Jump to content

Watchmen

Goose

By Goose,
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

Harsin

Harsin

Posted
Posted
Hmm... but how many authors have had their best works translated so badly to screen so consistently? Didn't Moore only snap after years of mishandling?

Yeah he was pretty much fine with it, taking that Raymond Chandler "films adaptations don't affect my books" approach, until League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He got sucked into a court case, the gist of which was that he was accused of writing the comic as a hack for hire so Fox would have an excuse to nick this other blokes screenplay to make a film without paying him. Then Joel Silver publically claimed that he was excited about the V for Vendetta film and how great he thought the Wachowskis were...etc, all which was complete bullshit. At which point he said he didn't want his name on any future adaptations and that the artists would get his share of the profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
utopastac

utopastac

Posted
Posted
Indeed. He may have poured his heart and soul into Watchmen, but the story isn't his, and it shouldn't be for him to keep it from those who would only experience it in cinematic form.

If I wrote something that then got turned into the worst film ever made (V for Vendetta), I'd be pretty pissed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick R

Nick R

Posted
Posted
Yeah he was pretty much fine with it, taking that Raymond Chandler "films adaptations don't affect my books" approach, until League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He got sucked into a court case, the gist of which was that he was accused of writing the comic as a hack for hire so Fox would have an excuse to nick this other blokes screenplay to make a film without paying him. Then Joel Silver publically claimed that he was excited about the V for Vendetta film and how great he thought the Wachowskis were...etc, all which was complete bullshit. At which point he said he didn't want his name on any future adaptations and that the artists would get his share of the profits.

He talks a lot about his reasons, including that Raymond Chandler reference, in this recent Wired interview.

It's not just adaptations of his comics he objects to - he's very suspicious of the whole culture of big-budget Hollywood flicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cassidy

cassidy

Posted
Posted
Alan Moore may have written some good comics but from media accounts I've got this impression of him as this difficult, pretentious self-aggrandizing cock.

I mean, I guess he's had a raw deal with Hollywood in the past, so fair enough but he does seem just a tad precious.

I gotta say that is quite possibly the wrongest thing I've read on here for a while.

As the original creator who has seen his works consistently adapated into half assed turgid messes. I think he has every right to be precious.

Although I think he's barking mad, I still think he's also a rather intelligent person that has consistently entertained and educated me.

Alan Moore always has and always will indeed know the score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pob

Pob

Posted
Posted
He's miscast for the comic book version of Veidt, but for the pacifist, vegetarian thinking mans Veidt that the film portrays I really liked him. I wasn't sure at first but by the end it clicked for me.

Oh, that's not what I expected. From the trailers and stuff it sounds like the film Veidt is more clearly marked as the bad guy. He has a sinister mask, it always glowering and the actor says he put a subtle Germanic twinge into his accent - if that doesn't raise people's suspicions, I don't know what will!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spudulis

Spudulis

Posted
Posted
Oh, that's not what I expected. From the trailers and stuff it sounds like the film Veidt is more clearly marked as the bad guy. He has a sinister mask, it always glowering and the actor says he put a subtle Germanic twinge into his accent - if that doesn't raise people's suspicions, I don't know what will!

This is something I was thinking while watching. However I think its just because I knew that I thought it was obvious. I bet if I didn't know the story it wouldn't have been obvious though. Its another question I want to ask someone who's not read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mindgames

mindgames

Posted
Posted
This is something I was thinking while watching. However I think its just because I knew that I thought it was obvious. I bet if I didn't know the story it wouldn't have been obvious though. Its another question I want to ask someone who's not read the book.

Well if they have read this page they will already know anyway what with all the spoilers and that :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andsom

Andsom

Posted
Posted
Ermmm... I was very careful to emphasise that this was only the impression I got from what I'd heard in the media, I was hoping people would set me straight.

Hmmm... yes and no. Allowing the rights to go to Hollywood is a financial move, and a Faustian decision for authors. He must've had some idea what he was letting himself in for.

I don't think its that simple in this case. He doesn't own the rights to the majority of his work. And if he didn't essentially give those rights to publishers then he'd have a harder time getting stuff published - especially these days. I don't think he has any choice who the comic companies option the rights to. And let's not forget that a lot of his stuff was already published before the first of his movies were made, so it could be argued that in fact he didn't know what he was getting himself in for.

Also in the case of Moore, I really don't think you can say that the movie adaptions of his comics is a financial move on his part at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongHairStu

LongHairStu

Posted
Posted
Hmmm... yes and no. Allowing the rights to go to Hollywood is a financial move, and a Faustian decision for authors. He must've had some idea what he was letting himself in for.

It didn't work like that back then - his writings for DC were work-for-hire at the time, meaning that he never owned the movie rights for Watchmen.

To the other responses to my earlier points, I can understand that he'd be pissed off, but this is where my point about the story not being his comes into play. I did mean story - sure, he doesn't own the rights, but if he did I would rather see him allow the film to be made in order that the story can reach the widest audience. It's related to the fallacy of intent - it doesn't matter what he meant when he wrote it, it's as much up to us as readers to define what it's about. Likewise adaptations - he may have had a lot to say about the graphic novel form, but the story says enough that it should be allowed to take on a life of its own in other media. Once the story is finished it's as much ours as it is his, and that should include accommodating our wish to see a movie of it.

The court case is the most unfortunate thing about all of this, and it really is a shame that it has removed any possibility that Moore might work with movie makers in the future - a visionary like him could surely bring much good to any form he turned his hand to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Melon_Bread

Melon_Bread

Posted
Posted
I gotta say that is quite possibly the wrongest thing I've read on here for a while.

As the original creator who has seen his works consistently adapated into half assed turgid messes. I think he has every right to be precious.

Although I think he's barking mad, I still think he's also a rather intelligent person that has consistently entertained and educated me.

Alan Moore always has and always will indeed know the score.

Agreed the guys a fucking genius a rare genuine genius, we have very few people like him and he's entitled to act like the biggest curmudgeon in the world as far as I am concerned, i'll still love him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
Hmmm... yes and no. Allowing the rights to go to Hollywood is a financial move, and a Faustian decision for authors. He must've had some idea what he was letting himself in for.

Yes, it's hard to argue that Moore was against the Watchmen adaptation at the time it was first optioned. He was still on good terms at DC at the time and his comments were effectively that DC would use the characters in their best interest, with the two authors getting royalties for "slurpee cups" and so on, and the rights would revert to them if DC shelved the characters. Things went downhill after that, and his relationship with DC and the poorness of the adaptations themselves turned him off the projects as time went on.

However it seems to me that he's not as much of a cumudgeon as is often made out. I think it's an artefact of him only commenting on the movies at all when they poke at him with a stick, as was the case in VfV and LXG, or Snyder blithely suggesting that Moore would settle in and watch the movie in his flat in London. He just doesn't want anything to do with them, but he's not exactly running around calling Gibbons a hack for drawing promo material for the movie, which is what I'd expect if he was as precious about the comic as people seem to think he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
It didn't work like that back then - his writings for DC were work-for-hire at the time, meaning that he never owned the movie rights for Watchmen.

Actually, they explicitly did not want to take a work for hire agreement, DC had to buy the rights from them,* which was how they wound up including that infamously-ineffective "reversion clause" in the deal.

*I may have misread this, but my understanding is that they wound up giving up a lot of the rights to DC in exchange for cash, but that it wasn't a standard agreement whereby the rights belonged to DC by default

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Halo

Halo

Posted
Posted

I thought the V for Vendetta film was pretty good; it's not an outright bad film by any stretch. Sure, it took some unnecessary liberties with the book, there was a few too many cheesy moments and the unnecessary Matrix-inspired fight at the end was eyerollingly bad, but on its own it was pretty enjoyable and could have ended up much much worse than it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
utopastac

utopastac

Posted
Posted
I thought the V for Vendetta film was pretty good; it's not an outright bad film by any stretch. Sure, it took some unnecessary liberties with the book, there was a few too many cheesy moments and the unnecessary Matrix-inspired fight at the end was eyerollingly bad, but on its own it was pretty enjoyable and could have ended up much much worse than it was.

:)

I know this isn't the thread for it, but I think it's a exceptionally bad film without taking account of the original and a real, genuine mess when considered as an adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Treble

Treble

Posted
Posted
There's an awful lot of comments giving that review 1 star.
#

9. kirkisaf4g comments:

February 26, 2009

im going to slit your throat after i find out your residence.

At least they kept a sense of perspective.

EDIT: although...

#

31. wouhaaa comments:

February 26, 2009

Review is full of fail. Reviewer is a failure. You're the cancer of internet.

:wub:

Deliberately done in a Rorschach style? I hope so ;)

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lordcookie

lordcookie

Posted
Posted
None of you had to sit through TWO Swamp Thing movies like I did though.

Good knows what the TV series was like.

Give me the Swamp Thing films AND the TV series over From Hell, LoEG and V for Vendetta any day. Admittedly I was introduced to the Swamp Thing films way before the comics so I had no expectations but they are mildly diverting cheesy films that pass the time (plus Heather Locklear looks really hot in the second one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
linkster

linkster

Posted
Posted
I'd say the sex scene is pretty full on.

I'd also say READ THE NOVEL FIRST

I tried. Initially I liked it but when I realised it was going to get the backstory to every character I just lost interest. I'm not big on graphic novels but having decided to give one a go I don't really want to find myself without graphics of any kind for pages on end.

I figured Id maybe give the movie a go to see if it turns me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept