Wood

February 10, 2012 10:59 am Hail brings up an interesting point. That said, I'm not sure it's germane to the way this lawsuit plays out. No one can deny that the AMC show used Moore's imagery as a major driving point, far beyond the "conventional" way the zombies may have looked. They pilot basically used the same frame and panel layouts that Moore did, almost identical in many cases. The issue isn't whether Moore's visuals are a big part of Walking Dead, the issue is whether Moore is right in his claim that he was unfairly taken advantage of in giving up those rights.

February 10, 2012 10:57 am Tony has certainly taken that option off the table. Typically lawsuits are filed after attempts to resolve things privately fell apart, or went unanswered. You can't file a suit like this and then put the genie back in the bottle. Now that said, they COULD agree to something like binding arbitration, and then seal whatever settlement agreement comes of it, but given Kirkman's legal response, I see that as unlikely.

February 10, 2012 10:38 am This is very unfortunate on a lot of levels, and makes the upcoming Image Expo a bit more of a potential media brouhaha. I'm sure anyone that's ever met both of these guys (and I've had the good fortune) knows that they're both likable, hard-working, incredibly talented individuals. They were childhood friends who let business get in the way of their friendship -- which wasn't the first and certainly won't be the last time that happens in the world. It's very hard for us to not gravitate toward one side or another, and I can't pretend to not be guilty of that. But I would caution anyone from jumping to conclusions here, because this is a tort matter. There are very specific legal definitions to the rights of these properties, and the construct of verbal and written agreements. The onus will be on Moore's team to prove their claims, since they're the litigant, and whether they have a case will come down to the specific claims versus a judge's specific interpretation of the evidence presented. It's dry, boring stuff that will only make the lawyers happy. There are no winners here. I will tell you, from experience in following these matters as an investor (companies get sued all the time), the resolution of these things is rarely cut and dried. And the only way we'll see a quick resolution will be a) if Robert's side decides to not accept any wrong doing but ups Moore's piece of the pie (unlikely) or b) a court throws the case out as being frivolous (more likely). If the courts deem the case to have merit (and that's a low hurdle, legally), it will proceed and take a looooong time. I can't pretend to not be a bit skeptical, but I'm also open to either outcome since I have no idea what was said between the two, what was written, what they signed, and when they signed it. Based purely on gut instinct, I find the timing of the lawsuit, combined with Tony's prior comments about being at peace with things and having no regrets, to be tough to rationalize. Walking Dead was NOT anywhere close to a financial empire when they made these agreements in 2005-2006, and it's very easy for any of us to look at what it's become and say how easy it should be for Kirkman to dish out more money. It's the 'there's enough to go around for everyone!" argument. But we have to remember that no matter how this case turns out -- Robert kept building the Walking Dead into the giant its become while Tony walked away (whether he was happy to do so is not relevant to my point). Maybe Robert believed in his heart of hearts that WD was going to be massive, even back then, while Tony thought it was just another indie comic. We'll find out, I guess.

February 5, 2012 10:20 am Alan Moore's career in comics is just about the only one I find irreproachable. If there is a more impressive, elegant, complex and nuanced body of work without a commensurate number of failures, I haven't seen it.

February 5, 2012 8:24 am DC doesn't have its own board. I think Josh is right to characterize this as a sound business decision. But I don't think that's pertinent to a FANs perspective. One can be a fan and think this is a tragically bad idea while understanding that it's also a logical business decision.

February 1, 2012 7:58 am We shouldn't be surprised by this move, it's been rumored for ages. But, for me, it's yet another reminder of how th aging readership appears more interested in rehashing former high water marks than it does experience new ideas. Inevitable though in an era defined by a readership that's digested the same characters, over and over, for literally decades.

February 1, 2012 7:56 am To be fair, they've been working in this stunt long before the New 52, but I agree it feels like another sad gimmick in a stymied creative environment.

October 21, 2011 11:28 am Pulpit!

October 7, 2011 3:38 pm I may have to pull a Dr. Strange and use the Astral Plane, but somehow I'm going to get at least one hip hop joint played that night. At least one.

October 7, 2011 3:16 pm There are cosplayers, and then there are COSPLAYERS.