the morality of alan moore movies [Archive]

View Full Version : the morality of alan moore movies

realmenhatelife

03-22-2007, 10:38 PM

ronny just mentioned how bad he wants a watchmen movie- and i do too cus i love alan moore.  but therein lies the conflict, because alan moore himself does not want any of his properties, many of which he no longer has control of, made into movies.although, alan moore is fucking crazy- the literary equivilant of an old man screaming at kids from his front porch.   ultimately i think i cant blame the guy, cus even good film products of his work, like v for vendetta, really just dont come off witht he same punch and point of the book.  noone is gonna pay for a book thats a parrable of margarate thatchers england, so it becomes one for george bush's america.  we need our genius' to be shithouse crazy and uncompromising.

TheMojoPin

03-23-2007, 09:01 AM

realmenhatelife wrote: ronny just mentioned how bad he wants a watchmen movie- and i do too cus i love alan moore.  but therein lies the conflict, because alan moore himself does not want any of his properties, many of which he no longer has control of, made into movies.although, alan moore is fucking crazy- the literary equivilant of an old man screaming at kids from his front porch.   ultimately i think i cant blame the guy, cus even good film products of his work, like v for vendetta, really just dont come off witht he same punch and point of the book.  noone is gonna pay for a book thats a parrable of margarate thatchers england, so it becomes one for george bush's america.  we need our genius' to be shithouse crazy and uncompromising.   OK, his not wanting them to be made into films made complete sense for a good decade...Hollywood seemed both unwilling and unable to make comic book films that were truly faithful to the source material and they didn't want any input at all from the creators.  Even Burton's Batman takes huge liberties with the character, and Burton himself has talked many times about how he doesn't really read comics at all.  That all changed, however, with The Matrix.  Nevermind that the Wachowski Brothers completely ripped off that movie from Grant Morrison's comic series The Invisibles, they involved comic book creators at every step of the moviemaking process, really showing how using comics basically as elaborate storyboards for a film can translate to something that's good and a huge success.  Frank Miller reallt drove that home by being directly involved with the adaptations of 300 and Sin City.  In short, Alan Moore really doesn't have an excuse to let his movies be so bad.It's true, he doesn't own the rights to things like V For Vendetta or Watchmen, but given who made or is making those films, if he just picked up the phone and said "I'm Alan Moore, I want to help you get these films right," those filmmakers would have him on the first plane to the set.  If he doesn't want to do that, fine, but his longstanding complaint of "oh, Hollywood doesn't want my help, it's fruitless, they'll get it wrong no matter what, blah-blah-blah" rings completely hollow.  I do admire how he refuses to take his share of the money from these films, and instead gives his portions to any of the artists involved instead, but if he really wanted these adaptations done as "right" as possible with hus guidance, he could easily get it done, especially with things like From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, series that he does have control over.

JustJon

03-23-2007, 09:25 AM

But it's League of Extraordinary Gentleman that has made Alan to not want to see any of his other work on screen and to take his name off all his properties.  He also gives all his monies, including From Hell, to his co-creators.

TheMojoPin

03-23-2007, 09:37 AM

JustJon wrote: But it's League of Extraordinary Gentleman that has made Alan to not want to see any of his other work on screen and to take his name off all his properties.  He also gives all his monies, including From Hell, to his co-creators. Yeah, but my point is that if he really wanted to try and "save" these movies through his involvement, he could.  Comics have been "hot" in Hollywood for years now, well before that flick came out, and all of these nerdly filmmakers damn well know who Alan Moore is.  If he said he wanted to help in the film process a la Frank Miller, you know he could.  If he just doesn't want to do it, fine.  His main excuse, however, has been that it's a futile process and they wouldn't get anything right if he was involved.  Well, that theory has been proven wrong.

realmenhatelife

03-23-2007, 01:39 PM

I dont think league couldve been saved as the creators dont get what league is about- as with alot of alan moore stuff its an excercise in a certain literary time- namely moore's favorite the 'fin de seicle.' while i think if moore embraced a movie adaptation of one of his books it would benefit i also see it hindering the process.  just judging from the way he writes i cant imagine him cutting anything, movies and books are differant mediums with differant ideas about good pacing.   frank miller is a differant case because he's worked in hollywood prior to his books being adapted, plus he draws his own stuff so he's valuable for art direction too.  moore is more vulnerable as just the writer, because the tone of a work is so much less tangible than its aesthetic.   its super super standup that he has the artists credited in his place, and i love that when the rumor floated that moore approved the v for vendetta script he comes out to remind everyone that it isnt true. we dont look at jd salinger and say 'get over it you big baby, let them make catcher already'  because the novel is an established and respected form.  i think most people probably look at comics as a pop/visual thing already so they cant understand at all why a comic author would resist having his property made into a movie.  ultimately i think its really really good that moore is such a crotchety asshole, because it reclaims the comic as its own form instead of just making it the stepchild of either movies or novels.  moore is kindof anachronistic like that, and isnt nearly as vocal or visible as a guy like frank miller.  so it pains me to have to give up alan moore properties, but i think we should do it.  although, if terry gilliam were to get thrown back into the production seat all bets are fucking off for me.