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
• 
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 dámņëd 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.
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 Hëll, 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 Hëll 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 Hëll 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.
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 pìššëd øff. 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 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.
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, hëll 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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: 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.
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: 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.”
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.
Bill, thanks for pointing that out; I happily stand corrected.
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: 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: 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.
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.
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
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: 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: 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.
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 Hëll.
I think he has made that clear.
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.
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: 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 Hëll.
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?
“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
“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.
And don’t forget, in Bernard Malamud’s book “The Natural”, Roy Hobbs strikes out and takes the money.
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: 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: 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?
it could have been much much worse (http://www.tswgerbils.com/andystuff/bforburgdetta.jpg)
“This is the Land-of-Have-It-Your-Own-Way!”
“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.
// 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.
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
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 šhìŧ 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.
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. Hëll, 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? Hëll, 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?
Oops. Forget that comment above about Superheroes and Sci-Fi. 🙂
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 fûçkš 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?
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.
“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.
“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.
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…