I'll try here to describe in quick fashion Alan Moore's soured relationship with what can be described as the "mainstream entertainment conglomerates".
It is a long and winding road, I had to cut it down or I'd still be writing.
And so that you know where I'm coming from: I"m on Moore's side all the way in this.
--
It's 1988. after a successful run on The Saga of the Swamp Thing, various Superman and Batman stories, the seminal Watchmen and the conclusion of V for Vendetta Moore terminate his collaboration with DC comics.
He was never an employee, always worked for hire, but his stature was such that he was granted a special treatment and, not least, he was given royalties.
Such conditions were extended to other artists at the time and a tidal turn in the way artists were treated seemed to be at hand.
Nonetheless, Moore is not satisfied, disagreements arise and Moore leaves.
Moore accuses DC of unfair tactics. The publisher is keeping Watchmen and V for Vendetta unusually long in print, meaning the rights are not being returned to the creators.
To be fair, Watchmen is a far greater hit than anyone expected, and expectations were high.
Keeping the book in print is not that surprising, but Moore sees it as a way to swindle the creators and not renegotiate further publishing.
Moore sticks to his promise to never work for DC again until 1998.
Moore is developing the America's Best Comics line for Jim Lee's Wildstorm, but right before the line should make its debut, Wildstorm is bought wholesale by DC.
The legal implications are such that the new line of books will be OWNED by the publisher, and the creators will only receive royalties. Moore weighs the idea to scrap the whole project but since everything (and everyone) is ready for take off, he decides not to nullify his contract, as it would leave the other artists involved abruptly unemployed.
He's assured he will be given complete creative freedom but alas, DC eventually start to objects to some, albiet minor, things.
Further signs of trouble occur when the movie adaptation of From Hell, directed by the Huges brothers, is released among mild reviews.
While borrowing some visuals and the overall conspiracy plot from the book (but not without changes and significant simplifications) and in spite of the excellent casting of the incommensurable Ian Holm as doctor William Gull, that picture fails to summon either the tone or depth of the book.
Moore does not mind all that much; surely he isn't the first victim of poor Hollywood adaptations and won't be the last.
But things change after the release of 20th Century Fox's LXG, and adventure movie featuring a team-up of Victorian literary characters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3141720.stm
Screenwriters/producers Martin Poll and Larry Cohen claim the paternity of the idea: back in the nineties the duo shopped a script around in Hollywood called Cast of Characters, which had a similar premise, and one of the studios they pitched the idea to was Fox.
The problem? That LXG is actually based on the ABC comic book series The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, penned by Moore and illustrated by Kevin O'Neill.
(to my recollection the book was optioned by Fox even before the first issue was published by DC)
The case Poll and Cohen try to make is that Fox, interested in developing the idea, secretly commissioned the comic book series to Alan Moore, so that they could then turn it in to a movie asserting it was a different property than Cast of Characters.
I'm not an expert on Hollywood politics, I do not know whether such a scenario ever occurred in history, setting therefore a precedent for Poll and Cohen's claim, but it strikes me as a silly and unnecessarily convoluted plot.
Why would Fox steal the idea from somebody, only to give it to someone else they would then have to pay royalties to? Not to mention the need to commission a new adapted screenplay?
I suppose the real contentious is the intellectual property. The scheme, if true, would allow Fox to essentially own the idea of a Victorian heroes team-up without paying royalties in perpetuity to the people who came up with the idea.
But Fox does not own the IP. They only purchased the movie rights to the book, while all other rights remained with the creators (the only title in the ABC comic book line to enjoy this statute).
And besides, all the characters used were public domain.
Moore's version (essentially "I came up with the idea myself"), is also more believable: after all the series shares its core conceit of teaming up Victorian literary characters with an earlier Moore creation, Lost Girs. On top of that, the League also fits with the overall idea behind the entire ABC line it is part of, which was: to create a new line of super hero books based on concepts that pre-date Superman.
The lawsuit drags for a while, Alan Moore is asked to testify, which he does in a 10-hours hearing session.
"If I had raped and murdered a schoolbus full of retarded children after selling them heroin, I doubt that I would have been cross-examined for 10 hours" he will later joke.
The whole experience leaves Moore, if not disgusted, at the very least tired of Hollywood, so he decides to go for a grand gesture. From this moment on he will refuse to get any money or credit from adaptations: "Take my name off it, and give all money to artists".
This happens right when the V for Vendetta movie is announced. Moore sticks with his decision, but since his detachment from the adaptation is not good for PR for the upcoming movie, the filmmakers release a false statement in which Moore is said to be excited about the project.
Moore gets mad, DC does not quite amend, so he decides to terminate (once again) any relationship with DC. He ends the ABC line and take The League to another publisher.
Anno 2007. The long-announced Watchmen movie start actual pre-production after years of development hell.
Interesting to notice: Moore had played nice with regards of this adaptation up until that point. He praised a first draft penned by Sam Hamm in the eighties and even released a few "nonbelligerent" statements in 2000.
Moore would be fine with his "no credit, no money" policy, but a series of moves by DC are the last straw.
Moore goes from politely disagreeable to "spitting venom all over it".
He further cuts any relationship with Watchmen co-creator Dave Gibbons and DC editor Karen Berger.
(read Moore's lengthy -very lengthy- account here)
After this DC basically stops bothering about upsetting Moore and start exploiting the hell out of Watchmen with prequels (Beyond Watchmen), sequels (Doomsday Clock) and later it starts incorporating ABC characters in the DCU.
(to be continued)
It is a long and winding road, I had to cut it down or I'd still be writing.
And so that you know where I'm coming from: I"m on Moore's side all the way in this.
--
It's 1988. after a successful run on The Saga of the Swamp Thing, various Superman and Batman stories, the seminal Watchmen and the conclusion of V for Vendetta Moore terminate his collaboration with DC comics.
He was never an employee, always worked for hire, but his stature was such that he was granted a special treatment and, not least, he was given royalties.
Such conditions were extended to other artists at the time and a tidal turn in the way artists were treated seemed to be at hand.
Nonetheless, Moore is not satisfied, disagreements arise and Moore leaves.
Moore accuses DC of unfair tactics. The publisher is keeping Watchmen and V for Vendetta unusually long in print, meaning the rights are not being returned to the creators.
To be fair, Watchmen is a far greater hit than anyone expected, and expectations were high.
Keeping the book in print is not that surprising, but Moore sees it as a way to swindle the creators and not renegotiate further publishing.
Moore sticks to his promise to never work for DC again until 1998.
Moore is developing the America's Best Comics line for Jim Lee's Wildstorm, but right before the line should make its debut, Wildstorm is bought wholesale by DC.
The legal implications are such that the new line of books will be OWNED by the publisher, and the creators will only receive royalties. Moore weighs the idea to scrap the whole project but since everything (and everyone) is ready for take off, he decides not to nullify his contract, as it would leave the other artists involved abruptly unemployed.
He's assured he will be given complete creative freedom but alas, DC eventually start to objects to some, albiet minor, things.
Further signs of trouble occur when the movie adaptation of From Hell, directed by the Huges brothers, is released among mild reviews.
While borrowing some visuals and the overall conspiracy plot from the book (but not without changes and significant simplifications) and in spite of the excellent casting of the incommensurable Ian Holm as doctor William Gull, that picture fails to summon either the tone or depth of the book.
Moore does not mind all that much; surely he isn't the first victim of poor Hollywood adaptations and won't be the last.
But things change after the release of 20th Century Fox's LXG, and adventure movie featuring a team-up of Victorian literary characters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3141720.stm
Screenwriters/producers Martin Poll and Larry Cohen claim the paternity of the idea: back in the nineties the duo shopped a script around in Hollywood called Cast of Characters, which had a similar premise, and one of the studios they pitched the idea to was Fox.
The problem? That LXG is actually based on the ABC comic book series The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, penned by Moore and illustrated by Kevin O'Neill.
(to my recollection the book was optioned by Fox even before the first issue was published by DC)
The case Poll and Cohen try to make is that Fox, interested in developing the idea, secretly commissioned the comic book series to Alan Moore, so that they could then turn it in to a movie asserting it was a different property than Cast of Characters.
I'm not an expert on Hollywood politics, I do not know whether such a scenario ever occurred in history, setting therefore a precedent for Poll and Cohen's claim, but it strikes me as a silly and unnecessarily convoluted plot.
Why would Fox steal the idea from somebody, only to give it to someone else they would then have to pay royalties to? Not to mention the need to commission a new adapted screenplay?
I suppose the real contentious is the intellectual property. The scheme, if true, would allow Fox to essentially own the idea of a Victorian heroes team-up without paying royalties in perpetuity to the people who came up with the idea.
But Fox does not own the IP. They only purchased the movie rights to the book, while all other rights remained with the creators (the only title in the ABC comic book line to enjoy this statute).
And besides, all the characters used were public domain.
Moore's version (essentially "I came up with the idea myself"), is also more believable: after all the series shares its core conceit of teaming up Victorian literary characters with an earlier Moore creation, Lost Girs. On top of that, the League also fits with the overall idea behind the entire ABC line it is part of, which was: to create a new line of super hero books based on concepts that pre-date Superman.
The lawsuit drags for a while, Alan Moore is asked to testify, which he does in a 10-hours hearing session.
"If I had raped and murdered a schoolbus full of retarded children after selling them heroin, I doubt that I would have been cross-examined for 10 hours" he will later joke.
The whole experience leaves Moore, if not disgusted, at the very least tired of Hollywood, so he decides to go for a grand gesture. From this moment on he will refuse to get any money or credit from adaptations: "Take my name off it, and give all money to artists".
This happens right when the V for Vendetta movie is announced. Moore sticks with his decision, but since his detachment from the adaptation is not good for PR for the upcoming movie, the filmmakers release a false statement in which Moore is said to be excited about the project.
Moore gets mad, DC does not quite amend, so he decides to terminate (once again) any relationship with DC. He ends the ABC line and take The League to another publisher.
Anno 2007. The long-announced Watchmen movie start actual pre-production after years of development hell.
Interesting to notice: Moore had played nice with regards of this adaptation up until that point. He praised a first draft penned by Sam Hamm in the eighties and even released a few "nonbelligerent" statements in 2000.
Moore would be fine with his "no credit, no money" policy, but a series of moves by DC are the last straw.
Moore goes from politely disagreeable to "spitting venom all over it".
He further cuts any relationship with Watchmen co-creator Dave Gibbons and DC editor Karen Berger.
(read Moore's lengthy -very lengthy- account here)
After this DC basically stops bothering about upsetting Moore and start exploiting the hell out of Watchmen with prequels (Beyond Watchmen), sequels (Doomsday Clock) and later it starts incorporating ABC characters in the DCU.
(to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment