Alan Moore Still Not Interested

[wobbly]

not casting someone british was... pretty bad... lol.

I can only imagine how Moore must have felt when he heard Keanu Reeves was given the role too

That being said, forgetting everything you know about the books (when written by Moore in Swamp Thing and later by Delgado in Hellblazer) I'd agree the film itself wasn't too bad. But as an adaptation of pre-existing works? A very poor effort getting the main character completely wrong.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

meh...taking a lot of liberties with the source material, I kinda dug Constantine and V for Vendetta. Both had nice replay value.

Most people touched on it already but Moore makes his stuff specfically for the comic book/graphic novel medium and he never intended to be as a movie. but hey it aint like he had 100% property ownership for it. He was doing a job after all. So if he wants to ignore the movies good or bad, so be it.
Having his blessing on Watchmen is irrelevant, Dave Gibbons co-signs it ( I think) and looking at the set reports, leaked photos, script reviews I think Zack is trying to make a genuine honest and faithful attempt at the book. With that alone I appreciate that and I think even studio itself understand the clout the story has gained in pop and fantasy art culture.
Sure some people dont dig 300. But I put that on Frank Miller when regarding people's issues with the story and potrayls. As far as making something based on a graphic novel Schnyder did his thing.

So Zack will be Zack; the wide eyed young director possibly a bit naive about the politics of adaptions in movies, trying to make a decent attempt at a film even if it doesnt turn out the way he hoped or planned.

And Alan will be Alan, great writer who sadly is bitter, old and jaded about the advances of new media while he stays in his english cottage trying to figure out how is Betamax works so he can watch the tape of V the Mini Series (not to be confused with his V durr) that he copped from a garage sale at the market on Sunday.

 

[chamber-music]

I can only imagine how Moore must have felt when he heard Keanu Reeves was given the role too

That being said, forgetting everything you know about the books (when written by Moore in Swamp Thing and later by Delgado in Hellblazer) I'd agree the film itself wasn't too bad. But as an adaptation of pre-existing works? A very poor effort getting the main character completely wrong.

I remember reading Warren Ellis saying "what the F*** is up with the water thing?"

 

[Rez]

ah well thats too bad, I know I'M interested :-P

 

[TheVileOne]

meh...taking a lot of liberties with the source material, I kinda dug Constantine and V for Vendetta. Both had nice replay value.

Most people touched on it already but Moore makes his stuff specfically for the comic book/graphic novel medium and he never intended to be as a movie. but hey it aint like he had 100% property ownership for it. He was doing a job after all. So if he wants to ignore the movies good or bad, so be it.
Having his blessing on Watchmen is irrelevant, Dave Gibbons co-signs it ( I think) and looking at the set reports, leaked photos, script reviews I think Zack is trying to make a genuine honest and faithful attempt at the book. With that alone I appreciate that and I think even studio itself understand the clout the story has gained in pop and fantasy art culture.
Sure some people dont dig 300. But I put that on Frank Miller when regarding people's issues with the story and potrayls. As far as making something based on a graphic novel Schnyder did his thing.

So Zack will be Zack; the wide eyed young director possibly a bit naive about the politics of adaptions in movies, trying to make a decent attempt at a film even if it doesnt turn out the way he hoped or planned.

And Alan will be Alan, great writer who sadly is bitter, old and jaded about the advances of new media while he stays in his english cottage trying to figure out how is Betamax works so he can watch the tape of V the Mini Series (not to be confused with his V durr) that he copped from a garage sale at the market on Sunday.

I'm not sure how you have this view of Alan Moore. In interviews he doesn't come off as bitter, jaded, or isolated at all to me. And the guy loves television. I doubt he has trouble working a DVD player.

 

[Nivek]

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

In your opinion. I thought they took a bloated graphic novel about some Viva la resistance type fop and turned it into a leaner statement, and had a killer bunch of performances. If anything, they made what Moore attempted to do concept wise except made more digestible, easy to understand and at times memorable, and honestly not so boring.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Question about the V for Vendetta movie. I've both read the comic and seen the movie, and apart from a handful of details being altered and some added scenes, I came away from the movie with the impression that it was a reasonably faithful adaptation. I grant that there was a gap of maybe a year between reading the book and watching the movie so I'm probably not remembering some things from the book, but to the best of what I can recall of both they were the same story, with the same themes and message. What's the deal with the widespread disdain for the movie as an adaptation?

 

[dr.strange]

so moore doesnt see any money from his work being made into films?

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I'm not sure how you have this view of Alan Moore. In interviews he doesn't come off as bitter, jaded, or isolated at all to me. And the guy loves television. I doubt he has trouble working a DVD player.

I know he has trouble working a shaver thats for sure....

 

[R0rschach]

My two cents:

I think Moore is doing a good thing by staying out of the movies.
Remember that the stories you love, that he wrote are already perfect for us fans.
There is no need for him to be involved.
Sure I hope and pray Watchmen is a kickass flick but the movie however great it will be won't even come close to the comic.
Afterall it was presented in a medium where Moore had all the freedom to do whatever he wanted.
Can you honestly say the movies have that freedom when hollywood takes over?

 

[spectre]

i'm gonna be honest. for me nothing can top the book. the movie looks awesome and i'm so psyched for it, but it's not gonna beat the book, even if it won best picture of the year and all that, i'd still enjoy the book more.

 

[deathfromabove]

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.

the reality is: he has been right so far.

he has been ****ed over for years by filmmakers. so he should just take more of it? they have no justice to his work (vendetta had its moments) so he has every right to point out that fact.

he has doubts that his 12 issue masterpiece cant be adapted into a 2 hour movie? whats he thinking?

he lost the rights to his work. if you were an arist it would bother you as well.

 

[Riven]

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

And exactly how would a movie based on V for Vendetta be relevant today if it took its cues from the Thatcher era?

I'm not saying some of the ideas in the book (regarding politics, anarchy) didn't lose some poignancy in the translation to film, but when a story isn't bound literally to a certain timeframe, it's usually a good idea to re-examine the context it's placed in, when making an adaptation. Otherwise there's a very real danger your story will feel dated, stale, redundant. Every generation adapting a previous work of art needs to inject its own ideas and relevancy into it. The core concepts might stay the same, but how you bring those to life needs to fit your own sensibilities and the sensibilities of the age you live in.

An adaptation of Dracula for instance will be about different things in the 1920ies, the 30ies, the 60ies or the 90ies.

Watchmen is much more bound by the period it's set in than "V" is, insofar it's almost a period piece. And a lot can be said about our times by showing the past, as well. But in the case of V, I think the changes were justfied.

I agree with Alan Moore for hating adaptations like LXG or From Hell (which I think was not such a bad movie, but very underwhelming and linear) and I admire his stance on not wanting to get paid a cent for even a potentially bad adaptation, but refusing to even see a film based on his work, seems very narrow-minded and bitter.

That's almost like not going to your kid's graduation from law school cause you wanted him to grow up to be an artist.

 

[terry78]

He should be forced to be exec. producer on Watchmen Babies in V for Vacation.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Sounds like a hit. Have Lewis Black running around 1980's London chasing a little baby Rorsarch and Ozymandius while V and The Comedian outduel each other with some hilarious Home Alone traps.

 

[Robin91939]

What was the V for Vendetta fiasco?

I loved the film? What did they do wrong about it?

-R

 

[The Guard]

I loved the film? What did they do wrong about it?

They changed quite a few things in the adaption of it.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Plus it's CCCOOOOOORRRRRNNNNNNYYYYYYYYYY AS ****!

 

[Mercurius]

What was the V for Vendetta fiasco?

I loved the film? What did they do wrong about it?

-R

Simple: the same they do when adapting Moore's masterpieces.

V for Vendetta the book is seriously anarchist. There is even a speech by V in which you can get all the anarchist's touchstones.

They half-assed it. They put a hint of repent in V. They leave the anarchist strong views out.

Same thing with the League: adult views about sexuality, all the criticism on the British Empire through a drugged and deranged Alan Quartermain, the dark motivation of the characters (Invisible Man mostly), and even Nemo's hatred or despise for the West disappear.

In short: name a movie based on Moore's stories, and we can name a series of problems with it, all of them avoiding the very reason the books were written about.

It won't be different with Watchmen. See what Snyder did with much easier 300: he put family and nation speeches inside the work, as a way to make sheer violence in the pro patria scheme palatable .

 

[brobdingnag]

Simple: the same they do when adapting Moore's masterpieces.

V for Vendetta the book is seriously anarchist. There is even a speech by V in which you can get all the anarchist's touchstones.

They half-assed it. They put a hint of repent in V. They leave the anarchist strong views out.

Same thing with the League: adult views about sexuality, all the criticism on the British Empire through a drugged and deranged Alan Quartermain, the dark motivation of the characters (Invisible Man mostly), and even Nemo's hatred or despise for the West disappear.

In short: name a movie based on Moore's stories, and we can name a series of problems with it, all of them avoiding the very reason the books were written about.

It won't be different with Watchmen. See what Snyder did with much easier 300: he put family and nation speeches inside the work, as a way to make sheer violence in the pro patria scheme palatable .

One reason may be that they want to produce a film that will make money not spread asinine anarchist propaganda. The books are great and you can get the message from the books but movies are a more populist entertainment format and most people don't give a **** about your deviant beliefs. They want to see a movie that will keep them entertained without being assaulted by pseudo intellectual critiques of how they live their lives.

 

[Mercurius]

One reason may be that they want to produce a film that will make money not spread asinine anarchist propaganda. The books are great and you can get the message from the books but movies are a more populist entertainment format and most people don't give a **** about your deviant beliefs. They want to see a movie that will keep them entertained without being assaulted by pseudo intellectual critiques of how they live their lives.

Yes, you got it right, specially where I marked it in bold, above.

The rest is, as you know well by the use of the term "asinine" that fits your post so well, a very poor rant.

Good to have someone accusing himself so bluntly of being part of the mindless class of moviegoers.

I knew that someone would be of good service as an example. Congratulations!

 

[Super_Ludacris]

One reason may be that they want to produce a film that will make money not spread asinine anarchist propaganda. The books are great and you can get the message from the books but movies are a more populist entertainment format and most people don't give a **** about your deviant beliefs. They want to see a movie that will keep them entertained without being assaulted by pseudo intellectual critiques of how they live their lives.

Pretty much, you have to comprimise. I wonder if the old head is cranky when he gets his royalty check....assuming he does.

 

[Mercurius]

Pretty much, you have to comprimise. I wonder if the old head is cranky when he gets his royalty check....assuming he does.

Indeed, that's how Moore's books get misunderstood and weak when translated to movies, and thus explained his lack of interest in dumb down versions of great, innovative work.

People could just decide to adapt regular crap, then. There is a lot more of this kind of thing already available.

That's what happened to the "never compromise, not even in the face of Armaggedon".

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Indeed, that's how Moore's books get misunderstood and weak when translated to movies, and thus explained his lack of interest in dumb down versions of great, innovative work.

You can't deny that the movie versions bring a lot of people to read the book. After the movie was released in Italy they had three different reprints of "V for Vendetta", one being sold in the newsstands with the second best selling daily newspaper here. And the side effect for Moore is that he gets a lot more royalty checks for the books.

 

[Mercurius]

You can't deny that the movie versions bring a lot of people to read the book. After the movie was released in Italy they had three different reprints of "V for Vendetta", one being sold in the newsstands with the second best selling daily newspaper here. And the side effect for Moore is that he gets a lot more royalty checks for the books.

That's the obvious good part, isn't it, Antonello carissimo?

But it must be frustrating to see your own work being consistently debased by pinheads for the profit of greedy studios and lesser artisans.

For I suppose one doesn't write only for getting fat checks, now does he?