The Purposeful Exit of Alan Moore
05/27/2005

Alan Moore has walked away from DC once again. It?s an anticlimax. And it?s not.

In case you somehow haven?t heard the details yet, Moore was reportedly angered over comments made by Joel Silver, producer of the upcoming V for Vendetta film from Warner Brothers, DC's parent company. DC holds the rights the rights to both Moore and David Lloyd?s original V for Vendetta comic and Wildstorm Studios, which releases much of Moore?s current comics work under the America?s Best Comics (ABC) banner.

Silver was quoted in a press release saying that Moore had expressed excitement over the upcoming film to co-writer Larry Wachowski (co-director of The Matrix and its sequels). Moore claims that he told Wachowski that he wasn?t interested in the film at all; he became incensed with Silver?s stretching of the facts perhaps because Moore had read bits of the screenplay and found them to be decidedly below acceptable quality.

Thus, Moore demanded from DC a retraction of Silver?s statement, which was not forthcoming, so Moore opted to take his creator-owned (with Kevin O?Neill) and fairly lucrative League of Extraordinary Gentlemen book away from the company as soon as his contractual obligations for prior projects are met.

At first glance, this strikes one as a noticeably genteel eruption of rage. Finishing off his contractual obligations? I?m getting the image of an irate worker in an office screaming his lungs out to the boss, ranting and pacing, perhaps tearing down a bookshelf or a pair of blinds, then capping it off with a mighty ?AND I?M HANDING IN MY TWO WEEKS' NOTICE!!!?

Ah, but I jest; surely it's the polite way of exploding, of course, and it's the healthiest route to go from everyone's (especially the readers') perspective.

And for seasoned Moore fans, the situation becomes all the more curious. Didn?t Moore just announce his "retirement" from Big Two comics? Aren?t most of the ABC books about ready for that long goodnight, the original creative teams having entirely disbanded (save for League, of course)?

Frankly, the announcement of Moore?s final contractual works provided a far more voluminous coming-attractions spread than anything DC had formally presented to fans: A new Tom Strong story and an original League graphic novel? Wow! Most ABC fanboys I know, myself included, hadn?t even expected that much! Sure, we didn?t see Moore and O?Neill jumping ship to Top Shelf/Knockabout (who are going to have some nice income in their future should such details pan out), but we can?t say we?re particularly floored by the news. After all, Moore had expected Wildstorm to remain under the Image banner when ABC was developed; the sale to DC was a big surprise, and not a pleasant one, given his stormy relationship with the company in the past.

So really, isn?t this sort of akin to sitting at a banquet with a lot of people you like at a venue you hate then waiting for most people at your table to finish their dinner before bolting for the exit?

And didn?t Moore have problems with DC during the ABC run itself? The one issue of League temporarily pulped because DC got skittish about an authentic advertisement for a?personal hygiene device named after the company?s primary competitor? And that one short from Tomorrow Stories that DC outright refused to print because of the historical personalities portrayed therein (the story was eventually shorn of DC-owned material and printed at --foreshadowing alert! --Top Shelf)? Couldn?t this all be a lot of gradual pressure rising to a head?

Isn?t this anticlimactic?

Hell, don?t the details of this final clash not quite add up? Isn?t a link or two missing from the causal chain? Warner Films producer makes some dodgy statements, offending a worker for Warner?s comics line, and said comics line takes the fall because the movie mogul refuses to budge (or, more likely, simply ignores matters)? What could DC have done? Why take it out on DC? Maybe this is all just a convenient opportunity for Moore to make his pre-planned exit with as much visible noise and bluster as possible.

Maybe. But I don?t think so. I also don?t think this is much of an anticlimax at all.

On the contrary, I think this matter is a perfect little saga of American comics, the interests of Hollywood clashing with the interests of comics. And not just any comics, but Big Two comics.

Earlier, I referred to Moore as a "worker" for DC, for the comics wing of Warner Brothers. Because that?s what he is, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Aside from League, the corporate entity owns all of the books and characters he worked on; therefore, he worked for the corporation on corporate properties.

Moore may have hoped that independent Wildstorm would have been the owner, but that failed to pan out in awfully short order (supposedly, Moore will now be including a clause in his future contracts to void his obligations in the face of such maneuvering). Moore didn?t quit right then, right at the moment of sale, as he?d doubtlessly be putting attached artists out of work, all of them having prepared for production.

But that?s not a concern anymore. The only original artist still around is O?Neill, who?s free to leave DC with Moore as co-owner of League, and apparently is. The contracts are almost fulfilled. The work demanded of him is nearly done.

And here he is, Alan Moore, nigh-legendary decades-veteran of comics writing, regular presence on "Best Of" lists across the industry, novelist and poet and recording artist and cartoonist, and he is being disrespected by a wing of the company he is attached to. The Hollywood wing disrespects the comics wing. It?s a casual disrespect, a quiet disrespect; perhaps some would interpret it as an unimportant disrespect, a typical Hollywood brush-off--but that?s obviously not how Moore sees it, given his statements.

I don?t think the question is as much "why leave," anymore, as "why not leave"?

Why remain joined by a cord at your belly to Hollywood, why remain spiritually connected to an entity that doesn?t suit your interests, that adapts your work in a way you don?t like then spins your own feelings in support of such poor adaptation? How could Moore not act in this way? The very fact that DC?s hands are tied when confronted by the behavior of the moviemaking wing of their corporate parent justifies Moore?s actions. Why remain part of this when you don?t have to?

It?s a story of movies making comics into properties, eyes on the big film dollars. Film has so much more money than comics, so much more power. Why would Joel Silver ever release a retraction? They?ve got a nice little comics property, after all. They?ve got big stars! They?ve got Natalie Portman; I?ve been assured that her physical attractiveness will trump a myriad of niggling concerns in getting those rears into seats. They?ve got Hugo Weaving; I hear he?s been in a bunch of films that resonate with the target audience. They?ve got those Matrix boys writing, with one of their longtime collaborators directing! Who needs courtesy?

I already sense the response to this: Sin City. Shouldn?t Moore have answered that telephone call differently? Doesn?t he waive his right to complain once he?s detached himself from the filmmaking process? Couldn?t he have protected his standing by working with Hollywood, not against it?

Let me tell you a little theory I have. I honestly believe that Sin City should be the model for future comics-based films. Not in every respect; the whole "slavish devotion to the panels on the page" thing seems utterly antithetical to my idea of how cinematic adaptation should be approached. But the rest of it: the relatively modest budget, cutting down on the hands in the pie. The use of technology, as harnessed by a few, not as compartmentalized as average. A sympathetic, driven, possibly mad creative force behind the production. If an original creator wants involvement, he or she is far better off working in this smaller system. And it helps immensely if the creator happens to own the work being adapted.

This could be a fine cast for future adaptations.

But V for Vendetta is not struck from that mold.

Moore and Lloyd do not own V for Vendetta; a wing of the corporate entity producing the film does. What we know of the production does not scream intimacy". Persons high up on the production ladder apparently did not know in which century the Guy Fawkes attack on which the film builds its metaphoric basis even took place. The director is entirely known through his supporting association with the film?s writers and producers, whose writing product apparently did not engender confidence in Moore.

So he didn?t work with the filmmakers. And then he felt the filmmakers misrepresented his feelings about it.

So why remain tied to such nonsense? Why remain a worker for this swaggering beast when you don?t have to be?

Why be a part, when you can be Apart?

That is the question asked, and answered. That is the climax of this story.

And so it goes, and there he is.

Discuss this article in the forums