The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[ReturnoftheMack]

If the only choices are not using them or bringing them into the DCnU, then I choose unused. Not every concept has to be beaten to the ground. You don't have to squeeze every last bit of goodwill out of every project. And every book is not a franchise.

It is exactly this thinking that has led us to the world of endless sequels and reboots we are at today. Good business? Possible, but I doubt it. Eventually, what you're actually doing is numbing the public and churning out crap for the sake of churning out crap.

Personally, I think the good business part is impossible to argue. The Star Wars prequels were crap, but it was good business.

[GHERU]

I hate Shakespeare and think he's a hack.

Many scholars also feel the same way.

So comparing Moore to Shakespeare means nothing to me.

This is now twice Frag and I agree
I'm going to have to stop now (in this thread, for this very specific argument) before we call up something worse than Beetlejuice

[Ntikrst]

I hate Shakespeare and think he's a hack.

Many scholars also feel the same way.

Yes, who can deny great minds like Roland Emmerich.

So comparing Moore to Shakespeare means nothing to me.

That's because you missed the point entirely.

Art isn't in the details, it's in how they are specifically interpreted by the artist. What new "Spin" or "Take" can they find on something that is familiar. Audiences want familiar, but they want to be surprised with the unexpected too.

Stories consist of three acts. There's only four plots, Man vs Man, Man vs Self, Man vs Nature, Man vs Supernatural. There are NO original characters in fiction. Even DC's dynamic duo aren't original at all.

We can go even further back and include Scarlet Pimpernel and Samson, Odysseus and Heracles.

It's natural to steal characters, it's derivative to steal someone else's premise.

[Dragavon]

Yes, who can deny great minds like Roland Emmerich.



That's because you missed the point entirely.

Art isn't in the details, it's in how they are specifically interpreted by the artist. What new "Spin" or "Take" can they find on something that is familiar. Audiences want familiar, but they want to be surprised with the unexpected too.

Stories consist of three acts. There's only four plots, Man vs Man, Man vs Self, Man vs Nature, Man vs Supernatural. There are NO original characters in fiction. Even DC's dynamic duo aren't original at all.

We can go even further back and include Scarlet Pimpernel and Samson, Odysseus and Heracles.

It's natural to steal characters, it's derivative to steal someone else's premise.

Except it's not Moore's premise. It's DC's. And if they want to something with the concept no matter how stupid, it's their right. The only right you have is not to buy that terrible crap. End of discussion.

[Ntikrst]

Except it's not Moore's premise. It's DC's. And if they want to something with the concept no matter how stupid, it's their right.

With all due respect, you are mistaken. Watchmen isn't work for hire, it's a licensed project that potentially could revert back to the creators if the conditions were met. Of course with DC's relentless marketing strategies and endless solicitations, it won't because DC exploits a loophole to retain the licence indefinitely, but the potential for the original creators to reclaim the property is still there.

It's certainly their prerogative but have you ever had your work unfairly exploited? It never feels right to the victim.

The only right you have is not to buy that terrible crap. End of discussion.

I have the right to express myself and who knows, maybe enough of these kinds of discussions will actually effect some change in how corporations treat the talent that drives the industry. If enough Robersons and Moores boycott these practices maybe the independent publishers can gain a greater share of the market and end the Duopoly.

[Dragavon]

With all due respect, you are mistaken. Watchmen isn't work for hire, it's a licensed project that potentially could revert back to the creators if the conditions were met. Of course with DC's relentless marketing strategies and endless solicitations, it won't because DC exploits a loophole to retain the licence indefinitely, but the potential for the original creators to reclaim the property is still there.

It's certainly their prerogative but have you ever had your work unfairly exploited? It never feels right to the victim.

No offense to you but this mentality that had the work reverted to Moore, it could have been truly profitable or truly great is bullshit. It was profitable because DC paid for the publishing, marketed it and then reaped the profits. If it had reverted back to Moore, it would be an book that no one would have read because there would have been one printing.

It's the same kind of thinking that says that if Superman had reverted to Siegel and Shuster, then it would have been as integral to comics as it is today. Whereas the reality is, if Superman was not part of the DC universe, the character would suffer but the Universe wouldn't.

[alaska1125]

No offense to you but this mentality that had the work reverted to Moore, it could have been truly profitable or truly great is bullshit. It was profitable because DC paid for the publishing, marketed it and then reaped the profits. If it had reverted back to Moore, it would be an book that no one would have read because there would have been one printing.

It's the same kind of thinking that says that if Superman had reverted to Siegel and Shuster, then it would have been as integral to comics as it is today. Whereas the reality is, if Superman was not part of the DC universe, the character would suffer but the Universe wouldn't.

Yep.

[ReturnoftheMack]

Yes, who can deny great minds like Roland Emmerich.



That's because you missed the point entirely.

Art isn't in the details, it's in how they are specifically interpreted by the artist. What new "Spin" or "Take" can they find on something that is familiar. Audiences want familiar, but they want to be surprised with the unexpected too.

Stories consist of three acts. There's only four plots, Man vs Man, Man vs Self, Man vs Nature, Man vs Supernatural. There are NO original characters in fiction. Even DC's dynamic duo aren't original at all.

We can go even further back and include Scarlet Pimpernel and Samson, Odysseus and Heracles.

It's natural to steal characters, it's derivative to steal someone else's premise.

No offense, but your argument is complete nonsense.

And I love how to prove his point, the artist used the same head for Superman and the characters before him.

[ReturnoftheMack]

Also, the argument about Moore is not only does he copy characters, but HE USES THE OLD CHARACTERS like all the LotG.

Watchmen was only "new" characters because they wouldn't let Moore use the old ones.

[Ntikrst]

No offense to you but this mentality that had the work reverted to Moore, it could have been truly profitable or truly great is bullshit.

You've got me confused with someone else. I'm just pointing out that everyone recycles characters, "Art" is in how one "Makes it their own". Prequels lack creative merit because they rely on the source. BW is playing it safe by existing in Moore's territory. By contrast, the characters in the LoEG never co-existed until Moore created that unique premise.

It was profitable because DC paid for the publishing, marketed it and then reaped the profits. If it had reverted back to Moore, it would be an book that no one would have read because there would have been one printing.

Moore said in '86 he and Dave would sell the slurpee cups when they got the rights back. I doubt they were planning on doing it out of their garage, they would probably licence it to the highest bidder, much like they would have with Watchmen. It's not like DC has some kind of exclusive expertise in marketing Comic Books.

It's the same kind of thinking that says that if Superman had reverted to Siegel and Shuster, then it would have been as integral to comics as it is today. Whereas the reality is, if Superman was not part of the DC universe, the character would suffer but the Universe wouldn't.

Again, you've got me confused with someone else. But just to play DA, who's to say S&S couldn't have made a mint licensing Superman to Marvel or Fawcett? I'm sure the controversy of a major flagship character like that switching publishers would sell a lot of units.

[Dragavon]

You've got me confused with someone else. I'm just pointing out that everyone recycles characters, "Art" is in how one "Makes it their own". Prequels lack creative merit because they rely on the source. BW is playing it safe by existing in Moore's territory. By contrast, the characters in the LoEG never co-existed until Moore created that unique premise.

He did not create a unique premise in LoEG. It had already been done by Phillip Jose Farmer and Kim Newman and I'm sure a few other writers before that.

Moore said in '86 he and Dave would sell the slurpee cups when they got the rights back. I doubt they were planning on doing it out of their garage, they would probably licence it to the highest bidder, much like they would have with Watchmen. It's not like DC has some kind of exclusive expertise in marketing Comic Books.

More than likely he would have been the curmudgeon that he is right now. There's stories from other creators who worked with him not being able to profit from their works because he's the co-owner.

Again, you've got me confused with someone else. But just to play DA, who's to say S&S couldn't have made a mint licensing Superman to Marvel or Fawcett? I'm sure the controversy of a major flagship character like that switching publishers would sell a lot of units.

Like Archie's Red Circle characters licensed to DC made a lot of money and sold a lot of units?

[Ntikrst]

No offense, but your argument is complete nonsense.

No it isn't, you just don't want to see it. It doesn't matter if you use someone else's chess pieces when they're in the public domain, they are up for grabs so that people CAN use them. What matters is that the Chess Board is unique, how the artist makes the pieces interact, that's Art.

BW is creatively bankrupt because it's using Moore's Chess Board. Everything is happening between his panels to be wrapped up to co-incide with Watchmen. If it was a sequel after the original narrative ended, at least it would be breaking new ground.

And I love how to prove his point, the artist used the same head for Superman and the characters before him.

Thanks man, I drew them that way for a reason.

Check out John Cater's description from 1920.
"He was a splendid specimen of manhood, standing a good two inches over six feet, broad of shoulder and narrow of hip, with the carriage of the trained fighting man. His features were regular and clear cut, his hair black and closely cropped, while his eyes were of a steel grey, reflecting a strong and loyal character, filled with fire and initiative."

Then there's Hugo Danner's description from 1930.
"Extremely dark of hair, of eyes and skin, moderately tall, and shaped with that compact, breath taking symmetry that the male figure sometimes assumes, a brilliantly devised, aggressive head topping his broad shoulders, graceful, a man vehemently alive, a man with the promise of a young God. Hugo at eighteen."

He fills out even more after university. Don't just take my word for it, Gladiator by Philip Wylie is in the public domain, go read it yourself. The John Carter series might be free too, if not it's dirt cheap read them both.

The parallels to Superman are staggering.

[Ntikrst]

He did not create a unique premise in LoEG. It had already been done by Phillip Jose Farmer and Kim Newman and I'm sure a few other writers before that.

But did any of these people write about Victorian characters banding together at the turn of the 20th century against the Martian invasion? No premise is truly unique, but nobody read LoEG and said "Oh wow, this is fucking Riverworld"

More than likely he would have been the curmudgeon that he is right now. There's stories from other creators who worked with him not being able to profit from their works because he's the co-owner.

Then there's Dave Gibbons, who gets all of Alan Moore's Watchmen money.

Like Archie's Red Circle characters licensed to DC made a lot of money and sold a lot of units?

No I'm talking about a situation where Captain America goes to Dynamite, or Superman goes to Image. Archie's Circle jerks are apples to my oranges.

[Ntikrst]

I'd be a curmudgeon too if this happened to me.

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/25/the-creators-position-viewed-through-the-lens-of-alan-moore/

[alaska1125]

Holy mother of God...just boycott DC then. Cripes, the bitching is ridiculous. Better yet, set up a tent in Moore's beard as a show of solidarity. Whatever.