Alan Moore Still Not Interested

[Motown Marvel]

It's even quite difficult to name another writer of the same medium who has reached Moore's complex writing. I myself can't, for instance.

that comic book adaptation of the bible was pretty deep.....it had that magic dude with the beard and the staff guy and god. sweet stuff.

 

[Mercurius]

Never heard of it. But then again, it's and adapt, isn't it?

Original stuff like Watchmen and a couple of other Moore material are matchless, IMO.

 

[kainedamo]

I've never thought a 12 hour WATCHMEN was necessary. Possible, but not necessary. It can easily be condensed into a slightly longer-than-average movie without losing most of the elements that people love so much. And so what if all the "side" stories are not found within? That's the point of having it to read as a comic book. It's two completely different mediums.

It's not generally possible to make a profitable movie out of being slavishly faithful a lot of comic book miniseries, simply due to their length and content. Take V FOR VENDETTA. I rather enjoyed the movie, but not because it was a perfect adaption of the graphic novel. I enjoyed what V FOR VENDETTA got right in relation to the comic, and some of the new elements it brought to the story. It was definitely not "Alan Moore's V FOR VENDETTA: THE MOVIE" on any level, but I enjoyed the experience.

Moore doesn't believe his stuff can be accurately translated to film. Not because it doesn't have cinematic elements, but because he clearly intended for them to be read as comic books. I don't neccessarily agree with him, I just don't think it can be translated exactly. I don't have an issue with Moore being upset about the translation of his books, but I agree that he's not doing himself any favors by staying out of the creative process entirely. In reality, though, even if he was involved, no studio is going to make an Alan Moore project into a completely faithful one. They like the concepts, not all the content. No studio is going to give him carte blanche, and he'd probably rather just write new comics than work on films of old ones anyway.

That said, I think this WATCHMEN project is the best shot he's ever had, and likely will ever have, at having his work adapted faithfully.

Even if he wanted to be part of the creative process, would they even let him?

Maybe they would have for V or Watchmen, but what about "LXG"? They would have dismissed everything Moore would offer to the process.

Who really wants the hassle of some pissant movie producer telling you he knows better than you do what the audience wants concerning your own material?

For example, with V, I'm sure Moore would have wanted the message to be stronger, less toned down, and he would have just flat out been told no.

 

[mego joe]

I'm starting to have some difficulty in believing you actually READ the book.

He was the first to treat superhero characters with the depth one is used to in novels (and good ones).

It's even quite difficult to name another writer of the same medium who has reached Moore's complex writing. I myself can't, for instance.

I think WATCHMEN did a number of important things:

1) Functioned on multiple leves.

2) Told a Superhero tale in a way that had never been done before

3) Developed a diverse set of character with LOTS of gray areas

4) Was presented in a complexity unlike anything before or since

5) Brought a new level of seriousness to the genre

6) Was a comentary on comic books themselves while succesfully telling a great story while not becoming satire or farce

 

[terry78]

The only thing of Moore's that could be translated with all the big budget splendor and not have anything lost in translation would be that Wild Worlds crossover he did for Image back in 96.

 

[etrigan69]

Alan Moore (sadly) does not own the rights to WATCHMEN.

And yes, he absolutely HATES the idea of a movie. Do some research, he felt the same way about his other adaptations.

No offense but I honestly don't really care enough to research it. The movie will be really good (Sin City, 300) or really bad (From Hell, LOEG), how you , I or Alan Moore feels about it will have no effect on the movie either way.

If they were extremely interested in making it just like the comic they would use it for the script like Sin City did (for the most part anyway!). I don't think Rodriguez needed Frank Miller to help out, I think it was more of a respect thing.

 

[Spider-Bat]

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, it seems like they have to screw up everything he wrote. I don't blame him, it uis his creation, but saying that, how the heck do these people keep getting his permission to do these crappy adaptions? Or is it because he doesn't completely own it, and it's up to DC/Vetigo etc.?

Funny though that he was on The Simpsons, of course to rant about how the movie adaptions ruin the original comic's story and vision.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I'm starting to have some difficulty in believing you actually READ the book.

He was the first to treat superhero characters with the depth one is used to in novels (and good ones).

It's even quite difficult to name another writer of the same medium who has reached Moore's complex writing. I myself can't, for instance.

Yes, but readers of books with the same complexity rarely complained about the adaptations a s much as we're doing.
Maybe just the Lord of the Rings fans, and they were proved wrong.

 

[Mercurius]

Yes, but readers of books with the same complexity rarely complained about the adaptations a s much as we're doing.
Maybe just the Lord of the Rings fans, and they were proved wrong.

But there were lots of hardcore LOTR fans pleased and conscious of the amazing and loving job Peter Jackson has done. I'm one of them. t:

Concerning other books: true readers are consensual about movies being generally inferior to the source material. There is more than a handful of examples. That's far from rarely, Antonello.

But sometimes, genius intervenes.

That's the case of Stanley Kubrick and 2001, François Truffaut and Fahrenheit 451. Or even Stephen Frears and his very clever adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons, by Laclos.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

But there were lots of hardcore LOTR fans pleased and conscious of the amazing and loving job Peter Jackson has done. I'm one of them. t:

Sure, after the movie. How many before were claiming that it was impossible to bring it to the screen? Or that the movies would have been terrible having axed Tom Bombadil?

Concerning other books: true readers are consensual about movies being generally inferior to the source material. There is more than a handful of examples. That's far from rarely, Antonello.

I know. But people hardly complain. They are aware that books and movies are different media and so some degree of "adaptation" is necessary.
They don't just shut the door saying it's impossible, or "it can only be done as an HBO series".

But sometimes, genius intervenes.

That's the case of Stanley Kubrick and 2001, François Truffaut and Fahrenheit 451. Or even Stephen Frears and his very clever adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons, by Laclos.

2001 the novel was written at the same time of the script, so it's not exactly an adaptation.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Think about this. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is generally considered a great film. As an adaptation of a book, however, it's almost a complete departure. Much like how Watchmen was "meant" to be a comic, Cuckoo's Nest was "meant" to be a book, and author Ken Kesey opposed the adaptation, believing simply that it couldn't be done. But nobody's really complaining that they went ahead and filmed it, now are they? The movie isn't great because it tried so hard to be a book, it took great elements from the novel and treated them very successfully in a cinematic manner.

Now, Snyder's Watchmen probably won't reach Cuckoo's Nest-level acclaim, but I'm of the opinion that Watchmen the book is more adaptable to film than Cuckoo's Nest the book ever was. I believe the purpose of an adaptation isn't to "do justice" to the source, but to stand on its own terms. Faithfulness in and of itself isn't necessarily a virtue, it's just that that if something's good to begin with, it's hard to change it without making it worse.

On a side note, even terrible adaptations can have a positive effect. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a terrible movie, but the concept intrigued me enough that, before the movie came out I bought the graphic novel and became a Moore fan. If not for LOEG the movie, I would never have picked up Watchmen or V for Vendetta. Not that this anecdote is very significant, but such things do happen.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Think about this. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is generally considered a great film. As an adaptation of a book, however, it's almost a complete departure. Much like how Watchmen was "meant" to be a comic, Cuckoo's Nest was "meant" to be a book, and author Ken Kesey opposed the adaptation, believing simply that it couldn't be done. But nobody's really complaining that they went ahead and filmed it, now are they? The movie isn't great because it tried so hard to be a book, it took great elements from the novel and treated them very successfully in a cinematic manner.

Now, Snyder's Watchmen probably won't reach Cuckoo's Nest-level acclaim, but I'm of the opinion that Watchmen the book is more adaptable to film than Cuckoo's Nest the book ever was. I believe the purpose of an adaptation isn't to "do justice" to the source, but to stand on its own terms. Faithfulness in and of itself isn't necessarily a virtue, it's just that that if something's good to begin with, it's hard to change it without making it worse.

On a side note, even terrible adaptations can have a positive effect. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a terrible movie, but the concept intrigued me enough that, before the movie came out I bought the graphic novel and became a Moore fan. If not for LOEG the movie, I would never have picked up Watchmen or V for Vendetta. Not that this anecdote is very significant, but such things do happen.

Exactly
*high fives*
If it wasn't for Constantine , i would've never gotten into graphic novels.
When it was announced that Keanu Reeves would play in Constantine , i bought like 6 or seven Hellblazer novels. Which in the following months was followed the the AKIRA volumes , Watchmen , V for Vendetta and many other graphic novels.

 

[Mercurius]

Sure, after the movie. How many before were claiming that it was impossible to bring it to the screen? Or that the movies would have been terrible having axed Tom Bombadil?


I know. But people hardly complain. They are aware that books and movies are different media and so some degree of "adaptation" is necessary.
They don't just shut the door saying it's impossible, or "it can only be done as an HBO series".


2001 the novel was written at the same time of the script, so it's not exactly an adaptation.

About LOTR: people were complaining. Although I can understand their reasons to do so, I wasn't. I was sure Peter Jackson would do a great job. Tom Bombadil was a smart cut. As well as the way he exchanged some lines among the characters.

As I said, sometimes, genius intervenes (and I hope that's the case with Snyder).

I think the problem about the rest is what follows:

I haven't said anything that would lead one to think I can't accept adaptation. It's pretty obvious that when you have two different media, adaptation is necessary and NOT a problem.

That's the first thing, I suppose.

And people do complain. Everyone who read the Iliad smashed that crap called Troy, for instance.

See: not because it is an adaptation, but because it debased the source material beyond recognition.

 

[matrix_ghost]

About LOTR: people were complaining. Although I can understand their reasons to do so, I wasn't. I was sure Peter Jackson would do a great job. Tom Bombadil was a smart cut. As well as the way he exchanged some lines among the characters.

As I said, sometimes, genius intervenes (and I hope that's the case with Snyder).

I think the problem about the rest is what follows:

I haven't said anything that would lead one to think I can't accept adaptation. It's pretty obvious that when you have two different media, adaptation is necessary and NOT a problem.

That's the first thing, I suppose.

And people do complain. Everyone who read the Iliad smashed that crap called Troy, for instance.

See: not because it is an adaptation, but because it debased the source material beyond recognition.

As well as those ( me) who haven't read it....

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Exactly
*high fives*
If it wasn't for Constantine , i would've never gotten into graphic novels.
When it was announced that Keanu Reeves would play in Constantine , i bought like 6 or seven Hellblazer novels. Which in the following months was followed the the AKIRA volumes , Watchmen , V for Vendetta and many other graphic novels.

*enthusiastic reciprocal high five*


I also agree that the movie Troy sucked. Homer must have been rolling in his or her or their grave or graves.

 

[xisaacx]

Just exactly what revolution did it start?

what revolution did it start? do you actually read comics? hahah seriously what kinda question is that..

 

[Prefix]

On a side note, even terrible adaptations can have a positive effect. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a terrible movie, but the concept intrigued me enough that, before the movie came out I bought the graphic novel and became a Moore fan. If not for LOEG the movie, I would never have picked up Watchmen or V for Vendetta. Not that this anecdote is very significant, but such things do happen.

I actually enjoyed LXG, until I read the graphic novel. Now it just makes me angry.

 

[brobdingnag]

what revolution did it start? do you actually read comics? hahah seriously what kinda question is that..

I notice that you did not (because you cannot) answer the question. My point here is that a revolution would indicate that other comics began using that style, which they did not. Watchmen started nothing, it stands alone in content, style and tone. There is nothing you can point to that carries its mantle.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I notice that you did not (because you cannot) answer the question. My point here is that a revolution would indicate that other comics began using that style, which they did not. Watchmen started nothing, it stands alone in content, style and tone. There is nothing you can point to that carries its mantle.

Do you read Ultimates? Stormwatch?

 

[mre]

Is that enough to call it a revolution?

 

[Mercurius]

I notice that you did not (because you cannot) answer the question. My point here is that a revolution would indicate that other comics began using that style, which they did not. Watchmen started nothing, it stands alone in content, style and tone. There is nothing you can point to that carries its mantle.

The big fat mistake here is to assume only direct reference would prove the revolution.

ALL the attitude towards superheroes AFTER Watchmen has changed.

The more serious tone in countless comics, their effort to bring about more than a simple story has Moore behind it as an influence.

If people around here demand something more of a superhero flick, you can credit Moore for that, also.

 

[brobdingnag]

Is that enough to call it a revolution?

The answer of course is no. Dark Knight Returns and even the Chris Claremont/John Byrne run of X men were more influential than Watchmen. Hell even Spawn, which was ridiculous trash was more influential than Watchmen. The problem here is that for fanboys, Watchmen must be all things to all people. Its personally my favorite in the Graphic Novel genre and the fact that it hasn't spawned a "revolution" is a testament to its depth.

 

[Mercurius]

The answer of course is no. Dark Knight Returns and even the Chris Claremont/John Byrne run of X men were more influential than Watchmen. Hell even Spawn, which was ridiculous trash was more influential than Watchmen. The problem here is that for fanboys, Watchmen must be all things to all people. Its personally my favorite in the Graphic Novel genre and the fact that it hasn't spawned a "revolution" is a testament to its depth.

Those stories, however great (of course Spawn is not included in the sympathetic adjective), are skin deep compared to Watchmen.

And I like very much the works of Miller, Byrne, etc.

What Watchmen did was to put the center of doubt INSIDE superhero universe, questioning it in a way that the next serious artists cannot just overlook it.

It's a turning point in the genre.

That's the difference that other fanboys can't understand.

 

[deathfromabove]

I notice that you did not (because you cannot) answer the question. My point here is that a revolution would indicate that other comics began using that style, which they did not. Watchmen started nothing, it stands alone in content, style and tone. There is nothing you can point to that carries its mantle.

you are a fool.

where you even alive when the book came out?

 

[deathfromabove]

The big fat mistake here is to assume only direct reference would prove the revolution.

ALL the attitude towards superheroes AFTER Watchmen has changed.

The more serious tone in countless comics, their effort to bring about more than a simple story has Moore behind it as an influence.

If people around here demand something more of a superhero flick, you can credit Moore for that, also.