I may not be Writer Of Wrongs, but I sure as hell can disagree with a post like this:
What is the difference between Moore taking classic literary characters that some other writers created and inserting them into his own comic book series' and other writers taking the Watchmen characters and inserting them into their own comics. What gives Moore the right and not anyone else?
For starters, this isn't The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, this was a bunch of characters that had been overzealously bought by DC, and at the time they didn't know what the hell to do with them (they still don't) but that didn't mean no one could've thought of a decent idea for what to do with those people, even then, Alan Moore never really used The Question, Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, Batman, etc. He created his own, unique visions of the classical superhero categories to express his viewpoints.
Like it or not, in decent moral terms (certainly not legal, thank you DC), he has the sole rights to those characters because he created them, and he made a deal with DC Comics to get those rights returned to him as soon as the final copy was released, was it a bad deal perhaps ? Undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean DC is any less responsible of not being true to their word, and if Moore is guilty of anything, it's of being naive.
Is it simply because Moore has been outspoken about his anger toward DC? The writers Moore borrowed from are all dead, but how do we know that Jules Verne or H. Rider Haggard were alive they wouldn't be vexed at Moore for what he did to their creations?
Because they're DEAD, even then, how do you know he wouldn't have approached them for permission to use those characters if they had been alive ? I can't know if he would have approached them (just to point out), but you can't make the same comparisons about DC and Alan Moore, DC Comics is not dead, Verne and Haggard are.
Also, you have this strange notion that DC was somehow being "held back" by Moore into not doing more Watchmen, when the truth here is that they could've done it all along, they're just not afraid anymore of the consequences that bad PR from the original writer could come, they've done their numbers, they've gotten to their conclussions, they've admitted their lack of ethics and are perfectly okay with releasing the new versions, even if Alan Moore goes to any lenghts at discrediting them.
And what about Dave Gibbons's rights? He was co-creator - not just the guy who happened to draw it - so if he's agreeable to see these new incarnations, why doesn't he have the right to green-light such projects?
Same point, if Gibbons green-lights or doesn't Watchmen, it doesn't matter, DC Comics doesn't need him to do that, they don't need his approval.
For my part, I think Gibbons is either:
A) A greedy fuck who has finally shown his true colors.
B) The "supervisor" of any new Watchmen work, making sure that whatever comes out will be, at the very least, a decent read.
Everyone seems to put Moore on this intellectual and moral high horse, but he took DC's money to create Watchmen. He willingly signed the contract; they let Moore pick Gibbons as his partner; and moreover, DC took a huge risk on a far-out concept and let Moore and Gibbons make the series they wanted to make. What did DC do that was so "evil?" What did they do that they haven't done to every comics writer and artist in the history of comics. What have they done that Marvel hasn't done - or any corporation.
Oh my, poor DC Comics, they made an investment
on a writer that was a sure-bet with the critics with a concept that could be appealing precisely to the people that liked his work, if not to almost everyone who had already enjoyed his previous works with superheroes.
As for what they did ? Well, if you don't think being shifty with your promises is unworthy of any reprimand, then god knows what other things fall on your category of "wrong".
If you think about it, Stan Lee has been "treated worse" than Alan Moore, but Lee's relationship with Marvel is solid. The comics industry is a business, period. Moore wants it to be about "art," but it's not. It took Moore a while to figure this out and now he lives on the fringe of comics and is happy to be there doing his art. I'm happy for him, but I think he needs to get over himself. He's not the martyr he would like us all to think he is.
I have to say, you could not have found a worse example in comic book industry other than Stan Lee, the de-facto mascot of Marvel. You think he goes to all those conventions and speaks to all the fans out of the pureness of his heart ? This is the guy who willingly gave up all creator rights to his work, cashed his checks, and went home happy, whatever you may say about Moore, it certainly has nothing to do with Stan Lee.
I love Moore's early work. He was a genius. But he needs to relax and see what other talents can do with Watchmen - just like he re-invented Verne and Haggard. Not because these new artist can do better, but because they should just have the freedom to try.
That freedom has never
been hampered by anyone other than DC Comics, Alan Moore didn't give up on his friendship with Gibbons even when they had diametrically opposite views on the franchise, if those people really wanted to work on Watchmen, then they should have manned the fuck up and stand to DC, if they really don't care about Moore know, then they sure as hell didn't 10 or 20 years before, I'm sorry, but we're all grown-ups here and I think we, as well as Darwyn Cooke, JMS, JG Jones, Andy Kubert and Brian Azzarello can very well own up to our actions.