Moore in an interview with MtV

[Xofenroht]

Alan Moore, the king of comics, is at his home in Northampton, England. He's been working on a new story called "Lost Girls." Actually he's been working on it for the last 16 years, but now it's done and due out this summer as a graphic novel, illustrated by his fiancee, the artist Melinda Gebbe. It's a wild tale, even by the 52-year-old Moore's standards: Three heroines of classic children's literature — Alice from "Alice in Wonderland," Dorothy from "The Wizard of Oz" and Wendy from "Peter Pan" — meet up in London in 1913 and realize that their respective stories are actually metaphors for sexual awakening. Very erotic. Or, as Moore prefers to think of it, very pornographic.

The sex-filled "Lost Girls" may be a little too scary for Hollywood, which has heretofore adored Moore's work and turned three of his creations (the graphic novels "From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," as well as the supernatural investigator John Constantine) into very bad movies. Moore's densely complex 1987 graphic novel, "Watchmen" (illustrated by Dave Gibbons), has been banging around Hollywood for years (director Terry Gilliam was once attached to it), but has yet to be made. "V for Vendetta," however, the '80s series he did with artist David Lloyd, has — and Moore is not happy about it. He read the script and hated it and, as is now his customary practice, he's had his name taken off the movie and directed that all profits he might be due from the film be given to Lloyd instead.

Alan Moore very rarely gives interviews, but MTV News' Jennifer Vineyard spoke to him at length by phone recently about "V for Vendetta," about his Hollywood problem, about the perils of working with Johnny Depp and Sean Connery, and about his latest project.

MTV: Could you see "Lost Girls" being made into a film?

Alan Moore: I don't see how adapting it to another medium makes any sense at all. But that's me. I am a little cranky sometimes. And it wouldn't be fair of me to say no if Melinda [Gebbe] did want to see "Lost Girls" made into a film. My position is, I don't want my name on it and I don't want the money. But also, how would they get actors of any quality to appear in a hard-core sex film? We'd need Judi Dench for it, and I don't think she'd do it. But I really doubt that any of my comics can be [successfully] made into films, because that's not how I write them.

MTV: But you do have a very cinematic style.

Moore: In comics the reader is in complete control of the experience. They can read it at their own pace, and if there's a piece of dialogue that seems to echo something a few pages back, they can flip back and check it out, whereas the audience for a film is being dragged through the experience at the speed of 24 frames per second. So even for a director like Terry Gilliam, who delights in cramming background details into his movies, there's no way he'd be able to duplicate what Dave Gibbons was able to do in "Watchmen." We could place almost subliminal details in every panel, and we knew that the reader could take the time to spot everything. There's no way you could do that in a film.

I met Terry Gilliam, and he asked me, "How would you make a film of 'Watchmen'?" And I said, "Don't." I think he eventually came to agree with me that it was a film better unmade. In Hollywood you're going to have the producers and the backers putting in their ... well, I don't want to dignify them by calling them ideas, but ... having their input, shall we say. You're going to get actors who'll say they don't want to say this line or play this character like that. I mean the police inspector in "From Hell," Fred Abberline, was based on real life: He was an unassuming man in middle age who was not a heavy drinker and who, as far as I know, remained faithful to his wife throughout his entire life. Johnny Depp saw fit to play this character as an absinthe-swilling, opium-den-frequenting dandy with a haircut that, in the Metropolitan Police force in 1888, would have gotten him beaten up by the other officers.

On the other hand when I have got an opium-addicted character, in Allan Quatermain [in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"], this was true to the [original] character — he showed a fondness for drugs on several occasions. But Sean Connery didn't want to play him as a drug-addled individual. So the main part of Quatermain's character was thrown out the window on the whim of an actor. I don't have these problems in comics.

MTV: So why sell the film rights in the first place? My position used to be: If the film is a masterpiece, that has nothing to do with my book. If the film is a disaster, that has nothing to do with my book. They're two separate entities, and people will understand that. This was very naive because most people are not bothered with whether it's adapted from a book or not. And if they do know, they assume it was a faithful adaptation. There's no need to read the book if you've seen the film, right? And how many of the audience who went to see "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" thought, "Hmmm, I've really got to go read 'The Odyssey' "?

Moore: When you're talking about things like "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen," I don't have a choice. Those were works which DC Comics kind of tricked me out of, so they own all that stuff and it's up to them whether the film gets made or not. All I can do is say, "I want my name taken off of it and I don't want any of the money." I'd rather the money be distributed amongst the artists. But even though [the filmmakers] were aware that I'd asked that my name be taken off "V for Vendetta" and had already signed my money away to the artist, they issued a press release saying I was really excited about the film. Which was a lie. I asked for a retraction, but they weren't prepared to do that. So I announced I wouldn't be working with DC Comics anymore. I just couldn't bear to have any contact with DC Comics, Warner Bros. or any of this shark pool ever again.

One of the things I don't like about film is its incredible immersive quality. It's kind of bullying — it's very big, it's very flashy, it's got a lot of weight and it throws it around almost to the detriment of the rest of our culture. And I have gotten tired of lazy critics who, when they want to insult a film, they'll say it has "comic book characters" or a "comic book plot" — using "comic book" as code for "illiterate."

MTV: They've probably never read a comic book.

Moore: That's it. I'm not going to claim all comic books are literate — there's a lot of rubbish out there. But there have been some very literate comic books done over the last 20 years, some marvelous ones. And to actually read a comic, you do have to be able to read, which is not something you can say about watching a film. So as for which medium is literate, give me comics any day.

MTV: There is one possible solution, something that Neil Gaiman is now doing with his "Death: The High Cost of Living" and Frank Miller has done with "Sin City": Why not direct the films yourself?

Moore: I don't have any interest in directing films of my work. If something worked perfectly in one genre, why is there any reason to assume it's going to work as well or better in another genre that it wasn't designed for? I've not seen "Ghost World," but I've been told it's very good. I've not been told that it's better than the comic.

MTV: What about something that is true to the spirit of the original work, like "The Lord of the Rings"?

Moore: CGI makes me spit vitriol and bile and venom. When it comes to films, give me someone like [surrealist filmmaker] Jean Cocteau. When he wants to have somebody reaching into a mirror, he spends all of about five dollars on the special effect: He gets a tray, fills it with mercury and then turns the camera on its side. That is poetry. That is magic.

I have a theory, which has not let me down so far, that there is an inverse relationship between imagination and money. Because the more money and technology that is available to [create] a work, the less imagination there will be in it. My favorite films are those that were made on a shoestring. And they weren't adaptations of some other work, they were original pieces of cinema. All right, [Cocteau's] "La Belle Et La Bête" is an adaptation of "Beauty and the Beast" — but it was made into something very different. And I mean, John Waters, his early films, they're terrific! Because he was making them with some friends of his from Baltimore, with whatever cheap film stock he could borrow or steal. George Romero, in "Dawn of the Dead," "Day of the Dead," all the rest of them, he ingeniously used the fact that he had almost no budget to his advantage — claustrophobic sets, everyone's trapped in the cellar and the zombies are trying to dig their way in. Very inexpensive, incredibly powerful. That is where cinema really works for me.

If you give me a typewriter and I'm having a good day, I can write a scene that will astonish its readers. That will perhaps make them laugh, perhaps make them cry — that will have some emotional clout to it. It doesn't cost much to do that. But if you said, "Astonish the audience," and you gave me a quarter of a million — well, my auntie could astonish an audience if she got that much money! Real art and the things that actually change our culture tend to happen on the margins. They don't happen in the middle of a big marquee.

MTV: But couldn't there ever be an exception? And since you haven't seen it, couldn't "V for Vendetta" be that exception?

Moore: I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

George Clooney's being attacked for making ["Good Night, and Good Luck"], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it's not illegal — not yet anyway — to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked.

:up: :up:

[Robot Komakino]

:up: :up:

[LastSunrise1981]

He still sounds kind of bitter to me, but it was a good read and at least he was more clearer about what had happened.

I just assumed he was whining, complaining, and being hateful just to be hateful. But as I said before, if he felt that strongly about his material, then he could've easily pulled a Frank Miller and signed on as a co-director to provide his vision to the movie.

I doubt Sin City would've turned out the way it did if Frank wasn't involved.

[The Guard]

He does sound bitter. But I would imagine that if he'd wanted to, he could have been a co-writer, a co-director, almost anything to make the project better. He didn't want to be involved, and he's insanely biased against adaptions to begin with. Fine. And I'm sorry, but while the words "facism" and "anarchy" don't appear in the film, as I recall, they shouldn't have to, there is clearly a ton of facism and anarchy in the film.

[Nivek]

He sounds pissy, thats for sure. But it's not like he's the only writer that had his works adopted on film and it turned out badly.

[War Party]

Here's a good article from IGN about the film vs. the graphic novel.

http://comics.ign.com/articles/696/696867p1.html

[antmanx68]

The Guy's a genius, and when you're that creative and you put a lot of thought into one of your works, then someone takes it and re-shapes it into something different without your permission it would piss you off.... especially if you feel like they missed the point. I would agree that he sounds cranky and bitter, but i think he has a right to be. I loved the movie, i'm sure I would love the comic too.... so as a fan i guess you just have to like what you like.

[Xofenroht]

He sounds pissy, thats for sure. But it's not like he's the only writer that had his works adopted on film and it turned out badly.

Yeah but on 4 occasions? I'd be bitter too. Really, once is a muck up, 4 times is a blatant insult.

[Tanin]

I don't think he likes any movie adaptions at all by anyone.

[Darthphere]

Great article. I thinl its a disservice however to say DC tricked him out of the rights to V and Watchmen.

[Xofenroht]

You have a point. I won't say they didn't trick him, but I will say that it was poor foresight on his part. Then again, I guess he didn't want to feel full of himself in thinking that the book wouldn't go anywhere.

[DACrowe]

Full of bitter and piss and wind. A great writer, but his stuff always made me think he was a little off and seeing his picture recently and hearing his interviews confirms this.

HOWEVER, I am not saying that he is wrong. He very much has a good point and I tend to agree with quite a bit of what he says and respect what I don't. However, the last hting I expected him to be offended by V for Vendetta was the updating it so it would still have relavence. Yes it serves as a parallel for America but also it does comment on the direction Britian is going in by following the US. And it was pretty obvious this was a fascist government and anarchy was occuring.

However, again, V as an anarchist is much more downplayed and he seems to believe in more the Lockeian ideals (life, liberty and property) which leads me to suspect him as a supporter of true democracy. Not what Moore wrote and very understandable about his reaction. I expected more aobut the condensing of his story and the removal of certain acharacters and the shifting the focus of the end to be just as much about action and love as V's final ideal. It was strange that he preferred it to be dated in the 1980s it seems.

Oh well.

[Darthphere]

Just an observation that people will not agree with me probably. Alan moore has stated that he gave up the rights to V and Watchmen so easily because he didnt think much of them. He showed a certain lack of respect in his own writing, in other words didnt think it was that great. Since they were huge successes and has easily become widely recognized as one of the best in the business, he seemes to have taken this hard stance on things. Hes overconfident and possibly go as far as to say full of himself. Thats what I see.

[KingOfDreams]

good interview

[Leto Atrides]

He has some points, but if the movie was exactly as he wanted, he'd still hate it. He's a great writer, but he's not the world's most sane individual.

[Mr. Socko]

He's a bitter old hack, but I like him.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He makes some excellent points.

[kainedamo]

Great interview. For everything negative someone had to say about Moore, he had a rebuttal for it here.

Why not co-write or co-direct? He has no interest. He doesn't see the point in making a movie version and he doesn't see why the books need validation by having movies made of them.

This was probably my favourite part...

"Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?"

Very, very well said. If you're going to change it so much, toning down the whole anarchy aspect, update it so it applies to modern times, then why not make an original movie? I agree that the Wachowskies lack the balls to make a movie that outright shows the US and what's wrong with it.

Moore also made an excellent point about actors. Actors will often say they don't want to say certain lines, or that they want to play characters this way or that way. As a writer of comic books, Alan Moore has full creative control.

And... excellent point about special effects. I agree that when a movie has a large budget, the effects get lazy. Yeah, let's make everything CG!! I think physical effects are better. And some of the magic of cinema is taken away when EVERYTHING is CG. I mean, look at John Carpenter's The Thing! Could you imagine the CGI in a new remake of that movie??

[Mr. Socko]

Oh, and if it had alot to do with fascism and anarchy, it wouldn't have attracted any kids in the movie at all or people who don't care about politics. My uncle was going to take his 10 year old son to see this movie but after reading reviews and seeing the movie heavily involves politics he decided to not take him. Alot of parents don't care if the movie is rated R for violence, they'll let the kid see it. A bunch of kids have seen the Matrix. They're just trying to market correctly.

I agree that the Wachowskies lack the balls to make a movie that outright shows the US and what's wrong with it.

Well Larry is a transexual and rumors suggest he's getting the sex change soon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Wachowskis.jpg

[Xofenroht]

Oh, and if it had alot to do with fascism and anarchy, it wouldn't have attracted any kids in the movie at all or people who don't care about politics. My uncle was going to take his 10 year old son to see this movie but after reading reviews and seeing the movie heavily involves politics he decided to not take him. Alot of parents don't care if the movie is rated R for violence, they'll let the kid see it. A bunch of kids have seen the Matrix. They're just trying to market correctly.



Well Larry is a transexual and rumors suggest he's getting the sex change soon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Wachowskis.jpg

"V for Vendetta" was never meant for kids anyway.

[Darthphere]

"V for Vendetta" was never meant for kids anyway.


The point he was trying to make that its ok if its Die Hard 4 but once it got too heavily political he didnt allow him to see it. In other words his dad's a hypocrite. Blood, gore and violence is ok but oooo politics no way am I letting my kid see that.

[The Squirrel]

And I'm sorry, but while the words "facism" and "anarchy" don't appear in the film, as I recall, they shouldn't have to, there is clearly a ton of facism and anarchy in the film.

One guy does scream "anarchy in the uk" toward the end of the film.

[HoratioRome]

enteresting interview but well I don't ,....how can I say this?

I respect his right to feel the way he feels. I can even understand WHY he feels the way he feels. It IS in fact true that Hollywood has butchered his material in the past, and seem to have very little respect for the comic genre in general.

Having said that, I do find him to be Too bitter and too closed minded and perhaps even a little too arrogant and self centered. He seems not to offer ANY possibility that a work of art can work in two different mediums. Inspite of clear evidence to the contrary.

Sin city was EXACTLY as it was in the comics. EXACTLY,..and it's a well loved and respected film. reaching a much wider audience than the book ever could. what is wrong with that?

I also disagree with him about his assessment of V the movie. His attack on the "bush era politics" could just as easily be leveled against him at the time V first came out. After all his predicitions and fears were clearly far off base. It made PERFECT sense for V the movie to SUBTLELY make the story more relevant to today's political environment, especially given the fact that waht is happening now has much more GLOBAL implications than Thatcher's England.

This story is therefore more important and more dangerous (not to belittle Tatcher's England).


I also hate that he so easily dismisses other artists and works of art. He does what he HATES is done to him. He dismisses, and belittles "special effects" and CGI, while at the same times can't understand why someone would have no respect for a "comic book".

That is hypocritical and wrong. I'm sorry to tell Mr. Moore but CGI is NOT just about the money and his Aunt or whatever could NOT produce some of the FANTASTIC works of art CGI artists have produced in the past few years.
Anyway, I find that I disagree with him.

he strikes me as bitter almond. get it bitter almond?

[The Guard]

Having said that, I do find him to be Too bitter and too closed minded and perhaps even a little too arrogant and self centered. He seems not to offer ANY possibility that a work of art can work in two different mediums. Inspite of clear evidence to the contrary.

Yeah. He's not very realistic on that front. And realistically, if he wanted to be involved in the process of making his books into movies, I'm sure he could be, and they'd be better for it.

Sin city was EXACTLY as it was in the comics. EXACTLY,..and it's a well loved and respected film. reaching a much wider audience than the book ever could. what is wrong with that?

The thing is, SIN CITY is not V FOR VENDETTA. SIN CITY is film noir/pulp stuff, and it's cool, but it doesn't require you to do a whole lot of thinking beyond the basics. The story is very easy to follow. I don't think you'd find much argument that, in general, V FOR VENDETTA is a deeper, more layered work than SIN CITY is to begin with. Naturally, then, it's more difficult to adapt for general audiences.

I also disagree with him about his assessment of V the movie. His attack on the "bush era politics" could just as easily be leveled against him at the time V first came out. After all his predicitions and fears were clearly far off base. It made PERFECT sense for V the movie to SUBTLELY make the story more relevant to today's political environment, especially given the fact that waht is happening now has much more GLOBAL implications than Thatcher's England.

Exactly.

I also hate that he so easily dismisses other artists and works of art. He does what he HATES is done to him. He dismisses, and belittles "special effects" and CGI, while at the same times can't understand why someone would have no respect for a "comic book".

Yup.

[NateGray]

enteresting interview but well I don't ,....how can I say this?

I respect his right to feel the way he feels. I can even understand WHY he feels the way he feels. It IS in fact true that Hollywood has butchered his material in the past, and seem to have very little respect for the comic genre in general.

Having said that, I do find him to be Too bitter and too closed minded and perhaps even a little too arrogant and self centered. He seems not to offer ANY possibility that a work of art can work in two different mediums. Inspite of clear evidence to the contrary.

Sin city was EXACTLY as it was in the comics. EXACTLY,..and it's a well loved and respected film. reaching a much wider audience than the book ever could. what is wrong with that?

I also disagree with him about his assessment of V the movie. His attack on the "bush era politics" could just as easily be leveled against him at the time V first came out. After all his predicitions and fears were clearly far off base. It made PERFECT sense for V the movie to SUBTLELY make the story more relevant to today's political environment, especially given the fact that waht is happening now has much more GLOBAL implications than Thatcher's England.

This story is therefore more important and more dangerous (not to belittle Tatcher's England).


I also hate that he so easily dismisses other artists and works of art. He does what he HATES is done to him. He dismisses, and belittles "special effects" and CGI, while at the same times can't understand why someone would have no respect for a "comic book".

That is hypocritical and wrong. I'm sorry to tell Mr. Moore but CGI is NOT just about the money and his Aunt or whatever could NOT produce some of the FANTASTIC works of art CGI artists have produced in the past few years.
Anyway, I find that I disagree with him.

he strikes me as bitter almond. get it bitter almond?

Excellent post :up:
I concour completely and do not think he is nearly as great as he thinks he is.
It is pretty sad when someone thinks they are just great and can do no wrong as he tries to spin himself.

[The Guard]

Oh, he's great. He's just not always right.

[NateGray]

Oh, he's great. He's just not always right.

Here let me correct this for you

I The Guard think he is great

Thats your opinion

I think he is a decent writer with egomaina making him think he is more than just that and IMO he isn't.

He thinks he is great and truely great people know they are great and do not toot there own horn on how great they are like he is doing they are actually very critical of themsleves and their work's he is neither critical of himself or his works and just tries to spin it like he is just great.

That is my opinion of him and has been for quite a while.

[dungman]

Just an observation that people will not agree with me probably. Alan moore has stated that he gave up the rights to V and Watchmen so easily because he didnt think much of them. He showed a certain lack of respect in his own writing, in other words didnt think it was that great. Since they were huge successes and has easily become widely recognized as one of the best in the business, he seemes to have taken this hard stance on things. Hes overconfident and possibly go as far as to say full of himself. Thats what I see.
You know, I don't think I've ever seen him say that he didn't think much of V or Watchmen. Any sources you could post?

As far as I've understood it, the whole deal went like this: Moore's Swamp Thing was a success so DC asked him to write something with the recently purchased Charlton characters (Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, The Question, etc.). The story evolved something DC didn't really want to use the characters for, so the editor suggested that Alan changed the characters to be original ones. That way, he'd get the rights for himself. They made a deal where DC would keep the rights and make money off the story until the collected edition went out of print, which basically meant about 18 months since no book had been in print for longer than that at the time. DC then asked if Moore'd like to publish the rest of V For Vendetta through them with a similar deal in place. Moore thought he could trust them so he talked Lloyd into 'lending' the rights as well.

Then Watchmen came out, changed the industry and the rest is history. I've also heard DC at points kept the print runs as low as possible to make sure there would not be a long time between printings.

I think DC did a really ****ty thing, though they didn't outright trick Moore. He has every right to feel the way he does. He's also trying to get his name off the books, which I support.
He's a bitter old hack
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
adj.

1. By, characteristic of, or designating routine or commercial writing: hack prose.
2. Hackneyed; banal.

Alan Moore still writes better than the Wachowskis (or 99% of the writers in the movie business) ever will.
I also disagree with him about his assessment of V the movie. His attack on the "bush era politics" could just as easily be leveled against him at the time V first came out. After all his predicitions and fears were clearly far off base. It made PERFECT sense for V the movie to SUBTLELY make the story more relevant to today's political environment, especially given the fact that waht is happening now has much more GLOBAL implications than Thatcher's England.
First off, it was his story. He wasn't twisting someone else's to suit his own politics. Secondly, you might want to read the interview again:
It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
His point is a good one. If you adapted 1984, would you set it in 2024?
But as I said before, if he felt that strongly about his material, then he could've easily pulled a Frank Miller and signed on as a co-director to provide his vision to the movie.
'Easily' is heavily overstating it. I'm not sure if you remember, but Robert Rodriguez resigned from the Directors' Guild for Sin City.

[Darthphere]

The fatc of the matter DC is a business. You really expect them to stop printing one of its most succesful books to date just to appease Alan Moore. Alan Moore is naive if he thinks DC will ever stop printing Watchmen and V. DC didnt trick him, Alan moore just was to naive to understand the business side of things.

[dungman]

Here let me correct this for you

I The Guard think he is great

Thats your opinion
It's also the opinion of most comics readers, creators and critics. Any objective (i.e. non-fansite) poll of the best comics writers will most likely end up with Moore winning by quite a margin. His use of the medium to its full extent is unparallelled. Watchmen is the best example of this, hence it being called the Citizen Kane of comics. If Citizen Kane was adapted as a book, it would just be a somewhat better than ordinary biographical story. Watchmen would be no better as a movie (though I'm sure some would claim so, I've seen some people say the movie version of V For Vendetta is better than the book).

I think he is a decent writer with egomaina making him think he is more than just that and IMO he isn't.

He thinks he is great and truely great people know they are great and do not toot there own horn on how great they are like he is doing they are actually very critical of themsleves and their work's he is neither critical of himself or his works and just tries to spin it like he is just great.I don't think I've ever heard anyone call Moore an egomaniac. Where exactly does he praise his work or himself?

That is my opinion of him and has been for quite a while.
Which works of his have you read?

[kainedamo]

I find it so bizarre that people choose to turn on Moore when he says he's unhappy with V For Vendetta. He gets accused of being an egomaniac, being full of himself, his opinions are disregarded as bitter.

He's just being honest. He's telling the truth. The man has principles, and he stands by his principles, and they cannot be BOUGHT! That is a very, very rare thing in the business of hollywood. His opinions are not only valid, but he backs them up VERY well, as shown by this and other interviews.

The problem isn't with Moore. The problem is with YOU. You really expect him to just lay down and let himself get screwed when he can do something about it? Why should he lie and say he loves a movie that he doesn't? Why should he co-direct or co-write (would they even LET him??) a movie when it goes AGAINST HIS PRINCIPLES!!

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

Why is this stuff so hard for you guys to understand? Stop being so childish and calling the man bitter, arrogant, and an egomaniac just because he doesn't like a movie you like.

[Darthphere]

I find it so bizarre that people choose to turn on Moore when he says he's unhappy with V For Vendetta. He gets accused of being an egomaniac, being full of himself, his opinions are disregarded as bitter.

He's just being honest. He's telling the truth. The man has principles, and he stands by his principles, and they cannot be BOUGHT! That is a very, very rare thing in the business of hollywood. His opinions are not only valid, but he backs them up VERY well, as shown by this and other interviews.

The problem isn't with Moore. The problem is with YOU. You really expect him to just lay down and let himself get screwed when he can do something about it? Why should he lie and say he loves a movie that he doesn't? Why should he co-direct or co-write (would they even LET him??) a movie when it goes AGAINST HIS PRINCIPLES!!

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

Why is this stuff so hard for you guys to understand? Stop being so childish and calling the man bitter, arrogant, and an egomaniac just because he doesn't like a movie you like.


Nobody is telling him not do anything about it. But he hasnt. He doesnt like it sue DC, like Siegel and Schuster did to get the rights to SUperman and what Steve Gerber did with Howard the Duck. Except hes not. He just bad mouths DC for making a great business move. Moore was the one that included the clause in the contract that he would get the rights back when they stopped printing the comic. If he was a smart business guy he wouldve set a date. The fact is Moore gave DC the rights to his work. He doenst have to like it, but he has to live with the fact that theres no one to blame but himself. Very bluntly put, the monet Alan Moore signed over the rights to DC for his books, DC had the right to do whatever and anything they wanted with them. I agree with him 100% and think he brings up great points and backs everything he says up very well. The fact is he hasnt done anything about it except for doing a couple of interviews every now and then.


I respect Alan Moore as a writer, hes the best comic book writer ever IMO. I have a great amount of admiration for his work and his principles. You say were mad at him because he doesnt like a movie he doesnt based on his work. Truth is, he hasnt seen the movie. He read the script but we all know the script never stays the same and is constantly changing. He has every right to ***** and complain about how they messed up his book, but at leats he could have somehting to back that statement up with.

[The Guard]

Here let me correct this for you

I The Guard think he is great

Thats your opinion

Yes, I should think that would be obvious. However it is hardly only my opinion. It is the opinion of, I'd say, most who have ever read most of his classic work, and much of his mainstream work.

Although, before you choose to correct me, let's take a look at the meaning of the word "great", shall we, as it relates to this discussion...

of major significance or importance.

I'd say Alan Moore ranks as that in the field of comics and literature in general. Entire classes at some universities are devoted to his work.

remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect

He also possessess these qualities by most people's standards, or at least his writing does.

bang-up: very good

I don't think the quality of his writing can really be argued. He is a fantastic writer, certainly "very good".

a person who has achieved distinction and honor in some field

He is this as well, garnering numerous awards and accolades for his work.

I think he is a decent writer with egomaina making him think he is more than just that and IMO he isn't.

Show me where he indicates this. Yes, he's probably an egomaniac, and many things suggest this, but he's never, to my knowledge, acted like he's more than he is, which is a writer who loves the medium of comic books. As far as him being a decent writer, we'll agree to disagree there. Alan Moore's stuff hangs with anythng I've ever read, and that includes "the classics".

He thinks he is great and truely great people know they are great and do not toot there own horn on how great they are like he is doing they are actually very critical of themsleves and their work's he is neither critical of himself or his works and just tries to spin it like he is just great.

Again, show me where Alan Moore indicates that he believes he is great.

It's also the opinion of most comics readers, creators and critics. Any objective (i.e. non-fansite) poll of the best comics writers will most likely end up with Moore winning by quite a margin. His use of the medium to its full extent is unparallelled.

Exactly.

I find it so bizarre that people choose to turn on Moore when he says he's unhappy with V For Vendetta. He gets accused of being an egomaniac, being full of himself, his opinions are disregarded as bitter.

I don't think anyone has turned on the man. People are still going to love his work. This isn't some recent development about condeming Moore for not wanting to allow adaptions: this is how many comic book fans have felt for years. Some of Moore's ideas about his comics and their inability to be translated are frankly, kind of absurd. If he doesn't want them translated, he should say so and be done with it. But he doesn't. He acts like it's not possible. And that's just not true. What is not possible is to translate them to film perfectly, but they CAN be translated to film.

He's just being honest. He's telling the truth. The man has principles, and he stands by his principles, and they cannot be BOUGHT! That is a very, very rare thing in the business of hollywood.

He can't be bought? Please. Go look at some of the work he has done, and tell me the man was never for hire, and is still not for hire sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore

His opinions are not only valid, but he backs them up VERY well, as shown by this and other interviews.

Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right.

The problem isn't with Moore. The problem is with YOU. You really expect him to just lay down and let himself get screwed when he can do something about it?

He can't do something about it, though. He gave up the rights to his comics voluntarily when he allowed a company to produce them for him and to supply him with materials, etc. Because he agreed to that years ago, and because they are fantastic works of literature and art, they are fair game to be made into movies. Rather than try to make them into better movies than they would be without his involvement, he apparently chooses to be bitter about it.

Why should he lie and say he loves a movie that he doesn't? Why should he co-direct or co-write (would they even LET him??) a movie when it goes AGAINST HIS PRINCIPLES!!

No one's asking him to do that. But *****ing about a situation you helped bring about and aren't helping to improve isn't going to change things. What would change things if if Alan Moore chose to be involved in the creative process of the films based on his works (as Frank Miller was with SIN CITY and BATMAN: YEAR ONE).

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

You know, if V FOR VENDETTA featured none of the aspects of the novel, you might have a point. As such, this makes no sense. What appears onscreen is very much the story for V FOR VENDETTA, adapted.

Welcome to the real world, where even in the adaptions of the classics, things change. Always have, and always will. Alan Moore doesn't seem to live there, and maybe that's why his writing is so good.

[quote]Why is this stuff so hard for you guys to understand? Stop being so childish and calling the man bitter, arrogant, and an egomaniac just because he doesn't like a movie you like.

Here's the thing. He pretty much IS bitter, arrogant and an egomaniac by the account of anyone who's ever met the man or worked with him. It comes through in his writing, in his interviews, in interviews with others about him, etc. It doesn't make him a bad person, and it's true of many artists, but it's true nonetheless.

[Darthphere]

Yes, I should think that would be obvious. However it is hardly only my opinion. It is the opinion of, I'd say, most who have ever read most of his classic work, and much of his mainstream work.

Although, before you choose to correct me, let's take a look at the meaning of the word "great", shall we, as it relates to this discussion...

of major significance or importance.

I'd say Alan Moore ranks as that in the field of comics and literature in general. Entire classes at some universities are devoted to his work.

remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect

He also possessess these qualities by most people's standards, or at least his writing does.

bang-up: very good

I don't think the quality of his writing can really be argued. He is a fantastic writer, certainly "very good".

a person who has achieved distinction and honor in some field

He is this as well, garnering numerous awards and accolades for his work.



Show me where he indicates this. Yes, he's probably an egomaniac, and many things suggest this, but he's never, to my knowledge, acted like he's more than he is, which is a writer who loves the medium of comic books. As far as him being a decent writer, we'll agree to disagree there. Alan Moore's stuff hangs with anythng I've ever read, and that includes "the classics".



Again, show me where Alan Moore indicates that he believes he is great.



Exactly.



I don't think anyone has turned on the man. People are still going to love his work. This isn't some recent development about condeming Moore for not wanting to allow adaptions: this is how many comic book fans have felt for years. Some of Moore's ideas about his comics and their inability to be translated are frankly, kind of absurd. If he doesn't want them translated, he should say so and be done with it. But he doesn't. He acts like it's not possible. And that's just not true. What is not possible is to translate them to film perfectly, but they CAN be translated to film.



He can't be bought? Please. Go look at some of the work he has done, and tell me the man was never for hire, and is still not for hire sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore



Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right.



He can't do something about it, though. He gave up the rights to his comics voluntarily when he allowed a company to produce them for him and to supply him with materials, etc. Because he agreed to that years ago, and because they are fantastic works of literature and art, they are fair game to be made into movies. Rather than try to make them into better movies than they would be without his involvement, he apparently chooses to be bitter about it.



No one's asking him to do that. But *****ing about a situation you helped bring about and aren't helping to improve isn't going to change things. What would change things if if Alan Moore chose to be involved in the creative process of the films based on his works (as Frank Miller was with SIN CITY and BATMAN: YEAR ONE).

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

You know, if V FOR VENDETTA featured none of the aspects of the novel, you might have a point. As such, this makes no sense. What appears onscreen is very much the story for V FOR VENDETTA, adapted.

Welcome to the real world, where even in the adaptions of the classics, things change. Always have, and always will. Alan Moore doesn't seem to live there, and maybe that's why his writing is so good.



Here's the thing. He pretty much IS bitter, arrogant and an egomaniac by the account of anyone who's ever met the man or worked with him. It comes through in his writing, in his interviews, in interviews with others about him, etc. It doesn't make him a bad person, and it's true of many artists, but it's true nonetheless.



Good post. I agree. The Moore v Hollywood v Fans thing has been going on for a while. it isnt something new. But we all agree he is still a great writer and most of understand his position.

[kainedamo]

"Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right."

But it IS his opinion. The way people act sometimes, you would think Moore owes something to the people. It's his opinion, so why try to make him out to be an ass hole for standing by his opinion and principles? Not saying you're doing that, Guard, but others certainly are.

[Darthphere]

"Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right."

But it IS his opinion. The way people act sometimes, you would think Moore owes something to the people. It's his opinion, so why try to make him out to be an ass hole for standing by his opinion and principles? Not saying you're doing that, Guard, but others certainly are.


I dont think anybody is doing that.:confused:

[HoratioRome]

Yes, I should think that would be obvious. However it is hardly only my opinion. It is the opinion of, I'd say, most who have ever read most of his classic work, and much of his mainstream work.

Although, before you choose to correct me, let's take a look at the meaning of the word "great", shall we, as it relates to this discussion...

of major significance or importance.

I'd say Alan Moore ranks as that in the field of comics and literature in general. Entire classes at some universities are devoted to his work.

remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect

He also possessess these qualities by most people's standards, or at least his writing does.

bang-up: very good

I don't think the quality of his writing can really be argued. He is a fantastic writer, certainly "very good".

a person who has achieved distinction and honor in some field

He is this as well, garnering numerous awards and accolades for his work.



Show me where he indicates this. Yes, he's probably an egomaniac, and many things suggest this, but he's never, to my knowledge, acted like he's more than he is, which is a writer who loves the medium of comic books. As far as him being a decent writer, we'll agree to disagree there. Alan Moore's stuff hangs with anythng I've ever read, and that includes "the classics".



Again, show me where Alan Moore indicates that he believes he is great.



Exactly.



I don't think anyone has turned on the man. People are still going to love his work. This isn't some recent development about condeming Moore for not wanting to allow adaptions: this is how many comic book fans have felt for years. Some of Moore's ideas about his comics and their inability to be translated are frankly, kind of absurd. If he doesn't want them translated, he should say so and be done with it. But he doesn't. He acts like it's not possible. And that's just not true. What is not possible is to translate them to film perfectly, but they CAN be translated to film.



He can't be bought? Please. Go look at some of the work he has done, and tell me the man was never for hire, and is still not for hire sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore



Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right.



He can't do something about it, though. He gave up the rights to his comics voluntarily when he allowed a company to produce them for him and to supply him with materials, etc. Because he agreed to that years ago, and because they are fantastic works of literature and art, they are fair game to be made into movies. Rather than try to make them into better movies than they would be without his involvement, he apparently chooses to be bitter about it.



No one's asking him to do that. But *****ing about a situation you helped bring about and aren't helping to improve isn't going to change things. What would change things if if Alan Moore chose to be involved in the creative process of the films based on his works (as Frank Miller was with SIN CITY and BATMAN: YEAR ONE).

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

You know, if V FOR VENDETTA featured none of the aspects of the novel, you might have a point. As such, this makes no sense. What appears onscreen is very much the story for V FOR VENDETTA, adapted.

Welcome to the real world, where even in the adaptions of the classics, things change. Always have, and always will. Alan Moore doesn't seem to live there, and maybe that's why his writing is so good.



Here's the thing. He pretty much IS bitter, arrogant and an egomaniac by the account of anyone who's ever met the man or worked with him. It comes through in his writing, in his interviews, in interviews with others about him, etc. It doesn't make him a bad person, and it's true of many artists, but it's true nonetheless.

:up: :up:

the point I think some people may be missing in the fans vs Moore debate is that his position goes beyond the adaptation of V for vendetta.
He is what he claims he hates. That makes him a hypocrite. A great writer, but a hypocrite nonetheless.
for years (and to this day) the masses have dismissed comic books as banal, childish, unsophisticated, silly, immature, and plain old ridiculous simply due to the nature of the genre. Namely illustrated stories.

Moore clearly resents that and objects to those who don't take the time to look beyond the surface of a thing to really appreciate it's actual value or beauty. He admonishes those who do that.

that's fine I agree with him on that point as a long time comic reader.

but,...
he then turns around and COMPLETELY dismisses another seemingly unsophisticated genre WITHOUT BOTHERING TO EVEN LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY. He does EXACTLY what he resents by TOTALLY dismissing CGI, special effects, and current movies.

Though it is true that CGI is often poor and obvious, it is also true that some of the CGI work that has been done is nothing short of spectacular works of art created by VERY dedicated and VERY talented people. dismissing THEIR work is JUST AS WRONG.

He also attacks the brothers for not having the courage to address the Bush administration head on , but from what I remember V for Vendetta didn't have any DIRECT mentions of the Thatcher government either. they are both cautionary tales with implications and references.

it's those kinds of things which some of us disagree with. I think this shows that we are not mindless sheeps who blindly accept what we are told. That we retains and cherish our ability to seek out the truth even when it contradicts and goes against those we admire and love. We do not blindly accpet Moore's opinion simply because he is Alan Moore. We evaluate the information/opinion and decide whether to agree or disagree with it regardless of who brings it to us.

I think that should make Moore (and V for that matter) proud of his audience.

['V']

the screenplay delivered the message better than his book did

[Xofenroht]

:up: :up:

the point I think some people may be missing in the fans vs Moore debate is that his position goes beyond the adaptation of V for vendetta.
He is what he claims he hates. That makes him a hypocrite. A great writer, but a hypocrite nonetheless.
for years (and to this day) the masses have dismissed comic books as banal, childish, unsophisticated, silly, immature, and plain old ridiculous simply due to the nature of the genre. Namely illustrated stories.

Moore clearly resents that and objects to those who don't take the time to look beyond the surface of a thing to really appreciate it's actual value or beauty. He admonishes those who do that.

that's fine I agree with him on that point as a long time comic reader.

but,...
he then turns around and COMPLETELY dismisses another seemingly unsophisticated genre WITHOUT BOTHERING TO EVEN LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY. He does EXACTLY what he resents by TOTALLY dismissing CGI, special effects, and current movies.

Though it is true that CGI is often poor and obvious, it is also true that some of the CGI work that has been done is nothing short of spectacular works of art created by VERY dedicated and VERY talented people. dismissing THEIR work is JUST AS WRONG.

He also attacks the brothers for not having the courage to address the Bush administration head on , but from what I remember V for Vendetta didn't have any DIRECT mentions of the Thatcher government either. they are both cautionary tales with implications and references.

it's those kinds of things which some of us disagree with. I think this shows that we are not mindless sheeps who blindly accept what we are told. That we retains and cherish our ability to seek out the truth even when it contradicts and goes against those we admire and love. We do not blindly accpet Moore's opinion simply because he is Alan Moore. We evaluate the information/opinion and decide whether to agree or disagree with it regardless of who brings it to us.

I think that should make Moore (and V for that matter) proud of his audience.

First things first, film is not a genre, film is a medium, just like comics are. The points he made about films wasn't attacking ALL films. What he was doing was making a statement about how he feels films have lost their substance as of late. Part of his feelings developed due to how quickly creative teams on films resort to CGI, even for some of the smallest things and then adding to that graphics get dwelled upon and sometimes are put over the story. Just look at how The Matrix changed fight scenes and seemed to depend on them in the last 2 films.
Moore's "V for Vendetta" was much more direct as a satire of the English government in the 1980's than "V for Vendetta" the film was a direct satire of the state of America in the now. He raised a great point about this. Why make a statement about this government and set the story in a totally different country? With totally different people? With totally different revolutionaries? Why NOT attack this government head on and instead pf around the issues.
Other writers in the field have pointed out that Moore has been screwed over alot in his dealings with DC and Marvel. His resentment towards them goes beyond movies. The fans who side with him, well there are those who are biased and then there are those who simply agree with him because they know they'd feel the same way. DC isn't even doing anything to settle the hard feelings. Throw money at him? This is about principles. That's why he apparently isn't accepting the money. I applaud him for that, for not selling out.

[The Guard]

But it IS his opinion. The way people act sometimes, you would think Moore owes something to the people. It's his opinion, so why try to make him out to be an ass hole for standing by his opinion and principles? Not saying you're doing that, Guard, but others certainly are.

I don't know that anyone's said he's an ******* for standing by his opinion and principles. He just strikes me as incredibly close-minded about things because of a few bad experiences. Which is interesting, considering how open-minded his writings tend to be.

He also attacks the brothers for not having the courage to address the Bush administration head on , but from what I remember V for Vendetta didn't have any DIRECT mentions of the Thatcher government either. they are both cautionary tales with implications and references.

Agreed. And this was my favorite part of Moore's statements. It's just funny.

First things first, film is not a genre, film is a medium, just like comics are. The points he made about films wasn't attacking ALL films. What he was doing was making a statement about how he feels films have lost their substance as of late.

What he's doing is using the same tired (and in many ways flawed) rhetoric writers have been babbling on about for decades to defend their critique of film as a medium. Newsflash to them and others: There was never a Golden Age of Hollywood where people in the business didn't sell out, or films weren't watered down, or made on budget with careful eye toward what the public could handle or digest, and there was never a time when all, or even most, films, had what can be considered "substance". Never. And frankly, the comic book industry has been much the same over the years.

Part of his feelings developed due to how quickly creative teams on films resort to CGI, even for some of the smallest things and then adding to that graphics get dwelled upon and sometimes are put over the story.

As if some of Alan Moore's own stories aren't written to be visually stimulating? There are certainly moments in THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN when Moore wrote something so a kickass visual can be put on the page.

Just look at how The Matrix changed fight scenes and seemed to depend on them in the last 2 films.

THE MATRIX simply used a process that American audiences were not used to. But if you choose to ignore that the Matrix franchise (in particular, THE MATRIX) did in fact have a story behind it, had running themes, characterization, etc, and some damn good acting along the way, I don't know what to say. THE MATRIX is hailed as one of the best examples of the hero quest in mythology. Think it's because of the bullet time? I seriously doubt it.

Moore's "V for Vendetta" was much more direct as a satire of the English government in the 1980's than "V for Vendetta" the film was a direct satire of the state of America in the now.

How so? Was Thatcher imprisoning and murdering minorities? You know, one could easily say "Alan, if you wanted to write a 1984-style story so badly, why didn't you just make an adaption of 1984?"

He raised a great point about this. Why make a statement about this government and set the story in a totally different country? With totally different people? With totally different revolutionaries? Why NOT attack this government head on and instead pf around the issues.

Because, and I know this is hard to believe, the film wasn't made simply to attack or raise questions about the American government. It was made because the Wachowskis are huge fans of V FOR VENDETTA and saw a chance to say something about governments in GENERAL, which is why there are elements of a NUMBER of goverments found in the film. That is why the ENTIRE MOVIE does not revolve the "theme" of "bad governments" but rather around the actual story between V and Evey. That is why every two lines from V is not about "blood for oil" or something similar.

Other writers in the field have pointed out that Moore has been screwed over alot in his dealings with DC and Marvel.

So have a lot of other writers. The big guys tend to screw the little guys. Alan Moore chose to work in the field he did, and to hand over the rights to his creations in exchange for something. He's helped screw himself on several occassions, it seems.

His resentment towards them goes beyond movies.

You're right, and over the years, he has apparently had some absolutely absurd beefs along with his real ones.

DC isn't even doing anything to settle the hard feelings.

From what I understand, DC has tried as their leadership changed over the years.

Throw money at him? This is about principles. That's why he apparently isn't accepting the money. I applaud him for that, for not selling out.

There are "principles". And then there's "holding a grudge". How, exactly, is refusing to put your name on a franchise you created when you signed a contract with a company to use their resources to do so supposed to be "principles"? It seems to me like he just doesn't want to tarnish the image of his work, given his statements about why he doesn't support films based on his works. Oh, he starts out with "the mediums are totally different, they're made to be read this way", but soon goes to "I hope people can seperate the films from the books". Hmm...

[NateGray]

I don't know that anyone's said he's an ******* for standing by his opinion and principles. He just strikes me as incredibly close-minded about things because of a few bad experiences. Which is interesting, considering how open-minded his writings tend to be.



Agreed. And this was my favorite part of Moore's statements. It's just funny.



What he's doing is using the same tired (and in many ways flawed) rhetoric writers have been babbling on about for decades to defend their critique of film as a medium. Newsflash to them and others: There was never a Golden Age of Hollywood where people in the business didn't sell out, or films weren't watered down, or made on budget with careful eye toward what the public could handle or digest, and there was never a time when all, or even most, films, had what can be considered "substance". Never. And frankly, the comic book industry has been much the same over the years.



As if some of Alan Moore's own stories aren't written to be visually stimulating? There are certainly moments in THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN when Moore wrote something so a kickass visual can be put on the page.



THE MATRIX simply used a process that American audiences were not used to. But if you choose to ignore that the Matrix franchise (in particular, THE MATRIX) did in fact have a story behind it, had running themes, characterization, etc, and some damn good acting along the way, I don't know what to say. THE MATRIX is hailed as one of the best examples of the hero quest in mythology. Think it's because of the bullet time? I seriously doubt it.



How so? Was Thatcher imprisoning and murdering minorities? You know, one could easily say "Alan, if you wanted to write a 1984-style story so badly, why didn't you just make an adaption of 1984?"



Because, and I know this is hard to believe, the film wasn't made simply to attack or raise questions about the American government. It was made because the Wachowskis are huge fans of V FOR VENDETTA and saw a chance to say something about governments in GENERAL, which is why there are elements of a NUMBER of goverments found in the film. That is why the ENTIRE MOVIE does not revolve the "theme" of "bad governments" but rather around the actual story between V and Evey. That is why every two lines from V is not about "blood for oil" or something similar.



So have a lot of other writers. The big guys tend to screw the little guys. Alan Moore chose to work in the field he did, and to hand over the rights to his creations in exchange for something. He's helped screw himself on several occassions, it seems.



You're right, and over the years, he has apparently had some absolutely absurd beefs along with his real ones.



From what I understand, DC has tried as their leadership changed over the years.



There are "principles". And then there's "holding a grudge". How, exactly, is refusing to put your name on a franchise you created when you signed a contract with a company to use their resources to do so supposed to be "principles"? It seems to me like he just doesn't want to tarnish the image of his work, given his statements about why he doesn't support films based on his works. Oh, he starts out with "the mediums are totally different, they're made to be read this way", but soon goes to "I hope people can seperate the films from the books". Hmm...

I agree with most of this and what you said in your other post it pretty much says what I was trying to say.
I never mentioned V in my post when saying I do not like him that much so the other poster who said I just jumped on him because he didn't like V is BS.
Yes I have read almost everything he has done and yes I think its pretty good borderline great but something in his writing just bothers me so I do not think its great personaly.
Yes I know people who loved him until they met him and his arrogant egomanic attitude turned them off to him completely now they will not bother with anything he does they just hate him for how pissy he was when they met him.
Those are real life friends of mine who have similar views so I take there side on how they feel especially considering I was not his biggest fan to begin with.

[Darthphere]

DC isn't even doing anything to settle the hard feelings. Throw money at him? This is about principles. That's why he apparently isn't accepting the money. I applaud him for that, for not selling out.


Wrong. Dc has in the past tried to make things better for Alan Moore. The only way they can make him happy is to give him the rights to his book back, and honestly if you were in DC shoes and were making money off them, its just ludicrous to even think for a second you would. Not selling out? So I guess Stan Lee is a sell out then. He isnt accpeting money because his attitude equals that of a 10 year old. "I want ice cream" You cant have any" "Waaaah" "Ok heres soem ice cream" "I didnt want chocolate" There is a huge list of writers and artists that have been shafted by comic book companies and you know actually did something about it.

Again, I respect and love Alan Moore's work and understand why he takes this stand but its not the proper way to go about it.

[Mr. Socko]

DC aren't idiots. They're doing whats best for the business. There's no chance Alan Moore will ever get back Vendetta, Watchmen, or any of his other greats. He's mad about that and I don't blame him, I'd be very angry too. And his cheap shots on CGI were really stupid. Him saying all CG looks bad is dumb statement. Some CG just looks completely amazing and very real. And it's needed when trying to translate a comic book movie to the big screen. Sounds like he's just bitter at Hollywood by saying something that moronic. It is sad though, I would have loved seeing him take part in helping out with the movies. Just because some of his work has turned out bad on screen doesn't mean it will always be that way, as he is thinking. And then there is him saying how he'll never watch V for Vendetta, more resentment. Really does sound like if he saw it he'd be afraid that he would somewhat like it.

Btw, does anyone else think the trainmaker from the Matrix Revolutions represents Alan Moore alot.

[The Guard]

Wrong. Dc has in the past tried to make things better for Alan Moore. The only way they can make him happy is to give him the rights to his book back, and honestly if you were in DC shoes and were making money off them, its just ludicrous to even think for a second you would.

Especially if you're DC, and you're paying to have them printed up, etc, so that they could be sold as graphic novels. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the rights to a movie a one-shot deal? You sell the rights for however much, and that's it? (As I recall, people *****ed about Marvel selling their rights for a song way back when and then having no creative control). Or does DC actually get a percentage of V FOR VENDETTA's earnings?

Not selling out? So I guess Stan Lee is a sell out then.

See this is a touchy subject, but in a lot of ways, hell yes he's a sellout. STRIPPERELLA, anyone?

He isnt accpeting money because his attitude equals that of a 10 year old. "I want ice cream" You cant have any" "Waaaah" "Ok heres soem ice cream" "I didnt want chocolate" There is a huge list of writers and artists that have been shafted by comic book companies and you know actually did something about it.

I'm not even sure what the main beef anymore.

DC aren't idiots. They're doing whats best for the business. There's no chance Alan Moore will ever get back Vendetta, Watchmen, or any of his other greats. He's mad about that and I don't blame him, I'd be very angry too.

Exactly who signed the contract with DC Comics in the first place? Was he, like, under contract with DC so they owned all his stuff? Anyone know details?

And his cheap shots on CGI were really stupid. Him saying all CG looks bad is dumb statement. Some CG just looks completely amazing and very real. And it's needed when trying to translate a comic book movie to the big screen. Sounds like he's just bitter at Hollywood by saying something that moronic. It is sad though, I would have loved seeing him take part in helping out with the movies. Just because some of his work has turned out bad on screen doesn't mean it will always be that way, as he is thinking.

I'm of the opinion that part of the reason his adaptions have turned out fairly badly on the big screen is because he chooses to distance himself from them, and to offer little to no input on the projects themselves. I'd be hard-pressed to find a fantastic book or comic book adaption that didn't have someone who contributed to it's success on a basic level in on the creative process. Maybe some of the "classics".

[LastSunrise1981]

Do they still sell Watchmen these days? I'm stocking up on some books and I haven't seen any as of late. Are they still around or out of print?

[Darthphere]

They are still around in the truckloads. Its still in the top 5 for best seeling Graphic novels every month.

[Darthphere]

Exactly who signed the contract with DC Comics in the first place? Was he, like, under contract with DC so they owned all his stuff? Anyone know details?


V for Vendetta was first published in Britain in Warrior Magazine, but the magazine went under and DC bought the rights for V from Warrior Magazine. Which would only mean that Alan Moore had already sold the rights to Warrior Magazine. This is a bit shaky though since theres another version of the story that says Alan Moore still had the rights and shopped around until DC agreed to publish it. Alan Moore has done a lot of DC work, but im pretty sure he was freelancing at the time. Watchmen is a whole different story. DC approached Alan Moore to do a story with its newly acquired Charlton comics characters. When DC saw that Alan Moore was going in a very dark and different direction they asked him to change the characters names around. Thats how Watchmen was born.

[Assassin]

i sick of the media its getting, theres something coming on today on ABC dateline maybe? around 7 or so, Portman will be on it, and they're calling it an anti bush film...

wtf?

you could compare the film to being any anti corrupt goverment

[Darthphere]

i sick of the media its getting, theres something coming on today on ABC dateline maybe? around 7 or so, Portman will be on it, and they're calling it an anti bush film...

wtf?

you could compare the film to being any anti corrupt goverment


In a sense it is, but thats the beauty of it, it applies to so many situations. They ddint go out of their way to create an anti-Bush movie it just sort of happened that way. And Alan moore saying they changed his story to make an anti-bush film is fueling the media fire, when in fact its just sour grapes from him.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Alan Moore and David Lloyd had all the rights to "V for Vendetta" but they gave them to DC under what was the best contract of the time, which granted them a percentage of all the earnings from the books and movie rights and merchandise. That contract also said that the rights would have reverted to the authors after DC had stopped to print "V for Vendetta" for like five years.
But the volume is in perpetual reprint...

[Darthphere]

Alan Moore and David Lloyd had all the rights to "V for Vendetta" but they gave them to DC under what was the best contract of the time, which granted them a percentage of all the earnings from the books and movie rights and merchandise. That contract also said that the rights would have reverted to the authors after DC had stopped to print "V for Vendetta" for like five years.
But the volume is in perpetual reprint...


Well there you go.:up:

[Assassin]

I'm gonna sneck into Moore's home, shave him and cut his hair. He'll be pissed.














BTW, look for the hair chunks on ebay.

[pickleweed]

i don't get you guys. for once, someone is standing by thier work, not just spouting company lines. he has strong convictions about his story, and i personally respect his stand. you guys complain about singer changing superman (the most artificial of changes), but attack moore for the wachowski's (sp?) altering V. The fricken creator is disappointed with the script! you can't have your cake and eat it. sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Moore doesn't sound like an egomaniac, but more like an artist that has been taken advantage of. DC made a killer deal on an unproven writer, and moore got the shaft. he should be mad. i don't know how many of you are artists, but your works become your children. he spent who knows how many years developing this story, only to see it (and the watchmen) be raped by the people he's helped make millions for. i doubt DC would let him have anything more than a consulting position for the film when they have proven film talents onboard.

and he's not a hypocrit. some of you need to learn the difference between medium and methods.

[Darthphere]

i don't get you guys. for once, someone is standing by thier work, not just spouting company lines. he has strong convictions about his story, and i personally respect his stand. you guys complain about singer changing superman (the most artificial of changes), but attack moore for the wachowski's (sp?) altering V. The fricken creator is disappointed with the script! you can't have your cake and eat it. sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Moore doesn't sound like an egomaniac, but more like an artist that has been taken advantage of. DC made a killer deal on an unproven writer, and moore got the shaft. he should be mad. i don't know how many of you are artists, but your works become your children. he spent who knows how many years developing this story, only to see it (and the watchmen) be raped by the people he's helped make millions for. i doubt DC would let him have anything more than a consulting position for the film when they have proven film talents onboard.

and he's not a hypocrit. some of you need to learn the difference between medium and methods.



You got this guys Alan Moore singel handedly made DC comics, without him DC would never have existed today. Please, dont use strong words as raped. Its an adaptation. All adaptations will have changes and alterations. The movie on its own is great and admittedly not a great adaptation of the work. I see you admire Alan Moore as do we all, we all respect him. But his stance is plain wrong when it comes to the DC dealings. DC made a perfect business move and no one got shafted. He went shopping to get his books published and ended up at DC, DC a business saw an opportunity to make money and they did. Nobody got shafted and nobody and nobody got taken advantage of. He signed the contract, he signed the rights over. If he feels he got the short of the end of the stick he has no one to blame but himself. DC has tried moving moiuntains to accomodate Alan moore and he wont budge. We respect him and admire his work but his stance on this is plain wrong. He has reason to be mad if he feels the movies arent doing his books justice but there is a right and wrong way to go about it, hes doing it the wrong way.

[pickleweed]

You got this guys Alan Moore singel handedly made DC comics, without him DC would never have existed today. Please, dont use strong words as raped. Its an adaptation. All adaptations will have changes and alterations. The movie on its own is great and admittedly not a great adaptation of the work. I see you admire Alan Moore as do we all, we all respect him. But his stance is plain wrong when it comes to the DC dealings. DC made a perfect business move and no one got shafted. He went shopping to get his books published and ended up at DC, DC a business saw an opportunity to make money and they did. Nobody got shafted and nobody and nobody got taken advantage of. He signed the contract, he signed the rights over. If he feels he got the short of the end of the stick he has no one to blame but himself. DC has tried moving moiuntains to accomodate Alan moore and he wont budge. We respect him and admire his work but his stance on this is plain wrong. He has reason to be mad if he feels the movies arent doing his books justice but there is a right and wrong way to go about it, hes doing it the wrong way.


i understand that he put his name on the dotted line for a crappy contract. and that isn't DC's fault. but he did get the short end of the deal because they COULD and DID take advantage of him. i support what he's doing. he doesn't like what they did to his art. he gave away the money and he put his checkbook where his mouth is. thats ballsy. and its an enviable trait.

[Darthphere]

i understand that he put his name on the dotted line for a crappy contract. and that isn't DC's fault. but he did get the short end of the deal because they COULD and DID take advantage of him. i support what he's doing. he doesn't like what they did to his art. he gave away the money and he put his checkbook where his mouth is. thats ballsy. and its an enviable trait.


Ill agree but DC didnt take adavantage of him. He shouldve been more careful in his business practices. I think if he really feels this strongly he should take DC to court, he might get the rights back if he puts up a good case.

[halfmadjesus]

The fatc of the matter DC is a business. You really expect them to stop printing one of its most succesful books to date just to appease Alan Moore. Alan Moore is naive if he thinks DC will ever stop printing Watchmen and V. DC didnt trick him, Alan moore just was to naive to understand the business side of things.

That's easy to say when it's somebody else. Fact of the matter is, DC did kind of pull a fast one on Moore in regards to Watchmen and V. The way I understand it, their agreement was that the rights to both properties would revert to the creators once the books were out of print. To Moore's thinking, DC would publish the comics, maybe put together a book collection, and that would be it. You have to remember - back in the 80's, trades were a new thing. Even today, TPBs go out of print all the time.

The way DC got around the agreement was to keep V and Watchmen continually in print since the 80's, whether sales warranted it or not. It was their way of getting around the letter of the agreement. In 1980-whatever, I'm sure Moore didn't consider Watchmen would be on its 16th-something printing 20 years later.

It's really no different than the kind of thing done regularly to guys like Jack Kirby. And, yeah, you can say "He should've known better," but that's easy to say in hindsight when it's somebody else and not yourself being ripped off. The company has the power, the company has the lawyers, the company draws up the contracts. The artist is primarily interested in creation and immediate payment for their services, not business matters and the long-term value of their intellectual property. Until they get burned a few times, that is. Corporate entities like DC Comics regularly take advantage of the artists who, by their powers of creation, allow said entity to exist. Alan Moore is just one in a long line of examples. It's shameful, really. Probably equally shameful to blame the artist rather than condemn the company and their practices.

[Darthphere]

That's easy to say when it's somebody else. Fact of the matter is, DC did kind of pull a fast one on Moore in regards to Watchmen and V. The way I understand it, their agreement was that the rights to both properties would revert to the creators once the books were out of print. To Moore's thinking, DC would publish the comics, maybe put together a book collection, and that would be it. You have to remember - back in the 80's, trades were a new thing. Even today, TPBs go out of print all the time.

Watchmen and V for Vendetta are two of DC's top selling books. There is no way they will stop printing them til they stop selling. Either way the rights only revert back to him after a 5 year period where the book isnt printed any longer.

The way DC got around the agreement was to keep V and Watchmen continually in print since the 80's, whether sales warranted it or not. It was their way of getting around the letter of the agreement. In 1980-whatever, I'm sure Moore didn't consider Watchmen would be on its 16th-something printing 20 years later.

Not DC's fault that Moore didnt think Watchmen would be one of the seminal pieces of comic book literature. Cant really blame a business like DC for wanting to make money off a popular book.

It's really no different than the kind of thing done regularly to guys like Jack Kirby. And, yeah, you can say "He should've known better," but that's easy to say in hindsight when it's somebody else and not yourself being ripped off. The company has the power, the company has the lawyers, the company draws up the contracts. The artist is primarily interested in creation and immediate payment for their services, not business matters and the long-term value of their intellectual property. Until they get burned a few times, that is. Corporate entities like DC Comics regularly take advantage of the artists who, by their powers of creation, allow said entity to exist. Alan Moore is just one in a long line of examples. It's shameful, really. Probably equally shameful to blame the artist rather than condemn the company and their practices.


Siegel and Schuster sued DC to get credit for their work on Superman. Steve Gerber sued Marvel over Howard the Duck and both issues were resolved. What has Alan Moore done? COmplain on interviews. I think if he feels this strongly he should take legal action. I would back him 100% if he did this. Hes not sitting on his hands he would be proactive and actually do about it. Instead he complains to MTV that DC screwed him over. The truth hurts guys Alan Moore shouldve been more careful with his business dealings.

And for the record Watchmen came from DC wanting Alan Moore to do something with their Charlton comics characters. Once they saw what Moore was doing was dark and gritty they asked him to change the characters names and such. Without DC, Alan moore would never had done Watchmen.

[halfmadjesus]

Siegel and Schuster sued DC to get credit for their work on Superman. Steve Gerber sued Marvel over Howard the Duck and both issues were resolved. What has Alan Moore done? COmplain on interviews. I think if he feels this strongly he should take legal action. I would back him 100% if he did this. Hes not sitting on his hands he would be proactive and actually do about it. Instead he complains to MTV that DC screwed him over. The truth hurts guys Alan Moore shouldve been more careful with his business dealings.

I'll agree with you - maybe Moore should have had better business sense. But, as I said, it's easy for you to point this out after the fact. Fact is, when the original deal was struck, unless Moore had a crystal ball at his disposal, his understanding of "rights revert to you after the book goes out of print" meant what it sounded like. He thought he'd get the rights back after DC had printed their comics and maybe a compilation. That early on in the era of TPBs - Moore had no idea something like Watchmen would garner umpty-kajillion printings, nor did he likely assume DC would be dishonorable in their agreement with him by keeping the book in print continuously for the sole purpose of retaining the rights.

And for the record Watchmen came from DC wanting Alan Moore to do something with their Charlton comics characters. Once they saw what Moore was doing was dark and gritty they asked him to change the characters names and such. Without DC, Alan moore would never had done Watchmen.

Actually, it was Moore who approached DC. He knew they had acquired those characters, and Watchmen was his proposal of what he'd like to do with them. Yes, because DC didn't want to "ruin" the Charlton heroes, Moore and Gibbons set about creating a new set based on them (somewhat). But they still created Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan and the rest. They weren't pre-exisiting characters, even though they were based on pre-existing characters. And the story of Watchmen is Moore's, clearly.

What's DC's excuse for V? That was a completely original work by Moore and David Lloyd. What, because they allowed Moore and Lloyd to finish V by agreeing to publish it, DC should OWN it?

Technically, DC owns neither V nor Watchmen. "We own them" wasn't the negotiated agreement. If it had been, maybe Moore wouldn't have signed off on the contract, or if he had, he certainly couldn't still be bitter about it today. But I'm sure DC will keep Watchmen and V for Vendetta in print forever, regardless of sales, so they never have to live up to their end of the original agreement - handing the rights back to the creators.

[Darthphere]

Technically DC does own them. They have the rights which means they can do what they want with them. Id surmise saying that David Lloyd and Dave Gibbons worked just as hard on V and Watchmen as Alan moore did and they seem to have no problem with DC. You kow why? Because they understand business. If I sell an new car design to Toyota, I get paid and they own it. Thats how the comic book business has worked forever. Just because Alan moore doesnt like it we should change it? It wasnt like Alan moore was new to the business either, he had been doing work for DC for a couple of years already. I really hate this debate because it seems like im making Moore to be a bad guy. Thats not my intention. I respect and even abck his position. But to make this look like DC is this evil comic book company that takes advantage of people is wrong.

[halfmadjesus]

Siegel and Schuster sued DC to get credit for their work on Superman. Steve Gerber sued Marvel over Howard the Duck and both issues were resolved.

Funny you should mention those particular examples. DC was SHAMED into offering up a pittance to Siegel and Shuster, primarily to avoid a bunch of bad press that would have resulted right around the release of the first Superman movie. They certainly weren't offering up anything out of the goodness of their hearts. And I think you can still make a decent argument that Siegel and Shuster, to this day, haven't received 1% of fair compensation considering the value of their contribution. If so, they and their estates would be worth multi-millions - they're not.

Gerber fought Marvel and lost, basically. I believe he gets a creator credit on Howard the Duck stuff, but that's about it. He MAY get some kind of royalty on HTD comics - which isn't much these days - but I wouldn't even guarantee that. So bitter was Steve Gerber over his dealings with Marvel, that he refused to work with them for a decade or so, and bad-mouthed them in the press at every opportunity. You think Alan Moore sounds bitter? Try reading some of the things Steve Gerber had to say about Marvel. Now THAT guy was pissed off.

[halfmadjesus]

Technically DC does own them. They have the rights which means they can do what they want with them. Id surmise saying that David Lloyd and Dave Gibbons worked just as hard on V and Watchmen as Alan moore did and they seem to have no problem with DC. You kow why? Because they understand business. If I sell an new car design to Toyota, I get paid and they own it. Thats how the comic book business has worked forever. Just because Alan moore doesnt like it we should change it? It wasnt like Alan moore was new to the business either, he had been doing work for DC for a couple of years already. I really hate this debate because it seems like im making Moore to be a bad guy. Thats not my intention. I respect and even abck his position. But to make this look like DC is this evil comic book company that takes advantage of people is wrong.

If DC were the good guys in this situation, they'd have simply said to Moore and Gibbons right up-front, "Yeah, we're gonna own this." Then Moore would have no right to gripe today. What DC DID was say,"We're going to publish this, and when it goes out of print, then you're going to own it. Won't that be swell?" And the creators said, "Yes, that sounds fine," not realizing that DC would intentionally keep the books in print forever so they wouldn't have to give up the rights.

Maybe your definition of fair is different than mine - I dunno. Though I realize nothing is fair in business, it's all about money, etc. Still, to me it seems a clear case of a big company working the angles to take advantage of an artist - something that happens way too frequently in general, and in comics specifically.

[Darthphere]

Funny you should mention those particular examples. DC was SHAMED into offering up a pittance to Siegel and Shuster, primarily to avoid a bunch of bad press that would have resulted right around the release of the first Superman movie. They certainly weren't offering up anything out of the goodness of their hearts. And I think you can still make a decent argument that Siegel and Shuster, to this day, haven't received 1% of fair compensation considering the value of their contribution. If so, they and their estates would be worth multi-millions - they're not.

Gerber fought Marvel and lost, basically. I believe he gets a creator credit on Howard the Duck stuff, but that's about it. He MAY get some kind of royalty on HTD comics - which isn't much these days - but I wouldn't even guarantee that. So bitter was Steve Gerber over his dealings with Marvel, that he refused to work with them for a decade or so, and bad-mouthed them in the press at every opportunity. You think Alan Moore sounds bitter? Try reading some of the things Steve Gerber had to say about Marvel. Now THAT guy was pissed off.


But what did Gerber do? He got over it and even worked with Marvel again doing a Howard the Duck mini under the MAX label.

[halfmadjesus]

One other thing to consider: the qualities that make someone a great artist generally do not transfer over as the qualities that make someone a great businessman or a great lawyer. In the history of comics, you can count the number of business-saavy creators on one hand. And only one - Will Eisner - comes to mind as having high skill in creativity AND business.

Bob Kane was a skilled businessman. Unlike his contemporaries, Kane's Batman deal at least got him creator credit forever on his character. But there's always someone who gets screwed. In this case, it's Bill Finger, who essentially co-created Batman with Kane, but will never benefit financially or in recognition for his having done so. Is this fair? No. Who could have done something about it? Bob Kane, if he'd ever chosen to acknowledge Finger's contributions. That's why some circles still consider Kane a villainous figure. Is it Finger's fault for not having stood up for himself in the first place? Maybe, but you have to consider that no one thought comics would be a lasting medium back then, and Finger was just trying to find work during hard economic times. He was at a disadvantage to have really fought for anything.

At least Bill Finger was never promised anything for his efforts (that we know of). It actually makes the Alan Moore situation worse in my mind, because DC did promise him something - ownership of his characters and concepts after they were "done" publishing them. Thing is, DC's never going to be "done," and it's up for debate whether or not their lawyers worded the agreement specifically as they did to take advantage of Moore.

[Darthphere]

If DC were the good guys in this situation, they'd have simply said to Moore and Gibbons right up-front, "Yeah, we're gonna own this." Then Moore would have no right to gripe today. What DC DID was say,"We're going to publish this, and when it goes out of print, then you're going to own it. Won't that be swell?" And the creators said, "Yes, that sounds fine," not realizing that DC would intentionally keep the books in print forever so they wouldn't have to give up the rights.

Maybe your definition of fair is different than mine - I dunno. Though I realize nothing is fair in business, it's all about money, etc. Still, to me it seems a clear case of a big company working the angles to take advantage of an artist - something that happens way too frequently in general, and in comics specifically.


I like your example. Tough you could aslo look at this way.

DC:We'll print your book and give you back the rights when we stop printing it.
Moore: No, I want the rights back in 10 years.
DC:Hmmm fine OR Well sorry take your buisness elsewhere.

Youre trying to blame DC for something and they have done nothing wrong. Remember Moore came to DC not the other way around.

[Darthphere]

One other thing to consider: the qualities that make someone a great artist generally do not transfer over as the qualities that make someone a great businessman or a great lawyer. In the history of comics, you can count the number of business-saavy creators on one hand. And only one - Will Eisner - comes to mind as having high skill in creativity AND business.

Bob Kane was a skilled businessman. Unlike his contemporaries, Kane's Batman deal at least got him creator credit forever on his character. But there's always someone who gets screwed. In this case, it's Bill Finger, who essentially co-created Batman with Kane, but will never benefit financially or in recognition for his having done so. Is this fair? No. Who could have done something about it? Bob Kane, if he'd ever chosen to acknowledge Finger's contributions. That's why some circles still consider Kane a villainous figure. Is it Finger's fault for not having stood up for himself in the first place? Maybe, but you have to consider that no one thought comics would be a lasting medium back then, and Finger was just trying to find work during hard economic times. He was at a disadvantage to have really fought for anything.

At least Bill Finger was never promised anything for his efforts (that we know of). It actually makes the Alan Moore situation worse in my mind, because DC did promise him something - ownership of his characters and concepts after they were "done" publishing them. Thing is, DC's never going to be "done," and it's up for debate whether or not their lawyers worded the agreement specifically as they did to take advantage of Moore.


I know very well Bill Fingers contribuitons. Notice my sig, Raise the Finger is in his honor. Theyre two different situations however and doesnt apply to the Alan Moore situation because Moore is getting credit for his work.

[halfmadjesus]

But what did Gerber do? He got over it and even worked with Marvel again doing a Howard the Duck mini under the MAX label.

Yeah, after Joe Quesada talked him into it, and Gerber considered that Marvel was a whole group of different people now than the ones he was specifically pissed off at back in the day. BTW, heard what Gerber's had to say about Marvel's upcoming Omega the Unknown revamp? He may never work for them again.

Who's to say Alan Moore will NEVER work with DC again? He did continue to allow the ABC books to be published by DC after they bought WildStorm, and Jim Lee assured him no interference. Then, of course, DC DID interfere by censoring an issue of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Considering the number of times DC has burned Moore, I wouldn't blame him if he never worked for them again. The V/Watchmen is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Darthphere]

Yeah, after Joe Quesada talked him into it, and Gerber considered that Marvel was a whole group of different people now than the ones he was specifically pissed off at back in the day. BTW, heard what Gerber's had to say about Marvel's upcoming Omega the Unknown revamp? He may never work for them again.

Who's to say Alan Moore will NEVER work with DC again? He did continue to allow the ABC books to be published by DC after they bought WildStorm, and Jim Lee assured him no interference. Then, of course, DC DID interfere by censoring an issue of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Considering the number of times DC has burned Moore, I wouldn't blame him if he never worked for them again. The V/Watchmen is just the tip of the iceberg.


Its easy to put Alan Moore in the victim role. Did he get taken advantage of? Probably. Could he had avoided it? Yes. I honestly think he should take DC to court, he can make a hell of a case. This situation is way too complicated to say either one is the bad guy. Point being I cant blame DC for making a killing off his books and I cant blame Moore for being angry. Im a writer myself and I nkow it sucks when you see someone mess with your stuff. There are two sides and youre too quick to take the DC is evil side. DC is under new management. Just like Gerber did, Alan moore might be able to get annew deal if he was willing to sit down and talk to them, but he isnt. Both sides are too stubborn.

[halfmadjesus]

Its easy to put Alan Moore in the victim role. Did he get taken advantage of? Probably. Could he had avoided it? Yes. I honestly think he should take DC to court, he can make a hell of a case. This situation is way too complicated to say either one is the bad guy. Point being I cant blame DC for making a killing off his books and I cant blame Moore for being angry. Im a writer myself and I nkow it sucks when you see someone mess with your stuff. There are two sides and youre too quick to take the DC is evil side. DC is under new management. Just like Gerber did, Alan moore might be able to get annew deal if he was willing to sit down and talk to them, but he isnt. Both sides are too stubborn.

I dunno...the way I see it, DC did one of two things in the case of Alan Moore and V/Watchmen:

1.) They explicitly set-up the agreement "rights revert to you when it's out of print" knowing in advance they were going to keep the books in print and prevent Moore and his co-creators from obtaining the rights in their lifetimes, if ever.

or

2.) Someone at DC realized the agreement enabled them to retain the rights to V/Watchmen by keeping the books in continuous publication, so they opted to take advantage of the loophole.

Either way, it's pretty lousy, IMO. At the very least, it's underhanded - if DC wanted to retain the rights, why didn't they just put THAT deal in front of Moore & co. in the first place? Give them an opportunity to accept it, or choose not to do business based on that. No, DC made like they were offering something fair, then took advantage of the artists. Moore has a right to feel "tricked."

Again, it's easy for you to say "He should just sue them." The reason more creators DON'T sue giant companies like Time-Warner and Marvel, is that it costs a fortune. Moore would have to put up a ton of legal costs himself, while the well-financed DC Comics would stall and stall, hoping Moore ran out of money. This is exactly what Marvel did to Steve Gerber, BTW. The little guy doesn't stand much chance against the giant corporation when it comes to legal matters.

[halfmadjesus]

I know very well Bill Fingers contribuitons. Notice my sig, Raise the Finger is in his honor. Theyre two different situations however and doesnt apply to the Alan Moore situation because Moore is getting credit for his work.

I mentioned Finger to illustrate my point that most often creative people lack business accumen, don't fully appreciate what their creations can mean to them financially, or they simply aren't in a position to be able to negotiate. And there's always someone willing to come along and take advantage, it seems. Bob Kane is no different than DC Comics in that neither was willing to do what was fair in their dealings with the people who worked for them.

[Antonello Blueberry]

If DC were the good guys in this situation, they'd have simply said to Moore and Gibbons right up-front, "Yeah, we're gonna own this." Then Moore would have no right to gripe today. What DC DID was say,"We're going to publish this, and when it goes out of print, then you're going to own it. Won't that be swell?" And the creators said, "Yes, that sounds fine," not realizing that DC would intentionally keep the books in print forever so they wouldn't have to give up the rights.

I don't think DC kept the book in print forever just to own the rights. They simply kept on doing because they are two constantly best sellers in their TP line, and that made the books available to anyone who wanted to read them worldwide for the last 17-plus years, and provided a steady income for the creators in all this period. The contracts Moore signed were the best contract for a creator at the time (even Moore admitted it in some interviews); Gaiman who came after that had a better contract for Sandman and Ennis an even better one for Preacher.
Moore now can publish the League for any publisher he wants because he's the owner of the rights, though the book was published by Wildstorm/DC, because now it's common practice for a creator to retain the rights to the characters (or the concept in this case).
I'm wondering if Alan Moore gives part of the earnings of the League to the heirs of Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H. Rider Haggard...

[Morgoth]

Alan Moore, the king of comics, is at his home in Northampton, England. He's been working on a new story called "Lost Girls." Actually he's been working on it for the last 16 years, but now it's done and due out this summer as a graphic novel, illustrated by his fiancee, the artist Melinda Gebbe. It's a wild tale, even by the 52-year-old Moore's standards: Three heroines of classic children's literature — Alice from "Alice in Wonderland," Dorothy from "The Wizard of Oz" and Wendy from "Peter Pan" — meet up in London in 1913 and realize that their respective stories are actually metaphors for sexual awakening. Very erotic. Or, as Moore prefers to think of it, very pornographic.

The sex-filled "Lost Girls" may be a little too scary for Hollywood, which has heretofore adored Moore's work and turned three of his creations (the graphic novels "From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," as well as the supernatural investigator John Constantine) into very bad movies. Moore's densely complex 1987 graphic novel, "Watchmen" (illustrated by Dave Gibbons), has been banging around Hollywood for years (director Terry Gilliam was once attached to it), but has yet to be made. "V for Vendetta," however, the '80s series he did with artist David Lloyd, has — and Moore is not happy about it. He read the script and hated it and, as is now his customary practice, he's had his name taken off the movie and directed that all profits he might be due from the film be given to Lloyd instead.

Alan Moore very rarely gives interviews, but MTV News' Jennifer Vineyard spoke to him at length by phone recently about "V for Vendetta," about his Hollywood problem, about the perils of working with Johnny Depp and Sean Connery, and about his latest project.

MTV: Could you see "Lost Girls" being made into a film?

Alan Moore: I don't see how adapting it to another medium makes any sense at all. But that's me. I am a little cranky sometimes. And it wouldn't be fair of me to say no if Melinda [Gebbe] did want to see "Lost Girls" made into a film. My position is, I don't want my name on it and I don't want the money. But also, how would they get actors of any quality to appear in a hard-core sex film? We'd need Judi Dench for it, and I don't think she'd do it. But I really doubt that any of my comics can be [successfully] made into films, because that's not how I write them.

MTV: But you do have a very cinematic style.

Moore: In comics the reader is in complete control of the experience. They can read it at their own pace, and if there's a piece of dialogue that seems to echo something a few pages back, they can flip back and check it out, whereas the audience for a film is being dragged through the experience at the speed of 24 frames per second. So even for a director like Terry Gilliam, who delights in cramming background details into his movies, there's no way he'd be able to duplicate what Dave Gibbons was able to do in "Watchmen." We could place almost subliminal details in every panel, and we knew that the reader could take the time to spot everything. There's no way you could do that in a film.

I met Terry Gilliam, and he asked me, "How would you make a film of 'Watchmen'?" And I said, "Don't." I think he eventually came to agree with me that it was a film better unmade. In Hollywood you're going to have the producers and the backers putting in their ... well, I don't want to dignify them by calling them ideas, but ... having their input, shall we say. You're going to get actors who'll say they don't want to say this line or play this character like that. I mean the police inspector in "From Hell," Fred Abberline, was based on real life: He was an unassuming man in middle age who was not a heavy drinker and who, as far as I know, remained faithful to his wife throughout his entire life. Johnny Depp saw fit to play this character as an absinthe-swilling, opium-den-frequenting dandy with a haircut that, in the Metropolitan Police force in 1888, would have gotten him beaten up by the other officers.

On the other hand when I have got an opium-addicted character, in Allan Quatermain [in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"], this was true to the [original] character — he showed a fondness for drugs on several occasions. But Sean Connery didn't want to play him as a drug-addled individual. So the main part of Quatermain's character was thrown out the window on the whim of an actor. I don't have these problems in comics.

MTV: So why sell the film rights in the first place? My position used to be: If the film is a masterpiece, that has nothing to do with my book. If the film is a disaster, that has nothing to do with my book. They're two separate entities, and people will understand that. This was very naive because most people are not bothered with whether it's adapted from a book or not. And if they do know, they assume it was a faithful adaptation. There's no need to read the book if you've seen the film, right? And how many of the audience who went to see "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" thought, "Hmmm, I've really got to go read 'The Odyssey' "?

Moore: When you're talking about things like "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen," I don't have a choice. Those were works which DC Comics kind of tricked me out of, so they own all that stuff and it's up to them whether the film gets made or not. All I can do is say, "I want my name taken off of it and I don't want any of the money." I'd rather the money be distributed amongst the artists. But even though [the filmmakers] were aware that I'd asked that my name be taken off "V for Vendetta" and had already signed my money away to the artist, they issued a press release saying I was really excited about the film. Which was a lie. I asked for a retraction, but they weren't prepared to do that. So I announced I wouldn't be working with DC Comics anymore. I just couldn't bear to have any contact with DC Comics, Warner Bros. or any of this shark pool ever again.

One of the things I don't like about film is its incredible immersive quality. It's kind of bullying — it's very big, it's very flashy, it's got a lot of weight and it throws it around almost to the detriment of the rest of our culture. And I have gotten tired of lazy critics who, when they want to insult a film, they'll say it has "comic book characters" or a "comic book plot" — using "comic book" as code for "illiterate."

MTV: They've probably never read a comic book.

Moore: That's it. I'm not going to claim all comic books are literate — there's a lot of rubbish out there. But there have been some very literate comic books done over the last 20 years, some marvelous ones. And to actually read a comic, you do have to be able to read, which is not something you can say about watching a film. So as for which medium is literate, give me comics any day.

MTV: There is one possible solution, something that Neil Gaiman is now doing with his "Death: The High Cost of Living" and Frank Miller has done with "Sin City": Why not direct the films yourself?

Moore: I don't have any interest in directing films of my work. If something worked perfectly in one genre, why is there any reason to assume it's going to work as well or better in another genre that it wasn't designed for? I've not seen "Ghost World," but I've been told it's very good. I've not been told that it's better than the comic.

MTV: What about something that is true to the spirit of the original work, like "The Lord of the Rings"?

Moore: CGI makes me spit vitriol and bile and venom. When it comes to films, give me someone like [surrealist filmmaker] Jean Cocteau. When he wants to have somebody reaching into a mirror, he spends all of about five dollars on the special effect: He gets a tray, fills it with mercury and then turns the camera on its side. That is poetry. That is magic.

I have a theory, which has not let me down so far, that there is an inverse relationship between imagination and money. Because the more money and technology that is available to [create] a work, the less imagination there will be in it. My favorite films are those that were made on a shoestring. And they weren't adaptations of some other work, they were original pieces of cinema. All right, [Cocteau's] "La Belle Et La Bête" is an adaptation of "Beauty and the Beast" — but it was made into something very different. And I mean, John Waters, his early films, they're terrific! Because he was making them with some friends of his from Baltimore, with whatever cheap film stock he could borrow or steal. George Romero, in "Dawn of the Dead," "Day of the Dead," all the rest of them, he ingeniously used the fact that he had almost no budget to his advantage — claustrophobic sets, everyone's trapped in the cellar and the zombies are trying to dig their way in. Very inexpensive, incredibly powerful. That is where cinema really works for me.

If you give me a typewriter and I'm having a good day, I can write a scene that will astonish its readers. That will perhaps make them laugh, perhaps make them cry — that will have some emotional clout to it. It doesn't cost much to do that. But if you said, "Astonish the audience," and you gave me a quarter of a million — well, my auntie could astonish an audience if she got that much money! Real art and the things that actually change our culture tend to happen on the margins. They don't happen in the middle of a big marquee.

MTV: But couldn't there ever be an exception? And since you haven't seen it, couldn't "V for Vendetta" be that exception?

Moore: I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

George Clooney's being attacked for making ["Good Night, and Good Luck"], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it's not illegal — not yet anyway — to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked.

:up: :up:It's nice to hear from a comics writer/creator how movie makers ruin these comics by changing them and losing the characters.

You see it so obviously in Constantine, how do you turn a blonde Brit into Keanu? And all of the X-men characters are mere shadows of who they really are.

[Antonello Blueberry]

There's an interesting exchange up at the Newsarama boards between Don Murphy (producer of "From Hell" and "The League of extraodinary Gentlemen" and not the sanest person on Earth according to many) and Rich Johnston, of Lying in the gutters fame, friend of Alan Moore. It's nice reading about two opposite (and close) point of views on Alan and the adaptations of his work.
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64938&perpage=25&pagenumber=5

[halfmadjesus]

I don't think DC kept the book in print forever just to own the rights. They simply kept on doing because they are two constantly best sellers in their TP line, and that made the books available to anyone who wanted to read them worldwide for the last 17-plus years, and provided a steady income for the creators in all this period. The contracts Moore signed were the best contract for a creator at the time (even Moore admitted it in some interviews); Gaiman who came after that had a better contract for Sandman and Ennis an even better one for Preacher.
Moore now can publish the League for any publisher he wants because he's the owner of the rights, though the book was published by Wildstorm/DC, because now it's common practice for a creator to retain the rights to the characters (or the concept in this case).
I'm wondering if Alan Moore gives part of the earnings of the League to the heirs of Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H. Rider Haggard...

Those works/characters are in the public domain, I believe.

You are right in stating that other creators benefitted from the dealings between Moore and DC. Alan Moore had the misfortune of being a pioneer in the creator ownership/TPB/rights arena. Which is, unfortunately, why he got screwed - and why other creators looked to him as an example and didn't make the same mistakes.

Yes, from what I understand, the deal Moore agreed to at the time - we publish it, it goes out of print, you own it in a year - was a standard creator ownership deal. In pretty much all cases, the creators who signed that deal received ownership of their creations because their work DID go out of print. The success of Watchmen and V ended up biting Moore in the ass. However, I don't necessarily agree that DC kept both titles in continuous publication simply because the demand required it - they did so to retain the rights. There's a lot of copies of both books out there. The audience for Watchmen and V - while always steady - is small relative to other mainstream publications. These are comics, remember. At any point, DC could have printed enough to supply demand for a long, long time. Except maybe now, where V is in high demand due to the movie. While I'm sure both Watchmen and V have been perennial sellers since the 80's, it's not like DC was blowing through copies year-after-year, faster than they could keep up with the demand. When copies started running out, DC automatically went back to press, regardless of whether or not there were a bunch of standing orders waiting for that new printing. And they did it to retain the rights.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Those works/characters are in the public domain, I believe.
So what? Is Alan allowed to use the characters as he likes (the Invisible Man as a raper, or Alice having lesbain sex with Peter Pan's Wendy) for free, while nobody can adapt (even well, in the case of the V movie) his works paying him, without him to be moaning?


You are right in stating that other creators benefitted from the dealings between Moore and DC. Alan Moore had the misfortune of being a pioneer in the creator ownership/TPB/rights arena. Which is, unfortunately, why he got screwed - and why other creators looked to him as an example and didn't make the same mistakes.
The point is I don't think he got screwed, like Jack Kirby or Bill Finger or Siegel and Shuster.
I don't like saying good things about corporations, but DC acted fair with its creators in the last 20 years. They gave money to the creators of the stories that helped inspire "Batman begins" (Miller, Loeb,..) even if they didn't have too. And as I said, the latest contract concerning work on original characters often enables creators to keep ownership on them.
Moore signed the best contract at the time, and DC is just sticking to it.
Being a magician, he could have been more insightful. (I know he wasn't into magic at the time)

[Whirlysplat]

Saddest thing is the Miracleman debacle.

http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=715

Alan has no luck with Movies. Having read V in Warrior and as the completed trade in 89, the movies complete change of focus from home grown Thatcherite Fascism to 1984/ Nazis win war/ state control rubbish was a given. Damn it lost its relevance. I am still going to see it again on Imax though on the 14th of April at Waterloo.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Thatcherite Fascism to 1984/ Nazis win war/ state control rubbish was a given. Damn it lost its relevance.
Or it acquired a new relevance.

[Whirlysplat]

Or it acquired a new relevance.

Hmm Moores V didn't thats why he had his named removed from it. Got to laugh from the Graphic illustrated by David Lloyd.

However the simplistic film based on Moores trade/ completed graphic written by those well known idea theifs the Warchowskis - (Can anyone say Invisibles + lots of stolen stuff from Ghost in the shell etc = Matrix. However in the Invisibles no one dressed as badly) might have some general relevance. I take your point and 1984/ Nazis win the second world war type of films always have some conspiracy theorist kind of relevance/ logic. I also admit I hate deviation from the original work so my views were biased against it before I watched it. Moving on as a stand alone it was a fun "low brow" flick. That's only my opinion and it's neither right or wrong, just right for me. ;)

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Who am I to say that he should be happy with the movie? It's his baby and I'd be very protective of mine too.

[ultimatefan]

I understand Alan´s point of view, but I think it´s a little too rigid. I think the same story in different art forms can work on different levels, and people can take the same story and put something of a different spin on it. I think V can serve the core elements of the comic book and still resonate with current themes and US themes. I think storytelling is a fluid process, if someone took a story I wrote and did something different and it was good in its own right, I´d approve it.

[antonydelfini]

i believe in what he said that his novel and the film have different intentions. the novel was to emphasize anarchy and rebellion and the fil m to emphasize that ther are governments that lie and manipulates its people. i'd say anarchy and rebellion sounds more powerful to me atleast.

[TheVileOne]

My problem is that the government officials in the movie were 1-dimensional caricatures. They weren't real characters to me.