Alan Moore still hates Hollywood

[Felon]

It doesn't matter what the general public thought of where Blade came from but where the studios thought he cam from. The important part was that the studios realized they could make money off of comic book IP.

Well then, by all means, let's roll even farther back to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

It matters what the general public thinks, because if they don't know where the IP comes from, its success or failure could just be a fluke. If they know its a comic IP and then decide to come or stay away in droves, that reflects much more strongly on the viability of comic-based IP's.

That's exactly why Marvel lets people know that they're watching a trailer for a movie based on a character from their comic universe. They want people people to know Ghost Rider isn't a horror movie, or that Punisher isn't just a crime thriller.

 

[Darth Shoju]

So...what's the argument about again?

No argument, just discussion.

(well-said, BTW)

 

[Felon]

Not Warner Brothers.

Besides, aren't most Marvel films with the exception of a few that have already been contracted to other studios, like Sony Entertainment, are being produced (i.e., funded) by Marvel's new film studio division?

Actually, its more like its more the other way around: the big IP's are mostly licensed out, with only a few exceptions being available to Marvel to use independently.

Basically, the Avengers characters are free (which includes Iron Man and Hulk), but Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Daredevil, X-Men, and any characters appearing therein are tied up.

 

[Felon]

Goodness. Whole lotta thread over not much at'll.

Answer's yes to everything.

Yes Alan Moore hates Hollywood. Yes he's got a right to. Yes, he's self-righteous and nutty. Yes, he's pretty fracking brilliant. Yes his stuff is good. Yes, some of it's overrated. Yes, the movies based on his stuff generally aren't as good, in quantifiable, measurable ways. Yes, some have merits of their own, apart from being based on Alan Moore books.

Yes yes yes yes.

And all of these things are okay. They can co-exist peacefully. None are mutually contradictory.

This thread is about Alan Moore???

Oh yeah...I'd forgotten.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Actually, its more like its more the other way around: the big IP's are mostly licensed out, with only a few exceptions being available to Marvel to use independently.

Basically, the Avengers characters are free (which includes Iron Man and Hulk), but Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Daredevil, X-Men, and any characters appearing therein are tied up.

Its not really like that, even if its ended up that way.

Marvel just didn't have their own studio when they first started things, so the big properties were licensed out. Now they DO have their own thing, so everything from Iron Man here on out is NOT licensed out because of that. Course, all those properties from before...

Hopefully, one day Marvel will get them back and be able to integrate them into the larger universe of films that's being used, but if that does ever happen its going to be a long time from now sadly.

 

[Staffan]

IIRC, they used some of the money they made from Spidey, X-Men, and the other movies to buy back the Hulk, and I think one of the other Avengers characters had been optioned off before and was bought back (I'm thinking Cap, but I'm not sure).

That said, I'm pretty sure there are sunset provisions built into all their other licensing contracts as well (X movies and/or Y years), so Sony doesn't have the right to make Spider-Man movies in perpetuity.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

but there is little doubt that he's right about comic companies existing primarily to create IP's for other markets--markets that are actually designed to be profitable.

Perhaps the bigwigs from large companies like Marvel or DC think that way. But I think most people who get into the comic industry do so for the love of the genre, and to express their creativity. And there's been some TREMENDOUSLY influential comics that may never be considered for translation to the screen.

So as to not de-rail the thread, I think, as the creator, ALan Moore is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he knowingly signed over the rights when the comics were published, so he shouldn't wish ill on the film and those associated with it.

After all, the movie will come out and people will like it or hate it, and then move on; but "Watchmen" [the comic] will STILL be in print long after the movie leaves the theatres, and it will still hild the title of "One of the 100 Greatest Novels".

 

[Felon]

Its not really like that, even if its ended up that way.

Marvel just didn't have their own studio when they first started things, so the big properties were licensed out. Now they DO have their own thing, so everything from Iron Man here on out is NOT licensed out because of that. Course, all those properties from before...

Yeah, that's what I said, so why are you saying "it's not really like that"?

 

[Felon]

That said, I'm pretty sure there are sunset provisions built into all their other licensing contracts as well (X movies and/or Y years), so Sony doesn't have the right to make Spider-Man movies in perpetuity.

Sure, they're not as dumb as Lorraine Williams. The licenses will expire, or maybe be sold off dirt-cheap. Since Marvel has Avengers plans throughout 2010 at least, they have time.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Yeah, that's what I said, so why are you saying "it's not really like that"?

I got the impression from how you worded it that it was more of a situation where the licensed some out and kept others purposefully. If they'd known the movies would have done so well in the first place, I highly doubt Marvel would have ever let go of any of the rights, even slightly.

Not as much disagreeing as it read slightly odd to me. Doesn't as much now, though.