This was an Alan Moore comic, right?

[Chris Wallace]

Anybody know why his name wasn't listed in the credits? Did he just not approve?

[Colossus24]

He had his name removed, because he didn't approve.

[Addendum]

Trouble arose when producer Martin Poll and screenwriter Larry Cohen filed a lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, alleging that the film The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen plagiarized their script entitled Cast of Characters. Although the two scripts bear many similarities, most of them are elements that were added for the film and do not originate in Moore's comics. According to Moore, "they seemed to believe that the head of 20th Century Fox called me up and persuaded me to steal this screenplay, turning it into a comic book which they could then adapt back into a movie, to camouflage petty larceny." Moore testified in court hearings, a process so painful that he surmised he would have been better treated had he "molested and murdered a busload of retarded children after giving them heroin." Fox's settlement of the case insulted Moore, who interpreted it as an admission of guilt.

Moore's reaction was to divorce himself from the film world: he would refuse to allow film adaptations of anything to which he owned full copyright. In cases where others owned the rights, he would withdraw his name from the credits and refuse to accept payment, instead requesting that the money go to his collaborators (i.e. the artists). This was the arrangement used for the film Constantine.

The last straw came when producer Joel Silver misquoted Moore at a press conference for the upcoming V for Vendetta, produced by Warner Brothers (which also owns DC Comics). Silver stated that producer Larry Wachowski had talked with Moore, and that "he [Moore] was very excited about what Larry had to say." Moore, who claims that he told Wachowski "I didn't want anything to do with films... I wasn't interested in Hollywood," demanded that DC and Warner Brothers issue a retraction and apology for Silver's "blatant lies." No retraction or apology appeared, and in response Moore announced his departure from Wildstorm/DC/Warner Bros. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Dark Dossier, a hardcover graphic novel, will be his last work for the publisher. Future installments of LoEG will be published by Top Shelf Productions and Knockabout Comics. Moore has also stated that he wishes his name to be "Alan Smitheed" from comic work that he does not own.

[Chris Wallace]

That's a bit extreme, IMO.

[Assassin]

so is his hair and beard...

[Addendum]

That's a bit extreme, IMO.
What is? His reaction to 20th Century Fox settling out of court on LXG, or his reaction to WB not retracting Joel Silver's comment regarding Moore?

Don't act like Hollywood excretes 24kt gold turds

[Nivek]

Well, fans and creators are shaking their heads at him.

[Addendum]

Because he has the gall to have "a different opinion about something he created"?!

oh noes!1! teh skye is flalnig 11!1!

[Nivek]

Because he has the gall to have "a different opinion about something he created"?!

oh noes!1! teh skye is flalnig 11!1!

No, just that it comes off as very pretentious.

[dogsgotlipstick]

I wouldn't call standing up for what you believe in pretentious. it would have been pretentious had he had these opinions and still taken his 12 silver pieces from WB.

If any one here had creacted a script, book, comic or whatever, for publishers/ producers to change the story beyond all recognition. you would be pissed off. pissed off enough to take no credit? pissed off enough to refuse hefty sums of money? pissed off enougn to threaten never to share your talent with anyone again?

i don't think so. just give the bloke some credit for standing100% by his feelings.

[Gamma Ray]

Alan Moore is brilliant, but he's also insane. Did he really expect the movie version to be verbatim of the novel? I read the novel and I think the movie is a great take on it.

[Chris Wallace]

All I'm saying is, if you have a bad experience w/one of your works crossing over into another medium, getting sour on the industry isn't the answer. There's always the option of-oh, getting more involved in future projects so that as much of your vision is preserved as possible. Did he even look at the script for "V", or talk-seriously talk-to anyone involved in the production before writing it off?

[Xofenroht]

All I'm saying is, if you have a bad experience w/one of your works crossing over into another medium, getting sour on the industry isn't the answer. There's always the option of-oh, getting more involved in future projects so that as much of your vision is preserved as possible. Did he even look at the script for "V", or talk-seriously talk-to anyone involved in the production before writing it off?

Yeah, he read the script. That's what turned him off to the movie.

[Chris Wallace]

See now I'm gonna have to read the GN & find out once & for all whether or not his vision was preserved.

[Nivek]

I wouldn't call standing up for what you believe in pretentious. it would have been pretentious had he had these opinions and still taken his 12 silver pieces from WB.

If any one here had creacted a script, book, comic or whatever, for publishers/ producers to change the story beyond all recognition. you would be pissed off. pissed off enough to take no credit? pissed off enough to refuse hefty sums of money? pissed off enougn to threaten never to share your talent with anyone again?

i don't think so. just give the bloke some credit for standing100% by his feelings.

It's pretentious because he act's like they did some horrible disservice to his story, but the underlying message and story is still there. And they didn't change it "beyond recognition". He flipped out about "eggy in a basket", gimme a break here.

As far as anything I ever made being "worked over", and not taking credit for it, Im an artist, scenic sculptor by trade, and I am mature and realistic enough to know that when my work has other hands touching it, it may not turned out the exact way I wanted it to. But I know I'll enjoy that paycheck, and the funding it allows me to do my own private work.

I can respect feelings and right to have an opinion, however I cannot respect turning your back and throwing your hands up in the air damning the ones because it's not a 100% translation. What Moore is doing is to me, as an Artist, the very definition of Pretentious. At least creators like Mike Mignola, J. O'Barr, Frank Miller, Dave Stevens, Bob Kane, and Stan Lee were on set to see translations of their characters with their own eyes.

All in all, it's just my opinion on all this.

[Chris Wallace]

Agreed.

[Addendum]

The thing is, Alan Moore believes that he's said what he's had to say in his comics. He's a writer of comic books who has no interest in making film adaptations of his works. After the entire LXG situation with Fox, he wanted to be removed entirely from the process and have the money due him go to the artists involved.

He knows there's going to be movies made of the works that he doesn't have full ownership of. He wants nothing to do with them since he's not interested in making movies.

Why the **** is that a problem?

[Chris Wallace]

I can respect that, but it sounds like he's throwing hissy fits needlessly. I simply don't agree w/his viewpoint. Comics can & often do benefit from being made into movies, & I don't just mean money. Let's face it; a lot of us so-called serious comic fans were lured in by either a cartoon, a TV show or a movie. Multimedia shouldn't be viewed as a curse; it creates awareness of your creation & that can attract new readers.

[Addendum]

His viewpoint is applying only to HIS WORKS. He's said what he had to say in his comics. He sees no need to go back and help out a movie adaptation. And some people are saying, "But we're making a movie based on your work. You have to help us because some other writer did when a movie was made that was based on his work." That has nothing to do with audience being lured in.

[Ash Loomis]

He doesn't have a right to complain if they changed things from the book that he didn't like. They offered him a chance to help them make it and he said no. If he doesn't like it, it's partially his fault and he needs to put up with it.

[Addendum]

He doesn't have a right to complain if they changed things from the book that he didn't like. They offered him a chance to help them make it and he said no. If he doesn't like it, it's partially his fault and he needs to put up with it.

Bone up on your reading skills, and try my last post again...

His viewpoint is applying only to HIS WORKS. He's said what he had to say in his comics. He sees no need to go back and help out a movie adaptation. And some people are saying, "But we're making a movie based on your work. You have to help us because some other writer did when a movie was made that was based on his work."

[Ash Loomis]

I don't see what point you're trying to make. I didn't say that he had to help, just didn't have a right to complain about them changing his work if he didn't want to assist them. I don't see how listing the reasons he didn't want to help make the film makes my viewpoint any less valid.

[Max J Power]

I can see where Moore is coming from but I still think he's a jerk.

[Addendum]

The point is- he's said what he wanted to say with the comic and has no intention of making a movie about it. He's moved on to write other comics.

Along comes a movie writer, who decides to write a movie version of one of Moore's comics. Why should Moore help with it?

I don't see what the problem is when a writer doesn't automatically love every movie adaption of his work.

[Ash Loomis]

The point is- he's said what he wanted to say with the comic and has no intention of making a movie about it. He's moved on to write other comics.

Along comes a movie writer, who decides to write a movie version of one of Moore's comics. Why should Moore help with it?

Because it would stay truer to his original work and he wouldn't have to get mad about how they destroyed his story.

[Addendum]

Even though he has no intention of making movies and doesn't think that a movie version of a book somehow "validates" that book

[Honey Vibe]

It's pretentious because he act's like they did some horrible disservice to his story, but the underlying message and story is still there. It seems Moore is not primarily revolted by a less-than-perfect translation of his idea. It is, rather, the amoral intention of corporations to turn his ideas into a franchise, and dupe him into being their promotional mascot in the process.

Somewhat unrelated, it's the same reason Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson had a falling out, with Jackson selling out songs of the Beatles to Pepsi, Reebok, and whomever -- songs McCartney felt were about revolution, not about "buy Pepsi".

[Ash Loomis]

Even though he has no intention of making movies and doesn't think that a movie version of a book somehow "validates" that book

I know this, and I don't care that Moore doesn't make movies. I just don't think that he should complain about them when he was given a chance to help make it. Come to think of it, if Moore isn't interested in the movies, why does he bother to comment on how they deviated from his storyline? That act is showing some interest.

Also, I never said that making a film version of a book validates it and I never said that Moore did have an intension of making movies based on his books, so I fail to see what those two points have to do with my opinion of Moore's complaints.

What I'm saying is "Moore if you're not interested in making movies, that's fine; go write some more of your wonderful comics. But if you don't care about these films and you didn't want to help out with them, then why are you complaining about them?"

[Addendum]

Since when do people need a reason to complain about anything?

[Ash Loomis]

Since when do people need a reason to complain about anything?

:confused: Uh...is that meant to be a joke or something?

[Addendum]

It's meant to be a question, hence the inclusion of the question mark at the end.

[Ash Loomis]

Well, I've always considered the action of complaining to be motiviated by wanting something to change, so you're protesting it. Complaining goes back to before we recorded history, man. When you complain about something, have no motivation and you don't care either way, then it's not complaining, it's being (to put it nicely) silly.

[Addendum]

Just don't tell politicians that...

[Chris Wallace]

I bought the book the other day & so far, I don't see what Alan's complaining about. I've just read where he kills the bishop & for the most part, the only changes I see are cosmetic. So Evey's not a teenage prostitute. So what? I'll have a more informed view when I finish but so far I don't see what the fuss is about.

[Chris Wallace]

Having now finished the book, I like the movie version better overall.

[SuperFerret]

Having now finished the book, I like the movie version better overall.

I did too. In the book V didn't really accomplish anything, he just caused anarchy which would eventually evolve into some type of order. In the movie, he united the people of England, which IMO is a much better solution than causing chaos and death for no reason.

[Chris Wallace]

That's it. It felt more...complete. His plan seemd more thought out. He had a goal & he accomplished it. There were individual parts of the book that I wish had been in the movie, but I'm happy w/what I saw onscreen. A buddy of mine who's a fan of the book argues that the film "missed the point".

[SuperFerret]

That's it. It felt more...complete. His plan seemd more thought out. He had a goal & he accomplished it. There were individual parts of the book that I wish had been in the movie, but I'm happy w/what I saw onscreen. A buddy of mine who's a fan of the book argues that the film "missed the point".

Same here, but then again my friend nitpicks over every comic book movie.

[Chris Wallace]

There will always be those; or else these forums wouldn't exist.

[Superhobo]

To each his own, I guess. Masel, I think the GN surpasses the movie in so many ways it's not even funny. Though, I do love the movie. The GN is just so much better.

And you all know my opinion on the novelization.

[Psiborg]

You guys are missing out on his whole message of anarchy in the comic. He doesn't want anarchy that results in chaos in death. That is the Land of Take-What-You-Want, which he does not want. But it is a step to his goal. His goal is the Land of Do-As-You-Please in which a society has anarchy because they want it. It's about people working together to support and help each other and make everyone happy.

And I think the movie was a terrible film and I wish I never paid money for it. It was a piece of trash if you ask me and the changes were far from cosmetic. Take just your example of Evey. I don't think many people care that much about the prostitute thing. It's more about the fact she previously had no thoughts of rebellion or reason to be against the government, but V manipulated a young, impressionable girl to do his bidding. There's one point already that makes the comic much deeper than the movie. Then consider what this says about Codename V's character- is he a villain or a hero? Again, another aspect that makes the comic much more thought provoking. I could go on and on....

And to respond to a question closer related to the original question:
What I'm saying is "Moore if you're not interested in making movies, that's fine; go write some more of your wonderful comics. But if you don't care about these films and you didn't want to help out with them, then why are you complaining about them?"

He doesn't want to help them because he doesn't want them made in the first place. I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever said he doesn't care. He just doesn't want a piece of crap out there parading under his name. He makes comics that don't work as films. He feels there's too much thought put into each and every panel, by himself and whoever the artist may be, to function as a film. He said something to the effect of "in a comic, you can go back and re-read panels and check back if something recurs; you can read at your own pace. You cannot do this with a film". If he doesn't want a film to be made and people insist on producing a film he finds to be garbage, he has every right to complain. He shouldn't be forced to help just to make a mediocre film; just because he helps doesn't mean he would be allowed to do whatever he wants and he would likely be unhappy with that. And, once again, the bottom line is- he doesn't want a film to be made.