Alan Moore Still Not Interested

[Darknightnomis]

After seeing the other movie adaptations of his work, I don't blame him.

 

[mego joe]

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?

No adaptation will ever be perfect. No adaptation will be 100% faithful. As for the themes in V, I thought they carried over well enough.

Are we going to say that updating and making a story relevant is bad filmmaking? Are we going to say that since Iron Man was originally set in Vietman, moving it to the middle east is wrong?

I don't think V lost a lot in the translation. I was pleased with V, I know my wife certainly got the themes, though never having read the book. I don't think there's any doubt that V was an anarchist in the film. To tweak it slightly doesn't change the overall message, and to make it relevant to today's audience is essential in translating that message.

For a British audience in the '80's they would get the Margaret Thatcher allegory, but a contemporary audience targeted primarily in the U.S.- no.

Moore has evey right to be uninvolved at annoyed at any changes. I understand his perspective. These are his stories and he doesn't want them screwed up. For him they can only be told as comics and there is something inherently lost when they are converted into movies.

Now I would agree across the board that comics loose something when translated to film, but not all comics loose as much.

 

[Mercurius]

Are we going to say that updating and making a story relevant is bad filmmaking?

I, for one, won't.

But the problem is precisely the "making relevant" part.

Because I observe that the adaptations have this surgical quality of removing the ambiguous part, the part in which Moore gives us a design showing that there is no clear cut in life, and where he instigates people to think differently from what they are trained to.

That's different with Iron Man. His short origin story was made as a piece of war propaganda (exactly the kind of thing Moore criticises in Watchmen).

 

[mego joe]

I, for one, won't.

But the problem is precisely the "making relevant" part.

Because I observe that the adaptations have this surgical quality of removing the ambiguous part, the part in which Moore gives us a design showing that there is no clear cut in life, and where he instigates people to think differently from what they are trained to.

I certainly think that came through clearly in the film.

That's different with Iron Man. His short origin story was made as a piece of war propaganda (exactly the kind of thing Moore criticises in Watchmen).

It was made relevant for the same reason, so that the audience would understand the themes in the film and they would make sense in todays world.

 

[Mercurius]

I certainly think that came through clearly in the film.



It was made relevant for the same reason, so that the audience would understand the themes in the film and they would make sense in todays world.

V fo Vendetta wasn't a complete mistake. Hugo Weaving was a spot on choice, and the visual was respected. Nice action. And that’s it.

BUT it was a clearly softened version in the difficult parts: nudity in the scene where Evey is reborn is a must, 'cause nobody is born with clothes or rags. It has a distinct importance to the symbolism.

They brought Evey to more evidence not because, as declared, they wanted to have a stronger woman (in the comic book it is important that she is fragile in a great part of it), but because they needed to tone down V.

V never shows a hint of repent, because he knows, in the context of the work, that he is necessary destruction (he is the fire, as Evey will be the water, the understanding).

But in the movie he does, for they do not want people to sympathise with a remorseless anarchist.

The same thing goes to the dictator. Comic book version of it: a common man, with no distinctive feature, is intended to show something. For the movie, they got a Hitler screaming caricature, which is a weak and dumb old Big Brother cliché.

And so on. And that's bad, because there is no reason in the transition to movie media, but political reasons to keep it toned down.

 

[Darknightnomis]

V fo Vendetta wasn't a complete mistake. Hugo Weaving was a spot on choice, and the visual was respected. Nice action. And that’s it.

BUT it was a clearly softened version in the difficult parts: nudity in the scene where Evey is reborn is a must, 'cause nobody is born with clothes or rags. It has a distinct importance to the symbolism.

They brought Evey to more evidence not because, as declared, they wanted to have a stronger woman (in the comic book it is important that she is fragile in a great part of it), but because they needed to tone down V.

V never shows a hint of repent, because he knows, in the context of the work, that he is necessary destruction (he is the fire, as Evey will be the water, the understanding).

But in the movie he does, for they do not want people to sympathise with a remorseless anarchist.

The same thing goes to the dictator. Comic book version of it: a common man, with no distinctive feature, is intended to show something. For the movie, they got a Hitler screaming caricature, which is a weak and dumb old Big Brother cliché.

And so on. And that's bad, because there is no reason in the transition to movie media, but political reasons to keep it toned down.

Mercurius, man your comments are right on the mark.

While I did enjoy the movie it was a water down from the graphic novel for easier consumption for the movie viewing public.

"V" in the graphic novel was an anarchist, pure and simple, not a "freedom fihgter".

 

[Super_Ludacris]

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".

The thing is, I understand that he creates his work in a way that is delved soley for the graphic novel/comic book world (hence why a book where the theme of anarchasim may work better than on a mainstream flick). I also understand that the movies have taken liberties with his work. But there has been a genuine concious effort to make sure Watchmen is done right. I even thing Schnyder tried to reach out to him as a consultant. If someone is at least trying to do your work right give him the co-sign. If you dont wanna, fine and just sit back and watch the royalties come in from WB. If you feel strongly make a case. But dont pop out every now and then and be all grumpy old man about it. Damn at least hes trying....

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for the compliment, Darknightnomis.

And SL, Moore isn't grumpy. In fact, if you watch his interviews, he is fairly good-humoured.

About Watchmen: we'll have to wait and see, but I find it difficult that Hollywood would make what is needed to translate it.

I liked Snyder's style in Dawn of the Dead, but Romero's original is far better and more complex; again, Snyder's style is the best of 300, but there you have him again making it less complex.

It has nothing to do with Snyder "trying" something. It is with him understanding it, or the studio accepting its views, which is quite different.

I'm afraid we'll get a passing fun with nice style showing us Watchmen's figures, but a forgettable cinema wise episode, with the bright side of it bringing the book about again, as Antonello said above.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Do you honestly feel that way seeing EVERYTHING we have from the movie so far? I mean it looks good, damn give the dude a chance. Heavy expectations from a book adaptation aside, I think this will be a decent film.

 

[Matt]

I don't understand why people hold Moore on some holy grail. He doesn't see any adaptations of his work. And thats fine, maybe he just doesn't want to. A lot of actors will not read their source material as they feel it will influence them TOO much and limit them in the character. Thats fine too. Moore not seeing it is not a testament as to whether it is good or bad. It is just Moore being his normal.......jaded, self.

 

[brobdingnag]

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!

Well we already had an example of a narcissistic social misfit who trashes the average Joe because he didn't get picked for dodgeball. You can only tell yourself how much better you are than everyone else for so long. Eventually the Simpson's comic book guy routine gets old even for a loner like you.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't understand why people hold Moore on some holy grail. He doesn't see any adaptations of his work. And thats fine, maybe he just doesn't want to. A lot of actors will not read their source material as they feel it will influence them TOO much and limit them in the character. Thats fine too. Moore not seeing it is not a testament as to whether it is good or bad. It is just Moore being his normal.......jaded, self.

No holy grail here. But I think it is fact that the guy changed things fo-EVAH in comic book history.

And, comparing the adaptations with the source material, with a minimum amount of good will, it becomes rather evident why he isn't interested.

I pointed out some good reasons above.

Of course it doesn't doom Snyder's take. Maybe he's got everything needed for the huge task. Let's wait and see.

 

[Mercurius]

narcissistic social misfit who trashes the average Joe because he didn't get picked for dodgeball

Precious!!!!t: t: t:

 

[xisaacx]

people take their work seriously, maybe moore just doesnt want to see his hardwork and amazing stories end up like ****. If you have never made a comic or written something, its kinda hard to understand what goes through his head.. its HIS WORK OF ART...and the fact that it can potentially be changed, well that would make anyone a little hesitant

 

[etrigan69]

I don't understand why people hold Moore on some holy grail. He doesn't see any adaptations of his work. And thats fine, maybe he just doesn't want to. A lot of actors will not read their source material as they feel it will influence them TOO much and limit them in the character. Thats fine too. Moore not seeing it is not a testament as to whether it is good or bad. It is just Moore being his normal.......jaded, self.

You have to admit all the Moore based movie thus far have been at best a pale comparison (V for Vendetta) and at worst unrecognizable pieces of **** (From Hell). He's just not a fan of Hollywood.

For the most part he still has to consent to let them make the movies even though he doesn't take any money from them. (I bet guys are knife fighting to get to draw Moore's books!) He sticks to his beliefs. Whether that makes him a cranky old hermit or a stout champion of the graphic form is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Man if he hates his movies so much he should lobby to get some input in them. Or you know if someone actually reaches out to him, dont turn the other cheek.













































bitter ass old head.....

 

[Mercurius]

Man if he hates his movies so much he should lobby to get some input in them. Or you know if someone actually reaches out to him, dont turn the other cheek.
bitter ass old head.....

You're missng the point here.

The point is: there's NOTHING Moore could do that would bring what his books are about to the silverscreen.

Producers want safe and easy money, and that means pleasing the audience, who expects "no alarms, no surprises", and just passing fun.

No input possible to make it different from what it is. Due to studio politics AND huge amounts of money they want back with giant profit.

 

[etrigan69]

You're missng the point here.

The point is: there's NOTHING Moore could do that would bring what his books are about to the silverscreen.

Producers want safe and easy money, and that means pleasing the audience, who expects "no alarms, no surprises", and just passing fun.

No input possible to make it different from what it is. Due to studio politics AND huge amounts of money they want back with giant profit.

or someone who would champion his cause like Robert Rodriguez did for Frank Miller. I still don't think he would be interested though. So much of his stuff has just been f'ed up by Hollywood. He has no reason to give them the benefit of a doubt.........

 

[etrigan69]

Man if he hates his movies so much he should lobby to get some input in them.

If he hates them why would he get involved? That makes no sense...

 

[Super_Ludacris]

or someone who would champion his cause like Robert Rodriguez did for Frank Miller. I still don't think he would be interested though. So much of his stuff has just been f'ed up by Hollywood. He has no reason to give them the benefit of a doubt.........

But damn if Zach is reaching out to him, he deserves a listen. Hence why I say he's a bitter old head about it. I understand Synder isnt some accomplished director but at least he's trying with this. The other examples, I can understand but in this case if there at least trying and being sincere about being faithful.
But if he's so convinced that this is going to be like the other movies,what does he know that we dont?

 

[Super_Ludacris]

If he hates them why would he get involved? That makes no sense...

So he hates movies in general before this movie even comes out? I mean most people seem to be cool with the script when it leaked. One of the key points from last summer when people read the script was for the most part it stayed faithful. But if he still hates after all that, then hey he's bitter. Doesnt make him less than the man he is, but it is what it is.

 

[etrigan69]

So he hates movies in general before this movie even comes out? I mean most people seem to be cool with the script when it leaked. One of the key points from last summer when people read the script was for the most part it stayed faithful. But if he still hates after all that, then hey he's bitter. Doesnt make him less than the man he is, but it is what it is.

I don't want to see it altered at all and I didn't write it. How do you think he feels about it? He doesn't want it compromised. The medium ultimately will make it compromised because it will have to be around two hours. Why? because that seems to be all the current theater goer can handle apparently.

I remember when I was a kid you got to see two movies or some of the older movies (Gone With the Wind, Ten Commandments, Ben Hur) were three hours plus with an intermission in the middle. Infortunately the patrons today wont stand (or sit) for it. Then there is the theater that would rather keep movies at around an hour and a half to have more showings per day.

The point is film as a medium is compromised before a script is written. A novel or comic can be as long as the writer wishes it to be to the point of making it one long book or a series of books. Anything else is a compromise.

 

[brobdingnag]

So he hates movies in general before this movie even comes out? I mean most people seem to be cool with the script when it leaked. One of the key points from last summer when people read the script was for the most part it stayed faithful. But if he still hates after all that, then hey he's bitter. Doesnt make him less than the man he is, but it is what it is.

You're wasting your time with the Moore fanboys. It's not enough to have the book (which I personally think is the best graphic novel ever written and have read many, many times), for a movie to be made and for you or any non-geek to enjoy it takes away from the one thing the fanboys have to make themselves feel special. That's why they can't just say "oh well I just wont go." they have to trash the move and by extension, anyone who enjoys it. As far as Moore is concerned, complaining about someone exercising their rights to material he created, after he agreed to those conditions in order to publish the material is ridiculous. He's free to remain uninvolved but his bitterness is so thick you can cut it with a knive. And if Alan feels it, his zombies must as well.

 

[brobdingnag]

I don't want to see it altered at all and I didn't write it. How do you think he feels about it? He doesn't want it compromised. The medium ultimately will make it compromised because it will have to be around two hours. Why? because that seems to be all the current theater goer can handle apparently.

I remember when I was a kid you got to see two movies or some of the older movies (Gone With the Wind, Ten Commandments, Ben Hur) were three hours plus with an intermission in the middle. Infortunately the patrons today wont stand (or sit) for it. Then there is the theater that would rather keep movies at around an hour and a half to have more showings per day.

The point is film as a medium is compromised before a script is written. A novel or comic can be as long as the writer wishes it to be to the point of making it one long book or a series of books. Anything else is a compromise.

Personally I preferred the idea that the it be filmed by HBO in conjunction with ILM as 12 1 hour episodes and include everything. But to say that people wont sit for a movie over 2 hours is garbage. Every one of the LOTR movies was well over two hours and it did quite well financially. Hell JFK was over 4 hours as was the Doors movie and there are plenty of other examples. Just because something is changed doesn't mean that it isn't itself something good that can be enjoyed.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I don't want to see it altered at all and I didn't write it. How do you think he feels about it? He doesn't want it compromised. The medium ultimately will make it compromised because it will have to be around two hours. Why? because that seems to be all the current theater goer can handle apparently.

I remember when I was a kid you got to see two movies or some of the older movies (Gone With the Wind, Ten Commandments, Ben Hur) were three hours plus with an intermission in the middle. Infortunately the patrons today wont stand (or sit) for it. Then there is the theater that would rather keep movies at around an hour and a half to have more showings per day.

The point is film as a medium is compromised before a script is written. A novel or comic can be as long as the writer wishes it to be to the point of making it one long book or a series of books. Anything else is a compromise.

But there's also been fans (lots of them) that have been hoping for a movie for years knowing that Moore writes specifically for the comics only. So what's it gonna be?