Alan Moore Still Not Interested

[Luchastyle]

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/010308-alan-moore-watchmen-movie.php

According to WatchmenComicMovie.com, in an interview by those at Wizard, Alan Moore is going to do all he can to stay away from this movie.

It's unfortunate.

 

[Max Doobermin]

=\ Sucks.

 

[Banshee]

It is unfortunate. But I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekly (I think) where he said he wrote Watchmen to show the benefits of the medium, to show what comics could do what movies couldn't. And to say he didn't accomplish that would be outright lying. I kind of have to say, making the movie kind of discredits the integrity of what Moore set out to do. I think in the same article he also stated that Watchmen was meant to be read in an armchair by the fire. That really kind of hit home with me. While Moore can come off a bit abrasive (not in the quote above, I thought that was rather civil) his work does get tainted in the translation, so I can understand his position.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Not every movie based on his work is of LXG quality, this has potential to be really good, he judges way too soon.

I'm sure he is a little interested. It's impossible that someone is not interested to see his own creation come to life. Otherwise he really is not human.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

I heard he didn't really like V For Vendetta, either. I'm sure if the Watchmen movie comes out pretty good, and the buzz is strong, he'll cave in and watch it.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I think he's right to be cautious personally. Look at the muppet directing it, eek!

 

[lujho]

It is unfortunate. But I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekly (I think) where he said he wrote Watchmen to show the benefits of the medium, to show what comics could do what movies couldn't. And to say he didn't accomplish that would be outright lying. I kind of have to say, making the movie kind of discredits the integrity of what Moore set out to do. I think in the same article he also stated that Watchmen was meant to be read in an armchair by the fire. That really kind of hit home with me. While Moore can come off a bit abrasive (not in the quote above, I thought that was rather civil) his work does get tainted in the translation, so I can understand his position.

That's why I think movies based on his stuff should explore the medium of film the way his works explore the medium of comics. But you really need a very good, intelligent, visionary director for that, whereas Snyder is simply a talented guy who's good at being quite faithful to the source (which is kind of boring if it's too slavish), while in the case of 300, losing some things in the translation and dulling it's edge.

I think before From Hell came out Moore said he was hoping for something like Blade Runner - not a super faithful adaptation of the book it's based on at all, but a ****ing excellent film that captures the themes and spirit of the source. The Alan Moore movie adaptations have been more like all the other movies based on P.K. Dick's work - ranging from tripe to "okay".

Paul Greengrass' Watchmen might have been that kind of great adaptation. Maybe Snyder's will too. V for Vendetta, had it been given to someone like Alfonso Cuaron rather than whoeverthe****, could have been that type of film.

But Moore has said he's not really much of a movie guy anyway. He's just not into them in a big way. That, combined with his experiences with adaptations of his work (especially the fiasco surrounding V for Vendetta), make it really quite understandable that he wan't nothing to do with it. He's just not interested.

It will take one or two REALLY ****ing fantastic films based on his work to change that around.

 

[sad lieutenant]

That's why I think movies based on his stuff should explore the medium of film the way his works explore the medium of comics. But you really need a very good, intelligent, visionary director for that, whereas Snyder is simply a talented guy who's good at being quite faithful to the source (which is kind of boring if it's too slavish), while in the case of 300, losing some things in the translation and dulling it's edge.

I think before From Hell came out Moore said he was hoping for something like Blade Runner - not a super faithful adaptation of the book it's based on at all, but a ****ing excellent film that captures the themes and spirit of the source. The Alan Moore movie adaptations have been more like all the other movies based on P.K. Dick's work - ranging from tripe to "okay".

Paul Greengrass' Watchmen might have been that kind of great adaptation. Maybe Snyder's will too. V for Vendetta, had it been given to someone like Alfonso Cuaron rather than whoeverthe****, could have been that type of film.

But Moore has said he's not really much of a movie guy anyway. He's just not into them in a big way. That, combined with his experiences with adaptations of his work (especially the fiasco surrounding V for Vendetta), make it really quite understandable that he wan't nothing to do with it. He's just not interested.

It will take one or two REALLY ****ing fantastic films based on his work to change that around.

Why does everyone think that Shakey McGreengrass' poop doesn't yield a poopy smell? Has he made a good movie? Those Bourne things are paced such that the actors don't have a chance to, well, act.

Does anyone really think Watchmen would benefit from the DOGMA ethos? I think not.

 

[rogue trooper]

I think he's right to be cautious personally. Look at the muppet directing it, eek!

...what about him?

 

[Max Doobermin]

It is unfortunate. But I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekly (I think) where he said he wrote Watchmen to show the benefits of the medium, to show what comics could do what movies couldn't. And to say he didn't accomplish that would be outright lying. I kind of have to say, making the movie kind of discredits the integrity of what Moore set out to do. I think in the same article he also stated that Watchmen was meant to be read in an armchair by the fire. That really kind of hit home with me. While Moore can come off a bit abrasive (not in the quote above, I thought that was rather civil) his work does get tainted in the translation, so I can understand his position.

Yeah. I've read that too. But I think what he did in Watchmen is very cinematic. And even though he says it isn't, it still is in a lot of ways. The main difference being the supplemental material with each chapter. But even those can be used in their entirety if it were to be done as a mini-series.

I heard he didn't really like V For Vendetta, either. I'm sure if the Watchmen movie comes out pretty good, and the buzz is strong, he'll cave in and watch it.

Something tells me that even then, he won't be willing to watch it at all. But I hope you're right. If it's good I hope he watches it. If it's anything short of great, I hope that he doesn't watch it.

 

[Figs]

I love Alan Moore's work but seriously he needs to take the stick out of his pretentious ass!

The fact that he won't even try to see how the film is coming along is childish and laughable. I know a lot of you Moore super fanboys will jump on me for saying that but sorry it's a bit true.

To me that says,he acts and thinks his writing is that "god like" that it can never be interpreted to another format/medium. He needs to wake up to reality.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Why does everyone think that Shakey McGreengrass' poop doesn't yield a poopy smell? Has he made a good movie? Those Bourne things are paced such that the actors don't have a chance to, well, act.

Shakey actually made four very good movies where actors can shine even if shot by a handheld camera.
Maybe that's the reason why his cast for Watchmen had some Oscar winning actors in it.

 

[brobdingnag]

I love Alan Moore's work but seriously he needs to take the stick out of his pretentious ass!

The fact that he won't even try to see how the film is coming along is childish and laughable. I know a lot of you Moore super fanboys will jump on me for saying that but sorry it's a bit true.

To me that says,he acts and thinks his writing is that "god like" that it can never be interpreted to another format/medium. He needs to wake up to reality.

Fanboys are exactly why he thinks his **** don't stink. You have people telling you how great you are 24/7 and pretty soon you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Max Doobermin]

Shakey actually made four very good movies where actors can shine even if shot by a handheld camera.
Maybe that's the reason why his cast for Watchmen had some Oscar winning actors in it.

Who did he cast?

 

[Banana-Hotdog]

What surprises me is how he refuses to at least get paid or even let them put his name on the thing. I've read a similar article about Stephen King and how he just goes into these things knowing that his work will probably be butchered but he still takes the check.

But it's a catch-22 really. If it says "Based on the novel by ____" and it turns out to be one of the best movies of the year, then everyone will want to read some of that guy's other books. But if the movie sucks and the credits say "Based on the novel by ___" then that's definitely going to drive away potential readers.

So I guess if Watchmen is a major success, then the Today Show may get crashed by a crazed bearded man wearing a hundred rings who claims he wrote the thing haha. And if it turns out to be another stinker like Constantine or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, then Moore will still have his dignity I suppose.

 

[Killing Joke926]

I'm sorry, Alan Moore is an awsome writer and I love his books like WM, LXG, and VFV, but he's really f***ed up. Now, I can understand why with LXG and partially with V, but he really has to see how Zack has created his world of Watchmen; it's truely perfection.

 

[brobdingnag]

Zack has created his world of Watchmen; it's truely perfection.

I agree that hes being stupid but there is no basis for judging the film yet, no one has seen it. It may very well suck.

 

[Captain Useless]

What surprises me is how he refuses to at least get paid or even let them put his name on the thing. I've read a similar article about Stephen King and how he just goes into these things knowing that his work will probably be butchered but he still takes the check.

But it's a catch-22 really. If it says "Based on the novel by ____" and it turns out to be one of the best movies of the year, then everyone will want to read some of that guy's other books. But if the movie sucks and the credits say "Based on the novel by ___" then that's definitely going to drive away potential readers.

So I guess if Watchmen is a major success, then the Today Show may get crashed by a crazed bearded man wearing a hundred rings who claims he wrote the thing haha. And if it turns out to be another stinker like Constantine or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, then Moore will still have his dignity I suppose.

hey! Constantine wasn't too bad..

 

[Banshee]

I love Alan Moore's work but seriously he needs to take the stick out of his pretentious ass!

The fact that he won't even try to see how the film is coming along is childish and laughable. I know a lot of you Moore super fanboys will jump on me for saying that but sorry it's a bit true.

To me that says,he acts and thinks his writing is that "god like" that it can never be interpreted to another format/medium. He needs to wake up to reality.

Well that being said, I'm not remotely a Moore super-fanboy. Watchmen is probably highest on my list of favorite comics of his works, but its probably still only around fifth.

I just understand the fact that in the comic book world, there are layers upon layers in his work, character development out the ass, multiple themes, social commentary for specific eras in time, and lots more. The thing is, Watchmen, like V, LoEG, or From Hell, are all longer in depth pieces. A two hour movie, or even a three hour movie, couldn't even begin to scrape the surface of the depth of that material.

Now look at it this way. The only way the majority of people will be exposed to his works is if there are movies made about them. Even if the movies are successful, critically or commercially, his vision will be totally cut short and lose most of its message. For example, while V was successful, Moore mentioned in the script there was no longer any element of anarchy, which was a big part of his comic. What I'm trying to get at is Moore is obviously a good writer and his work has been hailed as some of the best in the medium, but then these half-assed attempts at movies come along, that could potentially tarnish his name in a medium he doesn't even believe in.

I'm not saying Moore's the man and deserves to be worshiped. I'm saying as an artist he has the right to be upset if his work gets butchered and/or exposes his work to the masses in a totally distorted light.

 

[xisaacx]

I'm not saying Moore's the man and deserves to be worshiped. I'm saying as an artist he has the right to be upset if his work gets butchered and/or exposes his work to the masses in a totally distorted light.

Totally agree with you there, some people have expectations for their comics and etc. Moore just feels like NO film can do watchmen justice, as do MANY people, actually a ****load of people DONT want to see this movie made because it does have potential to be bad, its sorta like a 50/50.

Its one of those classics you dont touch. Its like taking the ghostbusters movies and trying to remake them, what purpose would you have to try and remake classics? Its like remaking the forest gump movie, Can you imagine?

Mostly I think he just doesnt want watchmen to end up like WANTED, which is a travesty in itself. Change of theme, change of script etc = **** and upset fanboys.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Totally agree with you there, some people have expectations for their comics and etc. Moore just feels like NO film can do watchmen justice, as do MANY people, actually a ****load of people DONT want to see this movie made because it does have potential to be bad, its sorta like a 50/50.

Its one of those classics you dont touch. Its like taking the ghostbusters movies and trying to remake them, what purpose would you have to try and remake classics? Its like remaking the forest gump movie, Can you imagine?

Mostly I think he just doesnt want watchmen to end up like WANTED, which is a travesty in itself. Change of theme, change of script etc = **** and upset fanboys.

Partially I think, for Moore, it's that he thinks it'll be bad, but mostly, I think he figures either: a.) It'll be different from the comic and thus, distort the comic's purpose and be a travesty, or b.) It'll be a faithful replication, in which case, what's the point? Pandering to an audience that can't take it in comic form? It's almost as if making the movie at all is a disrespect to the medium of comics in general; Alan Moore's whole point was he wanted to present a story that works best in comics. Either they're proving him wrong, or the movie has no point.

And I don't agree with that necessarily. I'm just presenting what I imagine is his view.

 

[sad lieutenant]

Shakey actually made four very good movies where actors can shine even if shot by a handheld camera.
Maybe that's the reason why his cast for Watchmen had some Oscar winning

It's both his obscene employment of the DTs and his vh-1 inspired editing that neuters all of the feeling in his films. I don't see anything in his CV to convince me that would have been a food fit for Watchmen. AICN reported that he was changing the beginning of the film-- and the conceppt art for Dr MAnhattan was laughable

 

[wobbly]

I read a while back (before LXG) that Moore has never seen any adaptation of his books.
Pretentious or no, the guy has his principles and firmly sticks to his guns (and in doing so has cost himself a small fortune too) so I have to give him credit for that.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

To me that says,he acts and thinks his writing is that "god like" that it can never be interpreted to another format/medium. He needs to wake up to reality.

well when you've been told for the last twenty years that you're greatest personal achievement just also happens to be the greatest achievement in the medium by just about every critic and his little brother that doesn't read comics, you tend to have that (justified) point of view.


and as far as Moore with this adaptation, the guy didn't have a problem with many of his works being put on film until after V for Vendetta, the third strike for him. From Hell was garbage, as was LXG, and V for Vendetta was a British allegory for Margaret Thatcher and the AIDS crisis, not an American allegory for the war on terror.

Moore: justified

 

[Agentsands77]

I heard he didn't really like V For Vendetta, either.

With good reason. The Wachowskis took his very subversive work and turned it into a popcorn film with a very different, safer message.