The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Victorian Squid** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:49 pm

GHERU wrote:perhaps all that time as an editor and publisher before working for DC didn't prepare him as well as he might have thought

You can see from the post you quoted that nope, that's not what I think at all. In fact quite the opposite. I think this was a way of getting out of the contract to write Fairest and still get paid for the pages he turned in. From the perspective of someone who wants out and already has other projects he'd rather be working on, it's win/win. But you can any old naive thing you want to.

by **Juan Cena** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:00 pm

BlueMole wrote:
When it hits public domain, you will.

Which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

by **Victorian Squid** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:01 pm

The Nacireman wrote:

Which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

We'll you're just gonna have to be patient then, huh?

by **Royal Nonesuch** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:20 pm

Victorian Mole wrote:It may be good internet drama, but don't think he didn't anticipate that this would happen.

I don't even think it's good internet drama. It's pretty obvious that this is what would happen, and considering he's the one who engineered this whole thing, it's exactly what Chris Roberson wanted.

Also: this is only "burning bridges" if DC/Vertigo is the only publisher in the world.

by **Benderbrau** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:21 pm

Dear Jeph Loeb,

Please post disparaging comments about Marvel comics ASAP. Thank you.

by **GHERU** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:41 pm

Victorian Mole wrote:
You can see from the post you quoted that nope, that's not what I think at all. In fact quite the opposite. I think this was a way of getting out of the contract to write Fairest and still get paid for the pages he turned in. From the perspective of someone who wants out and already has other projects he'd rather be working on, it's win/win. But you can any old naive thing you want to.

My mind inserted the word "I" before don't in this sentence "but don't think he didn't anticipate that this would happen."
my bad

by **GHERU** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:44 pm

Royal Nonesuch wrote:
I don't even think it's good internet drama. It's pretty obvious that this is what would happen, and considering he's the one who engineered this whole thing, it's exactly what Chris Roberson wanted.

Also: this is only "burning bridges" if DC/Vertigo is the only publisher in the world.

I'm really glad for him he got his Fairest story line canned
kinda bummed for those of us looking forward to it, but kudos for him

it is burning bridges if he ever wants to work with DC again, like if they change their policies, he might not be able to go back there
or, if he tries to negotiate a contract with another publisher and they Google him to see if he is discrete
or, if he had friends / people who respected him who worked in that part of the company who he just called backstabbing d-bags (paraphrasing)
or, if, as some have suggested, he purposefully got a story readers were looking forward to canned to prove a point

by **GLX** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:55 pm

Bill Willingham on Twitter wrote:Not decided by me. I will work with @chris_roberson any time. Any place.

I am privy to a little inside information of what @chris_roberson will be doing instead of his Fairest arc and it will be awesome. So there.

by **Victorian Squid** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:00 pm

GLX wrote:

brianwood wrote:My careers only gotten better since I stopped working for DC. Chris Roberson is DC's loss.

by **Victorian Squid** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:01 pm

GHERU wrote:My mind inserted the word "I" before don't in this sentence "but don't think he didn't anticipate that this would happen."
my bad

That's cool, no probs, I figured you must've misread something somewhere. I do that all the time in a hurry.

by **Timbales** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:14 pm

"I'm livid about the unethical treatment of creators!" :posted from iPad:

by **habitual** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:19 pm

Timbales wrote:"I'm livid about the unethical treatment of creators!" :posted from iPad:

Here's the thing, I understand where your coming from when you say that DC is totally within their rights to treat the material in any way they wish, despite Moore's objections.

Why kill the golden goose though? Moore definitely has many years left to crank out great material and probably would still be working in the industry if none of this had happened.

In the long run it's debatable whether it was a good business decision or not imo.

Hab

by **Timbales** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:24 pm

habitual wrote:
Here's the thing, I understand where your coming from when you say that DC is totally within their rights to treat the material in any way they wish, despite Moore's objections.

Why kill the golden goose though? Moore definitely has many years left to crank out great material and probably would still be working in the industry if none of this had happened.

In the long run it's debatable whether it was a good business decision or not imo.

Hab

Honest answer? To me, Moore seems like the most worse person in the world to try to deal or work with. At this point, the goose is dead as far as Moore and mainstream comics go. I have no qualms saying that DC is looking to make bucks off Watchmen any way they can. I get that and understand it. They are in the business to make money for their shareholders. It's up to the creator's who have agreed to do it to make it good.

by **habitual** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:32 pm

Timbales wrote:
Honest answer? To me, Moore seems like the most worse person in the world to try to deal or work with. At this point, the goose is dead as far as Moore and mainstream comics go. I have no qualms saying that DC is looking to make bucks off Watchmen any way they can. I get that and understand it. They are in the business to make money for their shareholders. It's up to the creator's who have agreed to do it to make it good.

Who cares? You always have to put up with more crap when dealing with the best, Hollywood knows this.

The bottom line, for me at least, is for reasons having nothing to do with the creative talent of the artist they no longer have him producing work. If I were a shareholder I'd be upset about how in the long run, this is a bad business decision. I don't care if he wanted to use one of the DC executives as a footstool if it kept him cranking out great books. They took a very shortsighted approach in handling this.

Hab

by **SilverPhoenix** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:33 pm

I don't think anyone could be shocked about the dynamite going boom in this case. This was going to happen whether we predicted, expected or anticipated it or not. DC is going to do what it thinks is in its best interests and in this case it does no one any good to get really heated over it.

At the same time though, DC might have just wasted a substantial PR opportunity. They could've easily let Roberson finish out his prior commitments and gained a positive mark in how creators are treated. (especially since the discussion of creator's rights is at the forefront of the industry's meta-narrative) Instead, they went the route everyone knew they would.

Of course, not taking this PR win doesn't mean it's necessarily a loss (at least not as far as tangible dollars and cents go), it's just a wasted chance to get a leg up on things.