| Author |
|
Eric Smearman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5880
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 10:41pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I actually sympathize with Moore to a degree. But it's hard to get too
worked up over a deal that, while not going the way he wanted, still
makes him (and Gibbons) money. I don't know exactly how much but
I'll bet WATCHMEN alone has made him more money than Siegel and
Shuster got for Superman.
It reminds me of when Prince was scrawling "slave" on his face and
changing his name to an unpronounceable glyph in protest over his
deal with Warner Bros; A deal that, while unsatisfactory to him, still
made him very, very rich. As big a fan as I was (and still am) of the
man, I just got tired of hearing about it. And it just seemed
so...unseemly to me: "I created something successful and I profigreatly
but I didn't get EVERYTHING. Wah...!"
In my mind it would behoove people like Moore to renegotiate his deal
privately. I understand DC was once open to such a thing. He may not
care but he sure comes off petulant, bitter and undignified.
Edited by Eric Smearman on 10 July 2012 at 12:54am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14923
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 10:47pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
But it's hard to get too worked up over a deal that, while not going the
way he wanted, still makes him (and Gibbons) money. I don't know
exactly how much but I'll bet WATCHMEN alone has made him more
money than Siegel and got for Superman.
-----
Considering he gave his share of the WATCHMEN movie money to
Dave Gibbons, you'd lose that bet.
But there is a point to be made that Moore has been in the position to
be fairly well compensated by DC for his work, even though he's been
refusing to take some of that money, which is a lot better than what a
lot of other creators have gotten.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14923
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 10:50pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I'm used to the all-caps being used to refer to movie titles, but rereading
your post, I'm not sure if you were talking about the movie specifically.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Smearman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5880
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 11:03pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I was referring to WATCHMEN as a property. I apologize for any
confusion.
Edited by Eric Smearman on 10 July 2012 at 1:03am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Chris Geary
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1158
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 1:50am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Eric,
Without going into a thread drift (though this may be slightly related to the
topic at hand
) one of Prince's main problem's with Warner Bros was that
they told him when he could release stuff, and when he wanted to release it
himself, then wouldn't return the music.
Then when he gave them about 300 songs from his vault with a, "Do what
you want with them, but I'm off" sort of sentiment, Warner's replay was,
"Thanks for these, but the contract states that you are still required to
supply 'new' music so we'll have these, and the next five albums that your
contract says you owe us." Hence why he wrote Slave on his face, and his
last Album put out through them (Chaos and Disorder) was recorded in 10
days.
It wasn't that he was complaining about the money (although in some
interviews he has stated that he thought that as Warner's (and other record
companies) make so much money out of a successful artist it doesn't seem
like a fair split) it was that he didn't have any control over his creations,
even when Warners don't release them.
He doesn't even need to be consulted if someone want to do a cover
version.
The equivalent of that situation basically happens every time a creator
leaves a strip or a book they created to go onto something else, but the
publisher keeps on with a different creator. I can understand that that can
be quite annoying and sometimes even upsetting. Especially if it
dramatically goes against the original intent of the original creator.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Smearman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5880
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 2:29am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Chris, I remember all of that and, like Moore, it's not that I don't
sympathize. I just think that there are better and more dignified ways
of dealing with these kinds of disagreements. Again, I don't think
Moore or Prince give a toss what I or anyone else thinks. I just think,
if it were me, I'd really hate everyone knowing my business like that.
Sorry for the drift. My bad.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 136299
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 4:00am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
But it's hard to get too worked up over a deal that, while not going the way he wanted, still makes him (and Gibbons) money. I don't know exactly how much but I'll bet WATCHMEN alone has made him more money than Siegel and got for Superman.----- Considering he gave his share of the WATCHMEN movie money to Dave Gibbons, you'd lose that bet. How could he give away what he hadn't made?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Tower
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 August 2004
Posts: 646
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 12:14pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
But it's hard to get too worked up over a deal that, while not going the way he wanted, still makes him (and Gibbons) money. I don't know exactly how much but I'll bet WATCHMEN alone has made him more money than Siegel and got for Superman.----- Considering he gave his share of the WATCHMEN movie money to Dave Gibbons, you'd lose that bet. ------
Moore still get his royalties on the WATCHMEN book to this day. I can't swear that's more than S&S ever got, but it's certainly possible. Cumulative since 1986, it's also probably more money than the money he and Gibbons earned from the film, especially considering that was not a box office success.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Tower
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 August 2004
Posts: 646
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 12:18pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Considering he gave his share of the WATCHMEN movie money to Dave Gibbons, you'd lose that bet. How could he give away what he hadn't made?
______
After LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, Moore apparently told DC to send the checks for his share of the V FOR VENDETTA, CONSTANTINE, and WATCHMEN films to the respective artists. He had to sign a legal document to that effect, as I recall.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Norris
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4272
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 4:24pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I'm gonna sue DC and Marv Wolfman, I created a Teen Titans line up that included Beast Boy ( who I renamed Changeling) and female mystic, years before New Teen Titans came out.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 136299
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 4:38pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Considering he gave his share of the WATCHMEN movie money to Dave Gibbons, you'd lose that bet. How could he give away what he hadn't made?______ After LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, Moore apparently told DC to send the checks for his share of the V FOR VENDETTA, CONSTANTINE, and WATCHMEN films to the respective artists. He had to sign a legal document to that effect, as I recall. I wonder what Inland Revenue thinks of that?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |