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
• 
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!
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.
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, pìšš øff. 🙂
TWL
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 fûçkëd up!“
(That was for you, Bill Myers! Now leave me alone! I’m not your trained swear-monkey!)
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 dámņ 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.
Cest la V
I’m talking reactions so extreme that Scientoligists will look at them and say “Boy, those guys are fûçkëd up!”
I can’t wait for the South Park parody. 😉
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.
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.”
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-
Xin chao, Minh den tu HL, minh mong muon duoc lam quen voi tat ca cac ban. Thanks you
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.
you just ruined pinocchio for me! How could you!!!!!! Just kidding. I totally agree with you on this one!
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-
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 FÙÇKÍNG CORNER and start singing with Mimi, whom they don’t even know at this point!).
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.
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*
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.
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 bìŧçh and moan about them not being true to the original or disgracing some “artistic vision” of his. Too dámņ 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.
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 bìŧçh and moan about them not being true to the original or disgracing some “artistic vision” of his. Too dámņ 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.
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 bìŧçh and moan about them not being true to the original or disgracing some “artistic vision” of his. Too dámņ 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.
“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: 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.
“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 dámņ 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 hëll 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
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 bìŧçhÿ 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.
[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
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?
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?
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.
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 bìŧçhìņ’ and self publish and own everything, problem solved.
Nuff said.
“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 bìŧçhìņ’”
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 bìŧçhìņ’ and just read the comics.”
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.
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.
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.
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…
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).
Miller, if memory serves, also wrote or co-wrote the screenplays for ROBOCOP 2 and 3. (Granted, this may not be a plus…)
TWL
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).
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.