Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theinevitable]

I mean, it seems like they made it, and I am assuming that they have consulted with Alan Moore. Fox coming in now and saying "OH WAIT, that thing you've been working on for several years, and we had totally heard about it? Pay us for it. You should not have made it."

Basically though, my problem is that so many of the applications of IP make me incredibly mad.

"by signing this paper, i now own the idea of ever making a movie out of this book."
WHAT

[pmcd9]

It's not just about signing a paper.  I can assure you Alan Moore cashed a sizable check with Fox as the payee. 

Sure it seems dickish to step in at the last minute, but I'd like to know more details.  Like for instance when did Fox actually learn about this?  Was it before production started?  If it were it's likely they would have stepped in then.  Was it after production started and Warner has already spent millions on the thing?  If it was after I would think the best thing for both parties would be to wait until after production to get into the legal shit.  If they had stepped in at that point and shut down production then Warner would be out shit loads of money, nobody would get paid except the lawyers, and there would be no movie.

So they wait til the end, step in and take their rightful cut and we all get to see the movie.  Everybody's happy.

[littlefallsmets]

Alan Moore refused involvement, either way. Demanded his name not be used in any promotional materials. Refused royalties, too.

Too many horrible or inappropriate adaptations of his work, it seems. Plus it could be argued that as a deconstruction of the comic book form, "Watchmen" is fundamentally lessened by adaptation to another medium, the same way that a deconstruction of the novel in the form of "Breakfast of Champions" failed as a movie and a rap song about that painting "Ce n'est pas une pipe" would fail no matter how good the rapper involved in the project.

It's not to say that there couldn't be merit or some translation of the work but... the parts that are direct commentary on the form are kind of irrevocably lost.

I mean, though I'm fighting with a lot of ideas right now, I have one that only works as a film because it's a commentary on the form. The general narrative structure COULD be a short story or a comic book, I suppose, but some of the meta-commentary would be lost as some of the metacommentary is buried, in this example, in the form of intentional continuity errors.

So, I dunno. There's a lot of stuff in Watchmen where the shapes of the frames or the page layout are part of the message. Mirrored sequences, the use of Rorsharch's journal as thought bubbles, the pirate comic within a comic... I don't know. These things don't MEAN the same things in a 24fps live action presentation.

I mean, Moore is awesome-crazy to begin with, he's just opposed to the idea idealogically but... especially "Watchmen".

[pmcd9]

Mike, I love you brother, but that was the biggest load of bullshit I believe I've ever read. 

So you're saying Alan Moore is opposed to a Watchman movie so he sold the movie rights to Fox for free?

So you think the graphic novel format is so integral to the Watchman story that a good movie isn't possible?

I say that Alan Moore wants this movie to be made so badly he sold the rights to two studios.

I say if the story can't stand on it's on it's not a very good story.

[JorgeFabregas]

I say that Alan Moore wants this movie to be made so badly he sold the rights to two studios.

I am sure that's not the case. First of all, you are assuming the Moore would is the one owning movie rights and not the book's publisher. Second, that's just not what happened.

In 1991, Fox entered into an agreement with Gordon, a former Fox studio chief, under which Fox transferred some of its "Watchmen" rights to Gordon. The studio believes the 1991 deal gave Fox distribution rights to the film and a share of "Watchmen" and any sequel's profits if Gordon made the film elsewhere. Three years later, Fox entered into another agreement with Gordon, this time saying that Fox was putting the film in turnaround (meaning the studio would not be making it at the time and Gordon could try to sell the project to someone else), according to court documents and people close to the dispute. As Fox interprets that 1994 deal, Gordon wouldn't fully control "Watchmen's" production rights until he reimbursed Fox its development costs (with interest, now in excess of $1 million, Fox says), a payment Fox says Gordon never made. Furthermore, if Gordon changed any of the key creative elements behind "Watchmen" (such as director, screenwriter or principal cast), he was obligated to resubmit the movie to Fox, which would have a few days to rejoin the production if it wanted, the studio maintains. (Fox says Gordon never informed Fox of the change when Snyder came aboard.)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-watchmen16-2008nov16,0,5337353.story

[littlefallsmets]

I don't believe he ever held any rights to the story.

I'm fairly certain it was a work-for-hire, owned by DC and by extension by the Time Warner Corporation.

I believe he had some kind of deal where he would've had some partial royalties, had he wanted them as is a leverage maintained by some of the bigger names in comic books, but the controlling interest behind the intellectual property was DC Comics, I am almost entirely sure.

These days, the most premiere creators might be able to negotiate creative control over their characters but not back in the middle 1980s, not for DC or Marvel. Back then, you had to be pretty damned big to even get residuals or royalties on, like, your characters at all. You were lucky if you got paid what they promised you and returned the art. Independent publishing was shut out of the major distribution system and the smaller presses had almost no reach.

If you wanted to work for the big boys, they owned the rights on your work.

I can't find an online image of the theatrical one-sheet but I swear I remember only the artist being credited at the bottom of the poster.

[pmcd9]

Why am I arguing about a movie I could give a shit about?

I'm sorry Jorge, sorry Mike.  I don't know anything about this and made some assumptions.

[littlefallsmets]

I guess you kinda gotta be a nerd to know how few rights comic book creators had until the early nineties and, even then, only big names.

But yeah. On the Watchmen website, at the bottom of the "photos" section, they have the official MPAA and unions-approved credits masthead...

It refers to the source material as "based on the graphic novel illustrated by DAVE GIBBONS and published by DC COMICS".

Moore refused credit and, I believe, may have even demanded that his name not be on any of the promotional material via legal channels.

And, I mean, if you had people running around associating the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film with your good name, you'd be like that too.

[pmcd9]

I actually did know that about the creators rights and such, I'm a comic book geek too, but things aren't like that anymore.  I guess I assumed that Moore fell into the latter category. 

My Dad liked the League of Extraordinary Gentleman movie so it's got that going for it.  I think I've got that actually, the comic that is.  That was right about when I stopped buying so I'm not really sure.

I should dig my comics out of storage.  Some of that stuff's worth some money I think.  I've got the first appearance of Wolverine.  I've got the first appearance of the Punisher.  Got lots of great Marvel stuff going back to the 60's.

[jaydub]

It refers to the source material as "based on the graphic novel illustrated by DAVE GIBBONS and published by DC COMICS".

"written by ALLEN SMITHEE" ?

[smick]

Moore's Wikipedia page is an amusing read.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore

I kind of picture him as a fellow whom what is compelled to write comic books, even though it makes a huge vein in his forehead throb.

Further, I picture every movie made from his work as an attempt by DC to psychically assassinate him.

[littlefallsmets]

Again, the dude's right in my wheelhouse.

I'm just a huge fan of crazy people.

[Death Ray]

I got the biggest thrill I think the movie could offer just from the first trailer, with the Smashing Pumpkins music in the background. Just enough recognizable moments, and I was left tangibly haunted by it, being a big fan of the original. A great (if long delayed) aperitif to the experience of reading the GN.

That said, the Watchmen is about the writing, not the action. If the movie doesn't do for superhero movies what the comic did for superhero comics, what's the point? I think a lot of bullet time is going to be substituted for Alan Moore's brilliance. Think I'll pass.

[miles]

I saw the trailer for Gran Torino and thought it was a comedy. I mean, doesn't Clint Eastwood actually grumble at some kids to get off his lawn? But apparently it's not bad.

[pmcd9]

I enjoyed Gran Torino very much.