Alan Moore Hard Talk Interview

[king mob]

This is now up on Youtube and it's very good indeed as the interviewer gives him a harder time than he's used to, but Moore hopefully puts some points finally to rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAfXSgRxQEc

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Moore hopefully puts some points finally to rest.

Oh, like that's ever stopped The Butthurt Brigade before.

[Johnny P. Sartre]

"I do prefer to criticise things from a position of ignorance."

Haha, oh Moore. I sometimes forget how hilarious he can be.

[J. Robb]

"...given the alternatives in the comics medium to being precious- which is to simply allow all of your art to be altered, your writing to be altered, at an editor's whim... when most of the editors in comics, quite frankly, would probably struggle giving you an actual definition of the verb 'edit'."

[Charles RB]

""I have absolutely no problem with the protestors appropriating it... because the original narrative was appropriated from me by the company that published it." Har har!

Lovely interview, and the interviewer's done his homework.

[Marc]

Great interview. He is much more intelligent than I had ever thought.

I love the Lost Girls bit. I agree 150% with everything he said. I hope we can change towards opinions like this in my lifetime.


Every time I see him, I wonder how much shampoo he goes through to clean all that hair?

[Kikaider]

Good interview. Stephen Sackur would have buried Moore, though. I get the feeling that if Moore was challenged on his views, he would get irate and blow the interviewer off.
He would make a pretty cool Merlin in a movie.

[king mob]

Lovely interview, and the interviewer's done his homework.

He had and he ensured it was an interview that you could watch if you knew nothing about Moore as he kept the questions interesting, not to mention challenging as Moore was clearly a wee bit taken aback in a few places but came back well.

[Kees_L]

Beautiful.

Since watching footage of Moore, both as watching as "media showy" a show as this *Hard Talk*, was a first for me,

I liked how the slouchy hairy easy-eyed both as sane-looking person of Alan Moore would appear to be contrasting strongly with basically everything else.

Really well-conducted interview.

Good interview. Stephen Sackur would have buried Moore, though. I get the feeling that if Moore was challenged on his views, he would get irate and blow the interviewer off.

Because of it being a good interview, with mr Alan Moore explaining himself or what fiction means quite aptly, I didn't get such a feeling at all.
As if this'd be Moore being right or having a point more rather than not.
So no *burying* comes into it I'd think, not for all the *challenging* in the world, even as by people called Stephen.

Because on his personal views why wouldn't Moore be right instead of wrong - and why would his views have to be weird or wrong at all?
If anything, this interview makes clear that Moore isn't wrong in his views and that his views aren't too weird most of the time.

[Charles RB]

questions interesting, not to mention challenging as Moore was clearly a wee bit taken aback in a few places

He was probably thinking "holy shit it's A NEW QUESTION IN AN INTERVIEW".

[Kikaider]

Beautiful.

Since watching footage of Moore, both as watching as "media showy" a show as this *Hard Talk*, was a first for me,

I liked how the slouchy hairy easy-eyed both as sane-looking person of Alan Moore would appear to be contrasting strongly with basically everything else.

Really well-conducted interview.




Because of it being a good interview, with mr Alan Moore explaining himself or what fiction means quite aptly, I didn't get such a feeling at all.
As if this'd be Moore being right or having a point more rather than not.
So no *burying* comes into it I'd think, not for all the *challenging* in the world, even as by people called Stephen.

Because on his personal views why wouldn't Moore be right instead of wrong - and why would his views have to be weird or wrong at all?
If anything, this interview makes clear that Moore isn't wrong in his views and that his views aren't too weird most of the time.

Well, I think Hard Talk is hardly "media showy". Most of the interviews that I have seen rely heavy on facts and not showy performance. Lots of guests try to skirt the questions by talking a lot and veering off in order to not give a clear concise answer. Charisma allows for a lot of forgiveness when not giving a straight up answer to a question (which Moore has).
Regarding Moore, just one of the things that stands out is his displeasure at DC from signing a contract he clearly did not understand, because he put his trust in the wrong people. He sounds very intelligent, so I find it hard to believe he was born the day before that contract was signed.
Also, signing options to have your material made into movies with the hope that it doesn't, so you get paid for work no one makes money on? Then continually voicing his displeasure on said projects when they are made in movies?
Not to say that I want Moore to be attacked for his beliefs but perhaps his frustration clouds his judgement, and having someone call him on it might make a difference in how he thinks(?).

[king mob]

Regarding Moore, just one of the things that stands out is his displeasure at DC from signing a contract he clearly did not understand, because he put his trust in the wrong people. He sounds very intelligent, so I find it hard to believe he was born the day before that contract was signed.

To clarify this point for the 2392 time; no comic trade had ever stayed in print before Watchmen, so the chances of Watchmen going quickly out of print was amazingly high which is one reason why the book sold more than any trade previously (and there were only a few examples of collected editions prior to Watchmen) so when it became clear Watchmen was never going to go out of print because of demand, DC should have renegotiated the contract to give Moore and Gibbons a fairer deal rather than continue to shaft the people who laid a golden egg for them.
Moore's said as far back as a UKCAC in the late 80's that he wished he could go back and do things right but mistakes are made but it's a wankers trick to focus on Moore and Gibbons while letting DC walk away without pulling them up for their lack of respect for the people who gave them something they never had again.

Also, signing options to have your material made into movies with the hope that it doesn't, so you get paid for work no one makes money on? Then continually voicing his displeasure on said projects when they are made in movies?

He sold the V for Vendetta rights along with David Lloyd and Dez Skinn in the 80's and there was no sign of any film being made til the mid 90's. Watchmen was sold without his consent, as was Constantine but although he pocketed the initial option for V, he refuses to take money from his work that's made into films and asks for it to be spread between his fellow creators.

Not to say that I want Moore to be attacked for his beliefs but perhaps his frustration clouds his judgement, and having someone call him on it might make a difference in how he thinks(?).

He's been shafted by DC and DC are taking advantage of the one literary superhero comic they have in their armoury because they don't have anything else left to milk.

[Kees_L]

Charisma allows for a lot of forgiveness when not giving a straight up answer to a question (which Moore has).

What's that (what Moore has): charisma? Forgiveness? Or do you mean to be calling him a liar?

Regarding Moore, just one of the things that stands out is his displeasure at DC from signing a contract he clearly did not understand, because he put his trust in the wrong people. He sounds very intelligent, so I find it hard to believe he was born the day before that contract was signed.
Also, signing options to have your material made into movies with the hope that it doesn't, so you get paid for work no one makes money on? Then continually voicing his displeasure on said projects when they are made in movies?
Not to say that I want Moore to be attacked for his beliefs but perhaps his frustration clouds his judgement, and having someone call him on it might make a difference in how he thinks(?).

Kikaider, to me you're sounding somewhat like just another fanboy who for their fanboy entitlement doesn't like anybody including Moore to be "badmouthing" or "dissing" DC.

Well, guess what: it could be Moore isn't badmouthing or dissing DC but instead he'd merely be saying how it is.

The bottom line to any comic or thing ever launched as by DC or Marvel would be that potentially it would have to be returning more money than what went into it, as much as possible. Which basically means that each and every contract is made in order to be keeping things like payments or costs as lowly as possible.
I think you don't have to be a fan to understand how such would potentially present a discrepancy or fricteous situation between on the one hand the creating of quality titles at agreeable wages or payment and company profit on the other.
Especially if you consider what type of publishers DC and Marvel appear to be: they'd wanna be "the big leagues", the prime distributing companies to the most commercial titles. Yet DC asked people like Alan Moore on board, as if DC wanted in on doing weirdly mature or kinda "particular" type of stuff such as either Dave McKean / Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, or Miller's DKR, or either Moore / Gibbons their Watchmen. All titles WAY different than typical superhero-fan-stuff at the time.

DC probably could have provided Alan Moore with acceptable terms. I mean why not?
For either doing the Watchmen title, or for doing a movie, or perhaps even for doing further stuffs - but - according to Moore apparently they didn't. Why would that have to be inaccurate or 'clouded judgement' at all?
Answer: it doesn't.
As I could see it as being simply realistic and accurate more rather than meaning to be at all demeaning or disrespectful in any way.

[Mr. Rice]

What's that (what Moore has): charisma? Forgiveness? Or do you mean to be calling him a liar?

I think he meant "a straight up answer."

[king mob]

Yet DC asked people like Alan Moore on board, as if DC wanted in on doing weirdly mature or kinda "particular" type of stuff such as either Dave McKean / Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, or Miller's DKR, or either Moore / Gibbons their Watchmen. All titles WAY different than typical superhero-fan-stuff at the time.

There's a story that I think Neil Gaiman first told (though I may be wrong) about a shareholders meeting at DC/Warners where shareholders are told of how well DC have done because of Dark Knight and Watchmen, and how both titles broke into the mainstream in a massive way, so the shareholders ask something like 'so what's these guys doing for us next', only to be told that both had told DC to do one. However they were scouring the UK for someone like Moore which they did. I remember UKCAC in 87 being full of Americans from DC reviewing portfolios, meeting writers and generally networking desperately to find out any hidden talent they'd not come across and Karen Berger even did a mini tour of the UK to sign some people up face to face.

DC probably could have provided Alan Moore with acceptable terms. I mean why not?
For either doing the Watchmen title, or for doing a movie, or perhaps even for doing further stuffs - but - according to Moore apparently they didn't. Why would that have to be inaccurate or 'clouded judgement' at all?

I genuinely think they thought they'd replace him with another writer who'd turn out another Watchmen, but apart from Gaiman's Sandman and the odd Grant Morrison book, there's been nothing DC have done that's come anywhere near Watchmen in terms of acclaim.Hence why they're trying to milk Watchmen to get some of that former glory back.