Does Alan Moore regret writing Watchmen

[Jim Kelly]

Did Alan Moore have a reputation for being angry around the time that THE WATCHMEN issues came out on the stands? I don't remember--there wasn't that much coverage of writers and artists back then. The only thing I knew was that he was British and maybe a hippy.

I think it was after, when the penny dropped, that Moore got angry. When he realized that DC was taking advantage of the contract to exploit him and Gibbons. But that realization would have come later in the 1990s when DC kept denying him what he thought should be proper compensation and respect.

I imagine it also bothered him that other writers tried to ape his dark turns on classic heroes, but without any more depth to the comics than that.

However, I think it's a fair criticism that while Moore didn't like others exploiting his work, so much of his work exploited what others had created before him. Maybe he thought he was paying them fair homage, but a lot of Moore's work either uses public domain characters so he's using the work for free and without permission or they are ersatz versions that he gets to profit from without compensation to the original copyright holders.

[Buried Alien]

Did Alan Moore have a reputation for being angry around the time that THE WATCHMEN issues came out on the stands? I don't remember--there wasn't that much coverage of writers and artists back then. The only thing I knew was that he was British and maybe a hippy.

I think it was after, when the penny dropped, that Moore got angry. When he realized that DC was taking advantage of the contract to exploit him and Gibbons. But that realization would have come later in the 1990s when DC kept denying him what he thought should be proper compensation and respect.

I imagine it also bothered him that other writers tried to ape his dark turns on classic heroes, but without any more depth to the comics than that.

However, I think it's a fair criticism that while Moore didn't like others exploiting his work, so much of his work exploited what others had created before him. Maybe he thought he was paying them fair homage, but a lot of Moore's work either uses public domain characters so he's using the work for free and without permission or they are ersatz versions that he gets to profit from without compensation to the original copyright holders.

The Watchmen themselves were derived from Charlton's old characters when DC, which by then owned the rights to Charlton's characters, did not grant Moore the license to use the Charlton characters. It kind of makes you wonder how WATCHMEN would have turned out had DC authorized Moore to use the Charlton characters.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[iron chimp]

Did Alan Moore have a reputation for being angry around the time that THE WATCHMEN issues came out on the stands? I don't remember--there wasn't that much coverage of writers and artists back then. The only thing I knew was that he was British and maybe a hippy.

I think it was after, when the penny dropped, that Moore got angry. When he realized that DC was taking advantage of the contract to exploit him and Gibbons. But that realization would have come later in the 1990s when DC kept denying him what he thought should be proper compensation and respect.

I imagine it also bothered him that other writers tried to ape his dark turns on classic heroes, but without any more depth to the comics than that.

However, I think it's a fair criticism that while Moore didn't like others exploiting his work, so much of his work exploited what others had created before him. Maybe he thought he was paying them fair homage, but a lot of Moore's work either uses public domain characters so he's using the work for free and without permission or they are ersatz versions that he gets to profit from without compensation to the original copyright holders.

People can correct me if I'm wrong but Fleetway (2000ad publisher) didnt even have contracts - it was just taken as a given by the company that everything was theirs during that era so not the ideal work environment for someone like Alan.

I dont know why he lasted such a relatively short period of time for Marvel UK but he never seemed happy with Marvel's practices in general - which other creators had issues with too

DC I believe the original fall out was over their insistence on labelling Swampthing for "mature readers" somewhere into his run - UK comic shops were being raided for Lord Horror while Black Kiss had problems too while in US Tipper Gore et al were on their own crusade so DC were under scrutiny for their content. Their solution to the heat was a "mature readers" label on certain books which I think Alan was less than happy about - they would lose Rick Veitch as well in censoring his great follow up to Moore's run.

Obviously DC realised they'd made a terrible mistake and were desparate to get him back so did it by the backdoor, buying wildstorm and promising not to have any editorial interference in his output... and then did decide to interfere... so that was that. Whether you think calling a range of women's sanitary products "marvel douches" is a good idea or not is one thing, but censoring imprint after agreeing not to is only going to lead to one conclusion with a personality like Alan.

DC was moribund and rudderless and the notion it could be sold to Marvel was very real around time Alan joined. After he left (and with contributions from many others - some of whom Alan recommended) Dc had transformed into a respected and successful publisher (rather than "just comics") but Alan's work started that chain of events and gave DC direction, big sales, and turned the whole perception of the company around.

Some of those guys like money so can play the corporate game. Alan played to a different beat and should have just been given his own imprint and left to it - and any flak he would inevitably receive for his work - they should have defended his rights tooth and nail - but when your parent company is Warners and there is political pressure on you then you will make decisions to placate them.

That's how I understand the basic narrative up until the closure of his Wildstorm imprint (and it could be wrong!)

[dancj]

I remember a couple of interviews when he was working for DC and he was quite enthusiastic. He really liked having the whole of the DC universe available to play with in Swamp Thing.

DC I believe the original fall out was over their insistence on labelling Swampthing for "mature readers" somewhere into his run

He said in an interview that that was basically the final straw. The bigger things leading up to it were the issue over the Watchmen rights and when DC sold some Watchmen merchandise, but categorised it as "promotional material" rather than "merchandise" to get out of having to pay Moore and Gibbons royalties on them. He admitted in that interview that he was just looking for an excuse to leave by that point.

[iron chimp]

https://www.tcj.com/the-alan-moore-interview-118/

A very long and complicated interview between alan and gary groth after the ratings controversy. I didnt realise marv wolfman was fired for his part in it all. A lot of creators seemed very unhappy about the whole thing.

Odd times. Forbidden planet used to stock mondo cinema, drug literature, psychedelic lit., industrial and counter culture literature and all sorts. Then one day i went in and all of that had gone and it was star trek busts and things like that. I dont think i went into a comic shop after that for many years. 80s indie comics seemed to kick far harder than today's efforts

[DanMad1977]

I always wondered it, in alot of interviews, he talks about he doesn't have the book at his house and that he doesn't like that people took the wrong message from the book, it makes me wonder if he really regrets writing Watchmen?

I wonder what he meant by: he doesnt like that people took the wrong lessen from the book.

[JackDaw]

Alan M can come over as a grumpy git often, mayhap it's a natural gift.

On other hand...apart from all the fun his stories have given us...he does seem pretty generous most of the time.

His line on work based on "his" ideas (put quotation marks round, because he practically always says projects are always co-created with artist), that he doesn't want to see used in other contexts (e.g. film) is not to try to stop projects...but to just have no input, and pay any royalties to co- creators rather than him...that seems to flow from an essentially generous spirit.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Alan M can come over as a grumpy git often, mayhap it's a natural gift.

On other hand...apart from all the fun his stories have given us...he does seem pretty generous most of the time.

His line on work based on "his" ideas (put quotation marks round, because he practically always says projects are always co-created with artist), that he doesn't want to see used in other contexts (e.g. film) is not to try to stop projects...but to just have no input, and pay any royalties to co- creators rather than him...that seems to flow from an essentially generous spirit.

I would agree, but I also think there's an element of self-righteousness to it that shouldn't be discounted. Moore seems to put a lot of value in being seen as a moral arbiter and seems to delight in dishing out harsh judgement upon his peers. As a result, he makes certain that he can't be accused of being complicit in anything he's spent so many years complaining about. His moral absolutism is ironic given how much he riled up Ditko, who had a similarly strict moral absolutism, only was far more right-wing than Moore.

[superduperman]

Right now I would say the answer is yes. But I also think the issue is more complicated than that. Moore was going off the deals at the time. Which was that a book is only in print for a short amount of time. The idea of a book being in perpetual publication was unusual for a comic. He had every reason to assume that it would go out of print fairly soon. You could say he was the test case for what we have today. This is why I still have some sympathy for him. In a way he was screwed, just not in a way we would recognize today. And, with things like Doomsday Clock, I'm having a harder and harder time not taking his side. I'm of the opinion that Watchmen should have stayed untouched. But I'm also of the same opinion about DKR. It's sort of like with To Kill a Mockingbird. When the "sequel" was released years later, it pretty much ruined the original book.

[dancj]

I wonder what he meant by: he doesnt like that people took the wrong lessen from the book.

I think it was basically that
1 - People liked Rorschach when he was intended to be a thoroughly unpleasant character.
2 - People thought that grim and gritty was "kewl" and imitated that rather than the substance of Watchmen.

Honestly though, I think that most people did take the right lesson from the book - which was someone needs to police the people who police us. That we can't trust the people in charge.

Rorschach was a mentally unstable right-wing nutjob, but he did have his own internal warped code of honour, and was quite badass. We didn't have to think he was a nice person to like his character.

And less talented people jumping on the coattails of something hugely successful without managing to recreate what made it special has been happening forever. Watchmen isn't special in that regard.

[TomServofan]

He regrets that many creators took the wrong lessons from Watchmen and attempted to apply them to characters designed to appeal to readers of all ages.

Most of all, I'm sure he regrets signing the contract he did giving DC the rights to Watchmen until it was out of print for more than a year

Does dark and gritty work for Batman, Punisher, Swamp Thing, Daredevil etc. and not for other characters? would you say if Nolan regrets the Batman films he did because people took the wrong lessons from him?

[DanMad1977]

Does dark and gritty work for Batman, Punisher, Swamp Thing, Daredevil etc. and not for other characters? would you say if Nolan regrets the Batman films he did because people took the wrong lessons from him?

But Batman Swamp Thing and so on are intended to be liked, Rorschach not. I guess thats the difference. Sometimes characters get a life of their own...

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Does dark and gritty work for Batman, Punisher, Swamp Thing, Daredevil etc. and not for other characters? would you say if Nolan regrets the Batman films he did because people took the wrong lessons from him?

Depends on what you're talking about. You can have a dark and brooding Batman that is still appropriate for all ages, as the 90s animated series showed again and again, as did Nolan's Dark Knight movies (albeit with a more PG-13 audience). Unfortunately, few comics creators are capable of threading that needle and some characters aren't really a good fit for that approach.

If he cared to think about superhero movies ever again, I think Nolan probably would reget Warner Bros. taking the wrong lessons from his Batman films and attempting to apply them to Superman. The overly-serious tone is largely responsible for the woes the DCEU had with Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman. Nolan tried to steer Snyder & Goyer away from that with MoS, but washed his hands of it completely once BvS rolled around.

[Buried Alien]

Depends on what you're talking about. You can have a dark and brooding Batman that is still appropriate for all ages, as the 90s animated series showed again and again, as did Nolan's Dark Knight movies (albeit with a more PG-13 audience). Unfortunately, few comics creators are capable of threading that needle and some characters aren't really a good fit for that approach.

If he cared to think about superhero movies ever again, I think Nolan probably would reget Warner Bros. taking the wrong lessons from his Batman films and attempting to apply them to Superman. The overly-serious tone is largely responsible for the woes the DCEU had with Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman. Nolan tried to steer Snyder & Goyer away from that with MoS, but washed his hands of it completely once BvS rolled around.

...and then you had JUSTICE LEAGUE, which was like a necessary, but overly hasty attempt to get away from all that.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[kjn]

Does dark and gritty work for Batman, Punisher, Swamp Thing, Daredevil etc. and not for other characters? would you say if Nolan regrets the Batman films he did because people took the wrong lessons from him?

Dark and gritty isn't a singular thing, and also fits certain types of stories better than other stories. So the association to characters is via a remove, but nonetheless real. Likewise the reactions from the characters to the situation they are placed in will be different.

Another factor is that you need contrasts in a story, no matter how dark and gritty the situation is. It can be hope, or love, or standing firm by your ethics. Both the movies Logan and Wonder Woman showed that. The reason the scene where X-23 takes Logan's hand is so resonant is because it represents trust in a setting where trust has been destroyed, and parenthood in a world where Logan does not have a future. The reason Diana's emergence in No Man's Land is so powerful is because we followed her journey from seeing war as adventure to war being full of mutilated bodies and souls, and of industrial, impersonal killing, in the trenches where there is no hope.

I think that's what Zack Snyder doesn't get, but better storytellers like Christopher Nolan or Alan Moore or Patty Jenkins get. You need the contrast to the dark and gritty, and each hero can bring a different one.