Alan Moore vs Hollywood - who is right?

[E]

Tonight, on a whim, I decided to watch V for Vendetta. I love the comic but I really love the movie, as much of an anathema as that may be to comic purists. It's one of my favorites.

We've discussed the "ethics" (for lack of a better term) of "Hollywood"'s (for lack of a better term) movie adaptations of Moore's works in individual threads for each of the movies, but the threads are cluttered with thoughts on the movie as a whole...I was wondering what people thought of them in a more pure sense. Not necessarily related to how good the movie is, but whether the movie adaptation compared to Moore's work is "right" or "wrong".

I think the most obvious examples are Watchmen and V for Vendetta, because of the adaptations of his work those were among the most successful (movies and comics both).

Those two movies are on both ends of the spectrum to me. V for Vendetta was less faithful - but which changes and modernizations were more necessary, but Watchmen was much more faithful, to a fault.

For V, there were a number of subplots and character changes that had to be made - most notably with Adam Susan...it was pretty silly to have him fall in love with Fate. The movie version was much more terrifying and real.

Watchmen was strong up until the end, at least as far as the story and excusing some of the acting. Taking out the squid was a mistake as it took away from the horror of the ending, which was a crucial element that just didn't come up in the movie (people hanging dead out of buildings, a hideous squid in the middle of it all, and the very idea that people would be used to create the squid and systematically eliminated after their contributions were complete).

So I thought the "Hollywood changes" were OK in V and made the story stronger, but in Watchmen it ruined the entire thing.

I haven't read all of From Hell to be able to compare it to the movie nor read or watched League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but thoughts on those are welcome too...

 

[Random]

I tend to side with Hollywood more often, because Alan Moore seems almost unreasonable about it at times, like he'd be incline to hate any change. And I don't blame him for that, it is his creatively that is being messed with. But I generally don't support people who back him up since most of the time they only think so because he's a great writer and just blindly agree with him. Sometime you have to change things to make it either acceptable or understandable for all audience.

Also I disagree with your opinion on Watchman, while the lack of bodies and blood were an extremely poor idea, getting rid of the squid is good ideas. Because to not only inform the audience of the physics of the Squid's existence, but remind them throughout a 3 hour story that doesn't ruin the surprise while making it feel realistic is just too damn tough. The change actually keeps the mythology tighter to chest while making it both believable and strengthens the themes. A giant squid would have left the audience says "WTF" and most likely walking out. And just all around be utterly ridiculous. The chances of it working on a feature films is just about 0

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

I don't think that either party is necessarily morally indefensible. I sympathize with Moore because he's a talented, passionate creator who feels like his work is being misrepresented. I can only imagine how awful that must be. On the other hand, he can come off as being pigheaded more often than not. And, yes, movie studios aren't primarily concerned with artistic integrity. And many of the Alan Moore adaptations have left a lot to be desired. V for Vendetta takes a story that hinges on moral ambivalence and essentially retools it into a libertarian superhero didactic. Watchmen stylistically captures the comic book and doesn't really meander, so much as it abridges; it's been said a billion times before that you cannot make a faithful adaptation of Watchmen, because Watchmen can never be anything besides a comic book. Don't even get me started on LXG. But if Comic Book companies thought they could make money by adapting, I don't know, 'Citizen Kane' into a comic, do you think they'd hesitate? It's an unfortunate fact of how capitalism works.

It's not really a black-and-white issue. I don't really understand the legalities of the situation (e.g. was Moore ever swindled or ripped off? Because that would change the entire nature of the dichotomy)

 

[Zombipanda]

I think, from a purely ethical standpoint, I have to absolutely side with Alan Moore, and it's something I'd do with any creator, regardless of their talent. These stories are his creation and he should be the absolute creative arbiter on how they're utilized. Does DC own the rights? Sure. Do they legally have the right? Sure. Do they have a financial obligation to their shareholders to milk properties when there's an opportunity to make money out of them? Maybe, sure. But I don't have to agree with it artistically. That said, I find it kind of an interesting aside that Moore, who is so vehemently opposed to the exploitation of his works, so regularly cribs off the characters and stories of other artists. But I don't find it hypocritical. His stuff draws on characters who's creators are long dead and, more importantly, he adds something new and fresh to the characters he utilizes.

Which brings me to my main disagreement with all these direct translations of stories to film. None of the film translations of Moore works have really brought something new and fresh to the story. By which I mean, the films themselves don't really have artistic merit in their own rights. I have never seen anything in a Moore translation that isn't conveyed at least as well in the source material, and generally I agree with Moore's argument that film and comics aren't that similar. I think Watchmen is a perfect indicator of how unsatisfying a direct panel-to-screen translation of a comic script really is. The problem is, thus far, no directors have really approached a Moore translation with a vision that's independent and progressive from the source. There are minor plot nips and tucks here and there, whether it's removing the squid or changing some minor character motivations in V but nothing that brings about a dramatic new interpretation. Nothing like, say, Kubrick's Lolita or The Shining (which, incidentally, was a movie that was great, despite being disliked by it's original writer) or Full Metal Jacket or Cronenberg's Naked Lunch or David Lynch's Dune. It's not an issue I'm up in arms about, but I'm generally just ambivalent to films that provide the exact same or slightly inferior experience to something that's already available in the original material.



Oh, and Citizen Kane might make a ****ing brilliant comic.

 

[Planet-man]

I love the comic but I really love the movie, as much of an anathema as that may be to comic purists. It's one of my favorites.
I think the most obvious examples are Watchmen and V for Vendetta, because of the adaptations of his work those were among the most successful (movies and comics both).

Those two movies are on both ends of the spectrum to me. V for Vendetta was less faithful - but which changes and modernizations were more necessary, but Watchmen was much more faithful, to a fault.

Watchmen was strong up until the end, at least as far as the story and excusing some of the acting. Taking out the squid was a mistake as it took away from the horror of the ending, which was a crucial element that just didn't come up in the movie (people hanging dead out of buildings, a hideous squid in the middle of it all, and the very idea that people would be used to create the squid and systematically eliminated after their contributions were complete).

So I thought the "Hollywood changes" were OK in V and made the story stronger, but in Watchmen it ruined the entire thing.

I agree with all this.

Edit: Wait, I don't actually think the Hollywood changes made the story stronger, but I think they made it incredibly good in a completely different and still plenty artistic way.

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

To be entirely fair, the Wachowskis did take their own creative stance on V for Vendetta. The alterations they made go beyond 'minor character motivations'. On the other hand, the aforementioned creative stance caused the story to regress, rather than creating a uniquely themed entity independent of the original, like the adaptations you described (though, I have issues with David Lynch's Dune...but, another conversation for another time.) So I think Zombipanda's right.

And the Citizen Kane metaphor wasn't really meant to illustrate the idea that a comic based off a pioneering film would intrinsically be bad; just that the rationale behind adaptations generally has more to do with dollar signs than an actual desire to see a creative work enhanced by a different medium. There have been tons of shameless comic book tie-ins, but I can't really think of one that exploits an example of 'high art' from another medium in the way that Zach Synder's Watchmen does.

 

[Zombipanda]

To be entirely fair, the Wachowskis did take their own creative stance on V for Vendetta. The alterations they made go beyond 'minor character motivations'. On the other hand, the aforementioned creative stance caused the story to regress, rather than creating a uniquely themed entity independent of the original, like the adaptations you described (though, I have issues with David Lynch's Dune...but, another conversation for another time.) So I think Zombipanda's right.

And the Citizen Kane metaphor wasn't really meant to illustrate the idea that a comic based off a pioneering film would intrinsically be bad; just that the rationale behind adaptations generally has more to do with dollar signs than an actual desire to see a creative work enhanced by a different medium. There have been tons of shameless comic book tie-ins, but I can't really think of one that exploits an example of 'high art' from another medium in the way that Zach Synder's Watchmen does.

I have issues with Lynch's Dune as well, but regardless of the problems with the film, he took the story and made it his own.

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

I have issues with Lynch's Dune as well, but regardless of the problems with the film, he took the story and made it his own.

I stand by the statement that Watchmen is genre-locked in a way that most other creative works aren't. I agree with most of your assessment, but I think adapting the works of Moore isn't really practically possible if you want to maintain a sense of artistic integrity. It's a comparable study, as Dune is intellectually complex on a similar level to Alan Moore's opus (you know, generally), and David Lynch's re-imagining may have been legitimate, but the film was a commercial and critical failure. Can you imagine the arthouse version of Watchmen? What studio would conceivably green light it in this day and age?

 

[Zombipanda]

I stand by the statement that Watchmen is genre-locked in a way that most other creative works aren't. I agree with most of your assessment, but I think adapting the works of Moore isn't really practically possible if you want to maintain a sense of artistic integrity. It's a comparable study, as Dune is intellectually complex on a similar level to Alan Moore's opus (you know, generally), and David Lynch's re-imagining may have been legitimate, but the film was a commercial and critical failure. Can you imagine the arthouse version of Watchmen? What studio would conceivably green light it in this day and age?

Well, those are two different arguments.

Hollywood is "right" insofar as they're producing movies that are tailored to make them money.

Alan Moore is "right" insofar as his works can't really be translated in a way that makes the studio money and still has distinct artistic merit. Natch.

 

[Planet-man]

Can you imagine the arthouse version of Watchmen? What studio would conceivably green light it in this day and age?

HBO.



I'll make it happen, I tells ya. Someday, Parker.... someday.

 

[ProjectX2]

I don't know the exact details of the Alan Moore/Hollywood battle but from what I've read Alan Moore went from a kind ignorance to a bit stubborn to annoyed and the producer (who even started insulting him online) seems to always have been an *******. I would probably side with Moore.

I really liked the V For Vendetta movie. I thought Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen were entertaining but incredibly mediocre and what little I saw of From Hell was awful.

 

[The Overlord]

The problem for me isn't that Moore has a problem with adaptions of his work (that's fine, its his work) It seems like he doesn't like comic book movies in general or even movies in general. He doesn't seem have respect for cinema as an art form.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies

 

[Captain Canuck]

I'll start of by saying that I generally don't like anything Alan Moore has written that I've read. I couldn't make it even half way through the Watchmen graphic novel (I tried twice). I've read some of his Green Lantern Stuff and it was acceptable but not enjoyable. I've read the Killing Joke and it creeped me out. I've read V for Vendetta and I really liked the beginning, but it tapered off for me toward the end.

I've watched the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and thought it was an interesting concept, rather poorly executed and yet entertaining in a brainless kind of way. I've also watched V for Vendetta and really liked it, but I watched it a long time ago once and I don't remember any details.

That being said, Alan Moore, in my opinion, is one of the most unreasonable, ungracious, pompous comic writers that I'm even sort of familiar with. He doesn't like the movie adaptations of his comics? That's okay. He doesn't like movies in general? Well, to each his own. But shut up about it. He just comes across looking like a self-important douche bag every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Langsta]

The problem for me isn't that Moore has a problem with adaptions of his work (that's fine, its his work) It seems like he doesn't like comic book movies in general or even movies in general. He doesn't seem have respect for cinema as an art form.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies

He loves TV though. HBO, I think even South Park, and I don't know if he voiced himself when they had him on the Simpsons or not.

 

[The Overlord]

He loves TV though. HBO, I think even South Park, and I don't know if he voiced himself when they had him on the Simpsons or not.

Yeah, but its hard to take him seriously when he says, all comic book movies suck, no excpetions.

 

[E]

I tend to side with Hollywood more often, because Alan Moore seems almost unreasonable about it at times, like he'd be incline to hate any change. And I don't blame him for that, it is his creatively that is being messed with. But I generally don't support people who back him up since most of the time they only think so because he's a great writer and just blindly agree with him. Sometime you have to change things to make it either acceptable or understandable for all audience.

Agreed on all accounts. On one hand I do agree with those who say he has the right to be pissed...but at the same time, they aren't his characters. He doesn't own them, and he doesn't own the stories. So for him to cause problems like he has doesn't help his image (not that he, personally, cares about that, but he must to a degree or he wouldn't demand his name be taken off the projects). And that about people who support him (generally) is spot on. It's pretty pathetic.

Also I disagree with your opinion on Watchman, while the lack of bodies and blood were an extremely poor idea, getting rid of the squid is good ideas. Because to not only inform the audience of the physics of the Squid's existence, but remind them throughout a 3 hour story that doesn't ruin the surprise while making it feel realistic is just too damn tough. The change actually keeps the mythology tighter to chest while making it both believable and strengthens the themes. A giant squid would have left the audience says "WTF" and most likely walking out. And just all around be utterly ridiculous. The chances of it working on a feature films is just about 0

I am having a hard time following you here, but I don't think the squid would've necessarily ruined the movie. However, I do concede that it would've been very, very difficult to not turn it into a huge WTF.

What I think you're saying, I agree with. The surprise of the squid and not necessarily the squid itself made it so memorable, if that makes any sense. Given the script, that would have been impossible using the bomb. I don't know about you but I saw that coming a mile away. If there would've been a way to make the bomb more of a surprise it might have been an adequate replacement.

 

[Zombipanda]

Yeah, but its hard to take him seriously when he says, all comic book movies suck, no excpetions.

For that matter, he doesn't like superheroes. He thinks they're all fascists.

......

and I'm inclined to agree.

Agreed on all accounts. On one hand I do agree with those who say he has the right to be pissed...but at the same time, they aren't his characters. He doesn't own them, and he doesn't own the stories.

No. He doesn't. Not legally. But should he own them? Should comic or film companies be allowed to own characters and stories? I'm inclined to disagree but I don't have a solution that is economically viable. Hopefully in the next few decades, venues for artistic self-publication will become so diversified that we won't need studios and publishing companies anymore.

So for him to cause problems like he has doesn't help his image (not that he, personally, cares about that, but he must to a degree or he wouldn't demand his name be taken off the projects).

I think some differentiation needs to be made here. I think Alan Moore's paid his dues, no matter what jackassery he brings to the table in his twilight years. But I don't think his "image" is what he's looking out for. If anything, he's fostered a cantankerous, grumpy old man image, and that's fine. I think there are two possible and valid arguments that could be made about Moore's rejection of the adaptations of his works. The first is that he's protective of his artistic property. While WB legally owns the rights to his projects, they are absolutely his babies. He created them. He sunk the time into them and while he can't stall their production, he can most certainly voice his irritation. I'd be worried about anyone who isn't worried about the artistic integrity of their stories. I think the other argument is that his irritation is just highlighting a general irritation with the commodification of pop art, the idea that instead of coming up with new ideas, all Hollywood can do is dredge up stories that are already out-dated, instead of coming up with anything fresh.

Does he act like a jackass? Sure. He talks regularly about things he's never seen or read and speaks with confidence about them. But I think the core values of wanting to protect the vision of something he created and a general irritation with the nature of Hollywood is valid.

 

[The Overlord]

For that matter, he doesn't like superheroes. He thinks they're all fascists.

......

and I'm inclined to agree.

.

I don't see how Spider-Man is a fascist.

And I don't buy that BS Moore was saying that powerful super heroes somehow reflect a cowardly nature on the part of Americans, because they are powerful and that indicates Americans don't like a fair fight and explains why gun culture is so prevalent in the US American.

I mean Japan has a lot of really powerful characters in their comic books, does that mean their cowards too?

What Moore said was such insane troll logic, he's starting to sound like a left wing Glenn Beck.

 

[E]

I think some differentiation needs to be made here. I think Alan Moore's paid his dues, no matter what jackassery he brings to the table in his twilight years. But I don't think his "image" is what he's looking out for.

I don't agree. Maybe he wouldn't admit it, but he does. It might not even be "image" like people traditionaly think about image, but that's what it is.

I agree he's paid his dues and CERTAINLY he's entitled to his opinion, as is anyone, and no question he should have input into the process if he chooses - not because of some right but because he made it the success that it was and it would only be logical.

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

I don't agree. Maybe he wouldn't admit it, but he does. It might not even be "image" like people traditionaly think about image, but that's what it is.

If I recall, Moore's basically admitted before that a lot of the magic and eccentricities that he's known for are because he likes being perceived that way. I'd imagine that everyone in the spotlight (even a pseudo-celebrity like Moore) take into account how their actions will cause them to be publicly acknowledged, much less remade publications of their work that they feel is of sub-par quality. I'm sure he cares, and doesn't want people to associate him with movies he hates. Though, he apparently hasn't watched most of them. So, there's that.