Moore Unsupportive of Synder's Watchmen

The difference is that there are dozens of Batman, X-men, and Superman stories that can be told, or can be told better. Watchmen is perfect exactly where it is. And to read it and think afterwards "Man, that was pretty good, but it's too bad that it's not a movie instead. I hope somebody adapts it so that I can be told the same story again."

Of course watchmen is perfect as it, and I can reread it over and over again. However I find it very exciting to see it done in another form. Sure, I would have been satisfied if it was never made into a movie..but I can only reread so many times...and a movie gets you to talk about it differently...analyze this and that...it will be fun. So yeah, cant wait.
 
Plus I'd like to add that I've never read Watchmen, but because of this movie I really want to. Same thing happened to me with Sin City. Saw the film, was amazed, sought out and read the graphic novels.
 
Plus I'd like to add that I've never read Watchmen, but because of this movie I really want to. Same thing happened to me with Sin City. Saw the film, was amazed, sought out and read the graphic novels.

You should read the graphic novel first...
 
I agree it is a tad odd for Moore to do, but I cannot say anything bad about him--otherwise he'll swallow my soul with his chaos magik. :csad:
 
Further proof that Moore is so fool of himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 23--Our world is hurtling into the abyss, propelled by wars, genocide, terrorism, environmental disaster, and the global financial meltdown . . .

. . . but never fear, the superhero is here!

Not since Captain America and Superman were socking it to the Nazis (Pow! Splat! Thooom!) in the '40s has American culture been so inundated with tales of caped men and masked women with superhuman powers.

The comics explosion has even reached academe: The University of Pennsylvania has mounted a massive year-long celebration of comics, including exhibits of comic art at the Institute of Contemporary Arts.

But most of all, superheroes are a boon for Hollywood: No other genre so consistently produces megahits, including the new Batman series, Spider-Man 1-3, and The Incredible Hulk.

Director Jon Favreau's adaptation of Iron Man, by comic legend Stan Lee, is no exception. The film, recently released on DVD, stars Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, a smarter-than-God weapons manufacturer who does his hero thing in a super-duper, electronic-age metal aqualung.

The movie grossed $318 million theatrically, making it the 21st highest grossing American film of all time.

It's not so hard to account for our yearning for superheroes, says British comics guru Alan Moore, the iconoclastic author of Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and From Hell.

"There's a side of American culture that's very uncomfortable with confrontation unless it has . . . superior power" over its enemy, "say, help from a man who rocketed here from Krypton," says Moore, who is the subject of director DeZ Vylenz's magisterial documentary, The Mindscape of Alan Moore.

Iron Man screenwriters Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby agree. "The fight used to be so clear in World War II. . . . There were good guys and bad guys," says Fergus. "Look around now, and we don't know who is what."

What divides Moore from Lee, who has helped adapt a number of his comics for film, including the Spider-Man series, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Hulk, is that Lee embraces this nostalgia while Moore rejects it as a distraction from real problems.

Moore, who spoke on the phone from his native Northampton, northwest of London, says the industry is too quick to market palaver as serious art.

"I think a big misconception of the 1980s was that comics were growing up. . . . Instead, it was the culture [which] was being infantilized," he said.

Moore has repudiated every film adapted from his work, including From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Constantine, and V for Vendetta. He is wary of 300 director Zack Snyder's adaptation of his most-celebrated piece, Watchmen, due in March. (Vylenz said Moore has refused to accept payment for Watchmen.)

Lee, by contrast, says he loves to see his work on the silver screen. "There will always be high-concept [superhero] films. People love that sort of thing," said Lee, who turns 86 in December.

Iron Man is set in Afghanistan, where the U.S. military's mission is compromised by international terrorists. Even though the film touches on hot-button issues such as the military-industrial complex and the war on terror, the filmmakers avoid politicking. It's a hallmark of the blockbuster, which must not upset a single person in the world, lest it lose money.

"John [Favreau] told us he didn't want a movie that would make a statement," says Ostby. " 'Everyone knows war is bad,' " he said.

For Moore, this is what's wrong with the entertainment industry.

"My feeling is that my audience probably needs waking up or reconnecting to a more authentic appreciation of the world," said Moore.

"We have experience fed to us now by the media in pretty much the same manner a mother bird will feed regurgitated worms to the babies. The babies just have to open their beaks and do nothing," Moore said.

He maintains that like traditional myths, most comics reaffirm the status quo. If that's the case, then Moore's comics subvert the accepted world-view and challenge us to think differently.

Moore's method uses the conventions of the superhero story to deconstruct the genre. His heroes are revolutionaries who have no superhuman abilities -- and sometimes no virtues.

V, the hero of V, is a "Romantic anarchist adventurer" who fights the Orwellian government ruling over a fictional England in the name of individual freedom. Published between 1982 and 1988, V was prescient: The government controls the public by installing surveillance cameras on every street in the nation. And indeed, a massive system of such cameras has been installed in British cities since 1997.

"I thought the idea . . . was a chilling vision of fascism. Now I'm actually living in that world," said Moore.

Watchmen is a mind-blowing, layered story set in an America on the brink of nuclear war. It follows six superheroes as they investigate the death of one of their own. Moore says the comic is an investigation of the use and misuse of power, a theme evident from its title, which Moore took from the Roman satirist Juvenal: "But who watches the watchmen?"

The comic asks that we watch the watchmen we've allowed to rule us, whether they be government, police, or the educational system.

Moore said he still marvels at the prevalence of superheroes in American comics.

"It strikes me that it might be largely an expression of a culture of impunity . . . of being untouchable," theorizes Moore, who said the superhero helps us to avoid facing the effects of Sept. 11.

"Instead of repairing a battered self-image," Americans have become fixated "on the idea of superhuman invincibility . . . and I think it might be this concept that is leading to so many problems around the world."

http://www.verizon.net/newsroom/por...ewsroom_portal_page__article&_article=1364044
 
Yeah, if you weren't trying to use that to make him look like a jerk, I'd thank you for showing me that article. I think that article shows how brilliant he is.
 
Dave Gibbons really doesn't seem to think they were "tricked" as much as they were unable to forsee how successful WATCHMEN would be. And, let's not go into thinking that Gibbons and Moore were naive and unaware of what they were getting into. They weren't Siegel and Shuster, Bill Finger, or Jack Kirby. And they were well aware of those cases and signed a contract that was above industry standards. Most contracts didn't even have a rights reversion clause.


I will say that I don't think Alan Moore really spends much time thinking about the movie or the business. He airs his greivances when someone interviews him and asks him about it, but seems perfectly content otherwise. He probably thinks more about having sex with Melinda Gebbie than he does about DC Comics and movie adaptations.

i actually agree with you especialllly the bolded.

remember stephen king prefers the made for tv shining adaption to kubrick's version.
 
remember stephen king prefers the made for tv shining adaption to kubrick's version.

In that particular case, I think King is utterly nuts.

Kubricks' is a total masterpiece, an icon & what not.

The tv show is like a high school play in comparison. :woot:
 
In that particular case, I think King is utterly nuts.

Kubricks' is a total masterpiece, an icon & what not.

The tv show is like a high school play in comparison. :woot:

If I remember correctly, I think King's main beef with Kubrick's version is the casting of Nicoloson (which made people know he was going to go crazy before they even got into the theater) and downgrading Jack's alcoholism in the movie.
 
I like how people are all gung ho about Moore's opinions about his baby being transferred to the screen, yet if Bob Kane and Bill Finger were alive and griped about Nolan's take, you'd be all, "those old comatose fogeys don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, Nolan is brilliant!"
 
I like how people are all gung ho about Moore's opinions about his baby being transferred to the screen, yet if Bob Kane and Bill Finger were alive and griped about Nolan's take, you'd be all, "those old comatose fogeys don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, Nolan is brilliant!"

I think the big difference is that Batman's been pretty much handled by dozens upon dozens of writers with their own interepetations over the past 70 years, while only Moore has written these characters.
 
I think the big difference is that Batman's been pretty much handled by dozens upon dozens of writers with their own interepetations over the past 70 years, while only Moore has written these characters.

Thank you for your dilligent service of information. :cwink:

I don't know if I would have the nerve of repeating it again.

I mean, how can one not notice the flagrant difference between the two things? Blimey!
 
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, I think King's main beef with Kubrick's version is the casting of Nicoloson (which made people know he was going to go crazy before they even got into the theater) and downgrading Jack's alcoholism in the movie.

Yeah, that was it.

But I always thought King should have considered Kubrick's genius in making it one of the most disturbing movies ever, in spite of Nicholson giving up at the first take that the character is a nutjob.

I can't imagine it without Nicholson. It is one of his iconic roles, and the man was really frightening. :wow:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"