What does Alan Moore actually like??

[Little Foot]

How much of a change is that, really? I just see that as putting a little current-events slant on an otherwise universal theme; it's not something I'd personally call unfaithful or anything. I ask because a lot of people seem to make a big deal out of it, but I don't really see it.

Well, in my mind, it came off as really cowardly. It was such an indirect way to make an attack on the Bush administration, and it was kind of just there--in no way did it have an impact on the plot. Plus, universal themes become watered-down and dated when one ties them into current events. Just my take on it.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

So that's why Moore was not in the credits at the end of the movie, because of Bush?

 

[Little Foot]

So that's why Moore was not in the credits at the end of the movie, because of Bush?

No, I'm not saying that. I was just forwarding an educated opinion, as I was aware that Moore did not like that alteration from his original story.
I think he's probably just a bit of a purist.

 

[StorminNorman]

Alan Moore pulled his name from V for Vendetta because someone from WB made a statement to the effect that "Alan Moore is really excited about this project and supports this project" which was, of course, untrue.

Alan Moore's complaints with the movie had to do with the over the top, unauthentic Britishism (like the frequent saying of "bullocks" and the "eggy in a basket") and the fact that they Wachowski's turned a book about anarchism into a movie whose true message was "down with Bush". While the original was written in response to Thatcher's term in Britian, the story was meant to be broader than simple political commentary.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Alan Moore pulled his name from V for Vendetta because someone from WB made a statement to the effect that "Alan Moore is really excited about this project and supports this project" which was, of course, untrue.

Alan Moore's complaints with the movie had to do with the over the top, unauthentic Britishism (like the frequent saying of "bullocks" and the "eggy in a basket") and the fact that they Wachowski's turned a book about anarchism into a movie whose true message was "down with Bush". While the original was written in response to Thatcher's term in Britian, the story was meant to be broader than simple political commentary.

Thanks for clearing that up for me SN, I have always heard something to that extent but never knew the whole story.


Moore should have Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez direct From Hell for him, so that he can get a page by page adaption. t:

Funny story' at the comic book store I visit, there were a few guys talking about this matter, most of the guys said they liked the movie VFV more than the actual VFV book.

I never read the book, but I sure enjoyed the film.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Thanks for clearing that up for me SN, I have always heard something to that extent but never knew the whole story.


Moore should have Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez direct From Hell for him, so that he can get a page by page adaption. t:

Funny story' at the comic book store I visit, there were a few guys talking about this matter, most of the guys said they liked the movie VFV more than the actual VFV book.

I never read the book, but I sure enjoyed the film.

I remember liking the movie better than the book, myself. Can't quite put my finger on any specifics, but overall I felt that the book was a little overcooked.

 

[Leto]

I'm kind of a terrible person for saying this consdering I can't draw better than stick figures, but where as Watchmen is drawn like an old fashioned comic book, V for Vendetta is drawn like an old smudgy british magazine comic. Which it is. I'm something of an art****e and VFV, while occasionally having very powerful symbolism and little hidden subtleties, is still mostly drawn in monotone colors with hazy lines. It makes the art look undefined.

It also dragged a bit towards the end. There were a lot of subplots that over stayed their welcome. I appreciated the Watchowskis skimming the top off the lamer parts. That's not to say the Watchowskis didn't handle certain things clunkily though.

Moore was true about all the faux-british stuff. And the Watchowskis can't help but let their taste for visual flare override tack at times. I'm sure they'll have found their target audience and genre with Speed Racer.

 

[The Guard]

And the movie lacked the key aspects of the fascist governement: The Fingermen, The Ear, The Nose, etc.

No, The Fingermen were in the movie at the beginning and toward the middle, and so was The Ear. Don't remember if The Nose was, but since Finch was in it...it was definitely represented.

Well, in my mind, it came off as really cowardly. It was such an indirect way to make an attack on the Bush administration, and it was kind of just there--in no way did it have an impact on the plot. Plus, universal themes become watered-down and dated when one ties them into current events. Just my take on it.

How is that any more cowardly than writing it as a response to Thatcher's administration? The movie was made at the time it was for obvious reasons: The political climate. However, it didn't have to be seen as an attack on the Bush administration, not was it overtly such a thing. It could refer to any such government situation. The themes of corruption in government, about governments and their people, are timeless. There was no metaphor decrying the war in Iraq, and Three Waters wasn't 9-11, and wasn't played as such. It was played as a worldwide plague.

The book has an insane amount of subplot that just wouldn't fit into a two and a half hour movie. I know because I've read early drafts of the script, where these subplots were in, and they had to cut a lot of V's stuff out.

 

[Little Foot]

No, The Fingermen were in the movie at the beginning and toward the middle, and so was The Ear. Don't remember if The Nose was, but since Finch was in it...it was definitely represented.



How is that any more cowardly than writing it as a response to Thatcher's administration? The movie was made at the time it was for obvious reasons: The political climate. However, it didn't have to be seen as an attack on the Bush administration, not was it overtly such a thing. It could refer to any such government situation. The themes of corruption in government, about governments and their people, are timeless. There was no metaphor decrying the war in Iraq, and Three Waters wasn't 9-11, and wasn't played as such. It was played as a worldwide plague.

The book has an insane amount of subplot that just wouldn't fit into a two and a half hour movie. I know because I've read early drafts of the script, where these subplots were in, and they had to cut a lot of V's stuff out.

They cut out those subplots, and yet had time to have an American Civil War frequently referenced? That's not a universal theme, that's nation-bashing.

 

[rogue trooper]

He likes characters like The Spirit, Captain Marvel, Plasctic Man, and Mr. Monster.

 

[rogue trooper]

also...

Who are the other two guys with Moore in the upper picture? Anyone from the comic field in particular?

 

[The Guard]

They cut out those subplots, and yet had time to have an American Civil War frequently referenced? That's not a universal theme, that's nation-bashing.

Explained to me how a reference takes up more time than a subplot...

The references in America were clearly there to show how bad things had gotten worldwide after Three Waters, and since V FOR VENDETTA was going to make a lot of it's money in America, America became the logical choice to use for a comparison.

 

[The Battousai]

No, The Fingermen were in the movie at the beginning and toward the middle, and so was The Ear. Don't remember if The Nose was, but since Finch was in it...it was definitely represented.

Were their titles mentioned at all?

 

[StorminNorman]

How is that any more cowardly than writing it as a response to Thatcher's administration? The movie was made at the time it was for obvious reasons: The political climate. However, it didn't have to be seen as an attack on the Bush administration, not was it overtly such a thing. It could refer to any such government situation. The themes of corruption in government, about governments and their people, are timeless. There was no metaphor decrying the war in Iraq, and Three Waters wasn't 9-11, and wasn't played as such. It was played as a worldwide plague.

Three Waters WAS meant to represent 9/11. Come on, the idea of a Conservative Government leader calling for an attack on his own people so that he could use people's fears to take away their civil liberties and ignore human rights in the name of security is on every 9/11 conspiracy website out there.

The black hoods was an obvious reference to Abu Ghraib.

This movie's political message was clearly directed towards a single administration and leader - it was far more personal than Alan Moore's original work.

I am not stating a preference personally - I loved the movie as much as the book. But I understand Moore's complaints, even if they do not reflect my own.

The book has an insane amount of subplot that just wouldn't fit into a two and a half hour movie. I know because I've read early drafts of the script, where these subplots were in, and they had to cut a lot of V's stuff out.

I wish more comic movies would be willing to film it and include it in DVD's and directors cuts - similar to the allusions to certain comic stories in Daredevil: Directors Cut, or the Black Freightor in Watchmen. While I could understand simplifying a film meant for theatrical release, having more fan release DVD's is never a bad idea IMO.

 

[Katsuro]

Were their titles mentioned at all?

They were called Fingerman, but I dont remember any of the other titles, like Ear or Nose, being mentioned.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Who are the other two guys with Moore in the upper picture? Anyone from the comic field in particular?

The one on the left is Art Spiegelman, the one on the right is Dan Clowes.

 

[The Guard]

Three Waters WAS meant to represent 9/11. Come on, the idea of a Conservative Government leader calling for an attack on his own people so that he could use people's fears to take away their civil liberties and ignore human rights in the name of security is on every 9/11 conspiracy website out there.

Three Waters was meant to represent the reason things fell apart in the world of the movie, period. You're sitting here trying to tell me that they've directly represented 9/11 by using a viral outbreak...and it's just not that simple. It's not like 9/11 is the first time a conservative government has used fear to keep the populace in line. And yes, that came from 9/11, but it is not limited to it.

I'm not denying this film was made because of the tensions surrounding 9/11, but to believe that it because it contained similar themes to 9/11 that it can somehow only represent 9/11 or has to is absurd.

The black hoods was an obvious reference to Abu Ghraib.

I'm trying to think of how to respond to this. I'll start with "No, no they are not". Abu Ghraib was a situation where idiots put hoods on prisoners and tortured them for fun. Something much worse happened to people in V FOR VENDETTA.

"Black bagging" is an attempt to make more of the "facism" element. It is a nod to a concept found in fascist nations throughout history, the disappearing of undesirables. One of the most famous perhaps is called the Desaparacidos. It occurred in Argentina. A military junta kidnapped, tortured and murdered almost any one who spoke out against the government or broke certain rules. These people were "disappeared". There were thousands of them. So no, it's not a nod to Abu Ghraib. At all.

This movie's political message was clearly directed towards a single administration and leader - it was far more personal than Alan Moore's original work.

Hardly. You're kidding yourself if you think Moore's work wasn't directed right at Thatcher's administration.

I am not stating a preference personally - I loved the movie as much as the book. But I understand Moore's complaints, even if they do not reflect my own.

He's got every right to take issue with changes to his book. But this "the movie was only made to decry the Bush administration" angle is nonsense.

They were called Fingerman, but I dont remember any of the other titles, like Ear or Nose, being mentioned.

No, you're right. I'm confusing the movie itself with an earlier draft the Wachowkis did, where they included "Mr so and so will speak for the such and such".

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Honestly, any Bush administration references were just that--references. I don't think they're worth complaining about, personally.

But then again I probably haven't spent as much time thinking about VFV (book or movie) as some people, and getting deep into its themes... I'm really just not a diehard VFV fan.

 

[Superhobo]

I dug "V for Vendetta," but my answer to adapting Moore's works is the same every time, and I'd wished they'd done it with "V," or "Watchmen."

Turn it into a mini-series, for HBO or, for V, for BBC. This would allow time for all of the subplots to play out in their own, without the need for too much compromise.

Alternately, I think V should have been tonally similar to "Children of Men," and that it instead felt similar to "The Matrix," stylistically, was kind of a minus for me.

 

[Little Foot]

Three Waters was meant to represent the reason things fell apart in the world of the movie, period. You're sitting here trying to tell me that they've directly represented 9/11 by using a viral outbreak...and it's just not that simple. It's not like 9/11 is the first time a conservative government has used fear to keep the populace in line. And yes, that came from 9/11, but it is not limited to it.

The mainstream audience--and to deny that that is what this film was marketed towards is silly, or some of the changes between the two media would not have been made--would associate it with 9/11, so that would clearly be directly on the producers' and directors' minds.

I'm not denying this film was made because of the tensions surrounding 9/11, but to believe that it because it contained similar themes to 9/11 that it can somehow only represent 9/11 or has to is absurd.

No one, to my knowledge, said that it can only be 9/11, but the universal feel of the novel is lost when specific references are made. I know the graphic novel was targeting the Thatcher administration, but its examples of fascism were exactly that--examples of fascism, not simply elements of the Thatcher administration replicated into a fantasy.

I'm trying to think of how to respond to this. I'll start with "No, no they are not". Abu Ghraib was a situation where idiots put hoods on prisoners and tortured them for fun. Something much worse happened to people in V FOR VENDETTA.

"Black bagging" is an attempt to make more of the "facism" element. It is a nod to a concept found in fascist nations throughout history, the disappearing of undesirables. One of the most famous perhaps is called the Desaparacidos. It occurred in Argentina. A military junta kidnapped, tortured and murdered almost any one who spoke out against the government or broke certain rules. These people were "disappeared". There were thousands of them. So no, it's not a nod to Abu Ghraib. At all.

I must say, it's silly to deny the implications of the black hoods. Everyone who saw that would not go to wikipedia and research all elements of fascist kidnapping. The black hoods became a symbol for the Bush administration's human rights issues, and it would be hard to find anyone whose mind would not go immediately to that. The only way to counter that is to say that every one on the cast and crew was completely sterile, and did not in any way bring any personal bias to filming those scenes--they would have to have a complete lack of knowledge of the Abu Ghraib incidents. Further, any literature or arts major could tell you that art/literature is just as much influenced by the audience observing it as it is by the artist himself/herself.

Hardly. You're kidding yourself if you think Moore's work wasn't directed right at Thatcher's administration.



He's got every right to take issue with changes to his book. But this "the movie was only made to decry the Bush administration" angle is nonsense.

Moore's work was aimed at the Thatcher administration. It did not try to become a gross parody of it, but rather focused on the outgrowth of fascism. The film was far simpler than that.

I dug "V for Vendetta," but my answer to adapting Moore's works is the same every time, and I'd wished they'd done it with "V," or "Watchmen."

Turn it into a mini-series, for HBO or, for V, for BBC. This would allow time for all of the subplots to play out in their own, without the need for too much compromise.

Alternately, I think V should have been tonally similar to "Children of Men," and that it instead felt similar to "The Matrix," stylistically, was kind of a minus for me.

I second that, that's a really interesting idea.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

The major changes in V For Vendetta

Comic: V is a radical anarchist with selfish goals
Movie: V is a freedom fighter (for the middle-class rebels of today)

Comic: The leader of the regime actually thinks he does the right thing and made the country safe again
Movie: The leader is one-dimensional evil dictator and power seeker

Comic: England is a neo-nationalsocialistic state
Movie. England is a ultra conservative state the way some liberals think Bush would made the USA if he could

 

[Katsuro]

I dug "V for Vendetta," but my answer to adapting Moore's works is the same every time, and I'd wished they'd done it with "V," or "Watchmen."

Turn it into a mini-series, for HBO or, for V, for BBC. This would allow time for all of the subplots to play out in their own, without the need for too much compromise.

I disagree. I think a miniseries would kinda defeat the purpose of doing it at all. I think the main benefit of turning a book into a movie is to expose it to a wider audience, and there's no wider audience in the world than for films.

You turn it into a miniseries, a handful of people will watch it, but the general public will still be pretty unaware. But everyone watches movies.

 

[Little Foot]

I disagree. I think a miniseries would kinda defeat the purpose of doing it at all. I think the main benefit of turning a book into a movie is to expose it to a wider audience, and there's no wider audience in the world than for films.

You turn it into a miniseries, a handful of people will watch it, but the general public will still be pretty unaware. But everyone watches movies.

The problem with movies is that oftentimes they over-simplify properties, making them unappealing, and limiting the number of people who might follow them up. However, if one does not make it into a film, but a series, the series could be great, but I do have to admit that I agree with you that the audience would be limited by the very form of the medium. Quite the paradox.

 

[kainedamo]

I disagree. I think a miniseries would kinda defeat the purpose of doing it at all. I think the main benefit of turning a book into a movie is to expose it to a wider audience, and there's no wider audience in the world than for films.

You turn it into a miniseries, a handful of people will watch it, but the general public will still be pretty unaware. But everyone watches movies.

What?? Who gives a **** about getting it to as wide an audience as possible if the quality isn't as good?

What matters most is the quality. The Sopranoes, Oz, The Wire, there are a lot of adult tv shows that have done very well both with with "wide" audiences and quality wise.

Who gives a **** if x amount of people watch as long as it's good?

 

[Little Foot]

What?? Who gives a **** about getting it to as wide an audience as possible if the quality isn't as good?

What matters most is the quality. The Sopranoes, Oz, The Wire, there are a lot of adult tv shows that have done very well both with with "wide" audiences and quality wise.

Who gives a **** if x amount of people watch as long as it's good?

I need Anakin Skywalker here, so he can bring balance to the Sales Force.