'Watchmen' TV Series From Damon Lindelof on HBO {SPOILERS FROM PAGE 8}

[red snow]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

On Watchmen, the issue is and always was that when he and Gibbons signed their contracts, the rights reverted when the work went out of print, and everyone involved believed that would be the case with the series as it had been with lots of other series. DC proceeded to keep it in print in perpetuity, however, because DC marketing saw an opportunity to dive into graphic novels, and so retained the rights in perpetuity over Moore's objections. It was unprecedented stuff.

With V for Vendetta, those rights were sold in 1988 when Moore was substantially more positive to the idea of film adaptations. Moore's opinions on adaptation of his works changed in the interim (see next entry). That said, he kept his mouth shut about that film entirely and was happy to leave it at that  until the producers made the mistake of falsely claiming he fully supported their adaptation, and then of course he set the record straight (and then some). So they kind of asked for it.

That leaves LoEG, which he sold rights to... and quickly became disenchanted with the whole Hollywood thing, not least when DC proved less than helpful when a yahoo sued Fox and Moore over the claim that they had stolen his idea. It's this that set him against film adaptations to begin with, but of course by that point DC had its claws on 

So, yeah, fuck Alan Moore for having the temerity to: a) sign a deal that was going to revert rights to him after the work was not in print, when at the time everyone -- DC included -- thought it'd  out of print in two years, only for DC (driven by its marketing arm)  doing exactly the thing no one thoguth would happen, and b) sign over movie rights when he liked the idea of film adaptations of his work only to change his mind when his first brush with actual adaptation made him realize it was not worth the trouble.

More saliently, fuck DC, fuck Lindelof, fuck all the scabs who worked on Before Watchmen and whatever other atrocities have been cooked up.

Thanks for the more accurate outline of Moore's issues with DC over Watchmen.

I guess Moore still receives royalties for the spin offs, etc? I'm pretty sure he turns it all down beyond the royalties he gets for his actual work. but they do at least off him it .So this is mainly in the territory of them not respecting his wishes and screwing him over on ownership which I guess ultimately has cost him a lot of money. .

[red snow]

1 minute ago, Triskjavikson said:

I don't know Moore's work at all beyond what I've heard from y'all but he didn't like V for Vendetta?  Was it a big departure?  I freaking love that film.  

I think he's just very picky and has probably realised over time he doesn't like people messing with his interpretation. I think it was League of extraordinary gentlemen that pushed him over the edge. Understandable as that is as far removed from the comic as the watchmen parody children's cartoon is from Watchmen.

[Ran]

24 minutes ago, red snow said:

Thanks for the more accurate outline of Moore's issues with DC over Watchmen.

I guess Moore still receives royalties for the spin offs, etc? I'm pretty sure he turns it all down beyond the royalties he gets for his actual work. but they do at least off him it .So this is mainly in the territory of them not respecting his wishes and screwing him over on ownership which I guess ultimately has cost him a lot of money. .

Yeah. He's directed all his money to Gibbons for Watchmen.

I think the thing that has to be underscored about Watchmen is that DC trumpeted it as a triumph for creators rights when it was first announced, because it was not a work-for-hire as was then absolutely standard but actually creator-owned. Moore and Gibbons were breaking important ground, ground that led pretty much directly to Vertigo, to the boom of creator-owned works that flourished there such as Sandman, and to all the creator-owned works that followed. 

The continuing situation with Watchmen is in no way, shape, or form a triumph of creators' rights, however, which is why DC is very clearly in the wrong morally-speaking.

Trisk,

He read the screenplay and thought it was rubbish. The Guardian discussed this a bit, as their critic largely agreed with Moore, and they cited some particular things. For example, the fact that V's killings are shown as cool through their flashy choreography, losing the ambiguity that Moore intended (this sin is the same one Snyder's Watchmen committed, giving the vigilantes some super-fu heroics moments rendered in loving detail and, in the process, missing the point).

[polishgenius]

I have sympathy for Moore over some of the stuff despite the fact that I agree with those who think he's a total arsehole (and a hypocrite when it comes to deriding others for using 'his' characters while happily doing things with the characters of others that they would blatantly not be all that pleased with) but is it seriously all that unusual or surprising that one of the most successful and enduringly popular comic books of all time has never gone out of print? It still feels like DC would have had to deliberately engineer a break in its publishing for the rights to revert.

[hauberk]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

On Watchmen, the issue is and always was that when he and Gibbons signed their contracts, the rights reverted when the work went out of print, and everyone involved believed that would be the case with the series as it had been with lots of other series. DC proceeded to keep it in print in perpetuity, however, because DC marketing saw an opportunity to dive into graphic novels, and so retained the rights in perpetuity over Moore's objections. It was unprecedented stuff.

With V for Vendetta, those rights were sold in 1988 when Moore was substantially more positive to the idea of film adaptations. Moore's opinions on adaptation of his works changed in the interim (see next entry). That said, he kept his mouth shut about that film entirely and was happy to leave it at that  until the producers made the mistake of falsely claiming he fully supported their adaptation, and then of course he set the record straight (and then some). So they kind of asked for it.

That leaves LoEG, which he sold rights to... and quickly became disenchanted with the whole Hollywood thing, not least when DC proved less than helpful when a yahoo sued Fox and Moore over the claim that they had stolen his idea. It's this that set him against film adaptations to begin with, but of course by that point DC had its claws on 

So, yeah, fuck Alan Moore for having the temerity to: a) sign a deal that was going to revert rights to him after the work was not in print, when at the time everyone -- DC included -- thought it'd  out of print in two years, only for DC (driven by its marketing arm)  doing exactly the thing no one thoguth would happen, and b) sign over movie rights when he liked the idea of film adaptations of his work only to change his mind when his first brush with actual adaptation made him realize it was not worth the trouble.

More saliently, fuck DC, fuck Lindelof, fuck all the scabs who worked on Before Watchmen and whatever other atrocities have been cooked up.

(And yes, after LoeG he hasn't sold any other rights, so far as I know. From Hell's rights were sold at the same time as LoEG, but stuff like Promethea and Tom Strong remains his entirely I think.)

I've read and loved a whole lot of Moore's work, but I take some pretty serious issue with his attitude about anyone picking up his work being devoid of creativity.  LoEG is, at the end of the day, derivative of pre-existing literary characters.  So is Watchmen with the Charleton characters, so was Swamp Thing.  Did he do new and interesting things with what he was given?  Sure.  That doesn't, however, mean that anything that he touches or leaves a plot thread to needs to be held sacred for only Moore.  Moore signed a contract that was pretty freaking decent at the time.  He continued to get residuals and was going to get rights back to something from the original IP owner that may not have passed muster as being different enough from the source material (which may well be one of the reasons, aside from it's evergreen nature, that has kept Watchmen in print).  That's a whole lot better than a lot of other creators were getting at the time.

I will take exception to the that scab thing.  I have a really hard time with the notion that Len Wein, Amanda Connor and Darwyn Cooke qualify as scabs anywhere or anywhen.  

[red snow]

I think the problem is graphic novels didn't really exist at the time the contract was done so it seemed a sure thing the creators would get full control a year after the comic was published. But the graphic novel became a thing thanks to the Watchmen being so popular, winning a Hugo etc. I guess the decent thing would have been to draw up a new contract but DC saw the opportunity for a cash cow. A cash cow they would have lost 30 years of strong sales from. At the time they could have probably struck another deal with Moore who was far less cranky and anti adaptations at the time.

I agree with the sentiment it's a bit hypocritical of Moore to condemn those working on Watchmen characters given how much of the work he's famous for is with established characters created by others. It's bad form within comics circles to go against Moore's wishes and worst when the new writers/artists try and claim it's something Moore would like. They should really just be honest and say "I love the setting more than Moore" or "it's a nice payday"

[Ran]

4 hours ago, hauberk said:

I've read and loved a whole lot of Moore's work, but I take some pretty serious issue with his attitude about anyone picking up his work being devoid of creativity. 

I think his issue is that those picking up his work are devoid of creativity because they know he is the owner and he opposes what they're doing and yet they do it anyways because it's an easy buck from DC and the fans who'll eat up everything DC puts out.

4 hours ago, hauberk said:

LoEG is, at the end of the day, derivative of pre-existing literary characters.

Public domain characters substantially recontextualized and transformed who did not drive sales based on, "OMG, it's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!" but rather on, "OMG, Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neal are doing a deep dive into Victorian literature!" Apples and oranges.

4 hours ago, hauberk said:

  So is Watchmen with the Charleton characters

Watchmen is to the Charlton characters as the Squadron Supreme is to Justice League. With permission and with right, Moore used the characters as a starting point for a commentary that was substantially transformative.

4 hours ago, hauberk said:

Moore signed a contract that was pretty freaking decent at the time.

A contract that said it was creator-owned and then their publishing partner proceeded to disregard the desires of the creators almost from day one.

4 hours ago, hauberk said:

  He continued to get residuals and was going to get rights back to something from the original IP owner that may not have passed muster as being different enough from the source material

There is no question that Watchmen is absolutely distinct from the Charlton characters, just as the Squadron Supreme is distinct from the Justice League. That's not an issue.

4 hours ago, hauberk said:

I will take exception to the that scab thing.  I have a really hard time with the notion that Len Wein, Amanda Connor and Darwyn Cooke qualify as scabs anywhere or anywhen.  

I hear you, but yet they are. Straczynski is the only one of the scabs who was willing to discuss the issue head-on, and he basically said that yeah, Moore was screwed, and yeah, he was going to work on it anyways because Moore was just one in a long line of creators who were screwed over by DC and Marvel. Points for honesty, at least, because everyone else avoided the issue (Connor in particular, who so far as I can see simply never ventured her opinion on the subject in public) or basically just acted as if Watchmen were DC's property with no reference to Moore's ownership and opposition (Wein, sadly, but he was always a company man).

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Ran said:

He read the screenplay and thought it was rubbish. The Guardian discussed this a bit, as their critic largely agreed with Moore, and they cited some particular things. For example, the fact that V's killings are shown as cool through their flashy choreography, losing the ambiguity that Moore intended (this sin is the same one Snyder's Watchmen committed, giving the vigilantes some super-fu heroics moments rendered in loving detail and, in the process, missing the point).

Oh yeah. The single biggest problem with the film of Watchmen (and there are many) is that Snyder clearly thinks Rorschach is a badass anti-hero and presents him as such. His violence in the comics is presented as disturbing, in line with his borderline psychotic personality and his awful prejudices. The film thinks he's Wolverine in a trenchcoat. 

 

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

 

I hear you, but yet they are. Straczynski is the only one of the scabs who was willing to discuss the issue head-on, and he basically said that yeah, Moore was screwed, and yeah, he was going to work on it anyways because Moore was just one in a long line of creators who were screwed over by DC and Marvel. Points for honesty, at least, because everyone else avoided the issue (Connor in particular, who so far as I can see simply never ventured her opinion on the subject in public) or basically just acted as if Watchmen were DC's property with no reference to Moore's ownership and opposition (Wein, sadly, but he was always a company man).

I guess JMS has been screwed over enough by his Babylon 5 experience and Spider-Man runs to at least admit he's in the "if you can't beat them join them" camp. Would have been nice if he'd shown some solidarity though.

[Ran]

JMS used B5 as an example, where he signed over all sorts of rights and basically would feel crummy if WB decided to do a B5 thing without him... but they have the right, because they own the property -- it's not creator-owned.  But Rich Johnston made a sharp point on this.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

JMS used B5 as an example, where he signed over all sorts of rights and basically would feel crummy if WB decided to do a B5 thing without him... but they have the right, because they own the property -- it's not creator-owned.  But Rich Johnston made a sharp point on this.

Good article by Rich Johnston - he manages it every now and then.

The B5 example fits for me. JMS wasn't wanting them to stop publishing the novels - he just didn't like them claiming he was endorsing them and using his notes for story ideas.

Similarly Moore can't stop DC from publishing Doomsday clock because it isn't using notes/scripts from Moore but using his characters. So in a JMS scenario he'd probably be public with him not endorsing the project but not insisting it doesn't happen. I think that's Moore's stance with it - he's beyond caring and we can probably all refer to an earlier comment about him thinking DC is devoid of imagination and talent if they have to mine a 30 year old maxi-series for inspiration still.

Obviously the key difference is that Moore was screwed over while JMS went in knowing the deal. I suspect JMS would be less happy as suggested with his creator owned comics being used in a similar fashion to Watchmen.

The sad thing about it all is that DC went on to create Vertigo where the contracts were almost ridiculously supporting of the creators. Seems such a shame that they couldn't have done the same for Alan Moore who essentially made Vertigo a viable option. Any creator who's benefitted from a vertigo contract should be ashamed to work on a watchmen book (not sure if any of them did - I think Azzarello was one?).

[Ran]

Yeah, just Azzarello really.

[hauberk]

10 hours ago, Ran said:

I think his issue is that those picking up his work are devoid of creativity because they know he is the owner and he opposes what they're doing and yet they do it anyways because it's an easy buck from DC and the fans who'll eat up everything DC puts out.

Public domain characters substantially recontextualized and transformed who did not drive sales based on, "OMG, it's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!" but rather on, "OMG, Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neal are doing a deep dive into Victorian literature!" Apples and oranges.

Watchmen is to the Charlton characters as the Squadron Supreme is to Justice League. With permission and with right, Moore used the characters as a starting point for a commentary that was substantially transformative.

A contract that said it was creator-owned and then their publishing partner proceeded to disregard the desires of the creators almost from day one.

There is no question that Watchmen is absolutely distinct from the Charlton characters, just as the Squadron Supreme is distinct from the Justice League. That's not an issue.

I hear you, but yet they are. Straczynski is the only one of the scabs who was willing to discuss the issue head-on, and he basically said that yeah, Moore was screwed, and yeah, he was going to work on it anyways because Moore was just one in a long line of creators who were screwed over by DC and Marvel. Points for honesty, at least, because everyone else avoided the issue (Connor in particular, who so far as I can see simply never ventured her opinion on the subject in public) or basically just acted as if Watchmen were DC's property with no reference to Moore's ownership and opposition (Wein, sadly, but he was always a company man).

Limited time right now, but I offer the following:

I don't believe that DC entered that agreement in anything less than good faith.  At the time, Trade Paperbacks and the idea of anything being evergreen was still a few years out.  This strikes me as being very similar to the most recent TV writer's strike which include as a point of contention, residuals for new forms of media distribution.  

At the same time, I don't hold DC responsible for meeting the letter, and only the letter, of the requirements in the agreement given the new circumstances.  Could they have renegotiated?  Possibly.  Was there any incentive to do so other than it being "the right thing to do"?  Give away more money and have to spend more time in a conference room with a cantankerous egotist.  Not really seeing the upside for them.  Even so, I would tend to believe that this was still a step toward what Paul Levitz more fully addressed during his tenure as EIC in moving the ball with regard to Creator Rights.  

With regard to my opening comment about his contempt for other creators was with regard to Johns picking up a throw away thread of Moore's as elements for Blackest Night (the Five Inversions and Sodam Yat were both part of throw away lines in the Green Lantern short story Tyger, Tyger IIRC).  I seem to recall similar contempt for writers that came after him on Swamp Thing.  It seems pretty clear that he has/had the expectation that once he's touched something, no one else should, or at least that they shouldn't play off of any of his story beats - which, of course is where things like Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Promethea are far more suitable as self contained works.

I'll not argue that Before Watchmen was unnecessary (it wasn't), but, having read it, the writers that worked on it were consistently respectful to the source material.  Nor will I argue that I find Moore to be enough of a boorish individual that I'm predisposed to not be sympathetic to his position on almost anything.  

That said, as someone who's work is always driven by the letter of the contract, it's my job to get the best contract I can for my staff.  Sometimes, we have things that come up that commit us to more work or providing an unanticipated service to a project.  When that happens, we learn from our mistake and write a tighter contract next time.  

[AncalagonTheBlack]

 

[GallowKnight]

 

[dooog]

On 7/20/2019 at 9:01 PM, GallowKnight said:

 

 

Jesus. I was really looking forward to this but that trailer has put me off completely. It doesn't feel like Watchmen (even a sequel) in the slightest.

[RumHam]

The Leftovers. 

[GallowKnight]

 

[AncalagonTheBlack]

Watchmen: Emmys Promo

 

[Martini Sigil]

I think Regina King and Jean Smart are marvelous... I'll watch anything they're in...

That said, this looks like it'll be Watchmen: The next generation..... which I'm also fine with.