And hey, the Black Freighter stuff is boring? First I’ve ever heard that comment…

I mean, come ON! Although certainly nobody can tell how this movie is going to be in the story, directing, acting aspect - simply on the basis of photo after photo of utterly faithful and at the same time inspired set and costume design, this is clearly a respectable effort that has more than earned the benefit of the doubt. They’re even using Dave Gibbons’ color palettes, and in a non Dick Tracey, believable way! That’s love in those pictures.

For years I’ve been dreading the eventual film to be made from this book, and the series of pictures so far released has completely turned me around. I’m getting dangerously excited about this film, to the point of having to tamp down my expectations in order to not be disappointed.

And now, an animated Black Freighter? Sorry, that’s just awesome. I will happily buy it.

Alan Moore is a great author and I respect his unbudging principled stands, but I’m also really looking forward to this film, which is clearly being handled in a highly respectable way, moreso than anyone could have ever predicted it would be.

There’s milking by hand, and milking by machine. These folks are clearly milking this cow by hand, with care, and bag-balm. mmmm - good milk!

And that’s your uncomfortable metaphor for the evening.

I don’t know it always kinda stuck in my craw that he made a big stink about those Watchmen figures a ways back yet they made a Tom Strong figure. Also the stink about how they altered V for Vendatta’s themes to make it more timely. I mean hasn’t he made a career out of using and altering others’ creations to meet his own needs. Do you think that Orczy wanted the Scarlett Pimpernel to be running around a giant uterus before getting spunked on? I don’t know maybe. But maybe not too!

I love Alan Moore, but I mean come on, I don’t feel the need to take up some cause for him either.

I definitely dislike that they’re being so blunt and calculated about selling the same product repeatedly but them’s the breaks. While I’m far from convinced that Watchmen will make a good film I actually do believe that Snyder is sincere and trying to deliver as faithful a version as he thinks he can.

Warner Bros Animation rules.

~

Coat

Hopefully it’ll be an original film, and not clips of the movie strung together.

Hopefully it’ll be an original film, and not clips of the movie strung together.

Just because someone questions your words doesn’t mean they think you are stupid. Nat Gertler is a publisher, as well as a creator. He knows quite a bit about contracts, copyrights, and trademarks.

As to Moore, he signed a contract with DC over Watchmen that he thought would let the rights revert back to him in a few months or years. It turned out not to be so. I got the impression that he thought someone had made a Gentleman’s agreement with him, then reneged.

The deal with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was that the studio flat out lied about Moore’s participation in the movie. They said Moore had read the script and approved. Not so. Moore subsequently feels that the movie business is full of untrustworthy people, and he wants nothing further to do with them.

That said, it’s unlikely an R-rated (is it really R?) superhero movie will generate the kinds of numbers to provide incentive to make a sequel, especially given the production costs. I get the feeling all the offshoot DVDs are a way to recoup costs and in effect franchise the movie while it’s still in theaters, because there’s no way in God’s Holy Hell there’ll ever be a Watchmen 2…but it is Hollywood we’re talking about.

Not assuming that what you interpreted from the deal on LXG is the deal on Watchmen - that’s not a way to “play stupid”. Rather, it reflects that not all movie rights deals are the same, just as not all prose deals are the same (as you admitted in your backpedaling.) And I’m someone who has written or co-written about a couple dozen books for other publishers (in addition to being a publisher myself), and who has signed away and optioned movie and TV rights. For example: does Gibbons make additional money if the Watchmen movie is successful enough that the studio backs a sequel theatrical release? I know that under contracts I’ve had, I would’ve. I know that other folks who have made their comics creations made into movies have made additional money off of the sequels.

*shudders*

And, for the record - I loved Speed Racer.

:)

Really? The John Byrne school of conversation? If you refute something I say and I can’t prove what I say with a link, then you’re right?

True, while some prose publishing deals include movie rights, some don’t, and certainly not the deals signed by the prose authors of Moore’s respective fame. Those authors are free to sell the movie rights to whoever they like.

“Your statements about King and Koontz versus Moore sound like they’re grounded totally in assumption.”

If by assumption you mean based on interviews I’ve read with the authors, as well as my own conclusions drawn from reading their work, then sure, call it assumption. You’d be wrong, but you can call it that.

Have I read the contract Gibbons signed? No. But don’t play stupid. The way another Moore deal whose details have leaked out have stipulated it, the creators were given their money upfront and independent of how the movie performed. What other deal? Did you read the details of the LXG lawsuit? I have.

No, I’m not going to provide you any links, and yes, I’m assuming that’s your next question. Go read something on your own.

As Moore has stated, his artists have been given his share of monies from option and production rights to films (and, presumably, from merchandising based on those adaptations). Let’s hope that Gibbons gets something for those action figures, although it’s unlikely that he got any extra for the DVD releases of Black Freighter and Under the Hood, but as Nat says, we don’t know for sure. Hope he’s getting something for those webisodes, especially since they’re using the text of the GN itself (but I doubt he is, since that’s still such a gray area in terms of rights and royalties).

I don’t have a side in this fight. I’ll probably see it with low expectations (probably not opening week) and whether it turns out to be a decent adaptation will determine if I bother with the multi-ultra-DVD edition of the movie.

I’m not convinced that ANY Moore project can ever be adapted successfully. His work is just too complex.

And unless Moore had some uncommon deal with Gibbons, no, not all rights would have gone back to Moore. They woud’ve been shared with Dave, who at least under US law (I’m not sure about UK law) could have authorized a film without Moore’s okay (although he would’ve had to have split the proceeds.)

I’m not saying Moore has no right to be surprised by the results or unhappy. James is right that the more common author complaint would be that things are not kept in print and generating royalties than that they are - but we are under no requirement to be common.

There are prose contracts that include film rights as well as ones that don’t.

Your statements about King and Koontz versus Moore sound like they’re grounded totally in assumption.

I see no reason to assume that if this is successful, there won’t be further Gibbons works going into production… nor has the fact that past Moore-based films have underperformed stopped this one from going ahead. For that matter, I’ve not seen his contracts and cannot say whether the amount Gibbons makes of this is independent of its success; have you?

It is a good point that Gibbons will benefit from the movie, Nat. At least some good will come out of it! While it is nice to see Gibbons make some money, I still think producing the movie without Moore’s blessing is contemptible.

I realize he made a bad deal on this and many other properties he worked on… so did Jack Kirby, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and many, many, many others in the history of comics. That it was a bad business decision on Moore’s part seems pretty irrelevant to me. I think he was exploited, and his work is being exploited against his wishes.

Since I don’t wish to see the ones exploiting him make a lot of money in the process (and since the movie looks like a gawdawful mess), I don’t want to see it. I again encourage all who DO want to see this mess to perform the painless act of at least waiting a couple weeks to do so to make Time Warner cough some blood for it, and, with a little luck, maybe even lose their shirts. What’s the rush to see Hollywood turn a wonderful book into poop anyhow?

The difference between book publishers like the ones prose authors use and DC are vast. For one, the prose publisher doesn’t get movie rights, just the rights to publish the text.

(BTW - King, Koontz, and the rest aren’t really a good analogy. They write books for the lowest common denominator in order to maximize their sales. Moore has almost exclusively written works to challenge the literary medium, with sales being a relatively minor concern and almost no demonstrable concern of reaching as many people as possible.)

As for Gibbons, I don’t care because he’s already making his money by virtue of the movie going into production. This is it for him, too. It’s not like if Watchmen is a big success, there will be tons of Dave Gibbons works going into production. On the other hand, if Watchmen is a success, there will be more Moore works going into production, and I’d rather see that stop now than continue to see Moore get pissed off and less prolific.

So now Warners is going to try and tell the whole story except across several platforms: a theatrical movie, a D2DVD animated movie and a documentary.

All of which is based on material from the book.

Now explain to me how this is a bad thing when they are clearly trying to satisfy those f*cks out in the audience who say “Well the book was much better…” or “They cut so much out of it.”

I swear comic fans can pull defeat out of victory every frikkin’ time.

And those wishing disaster on the work out of respect for Mr. Moore might want to consider that Moore did not create Watchmen alone; Mr. Gibbons was also rather involved, and has shown vast support of this effort.

I always tell people that even with as well as Watchmen has sold over the years, that there are still people who haven’t read it and just the fact that a big budget movie is being made will turn on whole new audiences to this great work.

I know most comic book fans think Moore is being a baby, but he does have a point. When the contract was signed, no one ever imagined Watchmen would stay in print for more than a year and a half, tops. The deal was never intended to give Warner the rights forever, just long enough to print the book.

Watchmen is the only piece of legitimate superhero comic book literature we have. Personally, I’m not comfortable with looking to it as a cash cow to milk. The book was always intended to exist as a singular story deconstructing everything about superheroes and comic book narrative structure, not to be the origin of a new superhero universe.

I feel like this Black Freighters DVD is like the commercial with the cable company trying to compete with satellite companies. In the commercial, the executives say the only way to increase business is to charge more for the same product. This is sorta the same thing. “Sell them the Black Freighters DVD, then sell it to them again on the special edition Watchmen DVD!” No thank you.

There’s no way in Hell I’m going to see the Watchmen movie in theaters. The book holds a special place in my heart largely due to the execution - the way the book examines comic book narrative structures in the course of a comic book story, in the process making it the best comic ever written. Unless the movie is a deconstruction of movie narrative structures in the course of telling a movie story, there’s nothing for me to care about.

Personally, I’m hoping both the DVD and movie bomb badly. If not for the disrespect to Moore than for the crass commercialism.