March 21, 2006

E for ENOUGH ALREADY

If I see one more article about Alan Moore being "swindled" by DC or how Hollywood has destroyed his graphic novel, I'm going to go on a vendetta of my own.

Most recently was an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune which ended with the following quote from a retailer:

"If he had been doing novels that were this successful for this long, they'd probably take more care with making movies out of his products. But it's only comics, you know?"

Aw, c'mon. Putting aside the insanely faithful adaptation of "Sin City," it has nothing to do with comics and everything to do with Hollywood. I suspect the name "Nathaniel Hawthorne" will be remembered long after Alan Moore, and I, and every other comic book writer are forgotten, and they STILL gave "The Scarlet Letter" a happy ending. Popular movies such as "Oh God," "Kramer Vs. Kramer," and even underrated great films such as "The Mighty Quinn," have huge differences from the novels on which they were based. Disney's people haven't met a classic that they couldn't transform into something else entirely (have you ever actually READ "Pinocchio?" He steps on the cricket and kills it in, like, chapter 2. And P.L. Travers' "Mary Poppins" is an acerbic, middle aged woman, not the chipper, youthful, dancing Julie Andrews.)

Film adaptations are just that: Adaptations. They often bear little-to-no resemblance to the source material. The benefit of them is that the successful ones put copies of the books into the hands of customers who otherwise might never have heard of the work, much less purchased it.

Alan Moore can refuse all the money from the Hollywood versions he wants, but I daresay he won't be turning his nose up at the increased royalties such films generate for the books.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at March 21, 2006 12:22 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Jeremy Clifft at March 21, 2006 01:43 AM

I'm glad someone finally is taking a position different from the unabashed Moore worship that goes on. Well said!

Posted by: Douglass Barre at March 21, 2006 01:43 AM

I agree with you about the nature of film adaptation... it's absurd to expect a movie to be exactly like the source material unless it's a very long, very boring film of someone holding a book open and turning the pages.

That said, according to all his interviews, Alan has already foregone all his royalties from movie and book and passed them on to David Lloyd, hoping to distance himself from his personal issues... I suspect that most of the "how dare they" rhetoric comes from interviewers and others who are offended *for* Alan, as he seems to be pretty much resigned to having lost his battles.

As someone who's offered to forego your own monies in favor of making a point (before the sentiment was perverted into the three-ring U-Decide), I suspect you can sympathize that sometimes the money isn't the only issue.

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at March 21, 2006 02:03 AM

I read in one interview, tho I'm afraid I forget where, that Moore even demanded that DC remove his name from reprints of his various works. Dc refused to to so.

JAC

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 21, 2006 02:09 AM

You know, I wrote a fairly long response, then deleted the whole thing. I'm just so sick of this subject.

At this point, I just want to say that I agree with PAD, and at this point I am only interested in opinions on the movie from people who didn't read the book. It's not that I don't think other opinions are valid, I'm just tired of hearing the same "they changed stuff" debate again and again.

Posted by: ElCoyote at March 21, 2006 02:40 AM

It isn't that they changed his stuff, it's that they turned his stuff into CRAP.

And Moore himself has stated he's being irrational on this, he's tired of having his work and turned it into crap.

Hollywood has taken numerous Moore babies and turned them out, dolled them up with Keanu Reeves, Johnny Depp being ironic and foppish and Sean Connery doing Sean Connery and they've whored his children out.

I wouldn't like it either.

And I see nothing different in V For Vendetta, they've taken a work written at the height of the cold war, that was never meant to be applied to current political situations and turned it into a thinly veiled attack on Bush.

And c'mon Peter, you wouldn't be happy if Fallen Angel was taken from you, without you having a say, turned into a stupid T&A Pam Anderson vehichle, so get off your damned high horse.

He doesn't like what Hollywood has done to his works. No one with any taste does. They haven't even tried to make GOOD movies out of them, they've tried to make quick bucks and they've made crap movies.

It might be different if any of the Moore based movies were in anyway close to being good. But NONE of them have been.

And V For Vendetta doesn't look any better.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 21, 2006 03:14 AM

I know I risk being pilloried by the Moore purists, but I liked LoEG. I know it wasn't the same as the book, and I didn't mind - it was still a heck of a lot of fun to watch, even though some of the characters differed.

I mean, did anyone complain when the encounter with Shelob was shifted from the end of The Two Towers to the first part of Return of the King for dramatic purposes? Or when the location of the second monolith was changed from the light side of Saturn's moon Iapetus to Jupiter orbit in 2001? So why whine because Quatermaine is retired instead of being an opium junkie, or because the Cold War background of V has become outdated and a replacement was needed?

Now, complaining because of the totally unnecessary addition of Tom Sawyer to LoEG is, IMO, perfectly legitimate - that change wasn't made because the story needed to be modified for a different medium, it was because the producers wanted to stick an American in there.

Posted by: Angeloph at March 21, 2006 03:36 AM

Well, the producer of LXG, Don Murphy, did comment on the movie on his message board:

"Saw a really terrific film last night, V FOR VENDETTA. I know Alan Moore has disowned it quite publicly, and I know Alan Moore quite well. My guess is that what I always feared would happen has- too many tokes in his isolated NorthHampton brownstone has led to full blown trolley off the rails for Mr. Moore. Hell, I even read somewhere that he was saying unkind things about the LEAGUE film. This surprises me since he swore to me to never see any of his films AND to top it off, refused all my requests for involvement in the project for years. But he sure took the money. AND, to top it off, if not for the movie and me, being sucha bad businessman, he wouldn't even OWN the League comics rights like he does. So ignore his rants and enjoy the film- it is great fun."

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 21, 2006 03:38 AM

"I know I risk being pilloried by the Moore purists, but I liked LoEG."

I thought LoEG was extremely mediocre. It had some good moments, it had some bad, but mainly it was extremely "just OK" throughout. I was happy enough with the 8 bucks I'd spent, though.

I don't think that LoEG was one of Moore's better comics, though.

Posted by: Matt Adler at March 21, 2006 03:46 AM

As others have stated, Moore IS refusing any more royalties from DC. So he's putting his money where his mouth is.

And I think he has a legitimate gripe. The way the comic industry does business seriously needs to be reevaluated. There's no way an author should so completely lose control of their work, while they're alive.

Plus, Alan Moore is a really brilliant writer, and it would just make good business sense to do right by him so he'll go on writing great comics.

Posted by: Michileen Martin at March 21, 2006 04:09 AM

Jonathan (the other one): I mean, did anyone complain when the encounter with Shelob was shifted from the end of The Two Towers to the first part of Return of the King for dramatic purposes? Or when the location of the second monolith was changed from the light side of Saturn's moon Iapetus to Jupiter orbit in 2001? So why whine because Quatermaine is retired instead of being an opium junkie, or because the Cold War background of V has become outdated and a replacement was needed?

Well, as far as the LOTR reference, YEAH, people did complain. Tolkien purists complained about Shelob, and complained about the deletion of Tom Bombadil (apparently, they didn't get the idea that the dark, suspenseful mood of Fellowship's intro might be ruined by a fat, happy man who skips through the forest and sings to trees).

But, regardless, I don't think the question is did they get all their facts right, but was the spirit of the source material kept alive? In case of LOTR, I'd say yes, definitely (and anyone who complains about the changes should ask themselves whether or not they wanted to see a 3453453453 hour long movie where in between the non-stop singing, walking, and eating, the main characters occasionally had adventures). Does it matter that the villain from the film Misery used a sledgehammer instead of an axe? Not really. Did the changes in LXG change the spirit of the source material? I'd say yes, definitely. I mean, there's a difference between moving the giant spider to the third movie and changing a pretty important aspect of Alan Quartermain's history. One change is just cosmetic, another alters one of the lead characters. I could never look at Connery's Quartermain the same way I look at Moore's Quartermain. And as someone who just read The Picture of Dorian Gray for a college course, I've got to say that putting that character in an action-adventure flick is stupid on the Greeto-shot-first level of things.

That said, I honestly don't know how I feel about Moore's complaints. I'm biased because I have yet to read anything by him that didn't impress me and influence my work and how I look at comic books, but I don't know. I'm filing it in the "Thank God It's Really None of My Business" drawer.

Posted by: James Tichy at March 21, 2006 04:10 AM

I get the Star Tribune everyday, and though I was happy to see a story about comics, I couldn't bring myself to read another Moore vs. Hollywood article.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 21, 2006 04:43 AM

Hell, whatever anybody may think about Alan Moore, adaptations, or Alan Moore adaptations, I am simply hesitant to give the Wachowski brothers any more of my money.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 21, 2006 05:08 AM

>And V For Vendetta doesn't look any better.

And the next sound you hear is an enormous boulder crashing down on the coyote ...

OK, textbook case of "matter of opinion" here, but, though I didn't care for LoEG, and really loathed what Hokeywood did to Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS, I'm in the "better in many ways than the source material" camp where V is concerned. And I don't say that lightly given that I've just been making my way through a borrowed DVD of MATRIX REVOLUTION and its cringe-inducing dialogue, and worse storyline. That V is so much better is in itself a sign they were serious in wanting to do justice to the material.

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at March 21, 2006 05:50 AM

"Hell, whatever anybody may think about Alan Moore, adaptations, or Alan Moore adaptations, I am simply hesitant to give the Wachowski brothers any more of my money."

Come on Rex, Give it a chance. It's got to good, v for vendetta 2 and 3 on the other hand.....
(And between 2 and 3 the ani-vendetta)

JAC

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at March 21, 2006 06:01 AM

1>>> As others have stated, Moore IS refusing any more royalties from DC. So he's putting his money where his mouth is. >>>

And Yet various people who are in the position to be in the know, (including the producer of LXG quoted in another post), have pointed out that Moore still cashes the checks. True he may instantly send the money on to other sources for all we know but still, it's a contridiction.


>>

You're kidding right. Aside from the fact that there isn't a screenwriter alive who hasn't had an original screenplay re-writen by other hands into something completly different there's also hugely sucessful authors like Steven King, (who is about 100 times more famous then Alan Moore will ever be), who's work has been turned into bad movies that bare no resemblance to what he wrote save for the title. This has nothing to do with the way Comic Book writers are treated, and everything about the way Hollywood treats writers in general.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at March 21, 2006 06:08 AM

1>>

I agree, in fact I'll go you one better I liked LoEG better as a movie then as the comic. Was it a great movie, no, but then how many movies are. As a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Saturday night it worked just fine and I really couldn't see what all the sniping was about. At least it was a movie that tried to have fun. The books were depressing and seemed to be all about tearing down the characters and being overly cleaver about how everything fit.

Posted by: Leviathan at March 21, 2006 06:10 AM

Jonathan (the other one) Writes:

I mean, did anyone complain when the encounter with Shelob was shifted from the end of The Two Towers to the first part of Return of the King for dramatic purposes?

As stated elsewhere, Yes, many times.

Or when the location of the second monolith was changed from the light side of Saturn's moon Iapetus to Jupiter orbit in 2001?

Oh, here, we get into tangled knots of causality. The book and movie of 2001: a Space Odyssey were created simultaneously, each reflecting the other. There's no single canocal version that was adapted into the other.

Posted by: Leviathan at March 21, 2006 06:15 AM

PAD wrote:

If I see one more article about Alan Moore being "swindled" by DC

In one internet mailing list I'm on, several posters muttered darkly about what a sleazy move DC had made by keeping V for Vendetta in print for fifteen years, thereby keeping the rights, rather than allowing them to revert to Moore.

The comics pro that list is devoted to -- himself no stranger to being scrweed by publishers, and crying "Foul!" -- quickly responded that he should be so persecuted.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 21, 2006 07:02 AM

Alan Moore can refuse all the money from the Hollywood versions he wants, but I daresay he won't be turning his nose up at the increased royalties such films generate for the books.

I suppose the true test of his convictions will be whether or not he allows those books that ARE under his control to be made into film adaptations. All signs point to him saying no.

Every writer has their own level of tolerance for letting people screw with their works. I saw a comics panel once where Stan Lee joked about how enthusiastic he would appear to producers who came up with incredibly STUPID ideas for Marvel properties-- "Spider-Man is ana actual spider! GREAT idea, Mr. De Laurentis!". That's pretty much how I'd be too. Once it's out of my hands whatever, just make sure the check doesn't bounce.

Harlan Ellison routinely took his name off of shows that changed his scripts. Moore takes it even further. I see no reason to critisize the guy, he seems to be pretty sincere and one of the few writers who seems to actually regard the artists he works with as actual partners.

That said, he seems to share with his political opposite Steve Ditko a certain black and white view of things. My understanding is that once you get on his bad side it's over.

Posted by: Peter David at March 21, 2006 07:07 AM

"Hollywood has taken numerous Moore babies and turned them out, dolled them up with Keanu Reeves, Johnny Depp being ironic and foppish and Sean Connery doing Sean Connery and they've whored his children out."

Oh yeah. Yeah, with that mindset, you're the go-to guy for an impartial assessment of the movie version of "V."

"And c'mon Peter, you wouldn't be happy if Fallen Angel was taken from you, without you having a say, turned into a stupid T&A Pam Anderson vehichle, so get off your damned high horse."

Wow. What a ridiculous statement. Was Sylvester Stallone cast as V? No. Was Dolly Parton cast as Evey? No. Were changes made? Yes. That's Hollywood SOP. The story and characters are still recognizably Moore's, and the film of sufficient quality to draw new readers to the source material. If a "Fallen Angel" film achieved that, I'd be ecstatic.

And if they screwed up "Fallen Angel" completely, then like Liberace, I'd cry all the way to the bank.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at March 21, 2006 07:19 AM

"Moore takes it even further. I see no reason to critisize the guy"

I do, and it's a reason that no one has brought up: Concern.

I've seen way too many stories about once-famous writers living in one-room, freezing cold apartments because they're out of ideas, or their ideas are out of style, and bottom line, they're out of money. Writers having to take menial jobs just to make ends meet. Forrey Ackerman--in his day and in his way, as famous as Alan--had to sell off his entire famed memorabilia collection just to survive. Why else was ACTOR formed if there isn't a general acknowledgement of this problem?

Alan (whom I've never met) is tossing away enough money to guarantee a comfortable old age. It's easy enough now for people to cluck about the evils of Hollywood and heap accolades on Alan for refusing to take the money. And forty years from now, if you read a story about poor Alan Moore, once famous, now destitute, are you going to sigh and say, "Oh, dear, what a tragedy. How depressing," and then turn to the sports section? Or are you going to ponder the words of Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

Now I don't know about you, but personally, I'd rather see Alan Moore live a well-deserved long and comfortable life, benefiting from the fruits of his labors instead of uprooting the tree.

Others, of course, needn't share that opinion.

PAD

Posted by: Speaker at March 21, 2006 07:26 AM

it could have been much much worse
(personally - i loved the adaptation)

Posted by: Peter David at March 21, 2006 07:33 AM

"it could have been much much worse
(personally - i loved the adaptation)"

My God, that's brilliant. "B." I wish I'd thought of it for a masquerade entry.

PAD

Posted by: Randy at March 21, 2006 08:05 AM

Well, I thought V for Vendetta was easily one of the best movies I've ever seen. It had everything that I liked in a movie. It had a good plot that I was easily able to follow; good characters, some that I cheered for and others that I hoped to see brought down by the end; good action sequences; cinemetography and directing were excellent too. I have read the comic before, but that was like 15 years ago. Rereading it, they didn't really change too much except to make it more political for today's time. for those of you judging it without having seen it, I recommend that you at least see what you're condemning first.

I also thought that League of Extrordinary Gentlemen was a good movie. Not excellent, but good. But then, I didn't really care for the comic too much.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 21, 2006 08:31 AM

PAD, I see what you're saying and that's a good point, but I don't know that it applies here. Moore has said that he's comfortable. He could certainly make a boatload of money just by coasting on his fame at this point--I doubt that any comics company would turn down the chance to work with him. He has a novel coming out.

Now, as you say, fortunes can change. But if it's his choice to make his money now as he best sees fit I don't think anyone should second guess him.

Put it another way. Harlan Ellison could have amassed a fortune as one of the best, most prolific TV scriptwriters of all time. He can (and did) come up with plots for everything from westerns to detective shows, to science fiction,to the Flying freaking Nun. All he had to do was kiss a little ass and not make such a fuss when the producers and directors and the key grip and the cousin of the Best Boy came up with their brilliant suggestions on how to "fix" his scripts.

Instead he...well we all know what he did. It has undoubtedly cost him many many jobs, a great deal of money. And maybe now he regrets it, though I haven't seen any indication of this. The point is, all of us make a balance between doing what we want to do and doing what we need to do and it's up to the individual to decide where that line is. Moores stand is an extreme one but he's a fairly extreme guy so that should come as no surprise.

At any rate, I want to be clear--just because I think it's admirable that Moore takes his stand doesn't mean I think it would be less than admirable if you took a different one. Like I said, I'd grab Hollywood's handouts with both hands and laugh at how badly they screwed up whatever it is they bought. In fact, it's kind of funny how one guy with a typewriter can do more than an army of technicians, producers, actors, etc. (and yet the screewriter is the low man on the totem pole. Go figure.)

Posted by: Jesters Tear at March 21, 2006 08:49 AM

>>>And I see nothing different in V For Vendetta, they've taken a work written at the height of the cold war, that was never meant to be applied to current political situations and turned it into a thinly veiled attack on Bush.

Riiiiiight. The only comparison to Bush is the one the Republicans jump to. I think it's rather telling of their true feelings about what Bush is doing when they immediately jump on this film and claim it's an attack on him.

Posted by: Kevin T. Brown at March 21, 2006 08:50 AM

This is just the classic "cutting off your nose to spite your face" syndrome. Has anyone even thought to get the OTHER creator's thoughts and comments about this movie? You know, that artist guy.. whatisname.

Ok, seriously, David Lloyd is already on record as saying the movie is about 80% true to the original. Which is pretty damn good considering.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 21, 2006 09:01 AM

they've taken a work written at the height of the cold war, that was never meant to be applied to current political situations and turned it into a thinly veiled attack on Bush.

Jesus jumping Christ on a pogo stick, I give up.

Considering that any 15 year old today wasn't even ALIVE when the Cold War ended, I think your comment, ElCoyote, sums up just about everything silly I've seen in discussing this movie.

I mean, for crying out loud, we're talking about a graphic novel where part of the central point is in drawing comparisions to events that happened FOUR HUNDRED years ago, and suddenly because the Cold War has ended, the story is no longer relevant to the events of today?

What a joke.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 21, 2006 09:06 AM

Riiiiiight. The only comparison to Bush is the one the Republicans jump to.

Considering that on this very board we've had non-conservatives make the same claim, it would appear that you are incorrect.

Posted by: Bobb at March 21, 2006 09:32 AM

Every once in a while you get Sin City...a movie made so close to the comic, the creator gets a director credit for essentially doing the story boarding. Or should I say, eventually, if you make enough comic-based movies, you'll get Sin City. Because, to my knowledge, it's one of the few, rare times when a movie goes to great lengths to stay not only true, but copy, the comic source.

Hollywood isn't evil...it's just full of egos. And when those egos are in the producer and director's chairs, they're going to intrude onto the material. And if you look at Hollywood as an extension of stage productions, there's a long history of tweaking, amending, updating, even changing stage productions over time. Different settings, different costumes, rearranging scene order, experimenting. Theater/acting is art, and it's going to continue to change, experiment, fall prey to egos.

As a creator, I can understand why you'd want to see your creations represented in the way you see them. But unless Moore turns into an accomplished film director, that's not going to happen. So the best he can hope for is to have his babies given to people that do make movies, and hope they "get" it. And then hope the audience likes it.

Know what I think? This "controversy" makes good press. It creates a stir. People go see the film, they might want to read the comics, to see how different they are from each other. There's certainly no bad to be found in that. After each chapter of the Lord of the Rings films came out, I re-read the books, to see what changes were made, and where, and to see how different the versions were. I always felt that, when changes were made, they were minor, and didn't impact the overall story. In Return of the King, Frodo tosses the ring into Mount Doom before you read about the final battle at Gondor and before the Black Gate. When the Mouth tosses down Frodo's Mithril coat, the reader already knows that Frodo's not dead. It totally eliminates any suspense for the reader that the characters are feeling. In this respect the films are superior to the books.

I suspect that many people could find little examples like that with the film and comic version of V. For ever change made, there just might have been a good reason, not just a film reason, for making it. Different doesn't have to mean worse.

Posted by: Neil Ottenstein at March 21, 2006 09:42 AM

I am glad to hear some praises for the movie. I haven't had a chance to see it, but I do plan on eventually seeing it. Regarding LoEG, I enjoyed the movie - changes and all. I really disliked the second series of LoEG - it was just too nasty for my taste. I wish I hadn't read it.

Neil

Posted by: Angelophile at March 21, 2006 09:43 AM

See, I never understood the fuss about the LXG movie anyway. I mean people are quick to leap to Moore's defence over how his work was butchered for the big screen. They seem less quick to leap to the defence of H. Rider Haggard, whose creation Moore turned into an opium fiend. Or complaining that Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne or H.G. Wells were badly screwed over by having their creations warped and twisted into Moore's vision much more viciously than the movie ever did to Moore.

I'd even argue that the movie was a lot more respectful to the CREATOR'S visions.

Moore wasn't the creator, he just appropriated the characters.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 21, 2006 10:10 AM

As has been pointed out, there's such a thing as being TOO slavish to the original text. Case in point: the first Harry Potter film, which was basically a dramatic reading of the book with neat visuals added. No, thank you.

LotR made a few changes, some of which I took more exception to than others (the changes to Faramir and Saruman being the big ones I didn't really agree with) -- but it was absolutely true to the spirit of the books, and there's a reason that trilogy is likely going to be considered one of the best fantasy films out there even fifty years hence.

I haven't seen V yet, so I can't comment on it with any sort of logic, but I wanted to pass along a comment I read in some newspaper review back around the time the first Spider-Man film came out. I'm quoting it as best as I can remember, but I'm probably getting bits of it wrong. Here goes:

"Moviegoers appear to have no problem with Hollywood treating classic works of literature like cheap hookers, but change anything about a comic-book character and suddenly you're being pilloried for being unfaithful to the source."

I thought that was more than a little true, and both hilarious and deeply sad.

(Oh, and speaking of making changes -- I can't be the only one here who's read Harlan's screenplay of "I, Robot". It's amazingly different from Asimov, and yet would (IMO) have been true to the spirit of Asimov's work while being amazingly interesting in its own right.)

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 21, 2006 10:12 AM

Oh -- and for the record, I think Bram Stoker has a lot less reason to complain about Alan Moore than he does to complain about Francis Ford Coppola. GaaAAAaaa. (I happened to catch the first ten minutes of the movie a few days ago; I'd forgotten how utterly godawful it was...)

TWL

Posted by: Shawn Levasseur at March 21, 2006 10:23 AM

Well, wether or not you consider Moore's complaints legit or not, you have to chuckle at the advertising for the film.

It calls the film an "Uncompromising Vision." When in the shadow of the publicity is one Alan Moore, who's belief in how his work is butchered takes "uncompromising" to whole new levels.

To a certain degree I have to give PAD a nod. We are picking heavy nits. As far as Hollywood adaptations go, this one's very faithful to the spirit and content of the source material.

Case in point: Exhibit "A"... or should I say, exhibit "LXG". Yipes.

At least "V for.." attempts to play in the same sandbox. My (and others) criticisms about how it became less about Anarchist philosophy than the book are more about encouraging better of filmmakers.

It may be as good as one could hope to expect from Hollywood, but one can still always hope for more.

I did pay to see the film. So it's not like I haven't supported the film in some way.

Posted by: Paul Anthony Llossas at March 21, 2006 10:37 AM

I forget which famous author it was who was once asked "How do you feel about Hollywood destroying your books?". This author reportedly pointed to his bookshelf and said, and I'm paraphrasing? "They haven't destroyed anything, they're right there" (Think it was Heinlein, but not sure). Thomas Harris put it even more succinctly when discussing the revisions to his novels: "The book is the book. The movie's the movie". PAD said it best: The movies, if done well enough, will probably encourage people to pick up the source material. Thus, the original work is still appreciated, after a fashion, and might hook a reader the author may not have gotten otherwise.

Doesn't stop me from being slightly affronted when unnecessary changes are made. I still remember way back when "Rising Sun" came out and the identity of the perpetrator was completely changed (it bothered someone else more than I, as this person jumped out of his seat and yelled "Fuck! That ain't the way it happened!"). At the risk of sounding self-promoting, I have an unpublished novel that's been written cinematically, i.e. written in such a way that there is no need for "Hollywood tweaking". However, I'm prepared for it to happen should the novel be published and be picked up for adaptation. The reality of the entertainment beast is such that someone will try to put their own personal stamp on the production. Think about it. A producer's/director's bread and butter come from the perception that the work that appears on the screen is their own work. If it was a simple by-the-numbers affair, then what's to separate DeLaurentis from Speilberg in terms of execution? The egos "have" to put something of their own in the production to make it "theirs", even though ideologically it is not.

Also, bear in mind, there have been instances wherein such changes actually IMPROVED on the story...at least in terms of execution.

One last thing. I unabashedly admit that I'm becoming a published author to MAKE MONEY. My poetry is my writing for myself. There is nothing wrong with writing for the purposes of wealth. Reportedly, Shakespeare wrote his works to cater to the largest audience possible. His plays contained elements that would appeal to both the high brow elite and the low brow commoners. Why did he do that? I submit that it was to maximize his earning potential.

Posted by: Den at March 21, 2006 10:43 AM

I haven't seen V yet, but my feeling about adaptations in general is that there are going to be changes anytime a book is adapted to film. That may be because ideas or plot structures that work on paper don't necessarily translate well to the screen or simply because that the producers feell it's necessary to make the film more marketable. The only test for is not how faithful the film is to the source material, but does the movie work on its own merits. Fusing Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane into a single character worked in Spider-man. Putting Tom Sawyer -if you do the math, he should have been the same age as Quatermain- into LXG did not.

As for LOTR, many fans freaked out over every single change, from eliminating Tom Bombadil to putting elves in Helmsdeep. None of those things really bothered me, because the trilogy still worked on its own merits as a film. But don't bother explaining that to the purits. I gave up on that years ago.

A final thought on Moore: The fact that Moore is still holding a grudge against DC about the Watchmen has caused me to lose a lot of respect for him as a person. It's over 20 years later, and that's far to long to still be pissed about a dispute that at its heart was about money, not creative control.

Posted by: JamesLynch at March 21, 2006 10:43 AM

TWL wrote "(Oh, and speaking of making changes -- I can't be the only one here who's read Harlan's screenplay of "I, Robot". It's amazingly different from Asimov, and yet would (IMO) have been true to the spirit of Asimov's work while being amazingly interesting in its own right.)

I read, and loved, Ellison's adaption of I, ROBOT. Almost as impressive was Asimov's introduction, in which he (Asimov) discusses the difference between the mediums of film and literature and praises Ellison's adaption for keeping the core concepts while making the movie more exciting and emotional.

Then look at the absolutely wretched movie Will Smith movie to see what a train wreck Hollywood can make of something. They completely missed the point of the book, while allowing egos to run rampant. (Anyone out there think Will Smith fought to keep his character low-key but other folks insisted that Will Smith become a mototcycle-riding, smooth-talking cool dude.) Feh.

Posted by: Matt Adler at March 21, 2006 10:44 AM

Alan (whom I've never met) is tossing away enough money to guarantee a comfortable old age. It's easy enough now for people to cluck about the evils of Hollywood and heap accolades on Alan for refusing to take the money. And forty years from now, if you read a story about poor Alan Moore, once famous, now destitute, are you going to sigh and say, "Oh, dear, what a tragedy. How depressing," and then turn to the sports section? Or are you going to ponder the words of Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

Actually, no matter what his eventual financial situation, I'd respect him for taking a principled stand. He's not stupid. He knows what the money he's refusing could buy him. But he puts his work and creative integrity above that. And I can respect that.

It's ironic, but he's similar to Steve Ditko in that way, despite their very different political stands. And you can see that admiration for Ditko's philosophy, for his determination to take a stand, his refusal to compromise even when it would benefit him to do so, in his portrayal of Rorschach in Watchmen.

So yeah, I respect and admire people like that, and I strive to be like that in my own life (though I certainly don't always succeed). But you try, and that's what counts I think. So I respect Moore for taking this stand, whatever the consequences.

Posted by: Bobb at March 21, 2006 10:47 AM

"Moviegoers appear to have no problem with Hollywood treating classic works of literature like cheap hookers, but change anything about a comic-book character and suddenly you're being pilloried for being unfaithful to the source."

I'd say moveigoes, in general, don't really give any thought to whether a film adheres closely to the source material. Or even, in many cases, that there IS a source inspiring the current film. It's only fans of the source material that care at all. Comic fans, fantasy fans, sci fi fans...we're all a pretty rabid lot. But take comic fans....being generous, let's say there's some 500,000 individual people that pay money for comics. I said I was being generous. According to Box Office Mojo, V pulled in some $25 million this weekend...a really good opening for a genre film that's bound to turn some off just because it might be critical of our current government. At $8 per ticket, that's some 3.2 million people. Even if you assume that all of those 500,000 comic buyers went out to see the film, there's still 2.7 million people more that went to see it. We're about 16% of the opening weekend take at most. Studios care a little about what comic fans think. But mostly, they're concerned with making a movie that appeals to a base bigger than just comic fans. They have to. There's no enough of us to support a big-budget movie. There's barely enough of us to support a good monthly comic.

All of which makes me laugh a little. Organic web shooters, having Joker kill the Waynes, making tar the key ingredient in making Bizarro Superman...all deviations from the comic, all made for movies. Comic fans can get so caught up in the details, they lose sight of the end product....was it entertaining. I'll take a slightly continuity-plagued story that entertains over something boring that fits lockstep into canon any day.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 21, 2006 10:52 AM

Hollywood isn't evil...it's just full of egos.

Actually, I'd say the problem isn't so much ego, as it is money.

Lucas is the ultimate example: he's paying for the Star Wars movies out of pocket, and thus he gets to do whatever the hell he wants.

Nobody else really has that kind of freedom.

With Lord of the Rings, it was complete make or break for New Line: if the movies failed, the company would basically go under.

So, with money, comes dabbling. And that's where so many movies have issues - the studio dabbles, pushes, and prods for what they want because it's their money.

Posted by: Den at March 21, 2006 10:59 AM

What you have to realize about the I, Robot movie is that this was intended to be a Will Smith vehicle from day one. They didn't start with the premise of "we're adapting Asimov's short story collection." They started with, "Well, Will Smith has fought aliens in three movies, let's have him fight robots. What's a good title for a robot movie? Didn't that Asimov guy write a book about robots? Let's get the rights to that."

The end result was inevitable. It was a paint-by-the-numbers action movie that was the exact opposite of Asimov's philosophical point in I, Robot.

Posted by: Little Guy at March 21, 2006 11:05 AM

Tim Lynch:
As has been pointed out, there's such a thing as being TOO slavish to the original text.

And there's being too anal concerning faithfulness to a book.

I give myself as an example -- for the longest time, I had a real problem with the movie version of "To Kill A Mockingbird". Why? Because they cut out *6 to 8 pages* and fasttracked a scene (the one where Scout is whailing on the Cunningham boy, and they left out the flashback to a flashback why the boy wouldn't take a nickle.)

Horrors! Never mind they kept a good 95% of the movie (and with Gregory Peck leading a stellar cast) -- THEY LEFT OUT A SCENE! WAAH!

Balance is always the prerequisite in adaptation.

Posted by: Den at March 21, 2006 11:06 AM

Bobb, your assessment is 100% correct. Dummy Moore got away with tacking on the happy ending to The Scarlet Letter because she was nearly correct when she said no one reads it anyway. The vast majority of filmgoers do not read the source material that movies are derived from.

How many people here read Forrest Gump before the movie came out? Gods and Monsters? Brokeback Mountain?

SF/Fantasy/Comics fans are a very propriority lot in general. It's not just about movies. Hell, how many times have we seen comics fans ranting and raving on message boards because of a reboot or a story that contradicted continuity established 10, 20, even 30 years ago. Go to just about any comics-related message board and look for a guy callimg himself "ManoftheAtom." I'll guarantee that no matter what the subject being discussed is, he'll be ranting about how Waid's Birthright sucked and Byrne's Man of Steel is the only "real" origin of Superman.

And that's just one example.

Posted by: Barry at March 21, 2006 11:08 AM

Thank you!! I posted on another blog how I thought Moore was being somewhat petulant and bratty about the whole thing and was lambasted by other posters.

And I agree about your concern for Alan's future. One would assume he was already quite wealthy, based on his so casually refusing and giving money away. Perhaps he is, but I have my doubts. Hopefully he reconsiders his position at some point in the future.

Posted by: Den at March 21, 2006 11:09 AM

With Lord of the Rings, it was complete make or break for New Line: if the movies failed, the company would basically go under.

Which makes the fact that Peter Jackson was able to include as much of the novels as he actually did pretty amazing, considering initially the studio wanted the entire trilogy done in two, two-hour movies.

Posted by: Randy at March 21, 2006 11:12 AM

I'm disappointed in a lot of you folks.

Do I think everybody needs to agree with Moore? No.

But I do I think you guys need to calm down a bit. Moore has his grievances, and they are now getting in the mainstream news channels. As much as I love Heidi, The Beat ain't the New York Times. Most people who go to see movies don't read Newsarama.

So you are sick of seeing these articles? DON'T READ THEM!

And if you want to tell me the same thing, I've beat you to it. I'm tired of reading about what a prima donna Alan Moore is for not fitting your ideas of what a writer should be like, and I'm outta here.

Posted by: joelfinkle at March 21, 2006 11:25 AM

A couple of notes: you left out an important change of ending: Count of Monte Cristo.

Both the movie V quotes on film, and the more recent Jim Caveziel/Guy Pearce versions were given happy endings, where Dantes does not learn how awful a life of revenge is (Even Inigo Montoya figures it out at the end).

Let's praise a few respectful comic adaptations. Not necessarily 100% reproductions of the original stories, but worth watching, even for the changes:
Spidey 1&2
X-Men 2 (although they wasted Lady Deathstrike's potential with another silent "Darth Maul" death)
Road to Perdition (yup, a comic book)
A History of Violence (that too)

and away from comics, there isn't a better adaptation -- even though it strays from the written word -- than Silence of the Lambs (good for you Jodie, for dropping out of Hannibal).

I'll give nods to Andromeda Strain (I don't think Crichton's been treated that well since), The Princess Bride... I can probably list more, but I should get back to work.

Posted by: Kathy P. at March 21, 2006 11:36 AM

Mr. Moore, if retiring (such as it may be) in the U.K., in the immediate future (which is not likely to change soon, given so many "pensioners" already on the roll), will be taken care of. He will be allotted a pension, paid for with taxes by the working stiffs of the U.K. And medical care is taken care of by a national health system. The pension system has been in place since medieval times, to some degree, so I don't think he's going to be starving because he's not taking credit for works in the past. If money comes into his hands, I'm assuming the government will take a share of it beofre it leaves his hands, thus putting into the system he will later take from.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at March 21, 2006 11:41 AM

If anyone should complain about their books being ravaged to make movies, it's Tom Clancy.

"The Hunt for Red October" is probably the one movie that follows the book best, other than losing one submarine battle and totally changing Jack Ryan's childhood.

"Patriot Games" starts out well, but totally compresses the story and changes a very intense ending to a Hollywood ending.

"Clear and Present Danger" tries to follow the book, but so much of the book was tossed out to make it a Harrison Ford action/adventure film instead of a political thriller.

"Sum of All Fears" has a character named Jack Ryan and a nuclear blast at a football game. Not the same game, or even city as the book. And the villians of the book aren't even in the movie.

But, Tom Clancy also realized that he wasn't going to get HIS books made into movies, so like PAD said, he went crying all the way to the bank.

Posted by: michael j norton at March 21, 2006 11:54 AM

You know, I've read many different articles on this whole "Moore vs.DC" thing and I still don't completly understand it. Maybe that is because no one does anymore. I get the feeling that Alan Moore is just a bit touched in the head. Personally, I think he'd do a lot more good in the world if he'd not bother with getting his name removed from past works and just took the money and gave it to charity. If he doesn't want to work for DC, fine. Personally, I wouldn't work for them at the moment either, at least not until certain changes are made. But that's me.

Another point is that "V" fans have it good. Their story is kept in its original form for 15 years! The fans of the original Star Wars films are the ones who have to hope their vhs tapes don't get messed up.

Oh and good point about LOEG. I personally liked the film better than the comics as well because I felt the comics were farther off the mark than the movie.

Michael

Posted by: Bobb at March 21, 2006 12:04 PM

The Bond franchise is maybe the most public example...maybe next to Clancy...of a book series being totally hacked by the movies.

For a lot of the material mentioned, I'd wager that most of the people that saw things like A History of Violence and Road to Perdition didn't know they were comics first...including people that are into comics. I'd bet that the movie that's not based on a book, short story, comic, TV show, play, or older film is a pretty rare beast. Movies have always cost so much to make, relatively speaking, that no sane producer would commit funds to a story that hasn't been a proven success somewhere else.

And let's not pretend that comics are on this one-way road of getting shafted when it comes to movie adaptations. How many comic adaptations of movies have been...let's say, sub par. I think the last good movie version of a comic I saw was when Jerry Ordway drew the adaptation of Burton's Batman.

Posted by: Bobb at March 21, 2006 12:07 PM

Is part of Moore's gripe really that DC hasn't "allowed" the Watchmen to go out of print long enough for the rights to revert solely to him? I really have a hard time with that. Watchmen was a landmark comic series. It's still very relevant today. And it sells. There's a demand for the work. Moore get royalties on it, I'm sure. It's unfortunate that he regrets the contract he entered, but that's the deal he made. Whining about it now just seems petulant.

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at March 21, 2006 12:16 PM

Now see, this is why I didn't hop on the bandwagon of those mortally offended by Disney's Hunckback of Notre Dame, which -- while in no way a close retelling of the Victor Hugo novel -- has possibly the single best and most powerful music of any animated Disney picture with the possible exception of Fantasia. See also the animated Iron Giant, which is an extremely free adaptation of its literary source material. See as well the animated Secret of NIMH, ditto -- both are very good films, but neither hews closely to the original book.

I have not yet seen V for Vendetta, though I hope to (despite not having looked at the Moore graphic version). I did read parts of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic series before seeing that film (the two are different animals, and while the LXG movie looks gorgeous, I had real trouble suspending my disbelief when the submarine headed into the Venetian canals).

As to Moore -- I think any writer who sells his work to Hollywood has to expect it to be reshaped for the screen. Depending on who you work with and how much leverage you have, you can sometimes guide the process (William Goldman had the prior credentials to do his own screenplay for Princess Bride, J. K. Rowling's books were bankable enough that she could demand a degree of creative control when signing the licensing deal), but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 12:20 PM

Has Alan Moore stated, or even implied, that anyone who doesn't share his stance is morally inferior? If not, I really don't understand why so many of you are upset.

I mean, this isn't about you, folks.

And yes, before anyone piles on me and demands to know, "Aren't we entitled to disagree with Alan Moore??? AREN'T WE???????????????"

Well, of course you can disagree with Alan Moore. If that's all people were doing, I wouldn't take issue with it.

But the unnecessary outrage, the ostentatious cries that you just cannot take any more of these articles, the attempts to impute motives to a man you don't know, these are things that strike me as hollow.

Mind you, I'm not going to try to similarly impute ill motives to those of you who don't agree with me. I'm sure you're very sincere about what you're saying, and you have a right to say such things. I just wanted to share a thought for those who might be open to it.

Posted by: Ray Cornwall at March 21, 2006 12:21 PM

I do think it's fair to say that while Moore wasn't "screwed" by his DC contract, he never expected that the books would still be selling this well two decades later. And who would? I mean, take a look at the comics industry in the mid-80s. Were there ANY graphic novel compilations that remained in print for 20 years at that time?

Moore's damned by his own success. Sure, his positions seem a little strange, and if it were me, I'd probably take the money and have a niec lunch with the film producers. But I'm not Moore, and I'm not the creative genius that he is, and obviously that mindset is part of what makes him one of the best graphic novelists ever.

As an aside, I have the hardcover edition of V for Vendetta that he complains about in his interview with Heidi McDonald. The back cover blurb just says HAVE A PLEASANT; whoever proofread the thing was asleep that day.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 21, 2006 12:24 PM

I've read most of Moore's work over the last couple of decades, going back to his UK stuff when it was being sporadically reprinted here in America. I still think his work on Swamp Thing is one of the greatest revamps of a character in comics history. I felt Watchmen had its flaws (I still have trouble reading the Black Pirate stuff) but its still a masterpiece in my humble opinion. And if you don't think Watchmen is still an influential piece of work, look no further than Lost as an example of how today's writers have been affected by it. I enjoyed From Hell, which I read in its collected form, and V For Vendetta when it was reprinted here some years back (was it Eclipse? I can't remember) and I'm still following League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; even plunked down for the Absolute Edition of Book One a while back so I could read Moore's scripts in volume two.

I mention all of this to show that I'm a die-hard Moore follower for many years, but I also understand, as Peter pointed out, that adapting an existing work does not necessarily mean following it to the letter. I saw V For Vendetta last week and enjoyed it for the most part, although the device of putting everybody in V masks at the end smacked of somebody saying, 'Wouldn't it be great if...' But I think it largely stayed true to the tone of the original piece, bearing in mind how much American and British politics have changed since the original book came out. I enjoyed From Hell as a movie, with the exception of Heather Graham, whose terrible accent and contemporary makeup basically destroyed every scene she was in. I couldn't stand the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film, although having read one of the early scripts, I still feel it got watered down quite a bit during production and post-production. And if somebody with as strong a visual sensibility as Terry Gilliam says he couldn't do justice to Watchmen, I'm perfectly happy if a film is never made (although an eight-hour HBO-funded mini-series might change my mind).

The point I'm trying to make is that whether I enjoy the original books or not, I can understand the adapted works are going to be different. Whether or not they're any good is a different matter. I tend to agree with Peter that Moore should just take the money, donate it to charity or build the From Hell Memorial Library or whatever. But I can understand where he's coming from. If he cashed the checks, he'd be accused of being a hypocrite, so, as other posters have mentioned, he put his money where his mouth is and gave it to his collaborators. And even doing that, there are still people questioning his motives, so it just goes to prove you can't win.

I may be putting two and two together and coming up with five here, but my sense was that until recently, Moore was relatively sanguine about Hollywood making movies of his work as long as it had nothing to do with him (see the earlier post about the writer pointing to his books on the wall), but after being accused of plagarism on the League movie, he felt he had to completely distance himself from the adapted works. And when producer Joel Silver basically came out and suggested Moore's involvement in the V for Vendetta movie, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Do I feel Moore reacted too strongly? No, not really. I think the producers would have been only too happy to plaster his name all over their promotional materials if givn the chance, so he had to make it absolutely crystal clear that he had nothing to do with the film.

In an industry that requires compromise as a way of doing business, it's nice to know that from time to time, people like Harlan Ellison or Alan Moore aren't afraid to stand up for their work and take an ethical stand. I'm sure both of those writers could be very wealthy men right now if they chose to compromise, but they've opted for a higher ethical standard over a bigger paycheck. More power to them I say.

Posted by: Jason at March 21, 2006 12:26 PM

I'm not touching the Moore vs DC debate, but as I understand it a large part of why Moore is all upset is because Joel Silver stated that Moore was pleased with the film and happy with it or something to that extent. And that's when Alan got pissed off. I can't blame him too much for that.

I'm curious what Harlan Ellison thinks on the matter, given that HE has also turned down jobs and given up money over principles.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 12:30 PM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 21, 2006 07:02 AM

Harlan Ellison routinely took his name off of shows that changed his scripts. Moore takes it even further. I see no reason to critisize the guy, he seems to be pretty sincere and one of the few writers who seems to actually regard the artists he works with as actual partners.

*****************************************

Have you read Ellison's book, "City on the Edge of Forever: The Original Teleplay That Became the Classic Star Trek Episode?" It's his attempt to set the record straight about what really happened, and why he so loathed the version that aired.

Ellison uses documentary evidence very persuasively, and makes a solid case that Gene Roddenberry and others didn't just muck up his script, but in fact lied about Ellison. Repeatedly. Over decades.

The book has Ellison's original version of "City," and it is infinitely better than what aired. I won't try to do it justice here. I urge anyone who hasn't read this book to do so.

Ellison has a reputation for being an S.O.B. For all I know, maybe he is. Or maybe it's the reputation you get from those who don't like it when you stick to principles, and insist that others do the same.

Posted by: Jerry C at March 21, 2006 12:40 PM

I can't find myself feeling bad for Moore. I used to get upset about this kind of thing when I was still a teenager and dumb as a brick about how life worked. But I can't find that I get upset about it now.

I like much of Moore's work a great deal. I will cop to liking LoEG better as a film then a book for the reason someone else stated above. I could just never really get into what more did to several characters I grew up reading and enjoying. But what of Moore's other works? They're still there to enjoy no matter what Hollywood does with them.

Hollywood has never actually touched a single bit of Moore's work. Hollywood has never changed a single word on the written pages of Moore's work. Hollywood, just as it always does, created its version of something else. They gave us, to swipe from the Golden Age, Earth-H versions of Earth-M characters.

Is Moore's work better? Yes, it quite often is. Is Hollywood destroying Moore's, or anyone else's, work? No. The only way that Hollywood could be destroying or corrupting the work of a creator is if the creator actually changed his or her future works to conform to the Hollywood version of the creation. I don't see Moore doing that anytime soon.

Have I ever been in Moore's shoes? Have I ever had a labor of love perverted by the Hollywood machine? No. But I've had things happen that are the equivalent of that to a lesser degree. And I didn't get the kind of check handed to me that Moore and others can get.

Yeah, I pointed out that "evil" money thing. Let us say that I created a comic or novel that became a huge seller and acquired a huge fan following. It stands to reason that Hollywood would come round for a visit. Would I, knowing what Hollywood does to creators work, sign on the dotted line? Yes. Oh, hell yeah. Why? Well, money.

Would that make me artistically less then people like Moore? No. My general skill level as a wordsmith is what would make me less then people like Moore. Cashing a Hollywood check would have no bearings on my artistic integrity or ability since it would not change how I wrote anything in the future and it would not change so much as one word of the work that I had already created.

What would it do? It would go a long way toward making my day to day life better. It would help cover the house work that I'm dealing with now. It would help make sure that I could provide for my wife and for the children we want to have. It would help to build a nice nest egg for our future. It would help to give us a lot of securities that we don't have now.

Moore and others really sound like people being handed lemonade and crabbing that it's lemons. Moore's work is still out there and as intact as it ever was. Moore has the integrity to continue to create work that is his best rather then what he thinks will be liked by Hollywood. Moore's fans will still be there for him and for the next project he does outside of the Hollywood system. If he can't see all the blessings that he has because of this then I refuse to feel bad for him.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 21, 2006 01:06 PM

As to Moore -- I think any writer who sells his work to Hollywood has to expect it to be reshaped for the screen.

Except, from what I've read, Moore didn't sell his work to Hollywood: DC did.

Well, if you even want to say that much, since DC and WB are both part of Time Warner.

And seeing how so few comic adaptations were being done 15-20 years ago, I can see why that wouldn't have been much of a concern at the time.

Posted by: foonon at March 21, 2006 01:08 PM

This is a very good (and recent) article about the reasoning behind Alan Moore's attitide toward Hollywood (amongst other things): http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article352247.ece

In a nutshell, some loser sued 20th Century Fox over LoEG and, as AM says in the article "...I had to go down to London to do this videotaped testimony regarding the case, and I was cross-examined for 10 hours. I remember thinking that if I had raped and murdered a busful of retarded schoolchildren after selling them heroin, I probably wouldn't have been cross-examined for that long."

That was the last straw for him. He was content enough to take the money before when it was offered to him, but after that, he wants nothing to do with it, distancing himself from Hollywoof completely.

With great sackfuls of cash comes great responsibility, a large target on your chest and legal liability.

That's what he can't stand, I think.

~f

Posted by: Den at March 21, 2006 01:30 PM

Is part of Moore's gripe really that DC hasn't "allowed" the Watchmen to go out of print long enough for the rights to revert solely to him?

I don't think. From what I've read over the years, Moore was upset that, when Watchmen became a real hit for DC, DC began selling merchandizing materials like the blood-stained smiley face button, but Moore's original contract didn't give him a piece of that action and DC refused to renegotiate it.

As far as the rights reverting to him, I'm not sure if that's an issue. Watchmen was originally conceived as using the Charlton characters that DC had then recently purchased. When DC decided instead to use the Crisis to integrate them into the DCU, Moore altered the characters, turning the Question into Rorschach, etc. So, was this a contract project for Moore was it work for hire? If it was work for hire, then letting it go out of print won't cause the rights to the characters to revert to him.

They're still there to enjoy no matter what Hollywood does with them.

Hollywood has never actually touched a single bit of Moore's work. Hollywood has never changed a single word on the written pages of Moore's work. Hollywood, just as it always does, created its version of something else.

I tried that argument a few years ago in another forum against a nutbag who considered the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be the greatest movie ever made and was furious that Hollywood was "ruinning" it by making a remake. That he could still watch and enjoy the original on video tape made no impression on him.

And that's why I don't debate insane purists any more.

Posted by: Roger Tang at March 21, 2006 01:38 PM

tried that argument a few years ago in another forum against a nutbag who considered the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be the greatest movie ever made and was furious that Hollywood was "ruinning" it by making a remake. That he could still watch and enjoy the original on video tape made no impression on him.

And that's why I don't debate insane purists any more.

Yeah, well, that's why I call them embalmers. They care more about the form than the content.

As far as Moore is concerned, I respect him, but not his stance.

Posted by: Bobb at March 21, 2006 01:48 PM

"I do think it's fair to say that while Moore wasn't "screwed" by his DC contract, he never expected that the books would still be selling this well two decades later. And who would? I mean, take a look at the comics industry in the mid-80s. Were there ANY graphic novel compilations that remained in print for 20 years at that time?"

So, you're basically suggesting that Moore only agreed to this contract because he never suspected that it might still be a viable book 20 years past? That's like me walking into the Lottery office tomorrow and saying "hey, if I had known you were going to pick those numbers last night, I'd have purchased a ticket. Can you pretend I did, and just give me the prize money?"

Watchmen was published 20 years ago. I have a hard time believing that, prior to that, in the history of entertainment, no small niche endeavor went on to a long-running, critically and economically viable life that surprised someone. Moore agreed to a contract in order to get his work published. It seems like a fair contract...Moore continues to make money, DC continues to make money, and the world gets to continue to read the story. What more could someone want?

And we can speculate the other way: DC might never had agreed to a contract that contained a final revision of rights to Moore.

And put me in camp that doubts that a 2-3 hour treatment of the Watchmen could be done. It's a pretty deep story, and pacing is fairly important. I'm not sure how many hours of film it would take, but 3 hours would make me wonder if they'd be able to do the story justice. I'm hoping they include the pirate stuff in some way, as it adds layers to the story. But I think a regular film audience of non-comic viewers might be put off by that, considering how many comic folks are turned off by the pirate stuff.

Moore

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 01:55 PM

Posted by: Roger Tang at March 21, 2006 01:38 PM

As far as Moore is concerned, I respect him, but not his stance.

*************************************

I don't know what your particular perception of Moore's stance is. But I just read the link provided by foonon (thanks for that, by the way) and it's very illuminating.

The stance Moore articulates seems to bear little resemblance to the portrayals of that stance that I've read from PAD and others.

Moore says that at one time he was happy to take the money, knowing full well what hit the screen wouldn't be his vision. But then he was sued for plagiarism in connection with a film adaptation of one of his works, and decided the money wasn't worth the headaches.

And it seems the only reason he publicly stated he does not support the film version of "V for Vendetta" is because some people were claiming he does support it -- even though they knew better.

And even though Moore would prefer not to see anything else he's written be translated to the big screen, he realizes the artists with whom he collaborated might feel differently. So rather than attempt to oppose the adaptation of a comic that he created with an artist, thereby denying said artist a chance at earning some nice Hollywood royalties, Moore has simply asked that his name be kept off of the film and all related promotional materials, and will give his share of the proceeds to his collaborators.

Folks, that's fair-minded and principled. Moore doesn't like something, so he'll avoid it. He doesn't demand the same of others.

I don't see the problem here.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 21, 2006 03:01 PM

I'm not trying to split hairs here, but my memory is that Moore also refused to take money prior to the 'League' lawsuit. Although the Independent article cited earlier suggests he did, if you read the piece carefully, it's the Independent writer who makes that assertion, not Moore. Does anybody want to clarify that point?

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 03:07 PM

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 21, 2006 03:01 PM

I'm not trying to split hairs here, but my memory is that Moore also refused to take money prior to the 'League' lawsuit. Although the Independent article cited earlier suggests he did, if you read the piece carefully, it's the Independent writer who makes that assertion, not Moore. Does anybody want to clarify that point?

****************************************

Actually, in that article Moore is quoted as saying, "I figured that if people wanted to give me a lot of money to make a film that had only a coincidental resemblance to my work, then that was fine by me."

Posted by: Roger Tang at March 21, 2006 03:17 PM

I don't know what your particular perception of Moore's stance is. But I just read the link provided by foonon (thanks for that, by the way) and it's very illuminating.

The stance Moore articulates seems to bear little resemblance to the portrayals of that stance that I've read from PAD and others.

Moore says that at one time he was happy to take the money, knowing full well what hit the screen wouldn't be his vision. But then he was sued for plagiarism in connection with a film adaptation of one of his works, and decided the money wasn't worth the headaches.

That's the stance I don't respect. He gives the people suing him power by taking them seriously; the claims were inherently preposterous and he gave them far too much credence.

It seemed as if Moore felt that he was a bystander in the affair and was sucked into it without getting control of the circumstances that he wanted if he were the major player in the suit. That he blames Hollywood instead of the individual bringing suit (or his lawyer) is not a stance I respect.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 21, 2006 03:24 PM

Bill, thanks for pointing that out; I happily stand corrected.

Posted by: joelfinkle at March 21, 2006 03:34 PM

A couple more notes: Moore doesn't have control over what movies get made because the contracts probably spell that out. Contracts today are very different from those of 15 years ago. Ask actors getting screwed out of DVD royalties because DVDs aren't covered by contracts that talk about *tapes*.

Second: Harlan Ellison's "City" is a teriffic story, a more true-to-character story than what was filmed, but would have been very expensive to produce -- even Harlan admits that, and that D.C. Fontana's (uncredited) rewrites were brilliant in parts. His beef is mainly in how he was treated by Gene, and that as a writer he has no control over how it is changed. That really hasn't changed at all.

At least we're starting to see a bit of a resurgence of the writer's value: Larry McMurtry at the Oscars got a lot of love. "Unscripted" TV is fading, at least a little bit. The long-arc TV show (Lost, Veronica, even evening soaps like Housewives and Anatomy) are getting the eye-time and the awards.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 03:35 PM

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 21, 2006 03:24 PM

Bill, thanks for pointing that out; I happily stand corrected.

Hey, every once in a great while, I'm good for something, y'know?

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 03:58 PM

Posted by: joelfinkle at March 21, 2006 03:34 PM

Second: Harlan Ellison's "City" is a teriffic story, a more true-to-character story than what was filmed, but would have been very expensive to produce -- even Harlan admits that, and that D.C. Fontana's (uncredited) rewrites were brilliant in parts. His beef is mainly in how he was treated by Gene, and that as a writer he has no control over how it is changed. That really hasn't changed at all.

Actually, in City on the Edge of Forever, Ellison states that the filmed version of "City" went significantly over budget, because Roddenberry wanted the sets, costumes, etc. for the scenes on Earth in the 1930s to look authentic. In the book, Ellison presents documentary evidence to support his claim.

In fact, in the book Ellison rejects the claim that his original script would have been too expensive to shoot. According to Ellison, Roddenberry requested that a scene be added to show the Enterprise in jeopardy. Ellison was resistant for creative reasons, but eventually gave in. According to Ellison, Roddenberry later cited that scene as one of the things that made Ellison's original script too hard to shoot -- even though Roddenberry himself is the one who pushed for it.

Have you read City on the Edge of Forever? If not, I'd urge you to do so. Not only would it clear up some of your misconceptions about what Ellison has or has not publicly stated about "City," but it's also a great read, both for the script and for the story behind the story.

And yes, I know that things haven't changed much in terms of the creative control T.V. writers are afforded. I was simply making a point about Ellison's insistence on sticking to his guns, and how much crap people gave him for it.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 21, 2006 04:04 PM

That's the stance I don't respect. He gives the people suing him power by taking them seriously; the claims were inherently preposterous and he gave them far too much credence.

It seemed as if Moore felt that he was a bystander in the affair and was sucked into it without getting control of the circumstances that he wanted if he were the major player in the suit. That he blames Hollywood instead of the individual bringing suit (or his lawyer) is not a stance I respect.

Perhaps what makes him so upset is that Hollywood actually rewarded those inherently preposterous claims by settling the lawsuit. My understanding is that Larry Cohen got money to make the suit go away. One can imagine that this might stick in the craw of the man who is being accused of plagerism.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 21, 2006 04:59 PM

Have you read City on the Edge of Forever? If not, I'd urge you to do so. Not only would it clear up some of your misconceptions about what Ellison has or has not publicly stated about "City," but it's also a great read, both for the script and for the story behind the story.

And it's got an essay by our host here at the end, too.

TWL

Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 21, 2006 05:03 PM

Finally, someone has put it into perspective. I've gotten to the point where, if I see a movie based on a book or comic book I've read, I make myself forget the source material for two hours and just watch the movie AS A MOVIE. Changes are inevitable. An adaptation isn't a direct transplant, it's just a movie for which the writer was able to steal stuff from another writer. If the movie entertains, it's done its job, whether it was faithful to its source or not. So that's why I'm annoyed by all this petty squawking that erupts every time an Alan Moore book gets made into a movie.

That said (and this coming from someone who has never read the book), I can't say I enjoyed the movie. It wasn't BAD (at least, not bad enough to warrant the reactions it's received), but it just seemed kind of perfunctory and aimless, and I was bored by it. And, perhaps because I recently watched Equilibrium (a very similar movie, but much more entertaining), I felt like I'd seen it all before. It did make me want to read the book, though, as I could tell there was an interesting story in there somewhere, and I could almost see the seams where they cut stuff out.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 05:29 PM

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 21, 2006 04:59 PM

And it's got an essay by our host here at the end, too.

TWL

Oh, yeah, it was pretty stupid of me to forget mentioning that. :( In fact, of the essasy in the back of the book, I found PAD's to be the most insightful and illuminating.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 05:42 PM

Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 21, 2006 05:03 PM

So that's why I'm annoyed by all this petty squawking that erupts every time an Alan Moore book gets made into a movie.

My point was that some people are accusing Alan Moore of doing some of the "squawking," which I think is unfair. The man has simply asked that his name no longer be used in connection with the movies based on his works. And that movie producers abstain from claiming he's endorsed a movie when the opposite is true.

I think any Moore fans who are "squawking" should do what Moore says he wants to do: simply ignore the movies based on his works. Don't go to 'em if they're going to upset you.

As far as adaptations go, I don't expect adaptations to be slavishly faithful to every detail of a book or comic-book. But I wish more of them were faithful to the spirit of the works they're allegedly based upon. I've never seen the movie adaptation of The Natural. When I found out they changed the ending so the outcome of the story was the polar opposite of the ending in the book, I decided I didn't need to see the movie. To me, it wouldn't be The Natural. It would be something else. Which is fine and dandy, but give it a different title, then. If a movie carries the name of a novel -- particularly a great novel -- I'd prefer that the movie stay true to the spirit of the source material.

(As an aside I've never been able to sit all the way through a Bond movie. They do nothing for me. But I read a couple of Ian Fleming's Bond stories -- which also did nothing for me -- including the short story "Octopussy." In the movie version, my friend told me Octopussy was the name of a villain. I laughed, because in the short story, Octopussy is the nickname of an actual Octopus.)

I know there's no law that says my preferences must be enforced. And I know that many novelists willingly sell their creations to Hollywood and laugh all the way to the bank, even if Hollywood violates the spirit of their creations. Hey, if you wrote it and Hollywood wants it, you're entitled to cash in.

Posted by: Rob at March 21, 2006 06:04 PM

I think Alan has made his points clear.

He has cut all ties to DC Comics and he most likely hopes that Silver, and everyone who made the movie go rot in Hell.

I think he has made that clear.

Posted by: IGuy at March 21, 2006 06:17 PM

The thing is hardly anybody has read Mary Poppins, Pinnochio, Snow White, etc. etc. 90 percent of the people that have seen these adaptations think of the movies first. That is probably what is going to happen to V. It isn't like Batman or Superman, in which movies will be made throughout history as long as the characters do. This will probably be the only V movie ever made. This is it.

And it was pedestrian compared to the book. Yeah, the movie is the movie and the book still exists. But it doesn't keep people from being disappointed that this could have been a really, really great movie and turned out to be not so close... a wasted chance. And the fact this will likely be V for 90 percent of people as opposed to the much more complex, much more meaningful novel is kind of depressing.

Posted by: Richard Marvin at March 21, 2006 07:00 PM

1Was skimming some the above remarks mostly intriqued by the League/Allan Quatermain remarks. When Mr. Moore LGX comics came out my wife had to put up with ranting and raving over the changes made to Quatermain--mostly about the drug addiction. I have read all 14 novels and 4 short stories by Henry Rider Haggard--took over 30 years of casual hunting--Wildside Press has most of them in print--more's the irony after e-bay auctions. Anyhoo--after settling down and thinking things thru I came to the conclusion that while Moore's depiction of Quatermain will never be what I would have envisioned it had basis in the books. The drugs elements were from The Ancient Alland and Allan and the Ice Gods--drug enhanced visions of former lives. Lady Ragnall by the by was intro in The Ivory Child one of the best in the series and has almost all of Haggards themes in one book (death of a beloved conrade, quests to far off lands, white goddess figure, reincarnation, etc.) My complaints of Moore's treatment of Quatermain is that he really did not do much in the comics--though a passive character in temperment he's really a leader in getting the job done.

Apologies for the rambling--but in the case of book to moves abominations--check out Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm novels vs the Dean Martin and you'll believe Moore got off easy. Agreat spy series that deserved better. For comparisons--early Len Deighton movies with Michael Caine--Ipcress File, etc.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 07:14 PM

Posted by: Rob at March 21, 2006 06:04 PM
I think Alan has made his points clear.

He has cut all ties to DC Comics and he most likely hopes that Silver, and everyone who made the movie go rot in Hell.

I think he has made that clear.

Okay, I've read a few articles about Alan Moore's attitude towards movie adaptations of his works, and in those articles he never said anything close to that.

Can you cite a quote -- and reference the article wherein that appears -- where Moore says anything remotely like that?

Posted by: Peter David at March 21, 2006 07:21 PM

"The thing is hardly anybody has read Mary Poppins, Pinnochio, Snow White, etc. etc. 90 percent of the people that have seen these adaptations think of the movies first."

I don't disagree that many people think of the movie first. On the other hand, since the books remain readily available and well known--as opposed to forgotten and out of print, which is the fate of (let's face it) most books--it could be argued that the existence of the Disney movies have helped keep them alive and vital.

PAD

Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 21, 2006 07:33 PM

"In the movie version, my friend told me Octopussy was the name of a villain."

Actually, it's the name of the Bond Girl, not the villain (true, she is a jewel thief and the leader of some sort of bizarre circus cult, but she's not a villain). And for what it's worth, Octopussy is one of my favorite Bond movies.

Posted by: RJM at March 21, 2006 07:47 PM

And don't forget, in Bernard Malamud's book "The Natural", Roy Hobbs strikes out and takes the money.

Posted by: RDFozz at March 21, 2006 08:07 PM

I may be misremembering the Watchmen situation. However, as I recall, Moore did have some agreement with DC that Watchmen would become his if they failed to do anything with it once the story was completed.

I have gotten the impression that "anything", to Moore, meant continuing to use the characters and situations he had created. There was talk of a Minutemen miniseries as a follow-up at the time. However, DC published something like a role-playing game supplement with the characters, and that qualified as the "anything" required for them to keep the characters.

Which, if the above is correct, would explain why Moore was unwilling to trust DC again.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 08:25 PM

Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 21, 2006 07:33 PM
"In the movie version, my friend told me Octopussy was the name of a villain."

Actually, it's the name of the Bond Girl, not the villain (true, she is a jewel thief and the leader of some sort of bizarre circus cult, but she's not a villain). And for what it's worth, Octopussy is one of my favorite Bond movies.

My friend really did tell me Octopussy was a villain in the film. But I just looked it and verified that you are correct. That's what I get for relying on hearsay.

Anyway, my point was that I found it hilarious that Octopussy went from being an honest-to-goodness Octopus to being a person. I'm not saying it was a bad artistic choice nor am I saying it was a good one. For whatever reason, it just struck me as funny.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2006 08:41 PM

Posted by: RJM at March 21, 2006 07:47 PM

And don't forget, in Bernard Malamud's book "The Natural", Roy Hobbs strikes out and takes the money.

Right. And then at the end, after a newspaper article accuses him of being dirty, a little kid comes up to him on the sidewalk and pleads, "Say it ain't true, Roy."

But Roy knows it is true, so his only response is to cry.

I read the book. And I read a Wikipedia article about the movie. It said that in the movie, Roy doesn't throw the game, but instead heroically takes a swing that shatters Wonderboy and wins the pennant.

That's why I said the book and the movie had endings that were nearly polar opposites. Am I missing something?

Posted by: Sasha at March 21, 2006 08:59 PM

it could have been much much worse (http://www.tswgerbils.com/andystuff/bforburgdetta.jpg)

"This is the Land-of-Have-It-Your-Own-Way!"

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 21, 2006 09:53 PM

"they STILL gave "The Scarlet Letter" a happy ending. Popular movies such as "Oh God," "Kramer Vs. Kramer," and even underrated great films such as "The Mighty Quinn," have huge differences from the novels on which they were based. Disney's people haven't met a classic that they couldn't transform into something else entirely (have you ever actually READ "Pinocchio?" He steps on the cricket and kills it in, like, chapter 2. And P.L. Travers' "Mary Poppins" is an acerbic, middle aged woman, not the chipper, youthful, dancing Julie Andrews.)"

Ooh! I wanna play!

The movie M.A.S.H. had major differences from the book. The T.V. series had differences from both the book and the movie, and added many more differences as the show went on.

The musical "Man of La Mancha" has very significant differences from the original Don Quixote de la Mancha novel.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at March 21, 2006 10:22 PM

// There was talk of a Minutemen miniseries as a follow-up at the time. However, DC published something like a role-playing game supplement with the characters, //

More then talk, if memory serves Moore and Gibbons were working on that Minutmen series (or was it a one shot), but Moore had a falling out with DC over a new ratings system that DC was going to impliment. Moore was one of 4 creators, (the others being Frank Miller, Howard Chaykin and Marv Wolfman if memory serves), that signed thier names to a very public letter critzing the proposed system.

Marv Wolfman was fired from his editoral position at DC because of that letter, (and kept writing Titans only because of a huge outcry from Fans and Pros alike) and Frank Miller stopped working on announched Dark Knight sequal, (called Dark Knight Book 5 at the time), and Moore decided not to do the Watchman prequal, (Minutman). But some of the fanzines, and CBG, (If memory serves), did publish some early promotional sketchs that Gibbons had done for the Minutemen project, and Moore said in interviews at the time that he had actually plotted out a story, so I would argue that it was more then just talk.


If memory also serves Moore and Gibbons both contributed to that role playing game.

Posted by: Stacy Dooks at March 21, 2006 11:38 PM

See, this is why one should always divorce the artist from the art.

When this first came out my first inclination was to go with Moore on this, support the rebel bohemian artist against the evil sinister producer. Okay, so Silver dropped Alan's name and talked a little out of turn. I'll grant that was uncool, but it really strikes me a little juvenille to just pick up all the marbles and stalk off because--GASP--a movie executive proved less than trustworthy.

I'm all for creators getting their fair shake, and I realize fully that there's probably reams of data supporting while Moore feels the way he does regarding the big two comicbook companies. That aside, there's being a wronged individual out to set the record straight and there's being the piqued artiste. It might be prudent to take a breath, take a breather from DC (which he seems to be doing) and let things cool off for a while. So I give him props for that, as well as making sure the artists involved in the debacle recieve the royalties. I may not agree with what he's doing, but I respect the man for the class he's shown to his co-creators.

Peter's largely on point with his opinions of the movie. I enjoyed it without reading the comicbook, as I'm sure the majority of moviegoers will. In turn, if seeing the film prompts them to track down the comicbook, and thus turn people on to Moore's Watchmen and ABC work, who does it ultimately benefit? Yeah yeah, DC/Time Warner, but Moore gets a slice of that pie too.

Appreciate the art for what it is, but remember that the creators of said art aren't gods. They put their pants on one leg at a time, and have the full gamut of emotions and emotional reactions, positive and negative. That's part of what makes them so cool. They're people too.

-Stacy

Posted by: Kely at March 22, 2006 01:13 AM

I, personally, loved the film. It was dark, poetic, and intelligent which is something I see rarely in Hollywood would-be blockbusters. It made me think and it made me hope and it made me fall in love with a character whose face I never laid eyes upon.

Granted, I've never read the GN. I've picked it up a number of times, but money's short here and there was always something more pressing.

The film was beautiful all around. Great cinematography, great performances, and above all, a fantastic story. I will not apologize to Mr. Moore or anyone else for enjoying this adaptation. I'm broke as shit right now, going through a rather dramatic transition in my life and for two hours, I was transported to a place where the good guys, though perhaps "good" is subjective here, did finish first in a realistic, uncompromising way. No rainbows or ponies. Only sacrifices and mental anguish, but that's how life is, isn't it? So, if Alan Moore thinks this film isn't worthy of his name, so be it. I, for one, think this movie is worthy not only of my 7.00, but of my praise, the nocturnal images of my skewed dreamings, and finally, a place among my DVD collection when possible.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 22, 2006 03:11 AM

I find it interesting that this movie was placed in Sci-Fi and not Superheroes.

I saw it tonight after the screening we had for Opal Dream. I was getting down the wire in finishing up the book on the bus on the way to the screening, so when work was done, I stayed at the theater to catch the movie.

Eh.

It was a fairly okay adaptation. The first Act, however, was awful. It was grating, loud, poorly paced, and the music, cinematography and dialogue was overly bombastic and lacked any subtlety. It read like how Tim Burton would've done the material, and I was seriously tempted to leave, knowing that I had to make a conscious decision to get around around 2am.

It improved somewhat in the latter Acts, but it never rises above adequacy. Hugo Weaving makes V far too human compared to the book, wherein he is this enigmatic puzzle of a figure, whose dialogue is a tangled labyrinth of complex puzzles, references and metaphors. There is plenty of that here too, but in the book, there was a barrier between him and Evey, and for that matter, the audience. The same necessity for him to remain an idea rather than a man is what required this. Everything, down to the blurry edges of his dialogue balloons, set him apart from humanity, making almost a spectre-like persona. Here, Weaving's gestures and matter-of-fact speech were just too familiar and down-to-earth. In any other character, this would be a plus, but here, he demystified him a bit. Hell, not only do we see his charred hands close up, but we see him wearing an apron? An APRON???!!! Uh-uh, no way, sorry, I don't think so. They largely brought down an enigmatic mystery man to the level of banal humor. I also question the wisdom of casting Weaving. We never see his face, so wouldn't it have made better sense to cast an unknown, or at least have Weaving uncredited? Hell, how about going the Darth Vader route, and casting an unknown in the Fawkes mask and costume, and maybe Weaving doing the voice, in order to reinforce the feeling of V being so much a man of illusion?

The complex social and political relationships among the men investigating V and their families was unsurprisingly left out, but I really did miss the references to the body metaphors for the government agencies (Eye, Ear, Nose, Mouth, Head), with the Finger being the only one left in, as well as the Fate computer, which could've been left in.

The action, of course, was pretty good, and it was nice seeing a V that was pretty much an exact replica of the comics, aside from some darker coloring in his costuming.

I really wish they would've left in V's statement to Evey that he wanted a Viking funeral, so that it was clear what Evey did at the end of the movie was a fulfilment of that wish, and not her own idea. It would've reinforced how V had everything planned out, right down to not only his death, but also his "burial".

One nit: How did that little girl with the glasses survive getting shot? She gets shot by a Fingerman, which triggers the civil unrest, but on November 5, she is seen among the army of Fawkes. Wasn't she shot right through the back and chest? Even if she survived, would she really have been up and about by Guy Fawkes day?

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 22, 2006 03:12 AM

Oops. Forget that comment above about Superheroes and Sci-Fi. :-)

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 22, 2006 03:17 AM

Aw, c'mon. Putting aside the insanely faithful adaptation of "Sin City," it has nothing to do with comics and everything to do with Hollywood.
Luigi Novi: True. But the manner in which Hollywood fucks up comics material is entirely different from how they approach other media. Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc.

Tim Lynch: As has been pointed out, there's such a thing as being TOO slavish to the original text. Case in point: the first Harry Potter film, which was basically a dramatic reading of the book with neat visuals added. No, thank you.
Luigi Novi: Aside from the omission of Binns, I liked the first two films far more than the third one, precisely because they were so faithful to it. What should they have done differently?

JamesLynch: Then look at the absolutely wretched movie Will Smith movie to see what a train wreck Hollywood can make of something. They completely missed the point of the book, while allowing egos to run rampant.
Luigi Novi: I thought it was a very good science fiction film. I admit I haven't yet read the book or screenplay, but what do you feel was the point of the book?

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at March 22, 2006 03:35 AM

I've always suspected that a man like Moore is upset at others making movies of his works because HE wants to be making those movies. You know, keeping control of his material, shaping it in the way he wants it, and like that.

If he really wants that, he was born at the right time. I live in the part of Orlando where the people who created "The Blair Witch Project" caused a revolution, with a minimal crew and one camera even shooting on a camcorder. It is ridiculously easy for one motivated, dedicated person to create a film, from shooting script to editing the final product.

If he is so critical about what others do to his work, he can learn the relatively simple processes of videography and make his own movies. Even if he doesn't actually come up with something, he might gain some appreciation for the pros who do this work, and some understanding that it simply ain't easy making a film.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 22, 2006 03:36 AM

"Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc."

Huh? That's not even close to true.

Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel. Minority Report was almost entirely different as well.

Someone has already mentioned Disney movies, but I'd like to re-emphasise them. Disney has done *way* more than just tack on happy endings.

There are lots and lots of movies from every type of source that Hollywood has massively changed. V for Vendetta is a very faithful adaptation compared to most of these.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 22, 2006 03:45 AM

"Luigi Novi: I thought it was a very good science fiction film. I admit I haven't yet read the book or screenplay, but what do you feel was the point of the book?"

It was a simple murder mystery. No killer computer, no worldwide threat, no action whatsoever. League of Extraordinary Gentleman was a more direct adaptation by far.

Posted by: JiM T at March 22, 2006 03:55 AM

You know that the "Moore vs. Hollywood" stories have officially gotten out of hand when IMBD bumbles their way through their obligatory version referring to Moore as a "cartoonist" and "V" as his "classic comic strip".

Having not yet read it, but based upon what I hear, I doubt that "V for Vendetta" (drawn by Alan Moore!) would make a great daily cartoon strip in the funnie pages...

Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 22, 2006 04:56 AM

"The musical "Man of La Mancha" has very significant differences from the original Don Quixote de la Mancha novel."

And frankly, it's all the better for it. At least when it comes to the ending, anyway. I hated the ending of the book, but when Sophia Loren said "Dulcinea" at the end of the movie, I wanted to cheer (even though the rest of the movie wasn't very good).

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 22, 2006 05:07 AM

I can see that, even though I liked the book better. It's not that I don't like the musical, it's good and the songs are great. The style of the book just appeals to me more. It reads as satirical to me, which is a little more interesting than the guy jousting the windwill being a hero.

Sometimes something actually does get better in translation. I liked the V movie better than the book, though I can understand if other people don't feel that way. I've know people who thought Batman: The Animated Series was actually better than the comics. At the very least, their version of Mr. Freeze is much better than what was in the comics.

Posted by: JC Lebourdais at March 22, 2006 05:47 AM

Sure enough, Hollywood messed up all kinds of book and comic book adaptation before, with the possible exception of Harry Potter.

BUT...

It SHOULD be a creator's choice to decide if he wants his work adapted to film or not. Full stop.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 22, 2006 07:00 AM

JamesLynch: Then look at the absolutely wretched movie Will Smith movie to see what a train wreck Hollywood can make of something. They completely missed the point of the book, while allowing egos to run rampant.
Luigi Novi: I thought it was a very good science fiction film. I admit I haven't yet read the book or screenplay, but what do you feel was the point of the book?

The book was actually a short-story collection, which featured Dr. Susan Calvin as the highly intelligent, physically plain hero.

The Three Laws of Robotics, as postulated by Asimov, could not possibly have led to the conclusion the coputer reached in that movie - rather, the Zeroth Law, as formulated by R. Daneel Olivaw in Asimov's last Foundation book, was, "A robot may not injure humanity, nor through inaction allow humanity to come to harm." This superceded the Three Laws. This is also in direct contradiction to the conclusion in the movie - the incarceration of humanity would most certainly have damaged it, and the individual acts against individual humans were also in violation of both the First and Zeroth Laws.

One of the most fascinating stories in the collection, to my mind, was one in which a newly-developed robot had a limited telepathic ability. This led to it lying about certain matters to certain people, in order to avoid hurting their feelings ("causing damage"). In the end, Susan shut down the machine with malice aforethought after finding out how it had lied to her about her supervisor's feelings about her. Turned out that there was no way to preserve her from that emotional "harm", in the end.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 22, 2006 07:16 AM

The Asimov book that I think "I, Robot" was closest to was "Caves of Steel",

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

As it is, I haven't read anything of Asimov's that's all that close to the Will Smith movie in tone or style, and certainly not in storyline. I actually thought it was a decent movie, and maybe even something that Asimov himself would have liked. However, there's a reason that the film makers eventually stopped saying that it was based on "I, Robot" and changed it to "inspired by" the works of Isaac Asimov.

Posted by: Kelly R Hoose at March 22, 2006 08:32 AM

Yeah I saw on livejournal a unside down poster for V, with in read it said it sucks, guess it's online somewhere.

> >

Great book! Sucky movie! If I remade the movie to the book people would be like wow, how did they get it wrong the first time. But like PAD said they 'add'-dapt for the silver screen.


NO...! Jimmy the criket is dead... thanks alot!!!!

Posted by: Den at March 22, 2006 08:55 AM

The Asimov book that I think "I, Robot" was closest to was "Caves of Steel",

In terms of plot and the viewpoint character, I would agree with that to a agree. The thing is, all of Asimov's protagonists are very logical and rational people. Del Spooner is not. He's very emotional. If Asimov had written the screenplay for the movie, Susan Calvin would be "right" in the end about the robots because she tries to be rational while Spooner goes with his gut. Hollywood, however, almost always favors the hero that goes with their gut.

However, there's a reason that the film makers eventually stopped saying that it was based on "I, Robot" and changed it to "inspired by" the works of Isaac Asimov.

Actually, the credits called is "suggested by". In fact, it was originally based on a spec written by Jeff Vintar called "Hardwired." They only later tacked on the Asimov connection.

Posted by: mike weber at March 22, 2006 09:10 AM

**Spoiler herein perhaps**

Posted by Luigi Novi at March 22, 2006 03:11 AM

One nit: How did that little girl with the glasses survive getting shot? She gets shot by a Fingerman, which triggers the civil unrest, but on November 5, she is seen among the army of Fawkes. Wasn't she shot right through the back and chest? Even if she survived, would she really have been up and about by Guy Fawkes day?

**Stop here if you haven't seen the movie and care about spoilers**

She didn't survive. Also in the crowd are Gordon Dietrich, whom we are told was killed after his Quaran was discovered, the actress who wrote the journal and her lover, and others who we know were/are dead.

I think it's called symbolism. "...'But Joe, sez I, you're ten years dead!'/'I never died,' sez he..."

Posted by: Bobb at March 22, 2006 09:10 AM

What this all comes down to is that we have a system of copyrights. It's a good, it can be sold, traded, licensed, stolen, abused, etc. etc. Moore signed a deal, several deals, that granted control over material he created to other people. He took the money, and now he's crying about it. I don't have any sympathy for him. V and Watchmen were, in part, his creations (granted, Watchmen were highly derivative of characters DC owned, and he would have had to come up with totally original characters had he published the story anywhere else), but he sold things like movie rights to other people. If the movies that result from that are not to his liking, I've no problem with him refusing the movie producers to allow his name to be used. And if he wants to refuse perfectly good money, that's his moral option. I guess I respect that, but I find it to be colossally stupid to turn away the revenue the licenses you sold are generating.

If Moore had really wanted to, he could have included creative input/veto into those licenses. He didn't for whatever reasons.

Stories are not fact. They're fiction. West Side Story is not a crappy rendition of Romeo and Juliet. It's a modern update of the classic play, involving many of the same elements and themes, but updated so it doesn't seem so archaic. But just because it makes some changes from the original doesn't make it crappy. Other things might, like the execution, acting, songs, etc.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 22, 2006 09:19 AM

[Harry Potter]

Luigi Novi: Aside from the omission of Binns, I liked the first two films far more than the third one, precisely because they were so faithful to it. What should they have done differently?

Honestly? Anything. The first two films brought precisely nothing to the screen that you couldn't have gotten by reading the books. The characterizations were what you had on paper, and nothing more. The films had no depth.

Compare, for example, to two other recent fantasy adaptations. LotR changed a few things -- some of which I didn't agree with, but many of which were changes made because the text as written would not have worked in a visual medium. Narnia brought in extra stuff about the Blitz, and created an interesting compare-and-contrast situation in the process (assisted by the beautiful shot of the eagles wheeling to fight exactly as the German planes had at the start of the film).

Both of those films did things that the books couldn't. The first two Potter films didn't.

(Now, there are of course limits to how much of a departure I'm willing to go with. I said to Lisa as we headed into the third LotR film that "if they change a word of the Eowyn/Nazgul confrontation, I'm outta here." Fortunately, it seems Peter Jackson felt the same way. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Ibrahim Ng at March 22, 2006 09:30 AM

Forgive me for being dim, but I don't understand what Peter is saying about Alan Moore at all. Moore was upset that Joel Silver spoke as though Moore were in support of the film when Moore had said no such thing. Silver made no apology whatsoever in his speaking for Moore, which distanced Moore even further from supporting the production.

Moore doesn't support the film adaptations of this material, and has seen to it that he doesn't receive film royalties, passing the money onto the artists instead. Okay. So what's the problem exactly? What's he done wrong? He dislikes the film production and he isn't profiting from it. And if royalties from the books increase, well, that's from people buying the book to read it, what's wrong with that?

Posted by: Kurt at March 22, 2006 10:18 AM

Say it like it is, PAD! You really hit this one on the nose or in the groin. Take your pick.

Posted by: David Serchay at March 22, 2006 10:38 AM

Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel. Minority Report was almost entirely different as well.

I think you meant Philip K. Dick.

Anyway, I really liked the film. Not perfect, but not to bad an adaptation. There were a few little things thrown in that I liked, such as Storm Saxon or that Prothero did have some dolls.

Unfortunatly you can't have everything. It's not even book to film adaptaions that get changed. Who Eliza ends up with is different in Pygmalion and My Fair Lady.

Hopefully the movie will lead people to the book. There's been a number of film adaptations that caused me to do that, and often I've enjoyed the parts that the movie left out.

David

Posted by: Jerry C at March 22, 2006 10:53 AM

"True. But the manner in which Hollywood fucks up comics material is entirely different from how they approach other media. Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc."


Were have you been? Hollywood has almost never done an adaptation or remake of any source material where they didn't muck about with that stuff. Get into a debate with my wife sometime on what Hollywood has repeatedly done with Phantom of the Opera. Even real life gets massive rewrites to the point of being nothing like what happened.


"Honestly? Anything. The first two films brought precisely nothing to the screen that you couldn't have gotten by reading the books. The characterizations were what you had on paper, and nothing more. The films had no depth."

I've heard that so many times and think that it is just so much bunk. What's the differnce between a film that was faithfully shot from an original script and on that was faithfully shot from a script that was faithfully adapted from it's source novel? Nothing. You might as well be complaining that Pirates of the Caribbean was a shallow film because it was shot so faithfully to the book.

The first two Potter films were great and are still my and my wife's favorites of the series so far.

Posted by: Peter David at March 22, 2006 10:59 AM

"Luigi Novi: True. But the manner in which Hollywood fucks up comics material is entirely different from how they approach other media. Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc."

I wasn't aware the "manner" in which material is fucked up was especially material. If it's getting fucked up, what difference does it make HOW?

That said, I also think you're...I don't want to say "wrong"...but you're not right. Hollywood is an equal opportunity screwfest: Books, plays, hell, even other movies, can wind up retold as films that bear no resemblance to the source material. Form over content? My God, have you seen the original animated "Jungle Book?" That wasn't Kipling in form, content, story, character or anything. But it got me reading the original stories. Plays? Compare Milos Foreman's adaptation of "Hair" to the stage show (and, just to be clear, I loved the Foreman version.) Novels? How many times as "A Christmas Carol" been completely remade with the same basic structure but a story that has none of the characters, tone or style of the original? As for TV shows, don't you find it slightly disturbing that movie makers make MORE effort to remain faithful to "The Brady Bunch" than they do Hawthorne, Dickens, Kipling, etc.

Any reasonable overview of Hollywood's history simply doesn't support the notion that Hollywood treats comics worse than any other form of storytelling.

And in the case of "V," Hollywood got a lot more of it faithful to the material than they did a lot of other material.

PAD

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 22, 2006 11:07 AM

What's the differnce between a film that was faithfully shot from an original script and on that was faithfully shot from a script that was faithfully adapted from it's source novel?

1) Scripts are not designed to be read: they're effectively "blueprints" for the film.

2) Scripts, by and large, AREN'T read by the movie-going public. Harry Potter, I think it's safe to say, was read by a pretty large portion of the film's audience.

The first two Potter films were great and are still my and my wife's favorites of the series so far.

That's your call, of course. I'm not trying to say that they're objectively awful and that anyone who likes it is a fool (unlike some arguments I've seen). I'm just answering Luigi's question about why I preferred the later ones. (Technically, later "one" -- I haven't seen the fourth yet, alas.)

If you want another reason why I preferred the third one to the first two, though, it's that the kids' performances by and large improved from film to film, and two out of the three leads were quite good by film #3.

TWL

Posted by: Peter David at March 22, 2006 11:07 AM

"Forgive me for being dim, but I don't understand what Peter is saying about Alan Moore at all...Moore doesn't support the film adaptations of this material, and has seen to it that he doesn't receive film royalties, passing the money onto the artists instead. Okay. So what's the problem exactly? What's he done wrong?"

Perhaps the reason you don't understand it is because you're ascribing a moral judgment that wasn't part of anything I've said and trying to figure out why that square peg isn't going into the round hole.

"Wrong" isn't the word I'd use. It applies an absolute. In this instance, to me, it's quite simple: These film projects wouldn't have existed without the original source material. It's money that Alan is entitled to. Life is long, things can happen, and one never knows decades down the line when and where additional funds might have been useful. What if twenty, thirty years from now, Alan has family or friends who are in desperate straits and could have used significant financial help, or he himself is in a fix. Would've been nice to have option money from "V" sitting in an account, collecting interest, to be used for such an emergency after a few decades, wouldn't it.

I hope it never comes up. But if it does, well...it's unfortunate if the money that he was entitled to isn't there years down the line because of decisions made now. That's all.

PAD

Posted by: ArizonaTeach at March 22, 2006 11:18 AM

Hey, without changes to the source material, Starbuck wouldn't be a hot chick, that's all I gotta say about THAT.

Luigi intimidates me. That said, I can't imagine disagreeing with him more than when he says the first act of V was bad. V's opening v-speech was excellent. The conducting component was much, much better than in the book (which was, what, three silent panels in the prologue of Part 3?), I prefer Evey's reasons for going out in the movie than in the book -- never really cared for the fact that the first time we meet Evey, she's a prostitute! No, I loved the beginning.

When I got home, I pulled the book off the shelf and reread it. This is definitely a situation, for me, where the movie surpasses the book.

Posted by: Den at March 22, 2006 11:26 AM

Hey, without changes to the source material, Starbuck wouldn't be a hot chick, that's all I gotta say about THAT.

Plus she's more butch than Dirk Bennedict ever was.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 22, 2006 11:46 AM

Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel.

"Total Recall" was indeed different from the Philip K. Dick novel, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale". In part, that's because Dick doesn't translate well to any other medium, at least until someone finds a way to record an LSD trip.

Also, "Johnny Mnemonic" was drastically different from the William Gibson short of the same name, for no good reason that I could see - I thought the original would have made a pretty good flick...

It's one reason why I'm kind of hoping nobody tries to make movies from Gibson's Sprawl Trilogy. (As a side note, some of the best bits in the movie "Hackers", IMO, were the in-jokes for those of us old-time fans - like the Gibson mainframe...)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 22, 2006 11:50 AM

Yeah, but PAD, couldn't you say the same about a person who gives money away to charity? Yet I doubt that we would be hearing any criticism of someone who does just that.

Frankly, it seems to me that the idea of someone refusing money on principle is somehow treatening to people, as though they are feeling like they are being attacked for not doing the same. That's clearlyt not the case, Moores situation is uniquely his own and his choices are as well.

Posted by: Leviathan at March 22, 2006 11:57 AM

Posted by Paul Anthony Llossas at March 21, 2006 10:37 AM

I forget which famous author it was who was once asked "How do you feel about Hollywood destroying your books?". This author reportedly pointed to his bookshelf and said, and I'm paraphrasing? "They haven't destroyed anything, they're right there" (Think it was Heinlein, but not sure).

James M. Cain

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 22, 2006 12:09 PM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 22, 2006 11:50 AM

Yeah, but PAD, couldn't you say the same about a person who gives money away to charity? Yet I doubt that we would be hearing any criticism of someone who does just that.

Frankly, it seems to me that the idea of someone refusing money on principle is somehow treatening to people, as though they are feeling like they are being attacked for not doing the same. That's clearlyt not the case, Moores situation is uniquely his own and his choices are as well.

Bill, I was trying to articulate the same thought. Only you said it better and more concisely. Damn you.

Posted by: Ibrahim Ng at March 22, 2006 12:20 PM

> PAD explains:
>
> Perhaps the reason you don't understand
> it is because you're ascribing a moral
> judgment that wasn't part of anything
> I've said and trying to figure out why that
> square peg isn't going into the round
> hole. "Wrong" isn't the word I'd use. It
> applies an absolute.

Oh. Gotcha. I see where you're coming from, Peter.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 22, 2006 12:41 PM

Posted by: Stacy Dooks at March 21, 2006 11:38 PM

Okay, so Silver dropped Alan's name and talked a little out of turn. I'll grant that was uncool, but it really strikes me a little juvenille to just pick up all the marbles and stalk off because--GASP--a movie executive proved less than trustworthy.

Stacy, Silver did a little more than drop Alan's name and talk "a little out of turn." Silver was using Moore's name to help sell a movie when he knew damn well that Moore didn't want to be associated with the movie. That's not merely "uncool." It's unethical. And since Moore had already been quoted as saying he wanted nothing to do with the "V for Vendetta" movie, it made him look like a liar. Moore had every reason in the world to want to publicly set the record straight.

Also, Moore didn't "pick up all the marbles and stalk off" because a "movie executive proved less than trustworthy." He made the decision to disassociate himself with film adaptations of his works before the flap with Silver. He was upset because he was sued for plagiarism in connection with a film adaptation of another one of his works.

Moore has stated consistently that he has never been interested in even seeing the movie adaptations of his works. He took Hollywood's money because it was there to take, until he was sued by virtue of his connection with a film. I think he really doesn't give a crap about Hollywood, so it wasn't very hard for him to decide, "No, this isn't worth the headaches, I don't want the money and you shan't use my name to promote your film."

That aside, there's being a wronged individual out to set the record straight and there's being the piqued artiste.

Moore is indisputably being the former. He is letting everyone know that Silver had no business using his name to promote a film. He is not demanding that the film be pulled from the theaters, nor advocating a boycott of the film. He's just asking people not to use his name in conjunction with the film.

It might be prudent to take a breath, take a breather from DC (which he seems to be doing) and let things cool off for a while.

Actually, Moore decided to end his association with DC many years ago. (When Jim Lee sold Wildstorm to DC, however, Moore found himself once again associated with DC, although I doubt he was thrilled about it.) But V for Vendetta was written before he'd made that decision.

So I give him props for that, as well as making sure the artists involved in the debacle recieve the royalties. I may not agree with what he's doing, but I respect the man for the class he's shown to his co-creators.

I don't understand what there is to disagree with. He doesn't want to be involved with Hollywood. So?

Appreciate the art for what it is, but remember that the creators of said art aren't gods.

No, of course they're not. But neither are they second-class citizens.

Stacy, I don't know why Moore's choice makes you so vertiginous. But there really is no reason to impute motives to man you don't know, especially when the facts don't support it.

Posted by: Den at March 22, 2006 01:12 PM

(When Jim Lee sold Wildstorm to DC, however, Moore found himself once again associated with DC, although I doubt he was thrilled about it.)

IIRC, Lee had to fly out to Britain in order to placate Moore then set up a separate account through which he would funnel Moore's money just so Moore wouldn't have to cash and checks directly from DC.

And it seems like Moore is trying to divest himself of the America's Best Comics line as quickly as he can.

One other point you have to make about Moore and his relationship with Hollywood is that while people tend to think of Watchmen, V, and LOEG being "his", but he doesn't own any of them. DC, and by extension, Time Warner, does. So if Warner chooses to make movies out of these properties, he has little say in the matter. What he does have a say in is whether his name should be attached to the project. And that's something writers have to guard against all the time. Stephan King, for example, was furious that producers used his name to promote The Lawnmower Man even though the movie had the title and virtually nothing else in common with his story.

Posted by: JamesLynch at March 22, 2006 01:27 PM

Luigi Novi wrote: "Luigi Novi: I thought it was a very good science fiction film. I admit I haven't yet read the book or screenplay, but what do you feel was the point of the book?"

Here are my thoughts on both the book and movie. SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!

To me, the novel (or short story collection linked by an overall threat, if you like) was about the evolution of technology and humanity. Through the interview with Susan Calvin, we see the progression of robots from clunky devices to the architects of humanity's fate. Ellison's screenplay has more action (the battle between the President and central PC for control) and emotion (the two astronauts whose only remaining work was to extend the technology that makes them obsolete) but kept the initial feeling and impetus of Asimov's original. In fact, in the introduction Asimov discusses the differences between a novel and screenplay, then praises how Ellison created a successful transition.

By contrast, the Will Smith movie (and I blame him primarily for that wreck -- I can't see him fighting to keep the integrity of the original and execs forcing him to be a cool action hero) is little more than another cool cop movie with a seemingly infinite amount of slow motion.

What's truly disappointing is that someone decided to attach the name of a well-known sci-fi classic to a nigh-unrelated flick. If this was just another sci-fi shooter, it wouldn't be anything significant. But giving it the title of a great work is just wrong. (And tossing on a qualifier during the opening credits doesn't obviate the fact that every trailer and ad described it as I, ROBOT.) That is applying the name of a great work to a virtually unrelated flick.

Posted by: Peter David at March 22, 2006 04:34 PM

"Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel. Minority Report was almost entirely different as well.


I think you meant Philip K. Dick."

I don't see why I should have to talk to people when they clearly don't know Dick.

PAD

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 22, 2006 04:41 PM

Ha ha ha. Yes, I'm an idiot.

/leaves to get gun and climb belltower

Posted by: Jerry C at March 22, 2006 04:46 PM

"2) Scripts, by and large, AREN'T read by the movie-going public. Harry Potter, I think it's safe to say, was read by a pretty large portion of the film's audience."

So we hold it against the film that people have read the book?

Posted by: Peter David at March 22, 2006 04:49 PM

"Yeah, but PAD, couldn't you say the same about a person who gives money away to charity?"

Well, yes, but then I'd be really stupid. Taking a specific amount of money that I've earned and donating it to a cause out of generosity isn't remotely comparable to refusing to take ongoing and potentially copious amounts of money out of frustration, anger, or a general sense of "a plague on both your houses" and washing your hands of it.

I just think it's a shame, that's all. Without trying to read his mind, I think it boils down to the notion that Alan thinks, if he takes Hollywood's money, that it's some sort of tacit approval of the product. Except it's not. It's what he's contractually entitled to. Obviously the limits of his contract and the fact that it keeps his material in DC's hands is a downside and frustrating. The upside is, he's entitled to continued funds. Do you have any idea, any comprehension, how many authorial jaws must have dropped when he complained because DC has kept his work IN PRINT AND AVAILABLE for fifteen years, as if that was a BAD thing? Most authors I know would KILL for that. But he sees that as a bad thing. Okay, fine, that's how he sees it. I won't argue it. But I don't understand why he should only be saddled with the downside and not benefit from the upside.

Again, that could just be me.

"Frankly, it seems to me that the idea of someone refusing money on principle is somehow treatening to people, as though they are feeling like they are being attacked for not doing the same."

Considering every penny of "But I Digress" has gone to charity, and considering I've walked off high-paying gigs on matters of principle, and considering I've repeatedly risked my career in order to speak out on what I felt were matters of importance, my conscience is clear, so you'll have to come up with some other venal motivation for my concerns.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 22, 2006 05:22 PM

Uh, excuse me, but I did not in any way shape or form impugn your motives. When you first postulated your reason for wanting him to take the money I said it was a good point. I've been hanging around this blog long enough to know about your many contributions to the CBLDF to know better than to criticize you for lack of charity--if criticizing you was my purpose. Which it isn't.

I know full well that you have walked off high paying gigs and stood up to your bosses, potentially costing you a great deal of money. I would not criticize you for that on the grounds that you may one day wish you had the money, which is what you're doing with Moore. Now, I understand that you don't find his stand a logical one, which is fine. My point was that on matters of principle it's pretty much up to the individual.

At no point did I suggest that you have behaved dishonorably. I don't know why you would ignore that to assume a personal insult on my part where none was implied or intended. If the fact that we have political disagreements obligates you to think me be a worse person than I am, well, them's the breaks. Tell me to fuck off; I'd rather forego the considerable enjoyment I've gotten from this blog than have to worry about everything I say examined for hidden motives.

Posted by: Peter David at March 22, 2006 05:40 PM

"Uh, excuse me, but I did not in any way shape or form impugn your motives."

When you say that someone refusing money on principle is threatening to others, I infer from that that you're saying someone who wouldn't do the same thing is unprincipled.

Then again, I freely admit I have a hair-trigger when it comes to such things, since I'm routinely having my motivations questioned (ex: I criticized Image, therefore I was jealous of them). So if you're saying that was not your intent or that I misread it, I accept that.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 22, 2006 05:48 PM

My point, perhaps clumsily put, was that some people felt threatened and that this would make them feel as though their own integrity was at stake if they did not make the same choice. I also said that "That's clearlyt not the case, Moores situation is uniquely his own and his choices are as well."

At any rate, please believe I meant no disrespect. I have always thought of you as a person whose commitment to free speach (and willingness to walk the walk and not just talk the talk where that is concerned)is a credit to the entire comics industry.

Posted by: Nivek at March 22, 2006 06:13 PM

Okay, I just want to throw my opinion in on this subject. short and sweet. You dont like what Im going to say, tough, my opinion.

Alan Moore is a pretentious, bitter sounding man who is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Personally, I could never get through the V graphic novel. It just didn't hold my interest. I've read about a good quarter of it, but didn't quite enjoy it enough to buy it.

The movie, however, I loved. One of my favorite movies I've seen in a while. It actually got me wanting to buy the graphic novel now.

Now, if this guy is willing to dismiss potential fans like me because of a movie made didn't satisfy his ego, too bad. I respect that he created these characters, but as a struggling artist myself, and noting the producers were perfectly willing to compensate him, include him in the production, and shower him in royalties, I think he's being a stuffy dickhead about this. I hope he never needs that money. Hell, one has got to ask, couldn't he have donated his funds to the Comic Book Defense Fund?

Posted by: Nivek at March 22, 2006 06:26 PM

and something else, as PAD noted, his book has always been in print. Isn't that a hell of a compliment?

Maybe Im so young and hungry for exposure and success, maybe Im missing something? Or more likely, maybe Alan Moore is.

Posted by: Jason at March 22, 2006 06:31 PM

I get where you're coming from regarding Alan complaining Watchmen was still in print, but remember When Alan signed the contract he was expecting the rights to come back to him.

i was talking to my comic book guy about the subject and he mentioned there were some periods where DC went out of their way keep the books in print even though they weren't selling. I figure that must have bothered him and it must have felt like a bit of dirty pool at the time.

You mentioned before how you can't do anymore Apropos books, because of Pocket, that doesn't frustrate you at all?

Posted by: Matt Adler at March 22, 2006 06:35 PM

Without trying to read his mind, I think it boils down to the notion that Alan thinks, if he takes Hollywood's money, that it's some sort of tacit approval of the product. Except it's not.

But isn't that sort of tacit approval implied/suggested when you say "Alan Moore can refuse all the money from the Hollywood versions he wants, but I daresay he won't be turning his nose up at the increased royalties such films generate for the books"?

Like "Yeah, he can say he hates 'em, but obviously he doesn't hate 'em quite enough to turn down the benefits they bring..."

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 22, 2006 06:42 PM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 22, 2006 05:22 PM

I'd rather forego the considerable enjoyment I've gotten from this blog than have to worry about everything I say examined for hidden motives.

Bill, for what it's worth*, were you to drop off the face of this blog, I would greatly miss your presence. Our "conversations" are one of the primary reasons I keep coming back (something others may well wish I wouldn't do!).

Oh, and because inside I'm really still about 11 years old, it entertains me to no end that a teacher said the "f-word." :)

*Hmmm... let's see... *scribble scribble*... mumble... carry the two, divided by... mumble... Huh. By my calcuations, my sentiments aren't worth that much after all. Shoot.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 22, 2006 06:47 PM

Uh oh. I did, didn't I...damn. I mean dang. This will look bad when they google my name. The little bast...um, future leaders of America.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 22, 2006 07:08 PM

One thing about the Alan Moore vs. Hollywood war..

How much of it is being manufactured in the press?

I've seen interviews with Mr. Moore, but did he actually seek out any of those interviews? My impression is that the only thing he's really done is ask for his name to be taken off things and refuse money. Other than that, it seems like he wouldn't have said anything if people hadn't called him up.

Now, it's certainly true that being willing to give those interviews is effort in itself. It's just that some of these articles are saying that he's campaigning against the movie, when the reporters themselves actually seem to be doing most of the work in that "campaign".

Posted by: Rob at March 22, 2006 07:36 PM

As for the movies themselves....

THEY ARE BOTH GARBAGE.

THEY SPEND A TON OF MONEY ON CRAP.

ONE FROM DON MURPHY, AND THE OTHER FROM JOEL AND LARRY AND ANDY (THE FREAK BOYS).

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 22, 2006 07:52 PM

Peter, I have to agree, I'd be less than happy with the idea of Moore eventually falling on hard times but I can't help wondering if he would feel it was 'tainted money.' But that said, it would have amused me greatly if he'd taken the money and written big checks to CBLDF or Amnesty International or a group like that. Not that I have a problem with O'Neill or Lloyd or Campbell getting a big chunk of change, but there seems to be something more appropriate about taking money that one feels is undeserved or unwanted and using it to do some good.

And thanks to the previous posters who mentioned some of the faces glimpsed in the film's climactic scene. I've been scratching my head for nearly a week, wondering if I did see indeed see a shot of Stephen Fry or not.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 22, 2006 08:02 PM

Me:
2) Scripts, by and large, AREN'T read by the movie-going public. Harry Potter, I think it's safe to say, was read by a pretty large portion of the film's audience.

Jerry:
So we hold it against the film that people have read the book?

First: "We" don't do anything. I'm explaining why I hold the opinions I do; you are welcome to agree or disagree with them as you see fit.

Second: If you're adapting something that's one of the most-read books of the last decade, then yes, I think it makes sense to assume your audience is familiar with it and to make sure they get something a little more substantial out of the film than you might do otherwise. Chris Columbus clearly did not agree. That's his call.

I'm not claiming that the movies are objectively terrible, or that being "too faithful" is a bigger problem than going way too far afield (witness "FrancisFordCoppola'sBramStoker'sDracula", which is almost in the so-bad-it's-good category). I'm saying that, to me, the first two films are basically a Cliff's Notes version of the books, and that I found them fairly forgettable as a result. (I don't own the first two in any form; I expect that I'll pick up the latter two, though.)

You seem almost personally offended by the fact that I didn't care for the films. You're more than welcome to like them; Elath knows tons of people did, including friends of mine.

On the Bill/PAD stuff: I understand why you've got a hair trigger on this, Peter, but I think in this case it was a little bit of a leap. Evidence will show plenty of things I've taken issue (to put it mildly) with something Bill's said -- so hopefully it means something when I say that's not how I read his words this time. I think that if he had you in mind at all, it was as one of the people who others are threatened BY, not one of the ones who was threatened by people turning down money on principle.

TWL

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 22, 2006 08:32 PM

>In part, that's because Dick doesn't translate well to any other medium

That applies to some of my favourite books. The QUILLER series of spy novels by Elleston 'Adam Hall' Trevor comes to mind. BERLIN MEMORANDUM wasn't a 'bad' film, but it inherently lacked the detailed introspection which are such a big part of what makes the actual novels such a delight. I can't imagine any film doing that essential part of the stories justice.

So why bother trying?

Same applies to things such as the quite appropriately named PAYNE. A Hokeywood remake of the hilarious FAWLTY TOWERS.

Presented with a script, John Cleese held his nose and berated various aspects of the show. The producers replied with "well, you have the advantage of ... and could ... and were able to ... and we're not." To which I'd reply "Then why the hell bother if you KNOW going in you can't do it right?"

Look at Golden's MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA for that matter where his wonderful descriptive narrative style simply didn't translate all that well to the screen. Though I admit I am biased because, for a Spielberg production, they got an unforgiveable amount of the cultural details wrong (look - or, rather, don't - at the main character's 'coming out' dance for example. That belonged in a 60's go-go club, not a geisha performance for S'Net's sake.

Next to that, 2001 (my all-time favourite film) having the monolith orbiting Jupiter instead of Saturn (because it turned out they didn't have the effects technologies to do Saturn as well as they'd have liked,) or V skipping some unnecessary side plot bits such as the ambitious wife, was trivial.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at March 22, 2006 09:19 PM

"So why bother trying?"

Because sometimes it works.

M.A.S.H. wasn't the same as the book, but it was something that was good and inspired a lot of people.

Several British shows have been remade into bad, quickly cancelled American shows. If someone had looked at those failures and said "why bother trying?" we never would have had "All in the Family" or "Sanford and Son".

Posted by: AdamYJ at March 22, 2006 10:01 PM

Eh, a movie adaptation is a movie adaptation.

Sometimes, there are changes I don't like. For example, I didn't like PBS's version of the Tony Hillerman novel Skinwalker. The story turned out very differently, and they didn't even craft an engrossing mystery in the process.

Sometimes, they make changes I like. In the recent movie of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, they made one significant change that I loved. They made me care about Edmund. In the book, he seemed to be nothing more than a little jerk.

Other times, they create something really different but good in its own way. I've read Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein so many times I practically have the whole thing memorized. I remember everything from Walton's letters to the monster's time observing the family in the cottage, to both Victor and the monster's deaths in the arctic. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the classic film starring Boris Karloff at all.

Anyway, if it's just an issue of changes made to the story, then I think Moore's blowing a lot of smoke. If it's an issue of them using his name as promotion for the movie when he didn't want them to, of him being pulled in when he doesn't want to be included, then he might have a point. Personally, I don't really care too much. I'm not too big of an Alan Moore fan. I know he's one of the biggest, most revered names in the industry, but the vast majority of his work seems dense, depressing and just a pain to read. I know people will tell me I need to expand my horizons, but didn't that guy ever write anything . . . y'know . . . fun?

Anyway, I think I should bring up an interesting point. Peter said something about movies inspiring people to read the book. That has recently happened to me. I very much like the movies Muppet Treasure Island and Treasure Planet, so I decided I should read Robert Louis Stevenson's original Treasure Island. So far, it's been lots of fun.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 22, 2006 10:12 PM

I'm not too big of an Alan Moore fan. I know he's one of the biggest, most revered names in the industry, but the vast majority of his work seems dense, depressing and just a pain to read. I know people will tell me I need to expand my horizons, but didn't that guy ever write anything . . . y'know . . . fun?

I think "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" fits the bill, particularly the first series. It's dense, yes (there's a reason Jess Nevins has published two books of annotations), but it's not stuff you have to understand to be able to follow the book and enjoy yourself.

His work on "Miracleman" and "Swamp Thing" also strikes me as ... well, maybe "fun" isn't quite the right word, but truly interesting stuff that's not going to depress you. Much.

You might also enjoy the early issues of "Tom Strong".

Hope this is of some use,
TWL

Posted by: Jerry C at March 22, 2006 10:36 PM

"First: "We" don't do anything. I'm explaining why I hold the opinions I do..."

It was a generic "we". No potshot or smart mouth intended. However, I was somewhat specific with the "we" by meaning those comparatively few of us who have actually read the books and would have the cliff notes vibe. Even with the Potter novels, a film will reach millions that never picked up the book versions. Over half of my friends that like the Potter films have never read the books. Most have never read Clancy, King, Moore, P.A.D. or E.R.B. either. Many never will. I think that if they find a huge amount of awe and wonder in a film based on one of their awe and wonder works then the film likely got it pretty darn right.


"Chris Columbus clearly did not agree."

Actually, J.K.R. had a lot of input in those films. When she says that the movies did her work justice then I would be hard pressed to argue.

"You seem almost personally offended by the fact that I didn't care for the films."

No. We/I just got sidetracked on debating those films rather then the point as a whole. I just find the complaint about films being done too close to their source materials to be mostly bunk. I think it's more an issue of the wrong people, even if they are sometimes the top people around at the time, being at the helm.

Taking someone else's example to make a point...
"Look at Golden's MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA for that matter where his wonderful descriptive narrative style simply didn't translate all that well to the screen."

See, that's more, I think, an example of the people behind the camera not being up to the task. I've seen a number of films from Japan and Honk Kong that flow with a visual narrative that was very close to the book version's pros. Someone else doing Geisha may have done wonders with it. Same with Potter. Chris Columbus was just the wrong person on Potter for you.

Just my P.O.V.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 22, 2006 10:37 PM

I know people will tell me I need to expand my horizons, but didn't that guy ever write anything . . . y'know . . . fun?

D.R. and Quinch. Total ripoff of O.C and Stiggs (speaking of bad movie adaptations) but hysterical.

And don't apologize for not getting into Moore. It's a personal thing. Ingmar Bergman is a great director but I only really enjoyed The Seventh Seal and The Virgin Spring...I'd gnaw off my arm if I were handcuffed to a chair and forced to watch Persona again...but I realize that he's great. Just not my thing.

Oh and Tim; thank you. You're a good guy. You too, Mr. Myers.

Posted by: Jerry C at March 22, 2006 10:52 PM

"So why bother trying?"

The Ring, The Grudge, The Seven Samaria, Harry Potter, Appleseed, Clue, Tinker, Taylor, Soldier Spy, Much Ado About Nothing, LOTR, M.A.S.H., Stargate SG-1, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, ST: The Next Generation, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, Salom's Lot (old one), M.I.B., Monarch of the Glen, The Green Mile, The Road to Perdition, Jason and the Argonaughts, Ranma 1/2 the TV series, Pirates of the Caribbean and the Saturday morning flash Gordon cartoon from the late 70s or early 80s just to name a few.

Posted by: Nat Gertler at March 22, 2006 11:20 PM

One other point you have to make about Moore and his relationship with Hollywood is that while people tend to think of Watchmen, V, and LOEG being "his", but he doesn't own any of them. DC, and by extension, Time Warner, does.

Actually, DC and Time Warner do not own League. That's a creator-owned project. It was only moved to the ABC label (which is otherwise corporate owned) to keep it from bearing the DC imprint. There are two LOEG projects currently known to be in the works, and while the first is a DC book, the one that follows that is slated to come from Top Shelf.

Posted by: Mike at March 23, 2006 01:31 AM

Re: the little girl in the crowd.

If you'll notice all of the characters were in the crowd scene at the end. Stephen Fry's 'George'. Evey's mother. Valerie. I'm fairly certain they weren't supposed to be taken literally as being present but more along the lines of political statement. Going with the domino imagery of the crowd, they were representative individual dominoes.

Posted by: Richard Marvin at March 23, 2006 02:12 AM

1I've been reading this thread and I keep going back over the Bill Mulligan exchange on personal motives/principles. If it helps when I read it blind coming in I took he as sharing an opinion with you as an equal onlooker speculating on the ideas OTHER perople might have about their principles to take or not take money. I like you admitance of the hair trigger but sensed an adversion to using the sorry I miread you reply. For the record I've read your stuuf on and off over the years and really believe you are a professional who takes pride (and JOY) in your writing. I know you work hard. I just sometimes think in reading your site you worry too much what others think of you. You shouldn't. You have a lot to be proud of in your accomplishments and no need to justify yourself to anyone--including me. I appreciate the time you take to inform your readers the whys and wherefores of 'how it is'. I just thought you were a little harsh on Mr Mulligan. I ma not trying to insult your with this--it just a little out of character for you--you usually pick your slings and arows with more thought.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 23, 2006 02:48 AM

I'm not too big of an Alan Moore fan. I know he's one of the biggest, most revered names in the industry, but the vast majority of his work seems dense, depressing and just a pain to read. I know people will tell me I need to expand my horizons, but didn't that guy ever write anything . . . y'know . . . fun?

While not exactly "fun," per se, I've always been rather fond of Batman: The Killing Joke. Almost hard to believe that it was written by the same guy who wrote Tales of the Black... er... I mean Watchmen.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Mark L at March 23, 2006 04:40 AM

I said to Lisa as we headed into the third LotR film that "if they change a word of the Eowyn/Nazgul confrontation, I'm outta here." Fortunately, it seems Peter Jackson felt the same way. :-)

Except that they did change the words... several, in fact:

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!" "Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye." "Do what you will, but I will hinder it, if I may." "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."

(text copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-king_of_Angmar)

I was a just a little bit disappointed with theatrical version of the speech. I expected a variant because of the language, but just stripping it down to "I will kill you if you touch him" and "I am no man!" just didn't seem enough for that moment

Still, minute gripes aside, the films were masterfully done. There's only one thing I still find preposterous: Frodo telling Sam to go home - and Sam leaving. Wouldn't happen. No way. Every other change is minor compared to that. Sometimes I wonder if he did it just to give Tolkien-nitpickers like me a focal point for their distress :)

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 23, 2006 09:05 AM

It was a generic "we". No potshot or smart mouth intended.

None taken, thanks -- just clarifying.

Over half of my friends that like the Potter films have never read the books. Most have never read Clancy, King, Moore, P.A.D. or E.R.B. either. Many never will. I think that if they find a huge amount of awe and wonder in a film based on one of their awe and wonder works then the film likely got it pretty darn right.

In general, yes -- but if most of the people who read the books got the Cliffs-Notes vibe (and most of the people I know did), then the film didn't really do justice to the material so far as those people were concerned.

Look, the first Potter film is one of the biggest films of the past decade, so it certainly touched a lot of people. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that I think it could have been done better than "well enough."

Actually, J.K.R. had a lot of input in those films.

I'm aware of that, and I actually think that's part of the problem. Film and print are different media requiring different talents, and having her (metaphorically) standing on the set with a bullwhip to make sure nothing's changed probably weakened the final product, IMO.

When she says that the movies did her work justice then I would be hard pressed to argue.

I wouldn't. There are lots of examples of creators liking or disliking film adaptations that I'd disagree with -- an obvious example is Gene Roddenberry washing his hands of "Star Trek II", which most people have on their list of some of the top Trek material ever put to film.

I just find the complaint about films being done too close to their source materials to be mostly bunk. I think it's more an issue of the wrong people, even if they are sometimes the top people around at the time, being at the helm.

But in Columbus's case, I think the two go hand in hand. He couldn't think of anything to do other than put Rowling's exact text up on screen, and brought nothing new to the experience as a result.


Mark--

I was a just a little bit disappointed with theatrical version of the speech. I expected a variant because of the language, but just stripping it down to "I will kill you if you touch him" and "I am no man!" just didn't seem enough for that moment.

Your call -- the moment they absolutely needed to keep intact (IMO) was the "I am no man" bit, and in this case the visual aspect of the film let them cut off the dialogue. For me it was (and is) a thunderous applause moment. (And I realize you consider that a pretty minute gripe, and I'd agree.)

Back to Jerry -- LotR is a good example of how films can add things. For example, in the final Frodo/Sam/Gollum sequence on Mount Doom, where Frodo refuses to destroy the ring, Jackson somehow managed to make Frodo's expression almost exactly the same as Isildur's was in flashback, despite the fact that the actors look nothing alike. It added a little visual touch to the Ring's corruption of Frodo, and was something that Tolkien could not have done in print. I thought it was masterful.

That's the sort of thing I wish Columbus had managed to do with the first two Potter films.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 23, 2006 09:17 AM

Tim, I think Columbus is a pretty "eh" director. Tells a story well enough, doesn't have any distinguishing abilities (or detriments).

That may not make for a great movie but I guess it could be argued that it was a good choice for the first Potter movie. The success of that allowed them to take chances with the subsequent films, let some more visionary directors get a crack at it. (of course, that doesn't always work--ALIEN 3 anyone?)

I'd love to see Guillermo De Toro get a crack at one.

Posted by: Bobb at March 23, 2006 09:36 AM

"I get where you're coming from regarding Alan complaining Watchmen was still in print, but remember When Alan signed the contract he was expecting the rights to come back to him.

i was talking to my comic book guy about the subject and he mentioned there were some periods where DC went out of their way keep the books in print even though they weren't selling. I figure that must have bothered him and it must have felt like a bit of dirty pool at the time."

Maybe, MAybe, you can chalk this up to a case of an experienced publisher taking advantadge of an inexperienced writer during contract negotiations. Without having been a party to those talks, all we can do is speculate. Maybe Moore expected the rights to revert back to him...which would mean that Watchmen would have not been all that successful. Which wouldn't have done him much good. Sure, he'd have full control of a property that...didn't sell. On the other hand, DC, by keeping the material available, has given it a publishing life far longer than anyone thought it could have. Which Moore, for his own reasons, has decided to become imbittered over.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 23, 2006 09:37 AM

Nah, have some real fun and let Quentin Tarantino helm a Potter flick :)

Posted by: Peter David at March 23, 2006 10:16 AM

"You mentioned before how you can't do anymore Apropos books, because of Pocket, that doesn't frustrate you at all? "

Yes. But you don't see me accusing Pocket of swindling me, and last week I was perfectly happy to deposit the royalties check for the third printing of the first book. I think you'll find every deal in the world has advantages and disadvantages for both sides.

PAD

Posted by: Orlando T. at March 23, 2006 10:23 AM

I've come to expect being dissapointed when Hollywood adapts a novel or comic that I've read. In fact I think of them Earth H stories. What's dissapointing is that some very talented directors/screenwriters have been able to do adaptations that are so close to the source, they become clasics themselves. Shawshank redemption, The Godfather, the Outsiders, and even To kill a Mocking bird. These were done by ultra-talented folks who didn't feel the need to insult the audiences inteligence or the need to tell a different story altogether (Bourne Identity).

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 23, 2006 11:16 AM

This is really tangential, but I had a college professor who did some T.V. scriptwriting in the late '60s/early '70s (his father was the late director, Barry Crane). He told me he still gets residual checks.

He said, "Every once in awhile I'll open the mailbox and find a check for $1,000. I'll think, 'Damned if I know what I did to earn this. But I'll spend it anyway!'"

Posted by: Tommy Raiko at March 23, 2006 11:22 AM

With regard to "...didn't [Moore] ever write anything . . . y'know . . . fun?"

In addition to the recommendations already made, (and although it might be impolitic to point this out in a disucssion involving Moore's current relationship with DC), there's also the Across the Universe: The DC Universe Stories of Alan Moore, which collects the various DCU stories Moore wrote over the years. While most of them are not "fun" in the sense of madcap wackiness (well, maybe the Clayface love story from Batman Annual #11 counts...) they're all very, very good. And they're brief, well-crafted tales, and they feature DCU characters you're already familiar with. If you're looking for an entry point for Moore's work, there are worse places to start than these stories. (Heck, these stories are how a lot of U.S. fans got to know Moore...)


With regard to PAD's, "But you don't see me accusing Pocket of swindling me, and last week I was perfectly happy to deposit the royalties check for the third printing of the first book. I think you'll find every deal in the world has advantages and disadvantages for both sides."

This is a subtle but important point, and one definitely worth making. To the extent that Moore (or people interpreting Moore) are saying (especially with regard to the as-long-as-the-thing-is-in-print,-rights-won't-revent aspect), "The creator's deal with DC included elements with consequences that the creator did not imagine when it was signed" that's fine. But when folks make the leap to say, "That deal swindled the creator" that's a little too far. It's more like the creator did not foresee the consequences of the deal being signed and/or did not--or could not--change the terms of the deal when it was initially struck.

On the other hand, if the anecdotes are true of Moore not receiving royalties for Watchmen merchandise that were classified as promotional items, that seems more arguably a case of shady dealing from DC.

And on the third hand, Moore does seem to have a lot of legitimate gripes about the movies, moviemakers, movie lawsuits, etc. that don't seem to be quite the same thing as being "swindled" from a publisher. If he choses to wash his hands of that part of the business and turn away from it, that's his choice. And though anyone could say, "Man, I know you're miffed, but why not just take the money?" whether or not he does so is his choice.

Maybe Moore is being short-sighted, turning away from seemingly secure financial planning for his future. Maybe he knows (and we don't) that he has other plans in place and doesn't have to worry about his future. Maybe he figures that Glycon will provide. Ultimately, despite all the advice (unsolicited and otherwise) given him, what he choses to do is his choice. (Just like how I tell my home-renting friends that they oughta get around to buying a home, but whether or not they take my--very good!--advice is ultimately their choice.)

Posted by: Jerry C at March 23, 2006 12:41 PM

"I'd love to see Guillermo De Toro get a crack at one."

The Devil's Backbone rules beyond all measure.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 23, 2006 09:59 PM

Jonathan: The Three Laws of Robotics, as postulated by Asimov, could not possibly have led to the conclusion the coputer reached in that movie - rather, the Zeroth Law, as formulated by R. Daneel Olivaw in Asimov's last Foundation book, was, "A robot may not injure humanity, nor through inaction allow humanity to come to harm." This superceded the Three Laws. This is also in direct contradiction to the conclusion in the movie - the incarceration of humanity would most certainly have damaged it…
Luigi Novi: From our POV, sure, but there are people who would rationalize this by defining harm only as physical impairment, and not infringement of rights, and therefore, would not see detainment or imprisonment as damage. I can see how a computer would work this way, since a computer would not necessarily have a concept of “civil rights”.

Tim Lynch: Honestly? Anything. The first two films brought precisely nothing to the screen that you couldn't have gotten by reading the books.
Luigi Novi: I find that an interesting philosophy towad medium-to-medium adaptations, because for me, doing something that is necessarily different is not a prerequisite. See the material executed in a different medium is rewarding for me in itself.

Peter David: I wasn't aware the "manner" in which material is fucked up was especially material. If it's getting fucked up, what difference does it make HOW?
Luigi Novi: It underscores the completely different the general public, including Hollywood, views comics as opposed to other media. Other media are seen as just that. Comics are not. They’re seen as some type of novelty in themselves, such that in many adaptations of material from comics, the mere fact that it originated in comics is somehow the point of it, rather than the material itself; the fact that the material originally was in comics somehow becomes the basis that informs the adaptation, which I think is wrong-headed. I suppose I’m McCloudian in my view of comics, which is that they are just another medium, and that it is the content that should be focused on, not the medium.

What does it matter, Peter? Well, you quoted someone as complaining that, “But it's only comics, you know?" All I’m doing is pointing out that this person, hypothetical or otherwise, is not entirely off. You may be right in that many other properties from other media are screwed up. But this person who opined this is right in that the reasons why it happens with comics are different, and yes, I think the reasons why matter.

Nobody shows curtains opening and closing when making a movie based on a play, a television being turned on when adapting a TV show into a movie, or pages being turned when adapting a novel. The very idea is stupid. So when Frank Miller, one of the most vocal advocates of comics as a legitimate medium, totally loses sight of this when adapting his own work into a movie, it’s eyeroll-inducing, as I explained in my letter in CBG #1607 (August 2005). Me, I don’t mind that some things are changed in the translation, as long as it’s either A. necessary, or B. makes better material. The changes Christopher Nolan & co. made for Batman Begins were. Most of the changes Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher made, on the other hand, were not. Thus, your pointing out examples of changes made to properties that you liked is perfectly in line with this.

But when someone makes changes to a property that do not improve it, then you hear all about it, as with The Scarlet Letter. By contrast, I’ve never heard of anyone in the general public complaining about changes made to comic book material in movies adapted from them. Yes, they’ll rip on the overall poor quality of the film in general, but not the changes to the source material. In this way, the quote above about it being “only” comics is at least partially true in my humble opinion.

ArizonaTeach: Luigi intimidates me.
Luigi Novi: Ouch. Well, that isn’t my intention, and if that’s how I come across to you, I apologize. And if you liked that first Act, then to each their own. :-)

Den: And it seems like Moore is trying to divest himself of the America's Best Comics line as quickly as he can.
Luigi Novi: How so?

James Lynch: By contrast, the Will Smith movie (and I blame him primarily for that wreck -- I can't see him fighting to keep the integrity of the original and execs forcing him to be a cool action hero)
Luigi Novi: Well, let’s not substitute assumption for conclusion. For all we know, the script was already written by the time he was approached to star in it. Unless we find out otherwise, it’s best not to accuse someone arbitrarily.

Jason: You mentioned before how you can't do anymore Apropos books, because of Pocket, that doesn't frustrate you at all?

Peter David: Yes.
Luigi Novi: WHAT???!!! What the hell is this? When did this happen? Peter, what’s this all about? Why can’t you write more books? Why can’t you take them to another publisher?

Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 09:10 AM

"Peter David: I wasn't aware the "manner" in which material is fucked up was especially material. If it's getting fucked up, what difference does it make HOW?
Luigi Novi: It underscores the completely different the general public, including Hollywood, views comics as opposed to other media. Other media are seen as just that. Comics are not."

Luigi, I can't help but notice that you concentrated all your responses on my opening line while completely ignoring the vast balance of the post, which makes--I think--a pretty compelling case for the idea that Hollywood treats everything pretty much the same. In fact, when one compares works such as "Spider-Man," "Sin City," "Road to Perdition" and "The Phantom" to the massive changes that Hollywood has made to stories from books, plays, etc., rendering the film version almost unrecognizable, you really don't have a leg to stand on in asserting that comics are somehow getting short shrift.

Your use of "general public" is meaningless because you're separating "general public" from comic book reader. I would guess that the announcement of the movie Spider-Man getting organic webshooters caused tons more controversy in more places than, say, Baz Luhrman annihilating Shakespeare's text for his version of "Romeo and Juliet" and transporting it from its centuries-ago Verona, Italy roots to modern day gangs.

Furthermore, considering the shocking number of people in this country who don't read novels or see plays, you can just as easily separate "general public" from readers of books and theater goers.

You're trying to sell the concept of comics-as-red-headed-stepchildren in the eyes of America and Hollywood, and it's just not flying.

"WHAT???!!! What the hell is this? When did this happen? Peter, what’s this all about? Why can’t you write more books? Why can’t you take them to another publisher?"

I can. The problem is that it's a tough sell. Most publishers won't want to pick up a series when they don't have the rights to do all the books. And as long as Pocket keeps the first "Apropos" novel in print, getting interest elsewhere is problematic because I can't get reversion of rights.

PAD

Posted by: Matt Adler at March 24, 2006 09:47 AM

While yes, the masses don't really read the classic novels any more than they do comics, I think the main difference is in how the MEDIA treats these changes. When a big change is made to a classic novel, it's sacrilege. When a big change is made to a classic comic, hey, it's just a comic book.

Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 09:59 AM

"While yes, the masses don't really read the classic novels any more than they do comics, I think the main difference is in how the MEDIA treats these changes. When a big change is made to a classic novel, it's sacrilege. When a big change is made to a classic comic, hey, it's just a comic book."

Oh, now it's the MEDIA. We've gone from Hollywood to the general public to the media. Why don't we narrowfocus it some more and stake the whole thing on how Phyllis who lives down the street from me reacts?

Ideally the media--if you mean reporters--shouldn't be doing anything other than reporting the outraged reactions of others. And as I recall, the media was very thorough in writing up outrage expressed by comics fans over everything from Michael Keaton as a cast-against-type Bruce Wayne to Spidey's organic webshooters, not to mention the changes made to "V" which launched this thread. If you mean movie critics, of course they're going to get more steamed by changes to classic novels than to comic books. Why? Because the chances are much greater that they've READ the classic novels than they have the comic books. Let's say that Sam Raimi, in order to shock and surprise the fans, had killed off Aunt May instead of Uncle Ben. Critics won't express outrage at this fundamental change because odds are they don't know the story, not because "it's comic books, who cares."

I'm sorry, guys, but in my day, movie and TV adaptations of comic book characters meant "camp." We have moved SO far away from that, that any reasonable, dispassionate viewing of things forces one to the conclusion that comic books are being treated more and more seriously and faithfully, not less.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 10:10 AM

I'm not sure that I would call SIN CITY a Hollywood production...but Petr's point stands. I think that Hollywood treats comics with every bit as much respect as they do anything else. In fact, looking at Spiderman 1 & 2 and teh upcoming SUPERMAN RETURNS, they are being treated quite respectfully. The reason--it sells. BATMAN BEGINS = tons of money. CATWOMAN = not so much. Camping it up doesn't bring in the big bucks.

Also, we now have directors who grew up on well written adult comics and they are reflecting that in their approach.

The problem with LXG wasn't that it came from a comic book--it was that it came from a comic book where intelligent literary characters spoke in an intelligent literate way for the enjoyment of intelligent literate readers. No WAY that was going to pass unmolested to the screen.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 24, 2006 10:52 AM

Okay, PAD, now I have to ask - what was Phyllis' reaction to the changes to V?

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 24, 2006 11:28 AM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 10:10 AM

Also, we now have directors who grew up on well written adult comics and they are reflecting that in their approach.

Agreed. Ironically, though, I know people who said they liked "Batman Begins" because it wasn't campy, like, y'know, "a comic book."

So I've patiently explained to these people that they don't know what they're talking about.

I've explained that while the super-hero genre dominates the comic-book medium, it is nevertheless a medium through which you can tell stories in any genre. I've told them to think about it this way: would you say, "This movie was good because it wasn't like a novel." No. Because then you'd have to ask, "What kind of novel? Romance? Historical fiction? Early American literature?"

I've explained to them that what they meant to say was that "Batman Begins" wasn't like a super-hero comic. And then I've explained to them that they were still wrong.

I've told them that "Batman Begins" really is pretty faithful to the way Batman is portrayed in comics today. Not because it adheres to every detail of the comics (after all, it doesn't), but because it adheres to the tone, style and spirit of those comics. So, if they liked "Batman Begins," I've explained that they shouldn't be looking down their nose at "super-hero" comics, because what they liked on screen is not all that different from what they'd see in the pages of a super-hero comic.

I realize that there are those who saw "Batman Begins" who didn't feel moved to go pick up a Batman comic-book. And that's perfectly fine. I just get irritable when someone makes a remark about super-hero comics when, y'know, they've never actually read them.

Ultimately, though, I realize that most of the people I've corrected in this way probably walked away not giving a crap.

Posted by: Bobb at March 24, 2006 11:32 AM

"Yes. But you don't see me accusing Pocket of swindling me, and last week I was perfectly happy to deposit the royalties check for the third printing of the first book. I think you'll find every deal in the world has advantages and disadvantages for both sides."

That's what contracts are all about. Both sides have to give something in order to gain. With publishing, the creator loses some level of control in order to avail themselves of the publishing, distribution, and media/advertising network held by the publisher. And the publisher gets additional revenue, with some control over printing, distribution, and advertising. One without the other has...not much. The writer has a bunch of paper that no one outside his/her circle of friends will ever read. And the publisher has an entire network/investment that sits idle.

I don't know anything about the related material thing, or how DC might have swindled Moore out of some profit. We've certainly seen Marvel try to keep Stan Lee from getting money according to the terms of his contract. And maybe Moore's not litigiously inclined, but if he really thinks DC is violating the terms of their agreement, he's free to pursue a legal remedy.

I guess I'm just alergic to whining. Not that Moore seems to be doing a ton of it. He's mostly just acting...asking DC to give his share of the profits to the other parties that are entitled. But plenty of other people are whining for him, which in many ways is worse.

Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 11:34 AM

"Agreed. Ironically, though, I know people who said they liked "Batman Begins" because it wasn't campy, like, y'know, "a comic book.""

The first time I saw the Burton "Batman," when the film ended I heard a couple of guys talking, and one said, "If they make another one, who do you think will be the villain?" And the other guy said, with complete seriousness, "I'm hoping it's King Tut. He was cool."

PAD

Posted by: Bobb at March 24, 2006 11:38 AM

Jonathan: The Three Laws of Robotics, as postulated by Asimov, could not possibly have led to the conclusion the coputer reached in that movie - rather, the Zeroth Law, as formulated by R. Daneel Olivaw in Asimov's last Foundation book, was, "A robot may not injure humanity, nor through inaction allow humanity to come to harm." This superceded the Three Laws. This is also in direct contradiction to the conclusion in the movie - the incarceration of humanity would most certainly have damaged it…

Luigi Novi: From our POV, sure, but there are people who would rationalize this by defining harm only as physical impairment, and not infringement of rights, and therefore, would not see detainment or imprisonment as damage. I can see how a computer would work this way, since a computer would not necessarily have a concept of “civil rights”.

This discussion sorta leaves out some important concepts, namely that, as an artificial intelligence, a robot's ability to apply logic is controlled by the data it possess. A human's concept of "harm" is influenced by many impacts: physical, spiritual, mental, emotional. There's really only one of those concepts that's pretty clear. Outside of physical harm, defining the other three becomes truly complex. You can take away a man's freedom without physically harming him in any way. But you're sure to inflict massive amounts of harm in the other three areas. But without a way to quatify that harm, how is an AI to determine if it has, in fact, violated the Three Laws?

And I think the movie did a good job explaining that. The Three Laws create a conundrum for the AI...protect humanity, never harm humanity, never allow humanity to come to harm through inaction. Seeing humanity harm itself creates a situation where the AI must violated one of the Three Laws. The solution is to remove humanity's ability to harm itself.

Posted by: Rich Johnston at March 24, 2006 11:50 AM

DC told Moore the V4V copyrights would revert after publication, and talked about the handover. At that time, TPBs staying in print was unheard of. Neither he nor DC believed they were signing up to the book staying in print for twenty years and more. DC expected to hand the rights back after a year.

Alan told me the only way he thought he could make his opinion known by filmmakers is to refuse all moneys owed. It certainly got a lot of people at the studios and distributors talking, let alone the media.

After doing so, he felt a lot better. At ease. Content. That'll do, I think.

Moore does not live an expensive lifestyle. Really. He'll be able to claim his pension in ten years. And with previous moneys, he has a comfortable old age guaranteed. And if not, his snake puppet god will take care of him.

If he needs to. Lost Girls comes out in the summer. From Hell gets its ninth printing shortly. Wildstorm have the multimedia LOEG: Black Dossier to come. Top Shelf and Knockabout will be publishing LOEG V3. Then someone's going to be publishing Jerusalem. Avatar will be publishing a new OGN, and keeping A Small Killing in print.

For "fun" Alan Moore stories may I recommend The Complete DR And Quinch from Rebellion, The Complete BoJeffries Saga from Tundra/Fantagraphics/Atomeka, Halo Jones from Rebellion, Tomorrow Stories from Wildstorm, Maxwell The Magic Cat from... erm... I've forgotten.

As for the V differences... the big one for me was the removal of fascism vs anarchy, portrayed as the only two final alternatives. A wonderful theory, beautifully explored in the comic. That's the big difference between the two versions for me.

Anyone going to hear Moore talk about Fuseli tomorrow?

Posted by: Bobb at March 24, 2006 12:06 PM

"DC told Moore the V4V copyrights would revert after publication, and talked about the handover. At that time, TPBs staying in print was unheard of. Neither he nor DC believed they were signing up to the book staying in print for twenty years and more. DC expected to hand the rights back after a year."

I just have to disagree, at least with the DC side of things. If both sides expected rights to revert within a year, then why not just draft a contract that hs rights revert after a year. Or five. DC may not have expected the Watchmen property to be as big a hit as it has been, but they certainly contemplated the possibility that it would be.

I also disagree that TPBs did not last at the time. Maybe there were few contemporary examples at the time Watchmen was printed, but Golden Age reprints, some form of collection, new editions/printings, are not some new invention of the modern age. You could say DC struck gold with Watchmen, but you could say the same for Moore.

It seems you're making DC out to have some nefarious intent to prevent the reversion of the Watchmen rights to Moore. There's no nefarious intent...just a profit minded one. Profit, the thing that keeps DC, Marvel, and every other publisher in business, allowing us readers to enjoy their product every week. And DC's not tried to keep Moore's fair profits from him

I'll go back to my lottery example. If I could know in advance when the numbers I like to play are going to be drawn, I could just save my money and only buy a ticket for that drawing. Since I don't, if I want to be able to win that prize, I need to buy a ticket every week...a contingent act...like having an open ended retention of rights so long as the work is published.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 24, 2006 12:13 PM

The first time I saw the Burton "Batman," when the film ended I heard a couple of guys talking, and one said, "If they make another one, who do you think will be the villain?" And the other guy said, with complete seriousness, "I'm hoping it's King Tut. He was cool."

Yikes.

Now Egghead, THAT'd be cool. You could have the first ever Batman/Ant-Man crossover!

TWL

Posted by: Rich Johnston at March 24, 2006 12:13 PM

Because everyone made assumptions. It was a different market then. These days it's all about All Rights In The Universe In Perpetuity And Beyond because of this.

There was no comics plan for keeping this finite work in print, constantly. That had not happened before.

Watchmen and V are creator owned properties. It's just that the ownership has been kept on hold by the publisher in a way that no party involved intended or could have foreseen. Hindsight is easy.

The comics universe changed with V, Watchmen and Dark Knight.

Posted by: Rich Johnston at March 24, 2006 12:19 PM

Oh, and all allegations of nefariousness, you inferred.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 24, 2006 12:40 PM

Posted by Bobb at March 24, 2006 11:32 AM

One without the other has...not much. The writer has a bunch of paper that no one outside his/her circle of friends will ever read. And the publisher has an entire network/investment that sits idle.

You are not entirely correct. Self-publishing is a viable option, particularly in comics. Granted, it is excruciatingly difficult to succeed as a self-publisher, and not many do. But it happens. Cerebus, Strangers in Paradise, and Bone are but three examples of successful books that were self-published for some or all of their run.

Because self-publishers lack the resources and the brand recognition of big comics publishers, one certainly makes a sacrifice if one decides to self-publish. At the same time, creators make sacrifices when they sign publishing deals with major publishers. The question is simply, which sacrifices does a creator want to make?

I believe there are no right or wrong answers to that question, as long as creators recognize and accept the consequences of whatever decision they choose to make.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 24, 2006 12:42 PM

"Whatever decision they choose to make."

Good Lord, could I have been any more redundant with that sentence?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 12:57 PM

As for the V differences... the big one for me was the removal of fascism vs anarchy, portrayed as the only two final alternatives.

Boy, that seems pretty silly now, with French anarchists rioting because the government won't guarantee jobs for them.

They don’t make anarchists like they used to. They seem to have lost their faith in nihilism.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 24, 2006 01:33 PM

Peter, I agree with you that comics are being taken more seriously. 'Faithfully' however is a very subjective term to use here, and I'm sure some of the writers, directors and producers connected with some of the worst comic book-related films of the last decade could probably explain how they felt they were being faithful to the original source material when in fact the final product would suggest otherwise.

Rich, thanks for chiming in on a just in which you have a lot to contribute. I was trying to remember where one of Moore's post-Silver V4V interviews came from, but in fact you've helped jog my memory that it was from your column.

And for those who express surprise that Moore didn't have everything in writing, as in the V4V rights reverting back to him when the TB went out of print, sometimes you think the best of a publisher until they do something to show that they can't be trusted. The next time, you don't make that mistake again. When I did my first book, a Star Trek book that was going to to be licensed by Paramount, I was assured that there were going to be no foreign editions sold. I found out otherwise when I discovered a copy of te Spanish edition some months later in my the publisher's office. Not to mention the British edition that sold out. On my second book (about Red Dwarf), I plugged up a lot of those loopholes, and when the publisher happily showed me the mockup of the front cover without my name on it, I had to pull out the contract and show them that in fact they were contractually obligated to put my name on the cover. So you can't assume these things are automatic. On my Farscape book, which was licensed through the Jim Henson Company, I insisted on retaining copyright of the text, which held up negotiations for months, but when Hensons decreed that we had to lose the final chapter because their lawyers had neglected to get clearances from the actors for the Farscape mini-series, I just printed up copies of the text and gave them out for free before offering it a website where people could download it free of charge. But how do you ever anticipate this sort of nonsense until it happens to you? I suspect Peter would probably have more than his share of hair-raising stories to tell, even with an agent watching out for his interests. My motto now is 'Hope for the best; expect the worst,' and I don't even pretend to be in the category of an Alan Moore or Peter David. I can only imagine the shenanigans when much bigger sums of money are involved!

Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 01:46 PM

"Peter, I agree with you that comics are being taken more seriously. 'Faithfully' however is a very subjective term to use here, and I'm sure some of the writers, directors and producers connected with some of the worst comic book-related films of the last decade could probably explain how they felt they were being faithful to the original source material when in fact the final product would suggest otherwise."

I've no doubt. My point is that they're no more or less likely to say the same thing about particular novels or plays. It's the notion that comics are getting short shrift because they're "just comics" that I'm disputing.

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 24, 2006 02:19 PM

I think that Hollywood treats comics with every bit as much respect as they do anything else.

Which is to say that the 'respect' it's completely hit or miss, depending on who's working on the project. :)

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 24, 2006 02:59 PM

Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 09:10 AM

"Peter David: I wasn't aware the "manner" in which material is fucked up was especially material. If it's getting fucked up, what difference does it make HOW?
Luigi Novi: It underscores the completely different the general public, including Hollywood, views comics as opposed to other media. Other media are seen as just that. Comics are not."

Peter David: Luigi, I can't help but notice that you concentrated all your responses on my opening line while completely ignoring the vast balance of the post, which makes--I think--a pretty compelling case for the idea that Hollywood treats everything pretty much the same.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Please explain to me then why, when comics are adapted into movies, those in charge publicize it in publicity by saying things like “It’ll be a living comic book”, “It’ll look just like a comic book”, and “It’ll be a real comic book movie”, but do not say similar things like “It’ll be a novel movie” or “play movie” or any other similar jargon when adapting those other media. They do this for the same reason people ask me if I’m too old to read comic books, while never asking me if I’m too old to read magazines, newspapers, novels, watch movies, watch TV, etc. Simple. It’s because comics are not seen as another medium. They focus on form and confuse it with content. Hollywood doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is prone to the same perceptions filtered in from the rest of society.

Peter David: In fact, when one compares works such as "Spider-Man," "Sin City," "Road to Perdition" and "The Phantom" to the massive changes that Hollywood has made to stories from books, plays, etc., rendering the film version almost unrecognizable, you really don't have a leg to stand on in asserting that comics are somehow getting short shrift.
Luigi Novi: I am not focusing on changes made to the source material per se, and mentioned how sometimes, such changes are actually a good thing. I am more concerned with the underlying thinking, perception of, and approach to comics that informs some cinematic decisions. The changes made to Road to Perdition, for example, did not stem from form-over-content problem, and as I mentioned in my last post, actually made the story far better and more accessible on a human level than the book. (Although I admit I would’ve liked to have seen the steamboat casino sequence.) So did giving Batman black body armor instead of those goofy gray and blue tights.

My problem is with the focus on form instead of content, not changes. The prime example of this is Sin City. That is a movie that was arguably as non-Hollywood as a mainstream movie could be, made only a minimal of changes to the material (though granted, some were kinda stupid), and yet for me, it sucked. Its insistence on that cornball narration (even regarding the description of gunshots, which you don’t need in a movie, because, y’know, you can hear gunshots in a movie), fluorescing things like blood, Hartigan’s tie, Kevin’s glasses, etc., was just plain awful. I really would’ve liked to have seen Miller and Rodriguez adapt SC’s content into a true noir film instead of that bastardized waste of celluloid. I mean, why was it necessary to include Manute’s mention to Gail about serving a “new master”, when that was an allusion to the death of Ava from A Dame to Kill For, which wasn’t in the film? Those are things that should’ve been changed. But because Miller and Rodriguez were so obsessed with slavishly copying not only the content, but the form as well, I found the movie to be utterly ridiculous. Maggie responded to my letter in CBG by asserting that the creators wanted to not merely adapt the story, but to convey the feel of the story as drawn.

But why?

What is this reason for wanting to carry over mechanical elements of the medium from which the content originally appeared, when it defeats the whole purpose of adapting it into a different one? And if this is the thinking, then please explain to me why this thinking does not appear in movies adapted from others? It’s not just comics? Really? Okay, then please mention a movie that conveyed feel of a story “as printed on a page”, or “as acted on a stage”, and so forth.

The problem is not changes, or Hollywood, at least in and of itself. As Scott McCloud so brilliantly pointed out, it’s confusing form over content.

Peter David: Your use of "general public" is meaningless because you're separating "general public" from comic book reader. I would guess that the announcement of the movie Spider-Man getting organic webshooters caused tons more controversy in more places than, say, Baz Luhrman annihilating Shakespeare's text for his version of "Romeo and Juliet" and transporting it from its centuries-ago Verona, Italy roots to modern day gangs.
Luigi Novi: ??????? More places? Where? The only place where I heard even a hint of controversy over the organic webshooters was in fandom.

Peter David: Furthermore, considering the shocking number of people in this country who don't read novels or see plays, you can just as easily separate "general public" from readers of books and theater goers.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure I’m following here. What do you mean by separation? For what purpose?

Peter David: You're trying to sell the concept of comics-as-red-headed-stepchildren in the eyes of America and Hollywood, and it's just not flying.
Luigi Novi: It’s flown. When someone sees me reading a magazine, or a novel, I never get asked if I’m too old for that. I’ve only gotten asked this in regard to comics.

Peter David: I can. The problem is that it's a tough sell. Most publishers won't want to pick up a series when they don't have the rights to do all the books. And as long as Pocket keeps the first "Apropos" novel in print, getting interest elsewhere is problematic because I can't get reversion of rights.
Luigi Novi: But why doesn’t Pocket want to publish more themselves? That sucks.

Peter David: Oh, now it's the MEDIA. We've gone from Hollywood to the general public to the media.
Luigi Novi: Hollywood is part of “the media”, isn’t it?

Peter David: We have moved SO far away from that, that any reasonable, dispassionate viewing of things forces one to the conclusion that comic books are being treated more and more seriously and faithfully, not less.
Luigi Novi: Would you call it progress if a cannibal used utensils?

To a degree, yeah, it’s gotten better. But we still have a way to go, IMO.

Bobb: A human's concept of "harm" is influenced by many impacts: physical, spiritual, mental, emotional. There's really only one of those concepts that's pretty clear. Outside of physical harm, defining the other three becomes truly complex. You can take away a man's freedom without physically harming him in any way. But you're sure to inflict massive amounts of harm in the other three areas. But without a way to quatify that harm, how is an AI to determine if it has, in fact, violated the Three Laws?
Luigi Novi: My point is that an AI would quantify it via the physical, though now that you mention it, I think a valid argument could be made that an AI with access to the sum of human knowledge, including data on the effects of imprisonment, might actually understand that doing what happened in the movie would contradict the laws. So maybe Jonathan was right.

Bobb: And I think the movie did a good job explaining that. The Three Laws create a conundrum for the AI...protect humanity, never harm humanity, never allow humanity to come to harm through inaction. Seeing humanity harm itself creates a situation where the AI must violated one of the Three Laws. The solution is to remove humanity's ability to harm itself.
Luigi Novi: Okay, that’s odd, because the above portion of your post that I quoted actually convinced me that Jonathan may have been right. Now it seems you were assisting me in arguing my original point? Wow, that’s weird. :-)


Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 24, 2006 03:00 PM

So for the stuff at the top of my post that I neglected to edit out. And the screwed-up italics. (Damn lack of a Preview function........)

Posted by: Bobb at March 24, 2006 03:00 PM

"Because everyone made assumptions. It was a different market then. These days it's all about All Rights In The Universe In Perpetuity And Beyond because of this.

There was no comics plan for keeping this finite work in print, constantly. That had not happened before.

Watchmen and V are creator owned properties. It's just that the ownership has been kept on hold by the publisher in a way that no party involved intended or could have foreseen. Hindsight is easy.

The comics universe changed with V, Watchmen and Dark Knight.

Oh, and all allegations of nefariousness, you inferred."

Starting at the bottom...yes, I inferred it....hence my phrase "It seems you're making DC...." What of it? It's a logical inferrence from your post. If you did not intend that, you could just say so, plainly, rather than attribute allegations to me that I didn't make. I just made an observation.

V, Watchmen, Dark Knight, heck, Crisis and Marvel's Secret War, all may have changed comics. I'd probably suggest that they were symptomatic of a greater change going on in comics at the time. But whatever they were, it was not a change in the world of publishing. No one expected Watchmen to still be in demand 20 years later? So? Then why have a reversion of rights upon reaching a certain period of publishing inactivity at all? The fact that the clause exists demonstrates that both parties accounted for the possibility that it would remain a viable product, and so long as it did, DC would retain sole publishing control.

DC used to have a similar deal with Wonder Woman...if they didn't publish at least 4 issues with WW as the banner lead every year, her rights would revert. They did eventually buy the rights outright, but for years, you'd see at least 4 WW books come out, just so they could retain the rights to the character. DC's not evil or wrong for doing this, they're prudent. And it shows that comics, particularly DC, had in fact had experience with a comic property that had a reverter clause in it, but the longevity and viability of the character supported keeping it in print enough to retain the rights.

V may very well be a creator owned property, but Watchmen is derivative of many other characters owned by DC. Even if Moore were to retain full rights to Watchmen, it's unclear what he'd be able to do, outside of allowing other publishers to republish the work. Any new material would possibly be in violation of DC copyright on characters like Blue Beetle, the Question, Captain Atom, and others.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 24, 2006 03:13 PM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 12:57 PM

They don’t make anarchists like they used to. They seem to have lost their faith in nihilism.

Say the "f-word" again! :)


Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 24, 2006 03:25 PM

Now, I don't necessarily go hunting for movie new a lot, not wanting to stumble across spoilers, but I watch plenty of TV, and love watching trailers online, but I don't recall the last time (if ever) a movie was billed as being "just like the comic book."

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 24, 2006 03:26 PM

That should've been "movie news."

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

What is this reason for wanting to carry over mechanical elements of the medium from which the content originally appeared, when it defeats the whole purpose of adapting it into a different one? And if this is the thinking, then please explain to me why this thinking does not appear in movies adapted from others? It’s not just comics? Really? Okay, then please mention a movie that conveyed feel of a story “as printed on a page”, or “as acted on a stage”, and so forth.

First off, keep in mind that I loved SIN CITY so my opinion is based partly on a love for the work that you don't share.

Why is conveying some of the strengths of the comics medium into film a bad thing? Comics have long been able to do things that movies can't and visa versa. There are advantages to comics, as anyone who reads Scott Mcleod's stuff knows. Part of what made Sin City great was the design of it, the unique look of the work. Sure, they could have just done a film noir using the script but it would not have rocked my world if they had. It was the look of it.

I mean, DAREDEVIL the movie used lots of Frank Miller ideas but it had none of the power of the comics.I'm not saying that every comic movie should take the Sin City approach but I'm happy to see that the producers of THE 300 are going out of their way to recapture the look of the comic. I think it'll be great.

(Part of my love for the film may also be the fact that it opened my eyes to the potential for digital filmmaking...the folks on the zombie movie I'm working on have talked about what we could do if we converted a barn into a greenscreen studio. This stuff has scary potential.)

Luigi, I know what you mean about the dolts who ask you if you're too old to be reading comics but my attitude is hey, at least I'm reading, while these boneheads are watching me read. Who is part of God's plan here?

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 24, 2006 03:33 PM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

Luigi, I know what you mean about the dolts who ask you if you're too old to be reading comics but my attitude is hey, at least I'm reading, while these boneheads are watching me read. Who is part of God's plan here?

Some old man saw me at looking through the comics in the spinner rack at the grocery store. He smirked at me and said with more than a hint of sarcasm, "Catching up on important reading, eh?"

I remember thinking, "Screw off and die, you old gasbag." But instead I just smiled politely and kept perusing the comics.

I figure it's OK if you think these things, as long as you don't say them out loud.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at March 24, 2006 03:43 PM

"Watchmen is derivative of many other characters owned by DC. Even if Moore were to retain full rights to Watchmen, it's unclear what he'd be able to do, outside of allowing other publishers to republish the work. Any new material would possibly be in violation of DC copyright on characters like Blue Beetle, the Question, Captain Atom, and others."

Which kind of raises the question of how Marvel got away with the Squadron Supreme and Shiar's Imperial Guard ;)

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 24, 2006 03:48 PM

Luigi Novi: What is this reason for wanting to carry over mechanical elements of the medium from which the content originally appeared, when it defeats the whole purpose of adapting it into a different one?

Bill Mulligan: Why is conveying some of the strengths of the comics medium into film a bad thing? Comics have long been able to do things that movies can't and visa versa. There are advantages to comics, as anyone who reads Scott Mcleod's stuff knows. Part of what made Sin City great was the design of it, the unique look of the work.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say “strengths”, “design” or “look”. I said “mechanical elements.” Not the same thing.

Yes, each media has its unique strengths that the others lack, and sometimes, one can borrow from the other. A split screen, for example, could be thought of as a borrowing of “panels” from comics. And indeed, if the intention behind its use in film is the same as its use in the comics, then it can accomplish the same thing. If, on the other hand, it is used in a film solely because it is a comics element, and the material being adapted originated in comics, then it’s being used for the wrong reason, and when utilized in such absurd manner, you get dreck like Ang Lee’s Hulk.

Bill Mulligan: Luigi, I know what you mean about the dolts who ask you if you're too old to be reading comics but my attitude is hey, at least I'm reading, while these boneheads are watching me read. Who is part of God's plan here?
Luigi Novi: Precisely my reaction too, Bill. I first learned the words “corpulent” and “fugue” from comics. I first learned that driving while inebriated was illegal from an episode of Three’s Company. I first learned of the “good cop, bad cop” tactic used by interrogators from Lethal Weapon 2. This just goes to show that any and all exposure to any knowledge in any medium stimulates the mind, particularly one that is willing to absorb it.

Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 04:03 PM

"Luigi Novi: Okay. Please explain to me then why, when comics are adapted into movies, those in charge publicize it in publicity by saying things like “It’ll be a living comic book”, “It’ll look just like a comic book”, and “It’ll be a real comic book movie”, but do not say similar things like “It’ll be a novel movie” or “play movie” or any other similar jargon when adapting those other media."

Except they DON'T say that, unless they're discussing it in terms of fealty to the original source material. In that regard, it's no different than Chris Columbus saying "Harry Potter" is going to satisfy fans of the book because it's going to be the book come to life almsot scene for scene, or (the same director, for that matter) stating that "Rent" was going to be the play brought to life, or publicists stating that the remake of "Psycho" was going to be shot-for-shot identical to the original Hitchcock film.

As for the rest of your posting, it is becoming abundantly clear that we are talking about two so completely different things. My initial comment was staggeringly simple: That Hollywood isn't more inclined to treat comic book source material with less reverence than any other source material. And you're off doing this whole complicated dissertation on form, content and style with a shoutout to "Understanding Comics" and a casual dismissal of "Sin City," the most recent comic book oriented film that is faithful to the source material, which was my point in the first place.

Of course I'm aware that, for instance, the term "comic book movie" or "comic booky" is used to dismiss or denigrate films with a big, splashy style and one-dimensional characters. But that has absolutely jack-all to do with what I said in the first place. If you want to talk about what *I* said and what *I* commented on, that's fine. And if you want to go off on this complete tangent and argue for the sake of arguing, that's also fine. But I see little point in going along since it's completely irrelevant to what I said in the first place.

PAD

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 24, 2006 04:27 PM

Peter, I apologize if I gave the appearance of conflating one thing with another. I read the quote in your blog entry about the hypothetical person saying, “But it's only comics, you know?", and merely wanted to chime in to say that there are some respects in which that sentiment is true. No, comics are not given a shorter shrift by Hollywood in and of itself. But I thought I was clear in making a distinction between the initial topic of your blog entry, and the related tangent on which I diverged. Sorry if I wasn’t.

As far as the comments in question being made only when discussing fealty to the source material, well, I don’t agree, as I’ve read such interviews, and did not get that sense from them, but then, I suppose I have no more firm proof of those subjects’ intent than you or anyone else, so perhaps we should chalk it up to different perceptions. That still leaves other examples I’ve mentioned, like why movies adapted from plays do not feature curtains on the screen to separate scenes, why movies do not feature pages turning, etc. This of course has nothing to do with mere fealty to the source material, and even though I’ve asked that question before here and elsewhere, no one has been able or willing to answer that question.

As far as Sin City, my feelings about it are hardly “casual”. I put quite a bit of thought into my conclusions, and into the writings in which I express them, thank you very much. I spent quite a bit of time composing the review I wrote for Sin City, and I think I detailed my reasoning behind my conclusions both here, and in the letter in CBG, which ran right on the other side of the first page of your column on hateful fans. If you want to disagree or show me where my reasoning off, fine, but to write off my explanations of why I regard certain topics as “casual” seems a bit of a disservice.


Posted by: Bill Myers at March 24, 2006 04:37 PM

Posted by: Peter David at March 24, 2006 04:03 PM

Of course I'm aware that, for instance, the term "comic book movie" or "comic booky" is used to dismiss or denigrate films with a big, splashy style and one-dimensional characters.

I agree that Hollywood is treating comic-books far more respectfully than ever. I just wish more moviegoers realized that films like "Batman Begins" are good because they are "comic booky." I wish more people understood that movies like that aren't transcending the source material, but rather using the source material for their inspiration.

Then again, I'd like to end bigotry, world hunger, disease, and elevator music. It's an imperfect world.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 24, 2006 05:29 PM

"Whatever decision they choose to make."

Good Lord, could I have been any more redundant with that sentence?

Yes. "Whatever decision they choose to select in the final assessment." :-)

Which kind of raises the question of how Marvel got away with the Squadron Supreme and Shiar's Imperial Guard ;)

Because you can't copyright an idea - just a particular arrangement of words and/or pictures. If you wanted to do a comic about a man whose power is to shrink down to microscopic size, and who hangs out with a detective who dresses up like a nocturnal animal and an earthbound god in a brightly-colored outfit, no problem - just don't call the small guy Ray, don't make the animal a bat, and don't make the bright colors red and blue, and you're good to go.

Of course, you'll have to put up with the fanboys screaming about how you're ripping off DC, and you'd better have some truly original stories to tell or your title won't sell, but that's life in the creativity biz! :-)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 06:53 PM

I wish more people understood that movies like that aren't transcending the source material, but rather using the source material for their inspiration.

Yeah, but let's count our blessings. This is the Golden Age of godd comic book adaptations. I would have given my left arm for stuff as good as Justice League Unlimited when I was a kid watching Spiderman and His Amazing Friends and thinking "Well, this doesn't suck too much."

Say the "f-word" again! :)

Darn you Bill Myers! Darn you to heck!

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 24, 2006 07:30 PM

Jonathan, thanks for bringing up some points abut copyright law that I've only just had clarified by following the DaVinci Code lawsuit going on in the UK. Sort of makes you think that Captain Marvel still might be a thriving Fawcett character instead of a DC B-team character if the company had just stuck it out a bit longer.

I have to share some of Luigi's sentiments regarding comic books being looked at a second-class art form, at least as far as general perception. I had to suffer through more than two decade's worth of my parents telling me my comic book collection was just a waste of money- until I sold most of it and bought a car and got an apartment with the money. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but it's the perception that some people have of 'funny books' that may never disappear completely, at least here in America.

Funnily enough, my wife, whose interest in comics has only been peripheral at best- Watchmen, Maus, most of Neil Gaiman's stuff- recently found she had a little bit of comic book street cred while working on the current series of Doctor Who and discovered she had soaked up some of it by listening to me over the years. I guess it doesn't hurt that the show used Bryan Hitch as a concept designer either, so there's obviously an oasis of coolness there.

And without getting too sappy here, can I just say how much I've enjoyed this discussion over the last couple of days? Much as I like the occasional political topic, they often seem to descend into sniping and name-calling and people trying to make their point. This thread has certainly had its share of disagreements, but it's nice to see people agreeing to disagree.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 24, 2006 07:49 PM

Luigi Novi: Okay. Please explain to me then why, when comics are adapted into movies, those in charge publicize it in publicity by saying things like “It’ll be a living comic book”, “It’ll look just like a comic book”, and “It’ll be a real comic book movie”, but do not say similar things like “It’ll be a novel movie” or “play movie” or any other similar jargon when adapting those other media.

Because they're confused -- and as you say, they're confusing form with content.

But that doesn't mean they're treating comics as second-class literature: if anything, when people say that it's generally in the context of claiming they're going to be faithful. In fact, given the relative frequency of bigwigs saying "it'll be just like the comic" vs. bigwigs saying "it'll be just like the novel", one could very easily make the argument that they're treating comics with MORE reverence than other forms, not less.

I see the point you're trying to make here, Luigi, but I think you're really really reaching with some of your examples.

They do this for the same reason people ask me if I’m too old to read comic books, while never asking me if I’m too old to read magazines, newspapers, novels, watch movies, watch TV, etc. Simple. It’s because comics are not seen as another medium.

That's not, IMO, the whole reason for the questions you're getting. Those people aren't so much confusing form with content as assuming that the content is always for juveniles only. It's akin to people saying "oh, you're still reading that science fiction stuff?", or "you're still going to fantasy films?" or even "you're watching Doctor Who?" [And if you've never had anyone ask you any of those three questions, I'll be very surprised. I know I've gotten at least two of them from time to time.]

That's not confusing form with content, at least primarily. It's assuming that comics are all one genre, and a genre they ghettoize as shallow kid stuff.

I agree that it's a problem -- but I don't think it's the same type of problem you're making it out to be. In fact, I think there's a much stronger case to be made for the fact that SF and fantasy is treated overall as second-class work (be it novels, comics, or films), not comics specifically.

Joe:
And without getting too sappy here, can I just say how much I've enjoyed this discussion over the last couple of days? Much as I like the occasional political topic, they often seem to descend into sniping and name-calling and people trying to make their point. This thread has certainly had its share of disagreements, but it's nice to see people agreeing to disagree.

Oh, piss off. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 09:11 PM

Here's potentially cool news from Aintitcool.com: WATCHMEN may have a new director attached--Zack Snyder, the guy behind the way better than it could have been DAWN OF THE DEAD remake and the upcoming 300.

http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22841

The only drawback is that if the fans have been crazed over the changes to V, can you imagine how they will react to the absolutely essential changes that will have to be made to WATCHMEN to get it under 3 hours?

I'm talking self castration, purple sneaker wearing, cyanide koolaid drinking bad reactions. I'm talking reactions so extreme that Scientoligists will look at them and say "Boy, those guys are fucked up!"

(That was for you, Bill Myers! Now leave me alone! I'm not your trained swear-monkey!)

Posted by: ArizonaTeach at March 24, 2006 09:32 PM

I conceptually understand the foundation on which this discussion is built. I have read the originial source material, as well as seen the movie adaptation, so I am intimately familiar with the work in question. I find this a fascinating discourse on the subject of adaptations and of movies in general. With that in mind, every damn time someone lazily writes "V" instead of "V for Vendetta," all I can think of is Jane Badler in a form fitting uniform eating a rat.

That is all.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 24, 2006 09:54 PM

Cest la V

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 24, 2006 10:04 PM

I'm talking reactions so extreme that Scientoligists will look at them and say "Boy, those guys are fucked up!"

I can't wait for the South Park parody. ;)

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 24, 2006 10:14 PM

I just found the Snyder story too. From what I've been hearing, his version of Miller's 300 is looking very cool indeed, but I still subscribe to the old adafe, 'If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.' If this new Watchmen script arrives in heavily flawed form, whoever the director is, he's already starting the project at a disadvantage. Guess we'll just have to see what happens.

Posted by: mike weber at March 25, 2006 12:29 AM

PAD said:

He steps on the cricket and kills it in, like, chapter 2.

It's been years, but i thought he hit it with a hammer.

Luigi Novi said:

Nobody shows curtains opening and closing when making a movie based on a play, a television being turned on when adapting a TV show into a movie, or pages being turned when adapting a novel. The very idea is stupid.

Not lately, no -- but they were all quite common at one point, and someday will be again, i'm sure.
In fact, the beginning of Branagh's "Henry V" is very much that sort of thing...

Robb said:

I just have to disagree, at least with the DC side of things. If both sides expected rights to revert within a year, then why not just draft a contract that hs rights revert after a year. Or five. DC may not have expected the Watchmen property to be as big a hit as it has been, but they certainly contemplated the possibility that it would be.

Because that's the standard wording of author/publisher contracts.

Joe Nazzaro said:

Jonathan, thanks for bringing up some points abut copyright law that I've only just had clarified by following the DaVinci Code lawsuit going on in the UK. Sort of makes you think that Captain Marvel still might be a thriving Fawcett character instead of a DC B-team character if the company had just stuck it out a bit longer.

Not after Manly Wade Wellman took the stand and testified that they handed him Superman books and saids "Do it just like that, only different."

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 25, 2006 02:38 AM

Hmm... It may be a bit off subject, but it just suddenly struck me as a bit odd that amongst the titles brought up in the adaptation discussion, I don't recall seeing the Conan movies mentioned yet. Those are two very good examples of what makes a good adaptation and what makes a bad one. (Conan the Barbarian being "good" and Conan the Destroyer being "bad" for anyone who hasn't seen them) And to add yet another layer, the Robert Jordan novelization of Destroyer was actually a pretty good written adaptation of a bad movie adaptation of the character.

Whew, it must be getting late. That last sentence made MY head spin a little.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: phuong at March 25, 2006 04:42 AM

Xin chao, Minh den tu HL, minh mong muon duoc lam quen voi tat ca cac ban. Thanks you

Posted by: Juan at March 25, 2006 05:51 AM

My humble opinion about the adapted movies:
1.- The original stuff can be a novel, a comic book, a tale, a play, a musical, a videogame, a poem, a song, a tv show, another (old or foreign) movie, etc.
2.- This original stuff can be anything from very bad to very good.
3.- The resultant movie can be anything from very different to very reliable to the original stuff.
4.- The resultant movie can be anything from very bad to very good.
5.- There is not relation between the quality of the original stuff and the quality of the resultant movie.
And 6.- Neither there is not relation between the reliability to the original stuff and the quality of the resultant movie.
Well, it hurts when you like the original stuff and dislike the resultant movie. But it hurts too when you like a resultant movie, go to the original stuff (for example a novel) and you discover that it is very bad or you do not like it at all.
There are a lot of things that make good or bad a movie. The stuff that origins the movie is only an element of the equation. There are too the screenplay, the actors, the director, etc.

Posted by: Ashley Wilbanks at March 25, 2006 08:55 AM

you just ruined pinocchio for me! How could you!!!!!! Just kidding. I totally agree with you on this one!

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 25, 2006 01:57 PM

Methinks Juan has hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Also, it took a couple of days, but I finally figured out the analogy I was looking for to make my point about subthread way back about the Harry Potter movies. One reader (sorry, I forget your name, and I'm not going hunting. Sue me) contends that the movies bring nothing new to the experience. While it may cleave to the text very closely, the visuals and audio presentation ARE what it adds to the experience. I've always gone into a new Potter movie expecting, at the very least, a visual aid to the book, and have always come away very pleased. While the power imagination will always have its own satisfaction, actually SEEING it brought to life has an immediate appeal all its own.

Look at it this way, I doubt anybody could truthfully claim that they'd rather read a list of fireworks and imagine the show than actually SEE it in person.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 25, 2006 02:13 PM

I don't think the problem with the first two Harry Potter films is that they don't bring anything new. The problem (besides the original novels not being as good as the third and fourth ones) is that Chris Columbus has no talent as a director, and has a very rote approach. His technique is basically to turn the camera on and point it at the actors. It took a true artist like Alfonso Cuaron to come along and give the series some real vision.

It's even more of a problem when Columbus is called upon to direct something as artistic and abstract as Rent, and the results are disastrous (I mean, he solved the problem of "Another Day" taking place in two separate locales simultaneously by having Mark, Angel, and Collins WALK AROUND THE FUCKING CORNER and start singing with Mimi, whom they don't even know at this point!).

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 25, 2006 03:10 PM

Mike Weber: In fact, the beginning of Branagh's "Henry V" is very much that sort of thing...
Luigi Novi: Yes, and very beginning of the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie features someone--external--to the story--opening up an issue of Action Comics (#1, I think).

But the REST of the movie features no such idiosyncracies. It treats the material straight. Gene Hackman does not deliver his dialogue in a bombastic manner like Ed Begley Junior in Batman Forever or Doc Ock when he decides what he'll do with his powers in Spider-Man 2. The focus is on Clark's character, his relationship with his parents, the pain of the usual rites of passage, like leaving home, etc.

The result is the best comic book-based movie EVER.

Posted by: Sarashay at March 25, 2006 04:30 PM

I'm glad I waiting until after I saw the film to read this.

I liked V For Vendetta. I liked the original book, and I enjoyed the film adaptation. Frankly, after hearing the kerfuffle about Moore wanting his name removed from the film, I was pleasantly surprised at how faithful it was to the style and spirit of the original. (One of my favorite lines, in particular, was word-for-word from the comic book and I found myself mouthing it along with the screen.) Seeing the closing credits without Alan Moore's name mentioned was a bit like seeing family photographs with the ex-husband airbrushed out. But if he wants his name off it, it's his good name to do what he likes with it. *shrug*

Posted by: Bruce Baugh at March 26, 2006 08:07 PM

One side note about V For Vendetta staying in print so long...

Now I don't know the slightest thing about how DC and Time-Warner make these decisions, but I do know something about book selling and distributing. It used to be that collections and graphic novels would come out, be around for a printing and maybe another, and then disappear. This worked okay when distributors were willing to deal with a lot of slack in some parts of their catalog. With the rise of the cult of efficiency in distribution, it got harder - stuff that couldn't be credibly presented as viable in the long haul had a harder time than it sued to.

DC's commitment to keeping things like V For Vendetta and The Dark Knight Returns in print, even when sales might be slack for some quarters, had a lot to do with creating the modern graphic novel and trade paperback market. It signalled to distributors in the language distributors had chosen to speak that DC was serious about working with the book trade, that it had works it was prepared to stand by. And some of those works continue to make money. Neil Gaiman said a few years back that the Sandman volumes were still selling more than a hundred thousand copies a year, and I believe that remains true. Watchmen is another, I understand.

If DC had let those mid-to-late '80s works meet the same fate as their predecessors, the market for new (and reprinted) work would be a lot more constricted.

Posted by: Jim O'Shea at March 27, 2006 04:18 PM

Why doesn't Alan Moore just take all the money he's entitled to and donate it straight to ACTOR? Here is a guy who has been blessed with his works being made into movies, something 80% or more of comics creators can only dream about, and all he can do is bitch and moan about them not being true to the original or disgracing some "artistic vision" of his. Too damn bad. If he doesn't want the money, fine, do something with it to send a positive message. Donate it to ACTOR so that past creators who were REALLY screwed can benefit. Don't just piss away money for a principal, actually take a stand for creators rights.

Posted by: Bobb at March 27, 2006 04:31 PM

"Which kind of raises the question of how Marvel got away with the Squadron Supreme and Shiar's Imperial Guard ;)"

Because DC, historically, has been less copyright infringment lawsuit minded than Marvel has been. Which, given that Marvel now has a continuous, mainstream SS book on the stands, I have to wonder if DC's legal department isn't starting to take a little more interest in the matter.

"Robb said:

'I just have to disagree, at least with the DC side of things. If both sides expected rights to revert within a year, then why not just draft a contract that hs rights revert after a year. Or five. DC may not have expected the Watchmen property to be as big a hit as it has been, but they certainly contemplated the possibility that it would be.'

Because that's the standard wording of author/publisher contracts."

Again, standard...why? Because some works in the past have only proven successful for a limited amount of time, and the publisher sees no value in retaining rights to a property that it can't create on its own (the creator retaining copyright over new works) and can't sell any copies of the stuff it does own rights to. And because sometimes a property transcends the time it's created in, and goes on to be successful over a course of years beyond the imagining of either party? Even if such clauses are "standard," they exist for a reason. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that a contract should be viodable.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 27, 2006 04:34 PM

Posted by: Jim O'Shea at March 27, 2006 04:18 PM

Don't just piss away money for a principal, actually take a stand for creators rights.

Alan Moore is giving his share of the "V for Vendetta" movie royalties to David Lloyd, who drew the comic-book upon which the movie was based. Moore has stated that while he loathes the movie adaptations of works that he has written, he understands that artists with whom he has collaborated may have been counting on those adaptations and the royalties they generate.

How would it be more creator-friendly to donate the money to ACTOR? Do you actually mean to suggest that to stand up for creator's rights, Moore should give the movie royalties for "V for Vendetta" to someone other than the the artist who co-created the book? If so, I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning.

Posted by: Ray at March 27, 2006 05:34 PM

"And that's why I don't debate insane purists any more."

Great line, Den - I'll have to borrow it on occassion. ;)

As someone who works in feature film development at a "major Hollywood studio," I wish I could add something more useful to the V adaptation discussion, but I haven't read the original story since it was first published so I can't be certain of what changes were made. Overall, though, it seemed a fairly faithful adaptation to me. I did think the film was pretty good - not great - but if I were reviewing it in the local paper I might be tempted to resort to some goofy headline like "V for Verbose." Biggest problem from a creative end - and much more of an issue in a film than in a "cartoon book" - is the fact that the lead character is behind a mask for the duration. That's a damn tough hurdle to get past in a film, and those involved deserve props for pulling it off as well as they did.

As for Hollywood and comics in general, I can assure you that many of us treat them with the utmost respect - on par with just about any other medium that requires adaptation to the big screen. Peter is absolutely correct in this regard. That doesn't mean, however, that changes - both minor and major - aren't often required. They're different mediums, with different narrative rules, and much different target audiences. A key motive, obviously, is financial, but going hand-in-hand with that is the need to make the material more accessible to non-comic book fans. I'm a decades-long comic book fan myself and i appreciate the desire for "purity," but in most cases that's simply not going to happen. It might be hard for some of you to believe, but it takes a lot of work to make a comic book (especially superhero stuff) not seem too "comic book-y" on screen. And a lot of the writers doing these adaptations are comic book fans as well (though there are exceptions, of course, as anyone familiar with the pre-Ang Lee Hulk version can attest). One of my favorite projects that I'm currently working on is based on a comic book, but there's no way in hell that it would make a successful (let alone good) film in its "pure" form. Some drastic changes needed to be made (and truthfully I didn't think the writers could pull it off), but i think it will be a terrific film... so long as one doesn't go into it expecting it to be faithful. But it does capture the spirit of the original material and will hopefully drive people to check out the comic book.

Ray

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 27, 2006 08:36 PM

If he doesn't want the money, fine, do something with it to send a positive message.

My understanding is that he had all the money that would go to him instead go to the artist, David Lloyd. So it isn't like he went and bought a baseball with it.

Ray--you tease. A hint, just a hint. Like, does it rhyme with Swatchmen?

Finally saw V. Really liked it. Some of the changes were pretty PC for my taste--they go out of their way to make sure we know that the religious fundamentalists we need to worry about are not Muslim, because, hey, there's no chance any follower of Islam would go nuts without good reason. Like a cartoon or something. They cut out the bitchy wife character, which is a shame because she had a great comeuppance--even the female evil doctor wasn't all that evil, at least compared to the doughy white guys. But you have to expect that sort of thing.

Considering that the comic book panel of V emerging from his cell in flames is one of my favorite iconic images and the nailed it perfectly, I've few complaints. I do wish they'd left him a bit more twisted--no matter what they claim, it's obvious that he's the hero of the movie and meant to be seen as such.

I understand better though where Moore is coming from--the anarchy aspects are gone. I find anarchy about as likely as a resurgence of the Whig party but obviously Moore thinks better of it and it must rankle to see it altered.

One problem--was it me or was the score a little too much sometimes? When the cops were talking I don't think it was needed to have the background music emphasizing every point.

GREAT end credits.

It's already made it's budget back. Doesn't look like it has much legs but should turn a modest profit. I was hoping for more, so they would be more likely to get working on that Swatchmen movie.

Posted by: Ray at March 27, 2006 08:54 PM

[I]Ray--you tease. A hint, just a hint. Like, does it rhyme with Swatchmen?[/I]

LOL! No, I wish it were Watchmen. Actually, we were developing that for a while, too, but sadly let it go. It wasn't very good when we had it, but it got much better and the last Hayter draft that I read (when it was still set up at Paramount) was quite good. I tried my best to champion it, but this little ant couldn't move that rubber tree plant...

Ray

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 27, 2006 09:14 PM

Yeah, the Hayter script I read was definitely full of potential.

Ant...rubber tree plant...I get it, ooo, ooo, you're doing ANTMAN! Cool beans! Does he really clean house on those other ants?

Posted by: David Arroyo at March 28, 2006 09:04 AM

Actually PAD he is refusing royalties for his books. I mean what it comes down to is that DC has treated Moore horribly for years. This was just the spark that set off the explosion. I see your point, and i actually enjoyed the movie as something completly seperate from the film but they commited slander (or is it libel?) when they publicly lied and said that he not only supported the film but loved it. A blatant lie.

Ofcourse Moore could be more flexible but after all that DC has done to him, is it unfair to ask for them to bend a little for him?

Posted by: Nick at March 28, 2006 12:00 PM

I work at a comic store and just had a kid ask for V for Vendetta actions figures. Then he asked for the comics and when I explained we only had the collection he asked about Spawn comics. I'm not sure what this means, but it disturbed me to have somebody link the two in taste.

Posted by: MAT at March 28, 2006 12:10 PM

What has DC done to him? Published his work, let him play in their sandbox. I am so sick of this “poor creator” crap! If Moore doesn’t like how he is treated at DC, MOVE ON! My God. Moore has made a living by doing what most people only dream about. He doesn’t have to work at DC. He’s feak’n Alan Moore!!! He can do whatever he wants in the comic book industry, and more than likely, in the movie industry. Can you think of another creator from the comic book industry who has that many movies out. Cry me a river... don’t take the money, do take the money. It’s about the art, no, wait, its about the, blah, blah. Mr. Moore, just do us a favor, write good comics, stop your bitchin’ and self publish and own everything, problem solved.
Nuff said.

Posted by: Jason at March 28, 2006 02:18 PM

"Moore doesn’t like how he is treated at DC, MOVE ON!"

Err ... he has.

"He doesn’t have to work at DC. He’s feak’n Alan Moore!!!"

Which is why, as of now, he doesn't.

"Can you think of another creator from the comic book industry who has that many movies out."

Frank Miller? (Sin City, Batman Begins, Daredevil, Elektra ...)

"Mr. Moore, just do us a favor, write good comics,"

He does.

"stop your bitchin’"

People are seeking HIM out for interviews, asking for an explanation for why he doesn't like DC. You don't have to read his answers.

Or to put it another way, "Do us a favor, quit your bitchin' and just read the comics."

Posted by: Den at March 28, 2006 02:34 PM

Frank Miller? (Sin City, Batman Begins, Daredevil, Elektra ...)

Um, Frank Miller may have written both Batman and Daredevil, but he didn't create either character and neither of those movies were based on stories he wrote.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 04:19 PM

Den, unless I'm wrong, Miller had a great deal to do with the stories that large parts of the Daredevil movie were based on. I believe he created Electra and much of the movie's storyline was based on the Electra/Daredevil/kingpin/Bullseye stories that he at least co-plotted.

I don't remember if BATMAN YEAR 1 was used much for BATMAN BEGINS, so you may be totally correct there.

Posted by: Bobb at March 28, 2006 04:22 PM

Daredevil wasn't based on the Miller run? Didn't he do the whole Bullseye kills Elektra thing? Maybe the story wasn't based on Miller's run, but it borrowed heavily from them.

Granted, there's little (thankfully) of DKR in Batman Begins.

Posted by: Furious Angels at March 28, 2006 06:07 PM

I heard Moore made a trip to France to incite young people to riot in protest of laws that were supposed to help them get jobs easier... But that could be just a rumor...

Posted by: Jason at March 28, 2006 07:42 PM

Den wrote: Um, Frank Miller may have written both Batman and Daredevil, but he didn't create either character and neither of those movies were based on stories he wrote.

"Um," yes, they were. It's Miller's characterization of DD, Bullseye, and the Kingpin being used in the Daredevil film, and Miller *created* Elektra, so there's no disputing that Miller's role in that aspect of the film.

And "Batman Begins" owes a *lot* to Miller's Batman: Year One, right down to mentioning some new crazy called the Joker on the final page (or the last five minutes).

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 28, 2006 08:31 PM

Miller, if memory serves, also wrote or co-wrote the screenplays for ROBOCOP 2 and 3. (Granted, this may not be a plus...)

TWL

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 28, 2006 09:46 PM

Miller, if memory serves, also wrote or co-wrote the screenplays for ROBOCOP 2 and 3. (Granted, this may not be a plus...

Yeah, but I'm not sure how much of his actual stuff made it into the films.

I do know that his experiences with those two films are part of what also put him off Hollywood (until Rodriguez came along).

Posted by: Joseph Lipton at March 29, 2006 01:38 AM

Totally agree PAD. Well, at least that it's hollywood's fault, and not some comic-specific "Vendetta". But I can also see why Moore doesn't want his books made into Film, especially film that has a different take than the one he intended.