Damon Lindelof's Watchmen

Just using google for you guys.

DJI, feel free to explain the methodology that got you to agree with that citation

Did he have any financial participation in the V for Vendetta movie?

He very famously rejects all financial participation on adaptations that have been made against his will, and specifically requested that his name also be taken off the book after Joel Silver lied about him at a press conference.

hardcore

Pretty sure if a website sells advertising, everything they post has to be true, right?

I wonder if an element of shame about adapting Watchmen led them to then avoid it as much as possible.

So much shame expressed.

Shame is an unconscious drive, generally!

So my therapist tells me

LOL at that bullshit estimation of Moore's net worth, and even more bitter LOLs as using it as justification for supporting DC/Warner's continuing desecration of the work of a creative person who over the years made WAY more money for these corporate entities than the creative person themselves ever earned from their work.

I thought he very famously rejects financial participation(?)

How exactly did DC screw him & Gibbons over? I’ve read ppl alluding to it but it’s unclear to me. Their contract promised that the rights would revert when the book when out of print, and then... they kept it in print? Did it say anything about derivative works etc.?

(Lindelof comes off... not well in that Vulturr interview, btw; for a host of reasons)

I think you just answered your own question re: Moore & Gibbons.

Lindelof is by all available accounts a head case and prat

oof that interview... he's not making a great case for himself or the show, is he

What are the ethical ramifications of this even existing at all when I completely and totally side with the creator? Acknowledge that the creator has been exploited by a corporation? Now that very same corporation is basically compensating me to continue this thing.

I ask, “Is it even hypocrisy?” Then I say, as a fan, “Where would I come down on this thing if someone else was doing it? If I heard someone else was doing an HBO series called Watchmen that was not a strict adaptation of the book?” I felt that I’d be really angry about it and then I’d watch it.

xxp So is “they kept it in print” literally the sum of DC’s transgression? There must be more to it than that. Were they explicitly granted the right to do prequels, sequels, adaptations, etc.?

xxpost loooool

What are the ethical ramifications of this even existing at all when I completely and totally side with the creator? Acknowledge that the creator has been exploited by a corporation? Now that very same corporation is basically compensating me to continue this thing.

This passage in particular contains worlds.

bg, what have we said to one another about hijacking the other's thoughts

which of us is Moore and which Lindelof, I ask u

worst transporter accident ever

DC apparently told Moore and Gibbons that the copyright on Watchmen would revert to them once the graphic novel went out of print. Moore took them at their word - Gibbons I think was always more sceptical - and of course the graphic novel has always been kept in print, and DC has retained ownership. I think DC also 'promised' Alan that no other Watchmen stories would be told without his consent/participation, which of course they disregarded once their relationship with Moore broke down once and for all. Moore's position, which I support, is that Watchmen was a complete work in and of itself and doesn't require more comics by other hands, or movie adaptations by hacks like Snyder, or 'inspired by' TV series by a tosser like Lindelof.

Moore is correct inasmuch as Watchmen has (IIRC) a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Or what us storytelling wonks more commonly refer to as a three-act structure. Hope I'm not talking over y'all's heads.

I don’t understand why M&G would feel confident that their masterpiece would go out of print. But I’ve also never heard of a contract with terms like that, maybe it’s the best they could get? The comics industry is weird.

it was 1985, the market for endlessly-in-print collections of american comics basically didn't exist

and it's bitterly ironic that watchmen was one of the projects that helped create it

The history of comics is basically a series of object lessons in never believing the word of the dude who signs your paycheck. Captialists gonna capitalize.

DC were especially slow in publishing wholly creator-owned comics - Frank Miller's Ronin, for example, was jointly owned by DC and a corporation that Miller had to form specifically for the project. Watchmen's origins in the Charlton heroes (owned by DC) probably meant that it wasn't something Moore or Gibbons could ever have taken to another publisher. The one I don't understand is V for Vendetta - Alan and David Lloyd were the owners of that (possibly with Dez Skinn in the mix) but still happily conceded copyright to DC on it.

His journal doesn’t out Veidt because everything that he learns in Karnak was not in his journal. So he’s not the brightest bulb.

Huh? The point is that there's enough in the journal that, if he's killed, someone else could begin piecing it together.

I wonder if Moore & Gibbons will terminate the grant of copyright, I think the window opens next year (35 years after the grant, if it was made in 1985)?

Actually it looks like the window would be based on publication date:

(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.

wasn't there a story about there being a rorschach appearance in some dc anthology or sourcebook or something (Who's Who?)?, just within a 10 year limit, so that the character ownership wouldn't revert?

That shouldn’t affect the authors’ reversion rights. When rights are terminated by author(s) or the heirs, the publisher (or studio, whatever) can keep distributing whatever works they’ve already produced under the original grant, but can’t do anything new (unless they renegotiate for the rights).

i skimmed the NYT review, lol'd at President Redford

you lol'd at a one-panel joke from the 1986 original: at the end, Redford is running against Nixon, who is still president then.

How exactly did DC screw him & Gibbons over? I’ve read ppl alluding to it but it’s unclear to me. Their contract promised that the rights would revert when the book when out of print, and then... they kept it in print? Did it say anything about derivative works etc.?

― drunk on hot toddies (morrisp), Saturday, October 19, 2019 12:56 AM (yesterday)

xxp So is “they kept it in print” literally the sum of DC’s transgression? There must be more to it than that. Were they explicitly granted the right to do prequels, sequels, adaptations, etc.?

― drunk on hot toddies (morrisp), Saturday, October 19, 2019 1:05 AM (three hours ago)

I don’t understand why M&G would feel confident that their masterpiece would go out of print. But I’ve also never heard of a contract with terms like that, maybe it’s the best they could get? The comics industry is weird.

― drunk on hot toddies (morrisp), Saturday, October 19, 2019 1:30 AM (three hours ago)

it was 1985, the market for endlessly-in-print collections of american comics basically didn't exist

― expedited frictionless convergences (bizarro gazzara), Saturday, October 19, 2019 1:31 AM (three hours ago)

and it's bitterly ironic that watchmen was one of the projects that helped create it

― expedited frictionless convergences (bizarro gazzara), Saturday, October 19, 2019 1:32 AM (three hours ago)


bg has it: they signed a contract in 1985 that gave temporary stewardship of the property to DC with an expiration date of 12 months after publication. Watchmen #12 came out on the 28th of July, 1987, so rights would have reverted in July 1988.

The Ronin paperback came out 4 weeks before Watchmen #12. The Watchmen paperback came out on the 8th of September.

If you're aware of any DC collections prior to those at all, let alone any that were masterpieces that could be expected to stay in print in a market with no returns or reorders, please let us know! It looks like The Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told hardback didn't even come out until November 1987 (and immediately went out of print, not even getting a paperback until 1989).

High Society's second buy-by-phone edition didn't even come out until November '87 either, and the first had been out of print for over six months. It may not have been offered to the DM until 1991?

Anyway by 1989 Moore was not creating new work for DC, but he and Gibbons were fine with DC and Warner keeping the book available, as they weren't publishers, and neither party gave any consideration to the copyright expiry clause. (NB that it had been a VERY major issue in the publicity in 1985-86, that the creators owned it but DC were just going to mind it for them, make sure it didn't get bruised, you know.) Then DC sold a set of Watchmen badges through comic shops, and Moore & Gibbons asked where their merchandise royalties, as specified in the contract, were. DC said "oh those were promotional, selling them brought attention to the book, you don't get royalties on promotional items" and Moore went "well, you are acting in bad faith and I will never work with you again."

At some point, DC realised that keeping the collection in print was a loophole they could exploit. Moore's position is that once it became apparent that this was going to be the first comic book in the history of the US to stay in print, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that the contract had been drafted under different circumstances, and renegotiate a book contract. DC's position was "fuck you, you do not deserve 75c a copy, 15c is extremely generous of us."

Despite refusing to treat him like an author, DC spent the next ten years wanting and asking Moore to write for them. In 1999, Jim Lee cleverly got Moore to sign on to creating a four-title line of comics for him under WFH, then sold his entire company to DC for a large amount of money and a President position before any of these had been published. Moore had taken WFH because it meant more money upfront for the artists, for whom he was trying to find work after Liefeld had crashed and burned the titles they were collaborating on. In this honourable spirit, he agreed to keep working for the ten or so collaborators' sake, as long as DC had no editorial input and his cheques came from a holding company.

DC agreed to this, and in the spirit of good faith, Moore agreed to engage in promotional activity around the 15th anniversary of Watchmen, approving a range of action figures and filming a promo video with Gibbons.

DC then set about fucking with Moore's comics, refusing to allow him to publish stories based on facts even when they had published non-fiction comics about the same facts in the same year, pulping the entire run of the final issue of League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen (a creator-owned title he had allowed to come over under Jim Lee's aegis) for the most pathetic fuckery imaginable (claiming Marvel would sue them for reprinting as one of dozens of genuine Victorian adverts, an advert for a product with Marvel in the name), and so on. Moore withdrew his participation in the Watchmen promos, and the part of DC that was dealing with him on that cancelled them.

Then Joel Silver lied about him at a press conference, and Moore asked DC to issue a retraction, and they refused, and he once again stopped dealing with them, even through the arms-length holding company. DC then revenge-fucked him by sabotaging the final LOEG book that they had rights to, holding it up for months and eventually cancelling the 7" that was part of it on the grounds that the Elvis Presley estate would sue them bcz Moore was kind of doing an Elvis voice on one side.

(At this point they also published a $100 hardcover of V For Vendetta with multiple typos on the box, just for kicks)

Then the Snyder Watchmen movie happened, against Moore's wishes, and also saw Snyder bragging about his extreme respect for Moore while making incorrect statements about Moore's authorship, the nature of his objections, the nature of his domicile, what city he lives in, etc etc. Hundreds and hundreds of shitty merchandise items were produced alongside the film, down to a Rorschach toaster that grills a mask pattern onto bread. Did Moore & Gibbons receive their merchandise royalties from these? U-Decide.

A few years after that, under Nelson, DC finally offered to hand the rights to the graphic novel Watchmen back, but in exchange for the rights to do spinoffs and sequels. Moore said "this seems like a bad faith offer and you are untrustworthy." To which DC said "this dumb old hippie is never going to sue us, chocks away!" and embarked on the Before Watchmen scabfest and various other spinoffs since, from Rebirth to Doomsday Clock to Lindelof's Watchmen. Their previous actions very very clearly indicate that they know they do not have the rights to do these projects, and they do not care.

I know I type this shit out every 18 months on here, but there's new bits of dickery this year!

The one I don't understand is V for Vendetta - Alan and David Lloyd were the owners of that (possibly with Dez Skinn in the mix) but still happily conceded copyright to DC on it.

― Ward Fowler, Saturday, October 19, 2019 1:59 AM (two hours ago)

This was just a case of "we're being treated well on Watchmen, I'll let DC finish this one off too." AFAIK the same 12-month reversion clause applies.

wasn't there a story about there being a rorschach appearance in some dc anthology or sourcebook or something (Who's Who?)?, just within a 10 year limit, so that the character ownership wouldn't revert?

― koogs, Saturday, October 19, 2019 3:32 AM (one hour ago)

I don't think so, no.

sub VP for Lee or w/e

wasn't there a story about there being a rorschach appearance in some dc anthology or sourcebook or something (Who's Who?)?, just within a 10 year limit, so that the character ownership wouldn't revert?

The use of sourcebook here makes me think it's Watchmen expansion for the DC Heroes role-playing game you're talking about? Mayfair published two modules and a sourcebook, but this was while Watchmen was being published - #8 or #9, from memory - and not after the event.

There's a line in this that alludes to what I may be misremembering (it's been 3 decades after all):

https://www.cbr.com/alan-moore-watchmen-feud-dc-comics-explained/

"included a reversion clause that would return ownership to the creators if the characters were not used for a year,"

And given a 1 year period (not the 10 I previously mentioned) then The Question #17 would be the book.

Dudn't DC also fuck moore over by interfering in another ABC book, blocking a Cobweb story for allegedly being too rude or whatever?

refusing to allow him to publish stories based on facts even when they had published non-fiction comics about the same facts in the same year,

Thanks for explainers, guys. That CBR article links to a really interesting Comics Journal piece from 1987, transcribing an interview of Moore & Gibbons (by Neil Gaiman) midway through Watchmen’s run.

In addition to sharing lots of details about the series, M & G talk a little about the DC deal, as well as their optimism about a Watchmen movie in development (“I spoke to Joel Silver on the phone, and he seemed like a real nice bloke”). Also, this bit:

GIBBONS: What would be horrendous, and DC could legally do it, would be to have Rorschach crossing over with Batman or something like that, but I’ve got enough faith in them that I don’t think that they’d do that. I think because of the unique team they couldn’t get anybody else to take it over to do Watchmen II or anything else like that, and we’ve certainly got no plans to do Watchmen II.

pilot good sorry

no need to apologize - it was good

Agreed, tho I have a feeling it’s gonna be a low point of the season

I didn’t really follow much of the discussion up to this point, so I didn’t know the series was meant to take place after the comics. Pretty interesting idea, although I don’t see how any of it could be comprehensible let alone entertaining to anyone who hasn’t read the series.

Lindelof got to do the thing they wanted to do in the first episode of LOST, so that's good.

I love seeing Tim Blake Nelson in *anything*, and his seems like a real interesting character.

As much as I was a rabid viewer of LOST I also blocked it out of my mind. What was the thing he wanted to do?

i read sepinwall's recap and he included a whole bunch of superhero-like alias names for the cops that they probably didn't mention in the pilot? like tim blake nelson's character is named 'looking glass' and regina king is named 'lady night' or something. did anyone catch people referring to them by these names? i only really remember 'panda,' who seems like a fun character

I don't want to spoiler it in-thread for anyone who hasn't watched the episode yet but it's in this link.

There was something in the dialogue when Johnson was going to inform the shooting victim's wife along the lines of "Should I wake Red and (someone else)?" and he replied "No, let them sleep" or something.

The interrogation scene in "The Pod" reminded me a bit of the brainwashing film Warren Beatty watches as part of his training in The Parallax View.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhztDt7-QT8

i loved Leftovers, it was one of my favorite tv shows of the past few years, and it made me really enjoy him again. *Because* of his work on that, I think Lindelof is much more capable now of juggling suspense & storytelling & pure wtf-ery and having it pay off in really good ways that aren’t just twists or twists sake etc. There’s less gimmicks now, i think. Maturity? idk. Anyway I loved this pilot & am on board for whatever he plans to do here. Lot of interesting things built into just that one episode that have me really intrigued.