Is Alan Moore a hypocrite?

[Zelena]

But why? Why can't the concept just be stretched a thousand different ways for the sake of creativity?

It’s connoted. It’s trying to mix elements of childhood with elements of adulthood. I tend to agree with Moore there: the comics and the movies are for people who read super-heroes comics in their childhood and want them in their adulthood. It’s not very refreshing and as an author, it’s not satisfying.

Morrison’s X-men run removed some of a super-hero comic mythology, much less shiny costumes, it was something different… You must do something new, but you don’t recapture the old magic. That one definitively belongs to childhood.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

There's another thing to consider, too.

It's been considered and responded to already.

Star Wars started out as a revamp of Buck Rodgers and Flash Gordon, are you going to say Star Wars and its characters weren't created by George Lucas?

Moore wanted to use pre-existing licensed characters for the project that became "watchmen" (which didn't have that title until after editor Dick Giordano asked him to use OCs) because he wanted characters with pre-existing history tied to it. Originally it was going to be Archie Comics' MLJ comics, which he believed at the time DC had the rights to, only to learn they didn't. Charlton Comics was Plan B because DC had acquired that. Watchmen wasn't by any means a love letter or tribute to Charlton and wasn't by any means a case that Moore had a liking or fondness for the characters. He had a story and concept he wanted to explore and he made use of what he had. The Watchmen characters are visually, psychologically, and narratively different from each Charlton character, in the same way that Emperor Palpatine is quite different from Ming the Merciless, Luke Skywalker is quite different from Buck Rodgers and Flash Gordon.

Here's the irony of history. Had DC acquiesced to Moore's original pitch to use the Charlton characters then Moore would not have had issues about creative rights since he would have been working with licensed properties per agreement on a work-for-hire project. But DC editorial asked Moore to use original characters and it was under that the contract was established and signed. And then DC swindled him by moving the goalposts. So it's mindboggling that Moore is called the hypocrite here. DC asked him to use original characters after rejecting his first pitch with licenses they had, and then after signing a contract with him guaranteeing rights for an original IP, they then swindle him.

It's a common gaslighting complaint and an entirely bad faith argument if there ever was one.

The fact that Moore originally wanted to use the Charlton characters

No. He originally wanted to use Archie Comics' MLJ Heroes, many of whom date back to the Golden Age. He thought DC had the rights to that but learned they didn't and then found out about Charlton. Charlton was Plan B.

Moore wanted to tell the story of a team of superheroes investigating the death of one among othem. That was supposed to be The Shield, then became the Peacemaker...but that was just the initial concept rather than a fully worked out plot. It's not simply the case that the project that became Watchmen would have been the same had Moore used licensed characters. Watchmen completely changed in scope and direction after Moore was asked to do original characters.

for his story kind of suggests he may not have even given much of a crap about rights until after the story was a smash success,

Again...the contract to sign this as a creator-owned work happened before Moore and Gibbons submitted any real scripts and pages. The rights issues come from the contract for Watchmen signed before work began. Why is this so hard to process?

because had things gone the way he wanted, he certainly wouldn't have had the rights.

That points to the hypocrisy of DC Comics rather than Moore.

-- Moore walks into offices pitches story with licensed characters.
-- DC says no story makes licensed characters useless, suggest original characters instead.
-- Moore agrees and creates new pitch which leads to contract that recognizes Watchmen as creator-owned work to be treated differently than any licensed character.
-- DC screws over Moore and Gibbons.
-- DC in an effort to promote Before Watchmen begins gaslighting campaign to diminish Moore by highlighting Charlton origins which again they denied Moore when he pitched it to them.

Just because Watchmen was patterned roughly on the Charlton stable doesn't mean the characters are 1:1 copies, or that they are directly the same. They are different characters and original creations in terms of costumes, in terms of naming, theme, stories, personalities. The Question in the comics was nothing like Kovacs/Rorschach, there was never anyone like Doctor Manhattan in comics.

Again George Lucas created Star Wars because he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon. Does that mean that Star Wars isn't an original work, that Lucas isn't the creator of Star Wars?

[cgh]

Alan Moore has pretty much denounced most of his superhero work anyway. I'm actually a Alan Moore megafan because I've followed his wishes and have pretty much never read any of his work (including Watchmen). Anyone else a true Alan Moore fan like me?

You should definitely read From Hell. It ranks up there with Maus, My Favorite Thing Is Monsters, Louis Riel, etc. Like those books, it takes some effort to get through but it's so unique that it's worth it.

[WebLurker]

It’s connoted. It’s trying to mix elements of childhood with elements of adulthood. I tend to agree with Moore there: the comics and the movies are for people who read super-heroes comics in their childhood and want them in their adulthood. It’s not very refreshing and as an author, it’s not satisfying.

Morrison’s X-men run removed some of a super-hero comic mythology, much less shiny costumes, it was something different… You must do something new, but you don’t recapture the old magic. That one definitively belongs to childhood.

Dunno, I got into superhero comics when I was in adulthood after pretty much having little to do with them in childhood.

IMHO, Moore's dismissal of the genre as kid's stuff speaks far more to his own opinions and biases on story crafting and writing then anything inherent in the genre or medium itself.

[Lightning Rider]

It’s connoted. It’s trying to mix elements of childhood with elements of adulthood. I tend to agree with Moore there: the comics and the movies are for people who read super-heroes comics in their childhood and want them in their adulthood. It’s not very refreshing and as an author, it’s not satisfying.

Morrison’s X-men run removed some of a super-hero comic mythology, much less shiny costumes, it was something different… You must do something new, but you don’t recapture the old magic. That one definitively belongs to childhood.

Wouldn't you agree that there are a number of classic, quality DC stories not intended for children (and some not really appropriate for young children)?

[PCN24454]

Wouldn't you agree that there are a number of classic, quality DC stories not intended for children (and some not really appropriate for young children)?

That’s mostly a case of differing standards. After all, the same could be said about stories like “Jack and the Beanstalk” or “Tom & Jerry”.

[married guy]

They weren't kids though. They were adults. In their 20's. They made an agreement with DC. Signed a contract. No one else was looking to buy Superman at the time so DC (National Comics) took a shot as well. I don't think just because it became a monster success that the creators deserved more after the fact.

What happened shortly after with Superboy was a different story. They deserved compensation for that. And even after they got the compensation and signed their rights away S&S still went back to DC over and over for more money. And they did get more. They got a $20k a year stipend after the initial sale of Superboy for $90k.

So it is ok for creators to go back to the well and use the legal system to make money but when DC does it they are monsters?

In short, YES!!!
If a company is making tens/hundreds of millions of dollars from an idea YOU had - then yes. $90,000 and a disgraceful $20,000 a year is effing criminal. Maybe not legally, but definitely morally.
Same goes for Ditko, Kirby, Finger etc. There's a very good reason why Image was created.

And no, Moore is definitely not a hypocrite.

[Zelena]

Wouldn't you agree that there are a number of classic, quality DC stories not intended for children (and some not really appropriate for young children)?

My favorite comic in DC is the Swamp Thing, it’s a classic but I don’t consider it as a super-hero comic… and I found tasteless when regular super-heroes made an appearance in it.

I must admit I haven’t read that much other DC comics so I cannot judge.

[Zelena]

That’s mostly a case of differing standards. After all, the same could be said about stories like “Jack and the Beanstalk” or “Tom & Jerry”.

Especially about super-heroes comics, the quality is there when the super-hero is well introduced in the story. After, it’s a matter of taste.

Batman look more like a psychopath — and there was indeed a comic about it, if I’m not mistaken — while Spider-man will always be Peter Parker in a wrestling costume fighting the regular criminals like other weirdos with a self-deprecating humour and a average build. One fits better in our world as a good guy, a role model.

[Vordan]

When it comes to “superheroes shouldn’t be dark and edgy” yeah he’s a bit hypocritical. But he’s also pretty much disavowed all his darker superhero work like The Killing Joke, which he regards as a bad story, so at least he admits that he helped start the trend even if he believes that others took it further than ever intended. Anyone ever ask him his opinion on Swamp Thing or his Superman stuff? I haven’t heard him disavow that stuff yet. When it comes to DC and Marvel being soulless entities who screw over people for profit? No he’s not a hypocrite at all, he’s entirely right.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

When it comes to “superheroes shouldn’t be dark and edgy” yeah he’s a bit hypocritical. But he’s also pretty much disavowed all his darker superhero work like The Killing Joke, which he regards as a bad story, so at least he admits that he helped start the trend even if he believes that others took it further than ever intended.

It also helps that in the '90s he did very light-hearted stuff like Supreme, and Tom Strong, and Top Ten. So he did practise what he preached in that regard.

Anyone ever ask him his opinion on Swamp Thing or his Superman stuff? I haven’t heard him disavow that stuff yet.

About Swamp Thing, Moore said in a later interview that he felt he outgrew that stuff. He said that he no longer thinks an ecological parable or stuff about nuclear waste ought to be done with a Swamp Thing monster. He still has some nostalgia for Superman...check out Cinema Purgatorio where he does an issue about George Reeves allowing him to tap into the Superman iconography again but he's never gonna work for DC again.

[mathew101281]

Going dark saved superhero comics. People forget the state of the industry when stuff life DKR and Watchman came out. Comics were being edged out of magazine rack. The light and goofy stories of the past weren’t selling. Sure superheroes started off as children’s fair, but guess what, so did Westerns. The two genres really do mirror each other in a lot of ways. I’d argue most popular genres go through a similar transformation. It pretty much comes down to the facts that...

1. Adults have more disposable income then kids.
2. Kids precise enough them self’s as more mature then they are, and will openly reject anything that comes across to kiddy. So by going dark you can often get the kid audience to.
3. Comics are becoming more expensive.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Going dark saved superhero comics. People forget the state of the industry when stuff life DKR and Watchman came out. Comics were being edged out of magazine rack. The light and goofy stories of the past weren’t selling. Sure superheroes started off as children’s fair, but guess what, so did Westerns. The two genres really do mirror each other in a lot of ways. I’d argue most popular genres go through a similar transformation. It pretty much comes down to the facts that...

1. Adults have more disposable income then kids.
2. Kids precise enough them self’s as more mature then they are, and will openly reject anything that comes across to kiddy. So by going dark you can often get the kid audience to.
3. Comics are becoming more expensive.

The nature of children's entertainment itself changes decade by decade. What suits kids of one generation won't suit kids of another generation even if they are the same age. Nowadays anime and manga sell very well among kids as do other YA comics.

And also go back to the 50s, superhero comics weren't the dominant comics in that time. Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge comics was America's top comics, outselling Uncle Scrooge.

Superhero comics by default aren't the dominant and essential genre for children's entertainment. In a free market they lose to other children's entertainment, back in the '50s and now today.

[Jim Kelly]

There are some of us who have a keen interest in children's literature. While the intended readership is obviously children that doesn't mean adults can't appreciate the art form, too. And those who create children's literature are just as much artists as those who fabricate stuff for adults only.

I'm frankly shocked that some posters can think so little of this subject matter--one would think they were never children themselves.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

There are some of us who have a keen interest in children's literature. While the intended readership is obviously children that doesn't mean adults can't appreciate the art form, too. And those who create children's literature are just as much artists as those who fabricate stuff for adults only.

I'm frankly shocked that some posters can think so little of this subject matter--one would think they were never children themselves.

Sure stuff like Lewis Carroll's Alice books, RL Stevenson's Treasure Island, movies like The Wizard of Oz do have an all-ages appeal for both kids and grownups.

The thing about superhero comics especially the Marvel ones is they weren't written for children they were written for teenagers and that's the case since the '60s. They are adolescent, between teenage and adulthood. Adolescent tastes do carry into adulthood...people still listen to the rock bands and rap artists of their teenage years and follow the later albums of their heroes, or alternately new artists in the same style. People get into sports as kids and teenagers and still carry that interest into adulthood and old age.

Your music taste doesn't evolve linearly. It's not a case that if you were interested in pop/rock/rap as a kid/teenager you are gonna start listening to classical/jazz/opera as an adult. It doesn't work like that. There are kids interested in the latter and adults interested in the former.

So in that sense there's nothing wrong with following superhero stories from teenage to adult.