Watchmen Author Alan Moore Lashes Out At Critics in "Final" Interview

[Nadia Castle]

'You can blame age all you want, but you never hear Stan Lee whining like Alan Moore does.'

True, but absolutely everyone else besides Stan Lee does. Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Frank Miller and the entire Image comics teams spent their latter years pointing out the comics industry had screwed them over. Of those people Alan Moore is the only one who retained any kind of quality, unlike Miller who turned into a caricature of a Fox News viewer and the Image comics teams who just made their own messed up company.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Man this guy lashes out for a living. Exeunt stage left for all I care.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Alan Moore, if you want people to stop questioning you about "allegations about [your] obsession with rape", the best way is to write a story where rape doesn't feature in. Prove that you can write a story without involving rape.

Or you can just rant about the people who dare criticize you. Because that makes you look like the bigger man, right?

 

[Nadia Castle]

'Eh, if I recall the real problem with Ditko is he basically turned his comics into some insane, objectivist mouth pieces wherein successful businessmen just plain were incapable of being villains'

Ditko was a bit of a loon about putting his politics into his work. I don't think he ever lost it to quite the same extent Miller did but he was a bit of an arse. Despite that he did get thoroughly screwed over like every other creator bar Stan Lee. If you read 'Marvel Comics: The Untold Story' it explains how the likes of Kirby went to their graves cursing Stan Lee for standing by Marvel instead of his friends and co-creators because they were looking after him. I'm sure that's a biased reading but baring in mind they did at minimum half the work of creating icons like Spider-man and the Fantastic Four yet no-one outside of comic fandom knows who they are.

Again, Moore has become a grumpy old hippy, but there is no-one whose been chewed up by the US comics industry who hasn't come out of the other side a bitter cynic.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Good, he was a whiny old sod. Glad he is shutting his mouth forever. But i bet he wont, i bet within the next 6 month he will be spouting off again. Thing is he did deals for work, thus DC or whom ever company own that work. Its their property not Moores. Way i see it most of his books were based off character that wernt his anyway. Im sure those original creators hate what he did with their creations. Cant stand him.

 

[faefrost]

[He is a grumpy old bugger, but does have some justification.

The original agreement for Watchmen was that the rights would revert to him a few years after the book went out of print. At the time that didn't seem unreasonable - other works released before then tended to have a relatively short shelf life - but the huge success of the book, and the comics industry embracing the idea of the graphic novel, led to it never going out of print. DC also rather quickly backpedalled on their earlier agreement that they would leave Watchmen as a self contained story, making plans to capitalise on the success of it by linking it to the rest of the DC Universe. Moore also later lost control of a lot of his more recent work - America's Best Comics - when the publisher was bought up by DC.

Ironically the only reason he still has ownership of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is that this was kept separate from the rest of ABC because he and Kevin O'Neill had already sold the film rights. As much as Moore loathes adaptations in this case it was an adaptation that kept that work in his hands.

I'm sorry but more and more over the years of watching Mr. Moore I am convinced that there really is something of a clinical psychological nature going on with him. Like many anguished artists the demons in his head help him greatly with his art, but leave him somewhat outside the norm for operation in normal polite society.

Case in point. Me. Moore's apparent lack of any reasonable business abilities. he's an artist. he has been a rock star in his industry since the mid 80's. He could literally write his own ticket anywhere anytime. Many other artists of lesser artistic talent, but far better real world skills have easily done so. Mike Mignola being the standout example. He took his fame and garnered it into a highly successful creator owned property in which he answers to no one. Todd McFarland did much the same, coming from the same time period and environments. Mr. Moore however keeps dealing with the traditional publishers while ranting as he gets screwed by them. And why is this? Because he does not operate in the long term. He can demand almost anything so he does. He wants the big payout from someone else now, never understanding what the costs will be. The ABC deal is the perfect example. He chose a small publisher that he could exercise "creative control over". One would think that someone like Moore, given his rock star status, overall selling power and draw, would have the experience to know how to leverage a bit more financial control or personal ownership out of any deals. Instead I get the impression that he still operates in his industry under the "work for hire" model that he learned, but simply demands far greater up front payment for his work. He wants the money now. Hence he pays the price later. His works boosted the perceived value of the publisher hence facilitating the favorable buyout. Of which he was not a party, having been paid up front. I'm not saying that he has no legitimate grievances with the comic industry. I'm simply saying that with his fame, talent, personal experience and supposed intelligence, he of all people is more than equipped with the proper toolsets to burn through the normal petty bullshit of his industry and easily forge his own path. He simply needs to skills and drives to forgo the big payout now and instead build his own business.

In short there's a reason starving artists are in fact starving. Moore is the textbook example.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Man, this guy is always like this isn't he. At least Grant Morrison isn't a complete asshole, and can write stories without rape in them.

I haven't liked a lot of Alan Moores work, Watchmen is one of the few I liked, so much so that I bought the hard cover. But I like Grant Morrison and especially his work on 52, which was amazing and still one of DC comics best things ever in my opinion (for those who don't know it's nothing to do with the New 52.).

 

[Mersadeon]

While I love some of his works, dear god is this man a diva. And yes, I know they screwed him with some of the rights to his stuff, but dear god does he like to sell his work and then complain when they don't use it the way he wants it used.

Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't sell your stuff if you don't want to see it in other peoples hands.

 

[faefrost]

I think what bothers me the most with all of this is some of his backwards and self serving views regarding Watchmen. Yes he got screwed. Yes he wrote a masterful story that used classic literary structure for a limited run comic (honestly not the first time that had been done. See Squadron Supreme). But his claims that it was the watershed event that changed comics and invented the "graphic novel"? Ummm no. Sorry but I was there in the comic shops in 1986. That honor goes to Millers Dark Knight Returns. Everything about it was new. From its production values, to its dark gritty story, to its new square bound "graphic novel" format. That was the change agent. Watchmen benefited from being a dark gritty tale of a similar vein that derived good word of mouth as "read this its like the Dark Knight". Beyond that it was just a stylistic miniseries.

It further gets appalling when he describes writing the mainstream comic characters as stealing from dead men, in the same breath that he complains about DC's treatment of his Watchmen copyright. It's like he forgets that we know that Watchmens characters were just repaints of the older Charleston characters (many of whom had been bought and sold across numerous publishers before They landed at DC and Moore did his cut n paste). Does he credit Wil Eisener or Charles Wjotski (sp?) the creators of the Blue Beetle (that was changed at the last minute to Nightowl in an editorial decision?). The irony of his big claim to fame coming from his "adapting" these legacy characters, and later having those other publishers bought out from under him seems completely lost on him.

 

[Baldry]

Why is Alan Moore still relevant? I'm pretty sure he claimed he hasn't read a comic in years and that his own work is better than others so how the fuck does the stubborn old fool know what he's talking about. I won't deny that his works are good, Tom Strong, League of extraordinary gentlemen and the saga of swamp thing are good books and while Watchmen is overrated it's certainly influential but he hasn't done anything comic wise for the past 3 years but *****, it's getting tedious.
And to the matter of Morrison copying his work I disagree, firstly Morrisons a better writer and secondly their works are different they're just kinda similar in the facts their english and wizards.
Also maybe if he stopped writing stories with rape, implied or otherwise maybe we'd stop assuming he's obsessed with it.

 

[RanD00M]

Unfortunately Alan Moore is both - one of the greatest Comic Artists AND a complete Asshole.

I don't think Alan Moore really is an asshole, just batshit fucking insane.

 

[Reed Spacer]

Alternate headline: "Moore throws classic hissy-fit; world sighs, rolls eyes while making universal 'jack-off' gesture; goes back to ignoring him."

 

[RaikuFA]

Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

 

[4173]

Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

Unless I missed something in the article it's a reviewer considering legal action, because Moore made claims seriously damaging to the reviewers career (can't be trusted with advance copies).

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

No, they are going to try to sue Moore because he's spreading lies (at least, according to the lawsuit). That is legally libel. I think. Would this be slander or libel?

Either way, it's not "because he told some people off". Imagine if someone went around saying that Roger Ebert gave their movie two stars instead of three because they didn't pay him off as he requested. That's about the same level as Moore's accusation that the reviewer broke confidentiality when said reviewer, according to them, had permission.

 

[Multi-Hobbyist]

Moore. Moore Moore Moore. Why? Why, Moore? Why? You know better than anyone to just brush off the comments. But, I guess if what he says is true, that he's pretty much been bombarded with ignorant questions and statements, I don't blame him. Welp, everyone has their time to depart. This might just be his finale. Still, I'll support this crazy old rasputin impersonator to the ends of the world.

 

[Reed Spacer]

Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

No, they are going to try to sue Moore because he's spreading lies (at least, according to the lawsuit). That is legally libel. I think. Would this be slander or libel?

Either way, it's not "because he told some people off". Imagine if someone went around saying that Roger Ebert gave their movie two stars instead of three because they didn't pay him off as he requested. That's about the same level as Moore's accusation that the reviewer broke confidentiality when said reviewer, according to them, had permission.

It's libel if it's wrtten, it's slander if it's spoken.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

No, they are going to try to sue Moore because he's spreading lies (at least, according to the lawsuit). That is legally libel. I think. Would this be slander or libel?

Either way, it's not "because he told some people off". Imagine if someone went around saying that Roger Ebert gave their movie two stars instead of three because they didn't pay him off as he requested. That's about the same level as Moore's accusation that the reviewer broke confidentiality when said reviewer, according to them, had permission.

It's libel if it's wrtten, it's slander if it's spoken.

I know. For some reason, I was thinking that this was a written transcription of a verbal interview, hence the confusion. So, it would be libel in this case.

"Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel."-J. Jonah Jameson