Adapted from a work by Allan Smithee?
March 11, 2006 6:05 PM Subscribe
"He said to me, 'I'm going to hang up on you if you don't stop talking to me,' " Graphic novel author Allen Moore takes a hard line with Hollywood. Reminds me of this story about Ex-Door John Densmore.
It's Alan Moore.
posted by runkelfinker at 6:06 PM on March 11, 2006
posted by runkelfinker at 6:06 PM on March 11, 2006
He's a great writer, and I don't say that with any hedging of the word "great". But I won't buy his serialized work, only the completed stuff.
Back in 1990, two issues of his Big Numbers was published. A third was finished but never published. It was to have been a 12-issue series. And it was not a cheap book; it was something like seven bucks an issue, Canadian, which was very high for 1990.
He has indicated that the book will never be finished. So I won't buy anything he hasn't finished. He doesn't just take a hard line with Hollywood; he takes a hard line with his publishers and a hard line with his readers. Too hard a line, I think, in all three cases.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:20 PM on March 11, 2006
Back in 1990, two issues of his Big Numbers was published. A third was finished but never published. It was to have been a 12-issue series. And it was not a cheap book; it was something like seven bucks an issue, Canadian, which was very high for 1990.
He has indicated that the book will never be finished. So I won't buy anything he hasn't finished. He doesn't just take a hard line with Hollywood; he takes a hard line with his publishers and a hard line with his readers. Too hard a line, I think, in all three cases.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:20 PM on March 11, 2006
Given that every single time there has been a movie adaptation made of one of his works, it has turned out to be complete and utter crap with little more than the same name as the original and some lingering trace of the concept, I'm not sure his attitude towards Hollywood is too hard a line.
I do, however, agree that his tendency to drop projects when he gets ... bored? angry? I don't know ... is very annoying.
posted by kyrademon at 6:25 PM on March 11, 2006
I do, however, agree that his tendency to drop projects when he gets ... bored? angry? I don't know ... is very annoying.
posted by kyrademon at 6:25 PM on March 11, 2006
So, did someone force him to sign over the rights to Vendetta and Watchmen? Or does he just now realize it was a mistake...
I respect the guy for not accepting money, and refusing credits, but he made the mistake himself.
posted by graventy at 6:26 PM on March 11, 2006
I respect the guy for not accepting money, and refusing credits, but he made the mistake himself.
posted by graventy at 6:26 PM on March 11, 2006
According to the article, he claims that DC basically swindled him by putting language in the contract saying that the rights would revert to him as soon as Vendetta and Watchmen went out of print, and then making sure they were reprinted unto eternity.
posted by kyrademon at 6:42 PM on March 11, 2006
posted by kyrademon at 6:42 PM on March 11, 2006
So is the villain DC, or that monolithic colony of entities known collectively as "Hollywood"? Probably both. Stories of comic artists being shafted are so commonplace now, it really makes me wonder that more of them aren't opting for the self-publishing route.
posted by slatternus at 6:48 PM on March 11, 2006
posted by slatternus at 6:48 PM on March 11, 2006
Are we allowed to use the NYT link generator?
Has anyone ever seen him and Jeff Minter in the same room?
posted by fullerine at 6:49 PM on March 11, 2006
Has anyone ever seen him and Jeff Minter in the same room?
posted by fullerine at 6:49 PM on March 11, 2006
Too hard a line, I think, in all three cases.
I disagree, SOL. Considering the stunning amount of hacks, hypesters, and whores in the comics biz, Moore's integrity only makes me respect, appreciate and love (Yes, love!) him more.
And his daughter's a cutie-pie!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:50 PM on March 11, 2006
I disagree, SOL. Considering the stunning amount of hacks, hypesters, and whores in the comics biz, Moore's integrity only makes me respect, appreciate and love (Yes, love!) him more.
And his daughter's a cutie-pie!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:50 PM on March 11, 2006
According to the article, he claims that DC basically swindled him by putting language in the contract saying that the rights would revert to him as soon as Vendetta and Watchmen went out of print, and then making sure they were reprinted unto eternity.
I have a lot of respect for Alan Moore's writing ability, and I think that the stuff he's done for America's Best Comics (particularly Tom Strong, Promethea, and Top 10) is simply amazing.
But the argument quoted above is ridiculous. Is DC Comics supposed to let a graphic novel go out of print despite ongoing demand for it? And it's not as if there isn't any precedent for works remaining in print for decades (take any of The Beatles's albums, for example). If Alan Moore believes that this amounts to a swindle, he's a fucking idiot.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 6:52 PM on March 11, 2006
I have a lot of respect for Alan Moore's writing ability, and I think that the stuff he's done for America's Best Comics (particularly Tom Strong, Promethea, and Top 10) is simply amazing.
But the argument quoted above is ridiculous. Is DC Comics supposed to let a graphic novel go out of print despite ongoing demand for it? And it's not as if there isn't any precedent for works remaining in print for decades (take any of The Beatles's albums, for example). If Alan Moore believes that this amounts to a swindle, he's a fucking idiot.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 6:52 PM on March 11, 2006
It's possible that he thought the wording meant that he would regain his rights once the books went out of that edition - so he would have control over reprinting. Legal language is retarded so it's a possiblity. Props to him for not taking shit from people, though. I don't think I'm going to go see V for Vendetta, I love the comic too much to see it butchered.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 7:27 PM on March 11, 2006
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 7:27 PM on March 11, 2006
This post needs some tags.
And Alan Moore is out of his mind. Not in a "broken since 9-11" like Frank Miller kind of way, but more of a classical, Rasputin-esque kind of way. As much as I would like to believe that he is absolutely and honestly offended by every Hollywood manifestation of his works, I take it more as the expected ravings of an eccentric genius who will never be satisfied with any interpretation of his work that isn't under his control.
Stanley Kubrick could rise from his grave to direct Watchmen with a cast of nothing but BAFTA winners and RSC veterans (along with a score by Miles Davis, Charles Mingus and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, screenplay by Williams Faulkner and Shakespeare, and special effects by the Lord God Almighty Himself), and he'd still do a press release only days into pre-production saying how the whole thing is absolute shite.
posted by grabbingsand at 7:36 PM on March 11, 2006
And Alan Moore is out of his mind. Not in a "broken since 9-11" like Frank Miller kind of way, but more of a classical, Rasputin-esque kind of way. As much as I would like to believe that he is absolutely and honestly offended by every Hollywood manifestation of his works, I take it more as the expected ravings of an eccentric genius who will never be satisfied with any interpretation of his work that isn't under his control.
Stanley Kubrick could rise from his grave to direct Watchmen with a cast of nothing but BAFTA winners and RSC veterans (along with a score by Miles Davis, Charles Mingus and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, screenplay by Williams Faulkner and Shakespeare, and special effects by the Lord God Almighty Himself), and he'd still do a press release only days into pre-production saying how the whole thing is absolute shite.
posted by grabbingsand at 7:36 PM on March 11, 2006
That being said, Hollywood has done Moore a terrible disservice.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:39 PM on March 11, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:39 PM on March 11, 2006
The Wachowski brothers revere comics and have some good ideas. They wanted to get some input from Moore. It probably would've made V for Vendetta a better film. It sounds like Moore got burned one too many times and wasn't even willing to give the Wachowskis a reasonable hearing.
I love Moore's books, but I have no reason to think the Wachowskis have butchered V. I'll reserve judgment until I see it in the theatre.
posted by spacewaitress at 7:41 PM on March 11, 2006
I love Moore's books, but I have no reason to think the Wachowskis have butchered V. I'll reserve judgment until I see it in the theatre.
posted by spacewaitress at 7:41 PM on March 11, 2006
The Wachowski brothers revere comics and have some good ideas...
Yeah, those copies of The Invisibles they had lying around the set of The Matrix were a Godsend.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:00 PM on March 11, 2006
Yeah, those copies of The Invisibles they had lying around the set of The Matrix were a Godsend.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:00 PM on March 11, 2006
It's possible that he thought the wording meant that he would regain his rights once the books went out of that edition - so he would have control over reprinting. Legal language is retarded so it's a possiblity. Props to him for not taking shit from people, though. I don't think I'm going to go see V for Vendetta, I love the comic too much to see it butchered.
As I said, the man is a great comics writer, and given what was made of From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, he has every right to be pissed about the movie adaptations of his graphic novels.
But I find it hard to believe that he was somehow led to think that there would only be a single printing. As the article said, it was pretty clearly a "rights revert when the works go out of print" situation. And this clause has a very specific purpose -- it makes sure that the work can't be caught in limbo by going out of print with no way for the author to bring it back to the public. And if DC Comics has kept Watchmen and V for Vendetta in print, Moore has no right whatsoever to complain.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 8:10 PM on March 11, 2006
As I said, the man is a great comics writer, and given what was made of From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, he has every right to be pissed about the movie adaptations of his graphic novels.
But I find it hard to believe that he was somehow led to think that there would only be a single printing. As the article said, it was pretty clearly a "rights revert when the works go out of print" situation. And this clause has a very specific purpose -- it makes sure that the work can't be caught in limbo by going out of print with no way for the author to bring it back to the public. And if DC Comics has kept Watchmen and V for Vendetta in print, Moore has no right whatsoever to complain.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 8:10 PM on March 11, 2006
Yeah, those copies of The Invisibles they had lying around the set of The Matrix were a Godsend.
Slight derail ... anyone ever find a decent point-for-point comparison of the two? I've heard this so many times before, but I just don't see it. The Invisibles just seems far too celebral/far-out/surreal to be a direct source.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:13 PM on March 11, 2006
Slight derail ... anyone ever find a decent point-for-point comparison of the two? I've heard this so many times before, but I just don't see it. The Invisibles just seems far too celebral/far-out/surreal to be a direct source.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:13 PM on March 11, 2006
grabbingsand: Well, there's also the fact that Grant Morrison has more talent than those two wastes of skin ever will...
Having V done by the guys who brought us Colonel Sanders as reality's VJ is just... *sigh*... I mean, can't we leave anything buried and unbuggered?
posted by Coda at 8:49 PM on March 11, 2006
Having V done by the guys who brought us Colonel Sanders as reality's VJ is just... *sigh*... I mean, can't we leave anything buried and unbuggered?
posted by Coda at 8:49 PM on March 11, 2006
Grant Morrison has more talent than those two wastes of skin ever will...
Quite possibly ... but is the theory that Jack Frost = Neo, King Mob = Morpheus, Ragged Robin = Trinity and so forth? I'll grant that similarity in structure, along with the kind of parallel worlds motif, but beyond that ...
Anyway. I've medium to medium-high hopes for V. If nothing else, here's hoping the film will lead people to the source material that ordinarily wouldn't.
posted by grabbingsand at 9:10 PM on March 11, 2006
Quite possibly ... but is the theory that Jack Frost = Neo, King Mob = Morpheus, Ragged Robin = Trinity and so forth? I'll grant that similarity in structure, along with the kind of parallel worlds motif, but beyond that ...
Anyway. I've medium to medium-high hopes for V. If nothing else, here's hoping the film will lead people to the source material that ordinarily wouldn't.
posted by grabbingsand at 9:10 PM on March 11, 2006
Moore's outrage seems tinged by a willful naivete -- he seems to be using as a point of reference a world where the vast majority of adaptations aren't mangled versions of the originals. But instead of being able to happily cash the licensing checks and get on with his life, he takes these things personally.
Genius or no, he apparently has unreachably high standards for the world around him, and this makes him come off in this and other profiles as immature and self-important.
posted by camcgee at 9:44 PM on March 11, 2006
Genius or no, he apparently has unreachably high standards for the world around him, and this makes him come off in this and other profiles as immature and self-important.
posted by camcgee at 9:44 PM on March 11, 2006
It's interesting to think that both V and Watchmen were written that even speculating that either might be made into a movie was pretty far fetched. Now Hoolywoods calling him and he's giving them the finger.
It would be interesting to see what Moore could do given the same opportunity that Frank Miller got with Sin City. Personally I doubt that either V or Watchmen could be made into a conventional movie to Moore's satisfaction, both are much too long to fit comfortably in 2 hours (or even 3). But an HBO series would worlk well for both stories, both were origianlly published in eposodic format.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:54 PM on March 11, 2006
It would be interesting to see what Moore could do given the same opportunity that Frank Miller got with Sin City. Personally I doubt that either V or Watchmen could be made into a conventional movie to Moore's satisfaction, both are much too long to fit comfortably in 2 hours (or even 3). But an HBO series would worlk well for both stories, both were origianlly published in eposodic format.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:54 PM on March 11, 2006
"Mr. Moore recognizes that his senses of justice and proportion may seem overdeveloped."
They almost match the size of his typical deus ex machina.
posted by raaka at 11:43 PM on March 11, 2006
They almost match the size of his typical deus ex machina.
posted by raaka at 11:43 PM on March 11, 2006
V For Vendetta is, let's remember, an early piece - astoundingly well-imagined considering the relative inexperience of the writer (for the first two-thirds or so, anyway). It's the book that would most benefit from being changed (except, perhaps, Miracleman, written under similar circumstances).
The problem with adapting most of Moore's books is that the medium they were written for is as much a part of the book as the plot - in Watchmen, for example, the narrative is punctated by essays and fake magazine articles, as much a part of the book as the things that the characters do. A lot of the depth depends on being able to refer back to things that have already been shown. The plot alone... is OK, but missing the point of the book.
Similarly, From Hell is about the mythology of serial killers and Jack the Ripper in particular, and also about its own research and writing (the copious notes are as much a part of the novel as the narrative). Simply making a film about the theory that Queen Victoria's doctor was Jack the Ripper is, again, totally missing the point.
When Hollywood comes calling on Mr Moore, he knows by now that all they are capable of producing is an at-best adequate representation of the backbone of the book he's written, with no way of reproducing the elements that make it interesting, no desire to find a movie-specific equivalent of those elements and (to add insult to injury) to do so by trading on (and subsequently tarnishing) his good name.
If a Kubrick were to appear, at least we could hope for a movie as memorable as the book (Kubrick's Shining, for example, being a lot more interesting than King's, at least IMHO), but it would have to be no longer Moore's work. And I think he would be happy with that. Make a good film and take his name off it - perfectly acceptable - make a bad or at best mediocre movie and force him to somehow take responsibility - how could that be less than offensive?
posted by Grangousier at 1:05 AM on March 12, 2006
The problem with adapting most of Moore's books is that the medium they were written for is as much a part of the book as the plot - in Watchmen, for example, the narrative is punctated by essays and fake magazine articles, as much a part of the book as the things that the characters do. A lot of the depth depends on being able to refer back to things that have already been shown. The plot alone... is OK, but missing the point of the book.
Similarly, From Hell is about the mythology of serial killers and Jack the Ripper in particular, and also about its own research and writing (the copious notes are as much a part of the novel as the narrative). Simply making a film about the theory that Queen Victoria's doctor was Jack the Ripper is, again, totally missing the point.
When Hollywood comes calling on Mr Moore, he knows by now that all they are capable of producing is an at-best adequate representation of the backbone of the book he's written, with no way of reproducing the elements that make it interesting, no desire to find a movie-specific equivalent of those elements and (to add insult to injury) to do so by trading on (and subsequently tarnishing) his good name.
If a Kubrick were to appear, at least we could hope for a movie as memorable as the book (Kubrick's Shining, for example, being a lot more interesting than King's, at least IMHO), but it would have to be no longer Moore's work. And I think he would be happy with that. Make a good film and take his name off it - perfectly acceptable - make a bad or at best mediocre movie and force him to somehow take responsibility - how could that be less than offensive?
posted by Grangousier at 1:05 AM on March 12, 2006
I disagree, SOL. Considering the stunning amount of hacks, hypesters, and whores in the comics biz, Moore's integrity only makes me respect, appreciate and love (Yes, love!) him more.
How much integreity is involved in refusing to finish a project when the readers have paid for part of it? And how much integrity is involved when he agrees to keep working for Wildstorm after DC bought them?
I don't see a heckuva lot of integrity there, frankly.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:34 AM on March 12, 2006
How much integreity is involved in refusing to finish a project when the readers have paid for part of it? And how much integrity is involved when he agrees to keep working for Wildstorm after DC bought them?
I don't see a heckuva lot of integrity there, frankly.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:34 AM on March 12, 2006
It's a lot more complicated than "refusing to finish" - the project drove away two illustrators (for whatever reason). You can't say he didn't try to finish it. He didn't just have a hissy-fit and give up - after all it took many years to finish From Hell, and there were huge gaps in the production of V For Vendetta and Miracleman.
Besides, buying a couple of issues of a publication entitles you to nothing more than possessing the issues that you've purchased.
posted by Grangousier at 1:42 AM on March 12, 2006
Besides, buying a couple of issues of a publication entitles you to nothing more than possessing the issues that you've purchased.
posted by Grangousier at 1:42 AM on March 12, 2006
Back in 1990, two issues of his Big Numbers was published. A third was finished but never published. It was to have been a 12-issue series... He has indicated that the book will never be finished.
It isn't like he just randomly chose not to finish this book. The artist went a bit nuts and decided he couldn't finish Big Numbers. In 2001 Moore mentioned that he would like to try to bring the story to television, since he has the whole thing graphed out, and that he has been working with the producer of The Acid House film. I wouldn't give up on the story you threw $14 just yet and I wouldn't hold Mr Moore accountable for the artist's decision.
posted by aburd at 1:45 AM on March 12, 2006
It isn't like he just randomly chose not to finish this book. The artist went a bit nuts and decided he couldn't finish Big Numbers. In 2001 Moore mentioned that he would like to try to bring the story to television, since he has the whole thing graphed out, and that he has been working with the producer of The Acid House film. I wouldn't give up on the story you threw $14 just yet and I wouldn't hold Mr Moore accountable for the artist's decision.
posted by aburd at 1:45 AM on March 12, 2006
Besides, buying a couple of issues of a publication entitles you to nothing more than possessing the issues that you've purchased.
I disagree utterly, in the case of serial works where the consumer pays for individual parts of that work (unlike, say, TV). There is a moral obligation to finish the work.
And it's not like there's a shortage of artists out there. Whether Sienkiewicz and Columbia didn't want to keep drawing it doesn't alter that moral obligation.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:51 AM on March 12, 2006
I disagree utterly, in the case of serial works where the consumer pays for individual parts of that work (unlike, say, TV). There is a moral obligation to finish the work.
And it's not like there's a shortage of artists out there. Whether Sienkiewicz and Columbia didn't want to keep drawing it doesn't alter that moral obligation.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:51 AM on March 12, 2006
Oh my god:
This summer, Mr. Moore said, Top Shelf will also be publishing "Lost Girls," his 16-years-in-the-making collaboration with Ms. Gebbie, a series of unrepentantly pornographic adventures told by the grown-up incarnations of Wendy Darling of "Peter Pan," Alice of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and Dorothy Gale of "The Wizard of Oz."
Is that the coolest thing ever, or what? I'm not really into comic books but he seems an interesting guy, I don't think his position is indefensible at all, although he admits in the interview that he is childish. Wasn't there a review somewhere on the web recently of the film adaptation of V for Vendetta that said it was incredibly good?
posted by mokey at 2:17 AM on March 12, 2006
This summer, Mr. Moore said, Top Shelf will also be publishing "Lost Girls," his 16-years-in-the-making collaboration with Ms. Gebbie, a series of unrepentantly pornographic adventures told by the grown-up incarnations of Wendy Darling of "Peter Pan," Alice of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and Dorothy Gale of "The Wizard of Oz."
Is that the coolest thing ever, or what? I'm not really into comic books but he seems an interesting guy, I don't think his position is indefensible at all, although he admits in the interview that he is childish. Wasn't there a review somewhere on the web recently of the film adaptation of V for Vendetta that said it was incredibly good?
posted by mokey at 2:17 AM on March 12, 2006
I've been on the waiting list for Lost Girls for something close to two years now. I view the current release date with something close to amusement, and the price with something close to tears.
posted by longbaugh at 2:23 AM on March 12, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 2:23 AM on March 12, 2006
mokey, everything Moore does is the coolest thing ever. Go get it when it prints, you won't be sorry. :)
posted by dabitch at 4:42 AM on March 12, 2006
posted by dabitch at 4:42 AM on March 12, 2006
(but yeah, it would be great if it was printed already! Damn this wait!)
posted by dabitch at 4:43 AM on March 12, 2006
posted by dabitch at 4:43 AM on March 12, 2006
Sorry for the continuing derail, but for Grabbingsand
Grant Morrison:
"It's really simple. The truth of that one is that design staff on The Matrix were given Invisibles collections and told to make the movie look like my books. This is a reported fact. The Wachowskis are comic book creators and fans and were fans of my work, so it's hardly surprising. I was even contacted before the first Matrix movie was released and asked if I would contribute a story to the website.
It's not some baffling 'coincidence' that so much of The Matrix is plot by plot, detail by detail, image by image, lifted from Invisibles so there shouldn't be much controversy. The Wachowskis nicked The Invisibles and everyone in the know is well aware of this fact but of course they're unlikely to come out and say it.
It was just too bad they deviated so far from the Invisibles philosophical template in the second and third movies because they blundered helplessly into boring Catholic theology, proving that they hadn't HAD the 'contact' experience that drove The Invisibles, and they wrecked both
'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions' on the rocks of absolute incomprehension. They should have kept on stealing from me and maybe they would have wound up with something to really be proud of - a movie that could change minds and hearts and worlds.
I love the first Matrix movie which I think is a real work of cinematic genius and very timely but I've now heard from several people who worked on The Matrix and they've all confirmed that they were given Invisibles books as reference. That's how it is. I'm not angry about it anymore, although at one time I was because they made millions from what was basically a Xerox of my work and to be honest, I would be happy with just one million so I didn't have to work thirteen hours of every fucking day, including weekends.
In the end, I was glad they got the ideas out but very disappointed that they blew it so badly and distorted all the Gnostic transcendental aspects that made the first film so strong and potent. If they had any sense, they would have befriended me instead of pissing me off. They seem like nice boys."
Also see Similarities in the Matrix & The Invisibles (forgive the nasty ad's that shroud the page in day-glo nastiness).
posted by stumcg at 5:54 AM on March 12, 2006
Grant Morrison:
"It's really simple. The truth of that one is that design staff on The Matrix were given Invisibles collections and told to make the movie look like my books. This is a reported fact. The Wachowskis are comic book creators and fans and were fans of my work, so it's hardly surprising. I was even contacted before the first Matrix movie was released and asked if I would contribute a story to the website.
It's not some baffling 'coincidence' that so much of The Matrix is plot by plot, detail by detail, image by image, lifted from Invisibles so there shouldn't be much controversy. The Wachowskis nicked The Invisibles and everyone in the know is well aware of this fact but of course they're unlikely to come out and say it.
It was just too bad they deviated so far from the Invisibles philosophical template in the second and third movies because they blundered helplessly into boring Catholic theology, proving that they hadn't HAD the 'contact' experience that drove The Invisibles, and they wrecked both
'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions' on the rocks of absolute incomprehension. They should have kept on stealing from me and maybe they would have wound up with something to really be proud of - a movie that could change minds and hearts and worlds.
I love the first Matrix movie which I think is a real work of cinematic genius and very timely but I've now heard from several people who worked on The Matrix and they've all confirmed that they were given Invisibles books as reference. That's how it is. I'm not angry about it anymore, although at one time I was because they made millions from what was basically a Xerox of my work and to be honest, I would be happy with just one million so I didn't have to work thirteen hours of every fucking day, including weekends.
In the end, I was glad they got the ideas out but very disappointed that they blew it so badly and distorted all the Gnostic transcendental aspects that made the first film so strong and potent. If they had any sense, they would have befriended me instead of pissing me off. They seem like nice boys."
Also see Similarities in the Matrix & The Invisibles (forgive the nasty ad's that shroud the page in day-glo nastiness).
posted by stumcg at 5:54 AM on March 12, 2006
And back onto the inimitable Mr Moore, there's a documentary film coming out soon(ish) I believe - 'The Mind Of Alan Moore'
Trailer (Google Video)
(A little bit) more info from the producers, Shadowsnake Films
posted by stumcg at 5:58 AM on March 12, 2006
Trailer (Google Video)
(A little bit) more info from the producers, Shadowsnake Films
posted by stumcg at 5:58 AM on March 12, 2006
The BBC has a short video interview with Moore available from their site, where he talks a little bit about the movies.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:10 AM on March 12, 2006
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:10 AM on March 12, 2006
What I don't get about hollywood vs. comics is that comicbooks are basically friggin' storyboards. How hard is it to take a comic book, hand it to a director and CGI guy and say: "film that"? Why do they always need to re-interpret, change the names/powers/costumes/stories of the characters, dumbdown everything in sight, etc?
posted by signal at 6:50 AM on March 12, 2006
posted by signal at 6:50 AM on March 12, 2006
What I don't get about hollywood vs. comics is that comicbooks are basically friggin' storyboards.
This is not true of really good comics. There are things you can do in comics that you can't do in film (for example, in Watchmen or Hellblazer, incorporate large sections of text).
It depresses me that so many comic creators look at moving to film as a step up, rather than just a horizontal move to another medium. Then again, if I had a comic adopted into a movie, I would be excited by the sudden cash influx.
posted by drezdn at 7:29 AM on March 12, 2006
The Wachowski brothers revere comics and have some good ideas. They wanted to get some input from Moore. It probably would've made V for Vendetta a better film. It sounds like Moore got burned one too many times and wasn't even willing to give the Wachowskis a reasonable hearing.
From what I remember the shit only hit the fan once the director and Joel Silver gave a press conference saying of the Wachowski penned script, "it runs very close to what Alan Moore wrote and what he was trying to say".
Moore replied:
"It was imbecilic; it had plot holes you couldn't have got away with in Whizzer And Chips in the nineteen sixties. Plot holes no one had noticed... They don't know what British people have for breakfast, they couldn't be bothered. 'Eggy in a basket' apparently. Now the US have 'eggs in a basket,' whish is fried bread with a fried egg in a hole in the middle. I guess they thought we must eat that as well, and thought 'eggy in a basket' was a quaint and Olde Worlde version. And they decided that the British postal service is called Fedco. They'll have thought something like, 'well, what's a British version of FedEx... how about FedCo? A friend of mine had to point out to them that the Fed, in FedEx comes from 'Federal Express.' America is a federal republic, Britain is not."
Then he pulled his name from the thing.
I've written on and off about this for a while now over on Londonist.
I'm off to finally see the thing on Tuesday night :/
posted by sizemore at 8:01 AM on March 12, 2006
From what I remember the shit only hit the fan once the director and Joel Silver gave a press conference saying of the Wachowski penned script, "it runs very close to what Alan Moore wrote and what he was trying to say".
Moore replied:
"It was imbecilic; it had plot holes you couldn't have got away with in Whizzer And Chips in the nineteen sixties. Plot holes no one had noticed... They don't know what British people have for breakfast, they couldn't be bothered. 'Eggy in a basket' apparently. Now the US have 'eggs in a basket,' whish is fried bread with a fried egg in a hole in the middle. I guess they thought we must eat that as well, and thought 'eggy in a basket' was a quaint and Olde Worlde version. And they decided that the British postal service is called Fedco. They'll have thought something like, 'well, what's a British version of FedEx... how about FedCo? A friend of mine had to point out to them that the Fed, in FedEx comes from 'Federal Express.' America is a federal republic, Britain is not."
Then he pulled his name from the thing.
I've written on and off about this for a while now over on Londonist.
I'm off to finally see the thing on Tuesday night :/
posted by sizemore at 8:01 AM on March 12, 2006
drezdn: Why do they always need to re-interpret, change the names/powers/costumes/stories of the characters, dumbdown everything in sight, etc?
I think this has a lot to do with the psychology of the people who are creating the films. It's a rare case that you get a director who is totally in control of the project and has an undying love of the property he's adapting (Robert Rodriguez and Sin City would be the ultimate example of this end of the spectrum).
More often, properties are obtained by studios who want to use the popularity of that property to make a hit movie. So they hand it to a director who has possibly never even read a comic in his life, let alone the comic he's adapting. His natural inclination isn't "let's preserve the genius on the page," it's "let's do this my way, because I'm a genius and these comics are kids' stuff."
posted by camcgee at 11:09 AM on March 12, 2006
I think this has a lot to do with the psychology of the people who are creating the films. It's a rare case that you get a director who is totally in control of the project and has an undying love of the property he's adapting (Robert Rodriguez and Sin City would be the ultimate example of this end of the spectrum).
More often, properties are obtained by studios who want to use the popularity of that property to make a hit movie. So they hand it to a director who has possibly never even read a comic in his life, let alone the comic he's adapting. His natural inclination isn't "let's preserve the genius on the page," it's "let's do this my way, because I'm a genius and these comics are kids' stuff."
posted by camcgee at 11:09 AM on March 12, 2006
pretentious twat.
"I'm what Harry Potter grew up to be. and it's not pretty."
He should have held out for a contract that gave him creative control, or gotten Robert Rodriguez as a director. but he signed the contract. All he can do now is complain.
posted by Miles Long at 11:19 AM on March 12, 2006
"I'm what Harry Potter grew up to be. and it's not pretty."
He should have held out for a contract that gave him creative control, or gotten Robert Rodriguez as a director. but he signed the contract. All he can do now is complain.
posted by Miles Long at 11:19 AM on March 12, 2006
More often, properties are obtained by studios who want to use the popularity of that property to make a hit movie. So they hand it to a director who has possibly never even read a comic in his life, let alone the comic he's adapting.
I think David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" may be an example of where this happened, and the results were actually positive. I heard him reviewed on Fresh Air saying that he was several revisions into a treatment for it before he was even aware that the source material was a graphic novel.
I haven't read the original, but I saw the flick and thought it was excellent.
posted by hwestiii at 11:57 AM on March 12, 2006
I think David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" may be an example of where this happened, and the results were actually positive. I heard him reviewed on Fresh Air saying that he was several revisions into a treatment for it before he was even aware that the source material was a graphic novel.
I haven't read the original, but I saw the flick and thought it was excellent.
posted by hwestiii at 11:57 AM on March 12, 2006
here are things you can do in comics that you can't do in film (for example, in Watchmen or Hellblazer, incorporate large sections of text).
It's not just text, it's the particular joy that comes from multiple storylines happening at once (on the same page or in the same panel) which is some of the joy of reading Moore's work, such as the Pirate sub-sub-sub plot of Watchmen.
For anyone who is reading this who has no idea who Moore is, go get one of his books. Watchmen or From Hell is a good one to start with.
As of 3 weeks ago, I had never read a comic book except for the Batman/Superman/Xmen of my childhood. Got my hands on some new and old graphic novels and they blew my mind-- great stuff! Watchmen is what first set me off...
posted by cell divide at 1:04 PM on March 12, 2006
It's not just text, it's the particular joy that comes from multiple storylines happening at once (on the same page or in the same panel) which is some of the joy of reading Moore's work, such as the Pirate sub-sub-sub plot of Watchmen.
For anyone who is reading this who has no idea who Moore is, go get one of his books. Watchmen or From Hell is a good one to start with.
As of 3 weeks ago, I had never read a comic book except for the Batman/Superman/Xmen of my childhood. Got my hands on some new and old graphic novels and they blew my mind-- great stuff! Watchmen is what first set me off...
posted by cell divide at 1:04 PM on March 12, 2006
pretentious twat.
Yeah, that about sums up my response to the interview:
"It is important to me that I should be able to do whatever I want," he said. "I was kind of a selfish child, who always wanted things his way, and I've kind of taken that over into my relationship with the world."
Which is not incompatible with his being a great artist, of course; not having read the comics, I have no opinion on that. But as for his amazing integrity—if he'd rejected Hollywood in the first place, then I'd be impressed. But to let them make movies, take the money, and then stamp his little feet and denounce the movies and want his name taken off (what? Hollywood has betrayed my artistic vision? how could this happen??)... well, I'm not so impressed by that.
posted by languagehat at 1:17 PM on March 12, 2006
Yeah, that about sums up my response to the interview:
"It is important to me that I should be able to do whatever I want," he said. "I was kind of a selfish child, who always wanted things his way, and I've kind of taken that over into my relationship with the world."
Which is not incompatible with his being a great artist, of course; not having read the comics, I have no opinion on that. But as for his amazing integrity—if he'd rejected Hollywood in the first place, then I'd be impressed. But to let them make movies, take the money, and then stamp his little feet and denounce the movies and want his name taken off (what? Hollywood has betrayed my artistic vision? how could this happen??)... well, I'm not so impressed by that.
posted by languagehat at 1:17 PM on March 12, 2006
...But to let them make movies, take the money, and then stamp his little feet and denounce the movies and want his name taken off...
Moore, as far as I know, signed the title rights in question over to DC to have the work published as comics in the first place, and was not directly involved in the film rights deals. He probably would have objected to them if he had.
He consistently refuses to get involved in the film versions of his work and turns down payment (I believe) deferring the cash to the artist he worked with on whatever title - be it From Hell, Constantine, V for Vendetta... or whatever.
Moore does come across as a difficult and stubborn guy, but he's far from the sellout-then-complain-loudly type.
That said, cannae wait for V - even if it does wander far from the original book.
posted by stumcg at 1:49 PM on March 12, 2006
Moore, as far as I know, signed the title rights in question over to DC to have the work published as comics in the first place, and was not directly involved in the film rights deals. He probably would have objected to them if he had.
He consistently refuses to get involved in the film versions of his work and turns down payment (I believe) deferring the cash to the artist he worked with on whatever title - be it From Hell, Constantine, V for Vendetta... or whatever.
Moore does come across as a difficult and stubborn guy, but he's far from the sellout-then-complain-loudly type.
That said, cannae wait for V - even if it does wander far from the original book.
posted by stumcg at 1:49 PM on March 12, 2006
SOL: A moral obligation? A professional/ethical one maybe, but moral seems a bit weighty to me. Meh, splitting hairs.
Anyhow, Moore chooses the artists he collaborates with for a reason - as it was, I'm surprised that they even considered using Columbia after Sienkiewicz left the project. Sure, he could have got Rob Liefeld and finished the series, but would it still be Big Numbers as he had envisioned it? I doubt it. That's integrity to me and I'll admire it, even if it's an inconvenience.
RE: DC's acquisition of WildStorm - America's Best Comics was already heavily into preproduction when the deal went down; artists had been contracted and had begun work. Moore could have said fuck this, bailed, and left a lot of people holding the bag. Instead he ensured that DC would be at arm's length (No DC insignia on the books, for example) and went on to do some of the best work of his career, as did his partners. IMO, it seems kinda contradictory to say that both events prove his lack of integrity.
Miles Long: I took it as self-deprecation. The man's a practicing magician. Who worships a snake god. And have you seen a picture of him?
hwestiii: AHoV was actually a very minor comic, which came and went without a lot of fanfare. I attribute the recent popularity of movies based on comics to general Hollywood laziness, not because of a built-in audience. If the entire readership of the most popular monthly American comic went to see a adaptation of that comic, the BO generated would barely cover the official advertising budget and craft service. (Though fandom does provide a free, grassroots advertising campaign; trickle-down buzz, basically.)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:15 PM on March 12, 2006
Anyhow, Moore chooses the artists he collaborates with for a reason - as it was, I'm surprised that they even considered using Columbia after Sienkiewicz left the project. Sure, he could have got Rob Liefeld and finished the series, but would it still be Big Numbers as he had envisioned it? I doubt it. That's integrity to me and I'll admire it, even if it's an inconvenience.
RE: DC's acquisition of WildStorm - America's Best Comics was already heavily into preproduction when the deal went down; artists had been contracted and had begun work. Moore could have said fuck this, bailed, and left a lot of people holding the bag. Instead he ensured that DC would be at arm's length (No DC insignia on the books, for example) and went on to do some of the best work of his career, as did his partners. IMO, it seems kinda contradictory to say that both events prove his lack of integrity.
Miles Long: I took it as self-deprecation. The man's a practicing magician. Who worships a snake god. And have you seen a picture of him?
hwestiii: AHoV was actually a very minor comic, which came and went without a lot of fanfare. I attribute the recent popularity of movies based on comics to general Hollywood laziness, not because of a built-in audience. If the entire readership of the most popular monthly American comic went to see a adaptation of that comic, the BO generated would barely cover the official advertising budget and craft service. (Though fandom does provide a free, grassroots advertising campaign; trickle-down buzz, basically.)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:15 PM on March 12, 2006
He consistently refuses to get involved in the film versions of his work and turns down payment (I believe) deferring the cash to the artist he worked with on whatever title
Ah, well then, I withdraw my snark. Good on you, you difficult creator you!
posted by languagehat at 4:49 PM on March 12, 2006
Ah, well then, I withdraw my snark. Good on you, you difficult creator you!
posted by languagehat at 4:49 PM on March 12, 2006
I think Grant Morrison is completely full of shit re: The Matrix. They lifted a lot of stuff from a lot of sources, and at the very most, I'd say 1 or 2% of it was from the Invisibles, if even that.
posted by empath at 5:49 PM on March 12, 2006
posted by empath at 5:49 PM on March 12, 2006
I withdraw my snark.
Yeah, I was wondering about those off-base comments. Alan Moore may or may not be pretentious twat, but Joel Silver is a fucking idiot. He lied through his teeth in a press conference about Moore's involvement with the producers and then refused to retract it when Moore objected. To review:
...at a press conference on March 4, 2005, to announce the start of production on the "V for Vendetta" film, the producer Joel Silver said Mr. Moore was "very excited about what Larry had to say and Larry sent the script, so we hope to see him sometime before we're in the U.K." This, Mr. Moore said, "was a flat lie." "Given that I'd already published statements saying I wasn't interested in the film, it actually made me look duplicitous," he said.
How is insisting on a public retraction of Silver's moronic comment "pretentious" again? Why on earth would you say something like that when it wasn't true, about a creator with a rep for being highly suspicious of Hollywood? And why on earth would Time Warner want to drive him away? Oh, right, to save a dumbass like Joel Silver's delicate ego from getting bruised. What a hoot.
DC's loss is Top Shelf's gain, though. Good for them. (Oh, and it's too bad the art on the first issues of Lost Girls was so awful; it was a great idea for a story but I just couldn't be bothered with that horrendous art.)
posted by mediareport at 11:47 PM on March 12, 2006
Yeah, I was wondering about those off-base comments. Alan Moore may or may not be pretentious twat, but Joel Silver is a fucking idiot. He lied through his teeth in a press conference about Moore's involvement with the producers and then refused to retract it when Moore objected. To review:
...at a press conference on March 4, 2005, to announce the start of production on the "V for Vendetta" film, the producer Joel Silver said Mr. Moore was "very excited about what Larry had to say and Larry sent the script, so we hope to see him sometime before we're in the U.K." This, Mr. Moore said, "was a flat lie." "Given that I'd already published statements saying I wasn't interested in the film, it actually made me look duplicitous," he said.
How is insisting on a public retraction of Silver's moronic comment "pretentious" again? Why on earth would you say something like that when it wasn't true, about a creator with a rep for being highly suspicious of Hollywood? And why on earth would Time Warner want to drive him away? Oh, right, to save a dumbass like Joel Silver's delicate ego from getting bruised. What a hoot.
DC's loss is Top Shelf's gain, though. Good for them. (Oh, and it's too bad the art on the first issues of Lost Girls was so awful; it was a great idea for a story but I just couldn't be bothered with that horrendous art.)
posted by mediareport at 11:47 PM on March 12, 2006
I was wondering about those off-base comments.
Hey, all I know about Comix Art (post-Crumb) is what I read on MetaFilter. I read the interview and thought him a twat, but I'm always happy to be corrected by those with more knowledge than I.
posted by languagehat at 5:49 AM on March 13, 2006
Hey, all I know about Comix Art (post-Crumb) is what I read on MetaFilter. I read the interview and thought him a twat, but I'm always happy to be corrected by those with more knowledge than I.
posted by languagehat at 5:49 AM on March 13, 2006
Glad to help.
posted by mediareport at 5:54 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by mediareport at 5:54 AM on March 13, 2006
I always thought the Matrix was more Ghost in the Shell than Invisibles.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:50 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:50 AM on March 13, 2006
Here's a good AV Club interview with Moore; fun to read, and his sense of humor comes off a lot better. His approach to religion is one of the coolest I've ever seen.
posted by COBRA! at 7:31 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by COBRA! at 7:31 AM on March 13, 2006
- There are a lot of similarities between the Invisibles and the Matrix (bald sunglassed-men in leather; split reality; agents in business suits; corporate kung fu; ontological hi-jinks; magic mirror, etc.) but what's interesting is how much different the texture between the two is, even given the similarities. Someone should write an article about how the Matrix was creative, but was built from a synethesyzing creativitiy. (This would explain why the next two, more universe-building, films were so bad.)
- Does anyone know about the riff between Alan Moore and GMO? There was a great blog post that interpreted a recent issue of Zatanna as a kind of mocking parody of Promethea, even using the same set-up Moore used in Swamp Thing a few decades ago. I think GMO started his career by saying that Alan Moore wrote so well that his writing had no personality (he said this about busiek too, I think). There was a great interview with him a few years ago too, where he condescended to Moore's magic proficiency and alluded to a magic war between the two of them!
posted by kensanway at 5:37 PM on March 13, 2006
- Does anyone know about the riff between Alan Moore and GMO? There was a great blog post that interpreted a recent issue of Zatanna as a kind of mocking parody of Promethea, even using the same set-up Moore used in Swamp Thing a few decades ago. I think GMO started his career by saying that Alan Moore wrote so well that his writing had no personality (he said this about busiek too, I think). There was a great interview with him a few years ago too, where he condescended to Moore's magic proficiency and alluded to a magic war between the two of them!
posted by kensanway at 5:37 PM on March 13, 2006
« Older Sperm Dress | ASIMO Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hwestiii at 6:06 PM on March 11, 2006