Newsgroup: it.arti.fumetti
Titolo: [LUNGO] Intervista in inglese a Alan Moore su Watchmen 2

###
Alan, there?s been a lot of misunderstanding and misconception when you talk 
about leaving Comics, and there?s also the thing about WATCHMEN.  Can you 
talk a bit about why you don?t want to get the rights back to WATCHMEN?  A 
lot of people seemed to be confused about that when DC approached you.
Well, I suppose the short answer is on one level, I am finished with Comics 
and disgusted with the practices of the comic book industry. With regard to 
the specific issue of WATCHMEN.  I think it?s more fair to say that I would 
never dream of taking the rights to WATCHMEN back under the terms that they 
were offered to me.
So what are the terms they were offering?
Well, this requires a little bit of backstory, Adi, so you?ll bear with me.  
This all goes back to the time before I even heard that they were definitely 
going to be doing a WATCHMEN movie.  I received a phone call from Steve 
Moore, who?d been without work from DC for 18 months, couple of years by 
that point, as had nearly all my close British associates who had been 
working with me on ABC.  It seemed to me at the time that this was probably 
some sort of retaliation for the way in which I had finally become disgusted 
with DC Comics and their subsidiaries, and had publicly walked out and 
severed my connections with them.  Sometime shortly before I heard there was 
going to be a film, I had a phone call from Steve Moore saying that perhaps 
there wasn?t any kind of blacklist, because he?d just had an offer from DC 
to write the computer game based upon WATCHMEN.  They also said to him, ?We 
haven?t told Alan about this yet.?  At which Steve, who had got a little bit 
of work of his own around that time, said, ?Well, I can?t take on any work 
because I have work of my own, and also I would never dream of taking 
anything if Alan hadn?t been consulted.?
Right.
Then Steve told me.  And it seems to me that possibly because they know that 
I would do almost anything to make Steve Moore?s life easier, since he is my 
oldest and dearest friend, that they were hoping to present the WATCHMEN 
computer game to me as a fait accompli; that they would put me in a position 
of either playing along cheerily with the computer game or having to refuse 
work to my oldest and dearest friend, when I knew that he needed it.  Now, 
what they didn?t know at the time was that Steve?s brother Chris had just 
been diagnosed with Motor Neuron disease, which is a disease which is fatal, 
which is incurable, and which in 99% of cases will just make you steadily 
more paralyzed until eventually either your heart or your lungs stop.  So 
this is a painful illness to go through and it?s a painful one to watch a 
loved one go through.  Now, I phoned up Wildstorm and asked them to pass on 
a message to DC, that I understood that they had been trying to put moral 
pressure on me through Steve Moore, and that they didn?t know that Steve?s 
brother had recently been diagnosed with Motor Neuron Disease, but I was 
informing them of that point, and also was stressing that they really 
shouldn?t try pulling any nasty little tricks through the medium of Steve 
Moore because Steve Moore had a dying brother.  And a matter like a dying 
brother, as I put it, is more important to ordinary people than the 
machinations of the people who publish Batman comics.  So I asked them and 
advised them not to do anything like that in the future now that they knew 
the situation.  Then I heard about the film and just maintained my usual 
policy, once I made sure my name wasn?t on it and the money would be going 
to Dave Gibbons, I basically was reasonably content with that, if I didn?t 
have to have my name associated with the film, which I was convinced would 
probably be rubbish, at least in my opinion.  And I remember having a 
conversation with Dave Gibbons back around then where he was expressing some 
concern, I think we were both concerned that problems might arise from the 
fact that we both had different opinions of the forthcoming film, even 
though we both respected each other?s opinions.  That was my understanding, 
that I had no problem with Dave being in favour of the film, and vice versa. 
When he suggested that he was worried that our friendship might not survive 
some of the pressures put on it by the film, I said to him there was no 
chance of that as long as he just gave me a call and thanked me for the film 
money when it arrived.  And I pointed out that David Lloyd hadn?t done that, 
and that had affected our friendship in that I?m not expecting to have very 
much to do with David Lloyd in the future.  Dave Gibbons assured me that he 
would phone up and thank me for the film money.  He made a typical joke 
about it.  In Dave?s jocular fashion, he said that he?d phone me from the 
deck of the yacht that he bought with the money and we had a laugh at that.  
So that was how we left it.
It was a little while after that that I had a phone call from Steve Moore 
saying that he?d been contacted by Warner Books, for whom he?d done an 
extraordinary job of writing the novelisation fo the V FOR VENDETTA movie.  
He wrote the entire book in a month, which is something very few writers 
these days would even think about doing.  And they had talked to him about 
how he would be the only possible writer they knew that I would be happy 
with writing the WATCHMEN novelisation.  And they offered him the job.  This 
was at a time when Steve really needed the money because he didn?t have any 
work and it was the year in which he expected to lose his brother.  So that 
money was a very welcome cushion, and the thought that he might have an 
income in that year was a great consolation to him because  it meant that in 
the expensive and unfortunate time around Chris? impending death that he?d 
at least have the wherewithal to take care of all of the things that might 
arise.  So I said that I was really happy to hear that and yes, there wasn?t 
anybody else that I would have cheerfully allowed to do the film adaptation, 
and that he would be the best person for the job, so we left it at that.
Then I had a phone call from Dave Gibbons.  It wasn?t to thank me for the 
money, which I assumed hadn?t gotten to him yet at that point.  But it was 
to somewhat apologetically say that he knew I wasn?t really interested in 
the WATCHMEN film but there was an idea that he wanted to run by me.  This 
was the idea for a reproduction pirate comic book which would extract all of 
the bits of pirate narrative from WATCHMEN and somehow glue them together 
into a narrative and would be released as a facsimile of THE TALES OF THE 
BLACK FREIGHTER comic that is a comic book within the WATCHMEN comic.  I 
told him that I thought it sounded like not a particularly good idea.  It 
sounded to me like taking all of the counterpoint out of Mozart and just 
releasing it on a separate disc.  I didn?t think the project looked even 
possible but I said if it was something that Dave was excited about, then I 
don?t have a problem with it, but I didn?t really want to hear anymore about 
it.  As long as my name wasn?t on it, then I had no problem.  I didn?t want 
to receive any payment for it because it was obviously something that was 
connected to the movie.  Dave said at that point, and he sounded quite 
pleased with himself, that yes, his contacts at DC had said that they 
expected ?Alan to be quietly compliant?, which kind of stopped me in my 
tracks, and I remember asking him, ?Why on Earth did they say that?  What 
was the meaning of that phrase??  And he said the he?d got no idea what it 
meant, he just repeated again that I?d be ?quietly compliant? as if the 
musicality of the phrase had appealed to him and stuck in his mind.  So I 
said, ?Well, it?s more completely indifferent, Dave, rather than quietly 
compliant.  But if my name?s not on this thing and I don?t get any money for 
it, then yes, I?ll do what you want.?  At which point Dave told me that he 
didn?t think either of our names would be on it because they were going to 
be credited to the fictional author and artist as mentioned in WATCHMEN.  A 
short time after putting the phone down, it occurred to me that in that 
case, how would anyone know that I wasn?t participating in this?  I phoned 
him up and said, ?Look, if our names aren?t going on it anyway, then perhaps 
if we could put a small box on the inside cover that just says ?Alan Moore 
is not participating in this project in any way.?? To which Dave said that 
he felt it would be okay.  He was happy with that and he was passing it onto 
DC.  The next thing I knew was that the project had been cancelled ? I 
suspect ? because DC didn?t really want anything out there in public that 
was actually saying that I was divorcing myself from the project.  The 
project vanished.
Then a couple of weeks thereafter, I got a phone call from Steve Moore 
saying he?d been contacted by Warner Books and that they told him that they 
weren?t going to be doing a WATCHMEN book and that the job was off.  At that 
point, it seems to me, I understood what ?Alan will be quietly compliant? 
had meant.  It seems to me that what they meant by that was that ?Alan 
realises that if he says no to this or kicks up any trouble, then we?re 
going to take away the money from his friend, as we?ve been informed, whose 
brother is dying from Motor Neuron Disease.?  So it seems to me that they 
were exerting a kind of pressure upon me through Steven and his dying 
brother that was execrable, that was inhuman.  At this point, I made my 
feelings known about the matter and went and spoke to Dave Gibbons about it.  
He still professed not to know what ?Alan will be quietly compliant? was 
supposed to mean.  He was certain that his friends at DC would never have 
done anything like that.  I said that actually, the only perceptions that 
were important in this were mine.  This was what I perceived had happened.  
I didn?t need it proven in a court of law, I mean these people had 
deniability.  But that was the only explanation and short of an explanation 
of what ?we expect Alan to be quietly compliant? meant, which I?ve never 
received, that still is the only scenario that makes any sense to me.  So I 
said to Dave Gibbons, ?For the sake of our friendship, Dave, I think it 
would be better if you and I did not discuss WATCHMEN ever again.?  
Obviously, it was something that both of us felt a little upset about, but 
it was the only way that I could stop Dave from ever being used to pass on 
creepy little messages to me, with or without his knowledge.  So Dave agreed 
to that.
The next thing I saw was something in The Guardian Guide over here.  It was 
set out to look like an interview with Dave Gibbons, but there wasn?t a 
journalist?s name attached and it did have ?film promotion? lettered above 
it.  So this was a paid advert for the film.  During the course of the 
interview, although my name wasn?t supposed to be attached to this film, the 
interviewer, presumably somebody on the Film end of things, had asked Dave 
if he?d had any contact with Alan Moore, at which Dave said that he was 
assured we were still friends, but I had asked him to never talk to me about 
WATCHMEN again.  This was said without any supporting reason more or less as 
if it was just an example of ?that crazy Alan Moore with his crazy long hair 
and his crazy ideas?.  So I was a little bit irked by that, particularly 
because I hadn?t received a phone call from Dave yet thanking me for the 
WATCHMEN money.  I don?t know? because I had a friendship with Dave that 
went back 25 years, I was thinking maybe he thinks that thanking me for the 
WATCHMEN money would constitute a conversation about WATCHMEN, so I was in 
two minds about what was happening.  Then a little while ago?
How long was this?
This was about a month, something like that.
Oh, right, so it was maybe June of this year?
Yeah, sometime in June.  I received a phone call from Dave Gibbons in which 
I probably did sound a little bit unfriendly on the phone, because it was 
very clear that he wasn?t phoning up to thank me for the WATCHMEN film money 
and I figured that he was probably phoning up to talk to me about something 
else to do with WATCHMEN.  I was busy at the time, I told him to call me 
back on the Monday.  Sure enough, he said, ?Alan, got a few minutes?  I just 
want to talk to you about WATCHMEN.?  So I said, ?As long as it was a few 
minutes only, Dave, and if that is the end to it.?  He then went forward ? I 
didn?t let him get very far ? but he said, and I knew, that he had always 
been opposed to the prequels and sequels of WATCHMEN and had always had the 
assurances of people like Paul Levitz at DC that that would never be done.  
But of course, those people aren?t there anymore and it was a different 
regime, and I had heard that the new Head of DC had announced that she 
really wanted to pursue some of DC?s key properties, by which I assume she 
probably meant WATCHMEN.  I think she may have even mentioned it, I don?t 
know.  So I said to Dave that yes, I had heard about this and he was saying 
that he knew the thing that I always wanted was the rights to WATCHMEN back.  
This was said with the kind of understanding that if they gave me back the 
rights to WATCHMEN, then I would in return sign over the rights to secondary 
properties such as, oh I don?t know, Rorschach comic books, sequels, 
prequels, all of these things?
TV series, things like that?
Yeah, all of these things, potentially, when you think about the different 
mediums these could be exploited in.  Potentially endless properties that 
could be spun off of WATCHMEN.  Now, I stepped in and said to Dave that 
actually, no I had grown so sick of WATCHMEN over these last 18 months that 
I didn?t want the rights back anymore.  If they had offered them back to me 
back when I wanted them, ten, twenty years ago, then maybe this could have 
all been resolved in a friendly fashion.  But no, I wasn?t going to take the 
rights back at this stage after they had pretty much, in my opinion, raped 
what I had thought to be a pretty decent work of art.  I didn?t want them 
throwing me back the spent and exhausted carcass of my work and certainly 
not under terms that would apparently allow them to go on producing witless 
sequels and prequels ad infinitum.
So it sounds like they wanted you to waive your moral rights in order to let 
them further exploit the property in the media?
Exactly.  It sounded like to me ? when I said I didn?t want the rights back, 
Dave Gibbons quickly switched to Plan B, which is apparently that they would 
make me a very large offer, I got the sense that they were talking, what, a 
couple of million, something like that, to sign over all of my rights to 
WATCHMEN.  Which I again rejected for much the same reasons.  This all took 
about two or three minutes and that concluded the conversation.  I imagine 
that this will probably be the last one I will be having with Dave, which is 
very regrettable.  I do tend to get the feeling that everything that I say 
is being ignored.  All the things that I ask to have done are just 
completely ignored.  So that was how we left it.  And I?ve been thinking 
about it since then, and several things have occurred to me.  I should 
imagine that if Warner Brother-DC are offering me the used-up and presumably 
pretty much spent rights to WATCHMEN back?
The literary rights.
?and they?re offering me a couple of million dollars, perhaps ? no figure 
was actually mentioned, but I got the impression it would be something like 
that ? to buy out the rights to WATCHMEN, then that would seem to indicate 
that yes, WATCHMEN as a property from their point of view is reaching the 
end of its natural life?
As a book, anyway.
,..yet the possible spin-off properties are probably of considerable value 
to them,  where you?d think the least of it is comic books anymore.  We?re 
talking about movies, we?re talking about all of these different media 
platforms that the property could be exploited upon, I should imagine that 
that would probably be worth a great deal of money that potentially DC would 
be able to make.  And also, the way I understand the industry to be run now, 
there are probably investors out there with piles of cash that are looking 
for something to invest in, and yet as far as Warner Brothers goes, and 
certainly as far as DC Comics goes, then from where I?m sitting, it doesn?t 
look like they?ve got a great many marketable properties.  There are clouds 
of question marks that hang over some of their properties? I mean, I don?t 
know whether the ongoing Superboy case has been settled?
It hasn?t.  It?s getting uglier as we speak, in fact.
That?s pretty much what I?ve heard.  That of course puts a big question mark 
over some of DC?s characters.  The Batman movie films, I understand that the 
last couple have been done by a better-than-average director, but I wouldn?t 
have thought that he?d be sticking with that franchise forever or if that?s 
what he wants to be known for.
It isn?t.
So that?s not going to last forever.  And pretty much that?s it.  I mean, 
compared to Marvel Comics, at least for the moment, Marvel seem to have a 
much large raft of marketable characters than DC-Warner, who have 
practically nothing except for properties like WATCHMEN, which could 
conceivably spin off into games, movies and potentially TV series and all of 
these different areas and could bring in a huge amount of money.  I should 
imagine that DC also would not have made me these offers out of the kindness 
of their heart or because they felt bad about the way they treated me in the 
past.
Well, here?s the thing: in theory, doesn?t DC and, thus, Warner own 
WATCHMEN?  Why do you think they need to come and get your permission to 
exploit it further?
Yeah, it was a bit of a surprise.  But thinking about it, I don?t know.  I 
mean, like they made a lot of trouble for themselves with their laxity on 
the contracts on the WATCHMEN film, say.
Right.
As I understood it, they didn?t realise until after they?d made the film 
for, what, 200 million?  That was ostensibly what they said it cost to make 
the film.  When they?d made that film, they were then notified by 20th 
Century Fox that actually they had sold all the rights to make that film and 
distribute back when I was talking to Terry Gilliam back in the 1980s.  And 
I understand that this led to a fairly punitive settlement between Warner 
Brothers and Fox whereby a ton of money had to be handed over in order for 
Warner Brothers to release their already very expensive film.  So 
contractually, I?m not sure that the people at DC always know what they?re 
doing.  I?m reminded of the fact that apparently they possessed the comic 
book rights to James Bond.  From about 1960 onwards, they published a 
SHOWCASE title of DR. NO.  It didn?t do very much and they promptly forgot 
about it.  I presume that it was about 20 years later? so maybe they?d got 
the rights for 20 years during which James Bond was at the height of its 
popularity, they didn?t even realise that they owned the rights to the 
property.   So these are people who are a bit slapdash in their contractual 
work in the past.  It strikes me that the WATCHMEN contract which after all 
were signed upon the understanding, we were led to believe, that we would 
have the rights revert to us as soon as the books went out of print, which 
in the industry standards of the time, it was inconceivable that that would 
be more than 12 months.  There had never been a comic book until WATCHMEN 
that had actually been in demand for more than 12 months, let alone 25 
years.  So immediately it became apparent that DC weren?t going to let 
WATCHMEN go out of print, we had suggested that in light of the success of 
WATCHMEN, perhaps our contract could be re-negotiated.  DC were very 
reluctant to do this, even though there were things coming up that were 
starting to make it impossible for me to carry on working with them.  The 
fact that I felt we had been swindled out of our just desserts on WATCHMEN, 
the property had been taken away from us by stealth or at least in my 
opinion, that was going to drive a huge wedge between me and DC Comics, 
which it did.  It didn?t seem to me to be the brightest move, that from 
where I was standing, in that WATCHMEN seemed to have been the biggest boost 
to the comics industry and specifically to DC Comics, that they could have 
possibly expected.
Well, WATCHMEN opened up the entire American graphic novel market.
It revitalized a moribund industry.  It changed the face of Comics.  And so 
I would imagine that given our understanding of the industry standards 
during that time, and given the fact that, as I say, DC?s contractual stuff 
sometimes seems to be a bit shaky.  So there may be? I mean, it?s occurred 
to me that I could possibly get a lawyer to look into this.  There may be 
some problem with the contract, or some potential problem that may require 
my actual signature saying it?s okay to go ahead with these prequels and 
sequels.  It might be that they can?t just do this.  It may be that? it 
would seem that if they had gone out of their way to try and tempt me with 
worn-out rights to a property that was mine anyway, or sums of money? 
they?re offering me a million or two million, then I would imagine that what 
was potentially on offer to them would be higher by a couple of factors, 
maybe two or three factors, who knows?  It could be a huge amount.  So this 
would seem to explain their apparent desperate need to get me to put my 
signature upon something, which I?m not inclined to do.  This is because I 
actually felt that the work we did on WATCHMEN was somehow special.  I have 
got a great deal of respect for that work.  I do not want to see it 
prostituted.  This has always been my position.  I don?t want to see it 
prostituted and made into a run of cheap books that are nothing like the 
original WATCHMEN which, anyway, wouldn?t work if it was dismantled.  Those 
characters only work as an ensemble.  A comic book about Doctor Manhattan 
would be really obtuse and boring.  A comic book about Rorscharch would be 
really miserable.  They only work together in WATCHMEN, although I?m sure 
there are perhaps people out there in the industry who would like to be the 
artist or writer on some WATCHMEN prequel or sequel simply to have their 
name attached to a successful property for once.  When Dave Gibbons phoned 
me up, he assured me that these prequels and sequels would be handled by 
?the industry?s top-flight talents?.  Now, I don?t think that the 
contemporary industry actually has a ?top-flight? of talent.  I don?t think 
it?s even got a middle-flight or a bottom-flight of talent.  I mean, like I 
say, there may be people out there who would still be eager to have their 
name attached to WATCHMEN even if it was in terms of ?Yes, these are the 
people who murdered WATCHMEN?.  I don?t want to see that happen.
Despite the fact that you could make a lot of money out of it?
I don?t wish to make money out of my characters being put through a lot of 
lame moves, which can do nothing but discredit the original work.  I was 
always a bit surprised by the way in which this was presented to me.  I 
mean, I would have thought that if I had been the person taking over DC 
Comics after Paul Levitz had, what was it, he stepped down to be a writer 
and consultant?  I would have thought if I was approaching the problem from 
the point of view of the new Head of DC Comics, that I would have perhaps 
tried to present that as an opportunity for saying the decks had been 
cleared, that the old regime that caused me so much trouble was no more, and 
we could have a fresh start.  Who knows, I might have even gone for it, but 
instead we get these imperious announcements that DC will be pursuing some 
of its more profitable properties.  And then we get these clumsy approaches 
through the medium of Dave Gibbons after what had already happened so that I 
am almost bound not to want anything to do with that whole business ever 
again.  It seems to me clumsy and inexpert, and I guess that maybe the new 
people running DC don?t have a lot more talent or forethought than the 
people running it before, at least in my opinion.  It?s difficult to see 
what they were trying to do with that one.  At least, they could have 
handled it more intelligently, you know, but they didn?t, and now the 
situation is what it is.
So this is why you said you were walking away from Comics, but it?s not 
Comics the medium but Comics the industry you?re leaving?
Absolutely.  I?ve always said that I will probably love the comic book 
medium forever.  Yes, I?m working in an awful lot of different media now, 
but then that has pretty much been the case throughout my career, although 
there has been a heavy bias towards comics.  I?ve always been working on 
side projects, on musical projects, pretty much throughout the entire 25, 
30-year span of my career.  So it?s not the comics medium that I?m moving 
away from.  I mean, I?m still having a great deal of fun doing THE LEAGUE OF 
EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN with Kevin, you know, and various other bits and 
pieces, but the Comics Industry I am repulsed by, and this is not anything 
that I went out of my way to engineer.  I had nothing but love for the 
comics industry when I entered it.  It could all have been so different.  
The only thing that happened was that when I felt that I was being cheated 
and robbed, where initially we put forward lots of sensible ways that that 
situation could be rectified with no hard feelings on either side, these 
were completely ignored and indeed everything I?ve said since has been 
completely ignored, even my request that Dave Gibbons shouldn?t phone me up 
with more messages from his bosses at DC.  There doesn?t seen to have been a 
single occasion during the entirety of this sorry trail of tears in which 
the things that I?ve said have even been listened to.  So I feel that I have 
to put the record straight upon this.  This is my reputation that is on the 
line, and the reputation of my work.  In some ways, it?s like when I 
launched into my bitter tirade with the V FOR VENDETTA film.  I wouldn?t 
have done that if people associated with the V FOR VENDETTA film hadn?t been 
saying things about me that weren?t true, hadn?t been saying that yes, I was 
thrilled about the film and that yes, I?d been talking to the Wachowski 
Brothers when they knew that these things things had never happened.  Now I 
can?t sit by and just let people make up anything that they want about me, 
and since I do have a certain profile, nor do I need to.  So you know, it?s 
not as if I have some vendetta against the comics industry, I just want them 
to leave me alone and to leave my work alone.  I don?t want anything to do 
with the comics industry in future.  This is regrettable because I?ve got a 
lot of old friends in the comics industry.  However, given the way that Dave 
Gibbons was apparently used as a messenger boy, it seems to me that I can?t 
really afford to have any contact with anybody who is employed in the 
mainstream comics industry, because, it?s a shame, they may have just wanted 
to get in touch for old times? sake, but I can never know that for sure 
anymore, because I?ve been given an illustration of what they are prepared 
to do in order to get me to play ball.  It seems, at least in my opinion, 
that they have been completely ruthless and utterly inhuman in pursuit of 
this.  And I reserve the right to state that opinion.  I certainly am not 
going to meekly fall into line and sign away the rights of my property 
because that would be as good as saying ?Yes, well, the business about you 
threatening Steve Moore and his dying brother, at least in my opinion, 
that?s all okay, let?s forgive and forget.  The fact that you?re going to 
turn over these characters and this work that I was so proud of to a bunch 
of people that I consider to be hacks to simply dilute it and degrade it for 
your commercial profit, that?s all okay by me.?  No, that isn?t going to 
happen.  That is a thing that I will go quite a considerable way to stop 
happening.  So it?s not a matter of me airily turning down the copyright to 
WATCHMEN.  If DC were to stop publishing WATCHMEN so it went out of print 
and then the rights automatically reverted to me and to Dave Gibbons, then 
you know, fair enough.  Those were the terms under which I understood this 
would be happening.  But certainly I?m not going to accept an offer where it 
seems to me they are simply attempting to throw me a relatively small sum of 
money or give me the rights to a property back that may well be pretty much 
used up from their point of view, in order to get me to give them the go-
ahead upon all these potentially very lucrative projects.  No, like I say, 
that is something I?m very adverse to.  And I?m surprised they moved on in 
such a clumsy way, you know, but I guess that?s DC Comics.
To the point where you might have to consult a lawyer.
Well, yeah, we?ll see what they do.  I?m hoping that since I?m definitely 
not going to be signing these rights over to them, that they might just 
desist, and, I mean, all right, I can understand this, if Warners don?t have 
any properties that are worth anything, or at least not worth very much in 
comparison to someone like Marvel Comics, I can understand that they might 
get a bit desperate.  I mean, just recently, my latest royalty cheque was 
two months late, which I can only interpret in two ways: either everybody?s 
royalty cheque was two months late, which would indicate that DC are perhaps 
a bit short of money?  I don?t know if that?s true, but that?s certainly one 
way that you can construe it, or the other way is that only my royalty 
cheque was six weeks late, which again would look like this was some clumsy 
attempt to put financial pressure upon me to go for this multimillion pound 
WATCHMEN offer, which again would suggest a level of desperation and 
creative impoverishment regarding Warner Brothers.  I don?t know.  This is 
just my appraisal of these things, but it?s? I don?t know, again, a funny 
thing to do if they see these things as being as important as they seem to 
think they are.  At the end of the day, if they haven?t got any properties 
that are valuable enough, but they have got these ?top-flight industry 
creators? that are ready to produce these prequels and sequels to WATCHMEN, 
well this is probably a radical idea, but could they not get one of the 
?top-flight industry creators? to come up with an idea of their own?  Why 
are DC Comics trying to exploit a comic book that I wrote 25 years ago if 
they have got anything?  Sure they ought to have had an equivalent idea 
since?  I could ask about why Marvel Comics are churning out or planning to 
bring out my ancient MARVELMAN stories, which are even older, if they had a 
viable idea of their own in the quarter-century since I wrote those works.  
I mean, surely that would be a much easier solution than all of this 
clandestine stuff?  Just simply get some of your top-flight talent to put 
out a book that the wider public outside of the comics field find as 
interesting or as appealing as the stuff that I wrote 25 years ago.  It 
shouldn?t be too big an ask, should it?  I wouldn?t have thought so.  And it 
would solve an awful lot of problems.  They must have one creator, surely, 
in the entire American industry that could do equivalent work to something I 
did 25 years ago.  It would be insulting to think that there weren?t.  
That?s just my suggestion for a way that DC could remove themselves from 
this thorny impasse, but we shall see.
And on that note, I think that?s a very good place to end. 
###
Per leggerla in forma piu' leggibile, andare qua:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/09/09/alan-moore-speaks-watchmen-2-to-adi-
tantimedh/
 
-- 
	Andy Roid

 ###
1) Grazie
2) Agghiacciante.
-- 
Nicola D'Agostino
<!-- 
http://www.nicoladagostino.net
 -->
<!-- 
http://www.storiediapple.it
 -->
<!-- 
http://www.mondochrome.it
 -->

 
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/09/09/alan-moore-speaks-watchmen-2-to-adi-tantimedh/
Mah, posso capire perfettamente il suo punto di vista e la DC è una merda 
spaventosa ma mi viene in mente che:
1) Doveva fare tutto il possibile per sabotarle e non solo dire "ok, se il mio 
nome non è associato..."
2) Se non poteva perché non aveva i diritti e i suoi no non servivano a nulla se 
non all'immagine poteva anche pensare di prendere in mano qualcosa, sia perché 
averebbe sicuramente fatto meno danni di altri autori sia perché gli sarebbero 
venuti dei gran bei soldi.
Quindi capisco tutto il suo modo di vedere la cosa ma alla fine lui ci perde in 
ogni caso a meno che non ci si metta in mezzo e mettersi in mezzo era l'nico 
modo per poter avere un po' di potere sul tutto, per questo io vedo la sua 
scelta come un errore.
-- 
See Ya, Dark.
Io sono il Signore dei Sogni.
L'isola dei Sogni, il forum per te: 
www.yumeshima.net
 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:i6cuv6$mqp$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it... 

...
Logorroico, paranoico, permaloso, *mostruosamente* egocentrico. 
Per quanto abbia piu' di un motivo per avere il dente avvelenato, mi
convinco sempre piu' che non sia una bella persona. 
 
-- 
Ciao, | R: Perche' incasina l'ordine con cui si legge un messaggio
Speck | D: Perche' quotare sotto da' cosi' fastidio?
      | R: Quotare sotto.
      | D: Qual e' la cosa piu' seccante su usenet e in e-mail?

 convinco sempre piu' che non sia una bella persona.
A me invece queste interviste mi danno ogni volta l'idea che sia
davvero una bella persona. Quelli che tu citi come difetti a me
sembrano complimenti. :-)
--
Laz

 davvero una bella persona.
anche a me. :-)
E poi secondo me traspare sempre una grande ironia mischiata. 
-- 
	Andy Roid

 vedo la sua scelta come un errore.
A me sembra che la cosa gli interessa fino ad un certo punto. Per lo meno 
gli fa girare le scatole quando gli attribuiscono frasi o giudizi falsi, ma 
che Watchmen 2 possa far cagare non gliene puo' fregare di meno.
-- 
	Andy Roid

A me sembra che la cosa gli interessa fino ad un certo punto.
Il che non è certo un bene. Dovrebbe proteggere i suoi "figli".
-- 
Jolan Tru
Filippo "Hytok" Simone
http://perestroika.iobloggo.com/

 Il che non è certo un bene. Dovrebbe proteggere i suoi "figli".
Che e' quello che cerca di fare, nei limiti dei suoi diritti. 
Watchmen e' un "figlio suo" e il non volere il suo nome associato con le 
riduzioni cinematografiche serve proprio a sottolineare come la versione 
"dal vero" non ha niente a che spartire con quello che ha scritto lui. Ma 
con l'eventuale Watchmen 2 lui non avrebbe nessun grado di parentela cosi' 
come un fumetto disegnato da Gibbons con la storia dei Pirati rimontata e 
riadatta in cui giustamente non vuole apparire accreditato. Il suo fumetto 
di pirati e' quello che si legge dentro il suo Watchmen. Tutto il resto sono 
cannibalizzazioni.
-- 
	Andy Roid

con l'eventuale Watchmen 2 lui non avrebbe nessun grado di parentela
L'universo narrativo dei personaggi!


 In che modo?
Cercando di far associare il suo nome solo al fumetto "Watchmen" che lui ha 
scritto.
 
-- 
	Andy Roid

ha scritto.
E' una guerra persa. Watchmen è l'universo narrativo, non solo quello
specifico che ha scritto lui. Altrimenti, ti faccio solo un piccolo
esempio, non ci si rammaricherebbe della deriva di Dylan Dog rapportato a
quello di Sclavi.


 quello di Sclavi.
Non esattmaente, Watchmen sarebb un fumetto fatto e finito,  nessun "universo, è 
tutto lì e bon, quello che c'è prima e dopo te lo puoi immaginare e basta.
I diritti però non li ha più Alan e visto che è lucroso hano deciso di "creare" 
un vero e proprio universo cominciando da un prequel e poi chissà.
Purtroppo il fumetto orginale è di Alan e quindi è impossibile che non venga 
associato al progetto, soprattutto visto che molti "giornalisti" e "critici" 
andranno a vedere "chi ha fatto Watchmen" e ci infileranno il suo nome, magari 
poi dicono anche "non ne vuole saper nulla" ma la gente una volta sentito lo 
associa e bon.


 quello di Sclavi.
Vorra' dire che un giorno ci rattristeremo pensando alla brutta fine di 
Rorschach rispetto a quello di Moore. In ogni caso si fara' un distinguo tra 
il suo Watchmen e quello di altri.
-- 
	Andy Roid