whats Alan Moore saying about this movie?

[Figs]

V for Vendetta was a horrible adaptation and at times, horribly cheesy (V's alliteration speech? Come ON...). It prostituted the anarchist ideals of the graphic novel in exchange for 'interesting' twists and action and drastically changed most of the supporting characters. Not to mention changing the entire ending. It went from a timeless drama to an above-average thriller. I can see why Alan was PO'd.

People like Alan Moore and yourself need to realize for the medium of film things sometimes have to be changed. People go to movies for entertainment, because that's what they are. I like deep movies as well as plain old fun ones but I never expect movies to be super smart with hidden agendas or insight. If I want that I pick up a book usually. That being said, if the movie ended like the book it would be extremely anti clamactic. For a novel it works perfectly but for a movie the majority of the audience im sure would walk out thinking wow thats how it ended?? In the book he blows up the parliment practically before the halfway point. I can see why they put it at the end for the movie version. Remember a movie based on something is not that something. It's a take on it. You want V for Vendetta from Alan Moore, simply read his novel.

 

[Captain Carnage]

...and, bringing it all back OT - you want Watchmen from Alan Moore (and Dave Gibbons), simply read their novel.


'Cos Snyder will be givin' us Watchmen in name only.

 

[Slipping_Halo]

People like Alan Moore and yourself need to realize for the medium of film things sometimes have to be changed. People go to movies for entertainment, because that's what they are. I like deep movies as well as plain old fun ones but I never expect movies to be super smart with hidden agendas or insight. If I want that I pick up a book usually. That being said, if the movie ended like the book it would be extremely anti clamactic. For a novel it works perfectly but for a movie the majority of the audience im sure would walk out thinking wow thats how it ended?? In the book he blows up the parliment practically before the halfway point. I can see why they put it at the end for the movie version. Remember a movie based on something is not that something. It's a take on it. You want V for Vendetta from Alan Moore, simply read his novel.

I totally disagree. I think that it's this way of thinking that keeps movies from being true art. Yes, some movies, like Transformers or Pirates, are just for entertainment purposes and can't be expected to have any kind of real lasting depth, but there are movies like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now that are pieces of artwork. Movies like Memento and Waking Life that push the medium and try to go outside the boundaries of what movies can and should do. There is room for that as well. Just because the general public would be pissed off (you think) by an ending that doesn't include huge explosions doesn't mean that you should change it to include them.

I think it's about marketing. I doubt that a bunch of goofy teenagers had any interest in Memento unless they were fans of film. A comic book movie has the advantage actually of appealing to that group and also being able to portray itself in a smart manner so that it isn't just flash and bells and whistles. I think if V for Vendetta or any comic movie really were done with the level of respect and adherence to the source material, they'd be better movies because they would push the boundaries and give people more than just what they're expecting. People are too rigid with their 3-act screenplay structure and having things work the way their film school professors said a screenplay should. Let it go. Those rules were meant to be broken and anyway when you're adapting something, you have a responsibility to the source material-just do the friggin thing. It couldn't be easier, it's all basically storyboarded for you already-FILM IT!

Movies CAN be about depth, being super smart and have insight, if you let them.

 

[Saint]

People like Alan Moore and yourself need to realize for the medium of film things sometimes have to be changed.

Actually, they don't. Alan Moore doesn't want his work adapted for exactly that reason.

A lot of you guys are really slamming the man without even understanding his position. His work was made for comics, and he wants it to stay in comics. He is of the mind that the only way of presenting the work the way it was intended is in comics.

This is not Batman. Unlike most comic properties, this is not a situation where the filmmakers can pick and choose bits and pieces from a range of material and mash it together. This is a single story, and every little piece matters. This is true of most finite graphic novels, but is especially true of work from Alan Moore. When you start snipping out bits, changing characters, or changing endings, it's not the same story anymore.

That is why he doesn't want his name on this stuff. By the time it makes it to screen, all those necessary changes will mean it's no longer the story he wrote. It's not longer his work, it's somebody else's idea of his work. I don't understand the flak your people are giving him. Does it inconvenience you that his name will not appear in the credits? Are you horribly offended that he is not accepting money for this? Someone in here said Moore needs to "pull his head out of his ass." Really? Are you sure it's Moore who needs to do that?

We're still getting a Watchmen, so be happy. Stop running around bleating "MORE IS TEH JERKXORZ!" and get over it. He is perfectly justified in his position, and you should be infinitely grateful that we're getting a Watchmen film despite that.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Alan Moore is clever and sweet, the Matrix guys arent as good as him. Thats the very simplified version why the GN is a masterpiece and the movie is good, but a bastardization of his work.

 

[Superhobo]

People like Alan Moore and yourself need to realize for the medium of film things sometimes have to be changed.

Well, see. Here's the thing: no, they don't. Not in this particular case. We didn't need the 'V' masks to get the point. We didn't need the costumes. If anything, this defeats the purpose of individuality (thus Anarchism and freedom in itself, but I digress) that V fought for. By dressing them all up in the same thing it gives a conformist view of things, and the revolution that happens just seemed odd to me. I mean, think about it: they've just revolted against a fascist government that structured their society into largely a conformist one, where individuality is punishable. So, what do they do? They all dress in the same goddamn clothes. I know its supposed to be symbolic, and I know what they were reaching for, and trying to express. But, in doing what they did, they messed it up entirely.
All that was needed to appease the audience was Evey saying what she said to Gordon at the end. Not only was the ending hilariously dumbed down for the audience (and they would have gotten it. People AREN'T dumb, and I think that's a major problem that comes when you adapt something, is that you perceive your audience as stupid, or 'they're not going to get it.'), but it in effect screwed up the whole point of the revolt.

But, I'm probably thinking about this more deeply than the screenwriters did.

 

[StorminNorman]

Alan Moore is clever and sweet, the Matrix guys arent as good as him. Thats the very simplified version why the GN is a masterpiece and the movie is good, but a bastardization of his work.

Sweet?

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Well, see. Here's the thing: no, they don't. Not in this particular case. We didn't need the 'V' masks to get the point. We didn't need the costumes. If anything, this defeats the purpose of individuality (thus Anarchism and freedom in itself, but I digress) that V fought for. By dressing them all up in the same thing it gives a conformist view of things, and the revolution that happens just seemed odd to me. I mean, think about it: they've just revolted against a fascist government that structured their society into largely a conformist one, where individuality is punishable. So, what do they do? They all dress in the same goddamn clothes. I know its supposed to be symbolic, and I know what they were reaching for, and trying to express. But, in doing what they did, they messed it up entirely.
All that was needed to appease the audience was Evey saying what she said to Gordon at the end. Not only was the ending hilariously dumbed down for the audience (and they would have gotten it. People AREN'T dumb, and I think that's a major problem that comes when you adapt something, is that you perceive your audience as stupid, or 'they're not going to get it.'), but it in effect screwed up the whole point of the revolt.

But, I'm probably thinking about this more deeply than the screenwriters did.

What you're saying is absolutely true... but the sad thing is... V was probably more financially successful than it would have been if they had stayed true to the comic.

 

[Superhobo]

It's a sad truth, I know.

Argh.

 

[StorminNorman]

Honestly for entertainment value - I prefer the movie.

I respect the comic more, but I enjoy myself more while watching the movie

 

[logansoldcigar]

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

The V of the comic simply would NEVER have come out with that statement... because he truly is an anarchist in the purest political sense of the word.

but you know what? it absolutely works in the context, and was a wonderful piece of marketing for the film.

I were in Australia in the leadup to V's release. In a car driving through melbourne with some friends, and they spotted that, with the v symbol, on a poster, and thought it were from a political group. I had to explain it to them as to what it was.They were quite disappoited when they found out.

When you think about it, that line pretty much sums up what the essence of freedom is about. and anarchy is the truest form of freedom that we can have, a world with out rules and restrictions. the exact opposite of the totalitarian system reflected in V.

One of the first things that you notice in the GN is a CCTV camera, labelled "for your protection".
Try walking down a main street in the UK today and not get caught on a camera. Its impossible. apparently, we have the highest concentration of security cameras per capita in the developed world. most of which have sprung up in the last 10 years, "for our protection".

whether or not its a line that the V of the comic would have used is debatable. I suspect if Alan Moore had thought of the line, he absolutely would have used. but we will never know. whats true is, mopre than anything involved in the movie, it (for me) sums up the essence of V (the GN)

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

but you know what? it absolutely works in the context, and was a wonderful piece of marketing for the film.

I were in Australia in the leadup to V's release. In a car driving through melbourne with some friends, and they spotted that, with the v symbol, on a poster, and thought it were from a political group. I had to explain it to them as to what it was.They were quite disappoited when they found out.

When you think about it, that line pretty much sums up what the essence of freedom is about. and anarchy is the truest form of freedom that we can have, a world with out rules and restrictions. the exact opposite of the totalitarian system reflected in V.

One of the first things that you notice in the GN is a CCTV camera, labelled "for your protection".
Try walking down a main street in the UK today and not get caught on a camera. Its impossible. apparently, we have the highest concentration of security cameras per capita in the developed world. most of which have sprung up in the last 10 years, "for our protection".

whether or not its a line that the V of the comic would have used is debatable. I suspect if Alan Moore had thought of the line, he absolutely would have used. but we will never know. whats true is, mopre than anything involved in the movie, it (for me) sums up the essence of V (the GN)

Anarchy is the truest form of freedom we can have if and only if the people respect each other rights... a perfect government is one that maximizes a person's freedom; in the sense of freedom from having their rights violated. A government's <I>only</I> job should be to protect people from having their rights violated. Otherwise, they are overstepping their boundaries.

For a people at the level that the highest levels of civilization are at right now, anarchy would represent a level of decreased freedom, because people would live in fear of constant destruction, murder, and rape.

As societies evolve, less and less government is required to fulfill it's duty of protecting the rights of it's people, so eventually, the goal is that people will reach peaceful anarchy naturally.

 

[logansoldcigar]

Anarchy is the truest form of freedom we can have if and only if the people respect each other rights... a perfect government is one that maximizes a person's freedom; in the sense of freedom from having their rights violated. A government's <I>only</I> job should be to protect people from having their rights violated. Otherwise, they are overstepping their boundaries.

For a people at the level that the highest levels of civilization are at right now, anarchy would represent a level of decreased freedom, because people would live in fear of constant destruction, murder, and rape.

As societies evolve, less and less government is required to fulfill it's duty of protecting the rights of it's people, so eventually, the goal is that people will reach peaceful anarchy naturally.

completely agree.

but, lets be honest, it aint gonna happen cos we cant evolve far enough. we are still petty and greedy creatures.

"from each according to his skills, and to each according to his needs"

Thats a principle that I just dont think we are capable of having. we aint genetically predisposed towards it.

at the end of day, all we are are is animals with human intelligence.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

completely agree.

but, lets be honest, it aint gonna happen cos we cant evolve far enough. we are still petty and greedy creatures.

"from each according to his skills, and to each according to his needs"

Thats a principle that I just dont think we are capable of having. we aint genetically predisposed towards it.

at the end of day, all we are are is animals with human intelligence.

We are heading in that direction. We may destroy ourselves first, but we are headed in that direction. We may have technology that grants us the ability to create more destruction than we've ever created before, but as a people, we're far more evolved than we once were. The fact that human rights in regards to the countries we're at war with is even a public issue is proof of this... not long ago, the people of whatever country you're at war with deserved what came to them, and it was your patriotic duty to take pride in their utter destruction. But that has changed. Not for everyone, but for a lot of people, and that gives me hope. We are moving in the right direction, even if things are sh**ty right now.

 

[R0rschach]

Actually, they don't. Alan Moore doesn't want his work adapted for exactly that reason.

A lot of you guys are really slamming the man without even understanding his position. His work was made for comics, and he wants it to stay in comics. He is of the mind that the only way of presenting the work the way it was intended is in comics.

This is not Batman. Unlike most comic properties, this is not a situation where the filmmakers can pick and choose bits and pieces from a range of material and mash it together. This is a single story, and every little piece matters. This is true of most finite graphic novels, but is especially true of work from Alan Moore. When you start snipping out bits, changing characters, or changing endings, it's not the same story anymore.

That is why he doesn't want his name on this stuff. By the time it makes it to screen, all those necessary changes will mean it's no longer the story he wrote. It's not longer his work, it's somebody else's idea of his work. I don't understand the flak your people are giving him. Does it inconvenience you that his name will not appear in the credits? Are you horribly offended that he is not accepting money for this? Someone in here said Moore needs to "pull his head out of his ass." Really? Are you sure it's Moore who needs to do that?

We're still getting a Watchmen, so be happy. Stop running around bleating "MORE IS TEH JERKXORZ!" and get over it. He is perfectly justified in his position, and you should be infinitely grateful that we're getting a Watchmen film despite that.

Alan Moore is my hero and a true artist who ain't in it for the bling bling.
Remember how people have tried and tried to convince him to do another Watchmen story but he never did?
When it comes to art, this story would be best defined by a mini series on hbo or something, they just wanna new cash cow.
I sure hope Alan Moore stays away from Watchmen after what they did to LXG and V.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Alan Moore is my hero and a true artist who ain't in it for the bling bling.
Remember how people have tried and tried to convince him to do another Watchmen story but he never did?
When it comes to art, this story would be best defined by a mini series on hbo or something, they just wanna new cash cow.
I sure hope Alan Moore stays away from Watchmen after what they did to LXG and V.

V was mauled nearly as mad as League was... and from the looks of it, Watchmen is going to be mauled notably less than V. We're not going to get a perfect translation, but they're at least mostly staying faithful to it, from the looks of it.

 

[R0rschach]

I sure hope so. If it's good it's good and if not whatever, I have no doubt it will never be as intense as the comic, original story.

 

[Superhobo]

Well now, hold on. V was mauled nearly as bad as LXG was. LXG bore no resemblance to the graphic novel(s) at all, aside from the characters. V, while flawed, was pretty close to the graphic novel. I mean, to say it was mauled as bad as LXG was just ain't right.

 

[R0rschach]

LXG got turned into the super friends, god that flick was bad.
V turned into a freedomfighter instead of an anarchist.

 

[dr.strange]

i liked v for vendetta.if moore is waiting for hollywood to get it right,good luck.heres a concept......make the movie(s) yourslef.with watchmen,its gotta be r rated right?

 

[Superhobo]

LXG got turned into the super friends, god that flick was bad.
V turned into a freedomfighter instead of an anarchist.

And as an Anarchist, I realized this. This wasn't one of the things that bugged me, however. I knew right off the Batman that Hollywood wasn't going to do a full-blown movie about a heroic Anarchist. Admittedly, it should bug the hell out of me, but that's one of the things that doesn't.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Well now, hold on. V was mauled nearly as bad as LXG was. LXG bore no resemblance to the graphic novel(s) at all, aside from the characters. V, while flawed, was pretty close to the graphic novel. I mean, to say it was mauled as bad as LXG was just ain't right.

Woah! Typo. I meant to say that V wasn't mauled nearly as badly as League.

Big mistake there. I still enjoyed V, castrated as it was. LXG was disgusting.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Corrected:

V wasn't mauled nearly as badly as League was... and from the looks of it, Watchmen is going to be mauled notably less than V. We're not going to get a perfect translation, but they're at least mostly staying faithful to it, from the looks of it.

 

[logansoldcigar]

Woah! Typo. I meant to say that V wasn't mauled nearly as badly as League.

Big mistake there. I still enjoyed V, castrated as it was. LXG was disgusting.

LXG was blown the moment they cast Sean Connery. It was made into "sean connery and his gang of helpers" rather than an ensemble piece. adding dorian gray never helped. having said that, casting Shah as nemo was inspired.

 

[cookiva]

If Snyder doesnt want to piss Moore off anymore, he needs to use Hayter's script. Moore will be upset that a film is being made, but according to him, its the closest anyone could come to making a Watchmen film, holding everything intact.