACHER. More recently, it specializes in lovely painted covers with godawful chicken-scratch interior artwork. SCALPED was OK, the afore-mentioned interior artwork notwithstanding. Not being a 12-year-old girl, the vampire and fairy tale stories don't excite me. I hear others love that sort of thing, though.

The indie comics ... yep, when I do buy a new trade or graphic novel these days, it's usually from an indie publisher.

Top
#597211 - 05/03/12 06:56 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Originally Posted By: Gerald
Ok, so using your logic, he's okay writing the further adventures of other people's characters so long as he does it BEFORE he critizes the practice.

Nope. He's okay to do it whenever. Because what he did was Classical Intellectual Theft to place those characters in his own work, not attempting to expand canonical continuity of the original works.


As long as he does the comic book equivalent of hip hop, it's ok by you. Interesting.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#597213 - 05/03/12 09:27 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I disagree because he himself was toying with the idea of a Watchmen prequel featuring The Minutemen. He's also on record saying that he would have written a sequel to Watchmen in exchange for the rights, had DC offered it to him 10-15 years ago.
That's a pretty significant contradiction to his assertion the work should stand alone.


As far as I know early on he did talk about the possibility of a Minutemen series but that never actually went anywhere. It’s common for an author to consider and ultimately reject the creative potential of such things. When you invest yourself in a particular work there might be the desire to continue doing more with it but you might ultimately decide against it. Authors often reject ideas that they initially were excited about. When it came to DC’s later offer Moore characterized such projects as “dopey." It seems more like he was saying it was a bad idea but at one point his desire to get back the rights might have made him go along. That's not much of an endorsement.

Top
#597215 - 05/03/12 09:50 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
That makes sense.

Now if you really want to get somewhere, can explain how Moore's use of characters like Swamp Thing, LOEG, Miracle man, Terra Obscura, Superman, etc..., is any different than other authors creating new Watchmen stories.

I wanna believe it's wrong, I want to be on Moore's side of this, I agree Watchmen SHOULD be left alone, but I just can't see how he can complain about it when he did it too.


Top
#597217 - 05/03/12 10:06 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361
I have to leave aside Moore working on characters like Superman because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the context he was working in at the time. Although it was my impression that he was part of a creators rights movement that attempted to acknowledge and address some of the poor treatment of his predecessors while fighting for better treatment for his peers and successors. I don't think Moore's early work on company characters is an argument for some sort of "karmic debt" to continue the cycle of exploitation or an argument against Moore's right to be indignant over his behavior. It is a valid question but I think it is used too often to somehow excuse what DC is now doing.

I don't think Moore's use of other characters from the culture or even his criticism of DC being reliant on his old ideas are hypocritical when put in the specific context of his dispute with DC. Let’s give DC a lot of leeway and assume Moore understood and accepted that DC might keep Watchmen in publication if it were successful. Even if that were true I don't have a hard time understanding why he still might have signed away. Moore was in an excellent professional relationship with DC and it seems fundamental to their agreement that Watchmen was going to be a new paradigm. The industry standard was to separate the creator from the creation, to claim it as intellectual property in order to make a franchise through work for hire production. With Watchmen they were promising to honor Moore and Gibbons as authors not only in compensation but also with regards to the destiny of the work. It wouldn't pass into other hands or be turned into a franchise without the authors' involvement.

At the time in the context of the comics industry and Moore's good relations with DC anyone would have seen this as a sign of respect and value for his or her work, an attempt to do right by him and a significant change in how things were done. It would have been reasonable to believe that as long as Watchmen were successful it would be in DC's best interest to maintain that mutually positive relationship. And if it wasn't then at least Moore would get the rights to the work back. What Moore didn't foresee was the string of dumb, short-sighted actions that Heidi MacDonald writes about that would end up alienating him from the company even as Watchmen made them lots of money. That was perhaps naive on Moore's part but also stupid on DC's.

But even if you look at the rights reversion charitably as a deal that just fell out poorly you can see that for a long time the people running DC at least minimally stuck to their promise about how they would handle Watchmen with respect to its authors. Before Watchmen is a new gang coming in and using the bad fallout of the past as a license to completely trample over that arrangement and to turn Watchmen into a franchise. That was something that neither side originally agreed to. I don't think that's something you can ethically just cover over with, "well Moore signed the contract." To those who say it was inevitable, well it was only inevitable on the assumption that people at DC feel no ethical obligation to fulfill their the company’s prior promises with one of their creators after that creator fulfilled his end of the bargain and then through various circumstances became a dry well for them.


That's different than the stuff about Moore employing public domain characters, references, or analogues. As an author you probably expect that sort of thing will happen. But you shouldn't have to expect that publishers will break all their promises to you and your peers will jump on board to help them.


I think the Moore quote about Moby Dick not needing a prequel makes some sense. There may be a cultural need to respond to Moby Dick. And an author may need to employ Moby Dick to fulfill some creative expression of his or her own. That's what fair use is about. But Moby Dick itself does not require a sequel. Several people involved with or in support of Before Watchmen have tried to rationalize it by saying that Watchmen needs these prequels in order to stay relevant, which seems silly. Likewise the history of the project doesn't seem to originate from a creative need. It seems more about finding new ways to commercially exploit the work and extend the life of the "characters" as intellectual property by any means.

I suppose excellent work can arise from purely commercial situations. And that there are rewards in revisiting a work and exploring the possible variables it presents. But there is a law of diminishing returns at work there that necessitates eventually also creating new works with new variables. And Watchmen is such a meticulously realized work that you have to wonder what significant benefits are gained from exploring its variables and whether you might end up muddying the clarity of its message. Better to create a distinct work in response than an addition.

The Moby Dick quote is a lazy sort of comment I think that sounds better initially if you don‘t start poking around for all the holes. But I think the distinction he’s making is more between the manner in which companies like DC focus on the “character” as an IP and then strategize around how they will use that IP across a product line and prolong its commercial life as opposed to how characters might be treated as integral parts of a work of authorship. There’s a difference of emphasis that helps express how these works are valued between base commercial exploitability and artistic expression, characters vs. the people who create them. There are certain assumptions about comics that are built into the industry’s history and production arrangements and that are very apparent in its sales charts. These are assumptions that Watchmen intended to challenge and which are now being used to justify it’s prequels. I think that’s more salient to Moore’s complaints than quibbling about the right of authors to use existing characters.

Most of the comics on my book shelf are the products of a singular authorial vision (literally or a collaborative team). Creation and creator are tied seamlessly together. And you know you can have a DKR or All Star Superman deliver that as well but a big part of Watchmen was the assertion that creators don’t need to be limited to working on franchises or work for hire. They can produce original works as good or better and those original works have an important value in pushing comics forward as a medium and industry.. It’s worth creating an environment that fosters such works and adequately honors their authors. Watchmen was like DC saying that they were on board for that and its success is proof of the merits of such an approach. It was the mainstream’s standard bearer for this creator movement.

Before Watchmen is like one big, “Nah, we take it back. Anything you create is franchise fodder and talent is best used mining that franchise. Sure, we’ll keep you happy with some token creator owned side products but servicing the IP is what’s really important. That’s our vision for comics.” Rorschach should not be handled any differently than Wolverine. They are claiming that they have talent capable of surpassing one of their most prestigious publications and the best use of that talent is a bunch prequels riding on its coattails rather than new works that can stand on their own. Again the message being broadcast here is that DC and comic readers value IP farming more than original authorship. And I guess we all know this already anyway and some here may even agree with that approach but Moore is mostly just pointing out that it is in contradiction to what Watchmen was intended to demonstrate. So Before Watchmen is self-defeating and if this is going to be DC’s approach, fine but it is pretty shitty to apply it retroactively to Watchmen simply because they can get away with it. You can’t just pretend that Watchmen was conceived to be like any other work for hire creation.

With regards to DC relying on Moore's old ideas, I think that just goes back to the notion that DC failed to value Moore in proportion to what he contributed to their company and the fact that they are still trying to mine his old stuff is proof of that. It's mostly just thumbing his nose at them.

Top
#597218 - 05/03/12 10:51 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277

Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
At the time in the context of the comics industry and Moore's good relations with DC anyone would have seen this as a sign of respect and value for his or her work, an attempt to do right by him and a significant change in how things were done. It would have been reasonable to believe that as long as Watchmen were successful it would be in DC's best interest to maintain that mutually positive relationship.
I'm sure at one point it would have been reasonable to believe that as long as Superman was successful it would be in DC's best interest to maintain that mutually positive relationship with Siegel and Shuster.

Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
What Moore didn't foresee was the string of dumb, short-sighted actions that Heidi MacDonald writes about that would end up alienating him from the company even as Watchmen made them lots of money.
Again it just seems like willful blindness to me, if a company has a history of screwing people when it deems it necessary, you can't be surprised if at some point reverts to form, and screws you too.

Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
That's different than the stuff about Moore employing public domain characters, references, or analogues. As an author you probably expect that sort of thing will happen. But you shouldn't have to expect that publishers will break all their promises to you and your peers will jump on board to help them.
And as a comic writer, especially if you know the history of comics, how is it unreasonable to expect that sort of thing will happen? That a corporate owned publisher like DC might someday make a decision based on commercial considerations?

Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
It seems more about finding new ways to commercially exploit the work and extend the life of the "characters" as intellectual property by any means.
I think that's it exactly.

Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
You can’t just pretend that Watchmen was conceived to be like any other work for hire creation.
The conception is irrelevant. As long as the corporation retains control, you can't be surprised if it eventually reverts to form, and makes a decision based on commercial considerations. Looking out for itself is a corporation's standard operating procedures.

Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
With regards to DC relying on Moore's old ideas, I think that just goes back to the notion that DC failed to value Moore in proportion to what he contributed to their company and the fact that they are still trying to mine his old stuff is proof of that.
Not at all. Marvel and DC have become entirely based on relying on old ideas. What comic today isn't dependent on old ideas? The vast majority of comics that DC and Marvel publish, exploit old ideas. Moore's old ideas are no different.

I just don't see the difference. Moore thought he was special and wouldn't get screwed, he had to have thought it was a possibility or he was just fooling himself, believing the sales pitch. That by no means makes it right, and seriously what other choice did he have.

I think we are just used to Watchmen being a sacred cow. Swamp Thing wasn't a sacred cow when Moore was hired by DC to write new Swamp Thing comics. Why should we as readers and fans or anyone, expect the industry to have integrity for just this one mini-series? If we do it's just naive.

Top
#597223 - 05/03/12 01:30 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee

Why should we as readers and fans or anyone, expect the industry to have integrity for just this one mini-series? If we do it's just naive.


I suppose because it's taked about in the same way as Maus. Even Moore's interviewer says that nothing, not even Maus, has been as good as Watchmen.

But it lends itself to the idea of sequels/prequels, more readily than Maus or even V For Vendetta because of it's subject matter.

I think he makes good arguments like saying that Swamp Thing and Superman were intended to be serialized, but not Watchmen. That by not only writing a prequel to it, but turning it into a mega event it DOES feel like it's taking something away from the original, by possibly, eventually turning into another Batman comic. I say this because when asked, Didio said that he's not ruling out an ongoing Watchmen series if the demand is high enough.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597224 - 05/03/12 01:34 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy

With regards to DC relying on Moore's old ideas, I think that just goes back to the notion that DC failed to value Moore in proportion to what he contributed to their company and the fact that they are still trying to mine his old stuff is proof of that. It's mostly just thumbing his nose at them.


That's the real disagreement I have. DC relies on EVERYONE'S old ideas! Look at INFINITE CRISIS. A sequel based on another 80s maxi-series.

Then they did a Red Circle event that featured all the old Archie superheroes.

_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597225 - 05/03/12 01:55 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
That's the real disagreement I have. DC relies on EVERYONE'S old ideas! Look at INFINITE CRISIS. A sequel based on another 80s maxi-series.


As Allen already has pointed out, WATCHMEN isn't the same thing as, say, Green Lantern.

WATCHMEN was a 12-issue limited series produced by one writer and one artist. It had a beginning, a middle and an end. In the years after it ended, the writer and artist declined to produce sequels. They said it should be left alone.

By contrast, Green Lantern (and most other corporate-owned superhero franchises) was a work-for-hire concept designed from the start to be published monthly and indefinitely, to be written and drawn by whomever was available at the time, to be adapted as necessary. And in fact, we've had any number of characters named Green Lantern over the last 70 years, written and drawn by hundreds of men.

WATCHMEN is not Green Lantern, Batman or the X-Men.

And since you mention INFINITE CRISIS, although it was well within DC's rights to crap out a sequel to its own company crossover from 1985, which had been written by committee and starred every character it owned at the time, every fanboy I knew rolled his eyes at the sequel and called it creatively pathetic.

Top
#597226 - 05/03/12 02:34 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361
Well that issue is a little confused because Moore wasn't limiting his criticism to Watchmen when it came to the "old ideas" jab.

I do think Before Watchmen is sort of an admission that they'd rather ride his coattails then come up with something of equal stature. But I think when it comes to the the other stuff like Blackest Night or whatever it is mostly just an understandable resentful jab at DC. But I agree with Joe and Gerald that Moore isn't alone in the latter case so he's probably overstating it a little.

Top
#597227 - 05/03/12 02:42 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361
Well I said that it was probably naïve of Moore not to make sure the promises were in writing. Then again maybe he thought they were. I was reading a book about the novel business and the author talked about the assumption that beginning writers have that when it comes down to a contract they’ll be able to easily get a lawyer to review it. The author asserts that securing a good entertainment lawyer isn’t necessarily that easy for a writer and so they would be better off going through an agent. I’m not sure if either option was available to Moore.

But I think once again comparing Siegel and Shuster to Moore and Gibbons requires eliminating a lot of context. The industry was changing, there was a creators rights movement underway. DC is not a person. The people who the Superman creators dealt with were not the same people Moore was dealing with. DC was a client that Moore had contracted with already with very good outcomes so he had some reason to trust the people there. Do you ever vote or is it your assumption that no matter who is in charge policies never change? If I meet a German today should I assume he is secretly a nazi? Leadership changes, the culture and policies can change. We are talking about the difference of 50 years in the industry with new developments along the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
You can’t just pretend that Watchmen was conceived to be like any other work for hire creation.


The conception is irrelevant. As long as the corporation retains control, you can't be surprised if it eventually reverts to form, and makes a decision based on commercial considerations. Looking out for itself is a corporation's standard operating procedures.


I think it is relevant because Moore understood the commercial motivations of a company like DC but the nature of the arrangement was supposed to be that those considerations were going to be bound by the willing consent of the work’s authors. And I believe this is how the people at DC understood the deal as well or at least were trying to convince Moore that was how the deal would work. Otherwise they would have done these prequels a long time ago and they would not have backed out of their anniversary plans. It’s possible Moore does have a legal case against them but I’m not sure I can blame him for not wanting to take DC to court. A lot of people are assuming that DC has an airtight case to do this but we can’t know for sure without looking at the contract. I’m saying that even if you go with that assumption, if you read the quotes and what various people who were there at the time say it doesn’t pass the smell test.

But also, when it comes to reasonable expectations and a publisher looking out for itself, I think this quote from MacDonald is relevant:


Quote:
The contract that Moore and Gibbons signed is actually pretty standard in publishing — the rights revert when it goes out of print. Pretty common.

Where it differs is in this: In the book publishing world, in general, when an author such as Alan Moore writes a worldwide smash that is quickly enshrined as a future classic….you try to keep that person working for you so you can make even more money off their future works.


…Would WB treat Rowling the way DC treated Moore?

I don’t think so.


In other words you could say that DC’s conduct was pretty unreasonable by any real publishing standard.




Originally Posted By: Joe Lee



I think we are just used to Watchmen being a sacred cow. Swamp Thing wasn't a sacred cow when Moore was hired by DC to write new Swamp Thing comics.


It seems like you're ignoring a key distinction here. Watchmen isn't different just because I believe it so. It was different even by DC's own original position. Swamp Thing was work for hire from the start. Watchmen wasn't. Moore isn't complaining about DC using work for hire creations like Constantine. DC is now treating Watchmen as if it were work for hire. Like, "hey no problem, we do this all the time. Why is Watchmen different?" It's different because representatives of their company said it would be to Moore and to the public.

Top
#597229 - 05/03/12 03:03 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Lawson
WATCHMEN is not Green Lantern, Batman or the X-Men.
It used to be different. Now it's the same.

Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
It seems like you're ignoring a key distinction here. Watchmen isn't different just because I believe it so. It was different even by DC's own original position.
You're right it WAS different. And now DC decides it isn't different now. DC went back on it's word. Corporations sometimes do that. The problem is, Marvel & DC have a history of this crap, so we shouldn't be shocked.

I'm wrestling with looking at this one of two ways...

Either Moore should STFU (as Allen says), because he was part of the problem by having worked for the evil corporation, that he knew full well was evil.

OR (and I'm really wanting to go this way...)
Moore has every right to complain, because getting screwed was the price of absolution. Working for Marvel or DC creates a karmic debt, that makes you complicit, BUT getting screwed by them evens the score. It's karma paying admission into to realm of righteous indignation, along with Kirby, Siegel & Shuster and everyone else who created something and wasn't treated fairly by DC or Marvel.

Top
#597231 - 05/03/12 03:20 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277

Top
#597232 - 05/03/12 03:29 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I think he makes good arguments like saying that Swamp Thing and Superman were intended to be serialized, but not Watchmen. That by not only writing a prequel to it, but turning it into a mega event it DOES feel like it's taking something away from the original, by possibly, eventually turning into another Batman comic. I say this because when asked, Didio said that he's not ruling out an ongoing Watchmen series if the demand is high enough.
I'm sure Victor Hugo never intended there to be a sequel to Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Hans Christian Andersen never intended The Little Mermaid to have a series of movies and a TV series, but that didn't stop Disney from making all that stuff.

Does any of that crap take anything away from the originals?

Top
#597237 - 05/03/12 04:24 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
I don't want to get into the whole karma thing, but I see what you're getting at. Alan Moore got his career established, in American comics, by working on characters created by writers and artists who were ripped off from potential royalties and ownership.

He says that that he was wrong to do that but it's easy to say that AFTER you've been established and AFTER you made money from Watchmen, and selling the film rights to FROM HELL and LOEG, and are able to live comfortably.

In regards to The Little Mermaid or stories like that, Moore would argue that those stories and characters are in the public domain, and therefore, up for grabs. However, if they weren't public domain, he'd probably still use them but change the name to "The Li'l Watersprite."

I remember Alan Moore revamped Rob Liefeld's Awesome Comics universe and populated it with a history of original characters like ZanTar King of the Jungle, 30s pulp hero John Prophet the Man of Marble, and a WWII group called Battlin' Baron & the Roarin' Roughnecks among others. Then there was Supreme who was pretty much Superman, and Professor Night and Twilight the Girl Marvel who was supposed to stand in for Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder.


Edited by Gerald (05/03/12 04:43 PM)
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597238 - 05/03/12 04:33 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
Well that issue is a little confused because Moore wasn't limiting his criticism to Watchmen when it came to the "old ideas" jab.


I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, argue that DC and Marvel are producing new ideas.

This summer's hot projects: WATCHMEN and AVENGERS VS. X-MEN, just like in the mid-1980s, when I was a kid. This year's hot characters: Batman, the Justice League, Green Lantern, the X-Men and the Avengers, all of which are a zillion years old.

If Moore wasn't the last writer at DC creating anything new, he was close to it.

Top
#597239 - 05/03/12 04:40 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
No one here is arguing that. But when he criticizes the practice of taking other peoples stories and characters, when he did just that, and continues to do that, it comes off as a little bit egotistical and hyporcritical.

He's criticizing Geoff Johns for adding to an Alan Moore Green Lantern story, when he himself did the same thing when he took a John Broome Green Lantern story of Abin Sur("Earth's First Green Lantern") and added to it.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597241 - 05/03/12 04:53 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
He's criticizing Geoff Johns for adding to an Alan Moore Green Lantern story, when he himself did the same thing when he took a John Broome Green Lantern story of Abin Sur("Earth's First Green Lantern") and added to it.


Comparing the careers of Alan Moore and Geoff Johns, I think you'll find that Moore has pulled more ideas out of his head in any given year than Johns has in a lifetime.

By the time Moore wrote a few Green Lantern Corps tales, writers other than John Broome had used Abin Sur, just as writers other than Jerry Siegel mentioned baby Kal-El being rocketed to Earth from the doomed planet Krypton. These are key elements in the origin stories of the franchise heroes.

Mogo, on the other hand, was a minor player Moore invented for one cute story in 1985. The amount of blood that Johns and others since have gotten from this stone is amazing. And this is hardly the only Moore story at DC to be milked and milked and milked by lesser talents.

Of course, anything Moore created in the DC Universe is fair game. But mocking Johns for being a third-rate writer also is fair game.

Top
#597242 - 05/03/12 04:56 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Lawson

And since you mention INFINITE CRISIS, although it was well within DC's rights to crap out a sequel to its own company crossover from 1985, which had been written by committee and starred every character it owned at the time, every fanboy I knew rolled his eyes at the sequel and called it creatively pathetic.


If the internet existed in the 80s, I'd like to know the opnions of Silver Age readers on a year long story based on a 10-page "Crisis on Earth 2" story.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597243 - 05/03/12 05:05 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Lawson

Comparing the careers of Alan Moore and Geoff Johns, I think you'll find that Moore has pulled more ideas out of his head in any given year than Johns has in a lifetime.

But I'm not comparing the overall careers of Moore and Johns, and neither is Moore from the interview I'm referring to.

He's criticizing the practice.

Quote:
These are key elements in the origin stories of the franchise heroes.


Yes, and a previous writer had already written a story explaining why Abin Sur started using a spaceship to travel and how he died.
But Alan Moore chose to retcon that, and write another story explaing Abin Sur using a spaceship.

Quote:
Mogo on the other hand, was a minor player Moore invented for one cute story in 1985. The amount of blood that Johns and others since have gotten from this stone is amazing.
So other writers shouldn't use minor characters created by other writers? Only the ones that are firmly established in key elements of the title character?

I dislike Johns as a writer, but he's created many more characters for Green Lantern than Alan Moore, and used them more much more prominently and frequently than Mogo.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597244 - 05/03/12 05:06 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I'd like to know the opnions of Silver Age readers on a year long story based on a 10-page "Crisis on Earth 2" story.


Except you're wrong.

The name CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS was a play on the "Crisis" title invariably used in the summertime JLA/JSA team-ups -- year after year -- not just in one story.

Also, none of the JLA/JSA team-ups featured characters called the Monitor, the Anti-Monitor, Harbinger, Pariah and all the rest acting out their (not very well written) dramas against the backdrop of the end of DC's parallel universes and the deaths of a couple dozen characters.

The specific comic you're referring to had the JLA and JSA teaming up to fight the Crime Champions. It had about as much to do with CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS as this month's BATMAN has to do with the July 1998 BATMAN: They're both comics with Batman in them.

It's weird that you think this is just like BEFORE WATCHMEN.

Top
#597245 - 05/03/12 05:10 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
So other writers shouldn't use minor characters created by other writers? Only the ones that are firmly established in key elements of the title character?


Gah!

Gerald, believe whatever you want. Some of us are going to give Alan Moore's opinions on the subject more weight than yours.

Top
#597246 - 05/03/12 05:19 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
I'm not comparing it to Watchmen. I'm comparing it to Alan Moore's DC work, his Image work, and his writing practices in using characters for LOEG.

He's complaining that they're making a Green Lantern event, utilizing elements from a Green Lantern story he wrote.

COIE utilized the other DC Earth's, created by other writers, and featured those characters like the Crime Syndicate, Roy Thomas' version of Superman, Wonder Woman, Powergirl, etc, CC Becks Marvel Family, etc. Yeah, they aded Anti-Monitor etc.

Considering that Geoff Johns has created brand new characters for Green Lantern that featured in the Blackest Night storyline, I don't see how it's so different from COIE or similar superhero comic stories.


What about Batman: The Killing Joke by Moore? He took a Jack Schiff Batman story titled "The Man Behind The Red Hood," and didn't add any new characters. But he did have the Joker shoot and paralyze Bat-girl, strip her naked, and photograph her in front of Commisioner Gordon.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597247 - 05/03/12 05:33 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Gerald
COIE utilized the other DC Earth's, created by other writers, and featured those characters like the Crime Syndicate, Roy Thomas' version of Superman, Wonder Woman, Powergirl, etc, ...


Except you're wrong. Roy Thomas didn't create any of those characters, or even those versions of them, they were created much earlier by Siegel and Shuster and William Marston and Gerry Conway, who --

Gah!

I mean, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, GERALD! YOU'RE RIGHT! YOU CAN STOP NOW!

Top
#597251 - 05/03/12 11:20 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
able to live comfortably.

Seeing as how he wrote Neonomicon for Avatar to cover a tax bill, I doubt very seriously he's exactly rolling in dough.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597252 - 05/03/12 11:36 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
He took a Jack Schiff Batman story titled "The Man Behind The Red Hood," and didn't add any new characters.

You are completely full of horseshit. The failed stand-up comic character who put on the Red Hood and became the Joker was an entirely new construct.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597253 - 05/04/12 12:27 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Seeing as how he wrote Neonomicon for Avatar to cover a tax bill, I doubt very seriously he's exactly rolling in dough.
I thought taxes in England were fairly reasonable for creative types. Or is that just artists?

But still, he's got universal healthcare there right, that's got to be helpful for a guy his age. Plus he must save a bundle on shaves and haircuts, I imagine.

Seriously though, is there any other evidence to support that, I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't loaded, stuff happens. But he doesn't have a particularly fancy lifestyle does he? And couldn't a tax bill, be just a fluke as well, something was accidentally not figured right, so it came out of the blue, or any number of things.I'm just saying, if that's all the evidence, it's not entirely conclusive.

Top
#597254 - 05/04/12 12:32 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Alexander Ness Online   shocked
Member

Registered: 09/17/03
Posts: 3841
Loc: Minnesota
As far as writing for Avatar I highly doubt anyone does that for the money.

Top
#597255 - 05/04/12 12:35 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Do the math. When he first started doing Maxwell and the Magic Cat, he was on public assistance. What has he done since then? He only received movie money on LXG and From Hell, not on V or Watchmen.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597256 - 05/04/12 12:51 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
"Public assistance" like welfare or is it just the Brit version of Social Security, cause he's retired isn't he? And do we know if the LXG and From Hell money were lump sums or did they pay periodically, or both or some other variation? He could still be getting the occasional LXG money still, I swear I've seen them show it on FX periodically.

Plus, doesn't he get royalties from the Watchmen trades themselves?

A whole freakin' lot of those sold recently with the movie and all, (someone else pointed that out to me). Plus any other royalties he must be getting from other trades.

Top
#597257 - 05/04/12 12:57 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Just ran across this, a piece from Forbes chastising Mr. Moore for many of the same reasons we've already been discussing here...

Alan Moore Is Wrong About 'Before Watchmen'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/02/01/alan-moore-is-wrong-about-before-watchmen/

He actually sounds a little like Lawson over at the Byrne hating the Avengers movie thread...

"I also hope Mr. Moore, if he is going to continue complaining and denouncing it, will at least plan on actually READING the things he’s denouncing. There are a lot of truly great talents working on this project, and they are doing work similar to what Moore did when he took those Charlton Comics characters and invented a story reimagining them and trying to find new ways to make them relevant..."

Top
#597258 - 05/04/12 01:12 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Originally Posted By: Gerald
able to live comfortably.

Seeing as how he wrote Neonomicon for Avatar to cover a tax bill, I doubt very seriously he's exactly rolling in dough.

I shouldn't have commented on Alan Moore's living situation.

I assumed he was "comfortable" based off interviews saying that while he's not rich, he's doing okay, but then again, maybe I'm misremembering them, and regardless, it doesn't matter.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597259 - 05/04/12 01:20 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Originally Posted By: Gerald
He took a Jack Schiff Batman story titled "The Man Behind The Red Hood," and didn't add any new characters.

You are completely full of horseshit. The failed stand-up comic character who put on the Red Hood and became the Joker was an entirely new construct.


The failed stand-up comic character IS the Joker. So he added to the Silver Age Joker origin.

I wouldn't argue that Paul Jenkins, Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas added a new character by revealing that Wolverine's identity was James Howlett.

I guess we just have different opinions on what it means to add new characters to a story.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597260 - 05/04/12 01:28 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald

I shouldn't have commented on Alan Moore's living situation.

I assumed he was "comfortable" based off interviews saying that while he's not rich, he's doing okay, but then again, maybe I'm misremembering them, and regardless, it doesn't matter.

Seriously, he must get royalties from all the Watchmen trades sold because of the movie. Plus any other royalties he must be getting from all the other trades.

I just got some Tom Strong trades online a few weeks back. He must get some decent royalties, with so many still in print, Watchmen, V, LOEG, Tom Strong, Promethea and all the other ABC books. Does Liefeld pay him royalties for the two big Supreme trades?

Now if only Miracleman gets back in print, and made into a movie as well...


Edited by Joe Lee (05/04/12 01:33 AM)

Top
#597263 - 05/04/12 02:04 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
He relinquished all rights of Miracleman to Gaiman and Alan Davis.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597265 - 05/04/12 02:07 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I guess we just have different opinions on what it means to add new characters to a story.

The character who became the Joker was an entirely new construct. The Joker never had an alter-ego before, and it was immediately discarded after that.

Originally Posted By: Gerald
I wouldn't argue that Paul Jenkins, Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas added a new character by revealing that Wolverine's identity was James Howlett.

I would.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597266 - 05/04/12 02:08 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
"Public assistance" like welfare

Yes.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597267 - 05/04/12 02:13 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Forbes
There are a lot of truly great talents working on this project[/b]

Adam Hughes, Lee Bermejo and Jae Lee. The rest were hacks to begin with.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597268 - 05/04/12 02:14 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
He relinquished all rights of Miracleman to Gaiman and Alan Davis.
Yeah but he's gotta be getting royalties from all the trades I mentioned above, LOEG, V, all the ABC stuff, Tom Strong, Promethea etc. I would think he gets royalties from Swamp Thing as well, maybe some others. Plus all the Watchmen trades, especially the huge spike in sales around the movie.

Top
#597269 - 05/04/12 02:19 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
I would hope that's a decent living. But DC flooded the market with the WalMart editions of Watchmen (and V), which is what this latest round is all about. They were making a fair ongoing profit on it, but with the movie had to overprint in such high quantities that there's pretty much no longer an untapped audience for it. Take into account all the returned copies.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597270 - 05/04/12 02:20 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
(There are a lot of truly great talents working on this project) Adam Hughes, Lee Bermejo and Jae Lee. The rest were hacks to begin with.

Darwyn Cooke?
J. Michael Straczynski?
Andy and Joe Kubert?
Amanda Conner?
Brian Azzarello?
Len Wein?

(this is obviously some strange usage of the word "hack" that I was previously unaware of)

Top
#597271 - 05/04/12 02:23 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Hack. As in they suck.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597272 - 05/04/12 02:24 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Take into account all the returned copies.
But that's just Watchmen, and even then it's been in print since it was first published, it must be making him money or is DC publishing it at a loss just to keep it in print?

Top
#597273 - 05/04/12 02:30 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Hack. As in they suck.
Well then, I'll defer to your obvious expertise in sucking. grin

Top
#597274 - 05/04/12 02:31 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
That's the thing. The market's flooded now and there's no more money to be made with the Watchmen TPB. That's why DC offered him the rights back, apparently in exchange for clear legal title on the characters. BW could very well be contestable,and DC knows this. They're banking on Moore's not wanting the hassle of taking the case any further than the court of public opinion.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597275 - 05/04/12 02:55 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
He relinquished all rights of Miracleman to Gaiman and Alan Davis.


In the CBR article, IIRC, Moore said that if Marvel does trades of his Miracleman stories, the he'll be giving the profits to the first printing to Mick Anglo and/or his family.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597276 - 05/04/12 03:51 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
That's interesting. I seem to recall his saying he had given up all legal claim to the character in Kimota. Same with John Constantine.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597277 - 05/04/12 04:05 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
I read that too during the whole McFarlane/Gaiman battle. The issue of Miracleman and the legal rights still confuses me.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#597278 - 05/04/12 09:52 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
He actually sounds a little like Lawson over at the Byrne hating the Avengers movie thread...


No. C'mon. I think Alan Moore has a personal investment in WATCHMEN that John Byrne does not have in the Avengers. Moore co-created WATCHMEN. Byrne has produced some Avengers comics.

I can excuse Moore being disgusted with BEFORE WATCHMEN sight unseen.

Top
#597279 - 05/04/12 10:05 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
I didn't mean to say YOU equated Moore's and Byrne's situation, or even equated Moore to Byrne, just that the columnist sounded a "little" like you, in his chastising of Moore, read the quote from the column again it starts out...

"I also hope Mr. Moore, if he is going to continue complaining and denouncing it, will at least plan on actually READING the things he’s denouncing..."

Sorry if I wasn't clear before, I thought the quote made it obvious.

Top
#597280 - 05/04/12 10:08 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Gerald]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Gerald
In the CBR article, IIRC, Moore said that if Marvel does trades of his Miracleman stories, the he'll be giving the profits to the first printing to Mick Anglo and/or his family.
I bet they could get a good Miracleman movie in theaters before DC can get either a good Superman or Shazam movie made.

Top
#597282 - 05/04/12 10:58 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Moore didn't give up his copyright to the stories he told with MM (he would be paid for reprints, etc.), just the rights to publishing further stories with the character (trademark?). I don't remember what the exact legal terms for these things are, though.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#597284 - 05/04/12 11:15 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
I didn't mean to say YOU equated Moore's and Byrne's situation, or even equated Moore to Byrne, just that the columnist sounded a "little" like you, in his chastising of Moore, read the quote from the column again it starts out...

"I also hope Mr. Moore, if he is going to continue complaining and denouncing it, will at least plan on actually READING the things he’s denouncing..."

Sorry if I wasn't clear before, I thought the quote made it obvious.


No, you were clear.

But I -- respectfully -- disagree that Moore needs to read BEFORE WATCHMEN before he denounces it. I think what Moore is denouncing is the very concept of a sequel to WATCHMEN, the iconic story that he wrote 25 years ago and that he begged everyone to leave the hell alone. It may end up having spiffy art and a totally kewl story. That's not Moore's concern. He didn't want it to exist.

Whereas with Byrne and the Avengers movie, Byrne doesn't -- as far as I know -- object to someone making a movie about the Avengers, a franchise with which he's barely connected. Byrne just thinks this particular movie is badly done, though he has not seen it.

Top
#597285 - 05/04/12 11:34 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Lawson
But I -- respectfully -- disagree that Moore needs to read BEFORE WATCHMEN before he denounces it.


I totally agree with that.

Moore wouldn't need to see the stuff first before having grounds to complain. His issues are not with the quality of the content, but the existence of that content itself. Whereas Byrne has a history of crappin' on a movies he hasn't seen.

And to be clear I never meant to imply that you did agree with the columnist. I just thought it was odd that the columnist would use such similar phrasing, appropriate in Byrne's case, but oddly inappropriate in Moore's case.

I wonder if Byrne would see it differently though. Would he see his work on Marvel properties such as FF and The Avengers akin to Moore's on Watchmen, and feel that his movie ire was on the same level?



Edited by Joe Lee (05/04/12 11:42 AM)

Top
#597286 - 05/04/12 11:55 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
I wonder if Byrne would see it differently though. Would he see his work on Marvel properties such as FF and The Avengers akin to Moore's on Watchmen, and feel that his movie ire was on the same level?


I dunno. In fairness, as best I can tell, Byrne's never complained about the movies "getting it wrong" as compared to the comics he produced. He's upset they "get it wrong" as compared to the comics he grew up reading in the 1960s.

Meanwhile, I saw Stan Lee quoted in a news story today, saying he absolutely loves the Avengers movie, it blew his mind, it's the sort of magic they never expected movies to be able to pull off back when he and Jack Kirby were cranking out those early comics.

I figure Lee's proprietary concern on the Avengers must outweigh Byrne's by a factor of 10.

Top
#597287 - 05/04/12 02:51 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
I just thought it was odd that the columnist would use such similar phrasing, appropriate in Byrne's case, but oddly inappropriate in Moore's case.



That article is like a one-two punch of a string of ad hominems built on a strawman followed by a pitch for Before Watchmen. Well maybe a one-two-three punch? But look at the guy's profile:

Quote:
A former media specialist & campaign ad writer


It's funny how similar it is to one of those mudslinging political ads that starts off with an unflattering depiction of the opponent and then switches over to bright happy images of the candidate being advertised. It even ends with a line claiming Before Watchmen's success "would be the best outcome for all of us, fans and creators alike."

Before Watchmen: Good for Comics. Good for America.

Top
#597292 - 05/04/12 09:01 PM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Peter Urkowitz Offline
Member

Registered: 08/28/00
Posts: 3231
Loc: Salem, MA, USA
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
That's the thing. The market's flooded now and there's no more money to be made with the Watchmen TPB. That's why DC offered him the rights back, apparently in exchange for clear legal title on the characters. BW could very well be contestable,and DC knows this. They're banking on Moore's not wanting the hassle of taking the case any further than the court of public opinion.


Watchmen is still getting assigned as required reading in college courses, so it has a basically unending, evergreen market potential. Moore should be getting pretty good royalties on it for the foreseeable future. Now, maybe that's not enough to live on; we have no way to know that for sure.

And maybe that's not enough profit for DC's corporate appetite, so you may well be right about their motivations. I think Moore did say in one interview that he had consulted an attorney, who told him that he did not have a case, based on the contract? I don't recall exactly now. In any event, Moore does appear to have little taste for legal battles.

Top
#597296 - 05/05/12 01:06 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Lawson
Meanwhile, I saw Stan Lee quoted in a news story today, saying he absolutely loves the Avengers movie, it blew his mind, it's the sort of magic they never expected movies to be able to pull off back when he and Jack Kirby were cranking out those early comics.

I figure Lee's proprietary concern on the Avengers must outweigh Byrne's by a factor of 10.
Which is ironic since Lee seems to have quite the opposite attitude.

Lee comes across as gracious and genuinely pleased that anyone is even taking an interest. How much of that is contractually obligated, I suppose is not really important. He seems to have a healthier outlook on movies interpreting the characters, not too proprietary despite actually having not only been the proprietor at one point but pretty much co-creator of all he surveyed as well.

Whereas Byrne's attitude, though not as justifiable as Lee would be, seems to me to be more proprietary in nature. I know Paul would say something like I'm probably totally off base here, and maybe I am but Byrne's negative remarks just give me that feeling about him.

Top
#597297 - 05/05/12 02:37 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Peter Urkowitz]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7068
Originally Posted By: Peter Urkowitz
Watchmen has a basically unending, evergreen market potential.

Watchmen is no Catcher in the Rye, if that's what you're driving at. One of my local WalMarts had twenty copies on the shelf that just sat there for several weeks, and then suddenly they all disappeared. I doubt a bunch of people snapped them up all at once, or even one person for that matter. They're likely still sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Which is exactly why DC offered to return the rights to Moore, because the market is tapped out.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#597302 - 05/05/12 08:53 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361

Quote:

"It seems a bit desperate to go after a book famous for its artistic integrity," Moore told Fast Company. "It’s a finite series. 'Watchmen' was said to actually provide an alternative to the superhero story as an endless soap opera. To turn that into just another superhero comic that goes on forever demonstrates exactly why I feel the way I do about the comics industry. It’s mostly about franchises. Comic shops these days barely sell comics. It’s mostly spin-offs and toys"




Quote:
“I thought about it for a while--I could perhaps sue, although I suspect DC would be very comfortable with that,” Moore adds. “They have a whole battery of lawyers who could continue to fight this case for decades. And it’s not like I’m after money. It’s always been about the dignity and integrity of the work. I just want them not to do something. There’s no point in wasting resources for decades, when effectively, if there’s a legal case, I’d be prohibited from speaking about it, which DC is more worried about.”

Moore’s viewpoint may spring as much from a cultural as a philosophical clash, given that, in Europe, the concept of artistic integrity is inherent enough to merit legal standing in creative ownership.

“With these types of companies--meaning companies who deal extensively in creative product--much of a company’s value is based upon the intellectual property in hand, so they need to do everything they can to secure and protect those assets,” says Michael Lovitz, a Beverly Hills intellectual property attorney specializing in the comic book, gaming, and graphic-novel industries. “However, the concept of a creator retaining certain moral rights to their work is a very European perspective. That’s why they have a droit moral (moral rights) segment of the copyright law that grants the creator certain moral rights to their work with respect to artistic integrity and reputation, to not have things done to or with their work that they don’t want done. In Europe, even if you transfer all of your IP rights, you cannot transfer your moral rights. That is not something that is well-known or widely recognized in the U.S., and in fact was excluded from the revised U.S. Copyright Law, and thus does not have quite the same weight in the U.S. that it seems to have with European creators.”



http://www.fastcocreate.com/1679856/alan...-v-big-business



Quote:
I mean, I certainly shan't be taking legal action against these comics because it's pretty much stitched up. If they've got clauses in the contract that say that they can actually get an attorney to sign contracts--that the comics company has got power of attorney--then there's not much chance.


And also, of course, they're a huge corporation. They've got lots of lawyers and infinite amounts of money that they can keep people in court. They can keep me, and my descendants, in court fruitlessly for decades. And, I wouldn't wish that upon my kids or grandkids. And anyway, of course, if I was involved in a legal situation, I wouldn't be able to comment upon it, would I?


Quote:
I still get a royalty--not a very big royalty, but the kind that the comic industry was offering in the 1980s. Yes, I still get a little bit of the money that I consider myself to be owed for these things.


http://www.seraphemera.org/seraphemera_books/Alan_Moore_Interview.html


There's a brief mention on Moore's Wikipedia page alleging that he and Gibbons only got about 2% of Watchmen's profits.

Top
#597304 - 05/05/12 09:58 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Joe Lee]
Paul W. Sondersted, Jr. Offline
Member

Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
Originally Posted By: Joe Lee
Whereas Byrne's attitude, though not as justifiable as Lee would be, seems to me to be more proprietary in nature. I know Paul would say something like I'm probably totally off base here, and maybe I am but Byrne's negative remarks just give me that feeling about him.


Stan Lee seems to be just more of a "laid back" kinda guy, if you catch my drift, whereas JB is...not. smirk

Top
#597307 - 05/06/12 01:51 AM Re: Actually, no, it was Joe Simon [Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Fair enough.

Top
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 ... 16 17 >


Moderator:  Rick Veitch, Steve Conley