WATCHMEN trailer

[beneboi]

I'm having a hard time understanding the level of Alan Moore's distaste for this adaptation. Clearly he thinks it cannot improve on his writing or even convey it properly, but I'm trying to figure out why he would go so far as to not even watch it. Even if he has denied himself any profit and credit from the film based on his convictions (which he has), wouldnt it be in the best interest of argument for him to watch the film with the purpose of being able to easily argue why it truly does not work?

 

i wonder if the movie is great and does really well, if he will hold the same attitude

[Guest telikan]

Well I'm speaking in general of his opinion on all adaptations of his work, so even if DC didn't have the rights, I think it'd be the same.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding the level of Alan Moore's distaste for this adaptation. Clearly he thinks it cannot improve on his writing or even convey it properly, but I'm trying to figure out why he would go so far as to not even watch it. Even if he has denied himself any profit and credit from the film based on his convictions (which he has), wouldnt it be in the best interest of argument for him to watch the film with the purpose of being able to easily argue why it truly does not work?

 

I think he has no investment in it working or not working, and it's a moot point. Maybe he's just dead set on the intentions of his books. He wrote Watchmen to be a comic book, not a movie. If he wanted it to be a movie, he would have written a movie. Or he at least would have adapted it himself. I mean, isn't it obvious that if he wanted anything of his to be a film, he's totally capable of writing it himself? You know, like, the most capable person in the world of adapting his own work?

[Guest serpico009]

I'm having a hard time understanding the level of Alan Moore's distaste for this adaptation. Clearly he thinks it cannot improve on his writing or even convey it properly, but I'm trying to figure out why he would go so far as to not even watch it. Even if he has denied himself any profit and credit from the film based on his convictions (which he has), wouldnt it be in the best interest of argument for him to watch the film with the purpose of being able to easily argue why it truly does not work?

 

i wonder if the movie is great and does really well, if he will hold the same attitude

 

 

I think it's interesting to contrast Moore's handling of these situation with Frank Miller's attitude towards Sin City, which seemed to be alot-more hands-on with a side salad of adulation basking (loved the attention and fawning, he was like Tarantino after Pulp Fiction:)) I wonder when they'll get around to adapting Hard Boiled or Ronin.

 

Wall Bird that's a great point.

[Guest telikan]

i wonder if the movie is great and does really well, if he will hold the same attitude

 

Well a lot of people liked V for Vendetta , but that didn't make him start giving shit. I'm sure the better this or that does would probably lead to more annoyances for him, as success usually leads to more bastardization. If Watchmen gets enormous and does really well, it will no doubt be followed by tons of merchandise and other shit, which he already had to fight against (and probably sever ties with DC because of) the first time it came out as a book. But actually, he probably wouldn't stress too much over that because he's like "no, they're hocking shit based on that movie Watchmen, not my book Watchmen-- those are completely different things, common mistake."

[Mr.Sensi]

I wonder when they'll get around to adapting Hard Boiled or Ronin.

 

In 2001, Variety reported that Warner Brothers was in negotiations with Miller and Darrow to adapt the comic book into a feature film, David Fincher set to direct and Nicolas Cage to star. The website comics2film stated that Cage informed Cinescape magazine that he was working to produce the film under his company, Saturn Films. Most recently, Miller himself stated that he will be directing the latest version to hit Hollywood.

 

http://joblo.com/miller-directs-boiled

[awepittance]

i could understand completely why he wouldnt be involved. V for Vendetta was a watchable decent movie but in my strong opinion it wasnt a good adaptation, and probably one he would have been very unsatisfied with.

 

Alan moore is very attatched to every element of the comnics he writes. I read a fully fleshed out criticism of the movie version of From Hell and even things you wouldnt even care about made him furious. Just the casting upset him greatly , how the main character wasnt a fat unattractive detective but was instead an absynth swilling handsome moie star. I mean i could see honestly probably 10 things in this watchmen trailer that would upset alan moore, night owl looks way too skinny and shapely, everys shot looks over stylized like a music video, choise of music was atrociously bad, costumes are a littlebit too modern super hero. Im not upset by these things personall, but knowing moore these could easily be ruiners

[awepittance]

Or he at least would have adapted it himself. I mean, isn't it obvious that if he wanted anything of his to be a film, he's totally capable of writing it himself? You know, like, the most capable person in the world of adapting his own work?

 

are you familiar with Moore's past legal troubles with large publishing companies?

If had i got through unecessary court cases and legal back and forth bullshit just to secure the rights to my own works and get the movie that i deserved i would be VERY disallusioned with working with any large corporation with teams of lawyers at their disposal ever again.

Do you really think if Moore was hired to do a screenplay for Warner Brothers exactly how he wanted that they would leave it untouched just because he wrote it? The shit would go through several tweaks and rewrites before it goes into production, Alan moore is just too esoteric for most mainstream movie audiences. thats why every single comic hes made thats turned into a movie has been watered down as fuck

[Guest telikan]

Well yeah, that's what I mean. If he had any faith at all in the film industry and wanted something of his to be a film to boot, he'd just do it himself, and it's obvious he doesn't.

[Guest catsonearth]

while alan moore is a great writer, he seems like one of the most miserable, insufferable douchebags on the planet. i can certainly understand being disillusioned with adaptations being watered down, but to me, the fact that somebody read his work and was so inspired by it they wanted to bring it to life in a new medium is more flattering than it is insulting. yea, it's not going to be the same, it's not going to be as great and it's not going to be exactly as he would have done it, but that's the point. as an artist, you occasionally have the good fortune to inspire other artists to be creative in their own way, maybe even collaborate and create something neither of you would have created by yourselves. especially as a writer. you write stories, presumably, to be told, not to be hoarded. if someone approaches you to do a movie of your work and you flat out decline because you think you're above it and that your creation is the one and only way the story can be told and then the movie turns out to be shit...well buddy, that's partly your fault for not insuring that the integrity of your work was maintained when you were given the chance. he comes off as suuuuuper pompous.

[Guest serpico009]

while alan moore is a great writer, he seems like one of the most miserable, insufferable douchebags on the planet. i can certainly understand being disillusioned with adaptations being watered down, but to me, the fact that somebody read his work and was so inspired by it they wanted to bring it to life in a new medium is more flattering than it is insulting. yea, it's not going to be the same, it's not going to be as great and it's not going to be exactly as he would have done it, but that's the point. as an artist, you occasionally have the good fortune to inspire other artists to be creative in their own way, maybe even collaborate and create something neither of you would have created by yourselves. especially as a writer. you write stories, presumably, to be told, not to be hoarded. if someone approaches you to do a movie of your work and you flat out decline because you think you're above it and that your creation is the one and only way the story can be told and then the movie turns out to be shit...well buddy, that's partly your fault for not insuring that the integrity of your work was maintained when you were given the chance. he comes off as suuuuuper pompous.

 

yeah I definitely agree with parts of this. I read he's gone so far as to request that his name be removed from anything he doesn't own the rights to 100% (Watchmen, V, etyc.) and I think that's a very childish and petty path to take and one that he would regret in the long run. And it seems that Moore willingly signed over the movie rights to Watchmen and V to Joel Silver in the 80s, so he hasn't always felt the way he currently claims to feel about movie versions of his work being made.

 

He's so highly regarded that I'm not surprised he's found himself in a little ego bubble and gotten a bit pompous about himself.

[Rubin Farr]

i would have thought he was a complete narcissistic asshole, but his appearance on The Simpsons showed he at least has a sense of humor about himself.

 

[Guest telikan]

true dat

"So you liked that I made your favorite superhero a heroin-addicted jazz-critic who's NOT radioactive?"

[Guest Etch]

Alan Moore's stuff just shouldn't be touched. They are graphic novels. Thats what he made them to be. Not films. End of.

 

 

Can't fucking wait though.

[awepittance]

while alan moore is a great writer, he seems like one of the most miserable, insufferable douchebags on the planet. i can certainly understand being disillusioned with adaptations being watered down, but to me, the fact that somebody read his work and was so inspired by it they wanted to bring it to life in a new medium is more flattering than it is insulting.

the guy does have a big ego, but i cant agree with your points at all knowing Moore's battles in the comic industry. Just place yourself in his shoes for a second and i think you might understand why he chooses not to be involved in adaptations of his works. If I had spent as much time in court as he has fighting for the rights and royalties of my own creations i would be a very disillusioned man and probably a lot more bitter than he is at the current moment.

 

Yeah if he had 100% creative control of the way a movie adaptation of his turned out i think it would be fucking amazing. However realistically given the way economics and large movie studios operate what are the chances of anything like this remotely happening even if Moore was willing? I could also understand from a studios perspective why they would not want to work with somone like moore unless they did not give him final say on anything. The guy sticks to his guns, doesn't compromise and does have a very large ego, he cares deeply about the stories and characters he has created understandably. Would you want to be in a situation where some presumptuous studio douchebag exec is constantly butting heads with you on why they should change the ending of Watchmen to a happy one? makes sense why hes staying as far away from those shitty situations as possible.

[awepittance]

yeah I definitely agree with parts of this. I read he's gone so far as to request that his name be removed from anything he doesn't own the rights to 100% (Watchmen, V, etyc.) and I think that's a very childish and petty path to take and one that he would regret in the long run.

 

imo it would be childish to hand over these titles with your name on them jump into a project with a studio and expect it turn out anything like how you wanted. I admire the guy from staying away from them, he also refuses to take royalties for movies now and has given his due share of profits to his creative collaborators like Dave Gibbons.

[Guest Betty]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he approaches it like "I'll take your money so I can continue to make books that are better than your stupid movies, but leave my name off it because I don't agree that my work needs to be validated in what retards think is a more legit form of entertainment/art."

 

I don't think he's being neutral about it. I think, and kind of hope, it's openly backhanded. Like he's saying it isn't even a matter of doing the work justice, it's just wholly unnecessary. But he's not going to stop them from doing it, or deny himself the formality of giving the creator money.

 

Uh... since taking his name off the films made from his books (after From Hell, so V for Vendetta and Watchmen) he has made a stance of accepting NO royalties from film adaptations. Instead he makes them give his share to his collaborators, in this case Dave Gibbons. He also came very close to taking his name off the latest printings of the Watchmen graphic novel itself! Such is his hatred for DC (the business and those who run it that is, not the comics and the creators).

[awepittance]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he approaches it like "I'll take your money so I can continue to make books that are better than your stupid movies, but leave my name off it because I don't agree that my work needs to be validated in what retards think is a more legit form of entertainment/art."

 

I don't think he's being neutral about it. I think, and kind of hope, it's openly backhanded. Like he's saying it isn't even a matter of doing the work justice, it's just wholly unnecessary. But he's not going to stop them from doing it, or deny himself the formality of giving the creator money.

 

Uh... since taking his name off the films made from his books (after From Hell, so V for Vendetta and Watchmen) he has made a stance of accepting NO royalties from film adaptations. Instead he makes them give his share to his collaborators, in this case Dave Gibbons. He also came very close to taking his name off the latest printings of the Watchmen graphic novel itself! Such is his hatred for DC (the business and those who run it that is, not the comics and the creators).

 

yes this is correct, tired of people misrepresenting the facts

 

i think judging his decision if you HAVE NOT been raped by a large corporate entity is kind of baseless. you really have to experience what it feels like to get that team of lawyers cock up your ass to truly empathize.

[Guest serpico009]

yeah I definitely agree with parts of this. I read he's gone so far as to request that his name be removed from anything he doesn't own the rights to 100% (Watchmen, V, etyc.) and I think that's a very childish and petty path to take and one that he would regret in the long run.

 

imo it would be childish to hand over these titles with your name on them jump into a project with a studio and expect it turn out anything like how you wanted. I admire the guy from staying away from them, he also refuses to take royalties for movies now and has given his due share of profits to his creative collaborators like Dave Gibbons.

 

I'm not talking about the films, I'm talking (and Moore is talking) about the material in any form, print or otherwise. His name is already off those films, awepittance.

 

If he is confident that the comics and the films can exist separately, this move would make no sense other than being a symbolic fuck you that in the long run would only fuck Moore out of the attention he deserves.

 

yes this is correct, tired of people misrepresenting the facts

 

I think what you should be tired of is not reading people's posts carefully.

[Caretstik]

No one seems to have learned--you can't adapt Alan Moore!

Sadly this has become more and more obvious, as much as I'm trying to give Watchmen every benefit of the doubt and hoping that it'll buck the trend. I suppose it's inevitable that Albion and Top 10 will be bumraped somewhere down the line though if this makes any kind of moolah.

 

At least his Dr Who comic shorts should be safe from harm...

[awepittance]

yeah I definitely agree with parts of this. I read he's gone so far as to request that his name be removed from anything he doesn't own the rights to 100% (Watchmen, V, etyc.) and I think that's a very childish and petty path to take and one that he would regret in the long run.

 

imo it would be childish to hand over these titles with your name on them jump into a project with a studio and expect it turn out anything like how you wanted. I admire the guy from staying away from them, he also refuses to take royalties for movies now and has given his due share of profits to his creative collaborators like Dave Gibbons.

 

I'm not talking about the films, I'm talking (and Moore is talking) about the material in any form, print or otherwise. His name is already off those films, awepittance.

 

If he is confident that the comics and the films can exist separately, this move would make no sense other than being a symbolic fuck you that in the long run would only fuck Moore out of the attention he deserves.

 

yes this is correct, tired of people misrepresenting the facts

 

I think what you should be tired of is not reading people's posts carefully.

 

i wasn't responding to you but the claim made by someone (maybe you? i dont know) that he was still collecting royalties from his films. which is not true, i hear a lot of people misrepresenting what happened to Alan moore.

 

but to respond directly to your post, I didnt know you were speaking of the graphic novels, i don't know enough about why he wanted his name taken off of them to respond to that.

 

But for the watchmen movie I disagree that it would fuck moore out of the attention he deserves. He clearly doesn't want the attention. And people who love the film of watchmen will probably check out the graphic novel regardless of moore being credited on the film.

[Guest Betty]

I think if Moore could prevent these films being made he would but he also has his collaborators to think about. It's fine for him to refuse large sums of money but to enforce such a stance on someone else would be unfair.

 

When he and Eddie Campbell agreed to have From Hell made into a film he accepted the money but when he read the script he realized the mistake he had made. For all of the films made from his books, I believe he has read the scripts but has been far too disgusted to actually watch them.

[Guest catsonearth]

i understand why he would be frustrated, but i also think his stance is a little ridiculous in some cases. take 'v for vendetta' for instance. while it wasn't the best adaptation, it was pretty obvious that they were trying to do him right and if he'd bothered to get involved or at least be consulted, it might have turned out to be pretty good. i know moore and frank miller are very different people, but miller collaborated heavily with robert rodriguez on 'sin city' and he seemed to be pretty ecstatic about the results and the film did convey the tone and content of the original books. '300', while also not the best movie ever, was very faithful to the source material.

 

i sympathize with the battles he's had to go through, but imo its silly to lump everybody in the film industry together based on a few bad experiences in the past. working with someone like rodriguez or zach snyder, who personally cultivate the projects because of their own interest and will fight to maintain their integrity, probably wouldn't be the same as working with michael bay or somebody who is just the studio's bitch working a job.

 

it seems to me that he's one of those people that looks down on movies as being trite garbage used to placate the cretins, which can be true to an extent, but that kind of thinking is also pretty insulting to all of the creative people that take part in the movie making process, all of whom are artists in their own rights just like he is. he tries to cultivate this j.d. salinger-esque hermit persona, looking down the nose at the rest of the world like he's just laid a golden egg of brilliance not to be replicated or retold in any other deviation, but it's just like...dude, get over yourself, join in on the creative process, meet some new people, create some art and maybe even learn something and become a better writer, god forbid. he acts like the world has nothing to teach him.

 

and this whole idea that adapting his work is unnecessary is also pretty insulting. movies are unnecessary, comic books are unnecessary, art in general is unnecessary. everything has been done in some form or another before, there's no real need to do anything, but art doesn't come out of necessity, it comes out of inspiration. telling someone whose inspired that you've already done something, it's perfect and should be left well alone is like telling leonardo davinci that painting the last supper is unnecessary because other artists have already done it. incredibly egocentric.

 

i just think his approach is counter-productive and i wish he'd reconsider. there are aspects of his writing that would suit the film medium very well and his narrow-minded approach does nothing but sells himself and his work short in the end.

[Guest telikan]

Does he really have studios defer his payment on everything though? It's one thing not to take royalties, but if it's something he owns the rights to, they still have to buy it off of him.

[beneboi]

i think that's cool that he gives his portion of the money to his collaborators

[Guest Wall Bird]

take 'v for vendetta' for instance. while it wasn't the best adaptation, it was pretty obvious that they were trying to do him right and if he'd bothered to get involved or at least be consulted, it might have turned out to be pretty good.

 

Not as I understand it. I'm someone who hasnt read 'V' but has seen the film. Moore has stated that the 'V' novel was supposed to be about the juxtaposition of anarchy vs. fascism. When I watch the film I see a story about a freedom fighter combating fascism and very little else. It seems as if the filmmakers skipped the point of the novel entirely and suited it to their tastes to create a film that, while still good, was different from what Alan wrote. When I see things such as this taking place I can understand why he would be furious about the adaptations of his creative property.