V FOR VENDETTA: THE UNSTOPPABLE TRADE

[Edward J Cunningham]

Originally posted by OCM
Well it's all fine and dandy that Alan Moore took the high road and didn't take any monies from his movies.

HOWEVER, while he may not have wanted the money for himself, think of all the good he could have done.

So many of his fellow creators suffer in their older years, e.g. William Messner-Loebs.

Frankly, any humanitarian cause would be better than just letting the money go to waste to some Hollywood fatcats.

Anyway, THAT more than anything else makes me lose respect for Moore as a human being. If you're just going to squander money when there are so many worthy cause, it just speaks to how self-centered a person someone is.

It isn't just the money from the movie. If I understand correctly, Alan Moore is even refusing royalties from the original trade paperback. I am sorry he feels this way, but I don't have to agree with him. I am happy to support penciller David Lloyd by buying the trade and seeing the movie.

[BradyKiller]

Awesome!

I cant wait for the DVD - what are the chances Moore and Lloyd can give us one lost story to include in the DVD in a format like the mini-comic in the Constantine DVD???

[AlexLothos]

I finally saw the movie and it was great. Nice to see the trades getting a sales spike.

“We’re still not selling to maybe more than 1% of the population in the US and Canada, and I’m not even sure we’re near 1% yet, so there’s still an awful lot of people out there to introduce our good stuff to.”

Very good point.

[rebelchelle]

I have only recently read the V for Vendetta TPB. It was one the best graphic novels I have ever read. I look forward to watching the movie.

[Headhunter]

Awesome, let's see what kind of boost X-Men: The Last Stand can bring!

Originally posted by c_andrew_s
I am glad that the sales are strong! We are indeed in the Platinum age of comics (the Quality is amazing)

Definitely, it's rather surprising how often this era (well, at least the industry) gets derided by some people. We'd be hard pressed to find another medium with a more diverse audience, that supports as high a percentage of independent creators, and staggering quantity of quality items as the modern comic book landscape.

[Matt DeGennaro]

For the record:

THE BEAT: Let me take you back to when V for Vendetta began appearing at DC…85 or 86. At Warrior you did own V for Vendetta and when you went to DC what was going through your head?

MOORE: What happened, at DC, they'd been asking if we'd do the Charlton characters and then they said, we don't want you to use the Charlton characters, can you come up with your own. I said yeah we can and we were assured, if you come up with characters of your own, you'll be able to own them under this new different deal that forward progressive DC comics is doing now, and I believed this. I was completely convinced by this. They seemed to be nice people who were treating me well and were offering what seemed to be a wonderful deal. So we signed the stuff on Watchmen and started work on it. At this point, they were asking, well what about V for Vendetta. I'd been shying away from anybody who wanted to own the work, but because I thought this was some new deal, that I'd been told about, I actually said to Dave Lloyd "I trust these people now, Dave." [laughs] I can hear myself saying it now. I trust these people, they won't take this away from us. As soon as they stop publishing it, it will be ours. And this was a time that no comic book had remained in print for more than 18 months,

THE BEAT: So you just didn't know at that point.

MOORE: Nobody knew. As Neil Gaiman pointed out to them later when he was saying, look it's a horrible situation you're in with Alan. You know as well as he did that back when he signed that contract, nobody could have predicted that these books would remain in print for that long.

http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/...urther_ad.html

The man has every right to be pissed.

[Don Murphy]

Originally posted by kingofcities
I realize I'm a bit of a smart ass for saying that, but it does seem to be what he's implying.

Or it comes down to him realizing that he is more popular and marketable now than he was back then and should ultimately receive more for his efforts.

Seriously, imagine Tom Hanks waking up and thinking to himself that he made (just guesstimating) 20 million dollars for Castaway right? So now he goes back to the studio that made Bachelor Party and demands that they retroactively give him a new deal that reflects not where he was THEN but how cool he is NOW. Can you imagine if that happened? People would crucify him for being greedy. And they would be right. But Alan Moore is held to a different standard somehow.

And I know that somone will want to argue "But he created it, not DC!". That's why it's called Work For Hire, and I'm pretty sure that Alan being the intelligent person that he is was aware of that at the time.

I have a problem with the comments on this thread based on the lack of knowledge of the facts evidenced by most posters.

[Don Murphy]

Originally posted by Matt DeGennaro
For the record:

THE BEAT: Let me take you back to when V for Vendetta began appearing at DC…85 or 86. At Warrior you did own V for Vendetta and when you went to DC what was going through your head?

MOORE: What happened, at DC, they'd been asking if we'd do the Charlton characters and then they said, we don't want you to use the Charlton characters, can you come up with your own. I said yeah we can and we were assured, if you come up with characters of your own, you'll be able to own them under this new different deal that forward progressive DC comics is doing now, and I believed this. I was completely convinced by this. They seemed to be nice people who were treating me well and were offering what seemed to be a wonderful deal. So we signed the stuff on Watchmen and started work on it. At this point, they were asking, well what about V for Vendetta. I'd been shying away from anybody who wanted to own the work, but because I thought this was some new deal, that I'd been told about, I actually said to Dave Lloyd "I trust these people now, Dave." [laughs] I can hear myself saying it now. I trust these people, they won't take this away from us. As soon as they stop publishing it, it will be ours. And this was a time that no comic book had remained in print for more than 18 months,

THE BEAT: So you just didn't know at that point.

MOORE: Nobody knew. As Neil Gaiman pointed out to them later when he was saying, look it's a horrible situation you're in with Alan. You know as well as he did that back when he signed that contract, nobody could have predicted that these books would remain in print for that long.

http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/...urther_ad.html

The man has every right to be pissed.

No- he does NOT.
He could have made a deal having it revert to him in one year, five years, ten years.
Instead he made this deal that only NOW he is pissed about.
He entered into a clearly spelled out deal with legal advice and everything.
There is no real "do overs" in the world- sorry man.

[dr.no]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
No- he does NOT.
He could have made a deal having it revert to him in one year, five years, ten years.
Instead he made this deal that only NOW he is pissed about.
He entered into a clearly spelled out deal with legal advice and everything.
There is no real "do overs" in the world- sorry man.

Why not write an article with the other side of the story?

It's clear that you know what you are talking about. Mr Moore and his fans made their point. Now it's up to people like yourself.

[Edward J Cunningham]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
No- he does NOT.
He could have made a deal having it revert to him in one year, five years, ten years.
Instead he made this deal that only NOW he is pissed about.
He entered into a clearly spelled out deal with legal advice and everything.
There is no real "do overs" in the world- sorry man.

As a fan of both the original book and the film adaptation, you have my deepest sympathies. Can you confirm whether Alan Moore is now refusing royalties from the book now?

Eddie Cunningham

[RichJohnston]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
I have a problem with the comments on this thread based on the lack of knowledge of the facts evidenced by most posters.

I hope I can help. Hi, I'm Rich Johnston. You might know me from being the first person to mention LOEG's existence online, the chap who broke the story on League leaving DC and Moore withdrawing from V in all forms, etc.

You can slam the FROM HELL and LEAGUE films (many do) or you can enjoy them (many do). You can slam VENDETTA the film. I loved it.

I enjoyed them all to differing degrees, From Hell less so.

Yet Eddie Campbell was quite happy to attend the premiere of FROM HELL with his daughter and I believe he enjoyed the film. David Lloyd enjoyed VENDETTA. And Kevin O’Neill visited the LEAGUE set multiple times, did a signing to promote the film in LA and attended the premiere and enjoyed the film as well.

They certainly did. Eddie Campbell is less kind these days, as is Kevin O'Neill to a lesser extent. David Lloyd is very positive.

Only Alan does interviews slagging the films based on his works, NOT his creative partners.

No, Eddie has for From Hell. Kevin is more diplomatic. David is very supportive.

Alan was asked, by me, dozens of times, if he wanted to be creatively involved in either FROM HELL or LEAGUE (films). He practically begged me to stop asking. He didn’t care one way or the other, just send the check he said. I never held it against him, considered him a friend, wished him well. He was invited to view both films. No thank you. He was invited to attend both premieres. I forget- I think we arranged for one of his daughters to come to the London Premiere of FROM HELL. Either way, he didn’t care. He just wanted the money.

True. He is very disinterested in the creative side of Hollywood, and was of the belief that whatever they did, nothing would change the original works. That belief changed.

He now wishes to slag these films.

As a result of League which showed him that he cannot be divorced from the process. He was called upon for a lengthy legal deposition after being citing in a case suing the makers of the LOEG film for plagiarising the screenplay "Cast of Characters" which resembled the LOEG movie more than it did the comic - especially choices of characters.

He declined his share (of a VERY small sum mind you) for CONSTANTINE and wanted his name off the film. DC had NO OBLIGATION to ask Warners to remove his name, but they did. He declined his share of the money for V. I don’t know how much that was. He asked for his name to be removed. Again, DC did it- they did not have to.

It was a lot more. And Watchmen as well. It's not uncommon for movie directors to take their name of a film they're not happy with. Why should that not be transferred? If it is a moral right for an author to be named as such, is it also not a moral right to not be named as an author?

But when is he going to return the over million and a half dollars that was paid for the rights to FROM HELL and LEAGUE?

He has not demanded his name to be taken of either of those. For a start it was his decision to sell the movie rights to both.

After all, he’s now taking the moral high ground, right? He doesn’t want the money, he just wants to slag what he was once okay with.

Alan has no objection to From Hell or League being made. He has just chosen to criticise them heavily.

He wants his name taken off the BOOK version of VENDETTA now? Laughable. But is he declining the substantial royalties the movie is causing the book to have? I would be surprised.

Then get ready to be surprised because that's exactly what he's done. What was that about facts again? And again back with the moral rights thing. If you have the right to be named as author, shouldn't you have the same right not to be named?

He thinks that the VENDETTA movie changed his work and this upsets him. Did Lewis Carroll ever conceive of his heroine having lesbian sex with JM Barrie’s Wendy? Or, for that matter, did Alan ASK Robert Louis Stevenson if he WANTED Mr. Hyde to fancy Bram Stoker’s Mina Harker?

Certainly not. Thankfully the works are in the public domain. Moore's are not.

Do any of you know why he doesn’t own ANY of the ABC Comics?

Yes. Apart from LOEG of course.

Because he wanted to get like a $10/page higher rate in return for which he would own nothing. Jim Lee (and then DC) would own it all.

Or was it so that the artists would get higher payments? That's what he's said, of course. It became a more achheivable publishing proposition with Wildstorm. The artists were the same reason he cites for not pulling ABC when DC bought Wildstorm. SOmething I told him about when it happened.

This is a deal ALAN made, was happy to make, like all his deals. Is it stupid? Of course. But HE made it.

Indeed. And he doesn't go on about it either.

Do you know WHY he and Kevin actually own the LEAGUE comic rights so he can self-righteously march over to Top Shelf with them? BECAUSE he made a movie deal with me and he no longer had full ownership to assign to ABC – or else he would have, gladly and stupidly.

Don't forget Knockabout. Everyone forgets Knockabout.

I am sorry. You cannot AGREE in writing to ____ with Marvel and then expect them to do you favors. You can’t enter into a deal with DC for V or WATCHMEN and then act perplexed twenty years or twenty minutes later when they stick by the deal.

When the deal had repurcussions that neither party could conceive of at the time, that's not true. Contracts often get renegotiated as a result, or one side sticks to it and there's bad feeling everywhere. See DVD and online rights.

Marvel…DC….Liefeld… Taboo….Kitchen Sink….does Alan play well with ANYBODY?

Top Shelf, Avatar, Knockabout...

You can’t piss on films like FROM HELL when you clearly told me repeatedly (and others – like Eddie Campbell) that you didn’t care what happened to them.

You can when you realise you were wrong about movie work affecting print work.

You cashed the checks. You cashed a hell of a lot of checks it seems to me Alan. In the New York Times article, your fiancé I believe said something along the lines of you have your own standards of integrity and people just can’t grasp it.

I believe the actual word is “hypocrisy”

I believe the word is "growth". Or possibly "change".

[RichJohnston]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
No- he does NOT.
He could have made a deal having it revert to him in one year, five years, ten years.
Instead he made this deal that only NOW he is pissed about.
He entered into a clearly spelled out deal with legal advice and everything.
There is no real "do overs" in the world- sorry man.

It was to revert to Moore and Lloyd a year after it had finished publication.

However, because of the TPB market, which did not exist when the contract was signed, it has never finished publication. Everyone was of the opinion that a year after issue X had shipped, the rights would revert. That year was to cover DC inventory backstock.

[RichJohnston]

Originally posted by MrThatGuy
what in this movie makes i bad (aside from Heather Graham's lack of talent)? does it vary so much from the graphic novel?

The movie is an edgy bloody Jack The Ripper whodunnit, elegantly filmed, a very sensuous experience, with some nice fin de siecle touches.

The comic tells you who the Ripper is at the beginning and works through his mind, his motivation and the world that creates him, making the audience a fellow conspirator. It takes all the facts of the time and weaves them to support an otherwise unsustainable narrative. It's like LOEG and Lost Girls in that many notables of the time support the narrative (from Crowley to Blake to The Elephant Man) and ties into a spirtual conspiracy that extends throughout the next hundred years, "giving birth to the twentieth century". It's an immense story with a huge cast that weaves together the most famous mystery of all time into a fresh compelling story.

It's my favourite comic book ever. I don't believe the film did it anywhere near justice. But I enjoyed it in its own right.

[Don Murphy]

Originally posted by RichJohnston
[b]I hope I can help. Hi, I'm Rich Johnston. You might know me from being the first person to mention LOEG's existence online, the chap who broke the story on League leaving DC and Moore withdrawing from V in all forms, etc.
[b]
I enjoyed them all to differing degrees, From Hell less so.
[b]
They certainly did. Eddie Campbell is less kind these days, as is Kevin O'Neill to a lesser extent. David Lloyd is very positive.
[b]
No, Eddie has for From Hell. Kevin is more diplomatic. David is very supportive.
[b]
True. He is very disinterested in the creative side of Hollywood, and was of the belief that whatever they did, nothing would change the original works. That belief changed.
[b]
As a result of League which showed him that he cannot be divorced from the process. He was called upon for a lengthy legal deposition after being citing in a case suing the makers of the LOEG film for plagiarising the screenplay "Cast of Characters" which resembled the LOEG movie more than it did the comic - especially choices of characters.
[b]
It was a lot more. And Watchmen as well. It's not uncommon for movie directors to take their name of a film they're not happy with. Why should that not be transferred? If it is a moral right for an author to be named as such, is it also not a moral right to not be named as an author?
[b]
He has not demanded his name to be taken of either of those. For a start it was his decision to sell the movie rights to both.
[b]
Alan has no objection to From Hell or League being made. He has just chosen to criticise them heavily.
[b]
Then get ready to be surprised because that's exactly what he's done. What was that about facts again? And again back with the moral rights thing. If you have the right to be named as author, shouldn't you have the same right not to be named?
[b]
Certainly not. Thankfully the works are in the public domain. Moore's are not.
[b]
Yes. Apart from LOEG of course.
[b]
Or was it so that the artists would get higher payments? That's what he's said, of course. It became a more achheivable publishing proposition with Wildstorm. The artists were the same reason he cites for not pulling ABC when DC bought Wildstorm. SOmething I told him about when it happened.
[b]
Indeed. And he doesn't go on about it either.
[b]
Don't forget Knockabout. Everyone forgets Knockabout.
[b]
When the deal had repurcussions that neither party could conceive of at the time, that's not true. Contracts often get renegotiated as a result, or one side sticks to it and there's bad feeling everywhere. See DVD and online rights.
[b]
Top Shelf, Avatar, Knockabout...
[b]
You can when you realise you were wrong about movie work affecting print work.


I believe the word is "growth". Or possibly "change".

First off, I am surprised that Eddie has said anything unkind and would ask to see a link or some sort of proof.

Second, while you are welcome to your opinion, your facts are wrong in a "real world" way.

Contracts are ONLY re-negotiated when there is a benefit to both sides. If I have an option on Jean Claude Van Damme, god help me, for a million dollars, I can redo the deal once he is a star to give him ten million, in return for which he'll give me a second option at that rate. Both benefit. Since Moore has told DC many times to f off, there is no logic to them re-negotiating a contract.

And again, IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT NO ONE EXPECTED THE BOOK TO REMAIN IN PRINT. It is clear that the contract as signed contemplated that it COULD. If you don't want that, then don't sign it.

As for the lawsuit as per the contract he signed with Fox (there we go with the pesky contracts) he had to answer some questions that the morons were allowed to ask. Sorry- again that is the real world. Did Alan rip off Caliber Comics THE SEARCHERS? I dont think so either. But these freaks alleged he ripped them off.

The United States law does not recognize moral rights.

Is it okay to criticize something you authorized, stayed out of and kept large sums of money for?

And your point about LOST GIRLS etc is logically ludicrous and indeed stupid. Alan is okay messing with other people's work that he doesn't own without permission. The Wachowski messed with his that he doesn't own and all of a sudden he is off rambling. Sad really.

And you cannot win points with nonsense- He doesn't work with Avatar he lets them do their own thing, I do not know what Knockabout is, and he is okay with Chris Staros (who is awesome) for now. History shows us that will be short-lived.

And you define growth as becoming more and more insulated, locked up in your mansion with few contacts and no passport. Others define that as insanity.

[kingofcities]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
I have a problem with the comments on this thread based on the lack of knowledge of the facts evidenced by most posters.

You can slam the FROM HELL and LEAGUE films (many do) or you can enjoy them (many do). You can slam VENDETTA the film. I loved it.

Yet Eddie Campbell was quite happy to attend the premiere of FROM HELL with his daughter and I believe he enjoyed the film. David Lloyd enjoyed VENDETTA. And Kevin O’Neill visited the LEAGUE set multiple times, did a signing to promote the film in LA and attended the premiere and enjoyed the film as well.

Only Alan does interviews slagging the films based on his works, NOT his creative partners.

Alan was asked, by me, dozens of times, if he wanted to be creatively involved in either FROM HELL or LEAGUE (films). He practically begged me to stop asking. He didn’t care one way or the other, just send the check he said. I never held it against him, considered him a friend, wished him well. He was invited to view both films. No thank you. He was invited to attend both premieres. I forget- I think we arranged for one of his daughters to come to the London Premiere of FROM HELL. Either way, he didn’t care. He just wanted the money.

He now wishes to slag these films. He declined his share (of a VERY small sum mind you) for CONSTANTINE and wanted his name off the film. DC had NO OBLIGATION to ask Warners to remove his name, but they did. He declined his share of the money for V. I don’t know how much that was. He asked for his name to be removed. Again, DC did it- they did not have to.

But when is he going to return the over million and a half dollars that was paid for the rights to FROM HELL and LEAGUE? After all, he’s now taking the moral high ground, right? He doesn’t want the money, he just wants to slag what he was once okay with.

He wants his name taken off the BOOK version of VENDETTA now? Laughable. But is he declining the substantial royalties the movie is causing the book to have? I would be surprised.

He thinks that the VENDETTA movie changed his work and this upsets him. Did Lewis Carroll ever conceive of his heroine having lesbian sex with JM Barrie’s Wendy? Or, for that matter, did Alan ASK Robert Louis Stevenson if he WANTED Mr. Hyde to fancy Bram Stoker’s Mina Harker?

Do any of you know why he doesn’t own ANY of the ABC Comics? Because he wanted to get like a $10/page higher rate in return for which he would own nothing. Jim Lee (and then DC) would own it all. This is a deal ALAN made, was happy to make, like all his deals. Is it stupid? Of course. But HE made it. Do you know WHY he and Kevin actually own the LEAGUE comic rights so he can self-righteously march over to Top Shelf with them? BECAUSE he made a movie deal with me and he no longer had full ownership to assign to ABC – or else he would have, gladly and stupidly.

I am sorry. You cannot AGREE in writing to ____ with Marvel and then expect them to do you favors. You can’t enter into a deal with DC for V or WATCHMEN and then act perplexed twenty years or twenty minutes later when they stick by the deal. Marvel…DC….Liefeld… Taboo….Kitchen Sink….does Alan play well with ANYBODY? You can’t piss on films like FROM HELL when you clearly told me repeatedly (and others – like Eddie Campbell) that you didn’t care what happened to them. You cashed the checks. You cashed a hell of a lot of checks it seems to me Alan. In the New York Times article, your fiancé I believe said something along the lines of you have your own standards of integrity and people just can’t grasp it.

I believe the actual word is “hypocrisy”

Thank you for taking the time to stop by as well as the behind the scenes insight. I checked out your website and had no idea you'd been a part of so many cool films.

Can we trade jobs for the day please?

[RichJohnston]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
First off, I am surprised that Eddie has said anything unkind and would ask to see a link or some sort of proof.

More of a "well, it was never going to be the comic was it" kind of way.

Contracts are ONLY re-negotiated when there is a benefit to both sides. If I have an option on Jean Claude Van Damme, god help me, for a million dollars, I can redo the deal once he is a star to give him ten million, in return for which he'll give me a second option at that rate. Both benefit. Since Moore has told DC many times to f off, there is no logic to them re-negotiating a contract.

Not at all. There was a time when both sides were amicable and there was an attempt to change things. That failed when the case wasn't accepted by the money people. The fallout from that meant that when it was Neil Gaiman's turn to go through the same thing, what happened with Alan Moore was used as an example and the money people accepted the case for change. A lot of people benefited from what happened between Moore and DC.

And again, IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT NO ONE EXPECTED THE BOOK TO REMAIN IN PRINT. It is clear that the contract as signed contemplated that it COULD. If you don't want that, then don't sign it.

At the time, the kind of contracts that state "will will own everything in the universe, in any format for all time and beyond" were not even drafted. DC didn't contemplate it and indeed were of the mind that Moore and Lloyd would get rights back after a year. That was the plan. Then the market changed in a way neither side could contemplate.

As for the lawsuit, some morons claimed that Alan himself ripped off their screenplay. As per the contract he signed with Fox (there we go with the pesky contracts) he had to answer some questions that the morons were allowed to ask. Sorry- again that is the real world. Did Alan rip off Caliber Comics THE SEARCHERS? I dont think so either. But these freaks alleged he ripped them off.

Well... not morons exactly. I mean, we're talking about the writer of Phone Booth here. Certainly "Cast Of Characters" had a number of things in common with the League movie. Especially the use of Tom Sawyer, Dorian Gray and The Phantom. And Fox settled.

The United States law does not recognize moral rights.

Shame. Should it?

Is it okay to criticize something you authorized, stayed out of and kept large sums of money for?

I hope so. I voted Labour, have not fought in the Iraq war and may well benefit from reduced oil prices. I still feel able to criticise the execution of that particular policy.

And your point about LOST GIRLS etc is logically ludicrous and indeed stupid. Alan is okay messing with other people's work that he doesn't own without permission. The Wachowski messed with his that he doesn't own and all of a sudden he is off rambling. Sad really.

I see a difference between work that has gone into public domain after thge death of the author and a significant period of time, and the effects of a contract the implications of which were not seen by anyone when signed.

And you cannot win points with nonsense- He doesn't work with Avatar he lets them do their own thing, I do not know what Knockabout is, and he is okay with Chris Staros (who is awesome) for now. History shows us that will be short-lived.

I'm sorry, he does work with Avatar, William and Alan have been quite close over a number of projects, especially an upcoming OGN by Moore.

And you define growth as becoming more and more insulated, locked up in your mansion with few contacts and no passport. Others define that as insanity.

That Moore isolates himself is clear. Yet, he seemed on top form at the Tate Britain gallery last weekend, the public interview with Michael Moorcock a few months back, the BBC 2 feature earlier last month, and both being interviewed by Stewart Lee and then interviewing Brian Eno for BBC Radio 4. He does have a different value set that I have, but it's one I can respect and in some aspects envy.

As I said recently, he's Fuseli wishing to be Blake. Maybe he's getting a bit closer now.

Thanks for sharing your views on this, Mr Murphy. They are enlightening, even if I don't agree with all of them.

Here's some views from one of my favourite writers, Charlie Brooker, in today's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...743827,00.html

[RichJohnston]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
Alan was asked, by me, dozens of times, if he wanted to be creatively involved in either FROM HELL or LEAGUE (films). He practically begged me to stop asking.

One other thing. After these phone calls, did you then call a press conference where you said that Moore was excited about the movie?

Because that's what Joel Silver did.

[Strike]

Originally posted by RichJohnston

I'm sorry, he does work with Avatar, William and Alan have been quite close over a number of projects, especially an upcoming OGN by Moore.

Ooh. Tell me more.

[RichJohnston]

When I know, I will!

Now to persuade Alan that I'm the right person to write and direct an R18 version of Lost Girls...

[Kha_O]

Everytime i see the name Don Murphy i think of -

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,2090,00.html

(Too bad Alan Moore isn't a violent man...)

[MrThatGuy]

Originally posted by RichJohnston
The movie is an edgy bloody Jack The Ripper whodunnit, elegantly filmed, a very sensuous experience, with some nice fin de siecle touches.

The comic tells you who the Ripper is at the beginning and works through his mind, his motivation and the world that creates him, making the audience a fellow conspirator. It takes all the facts of the time and weaves them to support an otherwise unsustainable narrative. It's like LOEG and Lost Girls in that many notables of the time support the narrative (from Crowley to Blake to The Elephant Man) and ties into a spirtual conspiracy that extends throughout the next hundred years, "giving birth to the twentieth century". It's an immense story with a huge cast that weaves together the most famous mystery of all time into a fresh compelling story.

It's my favourite comic book ever. I don't believe the film did it anywhere near justice. But I enjoyed it in its own right.

thanks.... sounds very interesting, i'll have to pick this up

[David H.]

Originally posted by c_andrew_s
I will admit that it was a trade I always thought about getting, but bought it when the movie was coming out.

I am glad that the sales are strong! We are indeed in the Platinum age of comics (the Quality is amazing)

"We ARE..."?

The book is over 20 years old! ;-)

[Don Murphy]

Originally posted by RichJohnston

More of a "well, it was never going to be the comic was it" kind of way.
[/b]
Not at all. There was a time when both sides were amicable and there was an attempt to change things. That failed when the case wasn't accepted by the money people. The fallout from that meant that when it was Neil Gaiman's turn to go through the same thing, what happened with Alan Moore was used as an example and the money people accepted the case for change. A lot of people benefited from what happened between Moore and DC.
[/b]
At the time, the kind of contracts that state "will will own everything in the universe, in any format for all time and beyond" were not even drafted. DC didn't contemplate it and indeed were of the mind that Moore and Lloyd would get rights back after a year. That was the plan. Then the market changed in a way neither side could contemplate.
[/b]
Well... not morons exactly. I mean, we're talking about the writer of Phone Booth here. Certainly "Cast Of Characters" had a number of things in common with the League movie. Especially the use of Tom Sawyer, Dorian Gray and The Phantom. And Fox settled.
[/b]
Shame. Should it?
[/b]
I hope so. I voted Labour, have not fought in the Iraq war and may well benefit from reduced oil prices. I still feel able to criticise the execution of that particular policy.
[/b]
I see a difference between work that has gone into public domain after thge death of the author and a significant period of time, and the effects of a contract the implications of which were not seen by anyone when signed.
[/b]
I'm sorry, he does work with Avatar, William and Alan have been quite close over a number of projects, especially an upcoming OGN by Moore.

That Moore isolates himself is clear. Yet, he seemed on top form at the Tate Britain gallery last weekend, the public interview with Michael Moorcock a few months back, the BBC 2 feature earlier last month, and both being interviewed by Stewart Lee and then interviewing Brian Eno for BBC Radio 4. He does have a different value set that I have, but it's one I can respect and in some aspects envy.

As I said recently, he's Fuseli wishing to be Blake. Maybe he's getting a bit closer now.

Thanks for sharing your views on this, Mr Murphy. They are enlightening, even if I don't agree with all of them.

Here's some views from one of my favourite writers, Charlie Brooker, in today's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...743827,00.html [/b]

We seem to be having a basically private conversation which is a shame, but then people prefer not to know the truth. So anyway, I can’t let a lot of your statements slide----

1- So first off, you admit you are wrong, Eddie has never slagged off the movie, like I stated.
2- My statement was that there is NO BENEFIT or REASON for DC to renegotiate with Alan since he will never work with them. Your statement that maybe once they could have is irrelevant.
3- You write- “At the time, the kind of contracts that state "will will own everything in the universe, in any format for all time and beyond" were not even drafted. DC didn't contemplate it and indeed were of the mind that Moore and Lloyd would get rights back after a year. That was the plan.” Well
a. That’s just nonsense- creator owned contracts were very rare then. MOST contracts did say they will own everything forever.
b. Again, ________- if the contract didn’t clearly state that they get the rights back after a year then it was not contemplated. THE PURPOSE of a contract is to immortalize in writing what the two parties have agreed to by the juncture. It obviously did not say that it reverted in a year so claiming that you thought that or assumed that is stupid and incorrect.

4- Cannot tell if you think PHONE BOOTH is brilliant or something. Did you READ “Cast Of Characters”? I doubt it. And wrong again- Fox did not settle.
5- What the US Law SHOULD read is not the purpose of this message board.
6- Your vote is not an analogous argument. If you sell me your house and I blow it up do you have a right to complain about it? I mean sure, you have the ability to do so, but it makes you sound foolish and idiotic. You sold it.
7- Again, not analogous. Your point about the contract is refuted above, and in the one case, LOST GIRLS, he is messing with works (Peter Pan etc) that the original author no longer owns. In the case of V, the Wachowskis are messing with work that the original author no longer owns. There is no difference.
8- Values that are held only by one person I believe is the definition of insanity once again.
9- No I never would have presumed to speak for Alan, so no press conference. I do hope he has a friend out there who can get him some help though.

[Matt DeGennaro]

Mr. Murphy,

You’re not having a private conversation –

I’ve been reading your posts and wanted to ask you a question, but it seems you answered it in your last one. I was thinking of the most polite way to ask a big time movie producer just how a comic gets adapted to the big screen. How is it such great works as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or From Hell could look so epic on the page and yet look so small on the screen? Why are the things that are most interesting and original about the original comic excised from the finished film? Then I read this:

“If you sell me your house and I blow it up do you have a right to complain about it? I mean sure, you have the ability to do so, but it makes you sound foolish and idiotic. You sold it”

You equate creative works to buying houses – which you would then blow up. Kinda like a psychotic real estate agent. You’ve never created anything in your career, but subsist on works created by others. Your livelihood is based on ideas that come from the heads of others. No ideas = no money for you. Why should you care about things like what the story was about in the first place? Yours is a world of muliti-million dollar contracts with large corporations where the bottom line is everything.

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

[RichJohnston]

Originally posted by Don Murphy
We seem to be having a basically private conversation which is a shame, but then people prefer not to know the truth. So anyway, I can’t let a lot of your statements slide----

1- So first off, you admit you are wrong, Eddie has never slagged off the movie, like I stated.

No, I'm stating what I said originally. That Eddie is less kind these days. Anything else you inferred.

2- My statement was that there is NO BENEFIT or REASON for DC to renegotiate with Alan since he will never work with them. Your statement that maybe once they could have is irrelevant.

There's WAS a directly stated benefit at one point. Moore has stated that he would go back to past publishers if ownership issues were resolved.

3- You write- “At the time, the kind of contracts that state "will will own everything in the universe, in any format for all time and beyond" were not even drafted. DC didn't contemplate it and indeed were of the mind that Moore and Lloyd would get rights back after a year. That was the plan.” Well
a. That’s just nonsense- creator owned contracts were very rare then. MOST contracts did say they will own everything forever.

Marvel's EPIC line had 100% creator ownership contracts with the same proviso. Difference is, none of those books were collected in trade and kept in print. Hence why DC publish Moonshadow, King Hell publishes The One, A-V publishes Cerebus and Dark Horse publishes Groo.

b. Again, ________- if the contract didn’t clearly state that they get the rights back after a year then it was not contemplated. THE PURPOSE of a contract is to immortalize in writing what the two parties have agreed to by the juncture. It obviously did not say that it reverted in a year so claiming that you thought that or assumed that is stupid and incorrect.

The contracts say that rights revert a year after publication. That was the intent of both parties. However, very unexpectedly, the book has never been out of publication because of the trade and it's longevity.

4- Cannot tell if you think PHONE BOOTH is brilliant or something. Did you READ “Cast Of Characters”? I doubt it. And wrong again- Fox did not settle.

I thought PB was brilliant, yes. And I have read pages from CoC but not the whole script.

I'm intrigued by the Fox situation, because that is how it has been reported. How was the suit resolved?

5- What the US Law SHOULD read is not the purpose of this message board.

Ooh I don't know. Thread drift is quite common.

6- Your vote is not an analogous argument. If you sell me your house and I blow it up do you have a right to complain about it? I mean sure, you have the ability to do so, but it makes you sound foolish and idiotic. You sold it.

If I lend it to you for a year, you then invoke squatters rights that none of us knew about at the time of the agreement and then you blow it up, then yes I'd complain about.

Equally if it were a beautiful house, I sold it to you and you covered it in stone cladded, I'd have a right to criticise that decision.

7- Again, not analogous. Your point about the contract is refuted above, and in the one case, LOST GIRLS, he is messing with works (Peter Pan etc) that the original author no longer owns. In the case of V, the Wachowskis are messing with work that the original author no longer owns. There is no difference.

The original authors are dead. The works have moved on. Alan is alive and well and living in Northampton. And you are mixing up a legal situation where contracts have been interpreted to a new situation that neither side could have foreseen, to the standard artistic practice that work moves on after the original author dies.

8- Values that are held only by one person I believe is the definition of insanity once again.

Anarchic anti-materialist values, whilst I don't share them, are hardly unique.

9- No I never would have presumed to speak for Alan, so no press conference. I do hope he has a friend out there who can get him some help though.

You started your comments based on Alan's comments and actions regarding V for Vendetta - which are based on a producer's actions, one which you say you never do. The situation with V is different to the situation with From Hell and LOEG, yet you're treating them the same it seems.

He's getting married to his long term girlfriend. He's writing what he considers his best work to date, Jerusalem. Top Shelf are publishing Lost Girls in the summer, and LOEG III after that. His family are healthy. He lives a life he's content with. He has the admiration of his peers and the respect of the art community. He's happy. And for a long time he wasn't.

And we need the eggs.