Moore in an interview with MtV

[The Guard]

Oh, he's great. He's just not always right.

 

[NateGray]

Oh, he's great. He's just not always right.

Here let me correct this for you

I The Guard think he is great

Thats your opinion

I think he is a decent writer with egomaina making him think he is more than just that and IMO he isn't.

He thinks he is great and truely great people know they are great and do not toot there own horn on how great they are like he is doing they are actually very critical of themsleves and their work's he is neither critical of himself or his works and just tries to spin it like he is just great.

That is my opinion of him and has been for quite a while.

 

[dungman]

Just an observation that people will not agree with me probably. Alan moore has stated that he gave up the rights to V and Watchmen so easily because he didnt think much of them. He showed a certain lack of respect in his own writing, in other words didnt think it was that great. Since they were huge successes and has easily become widely recognized as one of the best in the business, he seemes to have taken this hard stance on things. Hes overconfident and possibly go as far as to say full of himself. Thats what I see.

You know, I don't think I've ever seen him say that he didn't think much of V or Watchmen. Any sources you could post?

As far as I've understood it, the whole deal went like this: Moore's Swamp Thing was a success so DC asked him to write something with the recently purchased Charlton characters (Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, The Question, etc.). The story evolved something DC didn't really want to use the characters for, so the editor suggested that Alan changed the characters to be original ones. That way, he'd get the rights for himself. They made a deal where DC would keep the rights and make money off the story until the collected edition went out of print, which basically meant about 18 months since no book had been in print for longer than that at the time. DC then asked if Moore'd like to publish the rest of V For Vendetta through them with a similar deal in place. Moore thought he could trust them so he talked Lloyd into 'lending' the rights as well.

Then Watchmen came out, changed the industry and the rest is history. I've also heard DC at points kept the print runs as low as possible to make sure there would not be a long time between printings.

I think DC did a really ****ty thing, though they didn't outright trick Moore. He has every right to feel the way he does. He's also trying to get his name off the books, which I support.

He's a bitter old hack

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

adj.

1. By, characteristic of, or designating routine or commercial writing: hack prose.
2. Hackneyed; banal.

Alan Moore still writes better than the Wachowskis (or 99% of the writers in the movie business) ever will.

I also disagree with him about his assessment of V the movie. His attack on the "bush era politics" could just as easily be leveled against him at the time V first came out. After all his predicitions and fears were clearly far off base. It made PERFECT sense for V the movie to SUBTLELY make the story more relevant to today's political environment, especially given the fact that waht is happening now has much more GLOBAL implications than Thatcher's England.

First off, it was his story. He wasn't twisting someone else's to suit his own politics. Secondly, you might want to read the interview again:

It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

His point is a good one. If you adapted 1984, would you set it in 2024?

But as I said before, if he felt that strongly about his material, then he could've easily pulled a Frank Miller and signed on as a co-director to provide his vision to the movie.

'Easily' is heavily overstating it. I'm not sure if you remember, but Robert Rodriguez resigned from the Directors' Guild for Sin City.

 

[Darthphere]

The fatc of the matter DC is a business. You really expect them to stop printing one of its most succesful books to date just to appease Alan Moore. Alan Moore is naive if he thinks DC will ever stop printing Watchmen and V. DC didnt trick him, Alan moore just was to naive to understand the business side of things.

 

[dungman]

Here let me correct this for you

I The Guard think he is great

Thats your opinion

It's also the opinion of most comics readers, creators and critics. Any objective (i.e. non-fansite) poll of the best comics writers will most likely end up with Moore winning by quite a margin. His use of the medium to its full extent is unparallelled. Watchmen is the best example of this, hence it being called the Citizen Kane of comics. If Citizen Kane was adapted as a book, it would just be a somewhat better than ordinary biographical story. Watchmen would be no better as a movie (though I'm sure some would claim so, I've seen some people say the movie version of V For Vendetta is better than the book).

I think he is a decent writer with egomaina making him think he is more than just that and IMO he isn't.

He thinks he is great and truely great people know they are great and do not toot there own horn on how great they are like he is doing they are actually very critical of themsleves and their work's he is neither critical of himself or his works and just tries to spin it like he is just great.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone call Moore an egomaniac. Where exactly does he praise his work or himself?

That is my opinion of him and has been for quite a while.

Which works of his have you read?

 

[kainedamo]

I find it so bizarre that people choose to turn on Moore when he says he's unhappy with V For Vendetta. He gets accused of being an egomaniac, being full of himself, his opinions are disregarded as bitter.

He's just being honest. He's telling the truth. The man has principles, and he stands by his principles, and they cannot be BOUGHT! That is a very, very rare thing in the business of hollywood. His opinions are not only valid, but he backs them up VERY well, as shown by this and other interviews.

The problem isn't with Moore. The problem is with YOU. You really expect him to just lay down and let himself get screwed when he can do something about it? Why should he lie and say he loves a movie that he doesn't? Why should he co-direct or co-write (would they even LET him??) a movie when it goes AGAINST HIS PRINCIPLES!!

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

Why is this stuff so hard for you guys to understand? Stop being so childish and calling the man bitter, arrogant, and an egomaniac just because he doesn't like a movie you like.

 

[Darthphere]

I find it so bizarre that people choose to turn on Moore when he says he's unhappy with V For Vendetta. He gets accused of being an egomaniac, being full of himself, his opinions are disregarded as bitter.

He's just being honest. He's telling the truth. The man has principles, and he stands by his principles, and they cannot be BOUGHT! That is a very, very rare thing in the business of hollywood. His opinions are not only valid, but he backs them up VERY well, as shown by this and other interviews.

The problem isn't with Moore. The problem is with YOU. You really expect him to just lay down and let himself get screwed when he can do something about it? Why should he lie and say he loves a movie that he doesn't? Why should he co-direct or co-write (would they even LET him??) a movie when it goes AGAINST HIS PRINCIPLES!!

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

Why is this stuff so hard for you guys to understand? Stop being so childish and calling the man bitter, arrogant, and an egomaniac just because he doesn't like a movie you like.

Nobody is telling him not do anything about it. But he hasnt. He doesnt like it sue DC, like Siegel and Schuster did to get the rights to SUperman and what Steve Gerber did with Howard the Duck. Except hes not. He just bad mouths DC for making a great business move. Moore was the one that included the clause in the contract that he would get the rights back when they stopped printing the comic. If he was a smart business guy he wouldve set a date. The fact is Moore gave DC the rights to his work. He doenst have to like it, but he has to live with the fact that theres no one to blame but himself. Very bluntly put, the monet Alan Moore signed over the rights to DC for his books, DC had the right to do whatever and anything they wanted with them. I agree with him 100% and think he brings up great points and backs everything he says up very well. The fact is he hasnt done anything about it except for doing a couple of interviews every now and then.


I respect Alan Moore as a writer, hes the best comic book writer ever IMO. I have a great amount of admiration for his work and his principles. You say were mad at him because he doesnt like a movie he doesnt based on his work. Truth is, he hasnt seen the movie. He read the script but we all know the script never stays the same and is constantly changing. He has every right to ***** and complain about how they messed up his book, but at leats he could have somehting to back that statement up with.

 

[The Guard]

Here let me correct this for you

I The Guard think he is great

Thats your opinion

Yes, I should think that would be obvious. However it is hardly only my opinion. It is the opinion of, I'd say, most who have ever read most of his classic work, and much of his mainstream work.

Although, before you choose to correct me, let's take a look at the meaning of the word "great", shall we, as it relates to this discussion...

of major significance or importance.

I'd say Alan Moore ranks as that in the field of comics and literature in general. Entire classes at some universities are devoted to his work.

remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect

He also possessess these qualities by most people's standards, or at least his writing does.

bang-up: very good

I don't think the quality of his writing can really be argued. He is a fantastic writer, certainly "very good".

a person who has achieved distinction and honor in some field

He is this as well, garnering numerous awards and accolades for his work.

I think he is a decent writer with egomaina making him think he is more than just that and IMO he isn't.

Show me where he indicates this. Yes, he's probably an egomaniac, and many things suggest this, but he's never, to my knowledge, acted like he's more than he is, which is a writer who loves the medium of comic books. As far as him being a decent writer, we'll agree to disagree there. Alan Moore's stuff hangs with anythng I've ever read, and that includes "the classics".

He thinks he is great and truely great people know they are great and do not toot there own horn on how great they are like he is doing they are actually very critical of themsleves and their work's he is neither critical of himself or his works and just tries to spin it like he is just great.

Again, show me where Alan Moore indicates that he believes he is great.

It's also the opinion of most comics readers, creators and critics. Any objective (i.e. non-fansite) poll of the best comics writers will most likely end up with Moore winning by quite a margin. His use of the medium to its full extent is unparallelled.

Exactly.

I find it so bizarre that people choose to turn on Moore when he says he's unhappy with V For Vendetta. He gets accused of being an egomaniac, being full of himself, his opinions are disregarded as bitter.

I don't think anyone has turned on the man. People are still going to love his work. This isn't some recent development about condeming Moore for not wanting to allow adaptions: this is how many comic book fans have felt for years. Some of Moore's ideas about his comics and their inability to be translated are frankly, kind of absurd. If he doesn't want them translated, he should say so and be done with it. But he doesn't. He acts like it's not possible. And that's just not true. What is not possible is to translate them to film perfectly, but they CAN be translated to film.

He's just being honest. He's telling the truth. The man has principles, and he stands by his principles, and they cannot be BOUGHT! That is a very, very rare thing in the business of hollywood.

He can't be bought? Please. Go look at some of the work he has done, and tell me the man was never for hire, and is still not for hire sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore

His opinions are not only valid, but he backs them up VERY well, as shown by this and other interviews.

Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right.

The problem isn't with Moore. The problem is with YOU. You really expect him to just lay down and let himself get screwed when he can do something about it?

He can't do something about it, though. He gave up the rights to his comics voluntarily when he allowed a company to produce them for him and to supply him with materials, etc. Because he agreed to that years ago, and because they are fantastic works of literature and art, they are fair game to be made into movies. Rather than try to make them into better movies than they would be without his involvement, he apparently chooses to be bitter about it.

Why should he lie and say he loves a movie that he doesn't? Why should he co-direct or co-write (would they even LET him??) a movie when it goes AGAINST HIS PRINCIPLES!!

No one's asking him to do that. But *****ing about a situation you helped bring about and aren't helping to improve isn't going to change things. What would change things if if Alan Moore chose to be involved in the creative process of the films based on his works (as Frank Miller was with SIN CITY and BATMAN: YEAR ONE).

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

You know, if V FOR VENDETTA featured none of the aspects of the novel, you might have a point. As such, this makes no sense. What appears onscreen is very much the story for V FOR VENDETTA, adapted.

Welcome to the real world, where even in the adaptions of the classics, things change. Always have, and always will. Alan Moore doesn't seem to live there, and maybe that's why his writing is so good.

Why is this stuff so hard for you guys to understand? Stop being so childish and calling the man bitter, arrogant, and an egomaniac just because he doesn't like a movie you like.

Here's the thing. He pretty much IS bitter, arrogant and an egomaniac by the account of anyone who's ever met the man or worked with him. It comes through in his writing, in his interviews, in interviews with others about him, etc. It doesn't make him a bad person, and it's true of many artists, but it's true nonetheless.

 

[Darthphere]

Yes, I should think that would be obvious. However it is hardly only my opinion. It is the opinion of, I'd say, most who have ever read most of his classic work, and much of his mainstream work.

Although, before you choose to correct me, let's take a look at the meaning of the word "great", shall we, as it relates to this discussion...

of major significance or importance.

I'd say Alan Moore ranks as that in the field of comics and literature in general. Entire classes at some universities are devoted to his work.

remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect

He also possessess these qualities by most people's standards, or at least his writing does.

bang-up: very good

I don't think the quality of his writing can really be argued. He is a fantastic writer, certainly "very good".

a person who has achieved distinction and honor in some field

He is this as well, garnering numerous awards and accolades for his work.



Show me where he indicates this. Yes, he's probably an egomaniac, and many things suggest this, but he's never, to my knowledge, acted like he's more than he is, which is a writer who loves the medium of comic books. As far as him being a decent writer, we'll agree to disagree there. Alan Moore's stuff hangs with anythng I've ever read, and that includes "the classics".



Again, show me where Alan Moore indicates that he believes he is great.



Exactly.



I don't think anyone has turned on the man. People are still going to love his work. This isn't some recent development about condeming Moore for not wanting to allow adaptions: this is how many comic book fans have felt for years. Some of Moore's ideas about his comics and their inability to be translated are frankly, kind of absurd. If he doesn't want them translated, he should say so and be done with it. But he doesn't. He acts like it's not possible. And that's just not true. What is not possible is to translate them to film perfectly, but they CAN be translated to film.



He can't be bought? Please. Go look at some of the work he has done, and tell me the man was never for hire, and is still not for hire sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore



Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right.



He can't do something about it, though. He gave up the rights to his comics voluntarily when he allowed a company to produce them for him and to supply him with materials, etc. Because he agreed to that years ago, and because they are fantastic works of literature and art, they are fair game to be made into movies. Rather than try to make them into better movies than they would be without his involvement, he apparently chooses to be bitter about it.



No one's asking him to do that. But *****ing about a situation you helped bring about and aren't helping to improve isn't going to change things. What would change things if if Alan Moore chose to be involved in the creative process of the films based on his works (as Frank Miller was with SIN CITY and BATMAN: YEAR ONE).

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

You know, if V FOR VENDETTA featured none of the aspects of the novel, you might have a point. As such, this makes no sense. What appears onscreen is very much the story for V FOR VENDETTA, adapted.

Welcome to the real world, where even in the adaptions of the classics, things change. Always have, and always will. Alan Moore doesn't seem to live there, and maybe that's why his writing is so good.



Here's the thing. He pretty much IS bitter, arrogant and an egomaniac by the account of anyone who's ever met the man or worked with him. It comes through in his writing, in his interviews, in interviews with others about him, etc. It doesn't make him a bad person, and it's true of many artists, but it's true nonetheless.

Good post. I agree. The Moore v Hollywood v Fans thing has been going on for a while. it isnt something new. But we all agree he is still a great writer and most of understand his position.

 

[kainedamo]

"Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right."

But it IS his opinion. The way people act sometimes, you would think Moore owes something to the people. It's his opinion, so why try to make him out to be an ass hole for standing by his opinion and principles? Not saying you're doing that, Guard, but others certainly are.

 

[Darthphere]

"Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right."

But it IS his opinion. The way people act sometimes, you would think Moore owes something to the people. It's his opinion, so why try to make him out to be an ass hole for standing by his opinion and principles? Not saying you're doing that, Guard, but others certainly are.

I dont think anybody is doing that.

 

[HoratioRome]

Yes, I should think that would be obvious. However it is hardly only my opinion. It is the opinion of, I'd say, most who have ever read most of his classic work, and much of his mainstream work.

Although, before you choose to correct me, let's take a look at the meaning of the word "great", shall we, as it relates to this discussion...

of major significance or importance.

I'd say Alan Moore ranks as that in the field of comics and literature in general. Entire classes at some universities are devoted to his work.

remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect

He also possessess these qualities by most people's standards, or at least his writing does.

bang-up: very good

I don't think the quality of his writing can really be argued. He is a fantastic writer, certainly "very good".

a person who has achieved distinction and honor in some field

He is this as well, garnering numerous awards and accolades for his work.



Show me where he indicates this. Yes, he's probably an egomaniac, and many things suggest this, but he's never, to my knowledge, acted like he's more than he is, which is a writer who loves the medium of comic books. As far as him being a decent writer, we'll agree to disagree there. Alan Moore's stuff hangs with anythng I've ever read, and that includes "the classics".



Again, show me where Alan Moore indicates that he believes he is great.



Exactly.



I don't think anyone has turned on the man. People are still going to love his work. This isn't some recent development about condeming Moore for not wanting to allow adaptions: this is how many comic book fans have felt for years. Some of Moore's ideas about his comics and their inability to be translated are frankly, kind of absurd. If he doesn't want them translated, he should say so and be done with it. But he doesn't. He acts like it's not possible. And that's just not true. What is not possible is to translate them to film perfectly, but they CAN be translated to film.



He can't be bought? Please. Go look at some of the work he has done, and tell me the man was never for hire, and is still not for hire sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore



Backing up your opinion well does not make it 100 percent right.



He can't do something about it, though. He gave up the rights to his comics voluntarily when he allowed a company to produce them for him and to supply him with materials, etc. Because he agreed to that years ago, and because they are fantastic works of literature and art, they are fair game to be made into movies. Rather than try to make them into better movies than they would be without his involvement, he apparently chooses to be bitter about it.



No one's asking him to do that. But *****ing about a situation you helped bring about and aren't helping to improve isn't going to change things. What would change things if if Alan Moore chose to be involved in the creative process of the films based on his works (as Frank Miller was with SIN CITY and BATMAN: YEAR ONE).

Someone made a fantastic point. If you were going to adapt 1984, would you change it and call it 2024?? Of course not. You stick with the material. If you're going to make vital changes, then just change the whole damn thing and make something ORIGINAL.

You know, if V FOR VENDETTA featured none of the aspects of the novel, you might have a point. As such, this makes no sense. What appears onscreen is very much the story for V FOR VENDETTA, adapted.

Welcome to the real world, where even in the adaptions of the classics, things change. Always have, and always will. Alan Moore doesn't seem to live there, and maybe that's why his writing is so good.



Here's the thing. He pretty much IS bitter, arrogant and an egomaniac by the account of anyone who's ever met the man or worked with him. It comes through in his writing, in his interviews, in interviews with others about him, etc. It doesn't make him a bad person, and it's true of many artists, but it's true nonetheless.

the point I think some people may be missing in the fans vs Moore debate is that his position goes beyond the adaptation of V for vendetta.
He is what he claims he hates. That makes him a hypocrite. A great writer, but a hypocrite nonetheless.
for years (and to this day) the masses have dismissed comic books as banal, childish, unsophisticated, silly, immature, and plain old ridiculous simply due to the nature of the genre. Namely illustrated stories.

Moore clearly resents that and objects to those who don't take the time to look beyond the surface of a thing to really appreciate it's actual value or beauty. He admonishes those who do that.

that's fine I agree with him on that point as a long time comic reader.

but,...
he then turns around and COMPLETELY dismisses another seemingly unsophisticated genre WITHOUT BOTHERING TO EVEN LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY. He does EXACTLY what he resents by TOTALLY dismissing CGI, special effects, and current movies.

Though it is true that CGI is often poor and obvious, it is also true that some of the CGI work that has been done is nothing short of spectacular works of art created by VERY dedicated and VERY talented people. dismissing THEIR work is JUST AS WRONG.

He also attacks the brothers for not having the courage to address the Bush administration head on , but from what I remember V for Vendetta didn't have any DIRECT mentions of the Thatcher government either. they are both cautionary tales with implications and references.

it's those kinds of things which some of us disagree with. I think this shows that we are not mindless sheeps who blindly accept what we are told. That we retains and cherish our ability to seek out the truth even when it contradicts and goes against those we admire and love. We do not blindly accpet Moore's opinion simply because he is Alan Moore. We evaluate the information/opinion and decide whether to agree or disagree with it regardless of who brings it to us.

I think that should make Moore (and V for that matter) proud of his audience.

 

['V']

the screenplay delivered the message better than his book did

 

[Xofenroht]

the point I think some people may be missing in the fans vs Moore debate is that his position goes beyond the adaptation of V for vendetta.
He is what he claims he hates. That makes him a hypocrite. A great writer, but a hypocrite nonetheless.
for years (and to this day) the masses have dismissed comic books as banal, childish, unsophisticated, silly, immature, and plain old ridiculous simply due to the nature of the genre. Namely illustrated stories.

Moore clearly resents that and objects to those who don't take the time to look beyond the surface of a thing to really appreciate it's actual value or beauty. He admonishes those who do that.

that's fine I agree with him on that point as a long time comic reader.

but,...
he then turns around and COMPLETELY dismisses another seemingly unsophisticated genre WITHOUT BOTHERING TO EVEN LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY. He does EXACTLY what he resents by TOTALLY dismissing CGI, special effects, and current movies.

Though it is true that CGI is often poor and obvious, it is also true that some of the CGI work that has been done is nothing short of spectacular works of art created by VERY dedicated and VERY talented people. dismissing THEIR work is JUST AS WRONG.

He also attacks the brothers for not having the courage to address the Bush administration head on , but from what I remember V for Vendetta didn't have any DIRECT mentions of the Thatcher government either. they are both cautionary tales with implications and references.

it's those kinds of things which some of us disagree with. I think this shows that we are not mindless sheeps who blindly accept what we are told. That we retains and cherish our ability to seek out the truth even when it contradicts and goes against those we admire and love. We do not blindly accpet Moore's opinion simply because he is Alan Moore. We evaluate the information/opinion and decide whether to agree or disagree with it regardless of who brings it to us.

I think that should make Moore (and V for that matter) proud of his audience.

First things first, film is not a genre, film is a medium, just like comics are. The points he made about films wasn't attacking ALL films. What he was doing was making a statement about how he feels films have lost their substance as of late. Part of his feelings developed due to how quickly creative teams on films resort to CGI, even for some of the smallest things and then adding to that graphics get dwelled upon and sometimes are put over the story. Just look at how The Matrix changed fight scenes and seemed to depend on them in the last 2 films.
Moore's "V for Vendetta" was much more direct as a satire of the English government in the 1980's than "V for Vendetta" the film was a direct satire of the state of America in the now. He raised a great point about this. Why make a statement about this government and set the story in a totally different country? With totally different people? With totally different revolutionaries? Why NOT attack this government head on and instead pf around the issues.
Other writers in the field have pointed out that Moore has been screwed over alot in his dealings with DC and Marvel. His resentment towards them goes beyond movies. The fans who side with him, well there are those who are biased and then there are those who simply agree with him because they know they'd feel the same way. DC isn't even doing anything to settle the hard feelings. Throw money at him? This is about principles. That's why he apparently isn't accepting the money. I applaud him for that, for not selling out.

 

[The Guard]

But it IS his opinion. The way people act sometimes, you would think Moore owes something to the people. It's his opinion, so why try to make him out to be an ass hole for standing by his opinion and principles? Not saying you're doing that, Guard, but others certainly are.

I don't know that anyone's said he's an ******* for standing by his opinion and principles. He just strikes me as incredibly close-minded about things because of a few bad experiences. Which is interesting, considering how open-minded his writings tend to be.

He also attacks the brothers for not having the courage to address the Bush administration head on , but from what I remember V for Vendetta didn't have any DIRECT mentions of the Thatcher government either. they are both cautionary tales with implications and references.

Agreed. And this was my favorite part of Moore's statements. It's just funny.

First things first, film is not a genre, film is a medium, just like comics are. The points he made about films wasn't attacking ALL films. What he was doing was making a statement about how he feels films have lost their substance as of late.

What he's doing is using the same tired (and in many ways flawed) rhetoric writers have been babbling on about for decades to defend their critique of film as a medium. Newsflash to them and others: There was never a Golden Age of Hollywood where people in the business didn't sell out, or films weren't watered down, or made on budget with careful eye toward what the public could handle or digest, and there was never a time when all, or even most, films, had what can be considered "substance". Never. And frankly, the comic book industry has been much the same over the years.

Part of his feelings developed due to how quickly creative teams on films resort to CGI, even for some of the smallest things and then adding to that graphics get dwelled upon and sometimes are put over the story.

As if some of Alan Moore's own stories aren't written to be visually stimulating? There are certainly moments in THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN when Moore wrote something so a kickass visual can be put on the page.

Just look at how The Matrix changed fight scenes and seemed to depend on them in the last 2 films.

THE MATRIX simply used a process that American audiences were not used to. But if you choose to ignore that the Matrix franchise (in particular, THE MATRIX) did in fact have a story behind it, had running themes, characterization, etc, and some damn good acting along the way, I don't know what to say. THE MATRIX is hailed as one of the best examples of the hero quest in mythology. Think it's because of the bullet time? I seriously doubt it.

Moore's "V for Vendetta" was much more direct as a satire of the English government in the 1980's than "V for Vendetta" the film was a direct satire of the state of America in the now.

How so? Was Thatcher imprisoning and murdering minorities? You know, one could easily say "Alan, if you wanted to write a 1984-style story so badly, why didn't you just make an adaption of 1984?"

He raised a great point about this. Why make a statement about this government and set the story in a totally different country? With totally different people? With totally different revolutionaries? Why NOT attack this government head on and instead pf around the issues.

Because, and I know this is hard to believe, the film wasn't made simply to attack or raise questions about the American government. It was made because the Wachowskis are huge fans of V FOR VENDETTA and saw a chance to say something about governments in GENERAL, which is why there are elements of a NUMBER of goverments found in the film. That is why the ENTIRE MOVIE does not revolve the "theme" of "bad governments" but rather around the actual story between V and Evey. That is why every two lines from V is not about "blood for oil" or something similar.

Other writers in the field have pointed out that Moore has been screwed over alot in his dealings with DC and Marvel.

So have a lot of other writers. The big guys tend to screw the little guys. Alan Moore chose to work in the field he did, and to hand over the rights to his creations in exchange for something. He's helped screw himself on several occassions, it seems.

His resentment towards them goes beyond movies.

You're right, and over the years, he has apparently had some absolutely absurd beefs along with his real ones.

DC isn't even doing anything to settle the hard feelings.

From what I understand, DC has tried as their leadership changed over the years.

Throw money at him? This is about principles. That's why he apparently isn't accepting the money. I applaud him for that, for not selling out.

There are "principles". And then there's "holding a grudge". How, exactly, is refusing to put your name on a franchise you created when you signed a contract with a company to use their resources to do so supposed to be "principles"? It seems to me like he just doesn't want to tarnish the image of his work, given his statements about why he doesn't support films based on his works. Oh, he starts out with "the mediums are totally different, they're made to be read this way", but soon goes to "I hope people can seperate the films from the books". Hmm...

 

[NateGray]

I don't know that anyone's said he's an ******* for standing by his opinion and principles. He just strikes me as incredibly close-minded about things because of a few bad experiences. Which is interesting, considering how open-minded his writings tend to be.



Agreed. And this was my favorite part of Moore's statements. It's just funny.



What he's doing is using the same tired (and in many ways flawed) rhetoric writers have been babbling on about for decades to defend their critique of film as a medium. Newsflash to them and others: There was never a Golden Age of Hollywood where people in the business didn't sell out, or films weren't watered down, or made on budget with careful eye toward what the public could handle or digest, and there was never a time when all, or even most, films, had what can be considered "substance". Never. And frankly, the comic book industry has been much the same over the years.



As if some of Alan Moore's own stories aren't written to be visually stimulating? There are certainly moments in THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN when Moore wrote something so a kickass visual can be put on the page.



THE MATRIX simply used a process that American audiences were not used to. But if you choose to ignore that the Matrix franchise (in particular, THE MATRIX) did in fact have a story behind it, had running themes, characterization, etc, and some damn good acting along the way, I don't know what to say. THE MATRIX is hailed as one of the best examples of the hero quest in mythology. Think it's because of the bullet time? I seriously doubt it.



How so? Was Thatcher imprisoning and murdering minorities? You know, one could easily say "Alan, if you wanted to write a 1984-style story so badly, why didn't you just make an adaption of 1984?"



Because, and I know this is hard to believe, the film wasn't made simply to attack or raise questions about the American government. It was made because the Wachowskis are huge fans of V FOR VENDETTA and saw a chance to say something about governments in GENERAL, which is why there are elements of a NUMBER of goverments found in the film. That is why the ENTIRE MOVIE does not revolve the "theme" of "bad governments" but rather around the actual story between V and Evey. That is why every two lines from V is not about "blood for oil" or something similar.



So have a lot of other writers. The big guys tend to screw the little guys. Alan Moore chose to work in the field he did, and to hand over the rights to his creations in exchange for something. He's helped screw himself on several occassions, it seems.



You're right, and over the years, he has apparently had some absolutely absurd beefs along with his real ones.



From what I understand, DC has tried as their leadership changed over the years.



There are "principles". And then there's "holding a grudge". How, exactly, is refusing to put your name on a franchise you created when you signed a contract with a company to use their resources to do so supposed to be "principles"? It seems to me like he just doesn't want to tarnish the image of his work, given his statements about why he doesn't support films based on his works. Oh, he starts out with "the mediums are totally different, they're made to be read this way", but soon goes to "I hope people can seperate the films from the books". Hmm...

I agree with most of this and what you said in your other post it pretty much says what I was trying to say.
I never mentioned V in my post when saying I do not like him that much so the other poster who said I just jumped on him because he didn't like V is BS.
Yes I have read almost everything he has done and yes I think its pretty good borderline great but something in his writing just bothers me so I do not think its great personaly.
Yes I know people who loved him until they met him and his arrogant egomanic attitude turned them off to him completely now they will not bother with anything he does they just hate him for how pissy he was when they met him.
Those are real life friends of mine who have similar views so I take there side on how they feel especially considering I was not his biggest fan to begin with.

 

[Darthphere]

DC isn't even doing anything to settle the hard feelings. Throw money at him? This is about principles. That's why he apparently isn't accepting the money. I applaud him for that, for not selling out.

Wrong. Dc has in the past tried to make things better for Alan Moore. The only way they can make him happy is to give him the rights to his book back, and honestly if you were in DC shoes and were making money off them, its just ludicrous to even think for a second you would. Not selling out? So I guess Stan Lee is a sell out then. He isnt accpeting money because his attitude equals that of a 10 year old. "I want ice cream" You cant have any" "Waaaah" "Ok heres soem ice cream" "I didnt want chocolate" There is a huge list of writers and artists that have been shafted by comic book companies and you know actually did something about it.

Again, I respect and love Alan Moore's work and understand why he takes this stand but its not the proper way to go about it.

 

[Mr. Socko]

DC aren't idiots. They're doing whats best for the business. There's no chance Alan Moore will ever get back Vendetta, Watchmen, or any of his other greats. He's mad about that and I don't blame him, I'd be very angry too. And his cheap shots on CGI were really stupid. Him saying all CG looks bad is dumb statement. Some CG just looks completely amazing and very real. And it's needed when trying to translate a comic book movie to the big screen. Sounds like he's just bitter at Hollywood by saying something that moronic. It is sad though, I would have loved seeing him take part in helping out with the movies. Just because some of his work has turned out bad on screen doesn't mean it will always be that way, as he is thinking. And then there is him saying how he'll never watch V for Vendetta, more resentment. Really does sound like if he saw it he'd be afraid that he would somewhat like it.

Btw, does anyone else think the trainmaker from the Matrix Revolutions represents Alan Moore alot.

 

[The Guard]

Wrong. Dc has in the past tried to make things better for Alan Moore. The only way they can make him happy is to give him the rights to his book back, and honestly if you were in DC shoes and were making money off them, its just ludicrous to even think for a second you would.

Especially if you're DC, and you're paying to have them printed up, etc, so that they could be sold as graphic novels. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the rights to a movie a one-shot deal? You sell the rights for however much, and that's it? (As I recall, people *****ed about Marvel selling their rights for a song way back when and then having no creative control). Or does DC actually get a percentage of V FOR VENDETTA's earnings?

Not selling out? So I guess Stan Lee is a sell out then.

See this is a touchy subject, but in a lot of ways, hell yes he's a sellout. STRIPPERELLA, anyone?

He isnt accpeting money because his attitude equals that of a 10 year old. "I want ice cream" You cant have any" "Waaaah" "Ok heres soem ice cream" "I didnt want chocolate" There is a huge list of writers and artists that have been shafted by comic book companies and you know actually did something about it.

I'm not even sure what the main beef anymore.

DC aren't idiots. They're doing whats best for the business. There's no chance Alan Moore will ever get back Vendetta, Watchmen, or any of his other greats. He's mad about that and I don't blame him, I'd be very angry too.

Exactly who signed the contract with DC Comics in the first place? Was he, like, under contract with DC so they owned all his stuff? Anyone know details?

And his cheap shots on CGI were really stupid. Him saying all CG looks bad is dumb statement. Some CG just looks completely amazing and very real. And it's needed when trying to translate a comic book movie to the big screen. Sounds like he's just bitter at Hollywood by saying something that moronic. It is sad though, I would have loved seeing him take part in helping out with the movies. Just because some of his work has turned out bad on screen doesn't mean it will always be that way, as he is thinking.

I'm of the opinion that part of the reason his adaptions have turned out fairly badly on the big screen is because he chooses to distance himself from them, and to offer little to no input on the projects themselves. I'd be hard-pressed to find a fantastic book or comic book adaption that didn't have someone who contributed to it's success on a basic level in on the creative process. Maybe some of the "classics".

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Do they still sell Watchmen these days? I'm stocking up on some books and I haven't seen any as of late. Are they still around or out of print?

 

[Darthphere]

They are still around in the truckloads. Its still in the top 5 for best seeling Graphic novels every month.

 

[Darthphere]

Exactly who signed the contract with DC Comics in the first place? Was he, like, under contract with DC so they owned all his stuff? Anyone know details?

V for Vendetta was first published in Britain in Warrior Magazine, but the magazine went under and DC bought the rights for V from Warrior Magazine. Which would only mean that Alan Moore had already sold the rights to Warrior Magazine. This is a bit shaky though since theres another version of the story that says Alan Moore still had the rights and shopped around until DC agreed to publish it. Alan Moore has done a lot of DC work, but im pretty sure he was freelancing at the time. Watchmen is a whole different story. DC approached Alan Moore to do a story with its newly acquired Charlton comics characters. When DC saw that Alan Moore was going in a very dark and different direction they asked him to change the characters names around. Thats how Watchmen was born.

 

[Assassin]

i sick of the media its getting, theres something coming on today on ABC dateline maybe? around 7 or so, Portman will be on it, and they're calling it an anti bush film...

wtf?

you could compare the film to being any anti corrupt goverment

 

[Darthphere]

i sick of the media its getting, theres something coming on today on ABC dateline maybe? around 7 or so, Portman will be on it, and they're calling it an anti bush film...

wtf?

you could compare the film to being any anti corrupt goverment

In a sense it is, but thats the beauty of it, it applies to so many situations. They ddint go out of their way to create an anti-Bush movie it just sort of happened that way. And Alan moore saying they changed his story to make an anti-bush film is fueling the media fire, when in fact its just sour grapes from him.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Alan Moore and David Lloyd had all the rights to "V for Vendetta" but they gave them to DC under what was the best contract of the time, which granted them a percentage of all the earnings from the books and movie rights and merchandise. That contract also said that the rights would have reverted to the authors after DC had stopped to print "V for Vendetta" for like five years.
But the volume is in perpetual reprint...