Apparently Harry Potter is ok to use in the next LOEG, but Before Watchmen is wrong. And before you start yelling, SATIRE! Keep in mind that Moore has always borrowed literary characters for use in his own work, it's the whole point of LOEG, he only changes the names when the characters aren't in the Public Domain. And unless I'm mistaken has never asked permission to use the characters he's borrowed in LOEG.

Can't wait to hear how Harry Potter's creator feels about this. If they are smart they'll probably ignore it.

One comment from the below article was particularly funny, "The electrons aren't even dry yet on him raging at HIS CHARACTERS." Another reads, "Didn't he do an interview saying that he was sick of his creations being messed with or as he put it RAPED, now he's doing the same with the whole Harry Potter deal."

"Alan Moore's latest comic turns Harry Potter into the Antichrist"
http://blastr.com/2012/06/alan-moores-new-book-turn.php

Sigh.



But hell, let's just keep hearing the same arguments over and over again until those of us on this side get exhausted enough to throw up our hands and say, "fuck it, enjoy your creatively bankrupt comics."

But they keep making more stuff, and more contradictions.

"But... but he uses other people's characters too!" isn't "more stuff." It's the exact frikkin' same stuff. Again and again and again.

Fuck it. Enjoy your copy of Before Watchmen, Joe.

Oops sorry I hadn't been informed you had decided this particular discussion was over.

The more stuff I was referring to, was that HE JUST DID IT AGAIN. Here the man is USING other peoples characters again, after JUST RECENTLY bitchin' about it himself. Getting all sorts of publicity.

That's not relevant to the discussion?

Repeating the same, already addressed argument without alteration tends not to be terribly relevant, no.

But what do you care? You get to enjoy your sweet comic! I bet it's awesome.

Exactly. He needs moral justification for feeding the rape machine.

Wow, can't discuss this without getting your panties in a bunch? How personally invested in this are you? Take a breath man.

The guy gets tons of publicity crying foul, just before publishing his own new book where he does the same thing he just cried foul about.

Shut up troll.

Noted. Enjoy your comics, Joe.

Don't spend too many nights crying in your pillow Ceci.

Yes, that's what I'm doing. Shutting up the troll. The opening post of this thread is the troll. If you're going to call people insulting names, at least use the names that are definitionally applicable. I always do.

Why do you always end up posting so much in topics you don't want to discuss?

It's easy to get exhausted when you're defending the indefensible. Either it's wrong to use the creations of others for your own ends or it's not. That's an easy standard to promote. "It's wrong, except when Alan Moore does it" is what's tiring you out.

Mike

Joe. Take an hour. Re-read the thread when you've calmed down a little. Ask yourself which of us sounds upset. When you do, don't confuse exasperation and a lack of respect with distress.

I have told you to enjoy what I'm sure are delightful comics. If that's not enough for you, sorry man. Don't know what to tell you.

Ceci, you seem to be hearing what you want to hear.

You could try not being a condescending prick and just saying nothing. It's not like we get paid by the post around here.

Mike

Shh. Grownups talking.

That's the thing I'm having the hardest trouble with. I'm trying not to pick sides in this but I have questions, and apparently just asking the questions gets you attacked.

I picked up the Minuteman comic fully expecting to put it back down, but after reading it, I liked it. Silk Spectre was even better. I'm supposed to be sorry I based my opinion an actual experiences and facts, instead of just reflexively hating something?

You'd have a hard time convincing anyone of that with this thread.

No, I'm just needling Mike. I've learned through arduous experience that there's little point in actually engaging him on any topic.

He's not very bright, you see.



What part of "enjoy your comics!" is complicated? If you feel the need to sit at home and go, "Oh, Silk Spectre! What crazy adventures will you get into this month?" then have at it.

But if you want to come to a public forum and defend your comics, then dumb, already-addressed arguments will be called out as such.

Now, if you're really having trouble wrapping your head around any notion other than, as Mike puts it, "either it's wrong to use the creations of others for your own ends or it's not," then I suggest you go back to the piracy thread, where you insisted that the root of piracy's immorality was that it denied an artist the right to determine the fate of his work, and at varying points compared such a denial to rape, murder, and slavery.

Then come back here and apologize for being a murdering rapist slavedriver.

Or, alternately, go, "okay, I guess it's not a valid argument to just go 'A is always A. Good men know that. Like Harry Truman. Or my father. Hurm.'"

Why do you always misattribute your nonsense to other people?

Joe, you seem to not be hearing anything other than your own guilty conscience.

LOL, as the kids say.

Wow for a guy who doesn't want to discuss the topic anymore you sure seem to be putting in the effort.

I find it interesting that some of the people who claimed internet piracy was admittedly legally wrong, BUT LOUDLY PROCLAIMED it was morally right, and rightly attack DC's use of characters legally but not morally theirs to use (something Moore was paid by DC to do as well), BUT then somehow defend Moore for doing exactly the same thing.

Like Mike said, "either it's wrong to use the creations of others for your own ends or it's not." And I'm honestly struggling with that.

Moore is dressing his own creations as the creations of others in LoEG, Lost Girls, etc. Before Watchmen is expanding Moore's creations.




No, you should be sorry because you have no aesthetic taste.

You obviously have no idea how ridiculous some things sound coming from you. Ever heard the phrase "consider the source?"

Wrong. The argument was that piracy helped SOME OF US spend more money on entertainment. Some OTHERS of us didn't want to give out the details of their entertainment budget.

I think you'll find that all declarations of me not wanting to talk about this subject were made by you.

I don't want to rehash the same shit over and over again, and will just mock you if you try. That's different.



Loudly proclaimed that it was most often morally fine, because the arguments you made that it was immoral did not hold up in the vast majority of cases. And they become downright hypocritical when applied here.

Either way, I have no moral opinion on Before Watchmen. My opinion is that it's creatively bankrupt... which, you'll note, is exactly how I've described it on this thread.



So just to be clear, your main argument against piracy... that an artist should be allowed to determine the fate of his work... only applies sometimes.

Presumably, the exception is "when you want to read a prequel."

Now, if your stance is that the legal owner should have the right to determine the fate of the work, no matter what the wishes of the artist are, then that's a different argument. And it undercuts quite a bit of the righteous indignation you had on that thread.

However, we're not defending Moore for doing exactly the same thing. I've already explained how it's different, and if you'd like to address that, I'm happy to engage you on the subject. If you want to endlessly repeat, "BUT IT'S THE SAME THING!" over and over, then hey. You enjoy those comics, big guy. I bet they're super.

Yes I've heard that logic before. Internet piracy allows you to test drive albums. And then you will somehow be inspired to spend money on other albums. That only works if you planned on paying for all the albums you keep.

Because when you test drive a car you give the car back, unless you pay for it.

And it would only be morally fine if the musicians gave you permission. And some do, and it's worked out well for many entertainers. But it was their choice.

No, you've explained why you think it's different.

Great! Tell me why I'm wrong. Ideally, with an explanation more nuanced than, "IT'S THE SAME IT'S THE SAME IT'S THE SAME IT'S THE SAME I LIKE MY WATCHMEN PREQUEL SHUT UP!"

No. The arguments were made assuming the best case scenarios where the artist was the legal owner unless he or she sells those rights, which is within the artist's rights to do. We are not talking about people who may or may not have been treated unfairly or bullied or swindled. That's a whole different argument.

Now who's re-arguing everything?

And in this case, the rights were sold. So is your argument now that morality is determined by the wishes of the legal owner, and the wishes of the artist are irrelevant?

If so, it would be nice if you would change your recent post to Allen. It should read, "And it would only be morally fine if the legal owners gave you permission. The wishes of the musicians are immaterial unless they are also the owners."



I'm applying your morality to your actions, Joe. If it makes a bit of a mess, I apologize.

Bright enough to know a condescending prick when I see one. Also bright enough to enjoy watching said prick get agitated when caught not being as smart as he thinks he is.

Mike

Nope. There's no logic in that. I use piracy to find new things and then buy other products by those artists. I laid out my budget supporting this model, but the rest of you failed to do so.



We're not talking about cars.



Not talking about morality, either. I use piracy to spend my entertainment dollars more wisely. Or in the case of Before Watchmen, to be knowledgeable on topics which I would never want to financially support.

Ha... okay, Mike. You got me. It's the same, it's the same, it's the same, and you're a sharp fella after all.

Enjoy your comics.

And it would only be morally fine for you to download filesas long as you were given permission by the legal owners, be they the original musicians, the estate or lawful representative, or current rights holder.

Is that clearer?

Refresh our memory, prick. Why is it wrong for DC to put out a comic with someone else's creations but okay for Moore to do the same?

And by the way, your whole "I'm the grownup" shtick would be a lot more convincing if you didn't exhibit the typical internet immaturity of "Someone is expressing an opinion different than mine! I cannot let that stand!"

Mike

Of course because it would take balls to steal a car. You can download files illegally from the safety and privacy of your own home.

Yes. And morally consistent, as long as you avoid invoking the wishes of the artist as the basis of your morality on this subject in the future. It would be misleading; your argument is based on the wishes of the legal owner, whoever that might be. If it happens to be the artist, awesome. If not, also awesome.

For instance: in this case, the wishes of the artist do not concern you.

No. If the artist choses to sell his rights, as is his or her right, then they have given up their rights. It's pretty self explanatory. If they want to retain control, they best not sell their control.

It was quoted again on this thread, Mike. I know you're too smart to remember things that happened a couple hours ago, or... I dunno. Read. But try to come down to my level on this one.

tl;dr version: my objection is not based on "using characters" alone. The way the characters are used - and the ends to which they are used - is the basis of my objection.



I know it sucks when people disagree with you and explain why. It's probably because you're so smart.

Before Watchmen is built on the foundation of Watchmen, an attempt at an integral extension.



Moore is making his own creations and giving them the same names as other people's creations, no attempt at being integral to the other works.

Or by stealing, not spend your dollars on some things at all. If you buy some albums it's to rationalize, or deal with the your guilt.

You presumably didn't shoplift albums to "find new things" before you had access to illegal downloading?

Like I said before it's only a test drive if you return it or pay for it. If you keep it it's stealing. Even if you go out and buy a different car from the same dealer.

You don't steal anything but electronic stuff, because it would take balls to steal things like a car. You can download files illegally from the safety and privacy of your own home.

No. What sucks is the failure of some to agree to disagree respectfully. Only on the internet are so many so free to act like such assholes to people just for the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with them on a philosophical point.

Oh, well. There you go. That's because I don't respect Mike. Not "people who disagree with me." Mike specifically.

I'm also not brimming over with respect for your repetition of unchanged arguments against piracy that you were unable to adequately defend in a previous conversation. Just fyi.

This is pointless.

Yes. When you fail to address counter-arguments, then storm off in a huff with the intention of reusing your refuted arguments in the future, it is extraordinarily pointless.

See above, re: respect.

Some might look at it a little differently...

"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, but the pig likes it."

And we start with false pretenses.

Well, you can always prove me wrong by going back to the piracy thread and introducing new arguments. Or heck, start smaller. Go back to this post.

Otherwise, yeah... failure to address + huff. And in the case of piracy, reuse of refuted arguments later.

In person, one or the other of us would tote an ass-kicking.

Uh, I know me am dumb and you is smart, but there's nowhere in this thread where you explain why it's okay for Moore to do it and not DC. You get distracted back into the internet piracy argument, but that doesn't actually answer the question.

Of course, if your standard is "It's good if I like it and bad if I don't", I think we finally know who is the grown up in this thread.

Mike

Okay, now THAT'S a good laugh.

Mike

Says the man who can't stand someone on the internet expressing a different opinion than his.

Mike

You're the one who went trolling.

No, there isn't. There is a post, however, where I assert that they are performing two entirely separate acts... one which Moore has been okay with when it's been done to his characters (including a character from Watchmen, no less) in the past, because the straight-up "use of characters" isn't the sticking point.

It was the first frikkin' thing I said on the thread.



I apologize for suggesting that you and Joe don't address my points. I forgot that the statement, "well that's, like, my opinion, man" is a totally valid argument.

Now I know that isn't a personal threat of violence. And I'm certain you wouldn't want to be misunderstood. So why don't you take Ceci's advice from earlier and take an hour. And when you've calmed down a little. You might want to rephrase that post. I'm sure we wouldn't want anyone misunderstanding you. We are all just having fun here, screwin' around, pitchin' each other some shit. Right?

It might be me toting the ass-kicking. But one or the other us would, should we ever meet face-to-face.

Like I said above, why don't you take a breath and Ceci's advice from earlier and take some time to chill out. And when you've calmed down a little. You might want to rephrase that. I'd hate to see you be misunderstood, just cause you're upset.

There's no upset involved. It's something you've earned over a span of many years.

And they say you can't develop really good relationships online.

Ceci is right again.

I'm not seeing the connection to piracy here. As a "piracy" advocate, I'd say read Before Watchmen for free if you feel the need. As an aesthetics advocate, I'd say don't read Before Watchmen at all.

I don't think piracy is terribly relevant either, in and of itself... I just found it odd that Joe had done so much pontificating on the Holy Wishes of the Artist, then followed it up with, "Ooh, out of the way, Alan! I've just gotta read The Further Adventures of Nite Owl: The Melty Man Cometh!"

Since he's revised his stance to "the wishes of the copyright holder," fair enough. That tangent's done as far as I'm concerned.

1. They're not two entirely separate acts and you've got to be pretty stupid to think that. It's the same act. It's being done for probably two entirely different reasons or purposes. but it's the same act.

2. Your view boils down to "If the act is done for a reason I like, it's okay. If the act is done for a reason I don't like, it's bad".

3. You think that completely subjective view is somehow conclusive and/or persuasive on this subject and are agitated that everyone else doesn't bow down and accept the gospel of Ceci Appleface as law.

Yeah, you are definitely the grown up in this situation.

Mike

Sigh.



To me? Sure! To you? I don't see why. In fact, one more time, all together:

"Enjoy your comics, Mike!"



Okay now, that actually hurts.

I bet having an apple for a face would really hurt.

Coming from the cheap seats, and from someone who doesn't have a bone to pick with you at all, Joe, you're not effectively communicating your side of the argument. Which is unfortunate.

[quote=Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
[i]"Enjoy your comics, Mike!"[/i][/quote]

And you think I or anyone needs to hear that from you because? I mean, besides you being a condescending prick.

Mike

I'm glad to see the mods took Mike's "Appleface" comments seriously. He is a bad influence on this community.

Quote: "And you think I or anyone needs to hear that from you because?"

I wouldn't think you'd need to. There's no reason you should care about my opinion of you one way or the other.

You know. Unless I'm right. Then I would expect my opinion of you to bother you a great deal.

Quote: "I mean, besides you being a condescending prick."

A great deal indeed.

[quote=Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]Quote: "And you think I or anyone needs to hear that from you because?"

I wouldn't think you'd need to. There's no reason you should care about my opinion of you one way or the other. [/quote]

So, then why do you feel the need, despite claiming to be so sick and tired of talking about the subject, to chime in? Somebody thinks your opinion matters a great deal, but I don't believe it's me.

And by the way, do you actually think I'm so dumb to not know what "passive-aggressive" means? Or is that you again?

Mike

Quote: "So, then why do you feel the need, despite claiming to be so sick and tired of talking about the subject..."

I never said I was sick of the subject. In fact, I already pointed that out to Joe earlier in the thread when he made the same mistake. As I explained then, what I'm sick of is not the subject; it's the mindless repetition of already-addressed arguments.

I'm sorry you can't understand the difference.

Quote: "And by the way, do you actually think I'm so dumb..."

Yes.

It doesn't really matter what you said next. The answer is yes.

[quote=Mr. Socko]Coming from the cheap seats, and from someone who doesn't have a bone to pick with you at all, Joe, you're not effectively communicating your side of the argument. Which is unfortunate.[/quote]

I wouldn't argue with that. I'm probably not a the most eloquent advocate on my best day and I would never claim to be. Is there a remedial discussion group somewhere I should be?

Ceci I didn't revise my stance.

The arguments in that thread, were made assuming the artist was the legal owner unless otherwise specified.

If I recall correctly I had clarified that at least once over there. But if the artist willingly and without any deception at work, sells those rights, which is within the artist's rights to do, then they have given up their rights. If they wanted to retain control, they best not sell their control. And to be clear, we are not talking about people who may or may not have been treated unfairly or bullied or swindled in some way or to some extent. That's a whole different argument.

Also, I believe what I said was more like, I picked up the first issue of Minutemen out of curiosity, fully expecting to put it back down. Not, "Ooh, out of the way, Alan! I've just gotta read The Further Adventures of Nite Owl: The Melty Man Cometh!"

And what's with the "Holy Wishes of the Artist," crap. If an artist makes something, they own it, and it's wrong for someone to take or use their work without permission. Why is that sentiment worthy of ridicule?

Quote: "If I recall correctly I had clarified that at least once over there. But if the artist willingly and without any deception at work, sells those rights, which is within the artist's rights to do, then they have given up their rights. If they wanted to retain control, they best not sell their control. But it was their choice to give up those rights."

Either way though, the fact of being the artist is not what you're defending; it's the fact of being the legal owner. Once the property is out of the artist's control, the fact that they are the artist doesn't keep their wishes relevant to you.

Quote: "I believe what I said was more like, I picked up the first issue of Minutemen out of curiosity, fully expecting to put it back down. I never said anything remotely like your quote, "Ooh, out of the way, Alan! I've just [i]gotta[/i] read [i]The Further Adventures of Nite Owl: The Melty Man Cometh!""

No. That, admittedly, was me exaggerating for comic effect. I'll make it right, though:

IF ANYONE THINKS THERE IS ACTUALLY A COMIC CALLED "THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF NITE OWL: THE MELTY MAN COMETH" AND THAT JOE WAS EAGER TO READ IT, PLEASE DO NOT BE CONFUSED. THIS IS NOT THE CASE; NO SUCH COMIC EXISTS.

Quote: "And what's with the "Holy Wishes of the Artist," crap. If an artist makes something, they own it, and it's wrong for someone to take or use their work without permission, and it's theirs to sell or not sell as they see fit. Why is that sentiment worthy of ridicule?"

Nothing. I just think that when standing up for "the artist," you should be accurate, and phrase it as, "the person who currently owns the work" (or "the copyright holder" or whatevs), since that's the principle you're actually defending.

If you're doing that, works for me.

>>>"No. That, admittedly, was me exaggerating for comic effect."

I know I was just being clear. I didn't even want to risk that ever being attributed to me.

>>>"Either way though, the fact of being the artist is not what you're defending; it's the fact of being the legal owner."

I probably didn't do it every time, I'm sure I didn't. I often shortened it to "artist" my fault, for not being clear.

[quote=Ceci n'est pas une chaussette] Sigh.

[quote=me, a week and a half ago] I'm willing to bet that if the characters from Watchmen were used how the existing characters were used in Lost Girls... as a metaphor to drive the remixed characters he was constructing, rather than a straight up cynical exploitation of the original stories... Moore wouldn't have minded.

I'm actually willing to bet a great deal on this because he didn't object when [URL=http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/26/when-things-were-friendly-rorschachs-first-apperance-in-the-dcu-back-in-1988/]that exact thing already happened.[/URL][/quote]

But hell, let's just keep hearing the same arguments over and over again until those of us on this side get exhausted enough to throw up our hands and say, "fuck it, enjoy your creatively bankrupt comics." [/quote]

What twaddle. Moore trots out yet another screed where he takes someone else's beloved childhood character and twists it into something dark and disturbing, yet it's DC and its fans that are creatively bankrupt?!?!?! Yeah keep pushing the Moore line that he's the original. I'm sure when someone else creates something beloved and uplifting Moore will be able to finally release another of his "original" deconstructions. Yeah, that's it, it's the deconstructionists that are the innovators, that's the ticket!

Quote: "What twaddle. Moore trots out yet another screed where he takes someone else's beloved childhood character and twists it into something dark and disturbing, yet it's DC and its fans that are creatively bankrupt?!?!?!"

Yeah, pretty much. Put simply: Alan Moore is using other people's characters to tell his stories. DC is using Alan Moore's characters to tell... Alan Moore's story.

The fact that you don't like things that are dark or disturbing* doesn't really change that.

Quote: "Yeah, that's it, it's the deconstructionists that are the innovators, that's the ticket!"

So just to be clear... are you suggesting that Before Watchmen is an innovative work? I ask because above, you seem to take a great deal of umbrage with the idea that Before Watchmen is a creatively bankrupt concept, and this statement follows close on it's heels.

---
*Neither of which accurately describes either League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Lost Girls, but whatevs.

Well, volume 2 of LoEG aside.

I enjoy Weird Al Yankovic, because he takes familiar (or unfamiliar) music and morphs into something reminiscent of the original yet it's own thing as well. I have also enjoyed many works by Weird Alan Moore, where he took something familiar (or unfamiliar) and turned it into something reminiscent yet clever in it's own way (like the first volume of LOEG, dunno about the fifth). But neither are "innovators", any more than Roy Liechtenstein was. All are artists, but since their art relies on someone else to innovate it in the first place they are derivative, not innovative.

Moore didn't even want to create Watchmen as his story was originally derived from other characters; it was only after he realized no publisher would let him do what he wanted with their characters that he reluctantly tweaked them (the characters, not the publishers) into something slightly distinct.

Is Before Watchmen innovative? How the hell should I know? The story isn't finished. I'm intrigued enough though to take the time and money to buy, read, and critique it and judge it for its own merits, and not judge it for what my biases tell me it will be. If you're not interested, so be it.

Derivative works aren't innovative, but you can't know yet if Before Watchmen will be?

Okay.

Although it is derivative and not innovative in concept, it may yet be innovative in narrative, theme, approach, complexity, etc., just like the original Watchmen. It likely will not be, and from what I have seen thus far will merely be better-than-average superhero comics. Which I enjoy and you mock. But thank you for conceding that the concept of Before Watchmen is no more derivative than Alan Moore's usual works.

I don't actually recall saying that. In fact, I believe I said the exact opposite. Nor do I recall saying I don't like superhero comics. But... y'know. I can excuse myself if you'd like to just supply both sides of the conversation. I bet it's fun. Easier, too!

In fairness to Alan Moore: Some critics say they're tired of hearing him complain about BEFORE WATCHMEN.

But Moore isn't issuing press releases or holding news conferences. Folks are calling him on the telephone for interviews and asking him his views. He's answering. They're publishing his answers.

What would we have Moore do, stop answering the phone or speaking out loud until DC Comics, Dan DiDio, Jim Lee, Darwyn Cooke and the rest have finished devouring the meat off WATCHMEN's bones?

Exactly, he's just giving his honest opinion when asked in interviews, that doesn't necessarily mean the guy is pounding his pillow every night and tossing darts at a DC logo all day. Anyone who criticizes his "angry outbursts" at DC is making some seriously unfair assumptions.

Troll Joe got *FLUSHED*!

Actually the thread was flushed yesterday. Shortly after your tantrum. To be honest I thought you got banned.

Awwww, did daddy's little girl take the bad Internet man's refutal of her standard "I bet you're not so tough off the Internet" bullshit as a threat or something?

Seriously. This is what you spend your time doing?

I'm also simultaneously playing Diablo, reading my comics box that showed up yesterday, listening to Frank Zappa, loading Backtrack Linux on a netbook and writing an essay on business management communication.

I didn't know threads could get flushed anymore.

With all due respect to our hosts Rick and Steve, I didn't think anyone had been minding the store here since maybe 2007.

I suppose should have expected it to get flushed, after the extremely unpleasant thing what I posted.

LOL, Joe. That sounds like part of an Abbott and Costello routine, to be followed by 'I'm a baaaaaad boy.'.

Could be. At work last week I watched all those "A&C meets... " movies on netflix.

How DID this thread get flushed?

If angry, vitriolic, never-ending debates are a no-no, most of our threads should have been flushed already.

My guess is the thread was flushed because of the "ass-kicking" back-and-forth between Joe and Allen.

Yep. The little girl cried and the thread got flushed.

[quote=Allen Montgomery][quote=Joe Lee]Only on the internet are so many so free to act like such assholes[/quote]
In person, one or the other of us would tote an ass-kicking. [/quote]

That's a pretty clear threat, and the ambiguous word "tote" indicates an attempt to obscure the threat from moderators. The thread deserved to get flushed.

Allen, your further insulting of Joe here lends additional weight to the evidence that you are trying to intimidate and threaten him. It is despicable behavior.

It's only dots on a screen, folks.

Peter, you've been a real dick lately. I should know.

What I said was simply a refutal of Joe's oft-repeated claim that the conversations here get heated only because of the Internet providing some kind of buffer. It's an old argument, it's wrong and I'm tired of it. I can guarantee you, him and anyone else that in person I would say the exact same things I type here.

Now, if you feel the need to chastise me further, please fuck off in advance.

Allen, I consider you a friend. I know that my tendency to scold is annoying. I've been trying to restrain that tendency over the last few years, but it's true that recently my restraint has worn thin a few times, and I have scolded your manners, criticized your debating tactics, and sneered at your conspiracy theories. I apologize for all of that, and I will try to rein myself in again.

I could have just let you have your say without commenting, even when it felt to me like you were creating a poisonous atmosphere that was crowding out and shutting down more enjoyable discussion here. I think that in most cases I do manage to just ignore stuff that I don't agree with, but clearly it's been bugging me more than I was even aware of, leading me to lash out. Please take this as an admission of my own hangups rather than a criticism of you.

I do believe that you would be just as much of an opinionated jackass in person as you are online. It's one of the things that we most admire and respect about you. I would hope that I would have the courage in person to let you know when I felt that you had gone over the line. But the truth is that in real life I probably would just not hang out where you hang out, because I avoid conflict. Please take that as an admission of my own weakness rather than as a criticism of you.

Once again, I apologize for being a dick. I apologize for scolding. I can't promise that I won't ever do it again, though. Keep on working my last nerve with your bullshit, and who knows when I'll snap again, and who knows what levels of pretentious condescension I'll come up with then?

Peter: "I do believe that you would be just as much of an opinionated jackass in person as you are online."

That's all I wanted acknowledged.

[quote=Peter Urkowitz]Allen, I consider you a friend. I know that my tendency to scold is annoying. I've been trying to restrain that tendency over the last few years, but it's true that recently my restraint has worn thin a few times, and I have scolded your manners, criticized your debating tactics, and sneered at your conspiracy theories. I apologize for all of that, and I will try to rein myself in again.

I could have just let you have your say without commenting, even when it felt to me like you were creating a poisonous atmosphere that was crowding out and shutting down more enjoyable discussion here. I think that in most cases I do manage to just ignore stuff that I don't agree with, but clearly it's been bugging me more than I was even aware of, leading me to lash out. Please take this as an admission of my own hangups rather than a criticism of you.

I do believe that you would be just as much of an opinionated jackass in person as you are online. It's one of the things that we most admire and respect about you. I would hope that I would have the courage in person to let you know when I felt that you had gone over the line. But the truth is that in real life I probably would just not hang out where you hang out, because I avoid conflict. Please take that as an admission of my own weakness rather than as a criticism of you.

Once again, I apologize for being a dick. I apologize for scolding. I can't promise that I won't ever do it again, though. Keep on working my last nerve with your bullshit, and who knows when I'll snap again, and who knows what levels of pretentious condescension I'll come up with then? [/quote]

Oh no! No, no, no, noooooo!

I'm not letting him off the hook that easily! He wanted the thunder, well her it is!!!

ALLEN!

You're a meany pants!

[quote]What I said was simply a refutal of Joe's oft-repeated claim that the conversations here get heated only because of the Internet providing some kind of buffer. It's an old argument, it's wrong and I'm tired of it. I can guarantee you, him and anyone else that in person I would say the exact same things I type here.

Now, if you feel the need to chastise me further, please fuck off in advance.[/quote]

If anyone else said this to you, you would demand proof of their being such an asshole in person, and refuse to move the conversation any further until they provided such proof.

Nah, I'm pretty sure in person you're the same whiney little chickenshit you are online.

Ad hominem.

We're in the Gutters now, dickhead.

That's never made a difference to you before.

Peter,
You apologized to the guy for being a dick? I appreciate your kind words above, but what I don't understand is how you ended up apologizing to allen. You didn't say anything any worse than he has said to you. Has he ever apologized for being a dick to other people? Not saying he should, but he shouldn't get his panties in a bunch when people treat him in kind. Why should he be given a pass for being a dick, because it's his schtick? I don't buy that. Hell, didn't he jump all over you in the thread about kickstarter, for just asking a question? And you guys are friends? I'm confused.

Peter you were half right when he said "That's a pretty clear threat, and the ambiguous word "tote" indicates an attempt to obscure the threat from moderators. The thread deserved to get flushed." He was attempting to make a threat, but not for the reasons he wants us to think. How do I know the threats were hollow at best? Three reasons...

ONE:
He made it online from the safety of his own home, which goes back to my original statement, "Only on the internet are so many so free to act like such assholes," which as a concept, is a pretty widely accepted one, it's even referenced in the current Psychology Today, in an article about difficult people, (Not the greatest source, it's mostly oversimplified pop psychology, but it made me laugh when I coincidentally ran across the "difficult people" article over the weekend). If he really wanted to kick my ass, he has my contact info. I'm pretty sure he even knows where I live. While he is safe in the knowledge I don't know anything about him or his. This was all for show.

TWO:
He didn't have the guts to make the threat without attempting to, as you said Peter, "obscure the threat from moderators." Hard to take a threat seriously, if the guy making it obviously afraid of sanctions from a message board. A guy like that is afraid of getting banned but I'm supposed to believe is not afraid of getting arrested?

THREE:
He now claims he's not making threats, walking back the language, not even having the guts to stand by his own words. Don't get me wrong, allen can often be a knowledgeable participant in many an interesting or fun discussion, but he's just as often a jerk, using personal attacks, slander and derogatory insults as criticism and even often against other posters. Here we have him attempting to make a threat, or more accurately wanting to appear to be making a threat, how do I know he was attempting to make a threat? Look again at what he said...

>>>"In person, one or the other of us would tote an ass-kicking."

>>>"It might be me toting the ass-kicking. But one or the other us would, should we ever meet face-to-face."

>>>"There's no upset involved. It's something you've earned over a span of many years."

Allen is claiming, that if he and I were ever to meet "in person" or "face-to-face," one of us would "tote" (I assume get) an "ass-kicking, and I "earned" it "over a span of many years." He's trying to convey that he would attempt to kick my ass if we met, that he feels this is inevitable, and he feels I've earned it. He's also making the assumption I would respond in kind. I think that goes to more of what you, (Peter), are saying, that it was just part of his attempt to obscure the threat, again showing fear of the possible ramifications, but that's all a distraction, if allen was really wanting to make a threat, if he had the guts to back up his own words, would he now be claiming he didn't make a threat? True to form allen is now claiming, "What I said was simply a refutal of Joe's oft-repeated claim that the conversations here get heated only because of the Internet providing some kind of buffer."

Typical allen. Remember how a proud statement of how he chased a gay guy into traffic eventually turned into a heroic parable of allen scaring off a drug addled crack whore who had been terrorizing small children? I've said it before many times, he frequently makes inflammatory statements only to later use different terms or phrasing in an attempt to re-write them as more defensible. That in and of itself proves he's too cowardly to stand by his own words, or at the very least, his agenda isn't to get into a fight, it's to get into a flame war, he's just trying to get attention. And idiot that I am, I take the bait all the time, he even says I'm a troll for responding to his posts, that I have the option to not respond, yet he responds to mine all the time. And then you get stuck in that choice of whether or not to let his accusation hang there or not. But you know what, i've discovered it's just not worth it. If you fight back, other posters see you as either the aggressor because he's just being himself, or at the very least you are part of the problem. But mostly, what makes it frustrating is I end up giving the asshole exactly what he wants. Attention.

************

So basically, the guy makes a veiled threat online, from the safety of his own home, obviously mindful of the ramifications, then further walks it back, he's afraid of moderators, he's too cowardly to stand by his own words. How do you take a threat from that man seriously let alone take that man seriously? But it doesn't matter, it wasn't about the threats, it was about some lonely jerk lashing out at people from the safety of his own home, just trying to get attention, Negative attention apparently works just as well. Hell, it probably gets him more attention than being the decent guy he sounded like in his emails to me when a bunch of us here were all working on that single page anthology submission.

Sorry if you feel I was being unfair to you above, but I just don't understand your deference to the guy. I can't understand why people worry about HIS feelings, he's got no problem slandering pros, or making personal attacks against other posters when he gets frustrated.

Just to add that the word 'tote', although archaic, is still used in the South and is pretty much synonymous with 'carry'. The only common word derived from it that I'm aware of is 'tote-bag', a large purse. It won't be easy to carry an ass whipping in that!

Joe: "He was attempting to make a threat, but not for the reasons he wants us to think."

I wasn't, but what, prithee, do you believe would be my "reasons" for doing so?



Joe: ""Only on the internet are so many so free to act like such assholes," which as a concept, is a pretty widely accepted one"

In the gaping expanse that is the space between your ears.



Joe: "If he really wanted to kick my ass, he has my contact info. I'm pretty sure he even knows where I live."

I do? That's news to me.



Joe: "Hard to take a threat seriously, if the guy making it obviously afraid of sanctions from a message board."

I wasn't making a threat in the first place, merely a refutal of your bogus psychology lesson, but it should be abundantly clear by now that I don't fear administration sanctions.



Joe: "walking back the language"

Okay, allow me to walk it forward for you — In a face-to-face conversation, I would use at least the same language that I do online, if not even more harsh. Plus, there is the added possibility of physical altercation. More of a likelihood when one of the participants is a whiney little bitch who keeps reiterating defeated arguments over and over again (i.e. you).



Joe: "...he chased a gay guy into traffic..."

And here we go again...



Joe: "...eventually turned into a heroic parable of allen scaring off a drug addled crack whore who had been terrorizing small children?"

Which I'm sure you can find a post of me saying anything like that, yes?



Joe: "he even says I'm a troll for responding to his posts"

Nope. I call you a troll when you troll out the same defeated arguments again and again, as if repeating yourself one more time will make you right.



Joe: "I end up giving the asshole exactly what he wants. Attention."

Not really. I would actually prefer it if you would shut the fuck up.



Joe: "the decent guy he sounded like in his emails to me when a bunch of us here were all working on that single page anthology submission."

I did? Geez, I'm sorry about that.




Joe: "slandering pros"

It's only slander (or, more accurately to this environment, libel) if it's not true. And I only speak the truth.



Joe: "I'm confused."

That goes without saying.

Outside of Steel and a certain person I won't mention I like the nearly whole lot of yas, so I wish you'd all have a nice drink, sit back, and find good things to talk about.

And, I like Bananas.

We have no bananas.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Ness: "a certain person I won't mention"

??? Give us a hint, then.

I'll tell you outright if you want to send me an email Allen, but it isn't you, I promise.

Maybe you could write him a note in study-hall.

Don't worry Joltin' Joe, it ain't you either.

But I do like Bananas.

[quote=Joe Lee]Apparently Harry Potter is ok to use in the next LOEG, but Before Watchmen is wrong. And before you start yelling, SATIRE! Keep in mind that Moore has always borrowed literary characters for use in his own work, it's the whole point of LOEG, he only changes the names when the characters aren't in the Public Domain. And unless I'm mistaken has never asked permission to use the characters he's borrowed in LOEG.
[/quote]

The difference is that JK Rowling didn't lose ownership of Harry Potter to Alan Moore, and Alan Moore isn't promoting a Harry Potter sequel.

However, it's to a degree, creative exploitation. Alan Moore said he only uses other writer's characters after a certain amount of time has passed when they become public domain. But he also wants to use other writer's characters that are relatively still new, but can't so he finds a legal way to do it. It's not Harry Potter (wink wink).

Well, Alan Moore didn't lose ownership of Watchmen so much as he had to be talked into creating it by DC instead of using their characters. And if he had told his "Charlton Elseworlds" story, he wouldn't have been entitled to any revenue from licensing.

What he's doing with "Harry Potter" and LoEG isn't really that different from "Astro City" or any other story that uses archetypal characters. A form of fanfic, if you will, albeit with a much greater level of skill.

The Harry Potter stuff in the latest LOEG didn't bother me so much for the use of the characters. What bothered me was Moore apparently criticizing the Potter books for not nourishing children's imaginations, or some such incoherent nonsense, while not seeming to have any clear understanding of the books to base any kind of sharp parody on. It was a sloppy, unjustified attack on the character, rather gratuitous and lazy really.

I reread the earlier LOEG books recently, and it was great how the characters were brought to life, with their old familiar personalities cast in a new light. This latest LOEG series has lost that feeling, maybe because a lot of the characters are more obscure, so I can't even judge whether Moore is using them well or not. But since the famous characters like James Bond and Harry Potter seem to be portrayed with scorn and derision rather than respect or insight, that colors the whole enterprise and makes it less fun.

Hmm, interesting review, Peter. The only other review I've read is on ComicBookResources.com, which was a rave as are most of their reviews.

Up front, I enjoyed LOEG 2009 more than the previous book and I liked that quite a bit. One of the main themes this time is that current culture is just reiterating previous creations which are never as high in quality as the originals. I don't know if I agree, but I believe that's how Moore really feels. That seems to offer a direct comparison of Harry Potter to hmmm,


SOME KIND OF SPOILER HERE



A Much Peloved character from earlier children's literature. I'm only familiar with the movie version of that character though, and the character's author absolutely hated that. I wonder if that series of books was of incredible quality or did the character suit Moore's needs for a

ANOTHER SPOILER IF YOU"VE GOTTEN THIS FAR



Deus ex machina ending that he had in mind?
His use of the Potterverse characters didn't bother me either. Use for parody & satire certainly protects Moore legally though not as much in Britain as here interestingly enough. He seemed pretty familiar with Rowling's stories to me. The different perspectives on the characters or, like in Harry's case, outright changes, I just chalked up to a wicked sense of humor.

[quote=MightyQuin]One of the main themes this time is that current culture is just reiterating previous creations which are never as high in quality as the originals. I don't know if I agree, but I believe that's how Moore really feels. [/quote]

Maybe part of it is because more fans are becoming professionals in the entertainment industry and want to do "their" version of characters they grew up with.

The other part is that corporations and investors want their investments to be less risky so they want to put out properties that already have some name recognintion or built in fan bases.

T

That's definitely true on both counts, Gerald. Actually, you'd think Moore might cut Rowling's creations a little slack because while they may not be completely original according to him, and what is?, she certainly wasn't backed by any corporations during their creation. Maybe he has personal respect for her accomplishment even if he doesn't seem to have much artistic respect for the material itself.

[quote=Gerald]...However, it's to a degree, creative exploitation. Alan Moore said he only uses other writer's characters after a certain amount of time has passed when they become public domain. But he also wants to use other writer's characters that are relatively still new, but can't so he finds a legal way to do it. It's not Harry Potter (wink wink).[/quote]

Which sets him apart from other writers who tend to not be so obvious or don't spend so much of their careers playing with sooooo many other authors creations.

I just think his use of sooooo many other author's characters over the years, in soooooo many different books, making up sooooo much of his career, whether public domain, satire, or homage, whether it be writing mainstream DC, re-inventing Swamp Thing, Marvelman, LOEG, Supreme, Lost Girls, or whatever else, I just think it tends to muddy the waters a little when it comes to any righteous indignation about other people using characters he's created.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to use them or to complain either, not saying BEFORE WATCHMEN is right or wrong, I'm just finding it hard to empathize with him when soooo much of his career is use in some way or another, of the creations of others.

I agree. He starts splitting hairs when it comes to his own work or even other author's work whom he enjoys.

He critizes lack of new stories but what about lack of new characters? Why not create new ones? Why rely on Bram Stoker's characters or H. Rider Haggard's when you could be creating your own Mina Harker or Allan Quatermain?

Joe: "I'm just finding it hard to empathize with him when soooo much of his career is use in some way or another, of the creations of others."

Then don't. Move on. Fuck off.

Wait, Alan Moore uses other people's characters?! Why is this just coming up now?!?

Those two just won't let it go.

[quote=Gerald]He critizes lack of new stories but what about lack of new characters? Why not create new ones? Why rely on Bram Stoker's characters or H. Rider Haggard's when you could be creating your own Mina Harker or Allan Quatermain?[/quote]

Exactly more original characters/stories like V or Tom Strong.

Sure Tom Strong was cast in the mold of old pulp characters like Doc Savage, but it was still original. At least as much as the characters from Watchmen. But even then still he used all the old Nedor characters as guest stars at one point. Which I enjoyed, very much. But like I said above, goes to muddying those waters. It seems like as good a writer as Moore is he often reflexively uses only one weapon in his arsenal, using or making twists on existing material.

Didn't Erik Larsen say once, "Is that all you got?"

When Moore "uses" other people's creations, he is saying something, whether about the author, the publisher, the era in which the original material appeared, and so on. He's creating his own commentary, like Mark Twain's commentary on James Fenimore Cooper's "literary excesses." Before Watchmen is simply an attempt to expand Moore's story, filling in perceived "blanks." Before Watchmen could have been more accurately entitled "Watchmen: The Hidden Years."

You're not smart enough to discern the difference, and we get that. We heard you the first forty-thousand times you said it. Now let it go.

No, we get that there is a qualitative and/or aesthetic difference in the execution of using other peoples' characters.

We just don't get that there is a moral difference.

>>>>>[quote=Allen Montgomery]When Moore "uses" other people's creations, he is saying something, whether about the author, the publisher, the era in which the original material appeared, and so on. He's creating his own commentary, like Mark Twain's commentary on James Fenimore Cooper's "literary excesses." Before Watchmen is simply an attempt to expand Moore's story, filling in perceived "blanks." Before Watchmen could have been more accurately entitled "Watchmen: The Hidden Years."

You're not smart enough to discern the difference, and we get that. We heard you the first forty-thousand times you said it. Now let it go.
[/quote] <<<<<

*********************************************************

You either think you get to decide what people are allowed to talk about here. Or you are so full of yourself you think everyone is talking to you. Let me try to explain this simply enough for you. If you don't want to have the conversation, don't post in it. In other words, you let it go, I wasn't talking to you.

But since you went out of your way to bring up the issue of intent, let's discuss it. And remember you don't have to read it if you don't want to. Even if your argument is based on over-simplifications, assumptions and apples to oranges comparisons. Mine will be too, but just to a lesser extent, and I'll give people the benefit of a doubt where you assume motivations. This is a commercial art, so no one is completely devoid of financial concerns. Money may not be the primary motivation, but it is part of the equation. So lets be grown-ups here and recognize that OK?

Also, you seem to be confusing publisher's intent with the intent of the writer/artist/creator. You are comparing Moore's use of other author's creations to DC comics decision to publish Before Watchmen. Apples to oranges...

***Publisher to Publisher comparison:***

When DC hired Moore to write comics like Swampthing, Superman, Watchmen etc., their motivation was to make money from publishing comics.

When DC hired Darwyn Cooke, et al., to create Before Watchmen it was to make money by selling comics.

***Creator to Creator Comparison:***

When Moore agreed to write comics for DC his motivation was in part to make good comics I agree, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but it was also to get paid for making comics, to some extent.

Unless you have actual factual evidence to the contrary, you can't assume Darwyn Cooke et al., similar motivations when asked to work on Before Watchmen. You can't know for certain, that some of these comics creators aren't motivated by the desire to make good comics here. They all had to know their could be adverse reactions to their working on this project, so money was probably not the only, or even the primary motivating factor here. They could have easily said no and worked on less controversial projects.

I agree with you when you say....

>>>>>>"When Moore "uses" other people's creations, he is saying something, whether about the author, the publisher, the era in which the original material appeared, and so on. He's creating his own commentary, like Mark Twain's commentary on James Fenimore Cooper's "literary excesses."<<<<

But I disagree with you here...

>>>>>>"Before Watchmen is simply an attempt to expand Moore's story, filling in perceived "blanks." Before Watchmen could have been more accurately entitled "Watchmen: The Hidden Years." <<<<

Is it a cynical attempt by a publisher to make money? Possibly.

But we don't have any evidence that the creative teams working on Before Watchmen aren't motivated by the desire to create good comics. We don't know that they are not attempting to "say something, whether about the author (Moore), the publisher, the era in which the original material appeared, and so on. "

Whether or not they fail or succeed is open to debate, but their artistic motivations I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I give Moore the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to his choice to use other creator's characters. I assume he has the best of intentions, but as a reader I can't get past the fact that he seems to return to that well so often during his career it's becoming tiresome. What many authors use as a tool to jump-start creativity or make a particular type of statement occasionally, he seems to be using as a crutch, a gimmick.

*****************************************************
By the way, thanks for indulging me by actually discussing a topic you keep telling me not to discuss. I look forward to your further discussion here.

"But we don't have any evidence that the creative teams working on Before Watchmen aren't motivated by the desire to create good comics."

Nobody ever sets out to make a bad comic. Or a bad movie. Or a bad song. Or a bad novel. But somehow awful, cynical art driven by corporate priorities still manages to exist.

But not here, because did you know that Alan Moore uses other people's characters? Enjoy those good comics, everybody!

[quote=Ted Kilvington]What he's doing with "Harry Potter" and LoEG isn't really that different from "Astro City" or any other story that uses archetypal characters. A form of fanfic, if you will, albeit with a much greater level of skill.[/quote]Exactly.

The word "fanfic" has derogatory connotations, when used to describe an author's work. But what makes the works you cited, any different than fan fiction, other than the paycheck, obviously. Many purists attack the use of such gimmicks or devices in teaching writing, on the grounds that such devices encourage laziness. But some claim it's a perfect valid tool to spark creativity, but then you have to disguise the original source or sources, like Moore did in Watchmen.

It's works like LOEG that don't bother to hide the source, but would obscuring the sources only obscure the message or is it just lazy? Moore's inclusion of satirical characters with the public domain betrays a cynical motivation for me. Satire is only used when legally necessary. So it's no more than glorified fan fiction. VERY GOOD fan-fiction. But I think LOEG would have been more poignant if it had obscured it's sources somewhat like Watchmen or Tom Strong. But again it's not the fact that any given work is fan-fiction, but that so many works by one author make use of the same gimmick.

[quote=Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]Nobody ever sets out to make a bad comic. Or a bad movie. Or a bad song. Or a bad novel[/quote]

No one? Can you prove that statement?

I liked the scene in Dracula where Mina had a threeway with a colonial explorer and an immortal hermaphrodite on behalf of an extradimensional Shakespearean magician. It's pretty obvious that in LoEG, Moore is just exploiting what resonated about that original scene for his own cynical laziness.

He's obviously not telling his own story here.

And that's why Before Watchmen is probably good stuff. Because Alan Moore (I don't know if you know this, it's kind of obscure stuff that hasn't come up before) uses other people's characters.

"No one? Can you prove that statement?"

Does it matter? You'll just respond by pointing out that Alan Moore uses other people's characters. And then we'll all have to clutch our ears as our minds are completely blown by that amazingly insightful point.

[quote=Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]Does it matter? [/quote]

If it doesn't matter, why respond at all? Like I told allen, if you don't want to have the conversation, don't post in it.

That's a pretty good point Joe. But did you know that Alan Moore uses other people's characters?

"There's no denying that the Internet is an amazing invention. It allows people to communicate around the world at speeds approaching real time. But this connection can be a double-edged sword. Not only are you able to interact with people you like and respect, but you can also meet people who take pleasure in disrupting the conversations and activities of others. There's a name for this kind of person: troll."

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll.htm

So basically, if no matter what you say, there's a person who responds by mindlessly repeating a statement that has nothing to do with your point (for instance, "Alan Moore uses other people's characters"), you consider that person a troll?

I'm sorry, I don't really have a response to that. I'm too busy getting belted in the face by a fucking tidal wave of irony.

If you think I'm the Troll here. Teach me a lesson and don't respond to my posts. That's how it works, "Don't feed the Troll" is the catchphrase right?

I don't think you're a troll. I think you have a stunning, near-pathological lack of self-awareness, almost no ability to question the assumptions you carried into a conversation, and a great capacity to just mentally bleep out ideas or arguments you don't feel like hearing.

The above accusation of trolling is a great example.

I'm also rather enjoying this conversation. Watching weird minds at work is the best part of the internet.

(It's also weird that you ostensibly want me to stop talking to you, but keep replying to me. I mean, conversation is a two-way street, right? You can stop at any time, and then ignore anything I say from then on. But... y'don't.)

(Mind you, in this case, being weird doesn't make it terribly interesting. Whining about a conversation you can't help perpetuating was practically Dumas's calling card for years. And his tears were more amusing than your irritation.)

[quote=Ted Kilvington]No, we get that there is a qualitative and/or aesthetic difference in the execution of using other peoples' characters. [/quote]
Agree.

[quote]
We just don't get that there is a moral difference. [/quote]
I think there is a moral difference considering the circumstances involved.

*Alan Moore not only wrote Watchmen under the impression that he would own the rights after it went out of print, but also brought his previously published-but-unfinished creator owned work V FOR VENDETTA to DC under the same agreement. Of course they've been kept in print to this day.

*He was also promised royalties for merchandise but when it came to certain merchandise DC claimed it was promotional and he wasn't owed anything even though they were selling the items.

*Only AFTER WB/DC put out a film adaptation of Watchmen and it did poorly did they offer Alan Moore the rights back ONLY if he wrote a prequel to the story. Moore himself said he would have taken that deal even 10 years ago. But as he accurately described, and as most people can deduce, the Watchmen property has probably been mostly used up and this is why NOW they want to give him the rights.

*DC is treating this prequel like it's typical big event to squeeze as much cash out of the readers as possible. This prequel is like 30+ issues compared to the original 12 issue series.

*Didio himself has implied that the Watchmen characters would be integrated into the regular DCU if the prequel is successful.

*BEFORE WATCHMEN, like DK2, feels more obviously a cash grab than a balance between commercial and artistic interests.

@ Ceci: Whatever happened to Dumas? For years he kept threatening to leave the Internet forever. Then ... silence. I fear he actually died.

No idea! I just assume he ran up to his room yelling, "NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND ME," slammed the door, threw himself on the bed, and wrote furiously in his journal.

His ragged, tear-stained journal.

Though it does seem out of character that he never came back to tell us all how glad he is that he stayed away from the assholes here forever, especially Charles Reece. Hope the plucky little guy's all right.

I tried really hard for years to be friendly to Dumas because -- jeez, I dunno, the poor guy seemed to need a friend. Then one day I said something about Batman and he told me to go fuck myself.

[quote=Joe Lee] But I think LOEG would have been more poignant if it had obscured it's sources somewhat like Watchmen or Tom Strong. [/quote]

Would it have been? Would Marvelman/Miracleman has been as poignant if he had been a brown haired, purple spandexed superhero who shouted "Raelcrun!" to transform? In my opinion it would be less. The fact that there were actual Marvelman stories from the 50s helps the reader indentify with Mike Moran, and share in his shock that all those adventures were lies, a simulated reality. It helped blurr the lines between reality and fiction.

Watchmen on the other hand, had Moore used the original Charlton characters, it would have been less complex use. How would he have explained the drastic shift in personalties? Would those old silver age adventures have still taken place, and if so, how would they have fit in with the real world take he was going for? So I think in Watchmen's case it worked out for the better.

I think what makes the use of using other people's characters (or even thinly veiled analgoues of other people's characters) acceptable is whether or not it's done well. Rob Liefeld created uninteresting DC rip-offs like Supreme, Glory, not to mention Marvel rip-offs like Agent America and Roman (Namor spelled backwards). The stories were awful.

Alan Moore is hired and makes these characters even closer to the original characters they're based off but now we call them analogues. He even populates the new Rob Liefeld superhero-verse with more pseudo Marvel and DC characters along with pseudo versions of Tarzan, Doc Savage, Conan, etc. We don't mind because this time the stories are good. Very good.

I agree that it seems like a crutch Moore uses at times. He was tasked with helping re-create Rob Liefeld's supehero universe. Instead of making it something different from Marvel and DC's he made it just like theirs.