Watchmen

[Peng]

See Regina King playing superhero, I'm in.

[Irish]

How long until the alt-right nazis on 4chan co-opt "tick tock tick tock"?

[Ezee E]

Westworld, His Dark Materials, Watchmen... One of these needs to work out.

[Dukefrukem]

Westworld, His Dark Materials, Watchmen... One of these needs to work out.

My interest fades rapidly when it takes 2 years to pump out 8 episodes.

[Skitch]

My interest fades rapidly when it takes 2 years to pump out 8 episodes.

And if you are going to take that long you damn well better not have any coffee cups lying around ya lazy fucks

[MadMan]

How long until the alt-right nazis on 4chan co-opt "tick tock tick tock"?

Probably after the first episode hits. Nevermind their precious dear leader is going to have to lawyer up after he leaves office.

[MadMan]

See Regina King playing superhero, I'm in.

Yeah she rocks.

[Dukefrukem]

So it's a sequel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yKq1PRvPJQ

[Skitch]

Didn't we already know it was a sequel?

[Irish]

A try-hard, grittier version of "Heroes."

But then I see Don Johnson and Regina King and think, well, maybe I'll watch.

[Ezee E]

Didn't we already know it was a sequel?

That's how I thought it was too. I should watch the movie again.

[Peng]

Here for Regina King having what looks to be a very fun role.

[MadMan]

So it's a sequel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yKq1PRvPJQ

Yes. Also this looks really cool.

[Irish]

TIL: Never argue with people on the internet about Rorschach because holy shit.

I mean, I shoulda know better, right? Fuck me.

[Dukefrukem]

Haha What happened? Link??

[Irish]

https://i.imgur.com/emSAOKK.jpg

Thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/justneckbeardthings/comments/do5du3/when_plans_backfire/

Extra context (and Moore's full quote): http://www.stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/

So post-Snyder, a lotta people latched onto the "but you see Rorscach is actually a BAD person" interpretation. This is true but it's also terribly obvious.

My mistake was saying, yeah, but you can see why somebody might walk away with the wrong impression, right? It's not the reader's fault. It's Moore's.

[megladon8]

Alan Moore should just write and stop talking about his own works and how much smarter he is than everyone else.

Man, that guy is a brilliant writer, but what an insufferable douche.

[Skitch]

Alan Moore should just write and stop talking about his own works and how much smarter he is than everyone else.

Man, that guy is a brilliant writer, but what an insufferable douche.

YEP.

[Ezee E]

You could've told me he was dead, and I would've believed you.

[Grouchy]

Wow, so much anti-Moore rubbish. How is he an insufferable douche? He is and has always been an opinionated man, that's we all like about his works, right? That they convey a strong message about the world we live in? His beef with DC, which is the reason why he went independent and all angry about big conglomerate superhero franchises, is completely legitimate and he's speaking on behalf of all hired writers in a way.


You could've told me he was dead, and I would've believed you.
This is just mean, man. I mean, he's not prolific, but every once and then he publishes something. We also have to take into account that he's almost self-published at this point, having renounced all royalties from film projects based on his works. Every time Watchmen or V for Vendetta appear on TV or streaming media, Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd get an update on their bank accounts but not Moore because he gave them up in protest.

I find Irish's original point far more interesting, though. There is of course some identification with Roscharch while reading Watchmen but I think this is completely valid and works for the benefit of the book. I feel this debate corelates somehow with all the outrage around Joker. Like, of course, an artistic portrayal of a man descending into madness should try and make you understand him at some point. It's a dramatic prerogative.

[Skitch]

Is that true? He hasnt made a dime off the movie adaptations?

[Grouchy]

Is that true? He hasnt made a dime off the movie adaptations?
His name is not even on the credits per his specific request.

[Skitch]

But at some stage he has to sign off on them, doesnt he? Or did he give the creative rights away to publishers?

[Irish]

I've read that Moore donates his DC-related royalties and residuals to his collaborators, not that he renounced what he's legitimately owed. I mean, that would be cutting DC a huge break and saving them money.

Meanwhile, Dave Gibbons has no problem taking the cash and having his name in the credits, which is weird and shitty.

Never thought Moore was a douche, still don't, but it's in bad taste to bag on your own readers (as he did in the quote above).

[Irish]

I find Irish's original point far more interesting, though. There is of course some identification with Roscharch while reading Watchmen but I think this is completely valid and works for the benefit of the book. I feel this debate corelates somehow with all the outrage around Joker. Like, of course, an artistic portrayal of a man descending into madness should try and make you understand him at some point. It's a dramatic prerogative.

What makes the comic so good is that everybody has a slightly different interpretation of it. Even that reddit thread had a couple of fresh insights here and there. It amazes & delights me that people are still able to do that after 30 years of talking about it.

Rorschach is a slippery because he's more layered than, say, Lori or Nite Owl. But if Moore intended the character as a critique of Batman, as he claims in the quote linked above, then I think he failed completely.

[Grouchy]

I've read that Moore donates his DC-related royalties and residuals to his collaborators, not that he renounced what he's legitimately owed. I mean, that would be cutting DC a huge break and saving them money.

Meanwhile, Dave Gibbons has no problem taking the cash and having his name in the credits, which is weird and shitty.
Yeah, it's not like he's giving the money to DC. The whole point is that he hates DC hahah. But yeah, you're right to correct me, it's not like he's giving away the creative rights, he just donated his money to the artist and demands his name off the film.

As for Gibbons, I don't know, man. How many people know who Dave Gibbons is outside of hardcore comic-book nerds? These are real people, maybe with children, hospital bills to pay and so forth. If your collaborator is taking this whole moral stand and handing over money to you to take care of those things, how long would you refuse?

[Grouchy]

What makes the comic so good is that everybody has a slightly different interpretation of it. Even that reddit thread had a couple of fresh insights here and there. It amazes & delights me that people are still able to do that after 30 years of talking about it.

Rorschach is a slippery because he's more layered than, say, Lori or Nite Owl. But if Moore intended the character as a critique of Batman, as he claims in the quote linked above, then I think he failed completely.
Agreed completely. As you probably already know, these characters were originally from Charlton Comics which had been a recent purchase by DC. When Moore's creative process led him to write definitive endings and personality traits DC (editor Dick Giordano to be precise) urged him to write new characters based on them, partly so he could take it even further but also (of course) to milk them for an indefinite period of time. So Roscharch is actually based on The Question, a Steve Ditko character who was a hothead reporter who killed bad guys who fleed the system's justice. It has some elements of another Ditko character called Mr. A as well. I think Moore meant that he intended his character to be a critique of vigilantes in general, and the biggest archetype for that is Batman. But there's a huge social gap between Roscharch and Bruce Wayne which I think is relevant when taking these things into consideration.

[Irish]

As for Gibbons, I don't know, man. How many people know who Dave Gibbons is outside of hardcore comic-book nerds? These are real people, maybe with children, hospital bills to pay and so forth. If your collaborator is taking this whole moral stand and handing over money to you to take care of those things, how long would you refuse?

I couldn't blame him for taking the money --- quietly. But the credits on the new show make it appear as if Gibbons is the creator, which is a little fucked. Plus, I think it's shitty that he went back and did additional work to help promote Snyder's movie and made positive remarks about the film to the press.

The thing that amazes me about Moore is that, at this point, we're talking about millions of dollars. It's rare for anyone to have that level of artistic integrity (or rage, haha). Maybe the only other guy in a similar position is Bill Watterson, with "Calvin and Hobbes."


Agreed completely. As you probably already know, these characters were originally from Charlton Comics which had been a recent purchase by DC. When Moore's creative process led him to write definitive endings and personality traits DC (editor Dick Giordano to be precise) urged him to write new characters based on them, partly so he could take it even further but also (of course) to milk them for an indefinite period of time. So Roscharch is actually based on The Question, a Steve Ditko character who was a hothead reporter who killed bad guys who fleed the system's justice. It has some elements of another Ditko character called Mr. A as well. I think Moore meant that he intended his character to be a critique of vigilantes in general, and the biggest archetype for that is Batman. But there's a huge social gap between Roscharch and Bruce Wayne which I think is relevant when taking these things into consideration.

Gah! That's right!!! I'd forgotten about The Question. Oh man, I remember watching "Justice League Unlimited" when it aired and thinking about that weird little wrinkle in the character's meta-history. Your point about the social gap between Rors and Wayne is excellent and something I never considered!

Giordano exploiting the characters -- or wanting to -- is what bugs me about the new show. They've ripped the characters and context out of Moore's comic and plugged them into a fairly standard cops-and-robbers dystopia. Everything plays like it's just another piece of intellectual property meant to be squeezed.

[Dukefrukem]

What makes the comic so good is that everybody has a slightly different interpretation of it. Even that reddit thread had a couple of fresh insights here and there. It amazes & delights me that people are still able to do that after 30 years of talking about it.

Rorschach is a slippery because he's more layered than, say, Lori or Nite Owl. But if Moore intended the character as a critique of Batman, as he claims in the quote linked above, then I think he failed completely.

This makes me want to go back and re-read. I didn't hear about Watchmen until the movie, but after I read it, I couldn't believe I had never heard of it before.

[TGM]

Meanwhile, Dave Gibbons has no problem taking the cash and having his name in the credits, which is weird and shitty.

...

Plus, I think it's shitty that he went back and did additional work to help promote Snyder's movie and made positive remarks about the film to the press.

Why is this weird? Why is this shitty? :\

[Irish]

Why is this weird? Why is this shitty? :\

Because why would you want to help a company that totally fucked you over?

Why promote a company that actively undermines the best work you've ever done, turns it into a parody of itself, and reduces it to just another exploitable IP?

Gibbons should be embarrassed. Not just because of his lack of solidarity with Moore and other writers and artists. But because he helped create one of the best novels of the 20th century and it is now owned by a phone company.

And he's totally cool with that, apparently, as long as someone keeps cutting checks.

[megladon8]

Hey Irish, if you were a Watchmen, you’d be called WHORE-Schach.

[TGM]

Because why would you want to help a company that totally fucked you over?

Why promote a company that actively undermines the best work you've ever done, turns it into a parody of itself, and reduces it to just another exploitable IP?

Gibbons should be embarrassed. Not just because of his lack of solidarity with Moore and other writers and artists. But because he helped create one of the best novels of the 20th century and it is now owned by a phone company.

And he's totally cool with that, apparently, as long as someone keeps cutting checks.

I dunno, but that all seems like it's his business and not ours. Why wouldn't he want his name credited on the films? Just because Moore holds himself to a certain standard doesn't mean that Gibbons has to, nor should he be expected to. In fact, I personally think it's a little obnoxious of Moore to insist he not be credited as the original creator in these adaptations, but I wouldn't say it makes him shitty or anything.

And if Gibbons wants to promote the film, what's the harm in that? Maybe he liked it? After all, it was incredibly faithful to the source material. And again, why does it matter either way? What business it is of anyone else's if he chooses to promote it or not? How does this in any way make him shitty? Who is he hurting in doing this that would make it a shitty move on his end? I mean, unless I'm missing something here...

[Irish]

If I punched you in the face and stole your wallet, but then offered to buy you lunch with your money ... would you thank me?

[TGM]

Seems like you'd be the shitty one in that situation, not me. *shrug*

[Irish]

Seems like you'd be the shitty one in that situation, not me. *shrug*

Right, but if you accepted the lunch invite, would you be surprised at anyone who thought you spineless?

Because that's more or less what Gibbons did.

Worse, he not only went to out to lunch, he turned up at DC's house and offered to mow their lawn.

And then he proudly told people about it.

[megladon8]

Whatever, Whore-Schach.

[TGM]

Right, but if you accepted the lunch invite, would you be surprised at anyone who thought you spineless?

Because that's more or less what Gibbons did.

Worse, he not only went to out to lunch, he turned up at DC's house and offered to mow their lawn.

And then he proudly told people about it.

I dunno, maybe it's because I've been a wrestling fan my whole life, so I've seen guys get completely screwed over by companies, only for them to mend fences and work together again years later, so I'm pretty used to seeing this sorta thing happen all the time anyways, but I don't see it as that big a deal. Maybe he did get screwed over. And maybe years later they got back together and found a way to make things right in order to work together again. I don't know the full story. But based on what I do know, I'm not about to say the guy's shitty for doing any of the things you've claimed he did at least.

[megladon8]

Moore just comes across like an angry ex who won’t move on despite both parties achieving great success after the relationship ended.

[Irish]

I don't know the full story. But based on what I do know, I'm not about to say the guy's shitty for doing any of the things you've claimed he did at least.

I'm not claiming anything. This is all a matter of public record.


Moore just comes across like an angry ex who won’t move on despite both parties achieving great success after the relationship ended.

He does, but then it's been 30 years and people are still asking him about this shit. I imagine that would quickly get annoying.

[TGM]

I'm not claiming anything. This is all a matter of public record.

I think you and I both know that the point of my post wasn’t to accuse you of making shit up. :rolleyes:

[Grouchy]

Moore just comes across like an angry ex who won’t move on despite both parties achieving great success after the relationship ended.
Well, that's your take. To me he comes across as a person who has turned his back on millions of dollars for the sake of his artistic integrity. Who else does that? I can only think of Dave Chappelle but on that case he refused future work, he didn't refuse to cash in work he had already done and that was being hailed as a masterpiece of literature.

As for Gibbons, well, the thing is that Moore's feud with DC has so many branches. I just read through the whole thing again and I'm going to try to make it short. There's the original feud, which is that Moore managed a clause on the contract that stated that if DC did nothing new with those characters within a year the rights would revert back to him. When Watchmen became unexpectedly successful and began to be read in circles outside comic-books, DC insisted the letter of the contract implied that they could simply go on reprinting the same issues in book form and retain the rights, which they did, year after year - remember, trade paperbacks and graphic novels were a novelty at the time. So Moore broke ties with DC and vowed not to work for them ever again.

That's just the start. Moore created his own imprint, America's Best Comics, which was published by Wildstorm. But at one point DC bought Wildstorm, so Moore found himself working for DC again despite his vows hahah. To add insult to injury, he was in the middle of writing League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and then-editor at DC Paul Levitz ordered a whole batch of issue #5 pulped and edited because it had an advertisement for a fictional XIXth century brand of Marvel "douche", which they for some reason thought was a joke at the expense of the competition. He also refused to print an issue of Tomorrow Stories that dealt with Scientology in an unflattering manner. So Moore had left DC to go independent and do his own thing and, though no fault of his own, his work was being intervened by DC editorial.

So far this has nothing to do with movies. But then the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film came out (without Moore's creative involvement, but at this point, he's still getting paid for his writing and credited on screen) and Larry Cohen sued Warner Brothers because he thought the screenplay was a rip-off of an unproduced one he had done called Cast of Characters. Moore was summoned to court and spent what was apparently ten hours defending the originality of his work for the sake of a movie he didn't even like. Around the same time the V for Vendetta film got greenlit and its producer, Joel Silver, told the media Moore was "thrilled" with the script. Since Moore hadn't read the script and wasn't thrilled at anything by this point he made the controversial call to refuse credit in the subsequent film adaptations and donate the money to the artist/collaborator, and stood by his word when Snyder did Watchmen. I remember a funny old news bit where Snyder had tweeted something to the effect of "I just hope Alan Moore eventually watches this film in his house in London and likes the adaptation", to which Moore replied "I live in Northampton".

Gibbons probably doesn't have all that baggage. They pay him money, he draws. Or maybe he is taking advantage of the situation. Who the hell knows but I hope you all enjoyed the sad story.

[Dukefrukem]

Well, that's your take. To me he comes across as a person who has turned his back on millions of dollars for the sake of his artistic integrity. Who else does that? I can only think of Dave Chappelle but on that case he refused future work, he didn't refuse to cash in work he had already done and that was being hailed as a masterpiece of literature.


Kurt Cobain?

[Skitch]

We've had this conversation before, and it usually ends with us debating exactly the dollar amount allowed before being considered an artistic sell-out.

I'm of the opinion its when you're making a living off your art. (Which all of the above mentioned people did.) So, whats the big deal about cashing on a movie based on your comic? You can still shit on it all day long, they don't require your approval, and you can bankroll more of your future artistic endeavors. Or give it to charity. Or start a foundation for younger artists.

[Irish]

I think you and I both know that the point of my post wasn’t to accuse you of making shit up. :rolleyes:

Then why use the word claimed? I'm not clear on what we're both supposed to know here.


Kurt Cobain?

And Bill Watterson, who refused to allow the newspaper syndicates to license out "Calvin and Hobbes."

Also, the estates of artists such as Pablo Picasso and Jean-Michel Basquiat, who refused to license their art for Hollywood biopics. The movies were made, but watch them and you won't see one frame that includes original paintings by these 2 men.

Also! Also! Maybe Edgar Wright and Lucrecia Martel, both of whom walked away from Marvel gigs and very big paychecks.

More recently, most of the editors and writers at Deadspin.


So, whats the big deal about cashing on a movie based on your comic?

As I said originally, I can't really blame anybody too much for taking the money. We're talking about millions of dollars.

But then there's also a line and Gibbsons enthusiastically sprinted right past it:



http://i.imgur.com/STe60Ht.png?2
http://i.imgur.com/8V1TpeO.png?1



I think that's shitty, because these credits flash by every episode and it makes Gibbons look as if he were the sole or main contributor.

ETA: Also I gotta point out this shit, which is darkly funny. Anybody want a Rorscach Lego-brand minifig? How about a Funko Pop Dr. Manhattan doll? https://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Toys-Games/s?k=Watchmen+Toys

[Grouchy]

Also, the estates of artists such as Pablo Picasso and Jean-Michel Basquiat, who refused to license their art for Hollywood biopics. The movies were made, but watch them and you won't see one frame that includes original paintings by these 2 men.
Wow, I didn't know that. I've seen neither movie.


Also! Also! Maybe Edgar Wright and Lucrecia Martel, both of whom walked away from Marvel gigs and very big paychecks.
Yeah, but that's different - they just couldn't work out the artistic differences to produce the work. In Moore's case, he's not collecting money for work he did decades ago and that's more popular now than it's ever been. Also, I read a recent interview with Martel and she says she was interviewed for the job along with a huge batch of other women directors. She just found it weird that she wasn't allowed to direct the action scenes.


ETA: Also I gotta point out this shit, which is darkly funny. Anybody want a Rorscach Lego-brand minifig? How about a Funko Pop Dr. Manhattan doll? https://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Toys-Games/s?k=Watchmen+Toys
I bet that's the shit Moore hates the most.

Anyway, you guys made me realize I never read Before Watchmen. I'm going to do that right now, without paying DC for the trouble.

[Irish]

Yeah, but that's different - they just couldn't work out the artistic differences to produce the work. In Moore's case, he's not collecting money for work he did decades ago and that's more popular now than it's ever been. Also, I read a recent interview with Martel and she says she was interviewed for the job along with a huge batch of other women directors. She just found it weird that she wasn't allowed to direct the action scenes.

It's different, sure, but I was trying to think of people who have demonstrated a measure of professional or artistic integrity.

Like, I don't think Wright walked away because he quibbled with Feige over the color of Ant-Man's costume. "Creative differences" covers a lot of ground, and usually it's a euphemism for deeper issues. My suspicion is he left the project because they wouldn't let him make the movie he wanted to make. That takes a measure of courage, because he very easily coulda toed the line (like Whedon did) and cashed the check.


I bet that's the shit Moore hates the most.

I think it's hilarious because the comic explicitly calls out merchandising as being vapid and soulless.

[Skitch]

I think that's shitty, because these credits flash by every episode and it makes Gibbons look as if he were the sole or main contributor.
The only people that think that still insist M. Night directed that Devil movie, and that Quentin directed Hostel and From Dusk Till Dawn. Who cares what the dummies think? A co-creator credit is accurate, and consulting producer could be they a had a couple sit down chats, big deal.

[Irish]

Who cares what the dummies think?

I do, because I care about Moore and his work and I care about the wider culture. It matters to me whether people know the names of writers and artists.

You can say, well, it's Alan Fucking Moore. He's too important to disappear. Yeah, maybe, but tell that to Bob Finger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Finger) (or, actually, anybody that "co-created" anything with Stan Lee).


A co-creator credit is accurate, and consulting producer could be they a had a couple sit down chats, big deal.

The credit might be accurate but that doesn't mean it's right.

[TGM]

The only people that think that still insist M. Night directed that Devil movie, and that Quentin directed Hostel and From Dusk Till Dawn. Who cares what the dummies think? A co-creator credit is accurate, and consulting producer could be they a had a couple sit down chats, big deal.

Agreed. I see nothing even remotely shitty here at all.

[TGM]

The credit might be accurate but that doesn't mean it's right.

Then place the blame on Moore for refusing to be credited. *shrug*

Gibbons is doing nothing wrong with that.

[Grouchy]

I think a good conclusion to this whole debate is that some authors are able to navigate the commercial needs of big companies and still do what they want to do and some don't. Grant Morrison entered the American market with Animal Man around the same time as Moore and he never quit working for DC and Marvel, relaunching many of their properties (X-Men, very recently Green Lantern) while publishing his more personal comics on the side. We see this kind of relationship in cinema too - Scorsese doing commercial work to fund his less commercial work.

[Irish]

Oof, that's an awkward comparison.

[Skitch]

It matters to me whether people know the names of writers and artists.
BUT MOST PEOPLE DON'T! As I said, people still believe M. Night directed Devil.

I understand why you and I care, because we care about the art. Thats why we desire to learn the names. But theres nothing we can do to make the jo-blos of the world remember, unless they decide they want to. No amount of "proper accreditation" (if thats a term) will fix that. As evidenced by the fact that movies and artists have been around for a fairly long time, and I bet the average schmuck on the sidewalk would struggle to name five Steven Spielberg movies.

[Dukefrukem]

So is the show worth watching? No one is watching it? That speaks volumes to me if true.

[Skitch]

Everyone I hear is raving about it. But I don't have HBO.

[Irish]

I'm sorta hate watching it. Taken on its own, it's fine, I guess? A sci-fantasy with good production values, a great cast, and a story that's culturally relevant because it addresses race in a direct way. Taken in relationship to the source material, it's deeply moronic and not a little superficial.

If you removed the vigilante/ superhero stuff, it'd be a pretty basic cop show with some soap opera elements.

I think a lot of bigger budget genre stuff seriously benefits from timing. It doesn't feel like there's a lot else on at the moment, so "Watchment" sorta gets undue attention because there's literally no competition.

See also: "The Mandalorian."

[Dukefrukem]

I'm a firm believer my "TV"-Series Tiering system.

Attention Trans. Attention Trans. ****Duke hyperbole incoming alert**** ****Duke hyperbole incoming alert****

1. The Wire/Breaking Bad
2. Game of Thrones
3. A lot of mediocre shit
4. crap

There's not much excellent TV available.

[Irish]

I'd put it roughly on the same tier as "Westworld." Wants to be topical and Raise Serious Important Questions but most of the show is a writer's room circle jerk.

"The Expanse" and "Man in the High Castle" did more interesting shit in their first seasons and probably at about one-third the budget.


I'm a firm believer my "TV"-Series Tiering system.

Attention Trans. Attention Trans. ****Duke hyperbole incoming alert**** ****Duke hyperbole incoming alert****

1. The Wire/Breaking Bad
2. Game of Thrones
3. A lot of mediocre shit
4. crap

There's not much excellent TV available.

Yeah, that's what repeatedly kills me: Television is still mostly vacuous garbage, but critics and fans go apeshit over the most mediocre, trivial shows.

[Ivan Drago]

Life is chaos so I haven't had time for it. All episodes are on my DVR, though.

[Irish]

Woof. This ending was almost hilariously bad but I kinda have a soft spot for it too because of the absolute seriousness with which cast & crew attempted what they attempted.

I'm still sorta amazed by how people misinterpret & interpret Moore & Gibbons comic, tho. To an extent I honestly wouldn't have thought possible. It's like Damon failed highschool English Composition & the unit on "reading comprehension."

[[ETM]]

I enjoyed this a lot. Equal amounts batshit crazy and awesome, always surprising and never dull. Suffers from the usual problems that all Lindeloff shows have but I think it pulled it off in the end better than I could have hoped for. And I liked how it does not really need more time to wrap up, it's perfectly fine as is.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk