Alan Moore "not thrilled" about HBO's Watchmen, Damon Lindelof says "fuck you, I'm doing it anyway"
Aux Features TV
Newly retired comic writer Alan Moore has always had a prickly relationship with adaptations of his work, either because he doesn’t like people messing with his creations or because the adaptations of his work have almost all been terrible, but he’s never really had a leg to stand on when it comes to these adaptations since most of the famous stuff he worked on is fully owned by DC Comics—like Watchmen and V For Vendetta, not to mention Superman and Swamp Thing. Still, HBO apparently thought it would be worthwhile to try and get his input on its upcoming Watchmen sequel thing, with HBO’s president of programming Casey Bloys noting that Moore is “not thrilled” with the adaptation at a recent Television Critics Association presentation.
However, that response isn’t going to sway Damon Lindelof, the showrunner on HBO’s series, because he says rejecting the original creator’s intentions with a creation is actually just in keeping with everything Alan Moore is about. Here’s a quote, via Entertainment Weekly:
I do feel like the spirit of Alan Moore is a punk rock spirit, a rebellious spirit, and that if you would tell Alan Moore, a teenage Moore in ’85 or ’86, “You’re not allowed to do this because Superman’s creator or Swamp Thing’s creator doesn’t want you to do it,” he would say, “Fuck you, I’m doing it anyway.” So I’m channeling the spirit of Alan Moore to tell Alan Moore, “Fuck you, I’m doing it anyway.”
He also says that he doesn’t think he’s “made peace” with Moore’s rejection of the new show, but he will respect Moore request to not be associated with the project in any way. Lindelof also says he “went through a very intense period of terror of fucking it up,” and while he’s not sure that won’t happen, he does say that he had to distance himself from his appreciation for the original Watchmen story in order to be willing to “take risks” with it.
We’ll see how this all works out when Watchmen hits HBO in October.
208 Comments
Well Alan Moore is a genius and Lindelof is a fucking hack who can’t write, so.
Of course he can write. His success rate is about the same as Moore’s.
It most certainly is not. Moore has not written anything not worth reading Lindloff has at least given us Lost and Wolverine Vs. Hulk, which are both much worse than Moore’s worst.That being said, after the Leftovers, I am really looking forward to this.
Moore hasn’t written anything worth reading? Seriously?
Read my words more carefully
You should write more carefully. That double negat1ie “not not” is… kinda awkward.
In the context of the string to which I was responding, it made sense.
To be clear, I said the opposite.
The Leftovers is amazing so I don’t know what you are on about.
Yeah. After Lost ended I hoped to run into him on the street so I could spit on him. After The Leftovers I love him.
So, spit on him, and then give him a hug.
In that case, split the difference and give him a hug, but one that lasts just a mite too long and leaves him feeling rather uncomfortable and awkward.
Either Prometheus or Into Darkness I’m guessing
I’m far from Lindelof’s biggest backer, but the bigger piece of damage done with Into Darkness was arguably care of noted 9/11 Truther Roberto Orci’s contributions.
The Leftovers was a good show, but not because of Lindelof. If you read behind the scenes stuff, you will see that Tom Perrotta’s job was basically to stop Lindelof from actually going ahead with his wild ideas. And Lindelof’s truly had stupid ideas for the ending of the show.
Lindelof was the show runner of what is arguably the best television show of the 2010’s.
The Leftovers was amazing. And it only got really good after they left the original novel behind.
I’ve never been a fan of Lindelof and don’t plan on watching this show, but it’s hard to disagree with him given the existence of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
What made you dislike him? Lost? Star Trek? The Leftovers?
Moore has no control over any of his most popular work. It was all work for hire. He’s actually quite lucky that the owners of theses properties, usually DC, give him producer level residuals because I can’t see where they would be contractually obligated to do so. I’d not fault him, or any human being, for disowning TLEG, but he has still taken money from all these, generally horrible, adaptations of his work. The comic book industry sucks in regards to the rights to your own work. When it’s being adapted to another medium you just have to hope that the companies involved want to monetarily acknowledge you with more than just a credit.
No. It wasn’t all work for hire. ‘Watchmen’ was done under a deal that gave him royalties, so was ‘LoEG’ (which wasn’t created for DC—it was created for Wildstorm, which was later acquired by DC). He doesn’t have creative control over the film adaptations, but they do have to pay him for them.Or, in the case of his film adaptations, they have to pay his co-creators. Moore doesn’t take money for those.
Actually, he has not taken money. He has usually given his share to the artists with whom he worked.
Have you seen the Leftovers?
Point of order – Did we expect Alan Moore to be tickled pink by this?
To the tune of that Ink Spots song! Doodeedoodeedoo!
Alan Moore laughing with delight is one of the seven seals.
Pretending that Alan Moore is actively targeting them is the only way these Watchmen properties can pretend they are doing something subversive.
“Pretending that Alan Moore is actively targeting them is” not in any way what they’re doing. At all.
I don’t think we expected anything beyond what we got. There’s zero chance that Moore would ever be on board with a Watchmen adaptation, no matter what. Some of that is anger because he doesn’t have the rights because DC won’t let them revert, and some of it is the standard stuff we’ve heard from Moore about his other adaptations over the years.I liked the movie because I’d never read the comics, and it spurred me to do so. The comics are that much more brilliant through the reverse lens of seeing the movie first.
It would be shocking and subversive if he WEREN’T irritated by it. As in, I’d think he had lost his mind.
This is like when people ask Steve Albini his opinion on indie bands signing up for major labels just so there can be another round of “ALBINI LASHES OUT AT SONIC YOUTH: ‘I THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD IDEA’” headlines. Except this time they don’t even have a public statement from Moore, just the HBO guy’s characterization of his opinion. If people don’t want to hear Moore criticize adaptations of his work, they should stop asking him.
I was going to make a little flip joke about we get Alan Moore and Micheal Moorcock on a panel then just let them rage about suits trying to cash in on their intellectual capital… Then I came across this gem. If you’re interested in the creative process, it’s a watch.
Alan Moore created Watchmen as a work for hire for DC Comics and he can read and understand contracts. (It’s also made him rich enough that he and his beard can do whatever they want for the rest of their lives, including no longer create comics, which he recently announced was his new career direction.)
Nearly all of his content since then, outside of America’s Best Comics, has been using other creators’ out-of-copyright characters without their permission in ways they almost certainly would disagree with.
Who gives a shit what he thinks?
Even America’s Best Comics are reinventions of pre-existing concepts like Doc Savage, Wonder Woman, Plastic Man and Hill Street Blues.
And almost all the Watchmen characters are basically stand-ins for the Charlton Comics characters they intended to use but instead just incorporated into the mainstream DC universe. So even these iconic Watchmen characters were just Moore’s spin on Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, the Question, etc…
And the Spirit. I mean, if he feels like he can knock off Eisner . . .
He just said he doesn’t like it. If some random dork on the internet is going to put his opinion on Watchmen out there I’m not sure why the creator shouldn’t.
Oh hey neat another example of the meaningless things I am expected to be angry about. It’s just so fucking tired at this point.
Also in a huge bit of irony Moore’s original pitch for Watchmen was using existing characters DC had recently purchased from the defunct Charlton Comics. DC liked the story but wouldn’t let him use the characters so Moore went off and created new ones. DC’s rationale was that they thought Moore’s story was too extreme and had potential to ruin the value of the characters they had just purchased (which included known names like the Blue Beetle and the Question). So Moore, at the time, had zero compunction about taking existing characters and wildly re-interpreting them in new ways their creators obviously didn’t imagine yet now has a huge problem with others doing the same thing to his work.
(1) He had every reason to believe the rights would revert to him at some point based on his contract. It was much more successful than either party expected and that was not taken into account. (2) There is a huge difference between a critical reimagining and re-evaluation of characters and simply doing a sequel/prequel to existing work.
THANK you. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen similar sentiments offered as if they’re profound. “Derrrr Alan Moore said he doesn’t want a sequel to Watchmen but his characters were based on Charlton characters so he is a HYPOCRITE!!!!”Ditto for trying to draw comparisons with his League of Public Domain Gentlemen work and so forth. As if he seriously intends you to think that those books are *sequels* to Dracula and so forth. Such basic-ass thinking.
He’s just pissed that the new guy gets to re-use the existing characters, when he couldn’t way back then.
Someone should kick your tiny balls into your intestines
I do! When someone interprets another Creative Person’s work (whether it’s the MCU interpreting decades of comic book history, a band covering someone else’s work, a book being adapted into a movie, etc.), the original Creative Person has every right to weigh in. It doesn’t mean that they are contractually obligated to do so, or that they must like it. But the oCP knows the original intent, and had the vision. If they think that aCP takes the work into a direction that is different than intended, that provides us consumers a lot of context/understanding.Sorry if you only want to appreciate things on a superficial level, but others among us like to know the story behind shows/books/music/movies/musicals/theater/etc. These things are created by people, and those peoples’ lives inform the work.
yeah wonder what JM Barrie and L. Frank Baum would think of the Lost Girls.
..not sure about them two but Lewis Caroll would probably have gotten very excited then have to have retired to his room for a lie down.
“Why didn’t I think of having Peter Pan and Captain Hook swordfight with their dicks???”
Because at the time he wrote Watchmen, pretty much all comic work was work for hire. He had a clause in the contract that after DC stopped publishing Watchmen the rights would revert to him and Dave Gibbons, which would have been huge: a mainstream comic company allowing the creators to have complete control over their creations with an established company producing and distributing them. He had already done great work for DC in revitalizing characters that sold poorly like Swamp Thing and he was pitching them on crossover events that would have been huge (Twilight of the Superheroes). He probably would have kept writing for them for years if they gave him just a modicum of respect and leeway.But instead DC never stopped publishing Watchmen in one form or another, so they never had to give up their control. They made and sold merchandise based on the series and classified it as “promotional material” to avoid paying him royalties. After it sold and sold and kept selling, they never re-visited the contract, screwing him out of a ton of money. Granted, this is all 100% legal and within their rights but it is also incredibly short sighted. They essentially took one of the hottest writers of the decade into their stable and, after knowing he’d been screwed over by rights issues before (turns out no one was really sure who owned Miracleman’s rights, and 2000AD also required any and all rights to be owned by them), screwed him over with rights issues for an immediate payday over the promise of many more paydays.
So sure, fuck him for still chiming in every time he’s asked about how he feels seeing his popular work being re-done without his input and without getting anything for it after he signed those rights away before he wrote it. But fuck DC/WB for continuing to use his original vision in increasingly derivative ways because they know it’ll turn a profit despite how shitty it is.
There’s nothing funnier than comic fans thinking toadying corporate interests is some sort of subversive stance.
This has been my case for years, almost all of his most popular work was adapting other people’s shit.Then he throws a hissy fit every time someone adapts one of his comics because apparently HIS work is sacrosanct and untouchable?I love Watchmen, but yeah, fuck him somewhat.
Alan Moore created Watchmen as a work for hire for DC Comics and he can read and understand contracts.According to the WP entry, it’s not so simple: Not wanting to work under a work for hire arrangement, Moore and Gibbons had a reversion clause in their contract for Watchmen. Speaking at the 1985 San Diego Comic-Con, Moore said: “The way it works, if I understand it, is that DC owns it for the time they’re publishing it, and then it reverts to Dave and me, so we can make all the money from the Slurpee cups.” For Watchmen, Moore and Gibbons received eight percent of the series’ earnings. Moore explained in 1986 that his understanding was that when “DC have not used the characters for a year, they’re ours.”But because the original GN has been in print continuously for 30 years, Moore and Gibbons never got the rights back. This was completely unprecedented at that time; the intent was that DC would either publish new Watchmen material or let it revert. It’s what you might call catastrophic success,
I know about that quote from Moore, but Gibbon’s has stated in interviews that he never expected to get the rights back, and understood that at the time he signed the contract. So either Moore was being very naive when he signed the contract, or he changed his story later when he had his falling out with DC.
Somewhere at DC’s legal department there’s someone with a yearly Outlook reminder telling them to release Watchmen in some form.
Given what a big seller it is — it’s even taught at a number of colleges, meaning a need to have a supply of paperbacks always in print — I don’t think there’s a reminder needed.
Also, his works are not simply sequels/prequels. They involve a lot more critical re-evaluation and the characters are used in service of deeper ideas.
Among those deeper ideas: “I bet Dorothy Gale would be great in the sack.”
We’re not your therapist.
Nearly all of his content since then, outside of America’s Best Comics, has been using other creators’ out-of-copyright characters without their permission in ways they almost certainly would disagree with.And he’s been very clear that once he dies, his right to weigh in on how people use his characters should not be extended to his descendants because at that point it becomes part of the general culture. His issue is and always has been with disrespecting living creators’ expressed wishes like Lindelof does here.It always amazes me how many people make up a stance for him, then accuse him of being hypocritical for adhering to it.
“Who gives a shit what he thinks?”I’m guessing the studio executives that reached out to him specifically to ask him what he thinks, which is the only reason we’re talking about this right now anyway?
My view on adaptation is that while you aren’t required to adapt the text verbatim, you should have an appreciation of the text that shows you understand it.Compare the Wachowski’s V for Vendetta to Zach Snyder’s Watchman. The former made a lot of changes to both the story and political commentary, changing it from Thatcher’s UK to Bush’s America, but still shows that the filmmakers comprehend the themes of the source material. The latter on the other hand takes the comic and copy/pastes the text of the source material while demonstrating only a surface level understanding of it. I don’t know which category Lindeloff’s Watchmen will fall under but I hope it’s the former over the latter.
I believe Snyder (and the screenwriters) understands the source material, albeit filtered through his objectivist leanings. It is just that his directorial habit of making everything look as “cool” and “badass” as possible gets in the way.
If you are an Objectivist and you like “Watchmen” I’m not sure you really understand the source material or they revel in the presentation of people who hold their beliefs as sociopaths.
“filtered through his objectivist leanings” yeah turns out adapting a left-wing text through (incoherent, from the interviews I’ve read) right-wing Randian bullshit does not a coherent or particularly interesting thought make.
“I believe Snyder (and the screenwriters) understands the source material, albeit filtered through his objectivist leanings,” — This seems barely possible unless the movie was intended as a direct rebuttal to Moore, which doesn’t seem like what he was going for.
“Ah, this character illustrates why my philosophy is wildly impractical, often dangerous on the ground, and the province of weird smelly loners. Let’s faithfully recreate that.”
If Snyder understood the material then he intentionally subverted it and made its antithesis. Seeing as I don’t think Snyder is smart enough to do that intentionally, my assumption is that he didn’t understand the source material.
No. He really didn’t. His changes to Rorschach make that perfectly clear. In the comics, Rorschach is a homicidal lunatic who indiscriminately kills people because of a revelation he had that there is no moral order to the universe, and therefore anything he does is just and right. He’s not a good guy, he’s a serial killer who happens to stumble onto a conspiracy straight out of his fever dreams and immediately tries to punch it.In the movie, all of that is gone. Rorschach is a quintessential movie tough guy, his attacks are always justified by the badness of his enemies (the “I’ve just broken this man’s little finger” scene is gone) and his revelation is just that some people are too terrible to be allowed to live, which is standard and par for the course for cinematic vigilantes.The whole point of ‘Watchmen’ is that heroism isn’t black and white, that it’s complex and murky and sometimes it leads people down terrible pathways. The point of Snyder’s film is that Ozymandias is creating a nanny state and he needs to get his comeuppance in the last scene.
The point of Snyder’s film is that Ozymandias is creating a nanny state and he needs to get his comeuppance in the last scene.and then they completely beefed that, replacing the ‘Nothing ever ends’ scene with a tirade by Dreiburg that, God love him, just feels really awkward coming from Patrick Wilson and Matthew Goode just seems completely checked out during.
It’s going to suck, LOL
My view on adaptation is that while you aren’t required to adapt the text verbatim, you should have an appreciation of the text that shows you understand it.I think this might be a generally laudable perspective, but there are plenty of examples of adaptations that took the bones of the original and did something totally different with them. The former approach might please die-hard fans of the original, while the latter might please people who don’t care as much about faithfulness or people who don’t even know the original material. I’m not sure that any one of those perspectives is necessarily the best one in all cases.
Like most of Alan Moore’s work.
But the Wachowskis and McTeigue didn’t understand “V.” For one thing, they abandoned the idea that Norsefire killed all of the non-white, non-straight, non-Christian people they could find. The victims of the camp where V was experimented upon were not random dissidents. They were the most marginalized members of society and they were treated no better than the Nazis treated their experimental subjects. Creating a Bush’s America equivalent didn’t work because in doing so they softened the nature of the government in the story. Moore’s England isn’t a friendly authoritarianism; it’s a fascist dictatorship. They also turned a country suffering privation worse than World War II into a fairly comfortable market economy. Evey works in a match factory or something in the comic. She’s undernourished. She makes so little money that the first chapter begins with her making herself as pretty as possible, in hopes of selling herself on the street.For another thing, they don’t understand V, the character, at all. He’s not heroic, even in a misguided way. He’s determined to take down the system that tortured him and killed Valerie, there in the camp. He starts that on a personal level. After escaping, he tracks down and kills over 200 people who worked in the camp, down to cooks and janitors, making them look random to cover his tracks. When he steps into the spotlight, he kills those who ran the camp in extremely personal, painful, traumatic ways that are meant to send a message to the government. That message is not “We’re going to stop you and put a better government in your place.” It’s “Anarchy in the UK!”
No, they completely misunderstood the V material. The movie was “governments are evil.” The comic was “you people are evil for allowing your government to get this way.”
Still waiting to see whos gonna have the stones to attempt an adaption of Lost Girls.
Moore + Lindelof = Hard Pass
I just hope they can hug it out once the money starts rolling in.
Is there any reason to believe that Moore will even see a cut of this show?
Really? Then maybe Lindelof will just have to hug himself. Again.
As I recall, they were going to pay him for Beyond Watchmen, or whatever they called that book, and Moore was going to give the money to homeless shamans or some shit instead of taking it. I suspect he contractually gets a piece of all subsidiary works.
And then he gives that money to his collaborators or to charity.
He won’t, but that’s by choice—he’s already said on multiple occasions that he hates the adaptations and doesn’t want to see a dime from them. He gives his share of the royalties to Dave Gibbons.Who he’s no longer on speaking terms with, as I understand it, because DC kept using Gibbons as a go-between to try to get Moore to give his blessing to the spin-offs and sequels and Gibbons wouldn’t stop bringing it up even when Moore told him he’d never speak to him again if he did. Being Alan Moore is complicated. 🙂
Which one is making the hard pass?I need to know for fanfic reasons.
Imagine being a middle aged millionaire and thinking you were”punk rock” because Alan Moore said you were a vapid hack.
A real punk would spit on Moore for being old and Lindelof for being rich.
A real punk wouldn’t even be a punk because being a punk means you’re conforming to being a punk!
*Kicks self to death with Doc Martins*
Sell out.
I built my own combat boots out of duct tape.
So… the only real punks are squares, but squares aren’t punk, so the only real punks are punks, but people who conform to being a “punk” are squares, so—*smoke shoots out of ears*
“Dude, are you being sarcastic?”
“…I don’t even know anymore.”
Imagine creating the 2nd best show of all time and people calling you a vapid hack.
Leftovers is the second best show of all time? I haven’t seen it, but man, it has to then beat most of the following list (just of modern great shows):The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Terror, Band of Brothers, Fargo, The Americans, and The Shield.If this is the case I should probably watch it finally.
It’s not the second best (Sopranos is, with The Wire at #1, duh), but it’s easily in the running for top 10 and you should definitely check it out. Keep in mind that the first season is much more polarising than the second and third ones.
offtopic but “The Terror” was fecking amazing and didnt get enough praise at all.
Seriously one of my favorite series ever. I was hooked by the acting and writing throughout in a way I rarely am anymore.
2nd behind The Wire, yes.
I mean, for my money the Wire doesn’t actually crack my personal top 3 but fair enough.
It’s on par with Fargo and The Americans. But those perfectly good shows aren’t on the top of an all-time list either. Which is okay, there have been tens of thousands of TV shows.
I don’t think I’ve seen enough older TV to make a definitive list (though Twilight might be a top 10 for me). What would yours look like?
Id throw Saul and Mad Men in a top 10 as well.
I’ll put Fargo over The Sopranos or The Wire any day of the week.
#classicmoore
he also calls this statement clickbait in the very quote. the thing i respect about the show (that it’s doing its own thing) is ironically also the same reason i won’t be checking it out.
Yeah I thought it was funny they ended the quote where they did.
“I do feel like the spirit of Alan Moore is a punk rock spirit, a rebellious spirit, and that if you would tell Alan Moore, a teenage Moore in ’85 or ’86..”Alan Moore was 33 when Watchmen was released in 1986, Damon. And that punk rock spirit was actually a thoughtful critique of the encroachment of fascism in America during the 20th century using superhero tropes. It had that vibrant energy not because it was rebellious but because Moore had a fully developed political belief system that didn’t stop at “superheros would be kinda scary in real life, huh!”Oh Lord, this is going to be some “All Lives Matter” spin on Watchmen, isn’t it. Some centrist garbage where Antifa goes too far.
Lindelof didn’t articulate himself properly, but I agree with his perspective. Moore (regardless of age) made his career by tinkering with established properties, either directly (Swamp Thing, LEOG) or indirectly (Watchmen, Supreme.) He has every right to not want to be involved, and every right to exoress disappointment in the end product, but I hope some part of him understands the parallels between his work and what’s being done here. At the very least, I hope he’d rather see this sort of wild re-imagining that (hopefully) captures the original’s spirit as preferable to the 2009 slavish visual transfer that completely missed the point.
He’s always been very clear that if Wein or Siegel and Shuster or Mick Anglo had ever asked him to stop, he would have. In fact, the one complaint he doesn’t have is with Marvel reprinting Marvelman–they went to Mick Anglo, they compensated him for his work, that’s pretty much the end of it as far as he’s concerned even if he doesn’t want his name on a Marvel comic for unrelated reasons. He would never have responded to a living creator directly saying, “Please do not do this comic” with “Fuck you, I’m doing it anyway,” and it’s deeply insulting of Lindelof to suggest that he would.
That would just make any umbrage on Moore’s part all the more delicious.
fucking what? literally nothing lindelof has ever made would lead you to believe he is a centrist or against antifa
Saying this might be some #AllLivesMatter nonsense is a wild leap in logic. I’m not quite sure how you got there, beyond blindly assuming Lindelof has nothing thoughtful to say about the Watchmen.
The Leftovers was an insanely intense, weird and thoughtful show that went way beyond the book and FOR SURE wasn’t centrist, watered down bullshit. Jesus. I know everyone hates Lost and Prometheus, but he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.
The only reason I can see one might jump to that conclusion is the Rorschachs (or whatever they’re called in the TV series) attacking the cops, leading the cops to put on masks.
But like Laurie says right after that, a cop in a mask is identical to a vigilante.
I suspect they’re ultimately going to have a similar point of view to the original work.
Yeah so the trailer and Comicon panel from t’other day included details that those masked cops we keep getting shown are masked to protect themselves, and a nugget about a very liberal president’s policies being failures as a major feature of the story.
You toss that in with Lindelof being a pretty shitty writer, who’s only done one thing people tend to take as unequivocally good. And I think there’s fairly good reason to suspect we’re about to watch some one attempt to do the “both sides” thing to fairly disastrous results.
What a ridiculous, baseless assumption.
“Alan Moore was 33 when Watchmen was released in 1986, Damon.”
He wasn’t talking about when Moore created Watchmen, he’s talking about the man in general. And he’s not wrong. At all.“Oh Lord, this is going to be some “All Lives Matter” spin on Watchmen, isn’t it. Some centrist garbage where Antifa goes too far.” Oh Lord, you’re a moron, aren’t you?
Alan Moore was 33 when Watchmen was released in 1986, Damon.Damon knows this. He doesn’t think Alan Moore was 18 at the time. It’s clunky phrasing.
If nothing else, going by the trailer the main targets of the Watchmen series would seem to be unaccountable and out-of-control authoritarian law enforcement versus the alt-right.
Because having a punk rock spirit isn’t about fighting fascism? I don’t think you know what a punk rock spirit is.
It’s not?
Apparently there are skinheads/neo-nazis hunting cops in this adaptation, instead of actually being cops, so you’re probably more right than a bunch of commentors will give you credit for.
Antifa doesn’t go nearly far enough. They should assault MORE gay journalists!
Going with what Bob said. I think Lindelof meant that he was a teenager at the time and he was imagining if Moore was in his shoes.
There is no universe in all the multiverse in which Alan Moore would be thrilled with anything.
I think he enjoys his subscription to Scraggly Beard Magazine.
Having met Alan Moore a couple of times, I know his deep, dark secret. The secret that, if it got out, would utterly ruin him and leave his reputation in tatters.That secret is… he’s actually very pleasant and quite charming in an odd way.
Meh, Moore kept his name off the movie’s credits, so you expect him to become less of a grumpy old fart with a decade gone by?Hey HBO: how ‘bout striking out and adapting some SF that till now hasn’t made the cut? Tackle Dan Simmons’ Hyperion—those novels could be another Game of Thrones if handled right.
I love everything about this
“You’re not allowed to do this because Superman’s creator or Swamp Thing’s creator doesn’t want you to do it,” he would say, “Fuck you, I’m doing it anyway.”I’m willing to bet that Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson thought Alan Moore’s Swamp Thing was pretty damned great because (1) it was pretty damned great and (2) it showed a real understanding of what the title was about. I have my doubts that Lindelof can bring either to Watchmen.
Moore wrote pornographic stories about Dorothy Gale (of the Oz stories), Alice of Wonderland, and Wendy from Peter Pan having lots of sex in his series “Lost Girls”. He actually met his wife via the series (she was the artist on the project!) While Wein approved of Moore’s work on “Swamp Thing” I really doubt the authors of the children’s stories would be okay with Moore’s use of their characters. All of which is to say, he can certainly be unhappy about the characters or world being used for future stories, but he’s done that kind of thing A LOT.
A better contemporary example would be to ask JK Rowling how she feels about Moore portraying Harry Potter as a lunatic shooting lightning from his penis.
What book is that in? That’s amazing. I lost track of Moore after the America’s Best Comics stuff (which I really liked.)
LOEG. I want to say Volume 3?
Correct
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Century: 2009.
It’s part of that Baby Boomer “Everything that happened after I was a child is stupid” attitude.
You know it’s odd, given Century features loving depictions of everyone from Malcolm Tucker through to Andrew Norton. Not liking Harry Potter or James Bond as a cultural entity isn’t exactly comparable to hating all fiction beyond a certain point.
What.
The copyright holders of Peter Pan, a children’s hospital, were furious. In the UK and Europe Peter Pan wasn’t Public domain. Moore, however, didn’t care about the copyright holder or author’s original intent which are sacrosanct when it comes to his characters.
Lewis Carroll would probably not have minded. Unfortunately.
If you haven’t finished The Leftovers then you shouldn’t be voicing your doubts about what Lindelof can bring to Watchmen.
“I’m willing to bet that Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson thought Alan Moore’s Swamp Thing was pretty damned great”
Well, at least you completely missed the point.
“but he’s never really had a leg to stand on when it comes to these adaptations since most of the famous stuff he worked on is fully owned by DC Comics”I mean… There arepiles of stuff to read and examine regarding watchmen. It’s also fair to say that DC did him dirty and it’s not so neat as workforhire corporate defenders would like it to be.
I’m wondering if Moore has actually seen any of the new show, or he just hates that it exists.
Or if he even gives a shit either way. My guess is no.
FWIW In the introduction to “Saga of the Swamp Thing Book 1” Len Wein recounts specifically recruiting Moore, who in turn asked if he could make changes to the character.
Why do people seek out his opinion on stuff like this? When was the last time he didn’t just grumble through his wizard beard about no one doing his adaptations right? I guess grumble takes generate clicks?
How little the world would lose if Damon Lindelof sunk to the bottom of the Mariana Trench
I wonder if Alan Moore has even weighed in on this.The genesis of this seems to be something reported by The Wrap and reblogged a zillion times across comic and TV industry sites.Alan Moore, whose popular graphic novel “Watchmen” will provide the basis for an HBO drama created by Damon Lindelof, is “not thrilled” about the new project, HBO programming president Casey Bloys said Wednesday.That’s not a surprise: Moore has famously opposed attempts to adapt his work for the screen. Asked if Moore has changed his stance, Bloys said no.“I think that remains the case. That he’s not thrilled,” Bloys said in a Television Critics Association Q&A.Bloys added that Moore isn’t consulting on the show. Again, no surprise.“I think that remains the case”? Did Bloys even talk to Moore? I haven’t been able to find anything with more detail or a larger context than this. Yeah, it’s pretty easy to assume that Moore won’t be happy (he never is), but Lindelof is reacting to words Bloys may have put in Moore’s mouth.
Get the fuck outta here with your ‘research’ and ‘journalistic standards’ you piece of crap. This is the AV Club. What we like around here is hearsay and uninformed opinion.
“..you spoke to him about the technicalities of the deal in German?” “..yes.” “So what’s the German for thirty percent?”
And then Peter O’Hanrahanrahan went on to write multi award winning plays and films.
The world is very strange.
It’s a tabloid blog, not journalism. If I wanted facts I’d shoot up heroin, I’m here to hear about Batboy and his love affair with anal fetish aliens.
It’s been a minute, I guess we were due for one of these periods of “Does Alan Moore still not like it?” Like all internet conversations, it takes the maximalist point that Alan Moore must hate everyone instead of just not like this. I have been disappointed in the turn of the past few years that’s gone from he’s a grumpy old grouch to screw him!Even the pedants that he was did the same to Charlton characters and the like are weirdly not pedant enough. A living creator’s known wishes are different than old characters who are in public domain, even if we can guess about what Lewis Carroll wanted and the like. As though that’s one to one equivalence. I haven’t kept up, I did think Moore’s Harry Potter analogue the last I read was mostly lazy—I think Moore has been overindulgent for quit a while—but who knows if Rowling or her people spoke? Big Numbers was about Mandlebrot and it got back to Moore that Mandlebrot didn’t want to be associated with comics so he reworked the project. I think the disappointment is always that in the face of a living creator’s wishes so many other creators say anything other than the actual “but I want to.”
I’ve worked for hire. Even if you have a ton of control over what the end product looks like, it’s not your work. An established professional, which is what Moore was by the point he negotiated his Watchmen contract, knows that.
Him being precious over what happens with Watchmen is ridiculous — far worse has been done to other work for hire characters, including by Moore himself.
He is a great writer, no argument. But so are a lot of his contemporaries in the DC/Vertigo British Invasion of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and none of them have had the same freakouts he has when toys — that he never owned — got touched by other creators later on.
Should Moore have gotten the same deference from DC as Neil Gaiman appears to have consistently gotten? Probably. But since none of us were in the room back in the day, I suspect there’s more to how it shook out with Moore versus how it went for Gaiman or Grant Morrison or Warren Ellis or Garth Ennis and the like than we know.
But it’s worth noting that even Ellis, who is not shy with his cranky opinions, has a lot less problem with DC than Moore ever did.
It’s not impossible that part of the issue is Moore.
At the end of the day I guess I’m reacting to some of the tone that pops up like he’s just an
ungrateful crank. I don’t find it ridiculous that he’s stuck to his
stance when approached—and that’s what it is, his work, continuing to
ring out and captivate so we return to it. And he’s approached and he says no and because he says no, don’t keep my name on that’s a freak out? Naw.I read a periodic articles where he says he still doesn’t want to be associated and that’s it. Even this one—”not thrilled” is the closest thing to a quote that we have. That’s nothing. In the meantime, because he knows how hard it is to work in comics, Moore has directed work that he might’ve gotten and pay to his collaborators. He can’t stop it, it isn’t stopped. He gets his name removed, that’s kind of it. Moore actually is kinda of shy with his cranky opinions now, it’s the project and these kinda articles dredging it up. Damon Lindelhof says what he says and here we are. Here’s another Lindelhof quote from the Entertainment Weekly article:“That’s clickbait, guys! Clickbait!”
While I would never argue that Moore doesn’t have every right to disassociate himself from projects that are based on his work for hire stuff, there’s a certain hypocrisy in that a ton of his work was based on pillaging characters that were public domain and changing them entirely from the original authors’ intention.
I suppose I find hypocrisy too strong—which aren’t a hundred percent supportive or anything—since I do think the wishes of the living are different than those are dead authors and that’s usually the work that’s pointed to. I suppose I don’t know of him doing otherwise, and I don’t know of anyone asking him explicitly, “when you’re dead, do you mind?” And again, all that he’s done is disassociate himself as you said, he hasn’t stopped it, he’s pattered some rain on the parade when he’s been approached. The fact that he’s not actually climbing on a soapbox shouting this stance, it’s been reportage of him when approached not blessing these new works, the flack is out of proportion I think, and the contortion of punk rock Lindelhof’s reasoning indicates there’s more than one more to take all that’s happened and the industry. These creators are hurt they don’t have his blessing just like fans are, because it complicates not just the work but the consumption of the work. sure, what did Lost Girls manage to say that Top Ten and Smax didn’t? I think his golligwog is the worst of it, let alone his Harry Potter stuff (live author!), but most of the criticism is asking for consideration or a pause, it’s asking for everything for nothing at all. And if he’s a hypocrite then he’s a hypocrite who also has a point.
‘Watchmen’ wasn’t work for hire. The rights were supposed to revert a year after the series ended, but DC exploited a loophole by continually reprinting the book in one form or another to justify screwing Moore out of billions of dollars. Don’t talk about this until you’ve done your homework, please.
If you create the book for someone else, and they own the rights — even if, in theory, you’ll get the rights back under certain conditions — it’s work for hire.
I work for hire for a living.
There’s a reason you don’t see a bunch of other creators acting like Moore: It’s a ridiculous stance that no one else is confused by including, I suspect, Moore.
No. The contract signed at the time was one that any reasonable person would expect to give DC exclusive publication rights for a year after the last issue was released, after which the rights would revert to Moore. DC exploited a loophole in the contract, but there is literally nobody at the time who would have seen this coming. You’re just plain wrong.
How is he being “precious”? People ask him whether he likes what other people are doing with his work, he says “no”… is he supposed to lie?
If I were a Hollywood producer with money & rep to burn, I’d greenlight Watchmen Babies just to give Alan Moore the conniption of a lifetime.
Reminds me of this…
Alan Moore: Anybody who has anything to do with any of these shitty Watchmen travesties, even as a member of the audience, will be dragged screaming to hell by their nipples. Peace out.In case you were wondering what he thinks.
He thinks, “Jesus Christ, is this going to be another hack job? If they want to make a TV show of the comic, make a TV show of a comic. But that wouldn’t give them the power they insist upon.”
It’s a fair point – you think Frank L. Baum or JM Barrie or Lewis Carroll would’ve been cool with “Lost Girls”?
Well, Lewis Carroll maybe. But definitely not the other two.
Lindelof fucks everything up. He’s a terrible hack. Seeing his name attached to a project is a gaurantee that I will not watch it
Good. I’m tired of all the faux-reverance paid to original creators. People are smart enough to realize they are two completely different things and can judge them accordingly.
Honestly, who cares? We all already know what he thinks about any Watchmen adaptation, continuation, etc. The best that we can hope for is that the creator of said adaptation does what Moore did with the Charleston characters and create something similar but interesting enough to merit the story’s existence. (But also: sue me, I think Doomsday Clock’s been an interesting experiment.)
Also, Moore wrote several volumes of The League of Extraordinary Gentleman and he wrote Lost Girls, so…like, pot kettle black. He can share his opinion about it, but his attitude about others playing in his non-creator owned playground has always been a little strange to me.
Exactly. I mentioned the same earlier. Moore has had no issue with adapting public domain properties for his own work.
Because those creators are dead. Moore’s stance is very simple. If you’re alive, you deserve a say in what gets done with your work. If you’re dead, you don’t. Pretty much every time he’s gone against that stance, it’s been because the views of the original creator have been misrepresented to him (like with Mick Anglo and Marvelman).
Meh, whatever. I don’t care for Lindelof, care less for non-Moore Watchmen material, and don’t deify Alan Moore. The original work stands on its own, and that’s what I’ll always favor.
This.
That
the other thing.
Poop
The last word on Alan Moore’s attitude to adaptations of his work.Oh what’s that? He’s actually a pretty cool guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously? That doesn’t fit my internet clicks narrative!!!
By this point, Moore’s attitude towards adaptations should be well known enough that “fuck you I’m doing it anyway” has pretty much got to be the default position of anyone doing one, good or bad, faithful or no, by someone who understands the source or not, under pretty much any circumstances.
clickbait headline. not really what he said. do better avclub
He does at least try not to talk about these adaptations, or at least he says so. To be fair, he is usually correct.
Say what you want about Damon Lindelof’s take, it’s still leagues (of extraordinary gentlemen) above Zack Snyder’s own answer about his Watchmen adaptation, the one that got him a chiding Moore retort.Snyder: “Worst case scenario – Alan puts the movie on his DVD player on a cold Sunday in London and watches and says, ‘Yeah, that doesn’t suck too bad.’”Moore: “That’s the worst case scenario? I think he’s underestimated what the worst case scenario would be… that’s never going to happen in my DVD player in ‘London’. I’m never going to watch this fucking thing.”Moore was born and has spent nearly all of his life in Northampton.
Snyder would have been much better off to look at that as a best case scenario, the Northampton fuckup notwithstanding.
“There’s nothing more punk rock than being a corporate toady” – Damon Lindolf.
God, the boogyman version of Alan Moore comic fans and dull creatives rely on is hilarious. Guy doesn’t like the idea of his work being used for cheap cash-ins, shocker, stop asking him about matters he’s already spoke at length about.
When was the last time Alan Moore was happy with ANYTHING that he himself didn’t create? Watchmen is a masterpiece – yes. Congratulations on your masterpiece. Now please step aside so I can bag my groceries.
Nice strawman, he doesn’t like a handful of properties ergo he hates everything. Hell, you even got the lame “loves his own work” crap in there as well. Maybe you could throw in a “doesn’t complain about the money he gets from adaptions” in there as well.
He just seems grumpy as fuck, is all. Like, it’s boring and predictable that he hates it. I’m curious as to why he even feels like he has to weigh in?
Yet any public appearances present a humorous man that doesn’t take himself seriously. Grumpy old Moore is born out of fanboys desperately hoping that this time, this adaption, he’ll pretend he thinks it’s good.
Saying Blackest Night sounds like a pile of shit is less grumpy and more you know, having a subjective opinion.
Well, uh, they asked him. Then they told us what he said. Curiosity sated?
I should’ve said I wonder why they feel like they need to ask him.
Now /that/ I don’t have a snarky answer for. Seems like a bad idea if you ask me.
Because people keep asking him about it. If someone stuck a microphone in your face on a weekly basis and asked you about the thing that pissed you off most in all the world, you’d come off as a grumpy fuck too. 🙂
You know what, you’re right. You’re all right. I stand corrected. I think that I WAS in a grumpy mood when I posted, was the problem. I wore a sweater in the morning, and then later in the day it got really hot.
How does Damon Lindelof keep getting these high profile jobs? He did a horrible job with Lost, Cowboys & Aliens, Prometheus, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, and Tomorrowland, compared to the one thing he’s done that has been good. That’s an 86% failure rate. And not just critically. Some of those things have been financial failures as well.
“The Leftovers” seems to have redeemed him in many eyes. Perhaps his movies stink and his TV work, apart from “Lost,” is pretty good? Can’t say, since I dropped out of “Lost” after two seasons and didn’t have HBO to watch “Leftovers.” Do note that “Watchmen” is also on HBO.
Honestly, I am angry too. In my mind, the only valid adaptation will be “Watchmen Babies in V for Vacation” if those cowards at Disney decide to finally release it from the vault.
Of course Lindelof is going to screw it up. He’s made a career out of projects that pretend to be deep by churning out unanswered questions and pure nonsense. Actually giving us something tight and smart is beyond his capabilities.
Yes, “fuck you”. Exactly what this society stands for now. Fuck y’all.
Lindelof isn’t techically wrong but Moore has taken most of the risk on the front end. It is Lindelof’s to ruin because he is a handtracer of other people’s work at best, like the second cousin to the King of Overrated JJ Abrams. To imply his work is even punk rock adjacent makes me wretch. Moore may be a complete hypocrite, but at least when he stole from/worked on other peoples properties, he was good at it.
if you would tell Alan Moore, a teenage Moore in ’85 or ’86, “You’re not allowed to do this because Superman’s creator or Swamp Thing’s creator doesn’t want you to do it,” he would say, “Fuck you, I’m doing it anyway.”thinking moore was a teenager at all, even hypothetically, even hypothetically in the wrong period, explains why this show looks like ass.he would have told you at 32 in 1985, “fuck you”your project that isnt watchmen looks like ass. shut up.
Hahahaha. Creators of art are idiots who deserve nothing but ridicule from those who exploit their work. Oh boy, I sure love capitalism.
I really hope they introduce a side character named Alan Moore who runs a pottery class, and has made one really cool vase, but now spends all of his time telling other people that their vases suck and shouldn’t be made, and how nobody really gets what his vase represents.
Or more accurately, this guy named Alan Moore who made one really cool vase, and then someone stole it and is churning out cheap reproductions until the end of time while making billions of dollars off of an aesthetic that was uniquely his.
OR- They didn’t steal it. He sold the thing to begin with. And then they paid for it with money and made their own versions of the damn vase.Keep in mind, there is no vase this man will not bitch and complain about. This vase was a sacred vase.
He rented it to them, and they claimed that as long as they kept paying him money they never had to give it back. And then they classified several of the knock-offs they made as “promotional items” and refused to pay him the money they owed for it.Seriously, anyone who does not think DC is the asshole here is either a corporate bootlicker or hopelessly underinformed on the actual history of the situation. Which are you?
Watchmen the comic is overrated shit so I look forward to Damon’s improvement of it.
Overrated because it’s been hyped so highly for 30 years. Shit, not at all. It’s one of the best masked hero stories ever written. It’s one of the best deconstructions of the masked-hero genre ever written. It’s the best art-as-analysis examinations of the American comics form ever written.
Alan Moore indeed took other people’s ideas and made new things with them. Every one of his big stories in comics is based on something else, except “V for Vendetta.” So yeah, you’re free to say “fuck him” I suppose …But maybe people should hold off on saying “I’m flipping off Alan moore in the spirit of young Alan Moore!” until after they’ve done what young Alan Moore did, i.e. make something good out of someone else’s story. Because so far it’s all been hot garbage.
Alan Moore is a crotchety old weirdo – it was expected he wouldn’t not just not give his blessing, but might very well hate this adaptation’s guts so intensely nearby objects would risk spontaneously igniting. …The fact he’s merely “not thrilled” about it might actually indicate this could be some seriously cool shit.The trailer does indeed look intriguing, I really must say.
When was Alan Moore ever thrilled about anything ?
Lindelof isn’t techically wrong but Moore has taken most of the risk on the front end. It is Lindelof’s to ruin. Lindelof is, at best, a handtracer of other people’s work.. The knock off toy of the King of Overrated Mr JJ Abrams. For him to imply that his work is even punk rock adjacent makes me wretch.Moore may be a complete hypocrite, but when he stole from/worked on other peoples properties, at least he was good at it.