Moore in an interview with MtV

[Darthphere]

Alan Moore and David Lloyd had all the rights to "V for Vendetta" but they gave them to DC under what was the best contract of the time, which granted them a percentage of all the earnings from the books and movie rights and merchandise. That contract also said that the rights would have reverted to the authors after DC had stopped to print "V for Vendetta" for like five years.
But the volume is in perpetual reprint...

Well there you go.

 

[Assassin]

I'm gonna sneck into Moore's home, shave him and cut his hair. He'll be pissed.














BTW, look for the hair chunks on ebay.

 

[pickleweed]

i don't get you guys. for once, someone is standing by thier work, not just spouting company lines. he has strong convictions about his story, and i personally respect his stand. you guys complain about singer changing superman (the most artificial of changes), but attack moore for the wachowski's (sp?) altering V. The fricken creator is disappointed with the script! you can't have your cake and eat it. sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Moore doesn't sound like an egomaniac, but more like an artist that has been taken advantage of. DC made a killer deal on an unproven writer, and moore got the shaft. he should be mad. i don't know how many of you are artists, but your works become your children. he spent who knows how many years developing this story, only to see it (and the watchmen) be raped by the people he's helped make millions for. i doubt DC would let him have anything more than a consulting position for the film when they have proven film talents onboard.

and he's not a hypocrit. some of you need to learn the difference between medium and methods.

 

[Darthphere]

i don't get you guys. for once, someone is standing by thier work, not just spouting company lines. he has strong convictions about his story, and i personally respect his stand. you guys complain about singer changing superman (the most artificial of changes), but attack moore for the wachowski's (sp?) altering V. The fricken creator is disappointed with the script! you can't have your cake and eat it. sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Moore doesn't sound like an egomaniac, but more like an artist that has been taken advantage of. DC made a killer deal on an unproven writer, and moore got the shaft. he should be mad. i don't know how many of you are artists, but your works become your children. he spent who knows how many years developing this story, only to see it (and the watchmen) be raped by the people he's helped make millions for. i doubt DC would let him have anything more than a consulting position for the film when they have proven film talents onboard.

and he's not a hypocrit. some of you need to learn the difference between medium and methods.

You got this guys Alan Moore singel handedly made DC comics, without him DC would never have existed today. Please, dont use strong words as raped. Its an adaptation. All adaptations will have changes and alterations. The movie on its own is great and admittedly not a great adaptation of the work. I see you admire Alan Moore as do we all, we all respect him. But his stance is plain wrong when it comes to the DC dealings. DC made a perfect business move and no one got shafted. He went shopping to get his books published and ended up at DC, DC a business saw an opportunity to make money and they did. Nobody got shafted and nobody and nobody got taken advantage of. He signed the contract, he signed the rights over. If he feels he got the short of the end of the stick he has no one to blame but himself. DC has tried moving moiuntains to accomodate Alan moore and he wont budge. We respect him and admire his work but his stance on this is plain wrong. He has reason to be mad if he feels the movies arent doing his books justice but there is a right and wrong way to go about it, hes doing it the wrong way.

 

[pickleweed]

You got this guys Alan Moore singel handedly made DC comics, without him DC would never have existed today. Please, dont use strong words as raped. Its an adaptation. All adaptations will have changes and alterations. The movie on its own is great and admittedly not a great adaptation of the work. I see you admire Alan Moore as do we all, we all respect him. But his stance is plain wrong when it comes to the DC dealings. DC made a perfect business move and no one got shafted. He went shopping to get his books published and ended up at DC, DC a business saw an opportunity to make money and they did. Nobody got shafted and nobody and nobody got taken advantage of. He signed the contract, he signed the rights over. If he feels he got the short of the end of the stick he has no one to blame but himself. DC has tried moving moiuntains to accomodate Alan moore and he wont budge. We respect him and admire his work but his stance on this is plain wrong. He has reason to be mad if he feels the movies arent doing his books justice but there is a right and wrong way to go about it, hes doing it the wrong way.

i understand that he put his name on the dotted line for a crappy contract. and that isn't DC's fault. but he did get the short end of the deal because they COULD and DID take advantage of him. i support what he's doing. he doesn't like what they did to his art. he gave away the money and he put his checkbook where his mouth is. thats ballsy. and its an enviable trait.

 

[Darthphere]

i understand that he put his name on the dotted line for a crappy contract. and that isn't DC's fault. but he did get the short end of the deal because they COULD and DID take advantage of him. i support what he's doing. he doesn't like what they did to his art. he gave away the money and he put his checkbook where his mouth is. thats ballsy. and its an enviable trait.

Ill agree but DC didnt take adavantage of him. He shouldve been more careful in his business practices. I think if he really feels this strongly he should take DC to court, he might get the rights back if he puts up a good case.

 

[halfmadjesus]

The fatc of the matter DC is a business. You really expect them to stop printing one of its most succesful books to date just to appease Alan Moore. Alan Moore is naive if he thinks DC will ever stop printing Watchmen and V. DC didnt trick him, Alan moore just was to naive to understand the business side of things.

That's easy to say when it's somebody else. Fact of the matter is, DC did kind of pull a fast one on Moore in regards to Watchmen and V. The way I understand it, their agreement was that the rights to both properties would revert to the creators once the books were out of print. To Moore's thinking, DC would publish the comics, maybe put together a book collection, and that would be it. You have to remember - back in the 80's, trades were a new thing. Even today, TPBs go out of print all the time.

The way DC got around the agreement was to keep V and Watchmen continually in print since the 80's, whether sales warranted it or not. It was their way of getting around the letter of the agreement. In 1980-whatever, I'm sure Moore didn't consider Watchmen would be on its 16th-something printing 20 years later.

It's really no different than the kind of thing done regularly to guys like Jack Kirby. And, yeah, you can say "He should've known better," but that's easy to say in hindsight when it's somebody else and not yourself being ripped off. The company has the power, the company has the lawyers, the company draws up the contracts. The artist is primarily interested in creation and immediate payment for their services, not business matters and the long-term value of their intellectual property. Until they get burned a few times, that is. Corporate entities like DC Comics regularly take advantage of the artists who, by their powers of creation, allow said entity to exist. Alan Moore is just one in a long line of examples. It's shameful, really. Probably equally shameful to blame the artist rather than condemn the company and their practices.

 

[Darthphere]

That's easy to say when it's somebody else. Fact of the matter is, DC did kind of pull a fast one on Moore in regards to Watchmen and V. The way I understand it, their agreement was that the rights to both properties would revert to the creators once the books were out of print. To Moore's thinking, DC would publish the comics, maybe put together a book collection, and that would be it. You have to remember - back in the 80's, trades were a new thing. Even today, TPBs go out of print all the time.

Watchmen and V for Vendetta are two of DC's top selling books. There is no way they will stop printing them til they stop selling. Either way the rights only revert back to him after a 5 year period where the book isnt printed any longer.

The way DC got around the agreement was to keep V and Watchmen continually in print since the 80's, whether sales warranted it or not. It was their way of getting around the letter of the agreement. In 1980-whatever, I'm sure Moore didn't consider Watchmen would be on its 16th-something printing 20 years later.

Not DC's fault that Moore didnt think Watchmen would be one of the seminal pieces of comic book literature. Cant really blame a business like DC for wanting to make money off a popular book.

It's really no different than the kind of thing done regularly to guys like Jack Kirby. And, yeah, you can say "He should've known better," but that's easy to say in hindsight when it's somebody else and not yourself being ripped off. The company has the power, the company has the lawyers, the company draws up the contracts. The artist is primarily interested in creation and immediate payment for their services, not business matters and the long-term value of their intellectual property. Until they get burned a few times, that is. Corporate entities like DC Comics regularly take advantage of the artists who, by their powers of creation, allow said entity to exist. Alan Moore is just one in a long line of examples. It's shameful, really. Probably equally shameful to blame the artist rather than condemn the company and their practices.

Siegel and Schuster sued DC to get credit for their work on Superman. Steve Gerber sued Marvel over Howard the Duck and both issues were resolved. What has Alan Moore done? COmplain on interviews. I think if he feels this strongly he should take legal action. I would back him 100% if he did this. Hes not sitting on his hands he would be proactive and actually do about it. Instead he complains to MTV that DC screwed him over. The truth hurts guys Alan Moore shouldve been more careful with his business dealings.

And for the record Watchmen came from DC wanting Alan Moore to do something with their Charlton comics characters. Once they saw what Moore was doing was dark and gritty they asked him to change the characters names and such. Without DC, Alan moore would never had done Watchmen.

 

[halfmadjesus]

Siegel and Schuster sued DC to get credit for their work on Superman. Steve Gerber sued Marvel over Howard the Duck and both issues were resolved. What has Alan Moore done? COmplain on interviews. I think if he feels this strongly he should take legal action. I would back him 100% if he did this. Hes not sitting on his hands he would be proactive and actually do about it. Instead he complains to MTV that DC screwed him over. The truth hurts guys Alan Moore shouldve been more careful with his business dealings.

I'll agree with you - maybe Moore should have had better business sense. But, as I said, it's easy for you to point this out after the fact. Fact is, when the original deal was struck, unless Moore had a crystal ball at his disposal, his understanding of "rights revert to you after the book goes out of print" meant what it sounded like. He thought he'd get the rights back after DC had printed their comics and maybe a compilation. That early on in the era of TPBs - Moore had no idea something like Watchmen would garner umpty-kajillion printings, nor did he likely assume DC would be dishonorable in their agreement with him by keeping the book in print continuously for the sole purpose of retaining the rights.

And for the record Watchmen came from DC wanting Alan Moore to do something with their Charlton comics characters. Once they saw what Moore was doing was dark and gritty they asked him to change the characters names and such. Without DC, Alan moore would never had done Watchmen.

Actually, it was Moore who approached DC. He knew they had acquired those characters, and Watchmen was his proposal of what he'd like to do with them. Yes, because DC didn't want to "ruin" the Charlton heroes, Moore and Gibbons set about creating a new set based on them (somewhat). But they still created Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan and the rest. They weren't pre-exisiting characters, even though they were based on pre-existing characters. And the story of Watchmen is Moore's, clearly.

What's DC's excuse for V? That was a completely original work by Moore and David Lloyd. What, because they allowed Moore and Lloyd to finish V by agreeing to publish it, DC should OWN it?

Technically, DC owns neither V nor Watchmen. "We own them" wasn't the negotiated agreement. If it had been, maybe Moore wouldn't have signed off on the contract, or if he had, he certainly couldn't still be bitter about it today. But I'm sure DC will keep Watchmen and V for Vendetta in print forever, regardless of sales, so they never have to live up to their end of the original agreement - handing the rights back to the creators.

 

[Darthphere]

Technically DC does own them. They have the rights which means they can do what they want with them. Id surmise saying that David Lloyd and Dave Gibbons worked just as hard on V and Watchmen as Alan moore did and they seem to have no problem with DC. You kow why? Because they understand business. If I sell an new car design to Toyota, I get paid and they own it. Thats how the comic book business has worked forever. Just because Alan moore doesnt like it we should change it? It wasnt like Alan moore was new to the business either, he had been doing work for DC for a couple of years already. I really hate this debate because it seems like im making Moore to be a bad guy. Thats not my intention. I respect and even abck his position. But to make this look like DC is this evil comic book company that takes advantage of people is wrong.

 

[halfmadjesus]

Siegel and Schuster sued DC to get credit for their work on Superman. Steve Gerber sued Marvel over Howard the Duck and both issues were resolved.

Funny you should mention those particular examples. DC was SHAMED into offering up a pittance to Siegel and Shuster, primarily to avoid a bunch of bad press that would have resulted right around the release of the first Superman movie. They certainly weren't offering up anything out of the goodness of their hearts. And I think you can still make a decent argument that Siegel and Shuster, to this day, haven't received 1% of fair compensation considering the value of their contribution. If so, they and their estates would be worth multi-millions - they're not.

Gerber fought Marvel and lost, basically. I believe he gets a creator credit on Howard the Duck stuff, but that's about it. He MAY get some kind of royalty on HTD comics - which isn't much these days - but I wouldn't even guarantee that. So bitter was Steve Gerber over his dealings with Marvel, that he refused to work with them for a decade or so, and bad-mouthed them in the press at every opportunity. You think Alan Moore sounds bitter? Try reading some of the things Steve Gerber had to say about Marvel. Now THAT guy was pissed off.

 

[halfmadjesus]

Technically DC does own them. They have the rights which means they can do what they want with them. Id surmise saying that David Lloyd and Dave Gibbons worked just as hard on V and Watchmen as Alan moore did and they seem to have no problem with DC. You kow why? Because they understand business. If I sell an new car design to Toyota, I get paid and they own it. Thats how the comic book business has worked forever. Just because Alan moore doesnt like it we should change it? It wasnt like Alan moore was new to the business either, he had been doing work for DC for a couple of years already. I really hate this debate because it seems like im making Moore to be a bad guy. Thats not my intention. I respect and even abck his position. But to make this look like DC is this evil comic book company that takes advantage of people is wrong.

If DC were the good guys in this situation, they'd have simply said to Moore and Gibbons right up-front, "Yeah, we're gonna own this." Then Moore would have no right to gripe today. What DC DID was say,"We're going to publish this, and when it goes out of print, then you're going to own it. Won't that be swell?" And the creators said, "Yes, that sounds fine," not realizing that DC would intentionally keep the books in print forever so they wouldn't have to give up the rights.

Maybe your definition of fair is different than mine - I dunno. Though I realize nothing is fair in business, it's all about money, etc. Still, to me it seems a clear case of a big company working the angles to take advantage of an artist - something that happens way too frequently in general, and in comics specifically.

 

[Darthphere]

Funny you should mention those particular examples. DC was SHAMED into offering up a pittance to Siegel and Shuster, primarily to avoid a bunch of bad press that would have resulted right around the release of the first Superman movie. They certainly weren't offering up anything out of the goodness of their hearts. And I think you can still make a decent argument that Siegel and Shuster, to this day, haven't received 1% of fair compensation considering the value of their contribution. If so, they and their estates would be worth multi-millions - they're not.

Gerber fought Marvel and lost, basically. I believe he gets a creator credit on Howard the Duck stuff, but that's about it. He MAY get some kind of royalty on HTD comics - which isn't much these days - but I wouldn't even guarantee that. So bitter was Steve Gerber over his dealings with Marvel, that he refused to work with them for a decade or so, and bad-mouthed them in the press at every opportunity. You think Alan Moore sounds bitter? Try reading some of the things Steve Gerber had to say about Marvel. Now THAT guy was pissed off.

But what did Gerber do? He got over it and even worked with Marvel again doing a Howard the Duck mini under the MAX label.

 

[halfmadjesus]

One other thing to consider: the qualities that make someone a great artist generally do not transfer over as the qualities that make someone a great businessman or a great lawyer. In the history of comics, you can count the number of business-saavy creators on one hand. And only one - Will Eisner - comes to mind as having high skill in creativity AND business.

Bob Kane was a skilled businessman. Unlike his contemporaries, Kane's Batman deal at least got him creator credit forever on his character. But there's always someone who gets screwed. In this case, it's Bill Finger, who essentially co-created Batman with Kane, but will never benefit financially or in recognition for his having done so. Is this fair? No. Who could have done something about it? Bob Kane, if he'd ever chosen to acknowledge Finger's contributions. That's why some circles still consider Kane a villainous figure. Is it Finger's fault for not having stood up for himself in the first place? Maybe, but you have to consider that no one thought comics would be a lasting medium back then, and Finger was just trying to find work during hard economic times. He was at a disadvantage to have really fought for anything.

At least Bill Finger was never promised anything for his efforts (that we know of). It actually makes the Alan Moore situation worse in my mind, because DC did promise him something - ownership of his characters and concepts after they were "done" publishing them. Thing is, DC's never going to be "done," and it's up for debate whether or not their lawyers worded the agreement specifically as they did to take advantage of Moore.

 

[Darthphere]

If DC were the good guys in this situation, they'd have simply said to Moore and Gibbons right up-front, "Yeah, we're gonna own this." Then Moore would have no right to gripe today. What DC DID was say,"We're going to publish this, and when it goes out of print, then you're going to own it. Won't that be swell?" And the creators said, "Yes, that sounds fine," not realizing that DC would intentionally keep the books in print forever so they wouldn't have to give up the rights.

Maybe your definition of fair is different than mine - I dunno. Though I realize nothing is fair in business, it's all about money, etc. Still, to me it seems a clear case of a big company working the angles to take advantage of an artist - something that happens way too frequently in general, and in comics specifically.

I like your example. Tough you could aslo look at this way.

DC:We'll print your book and give you back the rights when we stop printing it.
Moore: No, I want the rights back in 10 years.
DC:Hmmm fine OR Well sorry take your buisness elsewhere.

Youre trying to blame DC for something and they have done nothing wrong. Remember Moore came to DC not the other way around.

 

[Darthphere]

One other thing to consider: the qualities that make someone a great artist generally do not transfer over as the qualities that make someone a great businessman or a great lawyer. In the history of comics, you can count the number of business-saavy creators on one hand. And only one - Will Eisner - comes to mind as having high skill in creativity AND business.

Bob Kane was a skilled businessman. Unlike his contemporaries, Kane's Batman deal at least got him creator credit forever on his character. But there's always someone who gets screwed. In this case, it's Bill Finger, who essentially co-created Batman with Kane, but will never benefit financially or in recognition for his having done so. Is this fair? No. Who could have done something about it? Bob Kane, if he'd ever chosen to acknowledge Finger's contributions. That's why some circles still consider Kane a villainous figure. Is it Finger's fault for not having stood up for himself in the first place? Maybe, but you have to consider that no one thought comics would be a lasting medium back then, and Finger was just trying to find work during hard economic times. He was at a disadvantage to have really fought for anything.

At least Bill Finger was never promised anything for his efforts (that we know of). It actually makes the Alan Moore situation worse in my mind, because DC did promise him something - ownership of his characters and concepts after they were "done" publishing them. Thing is, DC's never going to be "done," and it's up for debate whether or not their lawyers worded the agreement specifically as they did to take advantage of Moore.

I know very well Bill Fingers contribuitons. Notice my sig, Raise the Finger is in his honor. Theyre two different situations however and doesnt apply to the Alan Moore situation because Moore is getting credit for his work.

 

[halfmadjesus]

But what did Gerber do? He got over it and even worked with Marvel again doing a Howard the Duck mini under the MAX label.

Yeah, after Joe Quesada talked him into it, and Gerber considered that Marvel was a whole group of different people now than the ones he was specifically pissed off at back in the day. BTW, heard what Gerber's had to say about Marvel's upcoming Omega the Unknown revamp? He may never work for them again.

Who's to say Alan Moore will NEVER work with DC again? He did continue to allow the ABC books to be published by DC after they bought WildStorm, and Jim Lee assured him no interference. Then, of course, DC DID interfere by censoring an issue of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Considering the number of times DC has burned Moore, I wouldn't blame him if he never worked for them again. The V/Watchmen is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Darthphere]

Yeah, after Joe Quesada talked him into it, and Gerber considered that Marvel was a whole group of different people now than the ones he was specifically pissed off at back in the day. BTW, heard what Gerber's had to say about Marvel's upcoming Omega the Unknown revamp? He may never work for them again.

Who's to say Alan Moore will NEVER work with DC again? He did continue to allow the ABC books to be published by DC after they bought WildStorm, and Jim Lee assured him no interference. Then, of course, DC DID interfere by censoring an issue of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Considering the number of times DC has burned Moore, I wouldn't blame him if he never worked for them again. The V/Watchmen is just the tip of the iceberg.

Its easy to put Alan Moore in the victim role. Did he get taken advantage of? Probably. Could he had avoided it? Yes. I honestly think he should take DC to court, he can make a hell of a case. This situation is way too complicated to say either one is the bad guy. Point being I cant blame DC for making a killing off his books and I cant blame Moore for being angry. Im a writer myself and I nkow it sucks when you see someone mess with your stuff. There are two sides and youre too quick to take the DC is evil side. DC is under new management. Just like Gerber did, Alan moore might be able to get annew deal if he was willing to sit down and talk to them, but he isnt. Both sides are too stubborn.

 

[halfmadjesus]

Its easy to put Alan Moore in the victim role. Did he get taken advantage of? Probably. Could he had avoided it? Yes. I honestly think he should take DC to court, he can make a hell of a case. This situation is way too complicated to say either one is the bad guy. Point being I cant blame DC for making a killing off his books and I cant blame Moore for being angry. Im a writer myself and I nkow it sucks when you see someone mess with your stuff. There are two sides and youre too quick to take the DC is evil side. DC is under new management. Just like Gerber did, Alan moore might be able to get annew deal if he was willing to sit down and talk to them, but he isnt. Both sides are too stubborn.

I dunno...the way I see it, DC did one of two things in the case of Alan Moore and V/Watchmen:

1.) They explicitly set-up the agreement "rights revert to you when it's out of print" knowing in advance they were going to keep the books in print and prevent Moore and his co-creators from obtaining the rights in their lifetimes, if ever.

or

2.) Someone at DC realized the agreement enabled them to retain the rights to V/Watchmen by keeping the books in continuous publication, so they opted to take advantage of the loophole.

Either way, it's pretty lousy, IMO. At the very least, it's underhanded - if DC wanted to retain the rights, why didn't they just put THAT deal in front of Moore & co. in the first place? Give them an opportunity to accept it, or choose not to do business based on that. No, DC made like they were offering something fair, then took advantage of the artists. Moore has a right to feel "tricked."

Again, it's easy for you to say "He should just sue them." The reason more creators DON'T sue giant companies like Time-Warner and Marvel, is that it costs a fortune. Moore would have to put up a ton of legal costs himself, while the well-financed DC Comics would stall and stall, hoping Moore ran out of money. This is exactly what Marvel did to Steve Gerber, BTW. The little guy doesn't stand much chance against the giant corporation when it comes to legal matters.

 

[halfmadjesus]

I know very well Bill Fingers contribuitons. Notice my sig, Raise the Finger is in his honor. Theyre two different situations however and doesnt apply to the Alan Moore situation because Moore is getting credit for his work.

I mentioned Finger to illustrate my point that most often creative people lack business accumen, don't fully appreciate what their creations can mean to them financially, or they simply aren't in a position to be able to negotiate. And there's always someone willing to come along and take advantage, it seems. Bob Kane is no different than DC Comics in that neither was willing to do what was fair in their dealings with the people who worked for them.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

If DC were the good guys in this situation, they'd have simply said to Moore and Gibbons right up-front, "Yeah, we're gonna own this." Then Moore would have no right to gripe today. What DC DID was say,"We're going to publish this, and when it goes out of print, then you're going to own it. Won't that be swell?" And the creators said, "Yes, that sounds fine," not realizing that DC would intentionally keep the books in print forever so they wouldn't have to give up the rights.

I don't think DC kept the book in print forever just to own the rights. They simply kept on doing because they are two constantly best sellers in their TP line, and that made the books available to anyone who wanted to read them worldwide for the last 17-plus years, and provided a steady income for the creators in all this period. The contracts Moore signed were the best contract for a creator at the time (even Moore admitted it in some interviews); Gaiman who came after that had a better contract for Sandman and Ennis an even better one for Preacher.
Moore now can publish the League for any publisher he wants because he's the owner of the rights, though the book was published by Wildstorm/DC, because now it's common practice for a creator to retain the rights to the characters (or the concept in this case).
I'm wondering if Alan Moore gives part of the earnings of the League to the heirs of Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H. Rider Haggard...

 

[Morgoth]

Alan Moore, the king of comics, is at his home in Northampton, England. He's been working on a new story called "Lost Girls." Actually he's been working on it for the last 16 years, but now it's done and due out this summer as a graphic novel, illustrated by his fiancee, the artist Melinda Gebbe. It's a wild tale, even by the 52-year-old Moore's standards: Three heroines of classic children's literature — Alice from "Alice in Wonderland," Dorothy from "The Wizard of Oz" and Wendy from "Peter Pan" — meet up in London in 1913 and realize that their respective stories are actually metaphors for sexual awakening. Very erotic. Or, as Moore prefers to think of it, very pornographic.

The sex-filled "Lost Girls" may be a little too scary for Hollywood, which has heretofore adored Moore's work and turned three of his creations (the graphic novels "From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," as well as the supernatural investigator John Constantine) into very bad movies. Moore's densely complex 1987 graphic novel, "Watchmen" (illustrated by Dave Gibbons), has been banging around Hollywood for years (director Terry Gilliam was once attached to it), but has yet to be made. "V for Vendetta," however, the '80s series he did with artist David Lloyd, has — and Moore is not happy about it. He read the script and hated it and, as is now his customary practice, he's had his name taken off the movie and directed that all profits he might be due from the film be given to Lloyd instead.

Alan Moore very rarely gives interviews, but MTV News' Jennifer Vineyard spoke to him at length by phone recently about "V for Vendetta," about his Hollywood problem, about the perils of working with Johnny Depp and Sean Connery, and about his latest project.

MTV: Could you see "Lost Girls" being made into a film?

Alan Moore: I don't see how adapting it to another medium makes any sense at all. But that's me. I am a little cranky sometimes. And it wouldn't be fair of me to say no if Melinda [Gebbe] did want to see "Lost Girls" made into a film. My position is, I don't want my name on it and I don't want the money. But also, how would they get actors of any quality to appear in a hard-core sex film? We'd need Judi Dench for it, and I don't think she'd do it. But I really doubt that any of my comics can be [successfully] made into films, because that's not how I write them.

MTV: But you do have a very cinematic style.

Moore: In comics the reader is in complete control of the experience. They can read it at their own pace, and if there's a piece of dialogue that seems to echo something a few pages back, they can flip back and check it out, whereas the audience for a film is being dragged through the experience at the speed of 24 frames per second. So even for a director like Terry Gilliam, who delights in cramming background details into his movies, there's no way he'd be able to duplicate what Dave Gibbons was able to do in "Watchmen." We could place almost subliminal details in every panel, and we knew that the reader could take the time to spot everything. There's no way you could do that in a film.

I met Terry Gilliam, and he asked me, "How would you make a film of 'Watchmen'?" And I said, "Don't." I think he eventually came to agree with me that it was a film better unmade. In Hollywood you're going to have the producers and the backers putting in their ... well, I don't want to dignify them by calling them ideas, but ... having their input, shall we say. You're going to get actors who'll say they don't want to say this line or play this character like that. I mean the police inspector in "From Hell," Fred Abberline, was based on real life: He was an unassuming man in middle age who was not a heavy drinker and who, as far as I know, remained faithful to his wife throughout his entire life. Johnny Depp saw fit to play this character as an absinthe-swilling, opium-den-frequenting dandy with a haircut that, in the Metropolitan Police force in 1888, would have gotten him beaten up by the other officers.

On the other hand when I have got an opium-addicted character, in Allan Quatermain [in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"], this was true to the [original] character — he showed a fondness for drugs on several occasions. But Sean Connery didn't want to play him as a drug-addled individual. So the main part of Quatermain's character was thrown out the window on the whim of an actor. I don't have these problems in comics.

MTV: So why sell the film rights in the first place? My position used to be: If the film is a masterpiece, that has nothing to do with my book. If the film is a disaster, that has nothing to do with my book. They're two separate entities, and people will understand that. This was very naive because most people are not bothered with whether it's adapted from a book or not. And if they do know, they assume it was a faithful adaptation. There's no need to read the book if you've seen the film, right? And how many of the audience who went to see "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" thought, "Hmmm, I've really got to go read 'The Odyssey' "?

Moore: When you're talking about things like "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen," I don't have a choice. Those were works which DC Comics kind of tricked me out of, so they own all that stuff and it's up to them whether the film gets made or not. All I can do is say, "I want my name taken off of it and I don't want any of the money." I'd rather the money be distributed amongst the artists. But even though [the filmmakers] were aware that I'd asked that my name be taken off "V for Vendetta" and had already signed my money away to the artist, they issued a press release saying I was really excited about the film. Which was a lie. I asked for a retraction, but they weren't prepared to do that. So I announced I wouldn't be working with DC Comics anymore. I just couldn't bear to have any contact with DC Comics, Warner Bros. or any of this shark pool ever again.

One of the things I don't like about film is its incredible immersive quality. It's kind of bullying — it's very big, it's very flashy, it's got a lot of weight and it throws it around almost to the detriment of the rest of our culture. And I have gotten tired of lazy critics who, when they want to insult a film, they'll say it has "comic book characters" or a "comic book plot" — using "comic book" as code for "illiterate."

MTV: They've probably never read a comic book.

Moore: That's it. I'm not going to claim all comic books are literate — there's a lot of rubbish out there. But there have been some very literate comic books done over the last 20 years, some marvelous ones. And to actually read a comic, you do have to be able to read, which is not something you can say about watching a film. So as for which medium is literate, give me comics any day.

MTV: There is one possible solution, something that Neil Gaiman is now doing with his "Death: The High Cost of Living" and Frank Miller has done with "Sin City": Why not direct the films yourself?

Moore: I don't have any interest in directing films of my work. If something worked perfectly in one genre, why is there any reason to assume it's going to work as well or better in another genre that it wasn't designed for? I've not seen "Ghost World," but I've been told it's very good. I've not been told that it's better than the comic.

MTV: What about something that is true to the spirit of the original work, like "The Lord of the Rings"?

Moore: CGI makes me spit vitriol and bile and venom. When it comes to films, give me someone like [surrealist filmmaker] Jean Cocteau. When he wants to have somebody reaching into a mirror, he spends all of about five dollars on the special effect: He gets a tray, fills it with mercury and then turns the camera on its side. That is poetry. That is magic.

I have a theory, which has not let me down so far, that there is an inverse relationship between imagination and money. Because the more money and technology that is available to [create] a work, the less imagination there will be in it. My favorite films are those that were made on a shoestring. And they weren't adaptations of some other work, they were original pieces of cinema. All right, [Cocteau's] "La Belle Et La Bête" is an adaptation of "Beauty and the Beast" — but it was made into something very different. And I mean, John Waters, his early films, they're terrific! Because he was making them with some friends of his from Baltimore, with whatever cheap film stock he could borrow or steal. George Romero, in "Dawn of the Dead," "Day of the Dead," all the rest of them, he ingeniously used the fact that he had almost no budget to his advantage — claustrophobic sets, everyone's trapped in the cellar and the zombies are trying to dig their way in. Very inexpensive, incredibly powerful. That is where cinema really works for me.

If you give me a typewriter and I'm having a good day, I can write a scene that will astonish its readers. That will perhaps make them laugh, perhaps make them cry — that will have some emotional clout to it. It doesn't cost much to do that. But if you said, "Astonish the audience," and you gave me a quarter of a million — well, my auntie could astonish an audience if she got that much money! Real art and the things that actually change our culture tend to happen on the margins. They don't happen in the middle of a big marquee.

MTV: But couldn't there ever be an exception? And since you haven't seen it, couldn't "V for Vendetta" be that exception?

Moore: I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

George Clooney's being attacked for making ["Good Night, and Good Luck"], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it's not illegal — not yet anyway — to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked.

It's nice to hear from a comics writer/creator how movie makers ruin these comics by changing them and losing the characters.

You see it so obviously in Constantine, how do you turn a blonde Brit into Keanu? And all of the X-men characters are mere shadows of who they really are.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

There's an interesting exchange up at the Newsarama boards between Don Murphy (producer of "From Hell" and "The League of extraodinary Gentlemen" and not the sanest person on Earth according to many) and Rich Johnston, of Lying in the gutters fame, friend of Alan Moore. It's nice reading about two opposite (and close) point of views on Alan and the adaptations of his work.
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64938&perpage=25&pagenumber=5

 

[halfmadjesus]

I don't think DC kept the book in print forever just to own the rights. They simply kept on doing because they are two constantly best sellers in their TP line, and that made the books available to anyone who wanted to read them worldwide for the last 17-plus years, and provided a steady income for the creators in all this period. The contracts Moore signed were the best contract for a creator at the time (even Moore admitted it in some interviews); Gaiman who came after that had a better contract for Sandman and Ennis an even better one for Preacher.
Moore now can publish the League for any publisher he wants because he's the owner of the rights, though the book was published by Wildstorm/DC, because now it's common practice for a creator to retain the rights to the characters (or the concept in this case).
I'm wondering if Alan Moore gives part of the earnings of the League to the heirs of Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H. Rider Haggard...

Those works/characters are in the public domain, I believe.

You are right in stating that other creators benefitted from the dealings between Moore and DC. Alan Moore had the misfortune of being a pioneer in the creator ownership/TPB/rights arena. Which is, unfortunately, why he got screwed - and why other creators looked to him as an example and didn't make the same mistakes.

Yes, from what I understand, the deal Moore agreed to at the time - we publish it, it goes out of print, you own it in a year - was a standard creator ownership deal. In pretty much all cases, the creators who signed that deal received ownership of their creations because their work DID go out of print. The success of Watchmen and V ended up biting Moore in the ass. However, I don't necessarily agree that DC kept both titles in continuous publication simply because the demand required it - they did so to retain the rights. There's a lot of copies of both books out there. The audience for Watchmen and V - while always steady - is small relative to other mainstream publications. These are comics, remember. At any point, DC could have printed enough to supply demand for a long, long time. Except maybe now, where V is in high demand due to the movie. While I'm sure both Watchmen and V have been perennial sellers since the 80's, it's not like DC was blowing through copies year-after-year, faster than they could keep up with the demand. When copies started running out, DC automatically went back to press, regardless of whether or not there were a bunch of standing orders waiting for that new printing. And they did it to retain the rights.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Those works/characters are in the public domain, I believe.

So what? Is Alan allowed to use the characters as he likes (the Invisible Man as a raper, or Alice having lesbain sex with Peter Pan's Wendy) for free, while nobody can adapt (even well, in the case of the V movie) his works paying him, without him to be moaning?

You are right in stating that other creators benefitted from the dealings between Moore and DC. Alan Moore had the misfortune of being a pioneer in the creator ownership/TPB/rights arena. Which is, unfortunately, why he got screwed - and why other creators looked to him as an example and didn't make the same mistakes.

The point is I don't think he got screwed, like Jack Kirby or Bill Finger or Siegel and Shuster.
I don't like saying good things about corporations, but DC acted fair with its creators in the last 20 years. They gave money to the creators of the stories that helped inspire "Batman begins" (Miller, Loeb,..) even if they didn't have too. And as I said, the latest contract concerning work on original characters often enables creators to keep ownership on them.
Moore signed the best contract at the time, and DC is just sticking to it.
Being a magician, he could have been more insightful. (I know he wasn't into magic at the time)