Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books Media Movies

Alan Moore Pulls LOEG From DC Comics 222

Posted by Hemos from the bravo-move dept.
Mark Andrich writes "In its return from a sabbatical, Lying In The Gutters reports that Alan Moore, author of the V For Vendetta comic, has publically disassociated himself from the movie of the same name, and disputes claims of support made by Joel Silver. As a result, he has also pulled the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen comic book series from Warner owned DC Comics, and is handing it to two small press publishers in the US and the UK. And in the subsequent mood of elation, has announced his engagement to long term partner Melinda Gebbie."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alan Moore Pulls LOEG From DC Comics More

Alan Moore Pulls LOEG From DC Comics

Comments Filter:

  • Please. (Score:5, Funny)

    by falzer ( 224563 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @08:47PM (#12629656)
    Kindly refer to them as LOEG brand toy bricks.

  • Obligatory Star Wars reference (Score:5, Funny)

    by locokamil ( 850008 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @08:49PM (#12629673) Homepage
    My journey to the Nerd Side is complete. I actually knew what the article was about.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @08:51PM (#12629680)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Oh, the beauty of IP (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GMFTatsujin ( 239569 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:14PM (#12629829) Homepage
      As I understand, only a big name like Alan Moore can get the kind of contracts where retention of ownership is even possible. At least, that's the case when dealing with big houses like DC/WB.

      Back when Image first debuted their line of comics, they trumpeted how the creative elements actually got to keep their creations. Popular titles like Spawn, The Maxx, Gen13, and Witchblade soon followed. Made pretty good money, as I recall.

      I think Image died recently though, didn't they? If not in name then in spirit? Gotta look that up. I'm not in the scene anymore...

      • Re:Oh, the beauty of IP (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:35PM (#12629973) Homepage
        No, Image is still around. Nothing notable business wise from them in a while. Many of the original creators have stoped doing their own work (Erik Larsen the main exception), but the company is still putting out books regularly.

        The irony is that while most of the founders stopped doing work, many have other people working for them under contracts that are not all that much better than the contracts the founders rebelled against.

        One of Todd McFarlane's companies recently declared bankruptcy but, like many big companies, the main creditors for that company were other McFarlane subsidiaries...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • I.M.A.G.E. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by globaljustin ( 574257 )
        Hard to think of Image Comics as a success story. It's a husk of it's former self (if it even exists...haven't read comics in a few years), abandoned by the same forces that created the once-vibrant label.

        The books were never EVER on time, and were mostly flash after the first year or so. Remember Deathmate? Deathmate Red was like 6 months late!

        Image started as a bunch of kids telling the big two (Marvel and DC) to screw off, then each and every one of those founders started their own imprints and started

    • Re:Oh, the beauty of IP (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nunchux ( 869574 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:27PM (#12629924)
      Problem is, many innovators (especially in the arts) don't have the skills to take their products to a wide audience on their own. There's a reason beyond just "cashing in" that someone would choose to option their idea to a corporation-- Marketing, publishing and distribution are difficult and daunting tasks. And it's easy to say "go with an indie film company-publishing-record label-whatever", but these companies' abilities to actually sell product vary wildly.

      So yeah, up-and-coming artists, writers etc. should realize the value of their ideas and protect themselves from being screwed in the future. They should enter every business deal with a good lawyer, and consider working with reputable "indie" companies rather than a big name giants. And most importantly, those who have "made it" should look out for the little guy and do what they can to fight for creator's rights.
  • really acted since Leon (at age 12), I for one am glad that Moore is pulling support. Personally, I didn't want this movie made either. I had finally decided that this year I would be V for Halloween (I like being obscure people for Halloween) and then I heard about the movie being released on November 5th... and changed my mind.

    Go, Alan!

  • Unfortunate... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 3D Monkey ( 808934 )
    because these comic book to big screen movies are much better when the original creator is involved. I think that Frank Miller really helped keep Sin City true to the books.

  • I wonder why he has pulled now... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:01PM (#12629740) Homepage
    Alan Moore has had at least three movies made from his work recently, and he has seemed relatively okay with having details and stories changed around. I wonder what specifically now has made him change his mind.
    The main complaint about Hollywood is that they are taking the edginess out of his works and producing "pulp" thrillers. But Alan Moore's own works recently have been less focused on being all edgy and underground and more on being fun...witness the "Tom Strong" series. So is this an issue of commercialization?

    Or was "Hellblazer" just that bad?
    • In TFA, it is because Joel Silver said Moore endorsed the movie, whereas his actual position is that he doesn't care one way or the other. He didn't appreciate the lying.

    • Re:I wonder why he has pulled now... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Evangelion ( 2145 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:05PM (#12629764) Homepage

      If you RTFA (gasp!) you'll find that it was a lawsuit against Fox by J Random Scriptwriter who claimes that the LxG movie was ripped off from some random script that was submitted.

      The studio settled, which was basically saying to the world (from Alan's point of view) "The League of Extrodinary Gentlemen was a ripoff of some random screenwriter".

      I'd be pissed too....

    • Re:I wonder why he has pulled now... (Score:5, Informative)

      by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:30PM (#12629938) Homepage
      Basically, Moore has had a beef with DC since back in the day when Watchmen originally came out and DC tried to claim that some merch they made were promotional items and therefore they didn't need to pay royalties on it. At that point Morre declared he would never work for DC again. Moore is a person that holds grudges for any percieved slight. He won't even talk to some of his former colaborators (notably Steve Bissette (sp?)) because he thinks they wronged him.

      Now, a few years ago Moore came up with the idea for the ABC line of comics and talked to publisher Wildstorm about it. Then, Wildstorm was suddenly bought out by DC.

      Because at least some of the people he was working with, and perhaps himself, were doing pretty poorly financially, Moore decided to sell the rights to the ABC characters to Wildstorm (If they sold the rights, they got more money up front but if they kept the rights they got less up front, but potentially more in the long run. Well, when you need money, you will go for the quick rewards.). Well, since DC bought Wildstorm that meant that DC owned those characters.

      So Moore was in a bind. Did he bail on the ABC deal and maintain his word that he would never work for DC again, leaving all the artists, colorists, and letterers in the lurch, or did he stick by his friends and compromise his principles in the name of helping his friends. He chose to continue with the projects and work for DC (through a shelter company I think. The comics don't say DC on them anywhere and I even heard that the checks they get don't say DC on them).

      As the article states, however, things weren't all smooth sailing between him and DC this time around. Recently, Moore has decided to stop doing mainstream comics, which means that the ABC line is more or less over. This gives him the ability to move on.

      Now, for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics, while still published under the ABC banner, were still owned by Moore and O'Neil, which means they could take that title to another publisher whenever they wanted. With all this in mind, it is not surprising that Moore and O'Neil took the League elsewhere. Moore fulfilled his moral obligation to his friends, now he can fulfill his moral obligations to himself and never work for DC again.
    • Alan Moore has had at least three movies made from his work recently, and he has seemed relatively okay with having details and stories changed around.

      Whatever gave you that idea? He hated what was done to From Hell, as it turned it into exactly the kind of plot he'd set out to avoid. Plus, he's never even seen the League film. (See this interview [comicbookresources.com] for more)

    • Regarding Moore and Hellblazer...

      While Moore did create the John Constantine character (in the pages of Swamp Thing), he isn't a guy who's developed him a whole lot.

      Crediting Moore solely for this character is a great disservice to Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis, Brian Azzarello, and Mike Carey who have written most of the memorable runs of Hellblazer and shaped the character's continuity and history. In fact, of the 200+ issues of Hellblazer, Moore has written ZERO of them. (see here [insanerantings.com])

      (Of course, the Consta

  • ...if it had a great (maybe even just good) director. But I don't know that I'd consider the Wachowski brothers exactly "great". The Matrix was OK (decent storytelling, so-so characters, great fights and special effects, and an awesome if unoriginal concept) but the sequels were abysmal in too many ways to count. You know they've screwed up when during the dramatic death scene of a primary character you're thinking, "oh for christ's sake, just go ahead and DIE of impalement already!"

    The casting is at leas

    • Dude, if you had actually read the page you linked to, you would see that James McTeigue is directing the film, not the Wachowski brothers (they're producing it).

      McTeigue was assistant director on Dark City, the Matrix and EP3... so it should be interesting how he gets on in his directorial debut.
      • McTeigue was assistant director on Dark City, the Matrix
        That explains a few things, I always thought that Dark City was a similar idea to the Matrix with a better premise.

        As for Hugo Weaving, he's covered a big range on stage and screen.

      • Dude, if you had actually read the page you linked to, you would see that James McTeigue is directing the film, not the Wachowski brothers (they're producing it).

        I stand corrected. With the directors of the last two Matrix movies writing/producing AND a guy from Dark City directing it... well, hey, at least there's still the graphic novel!

  • They're just going to ruin V For Vendetta. I'll eat my hat if the Lesbian Valerie's story is told.

  • I know you've been wondering... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chriswaclawik ( 859112 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:34PM (#12629969)
    For all the nerds who have been looking for pictures of Natalie Portman on the internet (read: everyone here), this is the movie that she shaved her head for.

    http://www.thesuperficial.com/image.php?path=/arch ives/np1.JPG [thesuperficial.com]

    I think that Moore has a reason to be angry. Since I first heard about this movie, I went out and got the graphic novel. This was quite strange, seeing as I had never read a comic before that. I was surprised at the amount of intellectual stimulation I was able to get out of it. It also helped that I was into distopian literature; fans of 1984 will love it.

    But key parts started to be changed. It was inevitable, considering the length of the novel. For example, the fictional British-fascist movement called Norsefire comes to power in a somewhat complex manner. In the movie, they just decided that they would have the Nazis win WWII. Everybody hates the Nazis right, and nobody wants to go see a movie based on a political comic book.

    The moral status of the main character, V, is also ambivalent, which made the novel even more thought-provoking. V wears a disguise, papier mache mask included, that bears the likeness of Guy Fawkes (check wikipedia if you're not familiar; basically, he once tried to blow up parliament). It is never obvious whethere he is a terrorist or freedom fighter. He blows stuff up, and often kills civilians to get his point accross. I suppose the easy way to categorize him would be as an antihero. My only fear is that the movie will take this all away and make him another run of the mill masked crusader.

    So in conclusion, just read the graphic novel, in case the movie blows.

    P.S.: The teaser poster says "remember, remember the 5th of november." This is NOT necessarily the date it will be coming out. (Warning: those of english decent will hate me for pointing out the obvious). It comes from a popular rhyme recited on Bonfire day (again, wikipedia for those who don't know) that tells the fate of Guy Fawkes:

    Remember remember the fifth of November
    Gunpowder, treason and plot.
    I see no reason why gunpowder treason
    Should ever be forgot...

    Sorry if you knew all this already.

    • Just to add... (Score:4, Informative)

      by BlightThePower ( 663950 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:54PM (#12630074)
      its bonfire night (not day) but bravo for even caring enough to mention it. V's costume is based on Guy Fawkes, who as part of a conspiracy attempted to blow up the houses of parliament by placing a large quantity of gunpowder in a cellar underneath them. This was to be ignited on the 5th of November, killing James the 1st as he officially opened that session of parliament. The aim was to incite a Catholic rebellion.

      But Fawkes and the conspirators were captured (they tipped off a friend not to go the House on that day but the letter was intercepted) and tortured and, having confessed, were hung, drawn and quartered. On bonfire night its traditional to get a bonfire together and burn an effigy of Guy Fawkes upon it (and have fireworks and so on as well). For those interested in such things theres a number of conspiracy theories about the nature of conspiracy but I won't go into it here.

      I mention this only to point out the sort of post-modernist (urgh, sorry) games Moore is playing by having V dress as Guy Fawkes and, well, blow up buildings. He's sort of dressed as the national villain but he's the hero. Only he's a terrorist, which confuses things even more because when V for Vendetta was written England was quite often being attacked by Catholic terrorists intent on murdering us with bombs and incendiary devices, so he had balls of iron in pulling it off really. The further point here being the Englishness of it is central to the understanding the character and the plot. If you try to make it less foreign to non-English people than you run the risk of missing the point, which may or may not be the case in the forthcoming film. Which is why "eggy breakfast" or whatever it is feels like a bad omen.
      • England was quite often being attacked by Catholic terrorists intent on murdering us with bombs and incendiary devices

        I am of course referring to the Irish Republic Army, its not really right to categorise them as "Catholic terrorists". Whilst sectarianism is central to their world view, I didn't mean to imply anything more generally about Catholicism.
    • Back in the good old days here in Oz .. we used to celebrate Guy Fawkes night every November. Lots of fireworks, bonfires and burning effigies of politicians. It was all good fun until the government decided that fireworks are dangerous and banned them :-(
    • > It also helped that I was into distopian literature; fans of 1984 will love it.

      Then you should pick up other 2000AD-like titles. Its a shame that the black comedy/dystopian future comic died sometime in the 80s.
  • ... these days, when I see a movie being made of a creator-owned comic book I like, I think to myself "oh good, a fat wodge of money going to $creator, that'll help him make some more comics, or buy food, or take better quality drugs, or something."

    I don't actually go and see any of the wretched things, but I can tolerate their existance at least.

    BTW, isn't wodge a lovely word? Wretched, too.
  • Some of the best comics I have I ever read were written by Moore. In particular, I enjoyed Watchmen and The Killing Joke. Sadly, he and Bill Sienkiewicz never finished Big Numbers (betcha no one remembers that book).

    For those who didn't read the article, it should be pointed out that Moore never did want to return to working for DC, but ended up there after DC purchased the company who had him under contract.
    • I remember Big Numbers and still have issues 1 and 2.

      I seem to recall that Moore and Sienkiewicz didn't finish it because Moore's scripts were so convoluted and nitpickingly precise that Sienkiewicz damn near had a nervous breakdown trying to illustrate them.
    • Speaking of that, and also his frequent falling out with artistic collaberators, does anyone know the status of the Miracleman re-release? I'd quite like to read it again, it's been like ten years.

  • V: unfilmable? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlightThePower ( 663950 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:37PM (#12629991)
    The odd spoiler follows.

    In an interview I read recently, Moore says something along the lines that he doesn't think there will ever be a market for a film where the hero is an anarchist terrorist. Obviously we don't know whats in the film, but even though its been made I sort of share his skepticism. One wonders if V really does remain a terrorist who goes around blowing up public buildings in the film for no other reason than to make people think and feel freely...seems a little unlikely "in the current climate". My money is on them twisting that element to make it the struggle of the lone hero against the repressive regime, but the subtlety in what V's aims actually are, and the moral ambivalence, will be long gone (if you take out the motivation than V is undiscernable from say Rambo, both blow lots of things up to fight Bad Guys(tm) ). Also, is it really going to begin with the attempted rape of a underage prostitute by the secret police? And can we really trust Elrond to keep the damn mask on all the way through? A flashback (yes, yes, but look how its drawn) or an unmasking would ruin the whole thing. I can't think of many Hollywood stars who'd be prepared to do that as a leading actor (David Prowse will of course always be the exception, but he wasn't as such a Hollywood star, he was the Green Cross Code [internationalhero.co.uk] man!)

    As to Hollywood getting England wrong, we are so well used to that, to be honest it barely registers anymore. It was going on long before any of us were born. One sort of grows up realising theres a special mythological England with bizarre Ye Olde customs and behaviour that exists in films and the one you actually live in. But then thats probably true for everyone across the world to some extent. And being the sinister villains rather than the lantern jawed hero is fine with me as well, they always have the best lines anyway. Our accents (e.g., the woman in Frasier...wtf?), our culture and our history are regularly and comprehensively pissed all over in the name of the North American market, but heh, as the Voice of Fate would say:

    England Prevails.
    • Though off-topic: Hollywood has a history of fucking up works of literature. The most famous is Philip Kaufman's version of "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", Milan Kundera's "unfilmable" novel - so, he filmed it, didn't he? Yes, but the film (though good) has nothing to recommed itself as a faithful rendition, except the name of the famous book.

      When will we Hollywood realize that literature and films are two art forms, and that movies are not a substitute for reading?

    • One sort of grows up realising theres a special mythological England with bizarre Ye Olde customs and behaviour that exists in films and the one you actually live in.

      There's also a special Old West America populated with gun-totin', arrogant, loud-mouthed cowboys that exist in the minds of Europeans...and the one Americans actually live in. Given that, I'm not sure Hollywood is to blame, specifically. It seems every country has two faces: the real one and the two-thousand-miles-away one.

      Roit guvnah?
    • Our accents (e.g., the woman in Frasier...wtf?), our culture and our history are regularly and comprehensively...

      Uh...Daphne was Irish, and it probably was a subtle play on the "English Au Pair" stereotype in multiple ways, too.

      But it worked for that show.

      As for the US' patronizing or condescending view of Europe, in real life it probably would have been an Eastern European or Russian live-in ho...

      Which is funny, because people everywhere (even in the US) make a big deal about the Hollywoodizing of the

      • Re:V: unfilmable? (Score:3, Informative)

        by csteinle ( 68146 )
        Uh...Daphne was Irish, and it probably was a subtle play on the "English Au Pair" stereotype in multiple ways, too.


        She was Mancunian. From Manchester. i.e. not Irish but English.

  • Why are they paid so little? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sri Ramkrishna ( 1856 ) <sriram.ramkrishna@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:44PM (#12630031)
    Why are studios paying everyone so little? From the article it looks like the people who did "V for Vendetta" are only getting 8K each? WTF? 8K while everyone gets 6 figures? Shit I don't think the cameraman gets that little.

    Thats sad when the people who make the genius work get paid so little. Strong IP laws indeed. Maybe the little IP owners should make do something about it. Sounds like to me some collectiv bargaining (and no I don't mean union here) needs to be done.

    sri

  • PWEI knows all (Score:3, Funny)

    by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @10:19PM (#12630204) Homepage
    What can I say but that Alan Moore knows the score?
  • Not knowing who Melinda Gebbie is, I Googled her and got this [lambiek.net]. Is this a fair representation of her work?
  • Okay, if Alan Moore is dissassociating himself for the movie V For Vendetta then I'm definetly not going to see it.

    The studios have to learn that many people in the market audience for a movie based on a comic book are interested specifically because the movie is supposed to be based on the comic book. They can't just "do as they please" and expect to get the same people to come see it.

    If the novel's own author is disgusted enough with the way the movie veers off from the actual story that he considers th

  • It was the ducks [harpercollins.com] that finally pushed him over the edge. The world must be warned!

    (if you don't get it, look at Neil Gaiman's journal [neilgaiman.com] for January 20, 2004)

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close