Alan Moore Still Not Interested

[Mercurius]

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.

The HBO series was a good idea lurking here for some time. It could have been accomplished with success (obviously, depending on the condtions: cast, director, freedom to write down a solid script).

The same with a movie, like, 4 hours long. Not that one should include EVERYTHING, but the feel would be preserved as well as the necessary development, without leaving the audience with the sensation of a hurried edition jumbling all things together inside.

LOTR is a very good example. I saw many people who'd have sit for 1 hour and a half more without any complaint.

But, as we all know, the studios are not places for shining intelligence. They go for the cheap trick, usually. Not more (or just a lil' bit) than 2 hours long, to get the place$ packed every two hour$.

 

[Mercurius]

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?

I'm one of them. And since the early rumours with David Bowie, Glenn Close and Gov. Arnie (1989?).

But I share Moore's distaste and distrust with cinema concerning his work.

 

[.Rorschach.]

I want a Tom Strong movie!

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I'm one of them. And since the early rumours with David Bowie, Glenn Close and Gov. Arnie (1989?).

But I share Moore's distaste and distrust with cinema concerning his work.

Then why even post on this board? lol

 

[brobdingnag]

Then why even post on this board? lol

Did you know you can put people on ignore?

 

[Mercurius]

Then why even post on this board? lol

It's a discussion board, isn't it? Where we discuss ideas.

It's not a general agreement board, which would be like: "Awsome!" "Yeah!" "Cool, isn't it?" "Man, I just can't wait" "Good" "Me too".

And brob gave a good suggestion for those who can't or won't think: just hit "ignore".

 

[etrigan69]

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?

Well that's just it. I nor apparently Alan Moore is totally opposed to it. He doesn't have to give his O.K. to have it made into film, yet he did. I too will be there opening night hoping that first timers who have never read the book will get that thrill I did the first time I read it. (and the 2nd, 3rd and so on.....)

At the same time you can't knock the man for washing his hands of the medium. He found his medium and is happy with it. It's his choice. No biggie.....

 

[etrigan69]

Personally I preferred the idea that the it be filmed by HBO in conjunction with ILM as 12 1 hour episodes and include everything.

I think it would have been better served that way yet the budget would most likely had been conciderably less I imagine. By the way, what ever happened to "The Preacher" HBO series. Is it still on? Anyone?

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.

I partially agree with you. I have to say that more people woud be likely to go see it at two hours though. Grindhouse comes to mind. Individually on DVD they have done quite well but at the theater it pretty much flopped. Was it because of the length? Hard to say but I would guess it was.

LOTR kind of had a built in audience. (Funny enough I never saw any of them in theaters and when I finally did see it I had the same reaction as Jay in Clerks II did..... but that's just me!) JFK if memory serves, wasn't quite a blockbuster. Again a built in audience with JFK and Oliver Stone involved. The general public has no idea what "The Watchmen" is. Would they sit in the seats for an extended movie? I guess we will never know!

 

[Super_Ludacris]

It's a discussion board, isn't it? Where we discuss ideas.

It's not a general agreement board, which would be like: "Awsome!" "Yeah!" "Cool, isn't it?" "Man, I just can't wait" "Good" "Me too".

And brob gave a good suggestion for those who can't or won't think: just hit "ignore".

No one saying kiss its ass, you can criticise the moves on the movie, but if its dead to you from the jump, why bother?

 

[Mercurius]

No one saying kiss its ass, you can criticise the moves on the movie, but if its dead to you from the jump, why bother?

Keep in mind that what you just said are not my words.

If you care enough to look back, you'll see I said good things of Snyder AND clearly stated "let's wait and see".

That's not much like you reported it, now is it?

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Keep in mind that what you just said are not my words.

If you care enough to look back, you'll see I said good things of Snyder AND clearly stated "let's wait and see".

That's not much like you reported it, now is it?

Then shouldnt you NOT be agreeing with Moore?

 

[Mercurius]

Then shouldnt you NOT be agreeing with Moore?

I agree, for he is indeed right, until I'm proven wrong.

But notice that I said "passing fun" about the movies.

My nephews and I had a good time watching LOEG back then in DVD; I even pointed out good things in V for Vendetta: Weaving, the overall style; I find the sinergy created among Depp and Graham charming, in a mainstream and silly way, in From Hell (that devilish Ian Holm!).

But I'm sure as hell all that doesn't make an ounce of justice to what Moore has carefully written. No director has tried to match his creations in the cinema.

They're making not more than passing, forgettable fun. And, mostly, for political AND money reasons, which is rather disgusting.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

But I'm sure as hell all that doesn't make an ounce of justice to what Moore has carefully written. No director has tried to match his creations in the cinema.

You forget "The return of the Swamp Thing".

 

[Mercurius]

You forget "The return of the Swamp Thing".

Yes, I did. t: t:

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I agree, for he is indeed right, until I'm proven wrong.

But notice that I said "passing fun" about the movies.

My nephews and I had a good time watching LOEG back then in DVD; I even pointed out good things in V for Vendetta: Weaving, the overall style; I find the sinergy created among Depp and Graham charming, in a mainstream and silly way, in From Hell (that devilish Ian Holm!).

But I'm sure as hell all that doesn't make an ounce of justice to what Moore has carefully written. No director has tried to match his creations in the cinema.

They're making not more than passing, forgettable fun. And, mostly, for political AND money reasons, which is rather disgusting.

But that's what Im saying about this movie: Zack isnt making a passable fun film. There attempting a real go at it.

 

[Mercurius]

But that's what Im saying about this movie: Zack isnt making a passable fun film. There attempting a real go at it.

As I said before: "Let's wait and see".

 

[Super_Ludacris]

So you havent read the script or seen the on site photos and everything? Have you heard of any glaring omissions or inclusions that should/shouldnt be in the movie? Nah.

 

[Mercurius]

So you havent read the script or seen the on site photos and everything? Have you heard of any glaring omissions or inclusions that should/shouldnt be in the movie? Nah.

So far, things go smooth & nice, I agree with you.

I like all the cast members. I even put a good comment for Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian (thought of him as a neat match, watching Supernatural).

I liked the released photos. Liked when Gibbons wrote his text about the shooting sight.

But making the movie is far more than a few good prospects.

On the bad side, for instance, Snyder usually makes things a bit plain, when they were complex; we still don't know the running time, which is decisive; we don't know how the pieces will get together.

What we do know is that the studios are not brave in keeping with groundbreak works. They tend to chop off the difficult parts.

So: we still do not know. And, as I said, considering history, there are sufficient reasons to understand Moore's attitude.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

There seems to be too much negative assumptions in the face of positive news facts about this movie.

 

[Mercurius]

There seems to be too much negative assumptions in the face of positive news facts about this movie.

I don't see any assumptions, but it's ok if you call it "assumptions".

I pointed out what I recognise to be good omens, but was sensible enough not to just trust it blindly and retort: "Old grumpy".

If you choose to get studio word over Moore's experience, that's fine to me, really. I just observed he has enough reasons not to get interested in it.

Maybe Snyder's take wiil change things for better. That's what I hope, too.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Again, we're ignoring all the talk about being careful with this project by the studios and just assumping from past experience yeah?

 

[Mercurius]

Again, we're ignoring all the talk about being careful with this project by the studios and just assumping from past experience yeah?

No, we're comparing.

Studios must do more than talk. They always try the make-believe trick of talking things up. That's common sense. Repetitive. Obvious.

Moore has proven himself not only one of the best comicbook writers more than once, but also right about the cinema hack job in previous situations.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

But there's been more than talk you've seen what's happened so far and it looks good.

And if more should put himself in a position to have more control over his projects when they come to screen instead of just sitting by the side. Calling some studios hack for messing up your creation isnt an accomplishment within itself nor should be given any props for it.

 

[Mercurius]

But there's been more than talk you've seen what's happened so far and it looks good.

And if more should put himself in a position to have more control over his projects when they come to screen instead of just sitting by the side. Calling some studios hack for messing up your creation isnt an accomplishment within itself nor should be given any props for it.

Understand: it's not supposed to be his job this giving a hand for the transition comic book- cinema.

And that fact doesn't mean they have the right of just making crap of it.

Or maybe they have the right to do, but he's not supposed to like it. Or just keep shut cause he never said "hey, need a hand there"?

And people are not supposed to take whatever they want to show them without saying: "Could have been better", or "they are going the easy way with it".

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Understand: it's not supposed to be his job this giving a hand for the transition comic book- cinema.

And that fact doesn't mean they have the right of just making crap of it.

Or maybe they have the right to do, but he's not supposed to like it. Or just keep shut cause he never said "hey, need a hand there"?

And people are not supposed to take whatever they want to show them without saying: "Could have been better", or "they are going the easy way with it".

I just think he comes across as a pompous to assume that this is a situation thats similar to the others and then people denounce the damn flick like some others are.