Watch This: "Before" BEFORE WATCHMEN Spoof

That was alot of work for such a retarded video.

@Froggy
SLIGHTLY based on--the looks maybe, but not the background stories hinted at in the original book.

Ahaha, good ol' Northampton.

@Froggy: Oh and don't put words in his mouth - if you're going to badmouth him, at least use his own words to hang him with (it isn't hard). He's never said they 'stole' it from him and fully admits his own naivety in the matter. But he still feels 'betrayed', let down or 'swindled' by DC and you'd have to be pretty cold not to see why.

Northampton doesn't look anything like that

@Froggy@: To gain? I'm not sure what you mean. Discussing the rights and wrongs of something has nothing to do with what I might or might not gain from it. Is that how you think? You take the side from which you might gain the most? Interesting. Not sure I'd want to know you.

Where have I said, once, that I'm "clamoring for him to get the rights"? I just clarified the situation when you were making it out to be something it wasn't. That's all. And I commented on how they were treated from my personal perspective. I see no clamoring whatsoever.


DC took advantage of a couple of naive artists. It's that simple. It's not about who gains, who gets hurt or what the legal situation is. It's as simple as "was that a nice thing to do?" It wasn't.

It's like you say, DC have the rights and they're utilising them. That's not up for debate. Nor is there any real debate in trying to 'win them back' for Moore & Gibbons. That's done and dusted too.

There's plenty of debate as to the artistic merits of the thing, whether it works, whether it should have been left alone, and so on, but this isn't about any of that.

This is just a matter of having sympathy for some creative guys just off the boat who created something timeless and were made certain assurances and promises and then got royally screwed. That's shitty and if you can't see that, then you're a pretty heartless bastard.

Look what Watchmen did and is still doing for DC. And the artists got screwed (not necessarily out of money, but out of what they were led to believe was the deal - read up on it - that is the reality of the situation). As have many others in the industry over the years. Noting that, commenting on it and clarifying the issues surrounding how it happened is NOT the same as 'clamoring' for anything.

What Marvel did to Kirby, for example, was just as shitty, but I don't hold that against Marvel today, nor am I clamoring for the Kirby estate to get all the rights (quite the opposite). It's just what it was and that's that. Doesn't matter how much I like or dislike either party or what I might have to 'gain' from either side. Kirby was not treated as he should have been. But Marvel have the rights and should keep them. Does that confuse you?

I guess I've probably made the mistake of forgetting where I am. You can't see past your own gain, you can't distinguish between right and wrong and legal and the fact that something can be perfectly legal and yet still be morally wrong, you put words into other people's mouths to make the world fit your view of it... And the worst thing is that you seem to have lost any sense of empathy for other people, regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

But then this is here and this is what people are like.

@Froggy: He doesn't want the rights NOW. He was promised the rights THEN. But being naive, they didn't realise the 'out of print' clause was NEVER going to be enacted, whereas DC knew when they offered the contract that they planned to collect the book and keep it in print forever.

It's not like the deal was just made and we're waiting to see what happens. We know. It happened.

See it for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

THAT'S IT!!!! I've had it with this slag-crusted debate!!! All those in favor of petitioning DC to stop printing Watchmen, say "ay"!

For the record, I wouldn't be sad to see Watchmen finally go out of print--I hate that cynical excuse for a comic book anyway.