Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
If anything, I personally think that all of this is likely to make Alan even more determined to insist via legal channels that his name be removed from the creator credits of all future printings of the original graphic novel.
Rather this than suffer the ignominy of being spoken of amongst any potential new audience thus: "You should read WATCHMEN... just make sure you get the one written by Alan Moore, not the ones by [INSERT NAME HERE]."
Do we really want to be in the position of having the original work hereafter referred to by the term "The Alan Moore run on WATCHMEN"?
Writer, I'd like to get your take on a few things.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Sure. DC's move to make Watchmen prequels may be motivated by greed, but I really doubt that. If what they make turns out to be a big pile of shit, so be it. It doesn't sully or stain Moore's work. Did Star Trek V make all the trekkie's forget about Star Trek II? Did it make the fans say, "fuck this, Star Trek sucks now, it's all over." No.
The truth is, what will overshadow the original Watchmen more isn't a shitty prequel or spinoff, but a really good one. In fact, if they crank a few shitty one's out it will help put a huge nail in the coffin of a Watchmen franchise. A good one however, would likely create an opening for more and more comic byproducts.
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.