Whoa, major oops. Thanks.

cs3ink
With all due respect, Gaiman is, at best, a pale comparison to Moore. Gaiman may have created Sandman, a truly unbelievable piece of literature, but, while he has created some solid work, his body of writing is far less groundbreaking than Moore's. The Dark Knight Returns, Swamp Thing, V For Vendetta, Lost Girls, The Killing Joke, LOEG, his Superman work, and a ton I'm sure I've forgotten.

Sandman, & it's universe (except the second Death mini series) is phenomenal, but outside of that Gaiman's work is VERY hit and miss, & none of it really approaches the statis of Sandman.

As a huge fan of Sandman and Gaiman's straight fiction, i can't disagree with you. Moore has simply had more critical hits than Gaiman. It's like comparing Marlowe to Shakespeare. I've simply pointed out that i've seen more and more critical essays discussing the Sandman and Gaiman's other comic work than Moore's. By all rights it doesn't make sense since Moore is a much more prolific comic writer than Gaiman.It's possible that Gaiman's work is recognized more by traditional literary scholars because of the controversy over the Sandman receiving the World Fantasy Award (a non-comic book literary award). The judges were apparently so appalled by their own choice they changed the rules to exclude comics as award candidates.

I'm also fishing for anyone who might know of any critical essays discussing Moore's works.

how dare we pick a kid's book what is wrong with us!

I am not a big Allen Moore fan but I thought his story "For the Man Who Has Everything" is one of the finest Superman stories of all time. It really delved into an unexplored side of the character without being untrue to the character.

phantasmagraph
I've simply pointed out that i've seen more and more critical essays discussing the Sandman and Gaiman's other comic work than Moore's. By all rights it doesn't make sense since Moore is a much more prolific comic writer than Gaiman.It's possible that Gaiman's work is recognized more by traditional literary scholars because of the controversy over the Sandman receiving the World Fantasy Award (a non-comic book literary award). The judges were apparently so appalled by their own choice they changed the rules to exclude comics as award candidates.

Also, of course, Gaiman has gone out of his way to hype his work (and himself) whereas Moore has been content to play the role of the eccentric recluse.

(Except where Hollywood is concerned, obviously!)

DAJB
(Except where Hollywood is concerned, obviously!)

Actually, Moore abhors hollywood, at least ever since the League movie (who can blame him). If you notice none of the movies based on his comics have his name splattered over them like "Frank Miller's Sin City."
I don't think he ever made a dime from "V for Vendetta", of his own volition of course in which he started a dispute with DC over whether or not he was endorsing the movie. He wasn't, DC said he was excited about it.

I don't feel too guilty about enjoying V and From Hell since i've yet to hear about him outright protesting against the film adaptations.

phantasmagraph

DAJB
(Except where Hollywood is concerned, obviously!)

Actually, Moore abhors hollywood

Yup - that's what I meant.

phantasmagraph

DAJB
(Except where Hollywood is concerned, obviously!)

I don't feel too guilty about enjoying V and From Hell since i've yet to hear about him outright protesting against the film adaptations.

From the interviews I've read he disliked both. From Hell, because as he said himself they changed it from a "whahappen" to "whodunnit" kind of story (in the graphic novel it's clear pretty early who's responsible)... as for Vendetta, the political message was that you can fight fascism only with anarchy, while the movie replaces anarchy with democracy. Also, the story is too long for a movie so it ended up crammed.

Moore objected to the changesd in the script and wanted his name removed, as a result DC labeled the new edition of V for Vendetta as promotional item (to promote the movie that is), which means no profits from it went to him or David Lloyd.

The Alan Moore vs DC war is long and convoluted and it actually started in the days of Swamp Thing, when they slapped the "mature readers" label on the book against his will. Then it was the contract he signed for V and Watchmen (making it property of DC as long as it stays in print, and since it was a huge success it NEVER went out of print)... Then you have DC interfering with his ABC books (the Marvel douche ad printed in League and consequently pulping of the entire print and then reprinting it without that ad), then the whole League movie mess (where DC swiped some ideas from another script, as a result Moore getting sued together with them even though it was all about bits that were NOT in League), the V for Vendetta thing (DC claiming he endorsed it while he didn't, his wish to remove his name from the credits, story changes) and finally the recent mess with Black Dossier (was going to be originally an oversized volume with a vinyl single, DC decided to make it as a normal edition without the single and absolute edition a year or so later, they also stopped the book from getting officially to europe supposedly over copyright problems... despite the fact that few MINOR changes would be enough to let the book pass, then first trying to rush the book only to cause delays afterwards by trying to do 3D themselves while Moore wanted Ray Zone to do that part; in the end it went to Ray Zone anyway as Wildstorm had NO IDEA how to do those bits properly, was too complicated to them, heh). Aaaaand couple of other minor things here and there that I totally forgot :)


Now, other artists/writers had problems with DC/Vertigo/Wildstorm too. Grant Morrison was censored twice by Vertigo (once on the Arcadia storyline in The Invisibles, later on the "pornstar" issue of The Filth) both of which he wasn't very happy with; Rick Veitch resigned from Swamp Thing after they didn't let the "swamp thing meets jesus" story to run; similarily Warren Ellis on Hellblazer (over a story that was a bit too close to a school shooting or something like that) which resulted in a bunch of his characters living long enough to end up in the Mike Carey run (an evenement, they always die before or in the last issue, haha... with the exception of certain characters of course).
Now, Wildstorm decided The Boys are too shocking or something and they dumped one of their BEST SELLING titles (and Dynamite happily picked it up)... and there was more of that stuff but I don't recall it at the moment.

Marvel's not holy either. Most of the old greats were battling with Marvel over artwork (Jack Kirby and Dave Cockrum too) and the only person who got what they deserved was Stan Lee, he successfully sued them for millions of dollars... and I'm sure he only managed that cause he was the publisher. Then you have some weird editorial choices (for example kicking off Chuck Dixon from a well selling Marvel Knights comic only to replace him with some newcomer who sank the book in half year) or decisions like buying one of the comics distributors (heroes world or whatever was the name) and trying to go exclusive with them, which almost sank the company entirely (at least to the point of bankrupcy), killed that particular distributor AND also several others (as companies scrambled to sign exclusive deals with various ones) leaving only Diamond Comics in the end... and when a distributor goes down, so do several small publishers he owes money to.

Okay, I'm ranting, I'll stop. :D

And yet they all keep coming back.

There is barely any of us on DD that wouldn't make the same deals with the same devils to kickstart our careers.

While I respect Moore's integrity, it sorta seems hollow. You can't play in someone else's sandbox, & then bitch because they don't want to play with their toys the way you want to. I feel no sympathy for Moore, Morrison, or Strazynski (man, I think I butchered his name). The characters do not belong to them, point blank.

And, once you sign over the rights for a movie version, the toys aren't yours anymore either (at least as most such deals work).

Good for DC that they have the business savvy to keep Watchmen in print. They run a business, who's sole purpose is to make money. Moore cares more for his artist integrity than he does money. Kudos to him as well. Moore signed the Watchmen contract. DC kept up their end of the deal.

But that's just my IMO.

We don't (or wont) have the same rights as a lot of other writers. Do you have you guild card? Neither does that big-time, convention-cat who's so famous in print.

Huh?

I just re-read Watchmenlast week because I got hyped up after seeing the movie costumes.

It really is such a complex piece of work. I read it every other year pretty much and every time I notice different stuff. Just a brilliant book (and the ending doesn't even bother me as much as it used to...I kind of like it now). My favorite stuff are the excerpts from Under the Hoodthat appear in the first three chapters.

cs3ink
There is barely any of us on DD that wouldn't make the same deals with the same devils to kickstart our careers.

While I respect Moore's integrity, it sorta seems hollow. You can't play in someone else's sandbox, & then bitch because they don't want to play with their toys the way you want to. I feel no sympathy for Moore, Morrison, or Strazynski (man, I think I butchered his name). The characters do not belong to them, point blank.

And, once you sign over the rights for a movie version, the toys aren't yours anymore either (at least as most such deals work).

I don't think the majority of Moore's complaint was how they treated his characters, obviously he had some contentions, but his main contention was how DC and the other companies treated him. Although, yes, sometimes the companies are just trying to reign in on his self-indulgence. I would have like to hear that vinyl record from the Black Dossier.

On the other hand by not playing nice Moore gets incredible creative freedom. It's not like all of those movies based on (or ripped off) from his comics ruin the original work.

That said i'm one in the DD minority who wouldn't make that kind of faustian deal. I'd rather do things the hard way.

I think Moore's gripes are two-fold. His beef with Hollywood is very much about the "mistreatment" of his work. His beef with DC over the rights to Watchmen, in particular, is that he feels he was effectively cheated.

As far as I'm aware, he has never denied that he signed a contract stating that the rights would belong to DC for as long as the book remained in print. Legally, therefore, DC are perfectly entitled to hold onto those rights and I'm pretty sure Moore has acknowledged as much.

He claims, however, that - at the time the contract was signed - he specifically queried the issue of the reversion of the rights and was told he needn't worry because comics never stayed in print for more than a couple of years anyway. If that's true, then both parties signed the contract fully expecting the rights to revert to Moore shortly after the comic's initial run.

The fact that Watchmen has never been out of print since has obviously provided an unexpected windfall for DC but, contracts notwithstanding, it's easy to see why Moore would feel that they haven't honoured the spirit of the deal.

Moore is the best, no doubt about it. How far behind anyone else like Gaiman, Morrison, Miller is just a matter of opinion after that. However, to say he's done more than people like Eisner, Kurtzman, or Crumb becomes a much more difficult debate.

The problem with choosing a favourite Moore is that he works so widely and in lots of different genres and styles. Top 10 was like the comics version of Firefly, short and amazing; Ballad of Halo Jones is the same. From Hell is probably the most detailed account of the Jack the Ripper murders in any medium, let alone comics and can't really be compared and Watchmen was a mind boggling experimental piece of genius. You can't really criticise the experimental elements of the book (e.g. the pirate bits) since those are what make it great. At least, that’s what I think.

Personally the Moore I enjoyed reading the most was Top 10, it was like the pop culture version of League and I enjoyed the storyline more.

For general recommended reading Batman: Year One and We3.

DAJB
I think Moore's gripes are two-fold. His beef with Hollywood is very much about the "mistreatment" of his work. His beef with DC over the rights to Watchmen, in particular, is that he feels he was effectively cheated.

As far as I'm aware, he has never denied that he signed a contract stating that the rights would belong to DC for as long as the book remained in print. Legally, therefore, DC are perfectly entitled to hold onto those rights and I'm pretty sure Moore has acknowledged as much.

He claims, however, that - at the time the contract was signed - he specifically queried the issue of the reversion of the rights and was told he needn't worry because comics never stayed in print for more than a couple of years anyway. If that's true, then both parties signed the contract fully expecting the rights to revert to Moore shortly after the comic's initial run.

The fact that Watchmen has never been out of print since has obviously provided an unexpected windfall for DC but, contracts notwithstanding, it's easy to see why Moore would feel that they haven't honoured the spirit of the deal.

Yep. I may add... he mentioned Tokyopop in an interview, how they sign a deal with creators (the american manga, not the japanese translations of course) to CO-OWN the rights. Meaning they can't continue it without the creators' agreement, but the creators themselves can't take the series anywhere else unless the publisher agrees. And I'm pretty sure they won't. :P

Yep. I may add... he mentioned Tokyopop in an interview, how they sign a deal with creators (the american manga, not the japanese translations of course) to CO-OWN the rights. Meaning they can't continue it without the creators' agreement, but the creators themselves can't take the series anywhere else unless the publisher agrees. And I'm pretty sure they won't. :P

There are quite a few comic publishing companies that allow the creators to retain the rights to their comics. Slave Labor Graphics comes to mind.

phantasmagraph
There are quite a few comic publishing companies that allow the creators to retain the rights to their comics. Slave Labor Graphics comes to mind.

I know. Image would be the best example here. In fact, this is my goal, get good enough to release my books through them :)

cs3ink
I feel no sympathy for Moore, Morrison, or Strazynski (man, I think I butchered his name). The characters do not belong to them, point blank.

You are correct DC & Marvel own the characters and can do whatever they like with them, but that ignores a lot else that goes on behind the scenes.

Let me give two examples.

1. Promises were made to many of these people and then broken. JMS for example had a disagreement with Marvel about the Stacy Twins, JMS wanted to take them in a different direction or not do them at all. Marvel promised him that if he would write the story the way they asked, they would let him retcon them later. Likewise he was told that he would be allowed to bring back Gwen Stacy in exchange for writting One More Day (since at that point JMS just wanted to leavs Spiderman since OMD looked like a bomb and was basically told "write this story like this"). Later Marvel decided not to honor their end on this. Legally they did not wrong but they certainly shafted JMS, and they do this sort of thing all the time which is why people get frustrated and angery.

Think about it this way: If you worked extra time for your boss because he promised to give you the weekend off, the made you work the weekend anyway without any real cause wouldn't you have a right to be upset even if legally your boss didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that a crappy thing to do to someone else regardless if you can get away with it or not?

2. Marvel & DC often shaft people with legal loop holes. For example Moore had a deal about Watchmen Merchandice. DC later went all to create all sort of extra's like comedian buttons for example and package them into special additions, claiming since they were being sold with the comic they were not really merchandice, since people were in theory paying for the graphic novel and just happened to getting large amount of bonus items for gree, and thus didn't violate the letter of the contract. They did so because Moore would get a higher percentage of merchanise sales they comic sales.

In this case they clearly violated the spirit of the agreement and possibly opened them up for a lawsuit as they even got into some not so clear legal territory as well. (Though despite this Moore choose not to sue due to the costs involed in fighting DC over this which is pretty much what DC figured would happen.)

Another example...

Marvel promised to keep Elektra dead after Frank Miller killed her (she was his character). But guess what? She returned on several occasions. When Joe Quesada took over as the editor-in-chief, he promised the same, they will NOT bring Elektra back. Couple of years later she popped up first in the Ultimate universe, and then in the Marvel Knights imprint, from which she went back to regular Marvel.

The fact that all this character reviving cheapens their death and makes people yawn at the next "dead for good" promise is another thing I'm not going to get into.

Aurora Borealis
The fact that all this character reviving cheapens their death and makes people yawn at the next "dead for good" promise is another thing I'm not going to get into.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContractualImmortality [tvtropes.org]

DAJB
Really, though, as much as I hate to be boring and predictable, it has to be Watchmen doesn't it? (Hint: Yes, it does!)

Took the mouth right outta my words, squire.

freefall_drift

Aurora Borealis
The fact that all this character reviving cheapens their death and makes people yawn at the next "dead for good" promise is another thing I'm not going to get into.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContractualImmortality [tvtropes.org]

Hah, this is one of the reasons why I generally avoid entertainment produced by corporations, the predictability of "deeath and rebirth".

I love Alan Moore. Miracle Man, Swamp Thing, Top 10, Watchmen. He does a great setup but his endings are often an anti climax. The final fight is lame.

In Swamp Thing's heaven vs hell arc, and it ended with Swamp Thing calmly talking to the thumbnail of ultimate evil.
In the 2nd Extraordinary Gentlemen, they solve the problem of the martians by simply opening a chest.
Watchmen just fades out, Jon literally.
Promethia ended that way, lots of flashy lights but mostly , just a big party and Tom Strong got to talk to his half Brother.
In the second Top 10. The villain is again, stopped by opening a box.

Don't get me wrong. I love Alan Moore. I would give a lot to be able to write like that. I love his insights, his detail, his way of seeing a character in a new way, and his ability to tie in a element from issue 1 that is relevant in issue 20.

freefall_drift
In the 2nd Extraordinary Gentlemen, they solve the problem of the martians by simply opening a chest.

Like a lot of Moore's stuff, the ending of LXG 2 says more than it seems to. By opening the box, they release a biological weapon. I agree it may not be the most visually stunning climax, perhaps, but - like the rest of the book - it puts a more sinister twist on the original War of the Worlds where the Martians simply fall prey to germs (the common cold, if I remember rightly).

freefall_drift
I love Alan Moore. Miracle Man, Swamp Thing, Top 10, Watchmen. He does a great setup but his endings are often an anti climax. The final fight is lame.

Anti climax? Quite the opposite I think. I seriously can't think of one ending that pissed me off... other than maybe the "aww, it's over already?" :)
I'd say Morrison and Ellis have more problems with endings. Morrison usually takes the final chapter of the story and makes it even more confusing than before (I lost track of the plot halfway through the third series, and yes, I did read them in the proper "countdown" order) or just goes for a somewhat unsatisfactory ending (the otherwise great 7 soldiers).
Ellis on the other hand loves the cliffhanger endings which usually hint the solution, but give hope for a different ending. Which is good and bad at the same time. One, you can hope that the character doesn't shoot/survives the upcoming fight... but quite often these leave you disappointed if you expected a clean resolve.

freefall_drift
In the second Top 10. The villain is again, stopped by opening a box.

The second Top 10 is not written by Moore (which is one of the rare cases of a ABC title written by someone else).