If I see one more article about Alan Moore being "swindled" by DC or how Hollywood has destroyed his graphic novel, I'm going to go on a vendetta of my own.
Most recently was an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune which ended with the following quote from a retailer:
"If he had been doing novels that were this successful for this long, they'd probably take more care with making movies out of his products. But it's only comics, you know?"
Aw, c'mon. Putting aside the insanely faithful adaptation of "Sin City," it has nothing to do with comics and everything to do with Hollywood. I suspect the name "Nathaniel Hawthorne" will be remembered long after Alan Moore, and I, and every other comic book writer are forgotten, and they STILL gave "The Scarlet Letter" a happy ending. Popular movies such as "Oh God," "Kramer Vs. Kramer," and even underrated great films such as "The Mighty Quinn," have huge differences from the novels on which they were based. Disney's people haven't met a classic that they couldn't transform into something else entirely (have you ever actually READ "Pinocchio?" He steps on the cricket and kills it in, like, chapter 2. And P.L. Travers' "Mary Poppins" is an acerbic, middle aged woman, not the chipper, youthful, dancing Julie Andrews.)
Film adaptations are just that: Adaptations. They often bear little-to-no resemblance to the source material. The benefit of them is that the successful ones put copies of the books into the hands of customers who otherwise might never have heard of the work, much less purchased it.
Alan Moore can refuse all the money from the Hollywood versions he wants, but I daresay he won't be turning his nose up at the increased royalties such films generate for the books.
PAD
I'm glad someone finally is taking a position different from the unabashed Moore worship that goes on. Well said!
I agree with you about the nature of film adaptation... it's absurd to expect a movie to be exactly like the source material unless it's a very long, very boring film of someone holding a book open and turning the pages.
That said, according to all his interviews, Alan has already foregone all his royalties from movie and book and passed them on to David Lloyd, hoping to distance himself from his personal issues... I suspect that most of the "how dare they" rhetoric comes from interviewers and others who are offended *for* Alan, as he seems to be pretty much resigned to having lost his battles.
As someone who's offered to forego your own monies in favor of making a point (before the sentiment was perverted into the three-ring U-Decide), I suspect you can sympathize that sometimes the money isn't the only issue.
I read in one interview, tho I'm afraid I forget where, that Moore even demanded that DC remove his name from reprints of his various works. Dc refused to to so.
JAC
You know, I wrote a fairly long response, then deleted the whole thing. I'm just so sick of this subject.
At this point, I just want to say that I agree with PAD, and at this point I am only interested in opinions on the movie from people who didn't read the book. It's not that I don't think other opinions are valid, I'm just tired of hearing the same "they changed stuff" debate again and again.
It isn't that they changed his stuff, it's that they turned his stuff into CRAP.
And Moore himself has stated he's being irrational on this, he's tired of having his work and turned it into crap.
Hollywood has taken numerous Moore babies and turned them out, dolled them up with Keanu Reeves, Johnny Depp being ironic and foppish and Sean Connery doing Sean Connery and they've whored his children out.
I wouldn't like it either.
And I see nothing different in V For Vendetta, they've taken a work written at the height of the cold war, that was never meant to be applied to current political situations and turned it into a thinly veiled attack on Bush.
And c'mon Peter, you wouldn't be happy if Fallen Angel was taken from you, without you having a say, turned into a stupid T&A Pam Anderson vehichle, so get off your damned high horse.
He doesn't like what Hollywood has done to his works. No one with any taste does. They haven't even tried to make GOOD movies out of them, they've tried to make quick bucks and they've made crap movies.
It might be different if any of the Moore based movies were in anyway close to being good. But NONE of them have been.
And V For Vendetta doesn't look any better.
I know I risk being pilloried by the Moore purists, but I liked LoEG. I know it wasn't the same as the book, and I didn't mind - it was still a heck of a lot of fun to watch, even though some of the characters differed.
I mean, did anyone complain when the encounter with Shelob was shifted from the end of The Two Towers to the first part of Return of the King for dramatic purposes? Or when the location of the second monolith was changed from the light side of Saturn's moon Iapetus to Jupiter orbit in 2001? So why whine because Quatermaine is retired instead of being an opium junkie, or because the Cold War background of V has become outdated and a replacement was needed?
Now, complaining because of the totally unnecessary addition of Tom Sawyer to LoEG is, IMO, perfectly legitimate - that change wasn't made because the story needed to be modified for a different medium, it was because the producers wanted to stick an American in there.
Well, the producer of LXG, Don Murphy, did comment on the movie on his message board:
"Saw a really terrific film last night, V FOR VENDETTA. I know Alan Moore has disowned it quite publicly, and I know Alan Moore quite well. My guess is that what I always feared would happen has- too many tokes in his isolated NorthHampton brownstone has led to full blown trolley off the rails for Mr. Moore. Hell, I even read somewhere that he was saying unkind things about the LEAGUE film. This surprises me since he swore to me to never see any of his films AND to top it off, refused all my requests for involvement in the project for years. But he sure took the money. AND, to top it off, if not for the movie and me, being sucha bad businessman, he wouldn't even OWN the League comics rights like he does. So ignore his rants and enjoy the film- it is great fun."
"I know I risk being pilloried by the Moore purists, but I liked LoEG."
I thought LoEG was extremely mediocre. It had some good moments, it had some bad, but mainly it was extremely "just OK" throughout. I was happy enough with the 8 bucks I'd spent, though.
I don't think that LoEG was one of Moore's better comics, though.
As others have stated, Moore IS refusing any more royalties from DC. So he's putting his money where his mouth is.
And I think he has a legitimate gripe. The way the comic industry does business seriously needs to be reevaluated. There's no way an author should so completely lose control of their work, while they're alive.
Plus, Alan Moore is a really brilliant writer, and it would just make good business sense to do right by him so he'll go on writing great comics.
Jonathan (the other one): I mean, did anyone complain when the encounter with Shelob was shifted from the end of The Two Towers to the first part of Return of the King for dramatic purposes? Or when the location of the second monolith was changed from the light side of Saturn's moon Iapetus to Jupiter orbit in 2001? So why whine because Quatermaine is retired instead of being an opium junkie, or because the Cold War background of V has become outdated and a replacement was needed?
Well, as far as the LOTR reference, YEAH, people did complain. Tolkien purists complained about Shelob, and complained about the deletion of Tom Bombadil (apparently, they didn't get the idea that the dark, suspenseful mood of Fellowship's intro might be ruined by a fat, happy man who skips through the forest and sings to trees).
But, regardless, I don't think the question is did they get all their facts right, but was the spirit of the source material kept alive? In case of LOTR, I'd say yes, definitely (and anyone who complains about the changes should ask themselves whether or not they wanted to see a 3453453453 hour long movie where in between the non-stop singing, walking, and eating, the main characters occasionally had adventures). Does it matter that the villain from the film Misery used a sledgehammer instead of an axe? Not really. Did the changes in LXG change the spirit of the source material? I'd say yes, definitely. I mean, there's a difference between moving the giant spider to the third movie and changing a pretty important aspect of Alan Quartermain's history. One change is just cosmetic, another alters one of the lead characters. I could never look at Connery's Quartermain the same way I look at Moore's Quartermain. And as someone who just read The Picture of Dorian Gray for a college course, I've got to say that putting that character in an action-adventure flick is stupid on the Greeto-shot-first level of things.
That said, I honestly don't know how I feel about Moore's complaints. I'm biased because I have yet to read anything by him that didn't impress me and influence my work and how I look at comic books, but I don't know. I'm filing it in the "Thank God It's Really None of My Business" drawer.
I get the Star Tribune everyday, and though I was happy to see a story about comics, I couldn't bring myself to read another Moore vs. Hollywood article.
Hell, whatever anybody may think about Alan Moore, adaptations, or Alan Moore adaptations, I am simply hesitant to give the Wachowski brothers any more of my money.
-Rex Hondo-
>And V For Vendetta doesn't look any better.
And the next sound you hear is an enormous boulder crashing down on the coyote ...
OK, textbook case of "matter of opinion" here, but, though I didn't care for LoEG, and really loathed what Hokeywood did to Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS, I'm in the "better in many ways than the source material" camp where V is concerned. And I don't say that lightly given that I've just been making my way through a borrowed DVD of MATRIX REVOLUTION and its cringe-inducing dialogue, and worse storyline. That V is so much better is in itself a sign they were serious in wanting to do justice to the material.
"Hell, whatever anybody may think about Alan Moore, adaptations, or Alan Moore adaptations, I am simply hesitant to give the Wachowski brothers any more of my money."
Come on Rex, Give it a chance. It's got to good, v for vendetta 2 and 3 on the other hand.....
(And between 2 and 3 the ani-vendetta)
JAC
1>>> As others have stated, Moore IS refusing any more royalties from DC. So he's putting his money where his mouth is. >>>
And Yet various people who are in the position to be in the know, (including the producer of LXG quoted in another post), have pointed out that Moore still cashes the checks. True he may instantly send the money on to other sources for all we know but still, it's a contridiction.
>>
You're kidding right. Aside from the fact that there isn't a screenwriter alive who hasn't had an original screenplay re-writen by other hands into something completly different there's also hugely sucessful authors like Steven King, (who is about 100 times more famous then Alan Moore will ever be), who's work has been turned into bad movies that bare no resemblance to what he wrote save for the title. This has nothing to do with the way Comic Book writers are treated, and everything about the way Hollywood treats writers in general.
1>>
I agree, in fact I'll go you one better I liked LoEG better as a movie then as the comic. Was it a great movie, no, but then how many movies are. As a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Saturday night it worked just fine and I really couldn't see what all the sniping was about. At least it was a movie that tried to have fun. The books were depressing and seemed to be all about tearing down the characters and being overly cleaver about how everything fit.
Jonathan (the other one) Writes:
I mean, did anyone complain when the encounter with Shelob was shifted from the end of The Two Towers to the first part of Return of the King for dramatic purposes?
As stated elsewhere, Yes, many times.
Or when the location of the second monolith was changed from the light side of Saturn's moon Iapetus to Jupiter orbit in 2001?
Oh, here, we get into tangled knots of causality. The book and movie of 2001: a Space Odyssey were created simultaneously, each reflecting the other. There's no single canocal version that was adapted into the other.
PAD wrote:
If I see one more article about Alan Moore being "swindled" by DC
In one internet mailing list I'm on, several posters muttered darkly about what a sleazy move DC had made by keeping V for Vendetta in print for fifteen years, thereby keeping the rights, rather than allowing them to revert to Moore.
The comics pro that list is devoted to -- himself no stranger to being scrweed by publishers, and crying "Foul!" -- quickly responded that he should be so persecuted.
Alan Moore can refuse all the money from the Hollywood versions he wants, but I daresay he won't be turning his nose up at the increased royalties such films generate for the books.
I suppose the true test of his convictions will be whether or not he allows those books that ARE under his control to be made into film adaptations. All signs point to him saying no.
Every writer has their own level of tolerance for letting people screw with their works. I saw a comics panel once where Stan Lee joked about how enthusiastic he would appear to producers who came up with incredibly STUPID ideas for Marvel properties-- "Spider-Man is ana actual spider! GREAT idea, Mr. De Laurentis!". That's pretty much how I'd be too. Once it's out of my hands whatever, just make sure the check doesn't bounce.
Harlan Ellison routinely took his name off of shows that changed his scripts. Moore takes it even further. I see no reason to critisize the guy, he seems to be pretty sincere and one of the few writers who seems to actually regard the artists he works with as actual partners.
That said, he seems to share with his political opposite Steve Ditko a certain black and white view of things. My understanding is that once you get on his bad side it's over.
"Hollywood has taken numerous Moore babies and turned them out, dolled them up with Keanu Reeves, Johnny Depp being ironic and foppish and Sean Connery doing Sean Connery and they've whored his children out."
Oh yeah. Yeah, with that mindset, you're the go-to guy for an impartial assessment of the movie version of "V."
"And c'mon Peter, you wouldn't be happy if Fallen Angel was taken from you, without you having a say, turned into a stupid T&A Pam Anderson vehichle, so get off your damned high horse."
Wow. What a ridiculous statement. Was Sylvester Stallone cast as V? No. Was Dolly Parton cast as Evey? No. Were changes made? Yes. That's Hollywood SOP. The story and characters are still recognizably Moore's, and the film of sufficient quality to draw new readers to the source material. If a "Fallen Angel" film achieved that, I'd be ecstatic.
And if they screwed up "Fallen Angel" completely, then like Liberace, I'd cry all the way to the bank.
PAD
"Moore takes it even further. I see no reason to critisize the guy"
I do, and it's a reason that no one has brought up: Concern.
I've seen way too many stories about once-famous writers living in one-room, freezing cold apartments because they're out of ideas, or their ideas are out of style, and bottom line, they're out of money. Writers having to take menial jobs just to make ends meet. Forrey Ackerman--in his day and in his way, as famous as Alan--had to sell off his entire famed memorabilia collection just to survive. Why else was ACTOR formed if there isn't a general acknowledgement of this problem?
Alan (whom I've never met) is tossing away enough money to guarantee a comfortable old age. It's easy enough now for people to cluck about the evils of Hollywood and heap accolades on Alan for refusing to take the money. And forty years from now, if you read a story about poor Alan Moore, once famous, now destitute, are you going to sigh and say, "Oh, dear, what a tragedy. How depressing," and then turn to the sports section? Or are you going to ponder the words of Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
Now I don't know about you, but personally, I'd rather see Alan Moore live a well-deserved long and comfortable life, benefiting from the fruits of his labors instead of uprooting the tree.
Others, of course, needn't share that opinion.
PAD
it could have been much much worse
(personally - i loved the adaptation)
"it could have been much much worse
(personally - i loved the adaptation)"
My God, that's brilliant. "B." I wish I'd thought of it for a masquerade entry.
PAD
Well, I thought V for Vendetta was easily one of the best movies I've ever seen. It had everything that I liked in a movie. It had a good plot that I was easily able to follow; good characters, some that I cheered for and others that I hoped to see brought down by the end; good action sequences; cinemetography and directing were excellent too. I have read the comic before, but that was like 15 years ago. Rereading it, they didn't really change too much except to make it more political for today's time. for those of you judging it without having seen it, I recommend that you at least see what you're condemning first.
I also thought that League of Extrordinary Gentlemen was a good movie. Not excellent, but good. But then, I didn't really care for the comic too much.
PAD, I see what you're saying and that's a good point, but I don't know that it applies here. Moore has said that he's comfortable. He could certainly make a boatload of money just by coasting on his fame at this point--I doubt that any comics company would turn down the chance to work with him. He has a novel coming out.
Now, as you say, fortunes can change. But if it's his choice to make his money now as he best sees fit I don't think anyone should second guess him.
Put it another way. Harlan Ellison could have amassed a fortune as one of the best, most prolific TV scriptwriters of all time. He can (and did) come up with plots for everything from westerns to detective shows, to science fiction,to the Flying freaking Nun. All he had to do was kiss a little ass and not make such a fuss when the producers and directors and the key grip and the cousin of the Best Boy came up with their brilliant suggestions on how to "fix" his scripts.
Instead he...well we all know what he did. It has undoubtedly cost him many many jobs, a great deal of money. And maybe now he regrets it, though I haven't seen any indication of this. The point is, all of us make a balance between doing what we want to do and doing what we need to do and it's up to the individual to decide where that line is. Moores stand is an extreme one but he's a fairly extreme guy so that should come as no surprise.
At any rate, I want to be clear--just because I think it's admirable that Moore takes his stand doesn't mean I think it would be less than admirable if you took a different one. Like I said, I'd grab Hollywood's handouts with both hands and laugh at how badly they screwed up whatever it is they bought. In fact, it's kind of funny how one guy with a typewriter can do more than an army of technicians, producers, actors, etc. (and yet the screewriter is the low man on the totem pole. Go figure.)
>>>And I see nothing different in V For Vendetta, they've taken a work written at the height of the cold war, that was never meant to be applied to current political situations and turned it into a thinly veiled attack on Bush.
Riiiiiight. The only comparison to Bush is the one the Republicans jump to. I think it's rather telling of their true feelings about what Bush is doing when they immediately jump on this film and claim it's an attack on him.
This is just the classic "cutting off your nose to spite your face" syndrome. Has anyone even thought to get the OTHER creator's thoughts and comments about this movie? You know, that artist guy.. whatisname.
Ok, seriously, David Lloyd is already on record as saying the movie is about 80% true to the original. Which is pretty damn good considering.
they've taken a work written at the height of the cold war, that was never meant to be applied to current political situations and turned it into a thinly veiled attack on Bush.
Jesus jumping Christ on a pogo stick, I give up.
Considering that any 15 year old today wasn't even ALIVE when the Cold War ended, I think your comment, ElCoyote, sums up just about everything silly I've seen in discussing this movie.
I mean, for crying out loud, we're talking about a graphic novel where part of the central point is in drawing comparisions to events that happened FOUR HUNDRED years ago, and suddenly because the Cold War has ended, the story is no longer relevant to the events of today?
What a joke.
Riiiiiight. The only comparison to Bush is the one the Republicans jump to.
Considering that on this very board we've had non-conservatives make the same claim, it would appear that you are incorrect.
Every once in a while you get Sin City...a movie made so close to the comic, the creator gets a director credit for essentially doing the story boarding. Or should I say, eventually, if you make enough comic-based movies, you'll get Sin City. Because, to my knowledge, it's one of the few, rare times when a movie goes to great lengths to stay not only true, but copy, the comic source.
Hollywood isn't evil...it's just full of egos. And when those egos are in the producer and director's chairs, they're going to intrude onto the material. And if you look at Hollywood as an extension of stage productions, there's a long history of tweaking, amending, updating, even changing stage productions over time. Different settings, different costumes, rearranging scene order, experimenting. Theater/acting is art, and it's going to continue to change, experiment, fall prey to egos.
As a creator, I can understand why you'd want to see your creations represented in the way you see them. But unless Moore turns into an accomplished film director, that's not going to happen. So the best he can hope for is to have his babies given to people that do make movies, and hope they "get" it. And then hope the audience likes it.
Know what I think? This "controversy" makes good press. It creates a stir. People go see the film, they might want to read the comics, to see how different they are from each other. There's certainly no bad to be found in that. After each chapter of the Lord of the Rings films came out, I re-read the books, to see what changes were made, and where, and to see how different the versions were. I always felt that, when changes were made, they were minor, and didn't impact the overall story. In Return of the King, Frodo tosses the ring into Mount Doom before you read about the final battle at Gondor and before the Black Gate. When the Mouth tosses down Frodo's Mithril coat, the reader already knows that Frodo's not dead. It totally eliminates any suspense for the reader that the characters are feeling. In this respect the films are superior to the books.
I suspect that many people could find little examples like that with the film and comic version of V. For ever change made, there just might have been a good reason, not just a film reason, for making it. Different doesn't have to mean worse.
I am glad to hear some praises for the movie. I haven't had a chance to see it, but I do plan on eventually seeing it. Regarding LoEG, I enjoyed the movie - changes and all. I really disliked the second series of LoEG - it was just too nasty for my taste. I wish I hadn't read it.
Neil
See, I never understood the fuss about the LXG movie anyway. I mean people are quick to leap to Moore's defence over how his work was butchered for the big screen. They seem less quick to leap to the defence of H. Rider Haggard, whose creation Moore turned into an opium fiend. Or complaining that Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne or H.G. Wells were badly screwed over by having their creations warped and twisted into Moore's vision much more viciously than the movie ever did to Moore.
I'd even argue that the movie was a lot more respectful to the CREATOR'S visions.
Moore wasn't the creator, he just appropriated the characters.
As has been pointed out, there's such a thing as being TOO slavish to the original text. Case in point: the first Harry Potter film, which was basically a dramatic reading of the book with neat visuals added. No, thank you.
LotR made a few changes, some of which I took more exception to than others (the changes to Faramir and Saruman being the big ones I didn't really agree with) -- but it was absolutely true to the spirit of the books, and there's a reason that trilogy is likely going to be considered one of the best fantasy films out there even fifty years hence.
I haven't seen V yet, so I can't comment on it with any sort of logic, but I wanted to pass along a comment I read in some newspaper review back around the time the first Spider-Man film came out. I'm quoting it as best as I can remember, but I'm probably getting bits of it wrong. Here goes:
"Moviegoers appear to have no problem with Hollywood treating classic works of literature like cheap hookers, but change anything about a comic-book character and suddenly you're being pilloried for being unfaithful to the source."
I thought that was more than a little true, and both hilarious and deeply sad.
(Oh, and speaking of making changes -- I can't be the only one here who's read Harlan's screenplay of "I, Robot". It's amazingly different from Asimov, and yet would (IMO) have been true to the spirit of Asimov's work while being amazingly interesting in its own right.)
TWL
Oh -- and for the record, I think Bram Stoker has a lot less reason to complain about Alan Moore than he does to complain about Francis Ford Coppola. GaaAAAaaa. (I happened to catch the first ten minutes of the movie a few days ago; I'd forgotten how utterly godawful it was...)
TWL
Well, wether or not you consider Moore's complaints legit or not, you have to chuckle at the advertising for the film.
It calls the film an "Uncompromising Vision." When in the shadow of the publicity is one Alan Moore, who's belief in how his work is butchered takes "uncompromising" to whole new levels.
To a certain degree I have to give PAD a nod. We are picking heavy nits. As far as Hollywood adaptations go, this one's very faithful to the spirit and content of the source material.
Case in point: Exhibit "A"... or should I say, exhibit "LXG". Yipes.
At least "V for.." attempts to play in the same sandbox. My (and others) criticisms about how it became less about Anarchist philosophy than the book are more about encouraging better of filmmakers.
It may be as good as one could hope to expect from Hollywood, but one can still always hope for more.
I did pay to see the film. So it's not like I haven't supported the film in some way.
I forget which famous author it was who was once asked "How do you feel about Hollywood destroying your books?". This author reportedly pointed to his bookshelf and said, and I'm paraphrasing? "They haven't destroyed anything, they're right there" (Think it was Heinlein, but not sure). Thomas Harris put it even more succinctly when discussing the revisions to his novels: "The book is the book. The movie's the movie". PAD said it best: The movies, if done well enough, will probably encourage people to pick up the source material. Thus, the original work is still appreciated, after a fashion, and might hook a reader the author may not have gotten otherwise.
Doesn't stop me from being slightly affronted when unnecessary changes are made. I still remember way back when "Rising Sun" came out and the identity of the perpetrator was completely changed (it bothered someone else more than I, as this person jumped out of his seat and yelled "Fuck! That ain't the way it happened!"). At the risk of sounding self-promoting, I have an unpublished novel that's been written cinematically, i.e. written in such a way that there is no need for "Hollywood tweaking". However, I'm prepared for it to happen should the novel be published and be picked up for adaptation. The reality of the entertainment beast is such that someone will try to put their own personal stamp on the production. Think about it. A producer's/director's bread and butter come from the perception that the work that appears on the screen is their own work. If it was a simple by-the-numbers affair, then what's to separate DeLaurentis from Speilberg in terms of execution? The egos "have" to put something of their own in the production to make it "theirs", even though ideologically it is not.
Also, bear in mind, there have been instances wherein such changes actually IMPROVED on the story...at least in terms of execution.
One last thing. I unabashedly admit that I'm becoming a published author to MAKE MONEY. My poetry is my writing for myself. There is nothing wrong with writing for the purposes of wealth. Reportedly, Shakespeare wrote his works to cater to the largest audience possible. His plays contained elements that would appeal to both the high brow elite and the low brow commoners. Why did he do that? I submit that it was to maximize his earning potential.
I haven't seen V yet, but my feeling about adaptations in general is that there are going to be changes anytime a book is adapted to film. That may be because ideas or plot structures that work on paper don't necessarily translate well to the screen or simply because that the producers feell it's necessary to make the film more marketable. The only test for is not how faithful the film is to the source material, but does the movie work on its own merits. Fusing Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane into a single character worked in Spider-man. Putting Tom Sawyer -if you do the math, he should have been the same age as Quatermain- into LXG did not.
As for LOTR, many fans freaked out over every single change, from eliminating Tom Bombadil to putting elves in Helmsdeep. None of those things really bothered me, because the trilogy still worked on its own merits as a film. But don't bother explaining that to the purits. I gave up on that years ago.
A final thought on Moore: The fact that Moore is still holding a grudge against DC about the Watchmen has caused me to lose a lot of respect for him as a person. It's over 20 years later, and that's far to long to still be pissed about a dispute that at its heart was about money, not creative control.
TWL wrote "(Oh, and speaking of making changes -- I can't be the only one here who's read Harlan's screenplay of "I, Robot". It's amazingly different from Asimov, and yet would (IMO) have been true to the spirit of Asimov's work while being amazingly interesting in its own right.)
I read, and loved, Ellison's adaption of I, ROBOT. Almost as impressive was Asimov's introduction, in which he (Asimov) discusses the difference between the mediums of film and literature and praises Ellison's adaption for keeping the core concepts while making the movie more exciting and emotional.
Then look at the absolutely wretched movie Will Smith movie to see what a train wreck Hollywood can make of something. They completely missed the point of the book, while allowing egos to run rampant. (Anyone out there think Will Smith fought to keep his character low-key but other folks insisted that Will Smith become a mototcycle-riding, smooth-talking cool dude.) Feh.
Alan (whom I've never met) is tossing away enough money to guarantee a comfortable old age. It's easy enough now for people to cluck about the evils of Hollywood and heap accolades on Alan for refusing to take the money. And forty years from now, if you read a story about poor Alan Moore, once famous, now destitute, are you going to sigh and say, "Oh, dear, what a tragedy. How depressing," and then turn to the sports section? Or are you going to ponder the words of Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
Actually, no matter what his eventual financial situation, I'd respect him for taking a principled stand. He's not stupid. He knows what the money he's refusing could buy him. But he puts his work and creative integrity above that. And I can respect that.
It's ironic, but he's similar to Steve Ditko in that way, despite their very different political stands. And you can see that admiration for Ditko's philosophy, for his determination to take a stand, his refusal to compromise even when it would benefit him to do so, in his portrayal of Rorschach in Watchmen.
So yeah, I respect and admire people like that, and I strive to be like that in my own life (though I certainly don't always succeed). But you try, and that's what counts I think. So I respect Moore for taking this stand, whatever the consequences.
"Moviegoers appear to have no problem with Hollywood treating classic works of literature like cheap hookers, but change anything about a comic-book character and suddenly you're being pilloried for being unfaithful to the source."
I'd say moveigoes, in general, don't really give any thought to whether a film adheres closely to the source material. Or even, in many cases, that there IS a source inspiring the current film. It's only fans of the source material that care at all. Comic fans, fantasy fans, sci fi fans...we're all a pretty rabid lot. But take comic fans....being generous, let's say there's some 500,000 individual people that pay money for comics. I said I was being generous. According to Box Office Mojo, V pulled in some $25 million this weekend...a really good opening for a genre film that's bound to turn some off just because it might be critical of our current government. At $8 per ticket, that's some 3.2 million people. Even if you assume that all of those 500,000 comic buyers went out to see the film, there's still 2.7 million people more that went to see it. We're about 16% of the opening weekend take at most. Studios care a little about what comic fans think. But mostly, they're concerned with making a movie that appeals to a base bigger than just comic fans. They have to. There's no enough of us to support a big-budget movie. There's barely enough of us to support a good monthly comic.
All of which makes me laugh a little. Organic web shooters, having Joker kill the Waynes, making tar the key ingredient in making Bizarro Superman...all deviations from the comic, all made for movies. Comic fans can get so caught up in the details, they lose sight of the end product....was it entertaining. I'll take a slightly continuity-plagued story that entertains over something boring that fits lockstep into canon any day.
Hollywood isn't evil...it's just full of egos.
Actually, I'd say the problem isn't so much ego, as it is money.
Lucas is the ultimate example: he's paying for the Star Wars movies out of pocket, and thus he gets to do whatever the hell he wants.
Nobody else really has that kind of freedom.
With Lord of the Rings, it was complete make or break for New Line: if the movies failed, the company would basically go under.
So, with money, comes dabbling. And that's where so many movies have issues - the studio dabbles, pushes, and prods for what they want because it's their money.
What you have to realize about the I, Robot movie is that this was intended to be a Will Smith vehicle from day one. They didn't start with the premise of "we're adapting Asimov's short story collection." They started with, "Well, Will Smith has fought aliens in three movies, let's have him fight robots. What's a good title for a robot movie? Didn't that Asimov guy write a book about robots? Let's get the rights to that."
The end result was inevitable. It was a paint-by-the-numbers action movie that was the exact opposite of Asimov's philosophical point in I, Robot.
Tim Lynch:
As has been pointed out, there's such a thing as being TOO slavish to the original text.
And there's being too anal concerning faithfulness to a book.
I give myself as an example -- for the longest time, I had a real problem with the movie version of "To Kill A Mockingbird". Why? Because they cut out *6 to 8 pages* and fasttracked a scene (the one where Scout is whailing on the Cunningham boy, and they left out the flashback to a flashback why the boy wouldn't take a nickle.)
Horrors! Never mind they kept a good 95% of the movie (and with Gregory Peck leading a stellar cast) -- THEY LEFT OUT A SCENE! WAAH!
Balance is always the prerequisite in adaptation.
Bobb, your assessment is 100% correct. Dummy Moore got away with tacking on the happy ending to The Scarlet Letter because she was nearly correct when she said no one reads it anyway. The vast majority of filmgoers do not read the source material that movies are derived from.
How many people here read Forrest Gump before the movie came out? Gods and Monsters? Brokeback Mountain?
SF/Fantasy/Comics fans are a very propriority lot in general. It's not just about movies. Hell, how many times have we seen comics fans ranting and raving on message boards because of a reboot or a story that contradicted continuity established 10, 20, even 30 years ago. Go to just about any comics-related message board and look for a guy callimg himself "ManoftheAtom." I'll guarantee that no matter what the subject being discussed is, he'll be ranting about how Waid's Birthright sucked and Byrne's Man of Steel is the only "real" origin of Superman.
And that's just one example.
Thank you!! I posted on another blog how I thought Moore was being somewhat petulant and bratty about the whole thing and was lambasted by other posters.
And I agree about your concern for Alan's future. One would assume he was already quite wealthy, based on his so casually refusing and giving money away. Perhaps he is, but I have my doubts. Hopefully he reconsiders his position at some point in the future.
With Lord of the Rings, it was complete make or break for New Line: if the movies failed, the company would basically go under.
Which makes the fact that Peter Jackson was able to include as much of the novels as he actually did pretty amazing, considering initially the studio wanted the entire trilogy done in two, two-hour movies.
I'm disappointed in a lot of you folks.
Do I think everybody needs to agree with Moore? No.
But I do I think you guys need to calm down a bit. Moore has his grievances, and they are now getting in the mainstream news channels. As much as I love Heidi, The Beat ain't the New York Times. Most people who go to see movies don't read Newsarama.
So you are sick of seeing these articles? DON'T READ THEM!
And if you want to tell me the same thing, I've beat you to it. I'm tired of reading about what a prima donna Alan Moore is for not fitting your ideas of what a writer should be like, and I'm outta here.
A couple of notes: you left out an important change of ending: Count of Monte Cristo.
Both the movie V quotes on film, and the more recent Jim Caveziel/Guy Pearce versions were given happy endings, where Dantes does not learn how awful a life of revenge is (Even Inigo Montoya figures it out at the end).
Let's praise a few respectful comic adaptations. Not necessarily 100% reproductions of the original stories, but worth watching, even for the changes:
Spidey 1&2
X-Men 2 (although they wasted Lady Deathstrike's potential with another silent "Darth Maul" death)
Road to Perdition (yup, a comic book)
A History of Violence (that too)
and away from comics, there isn't a better adaptation -- even though it strays from the written word -- than Silence of the Lambs (good for you Jodie, for dropping out of Hannibal).
I'll give nods to Andromeda Strain (I don't think Crichton's been treated that well since), The Princess Bride... I can probably list more, but I should get back to work.
Mr. Moore, if retiring (such as it may be) in the U.K., in the immediate future (which is not likely to change soon, given so many "pensioners" already on the roll), will be taken care of. He will be allotted a pension, paid for with taxes by the working stiffs of the U.K. And medical care is taken care of by a national health system. The pension system has been in place since medieval times, to some degree, so I don't think he's going to be starving because he's not taking credit for works in the past. If money comes into his hands, I'm assuming the government will take a share of it beofre it leaves his hands, thus putting into the system he will later take from.
If anyone should complain about their books being ravaged to make movies, it's Tom Clancy.
"The Hunt for Red October" is probably the one movie that follows the book best, other than losing one submarine battle and totally changing Jack Ryan's childhood.
"Patriot Games" starts out well, but totally compresses the story and changes a very intense ending to a Hollywood ending.
"Clear and Present Danger" tries to follow the book, but so much of the book was tossed out to make it a Harrison Ford action/adventure film instead of a political thriller.
"Sum of All Fears" has a character named Jack Ryan and a nuclear blast at a football game. Not the same game, or even city as the book. And the villians of the book aren't even in the movie.
But, Tom Clancy also realized that he wasn't going to get HIS books made into movies, so like PAD said, he went crying all the way to the bank.
You know, I've read many different articles on this whole "Moore vs.DC" thing and I still don't completly understand it. Maybe that is because no one does anymore. I get the feeling that Alan Moore is just a bit touched in the head. Personally, I think he'd do a lot more good in the world if he'd not bother with getting his name removed from past works and just took the money and gave it to charity. If he doesn't want to work for DC, fine. Personally, I wouldn't work for them at the moment either, at least not until certain changes are made. But that's me.
Another point is that "V" fans have it good. Their story is kept in its original form for 15 years! The fans of the original Star Wars films are the ones who have to hope their vhs tapes don't get messed up.
Oh and good point about LOEG. I personally liked the film better than the comics as well because I felt the comics were farther off the mark than the movie.
Michael
The Bond franchise is maybe the most public example...maybe next to Clancy...of a book series being totally hacked by the movies.
For a lot of the material mentioned, I'd wager that most of the people that saw things like A History of Violence and Road to Perdition didn't know they were comics first...including people that are into comics. I'd bet that the movie that's not based on a book, short story, comic, TV show, play, or older film is a pretty rare beast. Movies have always cost so much to make, relatively speaking, that no sane producer would commit funds to a story that hasn't been a proven success somewhere else.
And let's not pretend that comics are on this one-way road of getting shafted when it comes to movie adaptations. How many comic adaptations of movies have been...let's say, sub par. I think the last good movie version of a comic I saw was when Jerry Ordway drew the adaptation of Burton's Batman.
Is part of Moore's gripe really that DC hasn't "allowed" the Watchmen to go out of print long enough for the rights to revert solely to him? I really have a hard time with that. Watchmen was a landmark comic series. It's still very relevant today. And it sells. There's a demand for the work. Moore get royalties on it, I'm sure. It's unfortunate that he regrets the contract he entered, but that's the deal he made. Whining about it now just seems petulant.
Now see, this is why I didn't hop on the bandwagon of those mortally offended by Disney's Hunckback of Notre Dame, which -- while in no way a close retelling of the Victor Hugo novel -- has possibly the single best and most powerful music of any animated Disney picture with the possible exception of Fantasia. See also the animated Iron Giant, which is an extremely free adaptation of its literary source material. See as well the animated Secret of NIMH, ditto -- both are very good films, but neither hews closely to the original book.
I have not yet seen V for Vendetta, though I hope to (despite not having looked at the Moore graphic version). I did read parts of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic series before seeing that film (the two are different animals, and while the LXG movie looks gorgeous, I had real trouble suspending my disbelief when the submarine headed into the Venetian canals).
As to Moore -- I think any writer who sells his work to Hollywood has to expect it to be reshaped for the screen. Depending on who you work with and how much leverage you have, you can sometimes guide the process (William Goldman had the prior credentials to do his own screenplay for Princess Bride, J. K. Rowling's books were bankable enough that she could demand a degree of creative control when signing the licensing deal), but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Has Alan Moore stated, or even implied, that anyone who doesn't share his stance is morally inferior? If not, I really don't understand why so many of you are upset.
I mean, this isn't about you, folks.
And yes, before anyone piles on me and demands to know, "Aren't we entitled to disagree with Alan Moore??? AREN'T WE???????????????"
Well, of course you can disagree with Alan Moore. If that's all people were doing, I wouldn't take issue with it.
But the unnecessary outrage, the ostentatious cries that you just cannot take any more of these articles, the attempts to impute motives to a man you don't know, these are things that strike me as hollow.
Mind you, I'm not going to try to similarly impute ill motives to those of you who don't agree with me. I'm sure you're very sincere about what you're saying, and you have a right to say such things. I just wanted to share a thought for those who might be open to it.
I do think it's fair to say that while Moore wasn't "screwed" by his DC contract, he never expected that the books would still be selling this well two decades later. And who would? I mean, take a look at the comics industry in the mid-80s. Were there ANY graphic novel compilations that remained in print for 20 years at that time?
Moore's damned by his own success. Sure, his positions seem a little strange, and if it were me, I'd probably take the money and have a niec lunch with the film producers. But I'm not Moore, and I'm not the creative genius that he is, and obviously that mindset is part of what makes him one of the best graphic novelists ever.
As an aside, I have the hardcover edition of V for Vendetta that he complains about in his interview with Heidi McDonald. The back cover blurb just says HAVE A PLEASANT; whoever proofread the thing was asleep that day.
I've read most of Moore's work over the last couple of decades, going back to his UK stuff when it was being sporadically reprinted here in America. I still think his work on Swamp Thing is one of the greatest revamps of a character in comics history. I felt Watchmen had its flaws (I still have trouble reading the Black Pirate stuff) but its still a masterpiece in my humble opinion. And if you don't think Watchmen is still an influential piece of work, look no further than Lost as an example of how today's writers have been affected by it. I enjoyed From Hell, which I read in its collected form, and V For Vendetta when it was reprinted here some years back (was it Eclipse? I can't remember) and I'm still following League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; even plunked down for the Absolute Edition of Book One a while back so I could read Moore's scripts in volume two.
I mention all of this to show that I'm a die-hard Moore follower for many years, but I also understand, as Peter pointed out, that adapting an existing work does not necessarily mean following it to the letter. I saw V For Vendetta last week and enjoyed it for the most part, although the device of putting everybody in V masks at the end smacked of somebody saying, 'Wouldn't it be great if...' But I think it largely stayed true to the tone of the original piece, bearing in mind how much American and British politics have changed since the original book came out. I enjoyed From Hell as a movie, with the exception of Heather Graham, whose terrible accent and contemporary makeup basically destroyed every scene she was in. I couldn't stand the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film, although having read one of the early scripts, I still feel it got watered down quite a bit during production and post-production. And if somebody with as strong a visual sensibility as Terry Gilliam says he couldn't do justice to Watchmen, I'm perfectly happy if a film is never made (although an eight-hour HBO-funded mini-series might change my mind).
The point I'm trying to make is that whether I enjoy the original books or not, I can understand the adapted works are going to be different. Whether or not they're any good is a different matter. I tend to agree with Peter that Moore should just take the money, donate it to charity or build the From Hell Memorial Library or whatever. But I can understand where he's coming from. If he cashed the checks, he'd be accused of being a hypocrite, so, as other posters have mentioned, he put his money where his mouth is and gave it to his collaborators. And even doing that, there are still people questioning his motives, so it just goes to prove you can't win.
I may be putting two and two together and coming up with five here, but my sense was that until recently, Moore was relatively sanguine about Hollywood making movies of his work as long as it had nothing to do with him (see the earlier post about the writer pointing to his books on the wall), but after being accused of plagarism on the League movie, he felt he had to completely distance himself from the adapted works. And when producer Joel Silver basically came out and suggested Moore's involvement in the V for Vendetta movie, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Do I feel Moore reacted too strongly? No, not really. I think the producers would have been only too happy to plaster his name all over their promotional materials if givn the chance, so he had to make it absolutely crystal clear that he had nothing to do with the film.
In an industry that requires compromise as a way of doing business, it's nice to know that from time to time, people like Harlan Ellison or Alan Moore aren't afraid to stand up for their work and take an ethical stand. I'm sure both of those writers could be very wealthy men right now if they chose to compromise, but they've opted for a higher ethical standard over a bigger paycheck. More power to them I say.
I'm not touching the Moore vs DC debate, but as I understand it a large part of why Moore is all upset is because Joel Silver stated that Moore was pleased with the film and happy with it or something to that extent. And that's when Alan got pissed off. I can't blame him too much for that.
I'm curious what Harlan Ellison thinks on the matter, given that HE has also turned down jobs and given up money over principles.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 21, 2006 07:02 AM
Harlan Ellison routinely took his name off of shows that changed his scripts. Moore takes it even further. I see no reason to critisize the guy, he seems to be pretty sincere and one of the few writers who seems to actually regard the artists he works with as actual partners.
*****************************************
Have you read Ellison's book, "City on the Edge of Forever: The Original Teleplay That Became the Classic Star Trek Episode?" It's his attempt to set the record straight about what really happened, and why he so loathed the version that aired.
Ellison uses documentary evidence very persuasively, and makes a solid case that Gene Roddenberry and others didn't just muck up his script, but in fact lied about Ellison. Repeatedly. Over decades.
The book has Ellison's original version of "City," and it is infinitely better than what aired. I won't try to do it justice here. I urge anyone who hasn't read this book to do so.
Ellison has a reputation for being an S.O.B. For all I know, maybe he is. Or maybe it's the reputation you get from those who don't like it when you stick to principles, and insist that others do the same.
I can't find myself feeling bad for Moore. I used to get upset about this kind of thing when I was still a teenager and dumb as a brick about how life worked. But I can't find that I get upset about it now.
I like much of Moore's work a great deal. I will cop to liking LoEG better as a film then a book for the reason someone else stated above. I could just never really get into what more did to several characters I grew up reading and enjoying. But what of Moore's other works? They're still there to enjoy no matter what Hollywood does with them.
Hollywood has never actually touched a single bit of Moore's work. Hollywood has never changed a single word on the written pages of Moore's work. Hollywood, just as it always does, created its version of something else. They gave us, to swipe from the Golden Age, Earth-H versions of Earth-M characters.
Is Moore's work better? Yes, it quite often is. Is Hollywood destroying Moore's, or anyone else's, work? No. The only way that Hollywood could be destroying or corrupting the work of a creator is if the creator actually changed his or her future works to conform to the Hollywood version of the creation. I don't see Moore doing that anytime soon.
Have I ever been in Moore's shoes? Have I ever had a labor of love perverted by the Hollywood machine? No. But I've had things happen that are the equivalent of that to a lesser degree. And I didn't get the kind of check handed to me that Moore and others can get.
Yeah, I pointed out that "evil" money thing. Let us say that I created a comic or novel that became a huge seller and acquired a huge fan following. It stands to reason that Hollywood would come round for a visit. Would I, knowing what Hollywood does to creators work, sign on the dotted line? Yes. Oh, hell yeah. Why? Well, money.
Would that make me artistically less then people like Moore? No. My general skill level as a wordsmith is what would make me less then people like Moore. Cashing a Hollywood check would have no bearings on my artistic integrity or ability since it would not change how I wrote anything in the future and it would not change so much as one word of the work that I had already created.
What would it do? It would go a long way toward making my day to day life better. It would help cover the house work that I'm dealing with now. It would help make sure that I could provide for my wife and for the children we want to have. It would help to build a nice nest egg for our future. It would help to give us a lot of securities that we don't have now.
Moore and others really sound like people being handed lemonade and crabbing that it's lemons. Moore's work is still out there and as intact as it ever was. Moore has the integrity to continue to create work that is his best rather then what he thinks will be liked by Hollywood. Moore's fans will still be there for him and for the next project he does outside of the Hollywood system. If he can't see all the blessings that he has because of this then I refuse to feel bad for him.
As to Moore -- I think any writer who sells his work to Hollywood has to expect it to be reshaped for the screen.
Except, from what I've read, Moore didn't sell his work to Hollywood: DC did.
Well, if you even want to say that much, since DC and WB are both part of Time Warner.
And seeing how so few comic adaptations were being done 15-20 years ago, I can see why that wouldn't have been much of a concern at the time.
This is a very good (and recent) article about the reasoning behind Alan Moore's attitide toward Hollywood (amongst other things): http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article352247.ece
In a nutshell, some loser sued 20th Century Fox over LoEG and, as AM says in the article "...I had to go down to London to do this videotaped testimony regarding the case, and I was cross-examined for 10 hours. I remember thinking that if I had raped and murdered a busful of retarded schoolchildren after selling them heroin, I probably wouldn't have been cross-examined for that long."
That was the last straw for him. He was content enough to take the money before when it was offered to him, but after that, he wants nothing to do with it, distancing himself from Hollywoof completely.
With great sackfuls of cash comes great responsibility, a large target on your chest and legal liability.
That's what he can't stand, I think.
~f
Is part of Moore's gripe really that DC hasn't "allowed" the Watchmen to go out of print long enough for the rights to revert solely to him?
I don't think. From what I've read over the years, Moore was upset that, when Watchmen became a real hit for DC, DC began selling merchandizing materials like the blood-stained smiley face button, but Moore's original contract didn't give him a piece of that action and DC refused to renegotiate it.
As far as the rights reverting to him, I'm not sure if that's an issue. Watchmen was originally conceived as using the Charlton characters that DC had then recently purchased. When DC decided instead to use the Crisis to integrate them into the DCU, Moore altered the characters, turning the Question into Rorschach, etc. So, was this a contract project for Moore was it work for hire? If it was work for hire, then letting it go out of print won't cause the rights to the characters to revert to him.
They're still there to enjoy no matter what Hollywood does with them.
Hollywood has never actually touched a single bit of Moore's work. Hollywood has never changed a single word on the written pages of Moore's work. Hollywood, just as it always does, created its version of something else.
I tried that argument a few years ago in another forum against a nutbag who considered the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be the greatest movie ever made and was furious that Hollywood was "ruinning" it by making a remake. That he could still watch and enjoy the original on video tape made no impression on him.
And that's why I don't debate insane purists any more.
tried that argument a few years ago in another forum against a nutbag who considered the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be the greatest movie ever made and was furious that Hollywood was "ruinning" it by making a remake. That he could still watch and enjoy the original on video tape made no impression on him.
And that's why I don't debate insane purists any more.
Yeah, well, that's why I call them embalmers. They care more about the form than the content.
As far as Moore is concerned, I respect him, but not his stance.
"I do think it's fair to say that while Moore wasn't "screwed" by his DC contract, he never expected that the books would still be selling this well two decades later. And who would? I mean, take a look at the comics industry in the mid-80s. Were there ANY graphic novel compilations that remained in print for 20 years at that time?"
So, you're basically suggesting that Moore only agreed to this contract because he never suspected that it might still be a viable book 20 years past? That's like me walking into the Lottery office tomorrow and saying "hey, if I had known you were going to pick those numbers last night, I'd have purchased a ticket. Can you pretend I did, and just give me the prize money?"
Watchmen was published 20 years ago. I have a hard time believing that, prior to that, in the history of entertainment, no small niche endeavor went on to a long-running, critically and economically viable life that surprised someone. Moore agreed to a contract in order to get his work published. It seems like a fair contract...Moore continues to make money, DC continues to make money, and the world gets to continue to read the story. What more could someone want?
And we can speculate the other way: DC might never had agreed to a contract that contained a final revision of rights to Moore.
And put me in camp that doubts that a 2-3 hour treatment of the Watchmen could be done. It's a pretty deep story, and pacing is fairly important. I'm not sure how many hours of film it would take, but 3 hours would make me wonder if they'd be able to do the story justice. I'm hoping they include the pirate stuff in some way, as it adds layers to the story. But I think a regular film audience of non-comic viewers might be put off by that, considering how many comic folks are turned off by the pirate stuff.
Moore
Posted by: Roger Tang at March 21, 2006 01:38 PM
As far as Moore is concerned, I respect him, but not his stance.
*************************************
I don't know what your particular perception of Moore's stance is. But I just read the link provided by foonon (thanks for that, by the way) and it's very illuminating.
The stance Moore articulates seems to bear little resemblance to the portrayals of that stance that I've read from PAD and others.
Moore says that at one time he was happy to take the money, knowing full well what hit the screen wouldn't be his vision. But then he was sued for plagiarism in connection with a film adaptation of one of his works, and decided the money wasn't worth the headaches.
And it seems the only reason he publicly stated he does not support the film version of "V for Vendetta" is because some people were claiming he does support it -- even though they knew better.
And even though Moore would prefer not to see anything else he's written be translated to the big screen, he realizes the artists with whom he collaborated might feel differently. So rather than attempt to oppose the adaptation of a comic that he created with an artist, thereby denying said artist a chance at earning some nice Hollywood royalties, Moore has simply asked that his name be kept off of the film and all related promotional materials, and will give his share of the proceeds to his collaborators.
Folks, that's fair-minded and principled. Moore doesn't like something, so he'll avoid it. He doesn't demand the same of others.
I don't see the problem here.
I'm not trying to split hairs here, but my memory is that Moore also refused to take money prior to the 'League' lawsuit. Although the Independent article cited earlier suggests he did, if you read the piece carefully, it's the Independent writer who makes that assertion, not Moore. Does anybody want to clarify that point?
Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 21, 2006 03:01 PM
I'm not trying to split hairs here, but my memory is that Moore also refused to take money prior to the 'League' lawsuit. Although the Independent article cited earlier suggests he did, if you read the piece carefully, it's the Independent writer who makes that assertion, not Moore. Does anybody want to clarify that point?
****************************************
Actually, in that article Moore is quoted as saying, "I figured that if people wanted to give me a lot of money to make a film that had only a coincidental resemblance to my work, then that was fine by me."
I don't know what your particular perception of Moore's stance is. But I just read the link provided by foonon (thanks for that, by the way) and it's very illuminating.
The stance Moore articulates seems to bear little resemblance to the portrayals of that stance that I've read from PAD and others.
Moore says that at one time he was happy to take the money, knowing full well what hit the screen wouldn't be his vision. But then he was sued for plagiarism in connection with a film adaptation of one of his works, and decided the money wasn't worth the headaches.
That's the stance I don't respect. He gives the people suing him power by taking them seriously; the claims were inherently preposterous and he gave them far too much credence.
It seemed as if Moore felt that he was a bystander in the affair and was sucked into it without getting control of the circumstances that he wanted if he were the major player in the suit. That he blames Hollywood instead of the individual bringing suit (or his lawyer) is not a stance I respect.
Bill, thanks for pointing that out; I happily stand corrected.
A couple more notes: Moore doesn't have control over what movies get made because the contracts probably spell that out. Contracts today are very different from those of 15 years ago. Ask actors getting screwed out of DVD royalties because DVDs aren't covered by contracts that talk about *tapes*.
Second: Harlan Ellison's "City" is a teriffic story, a more true-to-character story than what was filmed, but would have been very expensive to produce -- even Harlan admits that, and that D.C. Fontana's (uncredited) rewrites were brilliant in parts. His beef is mainly in how he was treated by Gene, and that as a writer he has no control over how it is changed. That really hasn't changed at all.
At least we're starting to see a bit of a resurgence of the writer's value: Larry McMurtry at the Oscars got a lot of love. "Unscripted" TV is fading, at least a little bit. The long-arc TV show (Lost, Veronica, even evening soaps like Housewives and Anatomy) are getting the eye-time and the awards.
Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 21, 2006 03:24 PM
Bill, thanks for pointing that out; I happily stand corrected.
Hey, every once in a great while, I'm good for something, y'know?
Posted by: joelfinkle at March 21, 2006 03:34 PM
Second: Harlan Ellison's "City" is a teriffic story, a more true-to-character story than what was filmed, but would have been very expensive to produce -- even Harlan admits that, and that D.C. Fontana's (uncredited) rewrites were brilliant in parts. His beef is mainly in how he was treated by Gene, and that as a writer he has no control over how it is changed. That really hasn't changed at all.
Actually, in City on the Edge of Forever, Ellison states that the filmed version of "City" went significantly over budget, because Roddenberry wanted the sets, costumes, etc. for the scenes on Earth in the 1930s to look authentic. In the book, Ellison presents documentary evidence to support his claim.
In fact, in the book Ellison rejects the claim that his original script would have been too expensive to shoot. According to Ellison, Roddenberry requested that a scene be added to show the Enterprise in jeopardy. Ellison was resistant for creative reasons, but eventually gave in. According to Ellison, Roddenberry later cited that scene as one of the things that made Ellison's original script too hard to shoot -- even though Roddenberry himself is the one who pushed for it.
Have you read City on the Edge of Forever? If not, I'd urge you to do so. Not only would it clear up some of your misconceptions about what Ellison has or has not publicly stated about "City," but it's also a great read, both for the script and for the story behind the story.
And yes, I know that things haven't changed much in terms of the creative control T.V. writers are afforded. I was simply making a point about Ellison's insistence on sticking to his guns, and how much crap people gave him for it.
That's the stance I don't respect. He gives the people suing him power by taking them seriously; the claims were inherently preposterous and he gave them far too much credence.
It seemed as if Moore felt that he was a bystander in the affair and was sucked into it without getting control of the circumstances that he wanted if he were the major player in the suit. That he blames Hollywood instead of the individual bringing suit (or his lawyer) is not a stance I respect.
Perhaps what makes him so upset is that Hollywood actually rewarded those inherently preposterous claims by settling the lawsuit. My understanding is that Larry Cohen got money to make the suit go away. One can imagine that this might stick in the craw of the man who is being accused of plagerism.
Have you read City on the Edge of Forever? If not, I'd urge you to do so. Not only would it clear up some of your misconceptions about what Ellison has or has not publicly stated about "City," but it's also a great read, both for the script and for the story behind the story.
And it's got an essay by our host here at the end, too.
TWL
Finally, someone has put it into perspective. I've gotten to the point where, if I see a movie based on a book or comic book I've read, I make myself forget the source material for two hours and just watch the movie AS A MOVIE. Changes are inevitable. An adaptation isn't a direct transplant, it's just a movie for which the writer was able to steal stuff from another writer. If the movie entertains, it's done its job, whether it was faithful to its source or not. So that's why I'm annoyed by all this petty squawking that erupts every time an Alan Moore book gets made into a movie.
That said (and this coming from someone who has never read the book), I can't say I enjoyed the movie. It wasn't BAD (at least, not bad enough to warrant the reactions it's received), but it just seemed kind of perfunctory and aimless, and I was bored by it. And, perhaps because I recently watched Equilibrium (a very similar movie, but much more entertaining), I felt like I'd seen it all before. It did make me want to read the book, though, as I could tell there was an interesting story in there somewhere, and I could almost see the seams where they cut stuff out.
Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 21, 2006 04:59 PM
And it's got an essay by our host here at the end, too.
TWL
Oh, yeah, it was pretty stupid of me to forget mentioning that. :( In fact, of the essasy in the back of the book, I found PAD's to be the most insightful and illuminating.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 21, 2006 05:03 PM
So that's why I'm annoyed by all this petty squawking that erupts every time an Alan Moore book gets made into a movie.
My point was that some people are accusing Alan Moore of doing some of the "squawking," which I think is unfair. The man has simply asked that his name no longer be used in connection with the movies based on his works. And that movie producers abstain from claiming he's endorsed a movie when the opposite is true.
I think any Moore fans who are "squawking" should do what Moore says he wants to do: simply ignore the movies based on his works. Don't go to 'em if they're going to upset you.
As far as adaptations go, I don't expect adaptations to be slavishly faithful to every detail of a book or comic-book. But I wish more of them were faithful to the spirit of the works they're allegedly based upon. I've never seen the movie adaptation of The Natural. When I found out they changed the ending so the outcome of the story was the polar opposite of the ending in the book, I decided I didn't need to see the movie. To me, it wouldn't be The Natural. It would be something else. Which is fine and dandy, but give it a different title, then. If a movie carries the name of a novel -- particularly a great novel -- I'd prefer that the movie stay true to the spirit of the source material.
(As an aside I've never been able to sit all the way through a Bond movie. They do nothing for me. But I read a couple of Ian Fleming's Bond stories -- which also did nothing for me -- including the short story "Octopussy." In the movie version, my friend told me Octopussy was the name of a villain. I laughed, because in the short story, Octopussy is the nickname of an actual Octopus.)
I know there's no law that says my preferences must be enforced. And I know that many novelists willingly sell their creations to Hollywood and laugh all the way to the bank, even if Hollywood violates the spirit of their creations. Hey, if you wrote it and Hollywood wants it, you're entitled to cash in.
I think Alan has made his points clear.
He has cut all ties to DC Comics and he most likely hopes that Silver, and everyone who made the movie go rot in Hell.
I think he has made that clear.
The thing is hardly anybody has read Mary Poppins, Pinnochio, Snow White, etc. etc. 90 percent of the people that have seen these adaptations think of the movies first. That is probably what is going to happen to V. It isn't like Batman or Superman, in which movies will be made throughout history as long as the characters do. This will probably be the only V movie ever made. This is it.
And it was pedestrian compared to the book. Yeah, the movie is the movie and the book still exists. But it doesn't keep people from being disappointed that this could have been a really, really great movie and turned out to be not so close... a wasted chance. And the fact this will likely be V for 90 percent of people as opposed to the much more complex, much more meaningful novel is kind of depressing.
1Was skimming some the above remarks mostly intriqued by the League/Allan Quatermain remarks. When Mr. Moore LGX comics came out my wife had to put up with ranting and raving over the changes made to Quatermain--mostly about the drug addiction. I have read all 14 novels and 4 short stories by Henry Rider Haggard--took over 30 years of casual hunting--Wildside Press has most of them in print--more's the irony after e-bay auctions. Anyhoo--after settling down and thinking things thru I came to the conclusion that while Moore's depiction of Quatermain will never be what I would have envisioned it had basis in the books. The drugs elements were from The Ancient Alland and Allan and the Ice Gods--drug enhanced visions of former lives. Lady Ragnall by the by was intro in The Ivory Child one of the best in the series and has almost all of Haggards themes in one book (death of a beloved conrade, quests to far off lands, white goddess figure, reincarnation, etc.) My complaints of Moore's treatment of Quatermain is that he really did not do much in the comics--though a passive character in temperment he's really a leader in getting the job done.
Apologies for the rambling--but in the case of book to moves abominations--check out Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm novels vs the Dean Martin and you'll believe Moore got off easy. Agreat spy series that deserved better. For comparisons--early Len Deighton movies with Michael Caine--Ipcress File, etc.
Posted by: Rob at March 21, 2006 06:04 PM
I think Alan has made his points clear.
He has cut all ties to DC Comics and he most likely hopes that Silver, and everyone who made the movie go rot in Hell.
I think he has made that clear.
Okay, I've read a few articles about Alan Moore's attitude towards movie adaptations of his works, and in those articles he never said anything close to that.
Can you cite a quote -- and reference the article wherein that appears -- where Moore says anything remotely like that?
"The thing is hardly anybody has read Mary Poppins, Pinnochio, Snow White, etc. etc. 90 percent of the people that have seen these adaptations think of the movies first."
I don't disagree that many people think of the movie first. On the other hand, since the books remain readily available and well known--as opposed to forgotten and out of print, which is the fate of (let's face it) most books--it could be argued that the existence of the Disney movies have helped keep them alive and vital.
PAD
"In the movie version, my friend told me Octopussy was the name of a villain."
Actually, it's the name of the Bond Girl, not the villain (true, she is a jewel thief and the leader of some sort of bizarre circus cult, but she's not a villain). And for what it's worth, Octopussy is one of my favorite Bond movies.
And don't forget, in Bernard Malamud's book "The Natural", Roy Hobbs strikes out and takes the money.
I may be misremembering the Watchmen situation. However, as I recall, Moore did have some agreement with DC that Watchmen would become his if they failed to do anything with it once the story was completed.
I have gotten the impression that "anything", to Moore, meant continuing to use the characters and situations he had created. There was talk of a Minutemen miniseries as a follow-up at the time. However, DC published something like a role-playing game supplement with the characters, and that qualified as the "anything" required for them to keep the characters.
Which, if the above is correct, would explain why Moore was unwilling to trust DC again.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at March 21, 2006 07:33 PM
"In the movie version, my friend told me Octopussy was the name of a villain."
Actually, it's the name of the Bond Girl, not the villain (true, she is a jewel thief and the leader of some sort of bizarre circus cult, but she's not a villain). And for what it's worth, Octopussy is one of my favorite Bond movies.
My friend really did tell me Octopussy was a villain in the film. But I just looked it and verified that you are correct. That's what I get for relying on hearsay.
Anyway, my point was that I found it hilarious that Octopussy went from being an honest-to-goodness Octopus to being a person. I'm not saying it was a bad artistic choice nor am I saying it was a good one. For whatever reason, it just struck me as funny.
Posted by: RJM at March 21, 2006 07:47 PM
And don't forget, in Bernard Malamud's book "The Natural", Roy Hobbs strikes out and takes the money.
Right. And then at the end, after a newspaper article accuses him of being dirty, a little kid comes up to him on the sidewalk and pleads, "Say it ain't true, Roy."
But Roy knows it is true, so his only response is to cry.
I read the book. And I read a Wikipedia article about the movie. It said that in the movie, Roy doesn't throw the game, but instead heroically takes a swing that shatters Wonderboy and wins the pennant.
That's why I said the book and the movie had endings that were nearly polar opposites. Am I missing something?
it could have been much much worse (http://www.tswgerbils.com/andystuff/bforburgdetta.jpg)
"This is the Land-of-Have-It-Your-Own-Way!"
"they STILL gave "The Scarlet Letter" a happy ending. Popular movies such as "Oh God," "Kramer Vs. Kramer," and even underrated great films such as "The Mighty Quinn," have huge differences from the novels on which they were based. Disney's people haven't met a classic that they couldn't transform into something else entirely (have you ever actually READ "Pinocchio?" He steps on the cricket and kills it in, like, chapter 2. And P.L. Travers' "Mary Poppins" is an acerbic, middle aged woman, not the chipper, youthful, dancing Julie Andrews.)"
Ooh! I wanna play!
The movie M.A.S.H. had major differences from the book. The T.V. series had differences from both the book and the movie, and added many more differences as the show went on.
The musical "Man of La Mancha" has very significant differences from the original Don Quixote de la Mancha novel.
// There was talk of a Minutemen miniseries as a follow-up at the time. However, DC published something like a role-playing game supplement with the characters, //
More then talk, if memory serves Moore and Gibbons were working on that Minutmen series (or was it a one shot), but Moore had a falling out with DC over a new ratings system that DC was going to impliment. Moore was one of 4 creators, (the others being Frank Miller, Howard Chaykin and Marv Wolfman if memory serves), that signed thier names to a very public letter critzing the proposed system.
Marv Wolfman was fired from his editoral position at DC because of that letter, (and kept writing Titans only because of a huge outcry from Fans and Pros alike) and Frank Miller stopped working on announched Dark Knight sequal, (called Dark Knight Book 5 at the time), and Moore decided not to do the Watchman prequal, (Minutman). But some of the fanzines, and CBG, (If memory serves), did publish some early promotional sketchs that Gibbons had done for the Minutemen project, and Moore said in interviews at the time that he had actually plotted out a story, so I would argue that it was more then just talk.
If memory also serves Moore and Gibbons both contributed to that role playing game.
See, this is why one should always divorce the artist from the art.
When this first came out my first inclination was to go with Moore on this, support the rebel bohemian artist against the evil sinister producer. Okay, so Silver dropped Alan's name and talked a little out of turn. I'll grant that was uncool, but it really strikes me a little juvenille to just pick up all the marbles and stalk off because--GASP--a movie executive proved less than trustworthy.
I'm all for creators getting their fair shake, and I realize fully that there's probably reams of data supporting while Moore feels the way he does regarding the big two comicbook companies. That aside, there's being a wronged individual out to set the record straight and there's being the piqued artiste. It might be prudent to take a breath, take a breather from DC (which he seems to be doing) and let things cool off for a while. So I give him props for that, as well as making sure the artists involved in the debacle recieve the royalties. I may not agree with what he's doing, but I respect the man for the class he's shown to his co-creators.
Peter's largely on point with his opinions of the movie. I enjoyed it without reading the comicbook, as I'm sure the majority of moviegoers will. In turn, if seeing the film prompts them to track down the comicbook, and thus turn people on to Moore's Watchmen and ABC work, who does it ultimately benefit? Yeah yeah, DC/Time Warner, but Moore gets a slice of that pie too.
Appreciate the art for what it is, but remember that the creators of said art aren't gods. They put their pants on one leg at a time, and have the full gamut of emotions and emotional reactions, positive and negative. That's part of what makes them so cool. They're people too.
-Stacy
I, personally, loved the film. It was dark, poetic, and intelligent which is something I see rarely in Hollywood would-be blockbusters. It made me think and it made me hope and it made me fall in love with a character whose face I never laid eyes upon.
Granted, I've never read the GN. I've picked it up a number of times, but money's short here and there was always something more pressing.
The film was beautiful all around. Great cinematography, great performances, and above all, a fantastic story. I will not apologize to Mr. Moore or anyone else for enjoying this adaptation. I'm broke as shit right now, going through a rather dramatic transition in my life and for two hours, I was transported to a place where the good guys, though perhaps "good" is subjective here, did finish first in a realistic, uncompromising way. No rainbows or ponies. Only sacrifices and mental anguish, but that's how life is, isn't it? So, if Alan Moore thinks this film isn't worthy of his name, so be it. I, for one, think this movie is worthy not only of my 7.00, but of my praise, the nocturnal images of my skewed dreamings, and finally, a place among my DVD collection when possible.
I find it interesting that this movie was placed in Sci-Fi and not Superheroes.
I saw it tonight after the screening we had for Opal Dream. I was getting down the wire in finishing up the book on the bus on the way to the screening, so when work was done, I stayed at the theater to catch the movie.
Eh.
It was a fairly okay adaptation. The first Act, however, was awful. It was grating, loud, poorly paced, and the music, cinematography and dialogue was overly bombastic and lacked any subtlety. It read like how Tim Burton would've done the material, and I was seriously tempted to leave, knowing that I had to make a conscious decision to get around around 2am.
It improved somewhat in the latter Acts, but it never rises above adequacy. Hugo Weaving makes V far too human compared to the book, wherein he is this enigmatic puzzle of a figure, whose dialogue is a tangled labyrinth of complex puzzles, references and metaphors. There is plenty of that here too, but in the book, there was a barrier between him and Evey, and for that matter, the audience. The same necessity for him to remain an idea rather than a man is what required this. Everything, down to the blurry edges of his dialogue balloons, set him apart from humanity, making almost a spectre-like persona. Here, Weaving's gestures and matter-of-fact speech were just too familiar and down-to-earth. In any other character, this would be a plus, but here, he demystified him a bit. Hell, not only do we see his charred hands close up, but we see him wearing an apron? An APRON???!!! Uh-uh, no way, sorry, I don't think so. They largely brought down an enigmatic mystery man to the level of banal humor. I also question the wisdom of casting Weaving. We never see his face, so wouldn't it have made better sense to cast an unknown, or at least have Weaving uncredited? Hell, how about going the Darth Vader route, and casting an unknown in the Fawkes mask and costume, and maybe Weaving doing the voice, in order to reinforce the feeling of V being so much a man of illusion?
The complex social and political relationships among the men investigating V and their families was unsurprisingly left out, but I really did miss the references to the body metaphors for the government agencies (Eye, Ear, Nose, Mouth, Head), with the Finger being the only one left in, as well as the Fate computer, which could've been left in.
The action, of course, was pretty good, and it was nice seeing a V that was pretty much an exact replica of the comics, aside from some darker coloring in his costuming.
I really wish they would've left in V's statement to Evey that he wanted a Viking funeral, so that it was clear what Evey did at the end of the movie was a fulfilment of that wish, and not her own idea. It would've reinforced how V had everything planned out, right down to not only his death, but also his "burial".
One nit: How did that little girl with the glasses survive getting shot? She gets shot by a Fingerman, which triggers the civil unrest, but on November 5, she is seen among the army of Fawkes. Wasn't she shot right through the back and chest? Even if she survived, would she really have been up and about by Guy Fawkes day?
Oops. Forget that comment above about Superheroes and Sci-Fi. :-)
Aw, c'mon. Putting aside the insanely faithful adaptation of "Sin City," it has nothing to do with comics and everything to do with Hollywood.
Luigi Novi: True. But the manner in which Hollywood fucks up comics material is entirely different from how they approach other media. Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc.
Tim Lynch: As has been pointed out, there's such a thing as being TOO slavish to the original text. Case in point: the first Harry Potter film, which was basically a dramatic reading of the book with neat visuals added. No, thank you.
Luigi Novi: Aside from the omission of Binns, I liked the first two films far more than the third one, precisely because they were so faithful to it. What should they have done differently?
JamesLynch: Then look at the absolutely wretched movie Will Smith movie to see what a train wreck Hollywood can make of something. They completely missed the point of the book, while allowing egos to run rampant.
Luigi Novi: I thought it was a very good science fiction film. I admit I haven't yet read the book or screenplay, but what do you feel was the point of the book?
I've always suspected that a man like Moore is upset at others making movies of his works because HE wants to be making those movies. You know, keeping control of his material, shaping it in the way he wants it, and like that.
If he really wants that, he was born at the right time. I live in the part of Orlando where the people who created "The Blair Witch Project" caused a revolution, with a minimal crew and one camera even shooting on a camcorder. It is ridiculously easy for one motivated, dedicated person to create a film, from shooting script to editing the final product.
If he is so critical about what others do to his work, he can learn the relatively simple processes of videography and make his own movies. Even if he doesn't actually come up with something, he might gain some appreciation for the pros who do this work, and some understanding that it simply ain't easy making a film.
"Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc."
Huh? That's not even close to true.
Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel. Minority Report was almost entirely different as well.
Someone has already mentioned Disney movies, but I'd like to re-emphasise them. Disney has done *way* more than just tack on happy endings.
There are lots and lots of movies from every type of source that Hollywood has massively changed. V for Vendetta is a very faithful adaptation compared to most of these.
"Luigi Novi: I thought it was a very good science fiction film. I admit I haven't yet read the book or screenplay, but what do you feel was the point of the book?"
It was a simple murder mystery. No killer computer, no worldwide threat, no action whatsoever. League of Extraordinary Gentleman was a more direct adaptation by far.
You know that the "Moore vs. Hollywood" stories have officially gotten out of hand when IMBD bumbles their way through their obligatory version referring to Moore as a "cartoonist" and "V" as his "classic comic strip".
Having not yet read it, but based upon what I hear, I doubt that "V for Vendetta" (drawn by Alan Moore!) would make a great daily cartoon strip in the funnie pages...
"The musical "Man of La Mancha" has very significant differences from the original Don Quixote de la Mancha novel."
And frankly, it's all the better for it. At least when it comes to the ending, anyway. I hated the ending of the book, but when Sophia Loren said "Dulcinea" at the end of the movie, I wanted to cheer (even though the rest of the movie wasn't very good).
I can see that, even though I liked the book better. It's not that I don't like the musical, it's good and the songs are great. The style of the book just appeals to me more. It reads as satirical to me, which is a little more interesting than the guy jousting the windwill being a hero.
Sometimes something actually does get better in translation. I liked the V movie better than the book, though I can understand if other people don't feel that way. I've know people who thought Batman: The Animated Series was actually better than the comics. At the very least, their version of Mr. Freeze is much better than what was in the comics.
Sure enough, Hollywood messed up all kinds of book and comic book adaptation before, with the possible exception of Harry Potter.
BUT...
It SHOULD be a creator's choice to decide if he wants his work adapted to film or not. Full stop.
JamesLynch: Then look at the absolutely wretched movie Will Smith movie to see what a train wreck Hollywood can make of something. They completely missed the point of the book, while allowing egos to run rampant.
Luigi Novi: I thought it was a very good science fiction film. I admit I haven't yet read the book or screenplay, but what do you feel was the point of the book?
The book was actually a short-story collection, which featured Dr. Susan Calvin as the highly intelligent, physically plain hero.
The Three Laws of Robotics, as postulated by Asimov, could not possibly have led to the conclusion the coputer reached in that movie - rather, the Zeroth Law, as formulated by R. Daneel Olivaw in Asimov's last Foundation book, was, "A robot may not injure humanity, nor through inaction allow humanity to come to harm." This superceded the Three Laws. This is also in direct contradiction to the conclusion in the movie - the incarceration of humanity would most certainly have damaged it, and the individual acts against individual humans were also in violation of both the First and Zeroth Laws.
One of the most fascinating stories in the collection, to my mind, was one in which a newly-developed robot had a limited telepathic ability. This led to it lying about certain matters to certain people, in order to avoid hurting their feelings ("causing damage"). In the end, Susan shut down the machine with malice aforethought after finding out how it had lied to her about her supervisor's feelings about her. Turned out that there was no way to preserve her from that emotional "harm", in the end.
The Asimov book that I think "I, Robot" was closest to was "Caves of Steel",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel
As it is, I haven't read anything of Asimov's that's all that close to the Will Smith movie in tone or style, and certainly not in storyline. I actually thought it was a decent movie, and maybe even something that Asimov himself would have liked. However, there's a reason that the film makers eventually stopped saying that it was based on "I, Robot" and changed it to "inspired by" the works of Isaac Asimov.
Yeah I saw on livejournal a unside down poster for V, with in read it said it sucks, guess it's online somewhere.
> >
Great book! Sucky movie! If I remade the movie to the book people would be like wow, how did they get it wrong the first time. But like PAD said they 'add'-dapt for the silver screen.
NO...! Jimmy the criket is dead... thanks alot!!!!
The Asimov book that I think "I, Robot" was closest to was "Caves of Steel",
In terms of plot and the viewpoint character, I would agree with that to a agree. The thing is, all of Asimov's protagonists are very logical and rational people. Del Spooner is not. He's very emotional. If Asimov had written the screenplay for the movie, Susan Calvin would be "right" in the end about the robots because she tries to be rational while Spooner goes with his gut. Hollywood, however, almost always favors the hero that goes with their gut.
However, there's a reason that the film makers eventually stopped saying that it was based on "I, Robot" and changed it to "inspired by" the works of Isaac Asimov.
Actually, the credits called is "suggested by". In fact, it was originally based on a spec written by Jeff Vintar called "Hardwired." They only later tacked on the Asimov connection.
**Spoiler herein perhaps**
Posted by Luigi Novi at March 22, 2006 03:11 AM
One nit: How did that little girl with the glasses survive getting shot? She gets shot by a Fingerman, which triggers the civil unrest, but on November 5, she is seen among the army of Fawkes. Wasn't she shot right through the back and chest? Even if she survived, would she really have been up and about by Guy Fawkes day?
**Stop here if you haven't seen the movie and care about spoilers**
She didn't survive. Also in the crowd are Gordon Dietrich, whom we are told was killed after his Quaran was discovered, the actress who wrote the journal and her lover, and others who we know were/are dead.
I think it's called symbolism. "...'But Joe, sez I, you're ten years dead!'/'I never died,' sez he..."
What this all comes down to is that we have a system of copyrights. It's a good, it can be sold, traded, licensed, stolen, abused, etc. etc. Moore signed a deal, several deals, that granted control over material he created to other people. He took the money, and now he's crying about it. I don't have any sympathy for him. V and Watchmen were, in part, his creations (granted, Watchmen were highly derivative of characters DC owned, and he would have had to come up with totally original characters had he published the story anywhere else), but he sold things like movie rights to other people. If the movies that result from that are not to his liking, I've no problem with him refusing the movie producers to allow his name to be used. And if he wants to refuse perfectly good money, that's his moral option. I guess I respect that, but I find it to be colossally stupid to turn away the revenue the licenses you sold are generating.
If Moore had really wanted to, he could have included creative input/veto into those licenses. He didn't for whatever reasons.
Stories are not fact. They're fiction. West Side Story is not a crappy rendition of Romeo and Juliet. It's a modern update of the classic play, involving many of the same elements and themes, but updated so it doesn't seem so archaic. But just because it makes some changes from the original doesn't make it crappy. Other things might, like the execution, acting, songs, etc.
[Harry Potter]
Luigi Novi: Aside from the omission of Binns, I liked the first two films far more than the third one, precisely because they were so faithful to it. What should they have done differently?
Honestly? Anything. The first two films brought precisely nothing to the screen that you couldn't have gotten by reading the books. The characterizations were what you had on paper, and nothing more. The films had no depth.
Compare, for example, to two other recent fantasy adaptations. LotR changed a few things -- some of which I didn't agree with, but many of which were changes made because the text as written would not have worked in a visual medium. Narnia brought in extra stuff about the Blitz, and created an interesting compare-and-contrast situation in the process (assisted by the beautiful shot of the eagles wheeling to fight exactly as the German planes had at the start of the film).
Both of those films did things that the books couldn't. The first two Potter films didn't.
(Now, there are of course limits to how much of a departure I'm willing to go with. I said to Lisa as we headed into the third LotR film that "if they change a word of the Eowyn/Nazgul confrontation, I'm outta here." Fortunately, it seems Peter Jackson felt the same way. :-)
TWL
Forgive me for being dim, but I don't understand what Peter is saying about Alan Moore at all. Moore was upset that Joel Silver spoke as though Moore were in support of the film when Moore had said no such thing. Silver made no apology whatsoever in his speaking for Moore, which distanced Moore even further from supporting the production.
Moore doesn't support the film adaptations of this material, and has seen to it that he doesn't receive film royalties, passing the money onto the artists instead. Okay. So what's the problem exactly? What's he done wrong? He dislikes the film production and he isn't profiting from it. And if royalties from the books increase, well, that's from people buying the book to read it, what's wrong with that?
Say it like it is, PAD! You really hit this one on the nose or in the groin. Take your pick.
Total Recall was completely different than the William Gibson novel. Minority Report was almost entirely different as well.
I think you meant Philip K. Dick.
Anyway, I really liked the film. Not perfect, but not to bad an adaptation. There were a few little things thrown in that I liked, such as Storm Saxon or that Prothero did have some dolls.
Unfortunatly you can't have everything. It's not even book to film adaptaions that get changed. Who Eliza ends up with is different in Pygmalion and My Fair Lady.
Hopefully the movie will lead people to the book. There's been a number of film adaptations that caused me to do that, and often I've enjoyed the parts that the movie left out.
David
"True. But the manner in which Hollywood fucks up comics material is entirely different from how they approach other media. Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc."
Were have you been? Hollywood has almost never done an adaptation or remake of any source material where they didn't muck about with that stuff. Get into a debate with my wife sometime on what Hollywood has repeatedly done with Phantom of the Opera. Even real life gets massive rewrites to the point of being nothing like what happened.
"Honestly? Anything. The first two films brought precisely nothing to the screen that you couldn't have gotten by reading the books. The characterizations were what you had on paper, and nothing more. The films had no depth."
I've heard that so many times and think that it is just so much bunk. What's the differnce between a film that was faithfully shot from an original script and on that was faithfully shot from a script that was faithfully adapted from it's source novel? Nothing. You might as well be complaining that Pirates of the Caribbean was a shallow film because it was shot so faithfully to the book.
The first two Potter films were great and are still my and my wife's favorites of the series so far.
"Luigi Novi: True. But the manner in which Hollywood fucks up comics material is entirely different from how they approach other media. Instead of merely giving a happy ending to a story that originaly had a somber one, they incorrectly emphasize form over content. They don't do that with novels, plays, TV shows, etc."
I wasn't aware the "manner" in which material is fucked up was especially material. If it's getting fucked up, what difference does it make HOW?
That said, I also think you're...I don't want to say "wrong"...but you're not right. Hollywood is an equal opportunity screwfest: Books, plays, hell, even other movies, can wind up retold as films that bear no resemblance to the source material. Form over content? My God, have you seen the original animated "Jungle Book?" That wasn't Kipling in form, content, story, character or anything. But it got me reading the original stories. Plays? Compare Milos Foreman's adaptation of "Hair" to the stage show (and, just to be clear, I loved the Foreman version.) Novels? How many times as "A Christmas Carol" been completely remade with the same basic structure but a story that has none of the characters, tone
