itsbecca

February 3, 2012 3:01 pm that should be "who *still* aren't a fan".

February 3, 2012 2:59 pm Perhaps, and I would venture to say there might be some people at the company who aren't a fan of the idea. Just not enough to try to stop it, or not high up enough to be able to have the Klout to stop it. While I agree it's a good decision, I doubt the controversy is limited to fans.

February 3, 2012 12:37 pm I totally agree with your point of view josh, but I disagree with this bit: “Guys, this is wrong. It’s a beloved piece of literature, and if we mess with it, people will think less of us.” The hypothetical guy who gets laughed out of the board meeting? Of course, I'm running on fumes of pure speculation, but I would bet cash money on the fact that that point was seriously discussed. It's probably been seriously discussed for years. I imagine that's part of the reason this was not attempted earlier. It's a real factor in the equation... it's business ethics basically. I don't see anyway around discussing that question. Now some people clearly believe the question was discussed and DC twisted the corners of their wax mustaches and let out a maniacal laugh as they walked away from Alan Moore to the train tracks with the sound of an approaching train whistle. Personally, I believe the question was discussed and it was determined that the timing, the creators and the ideas were right and the content would be served well. Maybe I give them too much credit, and of course, the business part was probably the leading part of the discussion (which I have no problem with), but that's just what I think about the matter.

February 3, 2012 11:42 am I'm certainly not saying you have to like and affirm everyone, but Alan Moore (and Watchmen in particular) as God is getting a little tiresome. It's amazing and lovely and I will read it over and over again in my lifetime. He's obviously one of the top writers. But the gap between him and everyone else is not the chasm you make it out to be and, yes, I think it's insulting to some of the mind-blowing people who have worked, and are working, in comics to proclaim it to be so. And why the hell would anyone criticize Scott Snyder for touching Alan Moore's work on Swamp Thing when Swamp Thing was not created by him? That's clearly not analogous. And let's not go down the "But Alan Moore made it was it is, it was totally his world" because there are many other people who have done as much with other properties only to have it pass on when they're done, *because that's how comics work.* If you don't want it touched, you have to do creator owned.

February 2, 2012 10:06 am Here's my line of reasoning. If money was the only object the name and characters of Watchmen alone are going to pull in consumers. Fan loved creators (or big name JMS) could be busy elsewhere pulling people to buy books they might not otherwise. But even if we disagree on that point, I'm still incredibly confused by your point. A good product is a good product. Why get upset that it's a good product that *also* makes a business money that will keep it afloat in a struggling industry? By "Money Grab" I mean their only motivation is money. The problem would be making a bad product for money. Like the movie industry pumping out formulaic and terrible romcoms because while it won't do great, it's a guarantee to return their investment. They give the bare minimum of effort; it happens. However, it's wholly possible to be an ethical business that makes a good product and also stays out of the red. I'd argue that applies here.

February 2, 2012 12:37 am PS - I chose Cooke as an example not just because he's well liked (and has generally awesome work), but also because he's not DC exclusive. So the likelihood of him being coerced into this project by those darn money grubbers is significantly lower.

February 2, 2012 12:20 am Here's the thing though. It's not just Dan Didio and Jim Lee. For it to be a meaningless, vapid cash grab ever creator involved would have to be treating it as such. It doesn't matter what Dan Didio's actual intent is (which, lets be honest, it's a little ridiculous to assume we know), if, for example, Darwyn Cooke is excited to write his story and has great ideas, then he'll write a good story. According to his standards at least, clearly it's subjective. It's ridiculous to assume they didn't weigh all the things we're thinking now in their heads before agreeing to his assignment.

February 1, 2012 7:21 pm Wow. @Bluestreak. Way to insult an entire industry. An industry that includes, by the way, @Wallythegreenmonster, Sonia Harris, Myself and probably a number of less vocal members of the site whose careers I'm not aware of.

February 1, 2012 7:19 pm @ResurrectionFlan Not the point. A stunt is a move whose only motivation is money or attention. A sound business decision will be profitable, but takes everything into account. If this were a money grab, they wouldn't have bothered putting together sound creative teams, doing an interesting variety etc. etc. As Marvel has been getting smarter and smarter with business (in order to stay in business. I assume you're in the up and up that this is a very real issue) I've felt like DC has sort of lagged in that area. It's good to see them start fighting for themselves in a way that that doesn't, in my opinion, lose the integrity of the art. @Bluestreak sorry your replies are null and void to me. I have no problem with different opinions and debate, but rude comments and condescension get us nowhere.

February 1, 2012 2:43 pm Man. I can relate. Got a long time boyfriend (fiance actually) into comics and we made a deal. I'd buy the monthlies and he'd get trades. Then when we broke up... I got the long boxes, he got the trades. It was a great blow.