CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Comics & Anime › In Defense of Alan Moore
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

In Defense of Alan Moore

post #1 of 54
7/25/08 at 3:07pm
Thread Starter 
I just had to start this thread because, in the wake of the Watchmen trailer and that EW interview, I've seen something that's really pissing me off: fanboys in comments sections and so on badmouthing Alan Moore for his antipathy towards the films made of his comics.

I really don't get this. Moore's a bit of a crank, yes, but he's the entertaining, generally correct type of crank. He's not actually interfering with the making of these movies, and his criticisms have mostly been quite reasonable. What's more, he flatly turned down millions and millions of dollars to stand on a principle. I think doing that allows you to badmouth as much as you want. But on almost every Watchmen commentary board or thread I've seen, there's someone who jumps in and calls Moore a dick or an asshole, often for the simple reason that he won't participate in the making of the movies based on his work.

This frankly strikes me as fanboy entitlement, like the people who aren't allowed to say anything bad about The Dark Knight. They love movies; they want to see Moore's stories turned into movies; so if Moore doesn't facilitate this process, he's a dick. Moore doesn't love movies as much as us, sees no particular reason why his comics need to be adapted, and hates the corporate world that creates movies, so he opted out. Again, the guy turned down vast piles of cash to do this, and isn't doing anything worse than badmouthing the movies. How is that worthy of scorn? If anything, I always thought there was a note of "How dare you have so much integrity and thus make me look bad" in the catcalls that came after he turned down all that Vendetta/Watchmen money. He didn't sell out! What a bastard!
Reply
post #2 of 54
7/25/08 at 3:12pm
I side with Moore on this issue because the movies based on his works have been so utterly shitty. In my opinion it seems like 75%+ of the movies/TV shows created from comics and literature in general are poor imitations of the original source material. And with Moore the number is just as high. Why wouldn't you be apathetic? Especially when you don't own the rights to the source material. I'd get as far away from it as I could also.
Reply
post #3 of 54
7/25/08 at 3:19pm
People are angry at Alan Moore? Why? Like you say, he's not in any way preventing the movies from being made (which frankly, should be his right anyway, ownership notwithstanding). And he created the awesome properties in the first place, so how can you bitch at him? The only tiny thing that I wish Moore would do is acknowledge the difference between a movie as successful as V For Vendetta and one as failed as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. But even that, who cares? His reasons for not doing so make sense.
Reply
post #4 of 54
7/25/08 at 3:24pm
I seem to remeber an article on Chud about "fan-boy ownership". Where they feel like they own the rights and interpretation of Batman, Star Wars etc. I think thats what's going on.

I understand Moore's position completely. He has suffered the same bullshit as Philip K. Dick. They steal the surface qualities, but leave the actual depth of idea and spirit behind.

Having said that, I love the Watchmen Spoiler thread on Chud. There is a lot of brilliant character and textual analysis going on. There is very little fanboy crap. Although I haven't read anything after page 7 yet.
Reply
post #5 of 54
7/25/08 at 3:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudgeSmails View Post
I side with Moore on this issue because the movies based on his works have been so utterly shitty.
But honestly, I'd side with him to a degree even if the movies were all brilliant. It's not like the guy hates all movies--if I recall correctly, he had some nice things to say about the Hayter script, and the guy even wrote a screenplay himself in the 80s. But he disagrees with the rabid push to translate everything to film, and hates the corporate process involved, which I can respect. If it were me, I'd probably foolishly keep attempting to make the movies better and get my heart broken repeatedly. Moore doesn't love movies that much, so he doesn't bother. It's a matter of principle with him--he likes the freedom and the individuality of comics more than the focus-grouped process of movies.
Reply
post #6 of 54
7/25/08 at 3:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasMN View Post
I seem to remeber an article on Chud about "fan-boy ownership". Where they feel like they own the rights and interpretation of Batman, Star Wars etc. I think thats what's going on.
Yup. And they believe that their tastes are somehow justified by a movie. And they also believe, rather pathetically, that what Moore says impacts the finished project, so he should only be thinking happy thoughts and saying nice things, and if he doesn't, HE'S SABOTAGING THE WHOLE THING OMG WHAT A DICK I WANT MY WATCHMEN MOVIE!!!!
Reply
post #7 of 54
7/25/08 at 4:25pm
It's amazing how much more Frank Miller and Alan Moore differ from each other with every passing year, on all levels. Am I getting older, or are they?
Reply
post #8 of 54
7/25/08 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
It's amazing how much more Frank Miller and Alan Moore differ from each other with every passing year, on all levels. Am I getting older, or are they?
It might be that, as you get older, you're more able to appreciate the profound philosophical differences between the two.

I think that happened in my case. When I was younger, Watchmen and the Dark Knight Returns both just exemplified how superhero comics could be geared toward a more mature audience. As I developed as a reader, it became clearer that Miller kind of enjoys the kind of violence and fascism that Moore condemns.
Reply
post #9 of 54
7/25/08 at 5:00pm
Since we're all movie buffs it isn't easy to understand at first, but when you think about the fact that Moore isn't a fan of movies it makes much more sense.

Imagine if there was suddenly a push to turn all famous movies into ten minute anime shorts. If Coppola didn't want the Godfather to be adapted thusly, and spoke negatively about the anime shorts (even if the Godfather Anime was the best of the adaptations, and the anime fanboys loved it) we'd all be on his side.
Reply
post #10 of 54
7/25/08 at 5:29pm
Moore's right. It's one thing to see the Owlship gliding up and out of New York harbour with the Twin Towers in the background, or see any other number of sequences taken shot by shot from the comic. It will be another thing altogether if the various levels of subtext are achieved. Moore's reservations are justified.

There's nothing wrong with healthy cynicism, especially if it opposes the fanboy attitudes Prankster accurately describes.
Reply
post #11 of 54
7/25/08 at 5:37pm
Well said, Prankster.

I'd resent the implication in a lot of fanboy raving that my novel/comic/story is fine, but it MUST be turned into a movie to be really great.

I've always thought that line of thinking is weird. I liked the first Spider-Man movie, but I liked the comics better. The World According to Garp? Better as a book. And while I can't help but get excited by the Watchman trailer, even before I see the movie I feel I can safely say that I'll always prefer the book.
Reply
post #12 of 54
7/25/08 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
It might be that, as you get older, you're more able to appreciate the profound philosophical differences between the two.

I think that happened in my case. When I was younger, Watchmen and the Dark Knight Returns both just exemplified how superhero comics could be geared toward a more mature audience. As I developed as a reader, it became clearer that Miller kind of enjoys the kind of violence and fascism that Moore condemns.

Bingo!
Reply
post #13 of 54
7/25/08 at 5:53pm
Moore has earned the right through his creative output and actions to act and say whatever he wants in regards to films based on the properties he either created or cultivated. And, even though at the worst he'll simply say he's apathetic towards it, the fact that he refuses to be involved gets too many people in a tizzy. One thing that he says that I'm not sure I believe 100% is the fact that he never watches the films based off of his work. I think at one point or another he has sat down, taken some drugs, and watched V for Vendetta or League (if only for the laugh).
Reply
post #14 of 54
7/25/08 at 6:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotai View Post
It will be another thing altogether if the various levels of subtext are achieved. Moore's reservations are justified.
But see, I don't think THAT even matters.

I honestly think he is saying that NO MATTER WHAT the movie turns out to be, he would rather it just stay a comic, because that is how it was intended. You can "translate" things all you want, but you are still "translating."

I think pagoda also said it well.

Think about you. You CAN (and there have been many) make a good translation of a book into a movie, but it is inherently different.
Reply
post #15 of 54
7/25/08 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotai View Post
Moore's right. It's one thing to see the Owlship gliding up and out of New York harbour with the Twin Towers in the background, or see any other number of sequences taken shot by shot from the comic. It will be another thing altogether if the various levels of subtext are achieved. Moore's reservations are justified.

There's nothing wrong with healthy cynicism, especially if it opposes the fanboy attitudes Prankster accurately describes.

I 100% agree.
Getting the film to look like the Graphic novel is not that hard...any competent production designer can give you that. Faithfullness on other levels..that is a lot harder.
And I think a lot of the fanboy behavior toward Moore is because Zack Snyder has become a fanboy god. I will never understand why..he made one entertaining film in "Dawn Of The Dead" and one visually impressive but empty film in "300",and that is not enough to promote a director to genius status for me.
Reply
post #16 of 54
7/25/08 at 6:03pm
While I agree that people bitching about Moore is fairly stupid, I do have a general question: who owned the rights to Watchmen? If it was DC, then I can understand him being cranky about how it's interpreted, because he had no control over who made it or how it got made (generally speaking of course).

But if he sold the rights, it lessens his right to complain. Put simply, if you don't like movies being made out of your properties, or how they're treated, don't sell the rights. Or be more (ha-ha, get it?) involved in the process, al la Stephen King.
Reply
post #17 of 54
7/25/08 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
While I agree that people bitching about Moore is fairly stupid, I do have a general question: who owned the rights to Watchmen? If it was DC, then I can understand him being cranky about how it's interpreted, because he had no control over who made it or how it got made (generally speaking of course).

But if he sold the rights, it lessens his right to complain. Put simply, if you don't like movies being made out of your properties, or how they're treated, don't sell the rights. Or be more (ha-ha, get it?) involved in the process, al la Stephen King.
I would like to know that also. If Moore sold the film rights, then he does deserve to be criticised for not putting his money where his mouth is.
Reply
post #18 of 54
7/25/08 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I would like to know that also. If Moore sold the film rights, then he does deserve to be criticised for not putting his money where his mouth is.
My guess is DC held the rights since Moore was brought on to do a project with the Watchmen characters that DC had recently purchased ( I forgot the name of the company). That sounds like a classic work-for-hire situation, where the company owning the copyright retains all rights to the work.

However, I'm really curious about From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Those were done for independent publishers when Moore was an industry heavy-weight (at least, more so than he was pre-Watchmen in 86 when he negotiated his deal with DC). I fairly certain Moore and Campbell held the rights to From Hell, and if that was the case, I'm surprised he sold them.

Of course, he could simply not give a shit about the films and just like to grouse about them. A grouse all the way to the bank, as it were.
Reply
post #19 of 54
7/25/08 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
It's amazing how much more Frank Miller and Alan Moore differ from each other with every passing year, on all levels. Am I getting older, or are they?
I think all three of you are getting older, unless one of you is dead.

I have no problem with Alan Moore's opinion of his work being brought to film, or of film in general. If he's not keen on these adaptations, who am I to insist he pretend otherwise or whine that he's not? If it were my work I think I'd be flattered, but I'm not him.
Reply
post #20 of 54
7/25/08 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
I think all three of you are getting older, unless one of you is dead.
Yeah, I worded that very, very badly.
Reply
post #21 of 54
7/25/08 at 7:44pm
I'd be even grumpier than he is if I discovered that the people who I thought respected my work saw it as only a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of having a movie made about it by somebody else. Little shits. Hey, I'm grumpy anyway!
Reply
post #22 of 54
7/25/08 at 7:46pm
Exactly. He doesn't have to "earn" the right to an opinion of his own work. Or anyone else's.
Reply
post #23 of 54
7/25/08 at 8:00pm
Alan Moore is the best comics writer in the history of comics.

He's also written music and books (to less degrees of success). He doesn't much like movies and he likes movie people even less. I imagine that the principles he's villified for are a bit confusing to most people (especially americans - selling out is the american dream) but they make perfect sense to me. He feels he has enough money (again a puzzle to the americans) - I remember an interview in which he said his goal in comics was to get off the dole in 1979.
I'm sure he hopes that Watchmen is a good film (although a shit one would theoretically benefit him more - if DC don't reprint Watchmen for 1 year he gets the rights back i think).
I honestly think the film would benefit from NOT being associated with alan moore - it allows Snyder pretty much free reign to do what he wants - and Alan Moore doesn't have his opinions and ideas discounted by movie folk.

Let these idiots bitch about Moore - he doesn't care why should we.
Reply
post #24 of 54
7/25/08 at 8:10pm
I must say, it's really surprised me just how vitriolic some supposed fans have been about this. The man isn't interested, has been burned several times now and, at the heart of it all, strongly believes these stories were written specifically to be told in the comic format and that a cinematic adaptation can't help but lose a lot of that in translation.

That's it. He doesn't wish ill on anyone, he merely has the audacity to not be interested in seeing other people's take on his work. He doesn't claim any money for them, it all goes to his collaborators at his request.

Yet despite that, he's mocked and villified. I just don't understand what peoples' problems are sometimes.

Oh and regarding Watchmen specifically, I recall reading something along the lines of DC originally agreed to hand back the character rights to him once the collected edition went out of print. Naturally, it never does so the rights remain with them and they decide to push ahead with the film. He certainly didn't sell the film rights to anyone, though he was naive to think they'd ever allow the rights to lapse back to him.
Reply
post #25 of 54
7/25/08 at 8:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
My guess is DC held the rights since Moore was brought on to do a project with the Watchmen characters that DC had recently purchased ( I forgot the name of the company). That sounds like a classic work-for-hire situation, where the company owning the copyright retains all rights to the work.
The company was Charleton. I think Moore was supposed to introduce The Question, Capt Atom etc. to the DCU, but he went in a direction that wouldn't allow the characters to be used for future books. They let him redo the characters into his own Watchmen Universe.

One of the reasons that he left DC was that he had the rights to any merchandise based on Watchmen and DC claimed Watchmen Buttons weren't merch, but a promotional item and he didn't get paid. Wonder if he has any rights to toy/video game money and if he will give that to Dave Gibbons too?
Reply
post #26 of 54
7/25/08 at 8:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_adam View Post
(especially americans - selling out is the american dream)
Canadians dream to become Americans.

Well I think we haven't really seen any more Moore bashing, but I'm not surprised.

I'm glad we're getting a movie, but I respect his views and his caution. The real question is, is he going to see it? I would love to see what his reaction to it is.
Reply
post #27 of 54
7/25/08 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Canadians dream to become Americans.
I'd say the opposite is more accurate, especially lately.
Reply
post #28 of 54
7/26/08 at 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Canadians dream to become Americans.
Hmmm, I think it's only the Canadian kids who wear those big puffy pants made out of the American flag.
Reply
post #29 of 54
7/26/08 at 12:44am
Thread Starter 
Are you kidding? We have all the good stuff associated with America and much less of the bad stuff. Why would we want to be American?

I believe that, yes, Moore and his authors owned the film rights to LXG and From Hell, and indeed everything he did after leaving DC (which is why you probably won't see Tom Strong or Promethea adapted to film anytime soon). But with those first two films, I'm pretty sure he wasn't actively hostile to the idea of film adaptations (and kept the money); it's his experiences there that soured him on Hollywood. In particular the business about being accused of ripping off some script in comic book form so Fox could make a movie of LoEG and claim that they hadn't ripped it off...or something...probably didn't sit well with him. The greatest comic book writer of all time, and he's being accused of being paid to rip off some script to cover 20th Century Fox's ass, legally speaking. That's insulting on like six different levels.
Reply
post #30 of 54
7/26/08 at 2:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
Are you kidding? We have all the good stuff associated with America and much less of the bad stuff. Why would we want to be American?

I believe that, yes, Moore and his authors owned the film rights to LXG and From Hell, and indeed everything he did after leaving DC (which is why you probably won't see Tom Strong or Promethea adapted to film anytime soon). But with those first two films, I'm pretty sure he wasn't actively hostile to the idea of film adaptations (and kept the money); it's his experiences there that soured him on Hollywood. In particular the business about being accused of ripping off some script in comic book form so Fox could make a movie of LoEG and claim that they hadn't ripped it off...or something...probably didn't sit well with him. The greatest comic book writer of all time, and he's being accused of being paid to rip off some script to cover 20th Century Fox's ass, legally speaking. That's insulting on like six different levels.
While I defend Moore's right to express his opinions and loathe of the adaptations of his works (regardless of the personal or professional reasons for them), I still find that Moore seems a bit too extreme on his opinions, yet i gotta admit, his guest spot in "The Simpsons" (where he actually made fun of himself and this very attitude) makes me think there's no actual malice or disregard in his opinions...man is just defending his opinion on his own work and the medium he works at.
And if the LXG debacle was insulting in six different levels, "V for Vendetta" easily reaches a twenty in that scale.
Reply
post #31 of 54
7/26/08 at 6:31am
That EW interview was really good.

I can see where he is coming from. We all like movies, but very few of us have had to deal with the studios responsible for making movies. I can see how that would piss off a guy liek Alan Moore and give him the right to stay the hell away.

Having said that, V for Vendetta was pretty good, even if it waters down the anarchy elements.

Similarly, 'Watchmen The Movie' will never be the comic. However it might be a great way to spend 2+ hours at the cinema.
Reply
post #32 of 54
7/26/08 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
Are you kidding? We have all the good stuff associated with America and much less of the bad stuff. Why would we want to be American?
I've always seen Canadians as cheap Chinese knockoffs of Americans, very similar but not quite the same. They also break apart easily and can give you lead poisoning if you lick them. Stay away ...

Kriegaffe, what EW interview are you talking about? The one with the cast, because I didn't see any of Moore.

Anybody know if Moore ever had any public reaction to V movie, or did he generally just doesn't want to comment on these type of projects?
Reply
post #33 of 54
7/26/08 at 1:10pm
Thread Starter 
Moore hated V For Vendetta, because it lost all the anarchist elements (which makes some stuff, like blowing up parliament, make no sense), and because he felt that the Wachowskis were appropriating his story to lambaste the Bush administration instead of telling their own story. (Vendetta has a strong anti-Thatcher streak, but that's not the only thing the comic's about; he actually went out of his way to ensure that the government in the comic wasn't simply a natural evolution of the then-current government, whereas in the movie everything was manipulated by Norsefire, which also sort of runs against his point.) Also, for some reason, he was really set off by "Eggy in a Basket".

Moore's interview.

I really think a lot of what Moore has said has been exaggerated by fanboys...like the idea that he hates movies, or hates all adaptations, or thinks Zack Snyder should die. If you read that article, he voices his opinions, but seems quite reasonable.
Reply
post #34 of 54
7/26/08 at 1:36pm
Moore's an idiot.

Only Patrick Stewart could ever play Cap'n Crunch. Johnny Depp? Pshh.
Reply
post #35 of 54
7/26/08 at 1:50pm
Thread Starter 
Fuck you. Bruce Campbell.
Reply
post #36 of 54
7/26/08 at 3:50pm
There was the issue of Joel Silver lying about Moore's "blessing" and "enthusiasm" for V for Vendetta. When news got back to Moore and he shat a brick over it, sending Paul Levitz scrambling about to stop the bleeding, Silver called him to apologize. Moore (by his own admission) threw the attempt back in Silver's face and apparently said: "Are you through? Because I'm just going to hang up on you on now."

He said this to Joel Silver. I would say that that takes about two to three pairs of massive balls, but Moore doesn't have Hollywood ambitions so that's meaningless, but it does however stink of a certain vanity (an earned vanity I suppose, after all, being successful means never having to say you're sorry), even if he felt the apology was insincere.
Reply
post #37 of 54
7/26/08 at 6:26pm
Thread Starter 
Do you have a link? Because I'd heard that Moore never got anything resembling an apology, which is exactly what got him steamed at DC (again). Even if that story is true...do we know how the conversation went? It could be Silver was really condescending or phony or something (a condescending, phony Hollywood producer? Get outta town!)

To be fair, it was a little outrageous to punish Wildstorm for the actions of Silver and WB studios, but he's always seemed to have pleasant things to say about the actual comics people he worked with--again, it's more a case of not wanting to be affiliated with the corporate leviathan when things like that can happen.
Reply
post #38 of 54
7/26/08 at 6:32pm
Actually, I was wrong, this is from Silver's mouth (which to my knowledge Moore never denied): Mr. Silver said he called Mr. Moore to apologize for his statement at the press conference, but that Mr. Moore was unmoved. "He said to me, 'I'm going to hang up on you if you don't stop talking to me,' " Mr. Silver recalled. "It was like a conversation with a tape recording."

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2006...oores_ven.html

I didn't originally read it there, so I'll find another link if need be.

Here we go: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/mo...gewanted=print
Reply
post #39 of 54
7/26/08 at 6:51pm
Thread Starter 
Meh. That's a personal conversation that I'm in no position to judge. But again, I tend to side with Moore over a slick Hollywood producer who's quoted briefly in an article.
Reply
post #40 of 54
7/26/08 at 8:37pm
I think the reason Moore is (justly) upset is that these movies take great pains to use his name. It's not just "From Hell" it's "FROM HELL: THE NEW MOVIE BASED ON ALAN MOORE"S GRPHIC NOVEL!!!!" He should be angry that Hollywood keeps associating his name to push shit films.

And these Fanboys are out of control. They must be stopped!
Reply
post #41 of 54
7/27/08 at 2:09am
Back to the "Who owns the Watchmen?" thing, I believe Moore has said that if DC stops reprinting the book for a certain amount of time (X number of years) the full rights will revert back to Moore and Gibbons.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, and Moore realizes that. He has also admitted that he was more naive at the time and just assumed DC would let the rights revert back at some point. It bears remembering that no one knew Watchmen would catch on the way it did, and, even moreso, back then comics companies rarely kept collections in print for an extended period of time. Or even had many collections published in the first place. It was a very different market.

I'm guessing that the movie versions of the characters fall outside the merchandise rights Moore and Gibbons have retained from the comic version. I know DC couldn't legally produce a line of Watchmen action figures a few years ago because Moore decided against it, but I'm not sure he'd have any legal ground when it comes to action figures based on the movie. I'm curious about that.

Eddie Campbell had a sensible point about the From Hell movie...it made the book more popular for awhile and allowed him to self-publish Bacchus for a number of years. The movie may have been rubbish (and according to Campbell the earlier drafts were much, much worse), but ultimately it doesn't replace the comic. I think that's a pragmatic way to look at it, though I still greatly admire Moore's conviction as far as not taking any money. I also admire Campbell using his movie money to make and sell his own comics.
Reply
post #42 of 54
7/27/08 at 4:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dax View Post
Back to the "Who owns the Watchmen?" thing, I believe Moore has said that if DC stops reprinting the book for a certain amount of time (X number of years) the full rights will revert back to Moore and Gibbons.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, and Moore realizes that. He has also admitted that he was more naive at the time and just assumed DC would let the rights revert back at some point. It bears remembering that no one knew Watchmen would catch on the way it did, and, even moreso, back then comics companies rarely kept collections in print for an extended period of time. Or even had many collections published in the first place. It was a very different market.

I'm guessing that the movie versions of the characters fall outside the merchandise rights Moore and Gibbons have retained from the comic version. I know DC couldn't legally produce a line of Watchmen action figures a few years ago because Moore decided against it, but I'm not sure he'd have any legal ground when it comes to action figures based on the movie. I'm curious about that.

Eddie Campbell had a sensible point about the From Hell movie...it made the book more popular for awhile and allowed him to self-publish Bacchus for a number of years. The movie may have been rubbish (and according to Campbell the earlier drafts were much, much worse), but ultimately it doesn't replace the comic. I think that's a pragmatic way to look at it, though I still greatly admire Moore's conviction as far as not taking any money. I also admire Campbell using his movie money to make and sell his own comics.
From what little I know of copyright law, I'd guess that whoever owns the movie rights can make toys based on the movie versions of the characters.
Reply
post #43 of 54
7/27/08 at 6:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dax View Post
Eddie Campbell had a sensible point about the From Hell movie...it made the book more popular for awhile and allowed him to self-publish Bacchus for a number of years. The movie may have been rubbish (and according to Campbell the earlier drafts were much, much worse), but ultimately it doesn't replace the comic. I think that's a pragmatic way to look at it, though I still greatly admire Moore's conviction as far as not taking any money. I also admire Campbell using his movie money to make and sell his own comics.
The Art vs Commerce thing is quite important here. Most comic creators or film directors understand that it's very unlikely to have total creative freedom. The art needs to find audience, to be bought, to justify the cost of creating it. In order to this, most find an acceptible compromise between the two. Guillermo Del Toro made a Hellboy relatively faithful adaptation of the comic. (A devil fighting Nazis etc.) However, there's still a scene where he picks up a six pack of Bud Light and drinks a Red Bull which are obvious product placement.

Moore however seems to have taken the moral high ground and simply gotten out of the game. He'd rather make something artistically pure than compromise for a wider audience. The V for Vendetta film may be watered down, but I doubt a more faithful adaptation would make it to cinemas. Similarly, we won't be seeing a Lost Girls adaptation getting a wide release any time soon.
Reply
post #44 of 54
7/27/08 at 1:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dax View Post
Eddie Campbell had a sensible point about the From Hell movie...it made the book more popular for awhile and allowed him to self-publish Bacchus for a number of years. The movie may have been rubbish (and according to Campbell the earlier drafts were much, much worse), but ultimately it doesn't replace the comic. I think that's a pragmatic way to look at it, though I still greatly admire Moore's conviction as far as not taking any money. I also admire Campbell using his movie money to make and sell his own comics.
As I've said elsewhere, yes, I think it's cool that a lot of the more indie comics makers are now being funded by Hollywood through these movie adaptations. And I really hope more of them do what Campbell did, using the money to experiment with comics. However, there is something that I've heard from a few people who watch the financial side of comics, namely that movie versions of graphic novels tend to give the comic sales a big boost for a while...and then they plummet, because apparently people lose interest in the comic if they can just watch the movie. I believe the example used was V For Vendetta, which apparently doesn't sell anywhere near as well as it did before the movie started being advertised. It's possible the same thing will happen to Watchmen. Wouldn't it be ironic if making a movie ended up depleting the sales so much that it went out of print and Moore got the rights back?
Reply
post #45 of 54
7/28/08 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
Also, for some reason, he was really set off by "Eggy in a Basket".
I hated that too.

The event that really hacked him off was when some knob-end yanks took the film (and by extension him) to court because they had written some movie that was similar to LXG called cast of characters which fox had looked at before. the odd thing was that Moore had to come to court and promise that his idea for a comic was not based on someone else's idea for a film (absurd right?) well it turns out that alot of the big changes to the LXG script - Tom Sawyer, the Phantom, Dorian Grey etc. did appear to come from their script. Because it was a flop, Fox settled out of court to make it all go away and this upset Moore more (!) because he felt it was tantamount to admitting that he had plagiarized it. After that it's not surprising that he wants fuck all to do with Hollywood.

Also, Joel silver is just one in a long line of Hollywood types Moore has burned. Take care USA, Moore is not a fan. People are always expected to play ball and stick to the party line or "you'll never work in this town again" Morre could not give a shit about anything but his own conscience and reputation - anyone else find it refreshing that moore is just one big pain in the ass to hollywood whilst simultaneously providing some of the best ideas for movies.

As for the Lost Girls movie - pretty darn unlikely as it has even more copyright problems (it didn't get published in the UK until this year because of a hospital)

Also - Canada > USA and I'm not even Canadian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I've always seen Canadians as cheap Chinese knockoffs of Americans, very similar but not quite the same. They also break apart easily and can give you lead poisoning if you lick them. Stay away ...
Funny I've always seen Americans as the noisy inbred dumb-ass cousins to the Canadians... but I'll stop my yank-bashing in this thread just in case I wake up in Gitmo...
Reply
post #46 of 54
7/28/08 at 8:38pm
What does Alan Moore's integrity have to do with you hating Americans? Stop co opting his name for your vitriol.
Reply
post #47 of 54
7/28/08 at 10:58pm
Hmmm...so what we're saying is that Moore isn't...compromising? Interesting, very interesting.

/strokes beard
Reply
post #48 of 54
7/28/08 at 11:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_adam View Post
Funny I've always seen Americans as the noisy inbred dumb-ass cousins to the Canadians...
Are Canadians even human? Nature did not intend for human beings to live in such a barren frozen tundra.

Quote:
but I'll stop my yank-bashing in this thread just in case I wake up in Gitmo...
We should store all our nuclear waste in your country.
Reply
post #49 of 54
7/28/08 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
What does Alan Moore's integrity have to do with you hating Americans? Stop co opting his name for your vitriol.
Fucking thank you. Someone needed to say it.

Frankly I think Moore's unshakable principles and integrity should serve as inspiration to everyone. I find it unfathomable that fans of his work could possibly turn against him for not playing the game and giving his grudging blessing to something he doesn't even care to see made, which naturally leads me to conclude that they're not really fans of the work-- after all, they clearly care more about the film than the book, if their duplicity tells me anything.

I've got enough room in me for both a great deal of enthusiasm for Snyder's take on Moore's vision, and a healthy level of cynicism as well. I can definitely say that regardless of how the movie turns out, Moore has the right to have his reservations, especially if one pays attention to the cinematic track record of his adapted works.
Reply
post #50 of 54
7/29/08 at 12:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianM View Post
I've always thought that line of thinking is weird. I liked the first Spider-Man movie, but I liked the comics better.
they made it easy to make such an opinion though.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Comics & Anime
CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Comics & Anime › In Defense of Alan Moore