If I see one more article about Alan Moore being “swindled” by DC or how Hollywood has destroyed his graphic novel, I’m going to go on a vendetta of my own.
Most recently was an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune which ended with the following quote from a retailer:
“If he had been doing novels that were this successful for this long, they’d probably take more care with making movies out of his products. But it’s only comics, you know?”
Aw, c’mon. Putting aside the insanely faithful adaptation of “Sin City,” it has nothing to do with comics and everything to do with Hollywood. I suspect the name “Nathaniel Hawthorne” will be remembered long after Alan Moore, and I, and every other comic book writer are forgotten, and they STILL gave “The Scarlet Letter” a happy ending. Popular movies such as “Oh God,” “Kramer Vs. Kramer,” and even underrated great films such as “The Mighty Quinn,” have huge differences from the novels on which they were based. Disney’s people haven’t met a classic that they couldn’t transform into something else entirely (have you ever actually READ “Pinocchio?” He steps on the cricket and kills it in, like, chapter 2. And P.L. Travers’ “Mary Poppins” is an acerbic, middle aged woman, not the chipper, youthful, dancing Julie Andrews.)
Film adaptations are just that: Adaptations. They often bear little-to-no resemblance to the source material. The benefit of them is that the successful ones put copies of the books into the hands of customers who otherwise might never have heard of the work, much less purchased it.
Alan Moore can refuse all the money from the Hollywood versions he wants, but I daresay he won’t be turning his nose up at the increased royalties such films generate for the books.
PAD
• 
“So why bother trying?”
The Ring, The Grudge, The Seven Samaria, Harry Potter, Appleseed, Clue, Tinker, Taylor, Soldier Spy, Much Ado About Nothing, LOTR, M.A.S.H., Stargate SG-1, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, ST: The Next Generation, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, Salom’s Lot (old one), M.I.B., Monarch of the Glen, The Green Mile, The Road to Perdition, Jason and the Argonaughts, Ranma 1/2 the TV series, Pirates of the Caribbean and the Saturday morning flash Gordon cartoon from the late 70s or early 80s just to name a few.
One other point you have to make about Moore and his relationship with Hollywood is that while people tend to think of Watchmen, V, and LOEG being “his”, but he doesn’t own any of them. DC, and by extension, Time Warner, does.
Actually, DC and Time Warner do not own League. That’s a creator-owned project. It was only moved to the ABC label (which is otherwise corporate owned) to keep it from bearing the DC imprint. There are two LOEG projects currently known to be in the works, and while the first is a DC book, the one that follows that is slated to come from Top Shelf.
Re: the little girl in the crowd.
If you’ll notice all of the characters were in the crowd scene at the end. Stephen Fry’s ‘George’. Evey’s mother. Valerie. I’m fairly certain they weren’t supposed to be taken literally as being present but more along the lines of political statement. Going with the domino imagery of the crowd, they were representative individual dominoes.
1I’ve been reading this thread and I keep going back over the Bill Mulligan exchange on personal motives/principles. If it helps when I read it blind coming in I took he as sharing an opinion with you as an equal onlooker speculating on the ideas OTHER perople might have about their principles to take or not take money. I like you admitance of the hair trigger but sensed an adversion to using the sorry I miread you reply. For the record I’ve read your stuuf on and off over the years and really believe you are a professional who takes pride (and JOY) in your writing. I know you work hard. I just sometimes think in reading your site you worry too much what others think of you. You shouldn’t. You have a lot to be proud of in your accomplishments and no need to justify yourself to anyone–including me. I appreciate the time you take to inform your readers the whys and wherefores of ‘how it is’. I just thought you were a little harsh on Mr Mulligan. I ma not trying to insult your with this–it just a little out of character for you–you usually pick your slings and arows with more thought.
I’m not too big of an Alan Moore fan. I know he’s one of the biggest, most revered names in the industry, but the vast majority of his work seems dense, depressing and just a pain to read. I know people will tell me I need to expand my horizons, but didn’t that guy ever write anything . . . y’know . . . fun?
While not exactly “fun,” per se, I’ve always been rather fond of Batman: The Killing Joke. Almost hard to believe that it was written by the same guy who wrote Tales of the Black… er… I mean Watchmen.
-Rex Hondo-
I said to Lisa as we headed into the third LotR film that “if they change a word of the Eowyn/Nazgul confrontation, I’m outta here.” Fortunately, it seems Peter Jackson felt the same way. 🙂
Except that they did change the words… several, in fact:
(text copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-king_of_Angmar)
I was a just a little bit disappointed with theatrical version of the speech. I expected a variant because of the language, but just stripping it down to “I will kill you if you touch him” and “I am no man!” just didn’t seem enough for that moment
Still, minute gripes aside, the films were masterfully done. There’s only one thing I still find preposterous: Frodo telling Sam to go home – and Sam leaving. Wouldn’t happen. No way. Every other change is minor compared to that. Sometimes I wonder if he did it just to give Tolkien-nitpickers like me a focal point for their distress 🙂
It was a generic “we”. No potshot or smart mouth intended.
None taken, thanks — just clarifying.
Over half of my friends that like the Potter films have never read the books. Most have never read Clancy, King, Moore, P.A.D. or E.R.B. either. Many never will. I think that if they find a huge amount of awe and wonder in a film based on one of their awe and wonder works then the film likely got it pretty darn right.
In general, yes — but if most of the people who read the books got the Cliffs-Notes vibe (and most of the people I know did), then the film didn’t really do justice to the material so far as those people were concerned.
Look, the first Potter film is one of the biggest films of the past decade, so it certainly touched a lot of people. I’m not denying that. I’m just saying that I think it could have been done better than “well enough.”
Actually, J.K.R. had a lot of input in those films.
I’m aware of that, and I actually think that’s part of the problem. Film and print are different media requiring different talents, and having her (metaphorically) standing on the set with a bullwhip to make sure nothing’s changed probably weakened the final product, IMO.
When she says that the movies did her work justice then I would be hard pressed to argue.
I wouldn’t. There are lots of examples of creators liking or disliking film adaptations that I’d disagree with — an obvious example is Gene Roddenberry washing his hands of “Star Trek II”, which most people have on their list of some of the top Trek material ever put to film.
I just find the complaint about films being done too close to their source materials to be mostly bunk. I think it’s more an issue of the wrong people, even if they are sometimes the top people around at the time, being at the helm.
But in Columbus’s case, I think the two go hand in hand. He couldn’t think of anything to do other than put Rowling’s exact text up on screen, and brought nothing new to the experience as a result.
Mark–
I was a just a little bit disappointed with theatrical version of the speech. I expected a variant because of the language, but just stripping it down to “I will kill you if you touch him” and “I am no man!” just didn’t seem enough for that moment.
Your call — the moment they absolutely needed to keep intact (IMO) was the “I am no man” bit, and in this case the visual aspect of the film let them cut off the dialogue. For me it was (and is) a thunderous applause moment. (And I realize you consider that a pretty minute gripe, and I’d agree.)
Back to Jerry — LotR is a good example of how films can add things. For example, in the final Frodo/Sam/Gollum sequence on Mount Doom, where Frodo refuses to destroy the ring, Jackson somehow managed to make Frodo’s expression almost exactly the same as Isildur’s was in flashback, despite the fact that the actors look nothing alike. It added a little visual touch to the Ring’s corruption of Frodo, and was something that Tolkien could not have done in print. I thought it was masterful.
That’s the sort of thing I wish Columbus had managed to do with the first two Potter films.
TWL
Tim, I think Columbus is a pretty “eh” director. Tells a story well enough, doesn’t have any distinguishing abilities (or detriments).
That may not make for a great movie but I guess it could be argued that it was a good choice for the first Potter movie. The success of that allowed them to take chances with the subsequent films, let some more visionary directors get a crack at it. (of course, that doesn’t always work–ALIEN 3 anyone?)
I’d love to see Guillermo De Toro get a crack at one.
“I get where you’re coming from regarding Alan complaining Watchmen was still in print, but remember When Alan signed the contract he was expecting the rights to come back to him.
i was talking to my comic book guy about the subject and he mentioned there were some periods where DC went out of their way keep the books in print even though they weren’t selling. I figure that must have bothered him and it must have felt like a bit of dirty pool at the time.”
Maybe, MAybe, you can chalk this up to a case of an experienced publisher taking advantadge of an inexperienced writer during contract negotiations. Without having been a party to those talks, all we can do is speculate. Maybe Moore expected the rights to revert back to him…which would mean that Watchmen would have not been all that successful. Which wouldn’t have done him much good. Sure, he’d have full control of a property that…didn’t sell. On the other hand, DC, by keeping the material available, has given it a publishing life far longer than anyone thought it could have. Which Moore, for his own reasons, has decided to become imbittered over.
Nah, have some real fun and let Quentin Tarantino helm a Potter flick 🙂
“You mentioned before how you can’t do anymore Apropos books, because of Pocket, that doesn’t frustrate you at all? “
Yes. But you don’t see me accusing Pocket of swindling me, and last week I was perfectly happy to deposit the royalties check for the third printing of the first book. I think you’ll find every deal in the world has advantages and disadvantages for both sides.
PAD
I’ve come to expect being dissapointed when Hollywood adapts a novel or comic that I’ve read. In fact I think of them Earth H stories. What’s dissapointing is that some very talented directors/screenwriters have been able to do adaptations that are so close to the source, they become clasics themselves. Shawshank redemption, The Godfather, the Outsiders, and even To kill a Mocking bird. These were done by ultra-talented folks who didn’t feel the need to insult the audiences inteligence or the need to tell a different story altogether (Bourne Identity).
This is really tangential, but I had a college professor who did some T.V. scriptwriting in the late ’60s/early ’70s (his father was the late director, Barry Crane). He told me he still gets residual checks.
He said, “Every once in awhile I’ll open the mailbox and find a check for $1,000. I’ll think, ‘Ðámņëd if I know what I did to earn this. But I’ll spend it anyway!'”
With regard to “…didn’t [Moore] ever write anything . . . y’know . . . fun?”
In addition to the recommendations already made, (and although it might be impolitic to point this out in a disucssion involving Moore’s current relationship with DC), there’s also the Across the Universe: The DC Universe Stories of Alan Moore, which collects the various DCU stories Moore wrote over the years. While most of them are not “fun” in the sense of madcap wackiness (well, maybe the Clayface love story from Batman Annual #11 counts…) they’re all very, very good. And they’re brief, well-crafted tales, and they feature DCU characters you’re already familiar with. If you’re looking for an entry point for Moore’s work, there are worse places to start than these stories. (Heck, these stories are how a lot of U.S. fans got to know Moore…)
With regard to PAD’s, “But you don’t see me accusing Pocket of swindling me, and last week I was perfectly happy to deposit the royalties check for the third printing of the first book. I think you’ll find every deal in the world has advantages and disadvantages for both sides.”
This is a subtle but important point, and one definitely worth making. To the extent that Moore (or people interpreting Moore) are saying (especially with regard to the as-long-as-the-thing-is-in-print,-rights-won’t-revent aspect), “The creator’s deal with DC included elements with consequences that the creator did not imagine when it was signed” that’s fine. But when folks make the leap to say, “That deal swindled the creator” that’s a little too far. It’s more like the creator did not foresee the consequences of the deal being signed and/or did not–or could not–change the terms of the deal when it was initially struck.
On the other hand, if the anecdotes are true of Moore not receiving royalties for Watchmen merchandise that were classified as promotional items, that seems more arguably a case of shady dealing from DC.
And on the third hand, Moore does seem to have a lot of legitimate gripes about the movies, moviemakers, movie lawsuits, etc. that don’t seem to be quite the same thing as being “swindled” from a publisher. If he choses to wash his hands of that part of the business and turn away from it, that’s his choice. And though anyone could say, “Man, I know you’re miffed, but why not just take the money?” whether or not he does so is his choice.
Maybe Moore is being short-sighted, turning away from seemingly secure financial planning for his future. Maybe he knows (and we don’t) that he has other plans in place and doesn’t have to worry about his future. Maybe he figures that Glycon will provide. Ultimately, despite all the advice (unsolicited and otherwise) given him, what he choses to do is his choice. (Just like how I tell my home-renting friends that they oughta get around to buying a home, but whether or not they take my–very good!–advice is ultimately their choice.)
“I’d love to see Guillermo De Toro get a crack at one.”
The Devil’s Backbone rules beyond all measure.
Jonathan: The Three Laws of Robotics, as postulated by Asimov, could not possibly have led to the conclusion the coputer reached in that movie – rather, the Zeroth Law, as formulated by R. Daneel Olivaw in Asimov’s last Foundation book, was, “A robot may not injure humanity, nor through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.” This superceded the Three Laws. This is also in direct contradiction to the conclusion in the movie – the incarceration of humanity would most certainly have damaged it…
Luigi Novi: From our POV, sure, but there are people who would rationalize this by defining harm only as physical impairment, and not infringement of rights, and therefore, would not see detainment or imprisonment as damage. I can see how a computer would work this way, since a computer would not necessarily have a concept of “civil rights”.
Tim Lynch: Honestly? Anything. The first two films brought precisely nothing to the screen that you couldn’t have gotten by reading the books.
Luigi Novi: I find that an interesting philosophy towad medium-to-medium adaptations, because for me, doing something that is necessarily different is not a prerequisite. See the material executed in a different medium is rewarding for me in itself.
Peter David: I wasn’t aware the “manner” in which material is fûçkëd up was especially material. If it’s getting fûçkëd up, what difference does it make HOW?
Luigi Novi: It underscores the completely different the general public, including Hollywood, views comics as opposed to other media. Other media are seen as just that. Comics are not. They’re seen as some type of novelty in themselves, such that in many adaptations of material from comics, the mere fact that it originated in comics is somehow the point of it, rather than the material itself; the fact that the material originally was in comics somehow becomes the basis that informs the adaptation, which I think is wrong-headed. I suppose I’m McCloudian in my view of comics, which is that they are just another medium, and that it is the content that should be focused on, not the medium.
What does it matter, Peter? Well, you quoted someone as complaining that, “But it’s only comics, you know?” All I’m doing is pointing out that this person, hypothetical or otherwise, is not entirely off. You may be right in that many other properties from other media are screwed up. But this person who opined this is right in that the reasons why it happens with comics are different, and yes, I think the reasons why matter.
Nobody shows curtains opening and closing when making a movie based on a play, a television being turned on when adapting a TV show into a movie, or pages being turned when adapting a novel. The very idea is stupid. So when Frank Miller, one of the most vocal advocates of comics as a legitimate medium, totally loses sight of this when adapting his own work into a movie, it’s eyeroll-inducing, as I explained in my letter in CBG #1607 (August 2005). Me, I don’t mind that some things are changed in the translation, as long as it’s either A. necessary, or B. makes better material. The changes Christopher Nolan & co. made for Batman Begins were. Most of the changes Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher made, on the other hand, were not. Thus, your pointing out examples of changes made to properties that you liked is perfectly in line with this.
But when someone makes changes to a property that do not improve it, then you hear all about it, as with The Scarlet Letter. By contrast, I’ve never heard of anyone in the general public complaining about changes made to comic book material in movies adapted from them. Yes, they’ll rip on the overall poor quality of the film in general, but not the changes to the source material. In this way, the quote above about it being “only” comics is at least partially true in my humble opinion.
ArizonaTeach: Luigi intimidates me.
Luigi Novi: Ouch. Well, that isn’t my intention, and if that’s how I come across to you, I apologize. And if you liked that first Act, then to each their own. 🙂
Den: And it seems like Moore is trying to divest himself of the America’s Best Comics line as quickly as he can.
Luigi Novi: How so?
James Lynch: By contrast, the Will Smith movie (and I blame him primarily for that wreck — I can’t see him fighting to keep the integrity of the original and execs forcing him to be a cool action hero)
Luigi Novi: Well, let’s not substitute assumption for conclusion. For all we know, the script was already written by the time he was approached to star in it. Unless we find out otherwise, it’s best not to accuse someone arbitrarily.
Jason: You mentioned before how you can’t do anymore Apropos books, because of Pocket, that doesn’t frustrate you at all?
Peter David: Yes.
Luigi Novi: WHAT???!!! What the hëll is this? When did this happen? Peter, what’s this all about? Why can’t you write more books? Why can’t you take them to another publisher?
“Peter David: I wasn’t aware the “manner” in which material is fûçkëd up was especially material. If it’s getting fûçkëd up, what difference does it make HOW?
Luigi Novi: It underscores the completely different the general public, including Hollywood, views comics as opposed to other media. Other media are seen as just that. Comics are not.”
Luigi, I can’t help but notice that you concentrated all your responses on my opening line while completely ignoring the vast balance of the post, which makes–I think–a pretty compelling case for the idea that Hollywood treats everything pretty much the same. In fact, when one compares works such as “Spider-Man,” “Sin City,” “Road to Perdition” and “The Phantom” to the massive changes that Hollywood has made to stories from books, plays, etc., rendering the film version almost unrecognizable, you really don’t have a leg to stand on in asserting that comics are somehow getting short shrift.
Your use of “general public” is meaningless because you’re separating “general public” from comic book reader. I would guess that the announcement of the movie Spider-Man getting organic webshooters caused tons more controversy in more places than, say, Baz Luhrman annihilating Shakespeare’s text for his version of “Romeo and Juliet” and transporting it from its centuries-ago Verona, Italy roots to modern day gangs.
Furthermore, considering the shocking number of people in this country who don’t read novels or see plays, you can just as easily separate “general public” from readers of books and theater goers.
You’re trying to sell the concept of comics-as-red-headed-stepchildren in the eyes of America and Hollywood, and it’s just not flying.
“WHAT???!!! What the hëll is this? When did this happen? Peter, what’s this all about? Why can’t you write more books? Why can’t you take them to another publisher?”
I can. The problem is that it’s a tough sell. Most publishers won’t want to pick up a series when they don’t have the rights to do all the books. And as long as Pocket keeps the first “Apropos” novel in print, getting interest elsewhere is problematic because I can’t get reversion of rights.
PAD
While yes, the masses don’t really read the classic novels any more than they do comics, I think the main difference is in how the MEDIA treats these changes. When a big change is made to a classic novel, it’s sacrilege. When a big change is made to a classic comic, hey, it’s just a comic book.
“While yes, the masses don’t really read the classic novels any more than they do comics, I think the main difference is in how the MEDIA treats these changes. When a big change is made to a classic novel, it’s sacrilege. When a big change is made to a classic comic, hey, it’s just a comic book.”
Oh, now it’s the MEDIA. We’ve gone from Hollywood to the general public to the media. Why don’t we narrowfocus it some more and stake the whole thing on how Phyllis who lives down the street from me reacts?
Ideally the media–if you mean reporters–shouldn’t be doing anything other than reporting the outraged reactions of others. And as I recall, the media was very thorough in writing up outrage expressed by comics fans over everything from Michael Keaton as a cast-against-type Bruce Wayne to Spidey’s organic webshooters, not to mention the changes made to “V” which launched this thread. If you mean movie critics, of course they’re going to get more steamed by changes to classic novels than to comic books. Why? Because the chances are much greater that they’ve READ the classic novels than they have the comic books. Let’s say that Sam Raimi, in order to shock and surprise the fans, had killed off Aunt May instead of Uncle Ben. Critics won’t express outrage at this fundamental change because odds are they don’t know the story, not because “it’s comic books, who cares.”
I’m sorry, guys, but in my day, movie and TV adaptations of comic book characters meant “camp.” We have moved SO far away from that, that any reasonable, dispassionate viewing of things forces one to the conclusion that comic books are being treated more and more seriously and faithfully, not less.
PAD
I’m not sure that I would call SIN CITY a Hollywood production…but Petr’s point stands. I think that Hollywood treats comics with every bit as much respect as they do anything else. In fact, looking at Spiderman 1 & 2 and teh upcoming SUPERMAN RETURNS, they are being treated quite respectfully. The reason–it sells. BATMAN BEGINS = tons of money. CATWOMAN = not so much. Camping it up doesn’t bring in the big bucks.
Also, we now have directors who grew up on well written adult comics and they are reflecting that in their approach.
The problem with LXG wasn’t that it came from a comic book–it was that it came from a comic book where intelligent literary characters spoke in an intelligent literate way for the enjoyment of intelligent literate readers. No WAY that was going to pass unmolested to the screen.
Okay, PAD, now I have to ask – what was Phyllis’ reaction to the changes to V?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 10:10 AM
Also, we now have directors who grew up on well written adult comics and they are reflecting that in their approach.
Agreed. Ironically, though, I know people who said they liked “Batman Begins” because it wasn’t campy, like, y’know, “a comic book.”
So I’ve patiently explained to these people that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I’ve explained that while the super-hero genre dominates the comic-book medium, it is nevertheless a medium through which you can tell stories in any genre. I’ve told them to think about it this way: would you say, “This movie was good because it wasn’t like a novel.” No. Because then you’d have to ask, “What kind of novel? Romance? Historical fiction? Early American literature?”
I’ve explained to them that what they meant to say was that “Batman Begins” wasn’t like a super-hero comic. And then I’ve explained to them that they were still wrong.
I’ve told them that “Batman Begins” really is pretty faithful to the way Batman is portrayed in comics today. Not because it adheres to every detail of the comics (after all, it doesn’t), but because it adheres to the tone, style and spirit of those comics. So, if they liked “Batman Begins,” I’ve explained that they shouldn’t be looking down their nose at “super-hero” comics, because what they liked on screen is not all that different from what they’d see in the pages of a super-hero comic.
I realize that there are those who saw “Batman Begins” who didn’t feel moved to go pick up a Batman comic-book. And that’s perfectly fine. I just get irritable when someone makes a remark about super-hero comics when, y’know, they’ve never actually read them.
Ultimately, though, I realize that most of the people I’ve corrected in this way probably walked away not giving a crap.
“Yes. But you don’t see me accusing Pocket of swindling me, and last week I was perfectly happy to deposit the royalties check for the third printing of the first book. I think you’ll find every deal in the world has advantages and disadvantages for both sides.”
That’s what contracts are all about. Both sides have to give something in order to gain. With publishing, the creator loses some level of control in order to avail themselves of the publishing, distribution, and media/advertising network held by the publisher. And the publisher gets additional revenue, with some control over printing, distribution, and advertising. One without the other has…not much. The writer has a bunch of paper that no one outside his/her circle of friends will ever read. And the publisher has an entire network/investment that sits idle.
I don’t know anything about the related material thing, or how DC might have swindled Moore out of some profit. We’ve certainly seen Marvel try to keep Stan Lee from getting money according to the terms of his contract. And maybe Moore’s not litigiously inclined, but if he really thinks DC is violating the terms of their agreement, he’s free to pursue a legal remedy.
I guess I’m just alergic to whining. Not that Moore seems to be doing a ton of it. He’s mostly just acting…asking DC to give his share of the profits to the other parties that are entitled. But plenty of other people are whining for him, which in many ways is worse.
“Agreed. Ironically, though, I know people who said they liked “Batman Begins” because it wasn’t campy, like, y’know, “a comic book.””
The first time I saw the Burton “Batman,” when the film ended I heard a couple of guys talking, and one said, “If they make another one, who do you think will be the villain?” And the other guy said, with complete seriousness, “I’m hoping it’s King Tut. He was cool.”
PAD
Jonathan: The Three Laws of Robotics, as postulated by Asimov, could not possibly have led to the conclusion the coputer reached in that movie – rather, the Zeroth Law, as formulated by R. Daneel Olivaw in Asimov’s last Foundation book, was, “A robot may not injure humanity, nor through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.” This superceded the Three Laws. This is also in direct contradiction to the conclusion in the movie – the incarceration of humanity would most certainly have damaged it…
Luigi Novi: From our POV, sure, but there are people who would rationalize this by defining harm only as physical impairment, and not infringement of rights, and therefore, would not see detainment or imprisonment as damage. I can see how a computer would work this way, since a computer would not necessarily have a concept of “civil rights”.
This discussion sorta leaves out some important concepts, namely that, as an artificial intelligence, a robot’s ability to apply logic is controlled by the data it possess. A human’s concept of “harm” is influenced by many impacts: physical, spiritual, mental, emotional. There’s really only one of those concepts that’s pretty clear. Outside of physical harm, defining the other three becomes truly complex. You can take away a man’s freedom without physically harming him in any way. But you’re sure to inflict massive amounts of harm in the other three areas. But without a way to quatify that harm, how is an AI to determine if it has, in fact, violated the Three Laws?
And I think the movie did a good job explaining that. The Three Laws create a conundrum for the AI…protect humanity, never harm humanity, never allow humanity to come to harm through inaction. Seeing humanity harm itself creates a situation where the AI must violated one of the Three Laws. The solution is to remove humanity’s ability to harm itself.
DC told Moore the V4V copyrights would revert after publication, and talked about the handover. At that time, TPBs staying in print was unheard of. Neither he nor DC believed they were signing up to the book staying in print for twenty years and more. DC expected to hand the rights back after a year.
Alan told me the only way he thought he could make his opinion known by filmmakers is to refuse all moneys owed. It certainly got a lot of people at the studios and distributors talking, let alone the media.
After doing so, he felt a lot better. At ease. Content. That’ll do, I think.
Moore does not live an expensive lifestyle. Really. He’ll be able to claim his pension in ten years. And with previous moneys, he has a comfortable old age guaranteed. And if not, his snake puppet god will take care of him.
If he needs to. Lost Girls comes out in the summer. From Hëll gets its ninth printing shortly. Wildstorm have the multimedia LOEG: Black Dossier to come. Top Shelf and Knockabout will be publishing LOEG V3. Then someone’s going to be publishing Jerusalem. Avatar will be publishing a new OGN, and keeping A Small Killing in print.
For “fun” Alan Moore stories may I recommend The Complete DR And Quinch from Rebellion, The Complete BoJeffries Saga from Tundra/Fantagraphics/Atomeka, Halo Jones from Rebellion, Tomorrow Stories from Wildstorm, Maxwell The Magic Cat from… erm… I’ve forgotten.
As for the V differences… the big one for me was the removal of fascism vs anarchy, portrayed as the only two final alternatives. A wonderful theory, beautifully explored in the comic. That’s the big difference between the two versions for me.
Anyone going to hear Moore talk about Fuseli tomorrow?
“DC told Moore the V4V copyrights would revert after publication, and talked about the handover. At that time, TPBs staying in print was unheard of. Neither he nor DC believed they were signing up to the book staying in print for twenty years and more. DC expected to hand the rights back after a year.”
I just have to disagree, at least with the DC side of things. If both sides expected rights to revert within a year, then why not just draft a contract that hs rights revert after a year. Or five. DC may not have expected the Watchmen property to be as big a hit as it has been, but they certainly contemplated the possibility that it would be.
I also disagree that TPBs did not last at the time. Maybe there were few contemporary examples at the time Watchmen was printed, but Golden Age reprints, some form of collection, new editions/printings, are not some new invention of the modern age. You could say DC struck gold with Watchmen, but you could say the same for Moore.
It seems you’re making DC out to have some nefarious intent to prevent the reversion of the Watchmen rights to Moore. There’s no nefarious intent…just a profit minded one. Profit, the thing that keeps DC, Marvel, and every other publisher in business, allowing us readers to enjoy their product every week. And DC’s not tried to keep Moore’s fair profits from him
I’ll go back to my lottery example. If I could know in advance when the numbers I like to play are going to be drawn, I could just save my money and only buy a ticket for that drawing. Since I don’t, if I want to be able to win that prize, I need to buy a ticket every week…a contingent act…like having an open ended retention of rights so long as the work is published.
The first time I saw the Burton “Batman,” when the film ended I heard a couple of guys talking, and one said, “If they make another one, who do you think will be the villain?” And the other guy said, with complete seriousness, “I’m hoping it’s King Tut. He was cool.”
Yikes.
Now Egghead, THAT’d be cool. You could have the first ever Batman/Ant-Man crossover!
TWL
Because everyone made assumptions. It was a different market then. These days it’s all about All Rights In The Universe In Perpetuity And Beyond because of this.
There was no comics plan for keeping this finite work in print, constantly. That had not happened before.
Watchmen and V are creator owned properties. It’s just that the ownership has been kept on hold by the publisher in a way that no party involved intended or could have foreseen. Hindsight is easy.
The comics universe changed with V, Watchmen and Dark Knight.
Oh, and all allegations of nefariousness, you inferred.
Posted by Bobb at March 24, 2006 11:32 AM
One without the other has…not much. The writer has a bunch of paper that no one outside his/her circle of friends will ever read. And the publisher has an entire network/investment that sits idle.
You are not entirely correct. Self-publishing is a viable option, particularly in comics. Granted, it is excruciatingly difficult to succeed as a self-publisher, and not many do. But it happens. Cerebus, Strangers in Paradise, and Bone are but three examples of successful books that were self-published for some or all of their run.
Because self-publishers lack the resources and the brand recognition of big comics publishers, one certainly makes a sacrifice if one decides to self-publish. At the same time, creators make sacrifices when they sign publishing deals with major publishers. The question is simply, which sacrifices does a creator want to make?
I believe there are no right or wrong answers to that question, as long as creators recognize and accept the consequences of whatever decision they choose to make.
“Whatever decision they choose to make.”
Good Lord, could I have been any more redundant with that sentence?
As for the V differences… the big one for me was the removal of fascism vs anarchy, portrayed as the only two final alternatives.
Boy, that seems pretty silly now, with French anarchists rioting because the government won’t guarantee jobs for them.
They don’t make anarchists like they used to. They seem to have lost their faith in nihilism.
Peter, I agree with you that comics are being taken more seriously. ‘Faithfully’ however is a very subjective term to use here, and I’m sure some of the writers, directors and producers connected with some of the worst comic book-related films of the last decade could probably explain how they felt they were being faithful to the original source material when in fact the final product would suggest otherwise.
Rich, thanks for chiming in on a just in which you have a lot to contribute. I was trying to remember where one of Moore’s post-Silver V4V interviews came from, but in fact you’ve helped jog my memory that it was from your column.
And for those who express surprise that Moore didn’t have everything in writing, as in the V4V rights reverting back to him when the TB went out of print, sometimes you think the best of a publisher until they do something to show that they can’t be trusted. The next time, you don’t make that mistake again. When I did my first book, a Star Trek book that was going to to be licensed by Paramount, I was assured that there were going to be no foreign editions sold. I found out otherwise when I discovered a copy of te Spanish edition some months later in my the publisher’s office. Not to mention the British edition that sold out. On my second book (about Red Dwarf), I plugged up a lot of those loopholes, and when the publisher happily showed me the mockup of the front cover without my name on it, I had to pull out the contract and show them that in fact they were contractually obligated to put my name on the cover. So you can’t assume these things are automatic. On my Farscape book, which was licensed through the Jim Henson Company, I insisted on retaining copyright of the text, which held up negotiations for months, but when Hensons decreed that we had to lose the final chapter because their lawyers had neglected to get clearances from the actors for the Farscape mini-series, I just printed up copies of the text and gave them out for free before offering it a website where people could download it free of charge. But how do you ever anticipate this sort of nonsense until it happens to you? I suspect Peter would probably have more than his share of hair-raising stories to tell, even with an agent watching out for his interests. My motto now is ‘Hope for the best; expect the worst,’ and I don’t even pretend to be in the category of an Alan Moore or Peter David. I can only imagine the shenanigans when much bigger sums of money are involved!
“Peter, I agree with you that comics are being taken more seriously. ‘Faithfully’ however is a very subjective term to use here, and I’m sure some of the writers, directors and producers connected with some of the worst comic book-related films of the last decade could probably explain how they felt they were being faithful to the original source material when in fact the final product would suggest otherwise.”
I’ve no doubt. My point is that they’re no more or less likely to say the same thing about particular novels or plays. It’s the notion that comics are getting short shrift because they’re “just comics” that I’m disputing.
PAD
I think that Hollywood treats comics with every bit as much respect as they do anything else.
Which is to say that the ‘respect’ it’s completely hit or miss, depending on who’s working on the project. 🙂
Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 09:10 AM
“Peter David: I wasn’t aware the “manner” in which material is fûçkëd up was especially material. If it’s getting fûçkëd up, what difference does it make HOW?
Luigi Novi: It underscores the completely different the general public, including Hollywood, views comics as opposed to other media. Other media are seen as just that. Comics are not.”
Peter David: Luigi, I can’t help but notice that you concentrated all your responses on my opening line while completely ignoring the vast balance of the post, which makes–I think–a pretty compelling case for the idea that Hollywood treats everything pretty much the same.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Please explain to me then why, when comics are adapted into movies, those in charge publicize it in publicity by saying things like “It’ll be a living comic book”, “It’ll look just like a comic book”, and “It’ll be a real comic book movie”, but do not say similar things like “It’ll be a novel movie” or “play movie” or any other similar jargon when adapting those other media. They do this for the same reason people ask me if I’m too old to read comic books, while never asking me if I’m too old to read magazines, newspapers, novels, watch movies, watch TV, etc. Simple. It’s because comics are not seen as another medium. They focus on form and confuse it with content. Hollywood doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is prone to the same perceptions filtered in from the rest of society.
Peter David: In fact, when one compares works such as “Spider-Man,” “Sin City,” “Road to Perdition” and “The Phantom” to the massive changes that Hollywood has made to stories from books, plays, etc., rendering the film version almost unrecognizable, you really don’t have a leg to stand on in asserting that comics are somehow getting short shrift.
Luigi Novi: I am not focusing on changes made to the source material per se, and mentioned how sometimes, such changes are actually a good thing. I am more concerned with the underlying thinking, perception of, and approach to comics that informs some cinematic decisions. The changes made to Road to Perdition, for example, did not stem from form-over-content problem, and as I mentioned in my last post, actually made the story far better and more accessible on a human level than the book. (Although I admit I would’ve liked to have seen the steamboat casino sequence.) So did giving Batman black body armor instead of those goofy gray and blue tights.
My problem is with the focus on form instead of content, not changes. The prime example of this is Sin City. That is a movie that was arguably as non-Hollywood as a mainstream movie could be, made only a minimal of changes to the material (though granted, some were kinda stupid), and yet for me, it sucked. Its insistence on that cornball narration (even regarding the description of gunshots, which you don’t need in a movie, because, y’know, you can hear gunshots in a movie), fluorescing things like blood, Hartigan’s tie, Kevin’s glasses, etc., was just plain awful. I really would’ve liked to have seen Miller and Rodriguez adapt SC’s content into a true noir film instead of that bášŧárdìzëd waste of celluloid. I mean, why was it necessary to include Manute’s mention to Gail about serving a “new master”, when that was an allusion to the death of Ava from A Dame to Kill For, which wasn’t in the film? Those are things that should’ve been changed. But because Miller and Rodriguez were so obsessed with slavishly copying not only the content, but the form as well, I found the movie to be utterly ridiculous. Maggie responded to my letter in CBG by asserting that the creators wanted to not merely adapt the story, but to convey the feel of the story as drawn.
But why?
What is this reason for wanting to carry over mechanical elements of the medium from which the content originally appeared, when it defeats the whole purpose of adapting it into a different one? And if this is the thinking, then please explain to me why this thinking does not appear in movies adapted from others? It’s not just comics? Really? Okay, then please mention a movie that conveyed feel of a story “as printed on a page”, or “as acted on a stage”, and so forth.
The problem is not changes, or Hollywood, at least in and of itself. As Scott McCloud so brilliantly pointed out, it’s confusing form over content.
Peter David: Your use of “general public” is meaningless because you’re separating “general public” from comic book reader. I would guess that the announcement of the movie Spider-Man getting organic webshooters caused tons more controversy in more places than, say, Baz Luhrman annihilating Shakespeare’s text for his version of “Romeo and Juliet” and transporting it from its centuries-ago Verona, Italy roots to modern day gangs.
Luigi Novi: ??????? More places? Where? The only place where I heard even a hint of controversy over the organic webshooters was in fandom.
Peter David: Furthermore, considering the shocking number of people in this country who don’t read novels or see plays, you can just as easily separate “general public” from readers of books and theater goers.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure I’m following here. What do you mean by separation? For what purpose?
Peter David: You’re trying to sell the concept of comics-as-red-headed-stepchildren in the eyes of America and Hollywood, and it’s just not flying.
Luigi Novi: It’s flown. When someone sees me reading a magazine, or a novel, I never get asked if I’m too old for that. I’ve only gotten asked this in regard to comics.
Peter David: I can. The problem is that it’s a tough sell. Most publishers won’t want to pick up a series when they don’t have the rights to do all the books. And as long as Pocket keeps the first “Apropos” novel in print, getting interest elsewhere is problematic because I can’t get reversion of rights.
Luigi Novi: But why doesn’t Pocket want to publish more themselves? That sucks.
Peter David: Oh, now it’s the MEDIA. We’ve gone from Hollywood to the general public to the media.
Luigi Novi: Hollywood is part of “the media”, isn’t it?
Peter David: We have moved SO far away from that, that any reasonable, dispassionate viewing of things forces one to the conclusion that comic books are being treated more and more seriously and faithfully, not less.
Luigi Novi: Would you call it progress if a cannibal used utensils?
To a degree, yeah, it’s gotten better. But we still have a way to go, IMO.
Bobb: A human’s concept of “harm” is influenced by many impacts: physical, spiritual, mental, emotional. There’s really only one of those concepts that’s pretty clear. Outside of physical harm, defining the other three becomes truly complex. You can take away a man’s freedom without physically harming him in any way. But you’re sure to inflict massive amounts of harm in the other three areas. But without a way to quatify that harm, how is an AI to determine if it has, in fact, violated the Three Laws?
Luigi Novi: My point is that an AI would quantify it via the physical, though now that you mention it, I think a valid argument could be made that an AI with access to the sum of human knowledge, including data on the effects of imprisonment, might actually understand that doing what happened in the movie would contradict the laws. So maybe Jonathan was right.
Bobb: And I think the movie did a good job explaining that. The Three Laws create a conundrum for the AI…protect humanity, never harm humanity, never allow humanity to come to harm through inaction. Seeing humanity harm itself creates a situation where the AI must violated one of the Three Laws. The solution is to remove humanity’s ability to harm itself.
Luigi Novi: Okay, that’s odd, because the above portion of your post that I quoted actually convinced me that Jonathan may have been right. Now it seems you were assisting me in arguing my original point? Wow, that’s weird. 🙂
So for the stuff at the top of my post that I neglected to edit out. And the screwed-up italics. (Ðámņ lack of a Preview function……..)
“Because everyone made assumptions. It was a different market then. These days it’s all about All Rights In The Universe In Perpetuity And Beyond because of this.
There was no comics plan for keeping this finite work in print, constantly. That had not happened before.
Watchmen and V are creator owned properties. It’s just that the ownership has been kept on hold by the publisher in a way that no party involved intended or could have foreseen. Hindsight is easy.
The comics universe changed with V, Watchmen and Dark Knight.
Oh, and all allegations of nefariousness, you inferred.”
Starting at the bottom…yes, I inferred it….hence my phrase “It seems you’re making DC….” What of it? It’s a logical inferrence from your post. If you did not intend that, you could just say so, plainly, rather than attribute allegations to me that I didn’t make. I just made an observation.
V, Watchmen, Dark Knight, heck, Crisis and Marvel’s Secret War, all may have changed comics. I’d probably suggest that they were symptomatic of a greater change going on in comics at the time. But whatever they were, it was not a change in the world of publishing. No one expected Watchmen to still be in demand 20 years later? So? Then why have a reversion of rights upon reaching a certain period of publishing inactivity at all? The fact that the clause exists demonstrates that both parties accounted for the possibility that it would remain a viable product, and so long as it did, DC would retain sole publishing control.
DC used to have a similar deal with Wonder Woman…if they didn’t publish at least 4 issues with WW as the banner lead every year, her rights would revert. They did eventually buy the rights outright, but for years, you’d see at least 4 WW books come out, just so they could retain the rights to the character. DC’s not evil or wrong for doing this, they’re prudent. And it shows that comics, particularly DC, had in fact had experience with a comic property that had a reverter clause in it, but the longevity and viability of the character supported keeping it in print enough to retain the rights.
V may very well be a creator owned property, but Watchmen is derivative of many other characters owned by DC. Even if Moore were to retain full rights to Watchmen, it’s unclear what he’d be able to do, outside of allowing other publishers to republish the work. Any new material would possibly be in violation of DC copyright on characters like Blue Beetle, the Question, Captain Atom, and others.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 12:57 PM
They don’t make anarchists like they used to. They seem to have lost their faith in nihilism.
Say the “f-word” again! 🙂
Now, I don’t necessarily go hunting for movie new a lot, not wanting to stumble across spoilers, but I watch plenty of TV, and love watching trailers online, but I don’t recall the last time (if ever) a movie was billed as being “just like the comic book.”
-Rex Hondo-
That should’ve been “movie news.”
-Rex Hondo-
What is this reason for wanting to carry over mechanical elements of the medium from which the content originally appeared, when it defeats the whole purpose of adapting it into a different one? And if this is the thinking, then please explain to me why this thinking does not appear in movies adapted from others? It’s not just comics? Really? Okay, then please mention a movie that conveyed feel of a story “as printed on a page”, or “as acted on a stage”, and so forth.
First off, keep in mind that I loved SIN CITY so my opinion is based partly on a love for the work that you don’t share.
Why is conveying some of the strengths of the comics medium into film a bad thing? Comics have long been able to do things that movies can’t and visa versa. There are advantages to comics, as anyone who reads Scott Mcleod’s stuff knows. Part of what made Sin City great was the design of it, the unique look of the work. Sure, they could have just done a film noir using the script but it would not have rocked my world if they had. It was the look of it.
I mean, DAREDEVIL the movie used lots of Frank Miller ideas but it had none of the power of the comics.I’m not saying that every comic movie should take the Sin City approach but I’m happy to see that the producers of THE 300 are going out of their way to recapture the look of the comic. I think it’ll be great.
(Part of my love for the film may also be the fact that it opened my eyes to the potential for digital filmmaking…the folks on the zombie movie I’m working on have talked about what we could do if we converted a barn into a greenscreen studio. This stuff has scary potential.)
Luigi, I know what you mean about the dolts who ask you if you’re too old to be reading comics but my attitude is hey, at least I’m reading, while these boneheads are watching me read. Who is part of God’s plan here?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 03:29 PM
Luigi, I know what you mean about the dolts who ask you if you’re too old to be reading comics but my attitude is hey, at least I’m reading, while these boneheads are watching me read. Who is part of God’s plan here?
Some old man saw me at looking through the comics in the spinner rack at the grocery store. He smirked at me and said with more than a hint of sarcasm, “Catching up on important reading, eh?”
I remember thinking, “Screw off and die, you old gasbag.” But instead I just smiled politely and kept perusing the comics.
I figure it’s OK if you think these things, as long as you don’t say them out loud.
“Watchmen is derivative of many other characters owned by DC. Even if Moore were to retain full rights to Watchmen, it’s unclear what he’d be able to do, outside of allowing other publishers to republish the work. Any new material would possibly be in violation of DC copyright on characters like Blue Beetle, the Question, Captain Atom, and others.”
Which kind of raises the question of how Marvel got away with the Squadron Supreme and Shiar’s Imperial Guard 😉
Luigi Novi: What is this reason for wanting to carry over mechanical elements of the medium from which the content originally appeared, when it defeats the whole purpose of adapting it into a different one?
Bill Mulligan: Why is conveying some of the strengths of the comics medium into film a bad thing? Comics have long been able to do things that movies can’t and visa versa. There are advantages to comics, as anyone who reads Scott Mcleod’s stuff knows. Part of what made Sin City great was the design of it, the unique look of the work.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say “strengths”, “design” or “look”. I said “mechanical elements.” Not the same thing.
Yes, each media has its unique strengths that the others lack, and sometimes, one can borrow from the other. A split screen, for example, could be thought of as a borrowing of “panels” from comics. And indeed, if the intention behind its use in film is the same as its use in the comics, then it can accomplish the same thing. If, on the other hand, it is used in a film solely because it is a comics element, and the material being adapted originated in comics, then it’s being used for the wrong reason, and when utilized in such absurd manner, you get dreck like Ang Lee’s Hulk.
Bill Mulligan: Luigi, I know what you mean about the dolts who ask you if you’re too old to be reading comics but my attitude is hey, at least I’m reading, while these boneheads are watching me read. Who is part of God’s plan here?
Luigi Novi: Precisely my reaction too, Bill. I first learned the words “corpulent” and “fugue” from comics. I first learned that driving while inebriated was illegal from an episode of Three’s Company. I first learned of the “good cop, bad cop” tactic used by interrogators from Lethal Weapon 2. This just goes to show that any and all exposure to any knowledge in any medium stimulates the mind, particularly one that is willing to absorb it.
“Luigi Novi: Okay. Please explain to me then why, when comics are adapted into movies, those in charge publicize it in publicity by saying things like “It’ll be a living comic book”, “It’ll look just like a comic book”, and “It’ll be a real comic book movie”, but do not say similar things like “It’ll be a novel movie” or “play movie” or any other similar jargon when adapting those other media.”
Except they DON’T say that, unless they’re discussing it in terms of fealty to the original source material. In that regard, it’s no different than Chris Columbus saying “Harry Potter” is going to satisfy fans of the book because it’s going to be the book come to life almsot scene for scene, or (the same director, for that matter) stating that “Rent” was going to be the play brought to life, or publicists stating that the remake of “Psycho” was going to be shot-for-shot identical to the original Hitchcock film.
As for the rest of your posting, it is becoming abundantly clear that we are talking about two so completely different things. My initial comment was staggeringly simple: That Hollywood isn’t more inclined to treat comic book source material with less reverence than any other source material. And you’re off doing this whole complicated dissertation on form, content and style with a shoutout to “Understanding Comics” and a casual dismissal of “Sin City,” the most recent comic book oriented film that is faithful to the source material, which was my point in the first place.
Of course I’m aware that, for instance, the term “comic book movie” or “comic booky” is used to dismiss or denigrate films with a big, splashy style and one-dimensional characters. But that has absolutely jack-all to do with what I said in the first place. If you want to talk about what *I* said and what *I* commented on, that’s fine. And if you want to go off on this complete tangent and argue for the sake of arguing, that’s also fine. But I see little point in going along since it’s completely irrelevant to what I said in the first place.
PAD
Peter, I apologize if I gave the appearance of conflating one thing with another. I read the quote in your blog entry about the hypothetical person saying, “But it’s only comics, you know?”, and merely wanted to chime in to say that there are some respects in which that sentiment is true. No, comics are not given a shorter shrift by Hollywood in and of itself. But I thought I was clear in making a distinction between the initial topic of your blog entry, and the related tangent on which I diverged. Sorry if I wasn’t.
As far as the comments in question being made only when discussing fealty to the source material, well, I don’t agree, as I’ve read such interviews, and did not get that sense from them, but then, I suppose I have no more firm proof of those subjects’ intent than you or anyone else, so perhaps we should chalk it up to different perceptions. That still leaves other examples I’ve mentioned, like why movies adapted from plays do not feature curtains on the screen to separate scenes, why movies do not feature pages turning, etc. This of course has nothing to do with mere fealty to the source material, and even though I’ve asked that question before here and elsewhere, no one has been able or willing to answer that question.
As far as Sin City, my feelings about it are hardly “casual”. I put quite a bit of thought into my conclusions, and into the writings in which I express them, thank you very much. I spent quite a bit of time composing the review I wrote for Sin City, and I think I detailed my reasoning behind my conclusions both here, and in the letter in CBG, which ran right on the other side of the first page of your column on hateful fans. If you want to disagree or show me where my reasoning off, fine, but to write off my explanations of why I regard certain topics as “casual” seems a bit of a disservice.
Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 04:03 PM
Of course I’m aware that, for instance, the term “comic book movie” or “comic booky” is used to dismiss or denigrate films with a big, splashy style and one-dimensional characters.
I agree that Hollywood is treating comic-books far more respectfully than ever. I just wish more moviegoers realized that films like “Batman Begins” are good because they are “comic booky.” I wish more people understood that movies like that aren’t transcending the source material, but rather using the source material for their inspiration.
Then again, I’d like to end bigotry, world hunger, disease, and elevator music. It’s an imperfect world.
“Whatever decision they choose to make.”
Good Lord, could I have been any more redundant with that sentence?
Yes. “Whatever decision they choose to select in the final assessment.” 🙂
Which kind of raises the question of how Marvel got away with the Squadron Supreme and Shiar’s Imperial Guard 😉
Because you can’t copyright an idea – just a particular arrangement of words and/or pictures. If you wanted to do a comic about a man whose power is to shrink down to microscopic size, and who hangs out with a detective who dresses up like a nocturnal animal and an earthbound god in a brightly-colored outfit, no problem – just don’t call the small guy Ray, don’t make the animal a bat, and don’t make the bright colors red and blue, and you’re good to go.
Of course, you’ll have to put up with the fanboys screaming about how you’re ripping off DC, and you’d better have some truly original stories to tell or your title won’t sell, but that’s life in the creativity biz! 🙂