Childlike rants? Have you even read anything he has said about movie adaptations of his work? And why do you speak as if Moore goes around spewing bile to the media everytime there's a movie adaptation of his work? The media seeks him and asks for his opinion, not the other way around. The last time I read a news article about Alan Moore's thought on the Watchmen movie was actually an article about the release of The Mindscape of Alan Moore. For some reason the journalist had to question him about it, but of course what he playfully said about the movie, "I'll be spitting venom all over it", made the headlines (without the humorous context) on other websites instead of the documentary.
Also, maybe you should have quoted the whole wiki article for a better understanding of the issue;
Film adaptations of Moore's work also proved controversial. With From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Moore was content to allow the filmmakers to do whatever they wished and removed himself from the process entirely. "As long as I could distance myself by not seeing them," he said, he could profit from the films while leaving the original comics untouched, "assured no one would confuse the two. This was probably naïve on my part."[56]
His attitude changed after producer Martin Poll and screenwriter Larry Cohen filed a lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, alleging that the film The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen plagiarized an unproduced script they had written entitled Cast of Characters. Although the two scripts bear many similarities, most of them are elements that were added for the film and do not originate in Moore's comics. According to Moore, "they seemed to believe that the head of 20th Century Fox called me up and persuaded me to steal this screenplay, turning it into a comic book which they could then adapt back into a movie, to camouflage petty larceny." Moore testified in a deposition, a process so painful that he surmised he would have been better treated had he "molested and murdered a busload of retarded children after giving them heroin." Fox's settlement of the case insulted Moore, who interpreted it as an admission of guilt.
The last straw came when producer Joel Silver said at a press conference for the Warner Bros. film adaptation of V for Vendetta that fellow producer Larry Wachowski had talked with Moore, and that "he [Moore] was very excited about what Larry had to say."[58] Moore claims that he told Wachowski "I didn't want anything to do with films... I wasn't interested in Hollywood," and demanded that DC Comics force Warner Bros to issue a public retraction and apology for Silver's "blatant lies", even though Silver appeared to have been lied to himself by Larry Wachowski. Although Silver called Moore directly to apologize, no public retraction appeared.
This latest conflict between Moore and DC Comics caused Moore to receive a very sympathetic article in The New York Times[59] that was published on March 12, 2006, five days before the USA theatrical release. In the New York Times article, Silver stated that about 20 years prior to the film's release, he met with Moore and Dave Gibbons when Silver acquired the film rights to V For Vendetta and Watchmen. Silver stated, "Alan was odd, but he was enthusiastic and encouraging us to do this. I had foolishly thought that he would continue feeling that way today, not realizing that he wouldn't." Moore did not deny this meeting or Silver's characterization of Moore at that meeting, nor did Moore state that he advised Silver of his change of opinion in those approximately 20 years. The New York Times article also interviewed David Lloyd about Moore's reaction to the film's production, stating, "Mr. Lloyd, the illustrator of V for Vendetta, also found it difficult to sympathize with Mr. Moore's protests. When he and Mr. Moore sold their film rights to the graphic novel, Mr. Lloyd said: "We didn't do it innocently. Neither myself nor Alan thought we were signing it over to a board of trustees who would look after it like it was the Dead Sea Scrolls."
As a result of Moore's disputes with DC (and then Warner Bros.), which came to a head over V for Vendetta, he declared that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier, a hardcover graphic novel, will be his last work for the publisher, and future installments of LoEG will be published by Top Shelf Productions and Knockabout Comics. Moore has also stated that he wishes his name to be removed from all comic work that he does not own, including Watchmen and V for Vendetta, much as unhappy film directors often choose to be credited as "Alan Smithee."
And where did this misconception that Alan Moore doesn't like films come from? Jeez. It's like people just skim through his words.
So in happier news, I busted my Watchmen cherry tonight when I was at my friend's house and I found out that his dad had the original 12 issues from 1986/7 in just-below-mint condition, and it was totally cool with him to read them.
Sadly, I only got to read the first three before my parents came to pick me up (ah, the woes of being 14), but still, it was a holy experience. This is the finest comic I have ever read.
EDIT:By from 1986, I don't mean from eBay a few months back, I mean, like, he bought them in 86/87
So I came upon this website the other day, the Annotated Watchmen. Basically this guy has gone through the comic panel by panel and pointed out all the cool little details and such in the backgrounds, and explains the relevance of anything a bit obscure. Pretty cool. Although SPOILERS so obviously don't check it out until you've read Watchmen. Hell, maybe even re-read it, because it's cool to see what stuff you can pick up on the second time around that you totally dismissed when you first saw it.
i'd always wondered what it was exactly about his treatment at that trial that made him say he'd have been treated better if he'd murdered retarded kids, and this article was the first i've seen that actually says, so thanks aleph.
a ten-hour cross-examination does seem really excessive. really very excessive.
People going around acting like Alan Moore is completely justified in his childlike rants on this topic seem to forget that he sold them the permission to make said movie in the first place, and at the very least this particular director wants to do it right rather than mangling the franchise.
To be fair, DC has consistently, and at times it seems willfully, fucked Moore. He does V for Vendetta in the UK, and DC talks him and co-creator David Lloyd into letting them publish the rest of V, with the assurance that the rights will revert back to the creators once it's no longer in print. The same thing later happens with Watchmen. DC sees how well both books do, makes them into TPBs that still sell well to this day, and keeps them in print, ensuring he'll never own either ever again. Perhaps it was naive of him to simply hope that DC would give them back, but at that time, comics didn't stay in print for decades as TPBs. Moore, and a few contemporaries like Frank Miller, basically created the TPB movement, and in essence, fucked himself in doing so.
But hey, it happens. Years later he moves to Jim Lee's Wildstorm and does work for Lee on the ABC line. Then DC buys Wildstorm, forcing Moore to work for them again, and tampering with his stories despite assurances that they wouldn't. Obviously Moore and his work are valuable commodities, but it really seems like they, at times, went out of their way to screw him over by honoring the letter of their agreements, but no the spirit. But hell, maybe Moore would have petered out and just become another company man if he didn't have his righteous indignation fueling his creativity. Still, I can't help but wonder what kind of stuff he'd have done had DC not insisted on fucking the golden goose before it could lay a few more eggs.
People going around acting like Alan Moore is completely justified in his childlike rants on this topic seem to forget that he sold them the permission to make said movie in the first place, and at the very least this particular director wants to do it right rather than mangling the franchise.
To be fair, DC has consistently, and at times it seems willfully, fucked Moore. He does V for Vendetta in the UK, and DC talks him and co-creator David Lloyd into letting them publish the rest of V, with the assurance that the rights will revert back to the creators once it's no longer in print. The same thing later happens with Watchmen. DC sees how well both books do, makes them into TPBs that still sell well to this day, and keeps them in print, ensuring he'll never own either ever again. Perhaps it was naive of him to simply hope that DC would give them back, but at that time, comics didn't stay in print for decades as TPBs. Moore, and a few contemporaries like Frank Miller, basically created the TPB movement, and in essence, fucked himself in doing so.
But hey, it happens. Years later he moves to Jim Lee's Wildstorm and does work for Lee on the ABC line. Then DC buys Wildstorm, forcing Moore to work for them again, and tampering with his stories despite assurances that they wouldn't. Obviously Moore and his work are valuable commodities, but it really seems like they, at times, went out of their way to screw him over by honoring the letter of their agreements, but no the spirit. But hell, maybe Moore would have petered out and just become another company man if he didn't have his righteous indignation fueling his creativity. Still, I can't help but wonder what kind of stuff he'd have done had DC not insisted on fucking the golden goose before it could lay a few more eggs.
Yeah, sounds like he was completely justified in his dislike of DC. Although he seemed fairly philosophical about that TPB business, I saw a quote somewhere basically saying somewhere that "well they managed to screw me, so I'll chalk it up to experience and never work for them again".
I was going to ask if Moore had ever worked for Marvel, but then I read this on the wiki
Marvel
Moore came into dispute with Marvel Comics in the 1980s when they had reprinted some of his Marvel UK work without his permission. Since then, he had blocked any further reprints. This led to a falling out with his collaborator on Captain Britain, artist Alan Davis, as he was denied reprint fees and exposure for his work. In 2002, Marvel Comics' editor-in-chief, Joe Quesada, attempted to persuade Moore to contribute new work (Moore had already contributed to Marvel's 9/11 tribute comic, Heroes), and convinced him the company had changed. Moore agreed to the publication of a reprint collection of his Captain Britain stories, on the understanding that he would receive full credit for his characters. However, Moore's credit was omitted. Despite Quesada's explanation that the omission was a printing error, his apologies, and the omission being corrected in subsequent printings, Moore declared he would no longer consider working for Marvel. It has also been reported that Moore did not take kindly to Marvel's alleged insistence that the US publication by Eclipse Comics of his Marvelman work was retitled to MiracleMan. Interestingly enough, in his My Cup of Joe column on Myspace, when asked if there were any animosity between Marvel and Moore, Quesada responded, "As far as I know, there are no hard feelings between Alan and Marvel and vice versa."
Oh god what a fuck up, I bet someone got fired for that
Someone senior should have been given a pre-production copy and should have damn well noticed the omission. If something as huge as Alan Moore coming back to write for you hinged on it, they should have quadruple-checked it.
But hey, it happens. Years later he moves to Jim Lee's Wildstorm and does work for Lee on the ABC line. Then DC buys Wildstorm, forcing Moore to work for them again, and tampering with his stories despite assurances that they wouldn't. Obviously Moore and his work are valuable commodities, but it really seems like they, at times, went out of their way to screw him over by honoring the letter of their agreements, but no the spirit.
People going around acting like Alan Moore is completely justified in his childlike rants on this topic seem to forget that he sold them the permission to make said movie in the first place, and at the very least this particular director wants to do it right rather than mangling the franchise.
To be fair, DC has consistently, and at times it seems willfully, fucked Moore. He does V for Vendetta in the UK, and DC talks him and co-creator David Lloyd into letting them publish the rest of V, with the assurance that the rights will revert back to the creators once it's no longer in print. The same thing later happens with Watchmen. DC sees how well both books do, makes them into TPBs that still sell well to this day, and keeps them in print, ensuring he'll never own either ever again. Perhaps it was naive of him to simply hope that DC would give them back, but at that time, comics didn't stay in print for decades as TPBs. Moore, and a few contemporaries like Frank Miller, basically created the TPB movement, and in essence, fucked himself in doing so.
I never understood this, and yeah, it's probably because times were different back then, but it seems incredibly naive to sign over your rights with that type of promise. I mean, were TPB that uncommon back then?
People going around acting like Alan Moore is completely justified in his childlike rants on this topic seem to forget that he sold them the permission to make said movie in the first place, and at the very least this particular director wants to do it right rather than mangling the franchise.
To be fair, DC has consistently, and at times it seems willfully, fucked Moore. He does V for Vendetta in the UK, and DC talks him and co-creator David Lloyd into letting them publish the rest of V, with the assurance that the rights will revert back to the creators once it's no longer in print. The same thing later happens with Watchmen. DC sees how well both books do, makes them into TPBs that still sell well to this day, and keeps them in print, ensuring he'll never own either ever again. Perhaps it was naive of him to simply hope that DC would give them back, but at that time, comics didn't stay in print for decades as TPBs. Moore, and a few contemporaries like Frank Miller, basically created the TPB movement, and in essence, fucked himself in doing so.
I never understood this, and yeah, it's probably because times were different back then, but it seems incredibly naive to sign over your rights with that type of promise. I mean, were TPB that uncommon back then?
They were unheard of.
Think of it like this: most television shows made before the early 90s were filmed with very limited rights negotiations with either actors or other content providers (e.g. musicians for soundtracks). At most, they discussed syndication rights. There was next to no (or none at all) discussion of home distribution rights, much less digital rights.
As a result, many shows like WKRP in Cincinatti spent years in negotiations trying to acquire those rights to distribute the shows on DVD, and even then had to change the show (changing songs by re-mixing the show) to avoid the hold-outs. Another example of this is The Muppet Show, where several sketches are removed from their new DVD season sets.
The reason this happened is simple: a combination of people not knowing what to ask for, and the market not being apparent to anyone (or at least not the right people). Moore took a somewhat risky but reasonable chance in letting DC distribute his work, and he lost on the gamble. Now, D.C. could always choose to treat him better than the contract requires, but frankly I find it somewhat ridiculous that he blames them so much for his own decisions.
I love Moore's work, don't get me wrong, but I think the man is an asshole who thrives on bitter grapes. He complains about every treatment of his work, refuses to help make them better, and then routinely bitches about it even more afterward. Just look at Watchmen: he's been invited to participate in that filmmaking process, and he refuses to even watch it.
You should never forget that great artists are by no means automatically great people. Far from it: most of the time, the level of genius required to make you a great artist (or engineer, or scientist, etc.) is often so overwhelming that it makes you a complete jerk.
I found the first two thirds very good/facinating. This cast of characters could've been real masked men in the real world. The examination of their varying psychological profiles and problems was really engaging because I could relate in a tangible way. Whether it was Rorschach's cynical hatred for a world of seemingly insurmountable evil, Nite Owl's feelings of inadequacy (mid-life crisis, anyone?), or Dr. Manhattan's feelings of severe alienation; I've either felt those feelings myself or know people who have (this goes equally for Veidt's idealism and the Comedians cynicism). Plus this is the peak of Cold war pessimism, clearly in line with the general mood of the early 1980s.
This picture of real world heroes with real world problems was cool, and as someone who loved escapist anime or hero fiction growing up, I really liked it from a mature, literary standpoint.
The last third got a bit zany, though, and a lot of plot elements lost any semblance of sense (e.g. Why does Dr. Manhattan kill Rorschach when he, knowing the future, knows that the diary will be published? Why does Nite Owl so quickly make up his mind to let Adrian off the hook? etc). Also, Veidt's character arc lost any relation to reality. It became a traditional hero/villain story, when I think it would've been more fascinating (though negative) if there had been no conspiracy, and the "heroes" had all just destroyed themselves in much the same way that the protagonist in the black freighter story had.
Either way, though, it's a damn fine piece of art. I just thought it wrapped itself up into perhaps too simple a bow.
My favorite moment, and perhaps the most emotional to me was when Hollis died.
EDIT:
PS. I theorize that the movie will not come anywhere close to doing it justice, especially with 300's director at the helm *gag*
If you think the ending was simple then you must've not been paying much attention
It was, though.
Veidt had a the grandiose, misguided plot of a madman. A plot which in no was is even close to feasible in actual reality. He won, then three characters (Nite Owl, Jon, and Sally) just pretty much said "Oh, okay, damn, alright, later" and Rorschach was needlessly killed. It was all wrapped up in a neat little bow.
The only saving grace was the implication of the journal and Veidt's expression of doubt as Jon was leaving. Those, however, don't compare to the wealth of interpretable material in the middle of the book, which I thought was more interesting.
Again, when I say "simple" I mean in a manner similar to a typical comic book.
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
You don't know whether the journal will be published or not. If it is, it may or may not bring about the downfall of Veidt's utopia. If it isn't, Veidt will have ostensibly succeeded. Rorschach needed to die because his inflexible morals had no place in a morally gray world. And was Veidt's plan so misguided and mad? Not necessarily, when you consider the alternative. Also, I would argue that in making his choice, Nite Owl was taking the easy way out and in effect postponing a more considered decision, which may or may not end up supporting Veidt's actions.
You don't know whether the journal will be published or not. If it is, it may or may not bring about the downfall of Veidt's utopia. If it isn't, Veidt will have ostensibly succeeded. Rorschach needed to die because his inflexible morals had no place in a morally gray world. And was Veidt's plan so misguided and mad? Not necessarily, when you consider the alternative. Also, I would argue that in making his choice, Nite Owl was taking the easy way out and in effect postponing a more considered decision, which may or may not end up supporting Veidt's actions.
The world was morally gray before Veidt's plan; in fact much more so according to Veidt's theory... so I don't follow why Rorschach wouldn't fit into it. Also, Rorschach's journal has as much credibility as Rorschach himself. They're both equally threatening in their potential for destabilization, so the fact that the journal may or may not have caused people to realize what happened is irrelevant. If Jon killed Rorschach because he threatened to destabilize the world, leaving the journal makes no sense.
There was another possibility: he was killed because he posed a danger to Veidt. But even that's pretty flimsy.
Also, of fucking course Veidt's plan was mad and misguided, humanity has never been nor will ever be unified in a manner which prevents hostility in any sort of permanent way. But my point had more to do with the fact that such a plan is impossible in reality (psychic brains and teleportation and all that jazz).
It was fantasy in a book that I found interesting because it bridged the gap between fantasy and reality by making its characters real people with real problems. To me, this reversion to regular old comic book world was a bit disappointing.
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Rorschach told Manhattan to kill him. Why would he do that? I'm not saying he would have destabilized anything, I'm saying he himself didn't want to be part of that world but suicide was not an option.
You assume that humanity wouldn't have united against a common, external enemy; I don't see why it's unreasonable to believe that they would. You say the plan is impossible, and yet so is Manhattan's existence. Also, teleportation has already been invented.
I don't think it reverted to "regular old comic book world" at all. Basically, I'm saying that you are entitled to your opinion, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's the only valid interpretation of the book's ending.
Rorschach told Manhattan to kill him. Why would he do that? I'm not saying he would have destabilized anything, I'm saying he himself didn't want to be part of that world but suicide was not an option.
You assume that humanity wouldn't have united against a common, external enemy; I don't see why it's unreasonable to believe that they would. You say the plan is impossible, and yet so is Manhattan's existence. Also, teleportation has already been invented.
I don't think it reverted to "regular old comic book world" at all. Basically, I'm saying that you are entitled to your opinion, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's the only valid interpretation of the book's ending.
I'm partial to the theory that it wasn't Rorschach that demanded to be killed, but Kovacs. Remember that he pulls his mask off before saying it. Suicide isn't an option for Rorschach, but it could be for poor Walter.
And yeah, calling the ending "impossible" despite everything else that happens up to it is a little crazy.
Bitstream on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
I'm partial to the theory that it wasn't Rorschach that demanded to be killed, but Kovacs. Remember that he pulls his mask off before saying it. Suicide isn't an option for Rorschach, but it could be for poor Walter.
I agree with this and I should have been more clear in my statement.
I'm partial to the theory that it wasn't Rorschach that demanded to be killed, but Kovacs. Remember that he pulls his mask off before saying it. Suicide isn't an option for Rorschach, but it could be for poor Walter.
This is awesome and you are awesome for saying it.
That Rorschach theory does make things more interesting.
I still don't buy Veidt's plot as a primary narrative device, though. The extraordinary things in the earlier sections of the novel are never what drives the story. The characters are what drives the story (e.g. even though what happens to Jon that makes him a superhero is clearly fantasy, and he does impossible things, his loneliness and distance from the human race still makes his story relevant).
In the world of Watchmen, Veidt was human (a very talented human). As such, when he starts doing things that are impossible by human standards and pulls off a plot that is outrageous by any human standard, my disbelief got in the way of my absorption into the story. Plus I just found the whole "kill a bunch of people for the greater good" thing to be trite compared to the other, more personal problems of the rest of the characters.
As I stated in my first post in this thread, I liked being able to relate to these heroes, or see them as real people. I lost my ability to do that with Veidt.
I'm partial to the theory that it wasn't Rorschach that demanded to be killed, but Kovacs. Remember that he pulls his mask off before saying it. Suicide isn't an option for Rorschach, but it could be for poor Walter.
This is awesome and you are awesome for saying it.
I wish I could take credit for it, but it was brought up earlier in this thread. It does tend to answer some questions, though.
Bitstream on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
I think you give Veidt too little credit, and the human race too much. And the "greater good" issue is central to Veidt's character; he is so convinced of his own infallibility that he has rationalized his actions as being absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race. He is supremely egocentric. And yet, as his very name (Ozymandias) suggests, he may be at best buying the world time and will eventually be derided, or pitied, or perhaps even forgotten. Behold his works and despair, until they are buried by the sands of time.
For my fortieth birthday, rather than merely bore my friends by having anything as mundane as a midlife crisis I decided it might actually be more interesting to actually terrify them by going completely mad and declaring myself to be a magician.
Veidt had a the grandiose, misguided plot of a madman. A plot which in no was is even close to feasible in actual reality.
Much like the various plots to "win" a nuclear war. "Grandiose" and "misguided" sound like great ways to describe the calculations Nixon and his men were making. And presenting enemies with a new, greater threat has worked, at least sort of and for limited durations, in the real world. That said - if you're objecting to the presence of dimensional transport and cthuloid aliens in a comic book, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I think the reason I was affected a lot by Rorschach's death was because I'd just finished reading The Dark Knight Returns going into it, in which Batman seemed to have the same attitudes as Rorschach, and was celebrated as the hero of the story for it, whereas everyone else was shown to be corrupt.
It was something of a tough blow to go straight into this other story and have the entire fictional world basically say to him, "no, you're wrong, now you die." I find it odd that those two books seem to have fundamentally opposite messages.
Also much as I loved Watchmen, I did think it meandered a bit around the middle, to the point where it sort of felt like the author was just stalling with filler to make the book longer. Things that bugged me were constantly going back to the Black Freighter tale, and a good deal of the stuff with Jon on mars, especially the parts with him alone, felt unnecessarily long and drawn out. Nonetheless, it didn't detract too much from the story, and most of it DID prove to be important to the story in the end, I think I'm just an impatient reader when it comes to stories with a mystery in them.
Yeeeeeah, see, I did read that because I figured there was some important info in it, like the other prose inserts, but when I initially turned to it I was like, "essay on birds? Really? Do I HAVE to read this? For real?" I toughed it out, though. Only thing it does is give us insight into why Night Owl 2 specifically wanted to use the owl as his symbol.
Yeah, the ornithology article was easily the weakest of the additional materials. It does lend a little insight into Dan's mind, but not much else. I feel kind of bad about it, but I find myself skipping that bit when I read the book anymore.
Yeah, the ornithology article was easily the weakest of the additional materials. It does lend a little insight into Dan's mind, but not much else. I feel kind of bad about it, but I find myself skipping that bit when I read the book anymore.
Same here. That's actually the only one that I skip though. The rest all have their fascinating bits.
And it's funny that you bring up DKR Gent, because as I think others have already pointed out, Moore's intention was to write what a vigilante with the obsessive drive of Batman/Daredevil would really be like. Plus, I don't think you really should be surprise that the crazy, obsessed Batman is hailed as a hero. The thing was written by Frank Miller after all.
Hmm, I've heard opinions on Frank Miller's recent stuff, haven't read it though. All I know is TDK at the time had me wrapped up in the story, cheering for his anarchical version of Batman. And then I read Watchmen and I see the same character again, and cheer for him too. I cheered the moment he told Veidt and all of his former friends to fuck off, and walked out of the facility.
And then the second Doctor Manhattan appears, and literally, without knowing what happened next at all, i was just like, "Oh God no." I just knew he was screwed. I'd gotten emotionally wrapped up in TDK, and then transferred that to Rorschach, only to see him get killed, and then to not have anyone care about it. That was what got to me. The worst bit is the way no one seems to care that he's dead for the rest of the story, especially Silk Spectre and Night Owl, they just carry on their merry little way. Now I don't find it as bad but at the time the ending made me actually bitter because of that. I guess that's how you know a book is good.
(e.g. Why does Dr. Manhattan kill Rorschach when he, knowing the future, knows that the diary will be published?
actually, there's never any implication that manhattan is aware of any past or future occurrences in which he is not directly involved. not only that, but he at no point claims to be able to change the future. he sees it all coming, and is as helpless to stop it as if you or i wanted to stop a train by standing in front of it. he does what he does because that's how it happens, and perhaps there's no other way it could have happened.
pre-destination.
Servo on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited October 2008
"We're all puppets...I'm just a puppet who can see the strings."
You could view it as a mercy killing, since Rorscach probably would have died of exposure.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
no, he was always going to have been killed by jon. jon's known it since the day he became dr manhattan.
No, Jon couldn't see that far, remember? Something Veidt did.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Doesn't Manhattan specifically tell what's-her-face that he's going to kill someone? And we're meant to think it's her because he won't say who, but it's Rorschach?
Posts
Also, maybe you should have quoted the whole wiki article for a better understanding of the issue;
And where did this misconception that Alan Moore doesn't like films come from? Jeez. It's like people just skim through his words.
*punches Virral in the throat*
edit: Better yet, read this sympathetic NY Times article about the whole issue.
Sadly, I only got to read the first three before my parents came to pick me up (ah, the woes of being 14), but still, it was a holy experience. This is the finest comic I have ever read.
EDIT:By from 1986, I don't mean from eBay a few months back, I mean, like, he bought them in 86/87
i'd always wondered what it was exactly about his treatment at that trial that made him say he'd have been treated better if he'd murdered retarded kids, and this article was the first i've seen that actually says, so thanks aleph.
a ten-hour cross-examination does seem really excessive. really very excessive.
To be fair, DC has consistently, and at times it seems willfully, fucked Moore. He does V for Vendetta in the UK, and DC talks him and co-creator David Lloyd into letting them publish the rest of V, with the assurance that the rights will revert back to the creators once it's no longer in print. The same thing later happens with Watchmen. DC sees how well both books do, makes them into TPBs that still sell well to this day, and keeps them in print, ensuring he'll never own either ever again. Perhaps it was naive of him to simply hope that DC would give them back, but at that time, comics didn't stay in print for decades as TPBs. Moore, and a few contemporaries like Frank Miller, basically created the TPB movement, and in essence, fucked himself in doing so.
But hey, it happens. Years later he moves to Jim Lee's Wildstorm and does work for Lee on the ABC line. Then DC buys Wildstorm, forcing Moore to work for them again, and tampering with his stories despite assurances that they wouldn't. Obviously Moore and his work are valuable commodities, but it really seems like they, at times, went out of their way to screw him over by honoring the letter of their agreements, but no the spirit. But hell, maybe Moore would have petered out and just become another company man if he didn't have his righteous indignation fueling his creativity. Still, I can't help but wonder what kind of stuff he'd have done had DC not insisted on fucking the golden goose before it could lay a few more eggs.
Tumblr Twitter
Yeah, sounds like he was completely justified in his dislike of DC. Although he seemed fairly philosophical about that TPB business, I saw a quote somewhere basically saying somewhere that "well they managed to screw me, so I'll chalk it up to experience and never work for them again".
I was going to ask if Moore had ever worked for Marvel, but then I read this on the wiki
Oh god what a fuck up, I bet someone got fired for that
I never understood this, and yeah, it's probably because times were different back then, but it seems incredibly naive to sign over your rights with that type of promise. I mean, were TPB that uncommon back then?
They were unheard of.
Think of it like this: most television shows made before the early 90s were filmed with very limited rights negotiations with either actors or other content providers (e.g. musicians for soundtracks). At most, they discussed syndication rights. There was next to no (or none at all) discussion of home distribution rights, much less digital rights.
As a result, many shows like WKRP in Cincinatti spent years in negotiations trying to acquire those rights to distribute the shows on DVD, and even then had to change the show (changing songs by re-mixing the show) to avoid the hold-outs. Another example of this is The Muppet Show, where several sketches are removed from their new DVD season sets.
The reason this happened is simple: a combination of people not knowing what to ask for, and the market not being apparent to anyone (or at least not the right people). Moore took a somewhat risky but reasonable chance in letting DC distribute his work, and he lost on the gamble. Now, D.C. could always choose to treat him better than the contract requires, but frankly I find it somewhat ridiculous that he blames them so much for his own decisions.
I love Moore's work, don't get me wrong, but I think the man is an asshole who thrives on bitter grapes. He complains about every treatment of his work, refuses to help make them better, and then routinely bitches about it even more afterward. Just look at Watchmen: he's been invited to participate in that filmmaking process, and he refuses to even watch it.
You should never forget that great artists are by no means automatically great people. Far from it: most of the time, the level of genius required to make you a great artist (or engineer, or scientist, etc.) is often so overwhelming that it makes you a complete jerk.
I found the first two thirds very good/facinating. This cast of characters could've been real masked men in the real world. The examination of their varying psychological profiles and problems was really engaging because I could relate in a tangible way. Whether it was Rorschach's cynical hatred for a world of seemingly insurmountable evil, Nite Owl's feelings of inadequacy (mid-life crisis, anyone?), or Dr. Manhattan's feelings of severe alienation; I've either felt those feelings myself or know people who have (this goes equally for Veidt's idealism and the Comedians cynicism). Plus this is the peak of Cold war pessimism, clearly in line with the general mood of the early 1980s.
This picture of real world heroes with real world problems was cool, and as someone who loved escapist anime or hero fiction growing up, I really liked it from a mature, literary standpoint.
The last third got a bit zany, though, and a lot of plot elements lost any semblance of sense (e.g. Why does Dr. Manhattan kill Rorschach when he, knowing the future, knows that the diary will be published? Why does Nite Owl so quickly make up his mind to let Adrian off the hook? etc). Also, Veidt's character arc lost any relation to reality. It became a traditional hero/villain story, when I think it would've been more fascinating (though negative) if there had been no conspiracy, and the "heroes" had all just destroyed themselves in much the same way that the protagonist in the black freighter story had.
Either way, though, it's a damn fine piece of art. I just thought it wrapped itself up into perhaps too simple a bow.
My favorite moment, and perhaps the most emotional to me was when Hollis died.
EDIT:
PS. I theorize that the movie will not come anywhere close to doing it justice, especially with 300's director at the helm *gag*
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Yeah, but why does he do anything?
I mean, you know?
It was, though.
Veidt had a the grandiose, misguided plot of a madman. A plot which in no was is even close to feasible in actual reality. He won, then three characters (Nite Owl, Jon, and Sally) just pretty much said "Oh, okay, damn, alright, later" and Rorschach was needlessly killed. It was all wrapped up in a neat little bow.
The only saving grace was the implication of the journal and Veidt's expression of doubt as Jon was leaving. Those, however, don't compare to the wealth of interpretable material in the middle of the book, which I thought was more interesting.
Again, when I say "simple" I mean in a manner similar to a typical comic book.
@august
Good point. I guess it felt extra contrived here.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The world was morally gray before Veidt's plan; in fact much more so according to Veidt's theory... so I don't follow why Rorschach wouldn't fit into it. Also, Rorschach's journal has as much credibility as Rorschach himself. They're both equally threatening in their potential for destabilization, so the fact that the journal may or may not have caused people to realize what happened is irrelevant. If Jon killed Rorschach because he threatened to destabilize the world, leaving the journal makes no sense.
There was another possibility: he was killed because he posed a danger to Veidt. But even that's pretty flimsy.
Also, of fucking course Veidt's plan was mad and misguided, humanity has never been nor will ever be unified in a manner which prevents hostility in any sort of permanent way. But my point had more to do with the fact that such a plan is impossible in reality (psychic brains and teleportation and all that jazz).
It was fantasy in a book that I found interesting because it bridged the gap between fantasy and reality by making its characters real people with real problems. To me, this reversion to regular old comic book world was a bit disappointing.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
You assume that humanity wouldn't have united against a common, external enemy; I don't see why it's unreasonable to believe that they would. You say the plan is impossible, and yet so is Manhattan's existence. Also, teleportation has already been invented.
I don't think it reverted to "regular old comic book world" at all. Basically, I'm saying that you are entitled to your opinion, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's the only valid interpretation of the book's ending.
I'm partial to the theory that it wasn't Rorschach that demanded to be killed, but Kovacs. Remember that he pulls his mask off before saying it. Suicide isn't an option for Rorschach, but it could be for poor Walter.
And yeah, calling the ending "impossible" despite everything else that happens up to it is a little crazy.
I agree with this and I should have been more clear in my statement.
This is awesome and you are awesome for saying it.
I still don't buy Veidt's plot as a primary narrative device, though. The extraordinary things in the earlier sections of the novel are never what drives the story. The characters are what drives the story (e.g. even though what happens to Jon that makes him a superhero is clearly fantasy, and he does impossible things, his loneliness and distance from the human race still makes his story relevant).
In the world of Watchmen, Veidt was human (a very talented human). As such, when he starts doing things that are impossible by human standards and pulls off a plot that is outrageous by any human standard, my disbelief got in the way of my absorption into the story. Plus I just found the whole "kill a bunch of people for the greater good" thing to be trite compared to the other, more personal problems of the rest of the characters.
As I stated in my first post in this thread, I liked being able to relate to these heroes, or see them as real people. I lost my ability to do that with Veidt.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I wish I could take credit for it, but it was brought up earlier in this thread. It does tend to answer some questions, though.
Much like the various plots to "win" a nuclear war. "Grandiose" and "misguided" sound like great ways to describe the calculations Nixon and his men were making. And presenting enemies with a new, greater threat has worked, at least sort of and for limited durations, in the real world. That said - if you're objecting to the presence of dimensional transport and cthuloid aliens in a comic book, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I think the reason I was affected a lot by Rorschach's death was because I'd just finished reading The Dark Knight Returns going into it, in which Batman seemed to have the same attitudes as Rorschach, and was celebrated as the hero of the story for it, whereas everyone else was shown to be corrupt.
It was something of a tough blow to go straight into this other story and have the entire fictional world basically say to him, "no, you're wrong, now you die." I find it odd that those two books seem to have fundamentally opposite messages.
Also much as I loved Watchmen, I did think it meandered a bit around the middle, to the point where it sort of felt like the author was just stalling with filler to make the book longer. Things that bugged me were constantly going back to the Black Freighter tale, and a good deal of the stuff with Jon on mars, especially the parts with him alone, felt unnecessarily long and drawn out. Nonetheless, it didn't detract too much from the story, and most of it DID prove to be important to the story in the end, I think I'm just an impatient reader when it comes to stories with a mystery in them.
I've never read Nite-Owl's essay on birds, though.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Same here. That's actually the only one that I skip though. The rest all have their fascinating bits.
And it's funny that you bring up DKR Gent, because as I think others have already pointed out, Moore's intention was to write what a vigilante with the obsessive drive of Batman/Daredevil would really be like. Plus, I don't think you really should be surprise that the crazy, obsessed Batman is hailed as a hero. The thing was written by Frank Miller after all.
And then the second Doctor Manhattan appears, and literally, without knowing what happened next at all, i was just like, "Oh God no." I just knew he was screwed. I'd gotten emotionally wrapped up in TDK, and then transferred that to Rorschach, only to see him get killed, and then to not have anyone care about it. That was what got to me. The worst bit is the way no one seems to care that he's dead for the rest of the story, especially Silk Spectre and Night Owl, they just carry on their merry little way. Now I don't find it as bad but at the time the ending made me actually bitter because of that. I guess that's how you know a book is good.
actually, there's never any implication that manhattan is aware of any past or future occurrences in which he is not directly involved. not only that, but he at no point claims to be able to change the future. he sees it all coming, and is as helpless to stop it as if you or i wanted to stop a train by standing in front of it. he does what he does because that's how it happens, and perhaps there's no other way it could have happened.
pre-destination.
You could view it as a mercy killing, since Rorscach probably would have died of exposure.
No, Jon couldn't see that far, remember? Something Veidt did.