Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Comic Books >

Moore wants name removed from unowned works

Page: (1)2

15:16 / 10.11.05

A recent conversation with Moore showed that things are no better: he now wants his name taken off all of his published work that he doesn't own, including V for Vendetta.

While admitting that his stance is extreme, Moore feels strongly about it, to put it mildly. "It got to the point where I'd become very, very distanced emotionally from a lot of the work which I didn't own. If I don't actually have the moral right to declare myself the author of the work, does that mean that I should have the moral right to declare myself not the author of the work?"

I kind've like the stance, anyway.

15:56 / 10.11.05

Well, there is a certain logic to it - It can't be Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen if Alan Moore doesn't own it.

16:16 / 10.11.05

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm going to take a different tack and point out that as a consumer I'm interested in who's writing my comics. I think Moore should pull his head out of his fucking arse on this one and have a think about those people who are actually buying the products of his labours.

16:38 / 10.11.05

But surely the counter to that is why should Moore care about promoting product that he doesn't own and lines other people's pockets more than his own?

17:12 / 10.11.05

And, also, it's not as if there'll be new stuff that he doesn't own. You prolly own most Moore stuff you want to, anyway - and some you don't, likely. Or you know what it is; I should get round to buying V sometime, given it's my favourite, but I'm just so disinclined to spring for things I've already read.

B-b-but, how will I live with his disapproval?

17:24 / 10.11.05

Ellis, McDonald &c. go on about it

19:21 / 10.11.05

I think it would be justifiable to want to take your name off a work that gets re-edited or censored by the corporation putting it out, so Orson Welles could be justified in taking his name off The Magnificent Ambersons, but in this case, where Moore was able to write the book in the way he wanted, I think he could still be proud to have his name on the book. If you look at the film industry, very few people own their movies outright, but that doesn't mean that it's any less theirs.

So, as much as I love the man's work, this is yet another case of overreacting. From what I understand, it wasn't DC that put out the offending press release, it was Joel Silver, and even though it's all one corporation, I doubt that the DC Comics people were involved with that specific choice, and putting a 'soon to be a major motion picture' on the book is something that's always done.

But getting back to his main point, I don't think authorship has anything to do with owning the book. If he got to tell the story he wanted, then he is the author of the book, no matter who is the current custodian of it, and he needs to remember his own words on film adaptations, that the film cannot ruin the original work, it'll still always be there. Similarly, whatever happens to the book afterwards, and in this case, I don't think the offenses are that bad, the original work is still there, and as far as I know, DC didnt' tamper with him when he was doing V or Watchmen.

The thing that confuses me is why, if owning his stuff is such a big deal to him, did he just give the rights to Miracleman to Neil Gaiman. Maybe he had a different mindset, but that choice seems to go against everything he says here. For someone who wrote so eloquently at the end of Promethea about getting over our petty differences and working together, he seems to hold the longest grudges of anyone.

20:08 / 10.11.05

But surely the counter to that is why should Moore care about promoting product that he doesn't own and lines other people's pockets more than his own?

I fully appreciate this, and, frankly, I don't care. I think he's being unfair to consumers in that people want to know what they're buying. It doesn't matter whether I know that Alan Moore wrote V, I'm thinking twenty years down the line and what could happen if Alan gets his way.

I know Alan's been fucked over, I understand his rage (to the extent that I, someone who hasn't been shafted by DC, can), but the words fucking eggy pranny can't help popping into my mind.

20:19 / 10.11.05

I also think - in an unexamined kinda way - that there is an important distinction between ownership and authorship.

20:20 / 10.11.05

I think Moore's being unfair to consumers by having such a big beard. I'm sure his readers want to see his face. Selfish cunt.

20:23 / 10.11.05

Yeah, that too.

20:30 / 10.11.05

Eternally is Moore the man far more entertaining to me than Moore the canon. Even the stuff he owns personally and himself. Or in conjunction with the artist(s).
And is it me, or was/is 'Lost Girls' basically Moore and Grebbe flirting on paper? Amusing concept and interesting execution, but the conceit decimates the potential, perhaps.
Weirdly, 'V for...' and even 'Watchmen' read as works not owned by the author. They read like studio/company gigs.

20:55 / 10.11.05

Eh?

21:42 / 10.11.05

I don't think a huffy old man from Northampton with nice rings, and no razor, is nearly as interesting as what happens after the Comedian gets chucked out a high building.

I keep wanting to get his novel, but it's so expensive.

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:48 / 10.11.05

Much as this is so foolish and unworkable as to be worthy of Tony Blair, my opinion of Alan Moore is higher than ever he really did say to Ellis "It really was one of my better tantrums, Warren."

Imaginary Mongoose Solutions

22:45 / 10.11.05

Eh, if I'd been shafted by companies as many times as Moore has, I'd certianly have issues with companies makeing much filthy lucre off my name. Especially when DC at times keeps trying to turn "ALAN MOORE!" into a brand sans any real involvement or approval by Alan Moore.

22:54 / 10.11.05

I don't think it's anyone's business what Moore decides to do or that he should give a shit about the "consumer." He's fifty plus and I think you get tired of being fucked over and tend to take extreme steps to prove your point.

There's a link to the Steve Bissette thread on tcj through the Engine link and honestly I'm seeing red wondering what gives people the right to judge his relationships and their end.

All I'm concerned with is that Alan Moore is healthy and keeps producing the work that has made me a lifelong fan. He says stupid things sometimes but we all do.

23:36 / 10.11.05

Nobody can know what goes on in his genius mind, but I feel certain that Moore and his lovely lady partner are deeply in love.

01:37 / 11.11.05

Glycon ate my reply by shutting my computer off. 2nd try:

Moore can do what he likes in relation to how his name is attached to his work [anybody here has heard of Hollywood's Alan Smithee, right], and I respect that. any fan should and being offended by it is just stupid.

BUT this won't change the fact that he did some of his best work in concepts owned by companies like DC, who cash in on his name to this date. it'll be interesting to see how they'll handle the Moore DCU collection now...

this reminds me of the Golden Age authors [and their families] trying to get back rights to characters originally sold for beans to Timely, Marvel, DC etc. and a Warren Ellis column that said something about it ending "when you sign that voucher away" or something. would V and WATCHMEN sell less if DC can't use his name to promote them?

you know, maybe he SHOULD do like the Golden Age authors and fill a lawsuit if he has a case for it in that "18 months" bit. this could lead to a renegotiation to at least make his share closer to the current model for Wildstorm and Vertigo books...

02:28 / 11.11.05

I kinda wonder if Moore even has the legal right to ask DC to remove his name from the books -- they could certainly argue that a lot of their selling power comes from his name *and* that they paid for it fair and square. Which would be a very interesting stance for a company that's made its bread and butter on work-for-hire to take. It'll be interesting to see how this one develops.

All that said, does seem a bit prima donna-ish.

02:31 / 11.11.05

Um, to rephrase, he clearly does have the legal right to ask DC to do anything, including taking a flying fuck at a rolling donut. What I meant to say was, does he have the legal right to demand they remove his name, etc.

11:11 / 11.11.05

Now that I've slept on it, I don't actually think he owes the consumer anything. Upon examination I realise that I just don't like the idea that he's disowning his work, which is more my problem than his, and, frankly, in reality makes no fucking difference: he still wrote V, he still wrote Watchmen, no matter how he feels about his relationship to them.
I do think he's being a little childish, however, even if I think his hissy fits are understandable.

11:12 / 11.11.05

Also, I think in this day and age of the internet taking your name off a book is likely to make little difference to sales.

miss wonderstarr

11:36 / 11.11.05

Is there an irony in the fact that Moore wants his name taken off books he actually wrote, but has apparently lent his name and fame to books his daughter wrote, that he minimally "plotted"?

I don't know much about the latter, but from my understanding of it, he's happy to let his brand and reputation as an author be cynically and misleadingly used to promote something he barely touched.

11:53 / 11.11.05

But to what extent does Moore Snr own Albion?

It is, I think about the increasingly indistinct ground between authorship and ownership, with the (still) emerging concept of creator as brand.

Alan Moore has effectively been a brand since Vertigo launched as a unified imprint, and the imprint has been termed (admittedly by Moore himself) as being largely based on a bad mood he was in during the 80s... could easily be argued that by picking and choosing what projects he chooses to associate his name with in a promotional sense, Moore is merely attempting to exercise greater control over his own brand.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

19:37 / 12.11.05

One of the thoughts I had when I read this is that Moore is tired having to answer questions about movies and other things made off of his perviou sworks. Seeing his reaction to how he is being asked all the time about the "V For Vendetta" movie, and how the movie's producers lied about him, he's probably just fed up with it all.

It reminds me of a very old quote from Steven King. Someone asked how he felt about one of the lesser movies based on his work, and he said it was as if the cops found him in a room, covered in blood, a knife in his hand, standing over a dead body and trying to convince people he didn't do it.

19:59 / 12.11.05

I think Moore was also pretty pissed off about being dragged into a legal case connected to the FILM version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. One of the many things that irked him was that Time Warner after some legal shenanigans Time Warner decided to settle the case out of court... Bad enough being dragged into a court battle not of your making but even worse to have it settled in an unsatisfactory way...

20:49 / 12.11.05

come to think of it, he co-owns FROM HELL with Ed Campbell [and no publisher in the way, as fas as I know] and that didn't turn into a good adaptation as well, so...

02:45 / 13.11.05

Moore's just a fucking prima donna. I love his stuff. I think he's a great writer. But man does he complain. Every interview I read with him, he's bitching about something. Whatta cry baby. That's my two cents.
He can write one of the most influential comic books of all time, but he can't make any intelligent decisions about the movies made based on those comic books? He wants to remove his name? Let him. Let the little whiny child have his way. Yeesh.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

04:40 / 13.11.05

He can write one of the most influential comic books of all time, but he can't make any intelligent decisions about the movies made based on those comic books?

On work for hire stuff, he can't. He has no control over it. They could do a sequel to Watchmen and have Joey Cavaleri write it and the dead zombie hand of Vinnie Colletta draw it and he has no say about it.

13:09 / 13.11.05

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why Moore doesn't just drop the passive-aggressive routine and get a lawyer. It seems evident that the real problem here is that Watchmen and V were supposed to revert, rights-wise, to himself and the respective artists after they'd been out of print for a (fairly short) time. At the time those arrangements were made, comics didn't stay in print for long, and it wasn't unreasonable to expect that the creators would have full rights within a year or two. (That said, perhaps Moore should have wondered why then it was that he and the artists didn't get full creators' rights to begin with, but leaving that aside.) Moore's obviously pissed because he got shafted, and...well...he got shafted. Just my two cents here, but it could be it's time Moore contacted CBLDF and did something about it directly rather than pulling weird stunts that, y'know, just make him look weird.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:43 / 13.11.05

Much as this is so foolish and unworkable as to be worthy of Tony Blair, my opinion of Alan Moore is higher than ever he really did say to Ellis "It really was one of my better tantrums, Warren."

That really is lovely. Also the fact that he said that (if he did) may suggest that this isn't an ongoing campaign as such, rather that he just got angry and had a hissy fit one day.

23:43 / 13.11.05

I think he should insist that DC credit him as "Curt Vile" or some new nom de plume...

01:08 / 14.11.05

Cheers, eddiethirteen. Yeah, why doesn't he contact a lawyer? If the comic book industry treats him to vilely (even though he's generally well-respected) why can't he catch a break, then?

yawn - thing's buddy

09:49 / 15.11.05

there's something massively unattractive about someone who is always fuckin 'right'.

moore is turning into the alex salmond of comics.

also rereading Watchmen just now.

clunky as hell.

time for a revision regarding his unquestionable awesomeness, i reckons.

Page: (1)2