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
• 
“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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
**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…”
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.
[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
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?
Say it like it is, PAD! You really hit this one on the nose or in the groin. Take your pick.
Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel. Minority Report was almost entirely different as well.
I think you meant Philip K. Ðìçk.
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
“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.”
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.
“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.”
I wasn’t aware the “manner” in which material is fûçkëd up was especially material. If it’s getting fûçkëd 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, hëll, 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
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
“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
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.
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.
Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel.
“Total Recall” was indeed different from the Philip K. Ðìçk novel, “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”. In part, that’s because Ðìçk 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…)
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 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 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. Ðámņ you.
> 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: 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 dámņ 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.
(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.
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.
“Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel. Minority Report was almost entirely different as well.
I think you meant Philip K. Ðìçk.”
I don’t see why I should have to talk to people when they clearly don’t know Ðìçk.
PAD
Ha ha ha. Yes, I’m an idiot.
/leaves to get gun and climb belltower
“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?
“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
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 fûçk 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.
“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
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.
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 dìçkhëád about this. I hope he never needs that money. Hëll, one has got to ask, couldn’t he have donated his funds to the Comic Book Defense Fund?
and something else, as PAD noted, his book has always been in print. Isn’t that a hëll of a compliment?
Maybe Im so young and hungry for exposure and success, maybe Im missing something? Or more likely, maybe Alan Moore is.
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?
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 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.
Uh oh. I did, didn’t I…dámņ. I mean dang. This will look bad when they google my name. The little bast…um, future leaders of America.
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”.
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).
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.
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
>In part, that’s because Ðìçk 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 hëll 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.
“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”.
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.
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
“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.
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.