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

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?”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is a definite resemblance between Kirby and Mark Ruffalo.

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.