Alan Moore Endorsed a Watchmen movie--in 1987

[S.D. Plissken]

A fun read that will make us all feel a little better about any reservations we have of the current filmatic incarnation of Watchmen:

Alan Moore Endorsed Watchmen Movie... in 1987

by Daniel Manu October 16, 2008 3:31 PM

By now, it's been well-documented that the brilliant comic-book author Alan Moore wants nothing to do with the upcoming big-screen version of his most famous work, Watchmen. Just last month, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, he said he would be "spitting venom all over it for months to come." He also expressed disgust at the film industry in general: "They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It's obscene and it's offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for." Moore's principled stance (he refuses both screen credit and payment for new films based on his work) stems from years of enduring what he considers shoddy, unethical treatment by both Hollywood and his former publisher, DC Comics.

But as the excitement for the Watchmen movie continues to build, we thought it might be of historical interest to look back at a time when Moore not only supported a film version of his ground-breaking graphic novel, but also endorsed the screenwriter attached to it -- a writer whose adaptation would bowdlerize, blow up and infantalize Moore's work in ways that still offend fans to this day.

In 1987, in a Q&A published in Comics Interview magazine (an excellent, but sadly long-defunct, print publication), issue 48, Moore told interviewer Darrel Boatz about the recently-optioned Watchmen movie:

Alan: I have got as much confidence as it is possible to have in the people who are handling the Watchmen film. Sam Hamm is an excellent screenwriter, he's been signed to write the Watchmen film. I think that it's got, therefore, as good a chance as any of being a good film [snip]

Darrel: I hadn't known there was a film in the works.

Alan: Yeah, 20th Century Fox have optioned Watchmen as a film. The producers are Joel Silver and Larry Gordon, who were the producers of 48 Hours. [snip] I've spoken to Joel Silver, he seems very enthusiastic and has a good track record of getting films actually made. That said, of course, we've been hearing about Silver Surfer and X-Men films for the past 200 years to my certain knowledge. (Laughter.) Whether the film is actually made or not is completely in the air, and how it turns out is beyond my control. But, you know, they've got Sam Hamm as writer of it, who is a very good, promising, new screenwriter, and has also got a good background and interest in comics and is the screenwriter, I believe, upon [sic] the new Batman film, as well. [snip] I've spoken to Sam, I went out to lunch with him -- he came to Northampton and had lunch with me -- and I've got complete faith in him. I believe that he will try his best to make the film as faithful to the experience of reading Watchmen as he can. I believe he's got a lot of respect for the material, and that's all that I can ask for, really, and I'm prepared to sort of stand by what he does.

What did Moore's sincerely expressed faith in Hamm get him? A screenplay that systematically removed all of the poetry, complexity and beauty of the graphic novel and replaced it with a dumbed-down plot, execrable '80s action-movie dialogue and a radically different ending that makes little logical sense and negates the dreadful power of the original. No summary can do justice to this script's awfulness, so you can check out the entire first draft here. But for those with weak stomachs, here are but some of the lowlights:

--The script begins with a prologue about terrorists taking hostages at the Statue of Liberty during the 1976 bicentennial celebrations. Adrian Veidt (never referred to as Ozymandias) leads a superhero team actually called "The Watchmen" to stop them. During the rescue attempt, the Comedian intentionally kills a hostage that's being used as shield by a terrorist. He quips, "The joke's on you."

--Almost all of the comic's back story is gone except for flashbacks to Dr. Manhattan's origin and the night that Rorschach splits the dog's head. Also gone is the sense of a rich alternate history so painstakingly established in the book.

--Speaking of Rorschach, his dialogue -- some of the most memorable passages in the comic -- has been replaced with out-of-character utterances like, "Hiya pardner, long time no see." And, "A doggy. A big old floppy-eared dog." And, "Two things I hate: street mimes... users of recreational drugs." Street mimes? After dispatching Big Figure (needlessly renamed Little Bigger in the script), Rorschach gets into the quip game by telling Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, "Toilet clogged. Big fat turd." Zing!

--Hamm's script ultimately hinges upon the revelation that Veidt's plan all along was to essentially create a hole in time through which he can assassinate Jon Osterman before his transformation into Dr. Manhattan, thereby altering the course of history to prevent a potential World War III and also eliminate superheroes from existence. (This makes little sense, since costumed adventurers existed decades before Manhattan and would presumably have gone on influencing events even if the good doctor ceased to be.)

--After some more ballyhoo, Veidt is foiled, but Dr. Manhattan is able to save his younger self from the fateful radiation blast, so time is indeed changed and Nite Owl, Rorschach and Silk Spectre find themselves -- inexplicably, since they were just in Antarctica -- in the New York City of our mundane, superhero-less reality. The kid by the newsstand is now reading a comic book called -- wait for it -- The Watchmen. And to add final insult to injury, Nite Owl sees a mounted policeman and exclaims, "Oh my God, they still ride around on horses!"

In the final analysis, could anyone blame Alan Moore for swearing off Hollywood?

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by S.D. Plissken

In the final analysis, could anyone blame Alan Moore for swearing off Hollywood?

Oh god, I can't breathe. LOL

[S.D. Plissken]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Oh god, I can't breathe. LOL

I know, right?

Good ol' Sam Hamm. Monkey Bone actually happens to be a personal favorite of mine.

I think this was the movie they wanted Sigourney Weaver and Ahh-nold for. Arnold as Manhattan?

That's greasy ass Joel Silver for ya.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by S.D. Plissken

I know, right?

Good ol' Sam Hamm. Monkey Bone actually happens to be a personal favorite of mine.

I think this was the movie they wanted Sigourney Weaver and Ahh-nold for. Arnold as Manhattan?

That's greasy ass Joel Silver for ya.

I believe other casting rumors were Robin Williams for Rorschach (which I would actually enjoy), Jamie Lee Curtis for Silk Spectre, Gary Busey for the Comedian, and Richard Gere and Kevin Costner for NiteOwl.

[boog_spin]

"They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work."

this from a guy who writes comic books. seriously, can someone who does less for the world sound more like an ass?

he isnt changing lives or saving the human race. he wrote a kick ass comic book.

he needs to get over himself

[Carmine Falcone]

I believe he's got a lot of respect for the material, and that's all that I can ask for.

What the **** happened to Moore in those 20 years? I mean, one thing we know Syder & Co have; respect for the ****ing comic book.

Originally Posted by boog_spin

"They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work."

this from a guy who writes comic books. seriously, can someone who does less for the world sound more like an ass?

he isnt changing lives or saving the human race. he wrote a kick ass comic book.

he needs to get over himself

Agreed, I always found that quote to be very demeaning and show on what a high horse this guy really is.

[Darknightnomis]

Originally Posted by boog_spin

this from a guy who writes comic books. seriously, can someone who does less for the world sound more like an ass?

he isnt changing lives or saving the human race. he wrote a kick ass comic book.

he needs to get over himself

Ture. This is not close to being on the scale of saving lives and making the world a better palcet.

But this is HIS work. He can feel and say whatever he want about it and how he want is represented on the big screen.

No Alan Moore, No Watchmen. No conversation .


I do find it funny that he emdorse a really bad interpertaion of it back in 87 though.

[Motown Marvel]

Originally Posted by boog_spin

"They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work."

this from a guy who writes comic books. seriously, can someone who does less for the world sound more like an ass?

he isnt changing lives or saving the human race. he wrote a kick ass comic book.

he needs to get over himself

have you seen the other alan moore film adaptations? or most films released in theaters? he's not necessarily wrong. cynical, maybe....but not wrong.

[cryptic name]

Originally Posted by S.D. Plissken

A fun read that will make us all feel a little better about any reservations we have of the current filmatic incarnation of Watchmen:

Alan Moore Endorsed Watchmen Movie... in 1987

by Daniel Manu October 16, 2008 3:31 PM

By now, it's been well-documented that the brilliant comic-book author Alan Moore wants nothing to do with the upcoming big-screen version of his most famous work, Watchmen. Just last month, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, he said he would be "spitting venom all over it for months to come." He also expressed disgust at the film industry in general: "They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It's obscene and it's offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for." Moore's principled stance (he refuses both screen credit and payment for new films based on his work) stems from years of enduring what he considers shoddy, unethical treatment by both Hollywood and his former publisher, DC Comics.

But as the excitement for the Watchmen movie continues to build, we thought it might be of historical interest to look back at a time when Moore not only supported a film version of his ground-breaking graphic novel, but also endorsed the screenwriter attached to it -- a writer whose adaptation would bowdlerize, blow up and infantalize Moore's work in ways that still offend fans to this day.

In 1987, in a Q&A published in Comics Interview magazine (an excellent, but sadly long-defunct, print publication), issue 48, Moore told interviewer Darrel Boatz about the recently-optioned Watchmen movie:

Alan: I have got as much confidence as it is possible to have in the people who are handling the Watchmen film. Sam Hamm is an excellent screenwriter, he's been signed to write the Watchmen film. I think that it's got, therefore, as good a chance as any of being a good film [snip]

Darrel: I hadn't known there was a film in the works.

Alan: Yeah, 20th Century Fox have optioned Watchmen as a film. The producers are Joel Silver and Larry Gordon, who were the producers of 48 Hours. [snip] I've spoken to Joel Silver, he seems very enthusiastic and has a good track record of getting films actually made. That said, of course, we've been hearing about Silver Surfer and X-Men films for the past 200 years to my certain knowledge. (Laughter.) Whether the film is actually made or not is completely in the air, and how it turns out is beyond my control. But, you know, they've got Sam Hamm as writer of it, who is a very good, promising, new screenwriter, and has also got a good background and interest in comics and is the screenwriter, I believe, upon [sic] the new Batman film, as well. [snip] I've spoken to Sam, I went out to lunch with him -- he came to Northampton and had lunch with me -- and I've got complete faith in him. I believe that he will try his best to make the film as faithful to the experience of reading Watchmen as he can. I believe he's got a lot of respect for the material, and that's all that I can ask for, really, and I'm prepared to sort of stand by what he does.

What did Moore's sincerely expressed faith in Hamm get him? A screenplay that systematically removed all of the poetry, complexity and beauty of the graphic novel and replaced it with a dumbed-down plot, execrable '80s action-movie dialogue and a radically different ending that makes little logical sense and negates the dreadful power of the original. No summary can do justice to this script's awfulness, so you can check out the entire first draft here. But for those with weak stomachs, here are but some of the lowlights:

--The script begins with a prologue about terrorists taking hostages at the Statue of Liberty during the 1976 bicentennial celebrations. Adrian Veidt (never referred to as Ozymandias) leads a superhero team actually called "The Watchmen" to stop them. During the rescue attempt, the Comedian intentionally kills a hostage that's being used as shield by a terrorist. He quips, "The joke's on you."

--Almost all of the comic's back story is gone except for flashbacks to Dr. Manhattan's origin and the night that Rorschach splits the dog's head. Also gone is the sense of a rich alternate history so painstakingly established in the book.

--Speaking of Rorschach, his dialogue -- some of the most memorable passages in the comic -- has been replaced with out-of-character utterances like, "Hiya pardner, long time no see." And, "A doggy. A big old floppy-eared dog." And, "Two things I hate: street mimes... users of recreational drugs." Street mimes? After dispatching Big Figure (needlessly renamed Little Bigger in the script), Rorschach gets into the quip game by telling Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, "Toilet clogged. Big fat turd." Zing!

--Hamm's script ultimately hinges upon the revelation that Veidt's plan all along was to essentially create a hole in time through which he can assassinate Jon Osterman before his transformation into Dr. Manhattan, thereby altering the course of history to prevent a potential World War III and also eliminate superheroes from existence. (This makes little sense, since costumed adventurers existed decades before Manhattan and would presumably have gone on influencing events even if the good doctor ceased to be.)

--After some more ballyhoo, Veidt is foiled, but Dr. Manhattan is able to save his younger self from the fateful radiation blast, so time is indeed changed and Nite Owl, Rorschach and Silk Spectre find themselves -- inexplicably, since they were just in Antarctica -- in the New York City of our mundane, superhero-less reality. The kid by the newsstand is now reading a comic book called -- wait for it -- The Watchmen. And to add final insult to injury, Nite Owl sees a mounted policeman and exclaims, "Oh my God, they still ride around on horses!"

In the final analysis, could anyone blame Alan Moore for swearing off Hollywood?

this is so sad. he was so young and trusting.

[deathfromabove]

Originally Posted by Motown Marvel

have you seen the other alan moore film adaptations? or most films released in theaters? he's not necessarily wrong. cynical, maybe....but not wrong.

agreed.

[Sun_Down]

This basically proves to me how bad Moore's judgement is and how none of us should take his whining seriously. If he endorsed a piece of crap script like that, he obviously knows nothing about what makes a good movie.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Sun_Down

This basically proves to me how bad Moore's judgement is and how none of us should take his whining seriously. If he endorsed a piece of crap script like that, he obviously knows nothing about what makes a good movie.

He endorsed Sam Hamm and believed in him, not knowing what would be the result. There's nothing that indicates he supported the resulting script itself.

No doubt he was burned by that experience. But that's no reason to be a stubborn, grudgy dude over Snyder's version, which looks to be as faithful as one can get.

[I Am The Knight]

Hurm. The joke was on him.

[Gilpesh]

Originally Posted by Anita18

But that's no reason to be a stubborn, grudgy dude over Snyder's version, which looks to be as faithful as one can get.

Terry Gilliam's twelve part mini-series sounds like it would have been better.


And there would be much less slo-mo.

[The Battousai]

Originally Posted by Gilpesh

Terry Gilliam's twelve part mini-series sounds like it would have been better.


And there would be much less slo-mo.

More faithful doesn't necessarily mean better

[Gilpesh]

Originally Posted by The Battousai

More faithful doesn't necessarily mean better

So does that mean the Hamm script is better than the Tse/Hayter stuff?

[Katsuro]

Originally Posted by Gilpesh

So does that mean the Hamm script is better than the Tse/Hayter stuff?

The Hamm script was terrible for a million reasons despite just being unfaithful. I could've never heard of Watchmen and still known that script was a peice of junk.

Also, a 12-part miniseries would've suffered from being very low budget, and pointless as no one would really see it who hadn't read the book.

[S.D. Plissken]

Originally Posted by Sun_Down

This basically proves to me how bad Moore's judgement is and how none of us should take his whining seriously. If he endorsed a piece of crap script like that, he obviously knows nothing about what makes a good movie.

If you read what it says, you would understand that this was before he had any dealings with hollywood. He made the mistake of being young, trusting, and niave, and letting Joel Silver and Sam Hamm near his intelectual property.

He learned a bitter lesson and that is the why he is who he is today in regards to Hollywood.

For others who missed the point as well, I invite you to read the first few pages of the Sam Hamm script on Watchmencomicmovie.com and get a real undertanding of just how BAD that script is. You may have trouble believing that it's real but I assure you--it is.

[Katsuro]

I hope this brings an end to people who discount this movie SOLELY because Alan Moore is against it. It's one thing to not like the movie for your own reasons, but I hate seeing people say they only hate it because Alan Moore doesn't approve.

Knowing that Alan Moore at one point was on board with a movie kinda discounts his more recent comments that he wrote it to be unfilmable. Present-day Alan Moore may not approve of this movie for various reasons, but the Alan Moore that wrote Watchmen was open to the idea.

[The Battousai]

Originally Posted by Gilpesh

So does that mean the Hamm script is better than the Tse/Hayter stuff?

I was actually thinking of Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining

[The Guard]

I refuse to believe Alan Moore was EVER so naiive that he didn't understand that there would be changes in order for WATCHMEN to make it to Hollywood.

I think he's essentially become embittered by his experiences with DC since then, and the adaptions of his movies.

But I refuse to believe he was ever that naiive.

[FlawlessVictory]

Originally Posted by Katsuro

Knowing that Alan Moore at one point was on board with a movie kinda discounts his more recent comments that he wrote it to be unfilmable. Present-day Alan Moore may not approve of this movie for various reasons, but the Alan Moore that wrote Watchmen was open to the idea.

Excellent point. Granted he didn't know how bad Hamm's script would turn out to be when he made those comments, however he did feel that the comic was filmable.

[SatEL]

Originally Posted by Anita18

He endorsed Sam Hamm and believed in him, not knowing what would be the result. There's nothing that indicates he supported the resulting script itself.

No doubt he was burned by that experience. But that's no reason to be a stubborn, grudgy dude over Snyder's version, which looks to be as faithful as one can get.

*Cough* Squid *Cough*

[I Am The Knight]

^It's not a Squid...It's a 5th dimensional being

[SatEL]

Originally Posted by I Am The Knight

^It's not a Squid...It's a 5th dimensional being

Ohhhhhh all right.................... Veidt I forgot.