Alan Moore on ‘Watchmen’ movie: ‘I will be spitting venom all over it’

Sept. 18, 2008 | 7:48 p.m.

Alan MooreFor the record, Alan Moore has not softened his view on Hollywood nor its plan to bring his classic graphic novel “Watchmen” to the screen next March.

“I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying,” Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. “It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The ‘Watchmen’ film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can’t we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change.”

Moore is often described as a recluse but, really, I think it’s more precise to say he is simply too busy at his writing desk. “Yes, perhaps I should get out more,” he said with a chuckle. In conversation, the 54-year-old iconoclast is everything his longtime readers would expect — articulate, witty, obstinate and selectively enigmatic. Far from grouchy, he only gets an edge in his voice when he talks about the effect of Hollywood on the comics medium that he so memorably energized in the 1980s with “Saga of the Swamp Thing,” “V for Vendetta,” “Marvelman” and, of course, “Watchmen,” his 1986 masterpiece. The Warner Bros. film version of “Watchmen” is due in theaters in March although the project has encountered some turbulence with a lawsuit filed by 20th Century Fox over who has the rights to the property. Moore has no intention of seeing the film and, in fact, he hints that he has put a magical curse on the entire endeavor.

Comedian “Will the film even be coming out? There are these legal problems now, which I find wonderfully ironic. Perhaps it’s been cursed from afar, from England. And I can tell you that I will also be spitting venom all over it for months to come.”

Moore said all that with more mischievous glee than true malice, but I know it will still pain “Watchmen” director Zack Snyder when he reads it. The director of “300” absolutely adores the work of Moore and has been laboring intensely to bring “Watchmen” to the screen with faithful sophistication. But I don’t think there’s any way to win Moore over, he simply detests Hollywood. Moore said he has never watched any of the film adaptations of his comics creations (which have included “V for Vendetta,” “From Hell,”Constantine” and “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen“) and that he believes “Watchmen” is “inherently unfilmable.” He also rues the effect of Hollywood’s siren call on the contemporary comics scene.

“There are three or four companies now that exist for the sole purpose of creating not comics, but storyboards for films. It may be true that the only reason the comic book industry now exists is for this purpose, to create characters for movies, board games and other types of merchandise. Comics are just a sort of pumpkin patch growing franchises that might be profitable for the ailing movie industry.”

Nite OwlThere is one film that Moore is supporting right now. It’s the new DVD release entitled “The Mindscape of Alan Moore” and it’s an artfully executed documentary that is built entirely around Moore sitting in his somewhat spooky living room and ruminating about art, storytelling, magic and culture. The movie was made by Dez Vylenz, who was still a student at the London International Film School when he sent Moore a letter expressing interest in creating a documentary film on the writer as his senior project.

That project went well and, several years ago, the filmmaker and the author decided to do it again for a film that would be released to the public. Vylenz has intercut images and used visual effects that give the film a psychedelic swirl and shamanistic textures (it reminded me a bit of the sensibilities of a Godfrey Reggio film, such as “Koyaanisqatsi,” but on a far, far smaller scale production-wise).

“It was very enjoyable to sit there in a chair and talking and talking and talking because, as anyone who knows me for even an hour will tell you, that is my second nature. The idea of it — just me talking — sounded incredibly boring to me but Dez Vylenz is very talented and if there is anything about the film that is not a success, I would blame the flaws of its central character.” The film was made in 2003 but is just now reaching stores, with a Sept. 30 on-sale date as a two-disc DVD from Shadowsnake Films.

Alan Moore movie In the film, Moore makes it clear that he believes magic and storytelling are clearly linked and that, upon closer examination, the definitions of what is real and what is imagined are far more slippery than generally considered. This documentary is not the compelling success that “Crumb” was but, like that 1994 film by Terry Zwigoff, this one will leave casual viewers with the impression that some of the more peculiar geniuses of our day tend to gravitate to comics.

Moore sometimes wears metallic talons, describes himself as an anarchist and, in the past, has told interviewers that he worships an ancient Roman snake god. But what’s really unusual about him is that he seems to be the very last creator in comics who would hang up on Hollywood anytime it calls.

“I got into comics because I thought it was a good and useful medium that had not been explored to its fullest potential,” Moore told me.

He went on to explain that it was the late Will Eisner who brought a cinematic approach to comics in the 1940s after watching “Citizen Kane” dozens of times and transferring its visual style and approach to transitions to the pages of “The Spirit.” “As much as I admire Eisner, I think maintaining that approach in recent history has done more harm than good. If you approach comics as a poor relation to film, you are left with a movie that does not move, has no soundtrack and lacks the benefit of having a recognizable movie star in the lead role.”

Moore said that with “Watchmen,” he told the epic tale of a large number of characters over decades of history with “a range of techniques” that cannot be translated to the movie screen, among them the “book within a book” technique, which took readers through a second, interior story as well as documents and the writings of characters. He also said he was offended by the amount of money and resources that go into the Hollywood projects. “They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It’s obscene and it’s offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for. I’m sure I sound like Bobby Fischer talking about chess “

Rorschach Moore said he is now working on new installments in his marvelous comics series “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,” which is far more nuanced and daring than the forgettable film of the same title. The new stories take the narrative to the moon where there is a war underway between the giant insects (inspired by the H.G. Wells 1901 book “The First Men in the Moon“) and nude lunar amazons. “The idea, it pretty much sells itself, doesn’t it?”

He is also at work on a massive, 750,000-word novel. “It’s the grown-up kind, with no pictures at all,” he said. “Although modern binding technology may be overwhelmed by the size of it. It’s a huge mad fantasy called ‘Jerusalem.’ “

The story is partially a history of his native Northampton that dates back to its Saxon settlement days in AD 700, but it is also a “demented children’s story” that features Charlie Chaplin, Oliver Cromwell and “an explanation of the afterlife that conforms to all known laws of physics.”

There’s also a huge sort of reference book of magic that he is toiling on with contributions from notable artists and writing peers. It delves into Kabbalah, astral projection, seance, tarot, practical applications of magic and deep research into the origins of magic history, such as the true beginnings of the Faust tales. Talking about the book, the skeptical shaman of comics sounded positively giddy, especially for a parchment wizard trapped in a crass digital age.

“Magic is a state of mind. It is often portrayed as very black and gothic and that is because certain practitioners played that up for a sense of power and prestige. That is a disservice. Magic is very colorful. Of this, I am sure.”

– Geoff Boucher

Photo of Alan Moore, circa 2001, in Northampton, England, shot by Graham Barclay for the Los Angeles Times.

Images from “Watchmen” courtesy of Warner Bros.

Cover image from “The Mindscape of Alan Moore,” courtesy of Shadowsnake Films.

Artwork of Rorschach from “Watchmen” graphic novel, drawn by Dave Gibbons, courtesy of DC Comics.

Comments


169 Responses to Alan Moore on ‘Watchmen’ movie: ‘I will be spitting venom all over it’

  1. egc52556 says:

    Some of Moore's complaints about "modern film" are true for film in general as a hot medium. For reference, see Marshall McLuhan. If you don't know who that is, reference your brain.

  2. Andrew Adler says:

    Alan Moore is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He takes Hollywood's megabucks with a smile, and then does everything in his power to disparage the movie process and undermine the film's success. Any author with an iota of knowledge of the movie process knows that a written or graphic work cannot be translated verbatim to the screen. He should also be aware by now that the Hollywood people will change the work whose rights they purchased to suit their conception of the audience and their own bottom-line sensibilities. With all the movies made from his work he can hardly claim naivete on this subject.
    He took the money and gave up control of his creation; whose responsibility is that? It is the height of irony that, after huge paydays, Moore feels victimized. If he's so protective of his work, all he had to do was say "No!" when Hollywood came calling. They didn't twist his arm, after all.
    Playing the wounded artist is stupid and unconvincing. Moore comes across as a self-indulgent, mediocre pompous ass

    • ROBIN F says:

      No, he did not take the money. he completely distanced himself from the films. In fact he has transferred many times his percentage of profits to the books artists giving them the choice.

    • Igor Goldkind says:

      I know for a fact that Alan Moore never touched one Hollywood dime for Watchmen or anything subsequent to From Hell. Alan Moore couldn't just sday no to Hollywood on his properties because they are in fact owned by Time/Warners. You should get your facts straight before throwing mud at someone like Alan Moore.

    • Chelsea says:

      You should probably learn more about Alan Moore. If you had you would know that those writings that were made into movies were when he was with other comic companies and when they tried to sell his work he said no and try to leave with his work in tow however being apart of that company he could only leave and not take the work he had done with them. Then the companies sold his work he didn't receive anything and he watched his work spiral off to others things that he never intended them to be.

    • Tony says:

      Wow! “You should ~kill~ yourself”? Get a grip. You should get out more. I don’t understand this exaggerated response.

      I don’t normally read graphic novels – they just don’t appeal to me that much. I’d never heard of Watchmen before hearing about the movie and Alan Moore’s attitude about it, but it did prompt me to find out a little more about him. This was the first article I read and, apparently unlike Andrew, I was left with the impression that Alan would never take money from Hollywood. And I assume, as Chelsea posited, that he was creating for a publisher that sold the work to Hollywood.

      Andrew does sound like a pompous *ss, and I suspect that he has done no research and is just assuming that Alan “took the money and ran”, but a more reasonable response would be to simply tell him to get his facts straight.

      When you escalate your reply to a stupid statement, you only serve to demean your own point.

    • rolandtrotter says:

      I looked up Moore on IMDB, he is not credited for Watchmen or V For Vendetta.

    • Richard Freeman says:

      Moore is one of the greatest living writers. He has a devine right to detest Hollywood's lousy bastadizations of his great works.

  3. Traj says:

    Andrew,
    Who crapped in your cornflakes?
    I am sure if you created something in a medium that was then licensed and sold for another medium, you would get a cut of that whether or not you would want it because rights are rights.
    You sound more like a pompous ass for being on your high horse and telling people not to succumb to a system we are all a part of regardless if we signed up for it or not.
    Traj

  4. Jim Sparks says:

    If this guy hates movies so much, then why does he sell the rights to his books to movie makers? Maybe because he loves the money more than he hates the movies.

    • Adam says:

      Let's get this straight: Alan Moore does not accept royalty money, or money of any other kind, from the development or distribution of movies based on his books. Period.

  5. andy says:

    He always as an illustartor; law allows the illustrator to sell rights as an equal co writer though most royalties of the books goes to moore. i bet the book sales are boosting now. i reserved watchmen @ my library; but it doesn't seem lyk i'll get it anytime soon.

  6. Actually Alan doesn't take Hollywood money, he tells publishers to give what would be his half of the Hollywood option money to the artist(s). He did take it for the first couple of adaptation of his work (From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) but quit once he got dragged into a lawsuit involving LoEG (somebody sued the movie studio, claiming they stole their ideas). Alan has refused money on Constantine, V for Vendetta and Watchmen.
    With those last 3 movies, the characters are owned by DC Comics and not Alan. He has no say in them becoming movies or not. All of them come from work he did more than 20 years ago.

  7. Sophie says:

    I respect JD Salinger alot more. We all know Salinger's views about Hollywood, and Catcher in the Rye will never get made into a film while Salinger can help it. But we don't need to hear about it in the media, 24/7. Moore, on the other hand, likes the sound of his voice, and has no problem with self-promotion. That truly is boring, as he himself states. His comics on film (even when done badly) are much more interesting.

  8. Jeff says:

    Because Alan doesn't own the right to (much of) his work. DC / Marvel etc. does. Part of his contract says he gets some money if they sell it, but it isn't up to him if they sell it or not.
    He has in the past given his share of the money to the artist(s) involved in the work.

  9. Ricky says:

    Many comic-to-movie translations don't involve the original creators at all. Back in the 80's it was common for the publisher to own certain, even all rights to a character or series. Just because you created something doesn't mean you actually own it.
    Concerning the Watchmen movie, don't you people even wonder why two studios are fighting over the movie rights? In your infantile world Moore must be guilty of selling the rights to this movie to two studios.

  10. Peter Lee says:

    Do you people even bother to think before you post? Open up your copy of Watchmen – what name is next to the copyright symbol on the front pages? Alan Moore? No, I don't think so. It's DC Comics. DC Comics is the owner of Watchmen, not Alan Moore. Alan Moore may have created Watchmen he was a work-for-hire artist and DC Comics OWNS it. He can no more stop DC Comics from selling the movie rights than you can. Duh.
    Nothing like "fan" boys scorned; so quick to mock and ridicule the man who they profess to admire while completing ignoring the opinions he expresses. Yes, attacking a man's character with false slurs of hypocrisy are SO much easier than actually engaging the man's ideas. No wonder so many artists want nothing to do with their so-called "fans."

  11. J says:

    To all you infantile graffiti posters who fling insults as some would a handful of gravel
    MOORE TAKES NO MONEY FOR THESE THINGS HE GIVES IT AWAY.
    Yup,
    Hate to break it to you.
    And the reason he hates it so much is that in SPITE of his having NOTHING TO DO with the translations of his work so far He has been hauled into court several times by idiots and gold diggers related to these projects.
    Instead of read 4 lines about a real honest to god person{NOT SPIDERMAN or JACK SPARROW} and proceeding to spit insults at a great Author and Magus perhaps you should go elsewhere and digest more of the vomitus piffle put out by Hollywood such as I am Legend with Will "What the hell issat SMELL!" Smith.

  12. Dropbear says:

    For an author who has borrowed characters from other media to put into a comic book, specifically in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, he sure seems against people appropriating his work. Personally, I think it would be much more useful of him to actually watch the films, critique them and open up a dialogue with the directors etc. about their differing views. It would make him not seem like a snob who's trying to put Hollywood films down as an artform. Shouldn't all media be equal? Many people see the comic book as juvenile and low-brow, a stance I'm sure Mr. Moore is opposed to. Somewhat hypocritically he decides to get on his high horse, practically saying ''Your art can never compare to my art'.
    Give people the right to interpret and represent your text, because that's what the Hollywood directors they're doing. The film of V for Vendetta'' was vastly different from the Graphic Novel, and that made it interesting and worthwhile. The world will be better off for it.

    • Bull says:

      Moore is not against people making use of his work when it's any good, as Jamie Delano did with John Constantine (and Neil Gaiman basically took over the cosmology of Swamp Thing to good effect). From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta and The Watchmen were iconoclastic and groundbreaking masterpieces. The films vary from horrid to entertaining, but bring nothing new to the table.

  13. Ben says:

    Ah Constantine. Not a bad movie actually. I know that A.M. created J.C. in Swap Thing, but I've always felt that the movie was really about Jamie Dellano's J.C. 'Strewth!

  14. Doug says:

    Who really needs -his- opinion on movies? He doesn't even watch the adaptations… I'm sure I will continue to prefer the comic over the movie regardless of how well it is done because the movie won't EVER cover everything the comic does. Yet… I want to see this in movie form, for better or worse. If it sucks, then I'll say it sucked and the comic will remain sacred, if its great, than all it can do is raise up an already great graphic novel, to a new level and just by watching the torrent sites, has already made his art form that much more popular.
    So… he can go lock himself up and keep writing great stuff, and I'll keep going to see how the directors feel like portraying the same story to the masses.

  15. SMC says:

    In reading this article, I must admit that I agree with Moore. I believe, as with most of his work, that he is correct in stating Watchmen is "inherently unfilmable."
    Though I am a fan of the work, I really do not want to see this film made, as it will likely be as bad an adaptation as "From Hell" was. I hope I'm wrong about that, but Moore's adaptations are flat without the nuance. Also, I can't see this work done justice by a single 2.5 – 3 hour movie. (Yes, it's going to have to be a long one just to cover the main story arc)
    If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor & do so before the movie comes out.

  16. Dr. Cosmos says:

    *APPLAUSE* *APPLAUSE* *APPLAUSE*
    He sat there staring at the screen. How could he explain? How would they know?
    By being denied the worm, they were given a world.
    GO READ IT.

  17. LJM says:

    Moore is given the opportunity to make lots and lots of money from these films, despite DC's ownership. He turns down the money and all screen credits, allowing his artists to do as they please. So, no, he is not a hypocrite. And unlike some of you angry posters, he usually bothers to know what he's talking about.

  18. Gerry Duggan says:

    Sadly, Moore doesn't own the rights to any of his writing except The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen — and he does two things when Hollywood calls:
    1) he strips his name from the film
    2) he gives his half of any money to the artist.
    There's simply no basis to call him hypocritical – I regret he doesn't own more of his material.

  19. Carto07 says:

    Alan Moore donates his share of the cash to the artist who co-created the comic. As far as he is concerned, once it is published, it's public property, so people can do whatever they want with it.

  20. El Sloano says:

    Ol` Moorie is perfectly within his rights to critiscise Hollywood; after all, Constantine, From Hell and LOEG were utterly, utterly ABYSMAL. Alan also takes pleasure in rubbishing his own current AND previous employers such as DC Comics and Marvel and never forgets any slight or insult such as when Marvel took action against Eclipse comics in the 1980s publishing his fab Marvelman strip for the American Market and preventing Eclipse from calling the comic MARVELman because Marvel Comics obviously have a universal copyright on the word `Marvel` at all times and in all territories (plus Marvel "messed" up the trade paperback reprint of his Marvel UK published Captain Britain and Alan had it in for Joe Quesada ever since as he claimed certain promises weren`t kept on Quesada`s part).
    However, I thought that the celluloid version of V For Vendetta was a great film and I`m not a fan AT ALL of the actual comic and it`s Alan`s prerogative to slate it as much as he wants and never watch it either AND donate his share of the money to artists like Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd – which must confuse these Hollywood execs massively….
    There`s the comics and there`s the movies – the comics will always be superior, every time. Now, my favourite Alan Moore story is F Sharp Bell from one of the mid-eighties Tales of The Green Lantern Corps annuals! Film that, Warner Animated!

  21. keeyop says:

    Moore has always had a problem with the regurgitation of ideas, the problem is not hollywood using the characters or ideas and taking them in a new direction, its more a problem with them having no interest in treading new ground and trying instead to tell exactly the same story but in a different medium that is the flaw. If something has already been expressed and put out into the world, why would it need to be done again?
    As a fan of his work (and comic books in general) I get increasingly annoyed at having to qualify my statements down the pub, say you're a fan of "V" for Vendetta (or even X-Men, Spider-Man, Daredevil, etc) and the majority of people think you are refering to the film, even if you do point out that it's the original you prefer the movies remain their only frame of reference.
    Of course you also have the problem of film being a directors medium which cares very little about the writer, hence a lot of comic and even television writers who try their hand at movies have pretty bad experiences (Joss Whedon, Rob Thomas, etc).
    Although I don't agree 100% with his viewpoint, as I personally like having the choice of what to watch / read and if something is truly bad (like "The Dark Knight") then at least I can return to the original medium, or even take sollace in the handful of adaptations that have worked (ghost world, history of violence, road to perdition, etc) but I do understand why he feels the way he does and he is certainly more than entitled in that respect.

    • flabbergasted says:

      The Dark Knight?
      "…truly bad…"?
      Are you talking about the film that pretty much every comic reader and the rest of the world agree is the greatest superhero film ever made?

  22. Wesker_1984 says:

    I hate this guy, he have a too much big idea of himself. Moore your not god.

    • MOURENADAS says:

      what is god, you are god of your choice, as is Moore

    • Mike says:

      Correction: "I hate this guy. He has much too big an idea of himself. Moore, you're not God." You're welcome, English schoolboy.

    • emily says:

      Obviously hes not. Says so in the articles he worships a roman snake god thingy. Gods dont worship gods, people do. Hes right though, bout magic. It is colorful. Its just too bad most people are dull and gray.

  23. Michael Koby says:

    @Dropbear For LoEG, Moore took characters whose copyrights had expired and were already in the public domain. Therefore there was no permission needed to utilize those characters. He also didn't re-invent those characters either. He simply used them in a different context.
    The V for Vendetta film was nearly identical to the comic book version except for most of the 3rd and final act. It also completely missed the point that Moore was trying to make in the comic book version of the story and was instead turned into an Anti-Bush film. So in that respect no, a Hollywood interpretation is not always better or worthwhile.
    As for the Watchman movie, I'm actually excited to see it as it looks like (at least from the previews) that Mr. Synder did a fantastic job of translating the book to film. But that is simply based on a single preview and I will be seeing the movie to make final judgments.

  24. smacky-dackity says:

    DROPBEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. redcrow says:

    As previous comments have noted, Moore does indeed refuse all monies related to the film adaptations, and has insisted that his share go to his collaborators on each project. As towering a figuring as Moore deservedly is, lets not forget that Watchmen, V for Vendetta, From Hell and LXG were all co-created with the artists who illustrated them. While Moore might not want, or need, the money from these movies, I think its great that Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd have gotten well-deserved slices of the Hollywood money pile. Eddie Campbell took his daughter to the grand premiere of From Hell. How often do comics artists, usually slaving away for years in relative isolation, get to enjoy that kind of public acclaim, and get their kids to meet Johnny Depp? That might sound like a bunch of silliness, and it sort of is, but it's certainly a fun diversion from the drawing board for a bit. Even if the films lack something in translation, and they all do, even the better ones like "V", they do tend to drive people to the original works, and that's all good. Watchmen is prominently featured in just about every bookstore right now, and has gone back to press in huge print numbers. Thats pretty good for a twenty-year old comic. You can bet Moore isn't turning down the money from the graphic novel sales, and the buzz around the movie has also allowed Dave Gibbons to create a new book about the art development of the comic, which means more income for him. Again, thats all good.

  26. Rippke says:

    "It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms."
    This from the man whose last graphic novel is a pornographic take on Peter Pan, the Wizard of Oz, and Alice in Wonderland. The same Alan Moore whose League of Extraordinary Gentleman books are re-imaginings of public domain characters like Captain Nemo, Mina Harker, Alan Quartermain, the Invisible Man and many others. His work in the last decade has been somewhat less than original.
    I admire (but disagree with) Moore's principled stance of disavowing adaptations of his comics work and giving any money he stood to make from the films to his artist collaborators. However, I have to laugh when he makes statements like this. I wish he would create some more original characters before he craps all over anybody for "regurtitating" someone else's ideas.

  27. Great article. Thanks for the information.

  28. Mr.Spore says:

    It's really too bad he doesn't get involved with movie projects cause I would love to see his work created for the big screen.

  29. PirateJenny says:

    While it's understandable that a lot of LA Times readers may be regular worshippers at the Church of Hollywood, and thus take Moore's comments as borderline blasphemy, I defy anyone to read the original comics and not come away from the movies feeling a bit, well… cheated.
    Moore is a breath-taking cartographer of the imagination – and he's right about the limitations of the passive imaginative experience that is a typical Hollywood movie.
    If you love story, read the originals and feel your mind spark to life!

  30. Eric G says:

    Breaking News! Alan to spit venom over movie adaptation of his work….wait this just in: the sun rose today and water is still wet.

  31. Tielk says:

    > Posted by: Dropbear | September 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM
    > Shouldn't all media be equal?
    Comics and movies are not equal, not the same thing. There are things you can do in comics that you cannot do in film. That is why Moore says Watchmen is "unfilmable".

    • Kat says:

      I think what he/she means is that all media should get equal respect. If that's not what he/she means, it's at least what I think. It's all forms of art, albeit different.

  32. Joel says:

    I read a "real" script of the Watchmen and there was a major change to it from the comic. I hope it wasn't real because it will seriously ruin the entire movie for devoted fans and moviegoers alike.
    Also, you can't blame Moore for his animosity towards an industry that has butchered close to if not all of his films (Vendetta was watchable.) Although that DVD of his looks good- got to get my hands on that

  33. Gus Mastrapa says:

    This story does a great disservice to Moore's position by leaving out the fact that he's, essentially, been ripped off by DC. Stories like this color him as an Anti-Hollywood grouch (which he is) but leaves out the fact that he's one of a long line of creators that have been screwed by the work for hire system.

  34. Kris says:

    Moore can think and say what he likes about Hollywood and its adaptations. I can understand his reasoning and see his point about the negative influence of Hollywood on the comics industry. But I've also seen some adaptations from other media that were very, very good. I've seen remake movies that were downright brilliant.
    I don't think there's any harm in adapting stories from one medium to another. Storytelling by its nature involves retelling. Cultural absorption. To be honest, if the film adaptation of Watchmen is true to the books in spirit as well as in plot and details, the whole mythology will secure a revered place in the public consciousness for decades to come.
    At the very worst, the movie will be mediocre and will just serve as an extended commercial for the trade paperback. Which I am also fine with, but less so, since I would really like to enjoy the movie.
    I'm counting on enjoying it, though. I've heard nothing but positive things from the cast and crew, who are all really excited about the project. Snyder himself already had an almost religious reverence for the book before taking the film on. These people did not jerk it around, they love the source material.

  35. DB says:

    Frankly, for someone that says comics are 'a useful medium not used to their fullest potential', I'm honestly not seeing him give a solution to the perceived problem. Also, instead of complaining about what is wrong with movie adaptations of comic-related material, how about try to fix it?
    Seriously. It's the old adage, 'those that can, do; those that can't, teach.'
    Moore is a great writer but until he comes down off of his high horse about other industries, he will come off as nothing more than a crazy hermit that knows how to write great comic books.

  36. Shane harris says:

    Geoff, you always write about the coolest stuff. I want your job.

  37. Eddie C says:

    Does anybody here know anything about comics or Alan Moore? Moore does not make any money off of the film adaptations of his work; he willingly gave that up, all money goes to the artists involved. Years ago, Moore sold the rights to many of his stories to Hollywood and upon seeing the first few minutes of "From Hell," vowed never to have anything to do with Hollywood. At least that's the story I heard. He regrets it, but as some may know, it often takes years for movies to be produced after a work is optioned for film.

  38. Dropbear says:

    > Posted by: Tielk | September 19, 2008 at 11:13 AM
    > Comics and movies are not equal, not the same thing. There are things you can do in comics that you cannot do in film. That is why Moore says Watchmen is "unfilmable".
    You miss my point. Watchmen as a graphic novel is ''unfilmable'', but Snyder's version isn't going to be the same as the graphic novel. The art comes from appropriating a text into a different medium. On top of that, he's going to put in his own interpretation, because his experience of Watchmen is innately different to Alan Moore's. It's just basic reader-response theory.

  39. Harrybro says:

    In recognition of Moore's tremendous contribution to comics over the years — he, even more than Frank Miller, redefined and revitalized the medium at a time when it seemed to be circling the drain — I will cut him miles and miles of slack when it comes to his current feelings. Is he a madman? Of course he is, and in more ways than most people, yers truly included, can wrap their heads around. If he weren't, he wouldn't be Alan Moore. It's that simple.
    That said, the supreme irony is that even as I read Watchmen in its monthly installments more than two decades ago, I realized that Dave Gibbons' artwork could serve, unaltered, as the storyboards for a Watchmen movie. It seems Zack Snyder realized it, too, if the trailers for the movie are anything to go by. If (and maybe it's a big if) the rest of the movie is as faithful to the source material, then it will take my breath away. In that case, even without his name on the film, Watchmen will be an Alan Moore production all the way.

  40. Jason says:

    Moore writes fantastic stories, some of which have been horridly translated to film and some that have been relatively good and I believe Watchmen will be one of the latter.
    Aside from that… Alan Moore is quite simply a 'Douchebag' who deserves great respect as a writer but deserves an equal amount of disdain for being an uncivilized jerk who thinks he's better than everyone.. sorry Alan, your delusions of grandeur are just that 'delusions'!

  41. Alif says:

    Zack Snyder fanboys need to stop pretending like they know anything about Alan Moore at all and just sit quietly in the back with their dunce caps on.
    Seriously, how can a fan of Watchmen be offended by the fact that the author doesn't approve of the film adaptation?

  42. Hal O'Brien says:

    "There are things you can do in comics that you cannot do in film."
    Such as?
    They're both 2-D representations on a plane. There's literally no difference between what can be done in each medium.
    Now, one can argue that there are things that the *audiences* in each medium won't put up with from the other… Moore cites the "book-within-a-book" thing. But there's no technical reason you couldn't just put the text onscreen. (I know, we'll call it something new and avant-garde like… "silent movies." — Nahhhhhhhh.)
    "That is why Moore says Watchmen is "unfilmable"."
    Really? You have a better idea than Moore does what his motives are? You can express those motives better than he can himself?
    Sheesh. And people call *Moore* arrogant.

  43. Petar Cacic says:

    To all people who are thinking that movies and comics are the same because they are "2D representations on a plane", I can just say to read Scott Mccloud's excellent "Understanding Comics".
    Comics are essentially more close to literature than film, because there is pause between two frames which gives the reader the opportunity to use his imagination and to put things together, as if he was reading the book. Movies just effortlessly serve bunch of images to your brain.
    Mccloud says that it is the most important narative tool in comics.
    And I couldn't agree more with him or Moore: I never watched movie adaptation of comic book I liked that could compare to that comic in any way.

  44. My Name ...is Alan M says:

    What's the worst that could happen?
    There is no arguing with him on this point. His truth will not allow for change or growth. He cannot be objective in this. What if…he actually watches the film, and a little voice inside him actually likes the movie. How can he reconcile this with the rest of his commentary without appearing weak and unprincipled? He can never risk liking any of these movies because he can't afford to like any of them. Furthermore, this has to extend to all movies, as they are meaningless drivel meant to whisk us away from our meaningless lives – which implies that his life is more meaningful than everyone else's, and that the only movie worth his time is a movie made about him. Comics have always been considered a "low" medium, which, I am sure, was part of the challenge of making a great comic book, which he has indeed done. Is not the motion picture also a "low" medium that would serve to gain new masterpieces with the touch of his magic pen?
    Many people ousted HR Giger from the "art" community once he gained success in the film world. He had his problems with it as well, but chose to profit from that which he created – and doesn't that make sense? There are those who are happy to deny the sensible in support of an ideal, and they can co too far, not unlike extreme religious groups, who believe you should be killed if you do not believe what they believe.
    But, whatever. To each their own. I, for one, LOVE the Watchmen comic book. It gets better every time I read it. You won't ever be able to take the movie, no matter how great it may be, to a cafe and quietly read it with your coffee…(I mean, I guess you could on your laptop, but it's not quite the same, you know…I love a good book…)
    Anyway, I know of the Sting of being effed over in Hollywood. I have my own reasons, and let's just say…well, yes, it's all true, in Hollywood. But there are others, and they make for some very strong allies. This is a small town, after all…
    Rant…done.

  45. Andrew says:

    I've always felt film adaptations are good when they capture most of the spirit and at least some of the techniques and iconic qualities of the original, whatever medium the original is in. Watchmen, along with MarvelMan, took a good hard look at what might happen if there were such a thing as a "super" hero. This, after fifty years of super hero comics. Now, thanks largely to the Spider-Man movies, Nolan's Batman and the rest of them, the average filmgoer (read: not comic fanboy) has had a chance to form their own opinion of "super" heroes. A good film is theoretically possible.
    That said, I've never seen a comic book movie that came close to being as enjoyable as its source material. Batman Begins was to Batman:Year One as Grant Hill is to Michael Jordan; Stan Lee, along with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, created a universe Andy Warhol would have been comfortable in. Sam Raimi and a bazillion dollars served up a splinter of it. Alan Moore rules!

  46. Alan Moore is one of my literary heroes. People can be different in many ways, the guy practices magic (a little weird for even me), but those with a message will always try to communicate with each other. I think a lot of people don't like the guy because they can't relate to him, they don't read his stuff, don't get a sense of what he does for a living. How many people can truly say that they've actually made an impact on culture? I'm sure Alan Moore can. And for those that want to "see the light" too, might want to pay attention to how the man works. Now, if only I can get a "complimentary" copy of Lost Girls to review because I'd think that would translate incredibly well into an art film.

  47. Venn Geppert says:

    Hal O'Brien, what "pause between two frames" in comic books are you talking about? I see a mess of images nowadays. Most serems to have the McFarlane touch on them. No frames just splash pages inside splash pages.
    I want to add Walter Simonson to the ranks of writers/illustrators who revitalized 80s comics. Also Carl Potts, Chris Claremont, John Byrne to name a small example.

  48. J. says:

    LJM is right. Some of you people appear to like dwelling in ignorance and speak before actually know what you're talking about.
    Alan Moore has made an huge impact on today's society on a medium, by the time he started, otherwise overlooked in importance.
    He is faithful to himself and his co-workers and an inspiration to many and is absolutely right on the money. On a world as today's he stresses the importance of true professionalism Vs money whoring and sellout.
    I suggest you take the opportunity to see some of his interviews on youtube.
    The whole issue on Watchmen and DC comics where royalties on promo material were denied to both him and Gibbons are just an appaling case of creative work theft and plenty enough reason for him to stop working for the major comic industry. The whole process is testimony to the Corporate Vs Individual issues we're all somehow or sometime down our life victims of.
    Even so the man managed to make a living out of his name, and that's no doubt related to the unique quality of his work and commitment to it. Instead of criticising I would dare you to do the same, just have the guts to believe in yourself and your capabilities and go as far as a professional as he did (and does) on your own. Then, and only then (and that's still a big MAYBE) you'll be on a position to criticize. But then, if you were working hard as he does you'd probably wouldn't be here spending time on sharing your uninformed debased views, but working on improving yourselves.

  49. SM says:

    As has been noted above several times, Moore accepts no payment for the use of his work in a medium he detests. He's famous for this! You opinionators do nothing but reveal your PROFOUND ignorance.
    I will not go to see Watchmen the movie. Anyone who has read the graphic novel will acknowledge that it is OBVIOUSLY unfilmable. The layered complexity revealed only through multiple readings is a key element of the work, in some sections it's a consideration of the nature of time, (some would say this aspect of the original is the entire POINT of the graphic novel) which can only be appreciated by having a physical book in front of you, flipping back and forth at your leisure to make things add up and look at key scenes from multiple points of view. The only way a Watchmen movie would succeed in echoing the source matieral is if every viewer had a personal bookmarking system with the projector and could instruction them to fast forward or rewind as they saw fit. THEN it would be accurate reflection of Watchmen the graphic novel. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a cynical cash-in.
    Which Moore has every right to despise utterly.

  50. Robert says:

    I'm just glad Moore hasn't died from a drug overdose yet and can still create. Most of his friends in the industry seem to think that will be the way his life will end sadly, but who knows, maybe the old addict will outlive us all.

  51. Kym says:

    Reading this, what bothered me wasn't Moore's understandabe lack of faith in Hollywood ventures as art, but that he appears to beleive movies that "give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work" is a such a terrible thing. I go to books, comics and literacy when I want to be challenged, but still have a fairly large place for the escapism offered by sprawing Hollywood junk. Some films exist solely to offer us escapism, and I'l be damned if I'm going to feel bad for enjoying a mental break once in a while.
    However, Moore is well within his right to refuse to line up behind this film, he sadly doesn't own the characters he created, and can't stop them from being used in ways he doesn't like – There aren't words to describe how awful that must be. It wont be enjoyable for him to see his characters used in a medium he personally doesn't like, but in a way Watchmen belongs to all of us, and I'm sure he won't begrudge the rest of us from experiencing it every way we wish, because I doubt very much that any of this situation is based on pettiness

  52. Rob says:

    He hates Hollywood, but he's not above selling his property to them. What a hypocrite.

  53. mprevette says:

    Moore is , as always, predictable. He believes his own press and cult of fan worship. It's funny how he refuses to see any film based on his work but "spits venom" as his knee jerk reaction. V For Vendetta was a horrible movie yes but…was the source material much better? No. From Hell was a fine graphic novel and the movie was a fine thriller. Watchmen is an epic comic, and the movie WILL be different…how can it not be? 12 issues condensed into just over 2 hours of film that has to reach a broader audience in order to be successful. The jury is still out on that one. Moore is a talented writer…but there are better comic writers. He belongs to the school of " If it contains graphic sex, violence, profanity, it's a BETTER comic".
    He's just arrogant, sadly so. His holier-than-thou attitude is laughable.

  54. mprevette says:

    And what's the deal with a DVD documentary of him….sitting and talking? Oh good Lord…if that doesn't speak volumes, nothing does.

  55. Casey says:

    A movie is fed to you. You sit somewhere in the dark to watch and listen to actors play roles, view spectacle and experience drama / comedy / horror / whatever. This is not a bad thing. It is, in fact, wonderful. But the movie lasts as long as it lasts, and two hours later the experience is over. (At least in a theater.)
    A book, especially a comic book, is completely, completely different. It's yours to pore over in however much exacting detail that you like. You can rush through; skipping from panel to panel reading dialogue, or spend half an hour on minutiae in the background of a splash page. Re-read favorite passages. Reading the book could take anywhere from an hour to an entire weekend. It's up to you; in an entirely personal experience.
    In the theater you can't ask if the whole audience would mind if they rewound ten minutes to hear that last bit a second time. You're in the dark, paying attention to one thing and one thing only. Hopefully with popcorn nearby.
    Alan Moore wrote Watchmen with the intent that it be enjoyed before a fireplace, in your favorite chair, with a hot cup of coffee. (Almost a direct quote.) Sit down, make yourself comfortable, and *enjoy*.
    Say that Alan Moore was a tailor, and he was known for making the finest tuxedos. Then imagine that someone came into his shop, bought the tux, took it home and made a Tuxedo T-Shirt out of it. (On top of it, they charge you for the T-Shirt what you'd pay for the Tuxedo, and you only get to wear it once.) It's still clothing. It still appears to have a cumberbund, fancy buttons and a bow tie. But you'd scarcely call it the same apparel.
    Something to think about.

  56. Huw Jass says:

    You all smell of wee! Ha ha!

  57. Kat says:

    If I am to remember correctly, didn't Moore use the blueprint of previously existing comic characters to create Watchmen? Rorschach is clearly the Question… Nite Owl is Blue Beetle-ish… Mr. Manhattan is Captain Atom.
    I won't try to argue Moore's genius, but I recognize hypocracy when I see it. Moore paid homage to exiting characters… why is Zach Snyder and Hollywood the "big bad" for doing precisely the same?
    The only difference between the two is that one uses a pen and one uses a camera.
    Get off your high horse, Moore. I love your work to death, but you are in need of an enema.

    • Ruhayat says:

      No, he used familiar superhero archetypes as the general models for the characters in Watchmen. In a way, that is a criticism of comics in itself, as well, in the way it is limited to a handful of archetypes and tropes. I mean, haven't you realised why Marvel superheroes tend to look alike? And why do Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman all wear underwear out in public?

  58. wilas says:

    I agree with many of your comments. Having worked in Hollywood for several years, I've witnessed a great collective of talented and creative minds trying their hardest to make great film, and by extension, great experiences for theatre patrons. Yes, there are also a wealth of idiot studio execs, too. But it's ridiculous to get an 'above-the-line' ego of this proportion who wants only to 'spew venom' at the efforts of others seeking to adapt his untouchable masterwork for a larger audience.
    Should not Watchmen or V be interpreted for Spanish-speaking audiences? Or for the deaf? Does Mr. Moore rant like a child when bits and pieces of those interpretations are lost in translation? And isn't filmmaking just another form of this?
    I dare Mr. Moore to approach members of the art department or FX departments or general cast and crew and make his boorish comments to their exhausted faces, while stopping to mug it up for the camera. It's soooooo easy to criticize someone when you don't have to face them, isn't it?
    Consider also the fact that sitting on a pedestal, slamming the efforts of others while refusing compensation, still earns the guy more than a fair amount of 'political currency'. Alan Moore's extremely intelligent and understands this well. He's the George Carlin of graphic novels; he slams the system but still benefits in many, many ways.
    And then there's something to be said about simply having the manners and class not to $#it on others to make yourself feel better.
    It just seems that nobody but nobody is worthy of touching this guy's brilliance.

  59. Don says:

    I back Mr. Moore in the majority of his positions. In my opinion, the argument here is Art (capital "A") vs. commerce. As a "professional creative" I have generally found his positions — as they have evolved over the past 20 years — to be founded on real-world experience.
    If you have seen the film adaptations of his work, you must agree they are crap when compared to the source material. Please, someone, just TRY to defend the "V for Vendetta" film. In substituting democracy for anarchy as the hero's motivation, much of the argument behind V's crusade falls to sh*t. God forbid that kids today might hear a cogent argument in favor of personal responsibility in these days of "Gott mit uns".
    If some of my fellow commenters care to take a break from playing with their Wii-Wiis, and examine the many, many interviews with Mr. Moore that are posted on the interweb, they can read his account of the evolution of his thinking regarding rejecting or accepting compensation from Hollywood, and his many attempts at reasonable compromise.
    Also, as a "professional marketing and advertising creative", I have worked on many projects that have demonstrated "talented and creative minds trying their hardest", but I am aware that what we are producing is ephemeral garbage. I take no offence when presented with this judgement — Sturgeon's Law applies to 90-95% of all of us.
    Alan Moore invests the thought, effort and integrity in his work necessary to produce stories of uncommonly high quality. To see his work "adapted" in such violent and disrespectful ways irks ME, and I'm just a crank in the audience.
    His opinions are, from my reading, are well-considered, well-informed and heartfelt. On balance, I cannot say the same of his detractors.

  60. Steve Y says:

    Nope, Moore is still a hypocrite. He's currently spending all his time taking the work of other authors who no longer own their own creations and re-interpreting it in a media the original authors never intended their work to be used in (i.e.- "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen") and he's pissed that someone's doing the same thing to him. Sorry, but on that level he's a hypocrite…and a cranky old hippy. (Them's some words not usually strung together…)

  61. Mike says:

    Let's remember Moore doesn't own the rights to his tales. DC Vertigo does. They sell the rights and keep the moolah, some of which they offer to Moore.
    Just so you all got that straight and can stop calling him a hypocrite now. Booyah.

  62. Kat says:

    If you read my comment once more you will see that I did not call him a hypocrite over copyright or whoever may have sold what to who for however much, but rather I am saying that as Mr. Moore is an artist who has borrowed the ideas of others, he is being rather silly for saying that no one can borrow his to express their own artistry.
    We could argue all day about Hollywood "spoon feeding" others ideas, but the reality is that movies are just another form of artistry and while they are commercially more corruptible, graphic novels are traditionally no better… they're just more discrete and reach fewer people.
    I have always, and will always prefer novels to their movies, but I have to give the devil his due… if it wasn't for Hollywood bringing it to my T.V. screen, I may have never found them…. and I am sure that I am not the only geek out there who can say that. Just something to think about.

  63. Brian McNally says:

    My question is this –
    Why must the work of the comic be a holy text? I agree with Moore that the story is unfilmable, but why be an ass over it spit venom all over it. I think this is just another marketing game to bring attention and make fan boys pay attention to the coming works.
    "Any press is good press" i belive PT Barnum once said, given this – it helps sell the work. Everyone who read the comic will see the film – some will pay, some will download – nonetheless, the two media are differnet and the nuance and subtlety of the original stands alone. The film medium for all its flashy graphics is another storytelling medium that can convery another dimension of action that the comic lacks. Dave Gibbns was a great artist, but he never conveyed much excitement in action sequences.
    Appls and oranges – I say. Why can't we appriciate both?
    Just my two cents.
    Brian McNally
    Beijing, China

  64. someone make somethi says:

    Most big budget films have exactly the same scripts, and arrangements of set-pieces. Thus, they can at least get the visuals and effects looking right – which despite humongous budgets they aren't always able to do.
    Sad fact – it's become the equivalent of fast food. No nutrients, instantly forgettable, causes digestion problems, is desired on the basis of adverts & not content and taste.
    Even arthouse cinema has gotten less talented over the years, and done to a formula. When you actually see a well made film, from any area and budget level, it really makes it so very obvious how awful most of the other films are. It's like comparing a true art gallery to a mainstream magazine stand.

  65. O.K. To all who don’t know, Alan Moore is the Forefather of the “Graphic Novel” that most recently film companies have been adoring basically because of the easy accessable aspect of the medium, to the story panels and the stories themselves which goes back to the aforementioned Alan moore who authored not the scripts but the books and characters that were turned into the following films, “Constantine”,”From Hell”,”V for Vendetta”,”Swamp Thing”, “The League of Extaordinary Gentlemen” and the much anticepated “Watchmen” by the maestro director, Zach Snyder of “300” and “Dawn of the Dead” fame.
    Now,for the most part, I totally agree to an extent with Mr.Moore with his grudge with the film companies and their handleing of his work in the past, especially with “League”, but of all the directors out their right now who have taken something on paper and put it to the silver screen, the best ones are w/o a doubt, are Zach Snyder, Robert Rodriquez and the new guy on the block, Frank Miller-who has been in the Comic Book industry just as long as Mr.Moore and has embraced film medium and understands what it takes to represent your product. Miller couldv’e long ago said “Hey, you want to make a movie based upon my product, O’kay, pay me then u can have it all”. But you know what, out of respect for the medium and being one of the “protectors” of the industry, he said “Lemme in on that,and you know, you better do it that way, because the fans of MY CHARACTER OR THAT CHARACTER THAT I HELPED BUILD, will not like that”, til one day a film that I believe not only changed the way movies are filmed but also helped shape the comic to film industry,”SIN CITY”, was not only a great film,but was the most perfect transition from paper to screen that has ever happened, so perfect that even Frank Miller helped direct it!!! Because of that film ,a year later the next big surprise was “300”,another perfect transition and should’ve gotten nominated for an Oscar for best picture, because what was learned in “Sin CITY” was perfected here,more thanks to Frank Miller again!!
    Of course during all this, all I ever heard from Moore, who likes to make himself so mysterious and un -accessable,that whenever the good news comes in, he acts like a total ass, only because he still kicking himself for selling out his copyrights to Warner Bros. so that they could hand them over to their echelon of hack directors.
    If he really gave a damn about his creativity, he would of offered to be involved and not to just write the script, fer cris’sake.No, he just wanted to be introverted,grow his beard longer and attract teenage girls who think he’s “mystic”. You know what they call people who believe in your b.s.??Followers.And all you have done is built your own little English-European cult of personality. Its old hat,Alan. Wow, you have a movie where you sit in a chair and pontificate about life in 2008??Are you serious???YOU ARE A COMIC BOOK WRITER, NOTHING MORE.If you really gave a damn about your product,YOU shouldv’e been more involved in the films that were made from your books!! But no, I had to sit through “constantine” and “league” both of which are loosely based on books that I for one love to read.No instead all you did was bitch and whine about how its you against them or “i don’t care”, till this past month when asked about “watchmen” you said “There are three or four companies now that exist for the sole purpose of creating not comics, but storyboards for films. It may be true that the only reason the comic book industry now exists is for this purpose, to create characters for movies, board games and other types of merchandise. Comics are just a sort of pumpkin patch growing franchises that might be profitable for the ailing movie industry.”
    Umm. Just to let YOU know. This movie would’nt even been made since you signed off on it long ago. So don’t burn the meal you started ,Mr. Moore, its YOUR fault you are not involved, and your fault if the movie is actally crap like the others. Mr Snyder, more than once offered and you refused…so if I were you, if and when “Watchmen” does come out, you better like it…even if you don’t see it.

  66. Most of the "positive press" came from love of the graphic novel, not Zach Snyder. For instance, if you're old enough to remember the actual Muhammad Ali, the Michael Mann film "Ali" was nothing more than Will Smith pretending to be Muhammad Ali. Watchmen won't be in theatres until next year, but the trailer has what appears to be an error …

  67. Watcher says:

    I could care less what Moore has to say about studios making his work into movies.
    Why?
    Because I want to see them on film.
    My one complaint is that Moore is quick to lash out at Hollywood without see in the films.
    In this case Snyder is taking extreme steps to come as close to the original work as possible, as stated by Gibbons.
    I think in the case of Watchmen Moore should hold his tongue and give the film a chance.

  68. Good point Dropbear! Mary Woolstonecraft Shelley, Bram Stoker, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne… I'm sure they are spitting venom daily (from the defenceless grave) all over Alan Moore for buggering their creations… doesn't seem to do him any harm though. Maybe he really is an anarchist, not just the hippy poser he looks like in his photos. He is an ok writer. His novel 'Voice of the Fire', not too bad at all. But comics? I love 'em, but they are COMICS for gods sake. I love Watchmen, as I love Thomas Pynchons 'Against the Day'. But it'd only take a fraction of a second for me to decide which one to wrap me fish and chips up in….

  69. judochop says:

    I think Alan Moore has every right to feel protective of his work. HOWEVER! The man needs to realize when you sell your self to the devil, the devil will do anything he wants with you soul. This is just a case of sour apples. The guy had a rock relationship with DC from the beggining. I think Mr. Moore needs to judge Watchmen for what it is, what he doesn't realize is that probably thousands of people gained interest by viewing the trailer alone…so he's definitely profiting from this.
    What he SHOULD do is embrace the movie medium and at least contribute to the process instead of tearing it down. I'd like Mr. Moore to have to carry a film from its preproduction to its completion, maybe he would have more respect.
    On another note, Mr. Moore should go buy a fur coat with all his new Watchmen money….so I can go throw paint on him.

  70. Chessley Sexton says:

    When asked if he was going to see the film based upon his book "Sometimes a Great Notion" Ken Kesey responded, to effect "That would be like watching your daughter being gang raped by a bunch of Hells Angels."
    But he took the money. He bought a bus and he took it for a drive with a few friends in tow. The Beatles liked the results of Kesey's "Trip" and made a film based upon that idea, a film that sucked.
    The Who made an LP "the Magic Bus" and, it too, sucked (sort of.)
    Art consumes itself; It dies and is eaten over and over.
    New mediums will arise and consume the old ones. There is such a thing as "Movie Magic" It is rare, as most magic is, but it can happen. The mage knows that to despise and hate are but reflections cast back from a mirror you dare not look into lest you see your true nature.
    like Mr. Moore's work, he is BRILLIANT! But that brilliance makes it hard to see and it casts shadows that are long and dark. But I would not have you be anything other than true to the personality that you have created, flawed and brooding like so many of your characters that I love so much. The mediums that are and are to come will consume you and you are right to rail as all that you created goes down the gullet. But all this too, shall pass.I will go to this film and watch the rape, hope your child can rise above the trauma to be more than is hoped for in your philosophies. I pray that, as Jesus is said to have said "Forgive them for they know not what they do".

  71. So Moore hasn't even seen the films that're based on his comics work, huh? Then how can he be so certain that all of them are excrement? Logically, that would imply that ALL film is excrement. (After all, if he's going to judge sight unseen, why stop with those films?) And yet he thinks the film featuring himself as the main character is just fine! I suppose, though, that we can't hold to a rational standard anyone who claims to believe in superstitious nonsense, can we?
    Btw, the film V For Vendetta is solid proof that Alan is somewhat prejudiced on the subject of Hollywood, imo.
    Moore's a brilliant writer, but I'm simply far too sophisticated to be wowed by his Shaman act. Aren't we all? He must think every day is Halloween.
    ______

  72. A. Nuran says:

    Actually, Moore HASN'T taken Hollywood's "megabucks". In every case from V to the execrable LXG he asked that his name be taken off and the money given to others on the project. He hasn't gotten anything from the film adaptations of his books.
    He may be difficult. But he's not a hypocrite

  73. Gareth says:

    Andrew, Moore doesn't hold the rights to Watchmen at all, DC does. He really had no say in the matter of it being made into a film.

  74. Tony B says:

    Chessley Sexton | September 26, 2008 at 01:30 AM
    The Who never released a LP called 'Magic Bus';thie record company did!!! Its a cobbled together coleection of british singles and album tracks.
    Quite possibly,you inadvertantly proved Alan Moores point!!

  75. tony says:

    Firstly,What he means by film being unfilmable is that in Cartoons or Comix,the libel laws are completely different from actual human statements.
    Plus,(and i cant beleive that people on here are so defensive of major film studios),any adaptation of ANYTHING that is being made by big coporate entities will have plenty changed to water down meanings ,messages,viewpoints.
    All that crap like micheal moore,supersize me etc…if that was really going to affect anyones thinking it would not be on release.
    They are titbits;crumbs of protest for passive consumers to try and identify with something a bit 'radical'.
    All hollywood films are crap. Some just appear good when compared to each other.
    If the gentleman thinks they ruin the basic messages etc of his work,then its his perogative.
    If you like the watered down version,thats yours too.

  76. cammywobs says:

    I wonder if he's ever played Magic: the Gathering
    also I wonder if he got any ides for Jerusalem from "the years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson

  77. Andra says:

    You tw*ts! He doesn't have a problem with films or film medium in general. He has a problem with the industry. With Hollywood. With taking something and making it marketable to mainstream cinema goers, as in transforming it into an overblown infantilized version of itself, which contains solely the action and the boobs.
    No, Watchmen cannot be filmed. Watchmen has been filmed, and some images look breath-taking, bot sound utterly wrong. As always, Snyder cannot draw any emotion from his actors.
    You actually think that he stole from other mediums with the League? Oh, please! If Snyder had picked a couple of characters and thought up a movie about them, it wouldn't have been quite the same thing(ie devaluing his work), would it have?
    Frank Miller did not want to work with Hollywood EVER, far as I know. Until he was approached for Sin City and convinced that it would be made to look genuine. By the look of the trailer, I can safely say Watchmen won't be genuine. And unlike Moore, I really liked Snyder's 300. I like the guy. I just don't like him making a 300ish Watchmen. Moore didn't even like the book 300. Why should he hope that a man who was a fan of both that and his work could do something good to Watchmen?
    Well, Miller didn't get dragged into court by con artists and impostors, did he?

  78. charlie salem says:

    Hi
    As someone who started in comics as a writer (at Marvel) with Dave Gibbons and was well aware of Watchmen as it was coming to 'market' you know you are just that 'a gun for hire'.
    Technicians, actors etc are employed on the back of your work if it becomes a movie and like it or not it IS a different media.
    That's why i became a director. If Moore is so unhappy with the way things are – then let HIM try doing the job of the people he so despises and see if his results are any better.
    Best
    Charlie Salem

  79. Dean Shauger says:

    People keep flaming Alan Moore's disapproval of hollywood. You guys call him a sell out, and basicly say he is an over sized baby and a twit. Like it has been said, DC owns the rights to the characters, to make shirts, to make games, to make movies. If the creator of superman didn't want a superman movie, and DC the owner of the copy write did, who do you think would win?
    If Moore's view of hollywood is a seedy corporation that rapes the work of "real artists" then fine, it is his opinion. Alan Moore remains one of, if not the, best writers in the comic medium. Even if he is eccentric and "full of himself" (as so many of you think so) he still has a say in his art.
    Novelists have also disclaimed hollywood, Koontz even sued to have his name removed from a movie based off of his own work, to get but hurt about their opinions of hollywood is foolish.
    I support Alan Moore and his ideas about Hollywood, but i am disappointed a little because i was really looking forward to Watchmen. I know many say it's unfilmable, but i am hoping for a miracle.
    I only wish i could be half as creative and artistic as Moore is on his worst of days.
    – Dean Shauger

  80. This movie will be a sham of a travesty of a mockery of a sham.
    Here's why … http://thefishshow.com/Archive/WATCHMEN%20UNMASKE

  81. Moo says:

    He didn't sell the rights to the book, DC did. They own the rights to make it into a movie.

  82. zoe says:

    i think watchman will be a good movie, ever since i saw 300 I've been interested in graphic novels. if i ever wrote a graphic novel and one of these big studios wanted to adapt my graphic novel into a film i would want Zack Snyder directing it because i know he will stay true to the story for the fans and still make it enjoyable for people who aren't familiar with the novel so i trust him in what ever he has to do to the film because i know he will try and stay as true to the book as possible.

  83. wardivich says:

    i can see mr moor's point, the comic medium is totaly free, where holywood films are traped by the peaple who pay for them to be made, they want a fast way to make money so they demand changes… "which film made money? oh, well make your film more like that and make tom cruze the star because he was in another film, and that made tons of cash" etc.
    you will never see a holywood film vertion of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen where mr hide rapes the invisable man or calls the aliens from Mars "sky wogs". neather would you see war of the worlds as a period drama set in victorian briton – because there is a slight chance that it wouldn't make loads of cash, and thats what it's all about, not art.
    it's the reason why holywood can't make a good action film, even when there trying to copy a european film (see rec vs Quarantine for an example).
    however, iv'e seen the trailers for watchman, and i'm quite excited about it – to me it looks like a moving image of the comic and i'm hoping that the sucssess of "300" and "sin city" has convinced the peaple who invest there millions to leave it all up to the peaple making the film, to do a good job.
    in short, i look forward to seeing it.

  84. Alan Moore is a whining child that will crap on anything that gets made from his work without giving it a chance.
    Frank Miller had a similar sentiment about Hollywood. But then he learned that in the hands of the right people, his work could be adapted faithfully and be excellent. And by accepting that and Hollywood, he's now directing his own movie.
    Moore just doesn't care. Watchmen could be PERFECT and he'd still insult it up and down. Which is horrible for Snyder (the director), because he's such a huge fan of Watchman. I mean Moore is crapping on this movie for "spoon feeding" the audience, but he has NOT seen it, nor will he ever (according to him).
    For crying out loud, he said that Watchmen was UNFILMABLE. Which has been proven wrong. Because it's been filmed. And what we've seen so far looks like it's right out of the book.

  85. I've lost alot says:

    Alan Moore doesnt take money for the comic book adaptions cause he sold the rights off years ago… thats probably why he hates hollywood so much… he sold all his rights when they wanted to make swamp thing… swamp thing sucked and he's regretted it ever since…. He's pretentious if he thinks that writing for a comic book is more artistic then people who make movies…

  86. Queen Contrary says:

    *APPLAUSE* *APPLAUSE* *APPLAUSE*
    He sat there staring at the screen. How could he explain? How would they know?
    By being denied the worm, they were given a world.
    GO READ IT.
    Posted by: Dr. Cosmos | September 18, 2008 at 11:45 PM
    Thank you Dr. Cosmos. That's all that needs to be said.

  87. watchmenpr0 says:

    duude guys…just worship the book because it is possible graphic novel ever created. about the movie…if its bad then its bad…if its good then yay! We cant do anything to change it-.-

  88. steve perry says:

    Back in the mid 80's Alan came to Vermont and stayed with Bissette as they began Swamp Thing and we all sat on the porch horrified that he rolled joints that were half tabacco and half pot. He borrowed my book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and never gave it back. For that, Alan deserves everything that has happened to his work.
    When his two live in lovers turned lesbian he went crazy and never has really recovered — and ask steve bissette if he always shares money with the artists.
    I always found his scripts just as crazy and it is the thought behind them, not the writing itself, that proved so successful in comics. I was also quite jealous of his massive success … but then I was just a second rate hack working in the same business. His turning on bissette was and always has been unforgivable. Wrong.
    Why people like his work so much is sometimes beyond me. AND STEVE BISSETTE CREATED CONSTANTINE … not alan.

  89. Juggz Crusher says:

    whoever said Alan Moore just took the money and handed over all the rights is an idiot when he first published the watchmen he most probably didn't even own the rights to jis own comic book he wasn't exactly a big nme back then well not compared to know. IF whoeve said he did sell out knew anything about the publishing world you woiuld realise the publishing company most probably owns the rights and all control of the material goes to them. Just like in the music business hardly any of the acts own their own songs not unless they do it all themselves. Alan Moore rules. Peace out
    P.S I also happen to be a fellow East Anglian

  90. steve says:

    Ah yes, the tortured artist, the most misunderstood creature known to man. So he did all of this while he was getting paid to perform his job the best he could. Much like the scientist that came up with the formula that made Post-It Notes possible. The two of them have earned their place in history and now they cry about it. When I started out in my chosen field I would've liked it more if the pay and recognition had been higher, but I've put in my time and now the reward is there. Quit crying you whinner and bask in the glory that your book (not your movie, because it isn't your movie) was chosen as one of the most important novels of the 20th century. How many people can say that? I'm guessing only about one hundred.

  91. leo says:

    I don't presume to understand the complexities that led Moore to so categorically turn his back on Hollywood, but after reading the trials that the Watchmen film has gone through to finally come to screen, I think this is the best "apology" Hollywood is trying to offer him.
    DC screwed him, ok. Hollywood disillusioned him, ok. But from I've seen from the Watchmen film, I think this would be a proper time for Moore to realize that's there's JUST as much "screwing of artists" in the comic book field as there is "encouraging artists" in the cinematical field.
    Some people ARE out to remain true to artistic ideals in Hollywood. The Watchmen looks absolutely BRILLIANT and quite faithful to the original work.
    I simply don't think that Moore's grudge applies anymore. I think it could only be good for him in the long run to let go of his rancour and at least take a look at what Snyder has accomplished.
    My opinion.
    Peace

  92. George Doll says:

    though i think alan Moores critism of Hollywood is unfair and im excited for Watchmen, i should point out that he wrote all those comics for other compainies and has no ownership to the movie rights for them, also he gave all the film royalties for Watchmen to Dave Gibbons (the artist)

  93. Chris Doring says:

    What's saddest of all, every one of those "Adaptations" were utter garbage. LOEG was an utter catastrophe, vapid, shallow and uninteresting. V for Vendetta was a cheap, boring action flick. And From Hell was just another lame Johnny Depp vehicle. Every Moore story hollywood has touched has been utterly forgettable tripe. I don't blame him for wanting to disassociate.

  94. SaturnKid13 says:

    Hey everybody. I’ve just learned that My Chemical Romance have put up the limited edition 12" picture disk of their contribution to the soundtrack for the upcoming WATCHMEN movie. It’s a cover of the Bob Dylan original "Desolation Row" and has artwork from the film. This is MUST HAVE for die hard fans of one of the greatest graphic novels of all time – THE WATCHMEN! You can pre-order now for a discounted price at: <a href="http://www.mychemicalromance.com” target=”_blank”>www.mychemicalromance.com
    or <a href="http://www.becausesoundmatters.com” target=”_blank”>www.becausesoundmatters.com

  95. samuel says:

    Watch the Watchmen movie online at http://leafpen.com/watchmen They make you fill out some dumb survey but it worked after that. The link was still up as of this post. Good luck and enjoy ;)

  96. Ramone says:

    I think Alan Morre is a sad misery guts!
    I think the Watchmen movie will be accomplished piece of film making and worth seeing as I repsect Snyders previous efforts,..300 was amazing!!
    The public LOVE films and why should'nt any of his comics be translated into one? I beleive comics and films SHARE a huge amount in common, I'm just so suprised he has such a negative outlook on them!
    I bet in secret he owns all those other movies on DVD and 'watches' them intenlty and enjoys them.
    And whats wrong with that!
    Cheer up you old hippy twat and get a life!!
    Stop being so self indulgent and self absorbed!!

  97. Ben says:

    I understand what people on both sides of the issue are saying. The hatred of a medium is just plain wrong. Saying that movies are bad or thoughtless, or anything else is attaching a value judgment to an object. It's like saying, "the phone is bad," or "the internet is bad." It doesn't make any sense. What people do can be good or bad, not the tools they use. What individual filmmakers do can have value, but it depends on the filmmaker. In stead of turning down his share of the money and stripping his name from the movies, it would make more sense to get himself involved in the creative process and profit from the ordeal, while trying to see that the movies become faithful representations of the works. He has the choice between trying to make the medium of film represent what he was trying to make in his comics, or he can sit back and bitch about how nothing hollywood produces is good enough to meet his standards. The Watchmen was a well-written 12 issue comic. That's it. To just say from the start that it's "unfilmable," doesn't hold up. He is, after all, a comic book artist, and not a film maker. And by the way, there have been many, many films that have raised emotional and social issues and informed the consciousness of society as a whole. And just for the record, I read V for Vendetta, and I liked the movie better. Of course, after seeing the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I can somewhat understand where he is coming from.

  98. Paul McCoy says:

    Nobody is perfect . No film is perfect. There are great movies and projects but nothing is perfect.New ideas create new projects, new writers, new special effect techs.Dude needs to lighten up. LZ

  99. Marcos says:

    before speak stop to think about.
    Moore din't say: "I hate all the movies", actually he's a "simpsons" and "The Wire" fan, for exemplo.

  100. Aubri says:

    well, don't i feel like an ass for wanting to see watchmen. lol
    i do get what he's saying though, movies are dumbed down and action packed to keep people interested for an hour. sigh.
    just read the graphic nove,l its much better.

  101. Arlan says:

    Keep two things in mind. The first is that DC OWNS Warner Brothers. Alan Moore has no control once it's published. He can't choose whether or not to option the rights to a film. After all if DC is already owned by Warner Bros…. they don't have to ask permission. Second, Alan Moore doesn't take the money he earns from Hollywood optioning the film rights. He, quite literally, gives it away. For Watchmen he gave the money to Dave Gibbons, the artist. So he doesn't take the money, nor does he really option the rights. He gets little say in what Warner Bros. does with his graphic novel. Because once it's published, he has essentially sold it to DC who is owned by Warner Bros.

  102. Treacle Jack says:

    I think it was Sartre who observed the way that a completed book becomes entirely separate from it's author – it exists outside of him as something complete unto itself. Something that has passed 'beyond' him (or her).
    I think I feel disappointed in Alan Moore's comments, nevertheless… it feels like a sort of snobbery, somehow.
    Is it right to sneer at Hollywood? It's okay to mock it I think – there's a lot of silliness about Tinseltown and it's products, after all. But to dismiss it as worthless seems to be going too far. It seems almost like cultural fascism. Or some sort of elitism.
    It's not as if there aren't plenty of silly graphic novels out there.
    Alan Moores Skizzskitch or whatever it was called really was extremely silly (and very, very derivative of certain FILMs as well), but that doesn't mean it would be fair for me to dismiss all his stuff.
    I would be doing myself a disservice to condemn all his work for one really quite bad story. I think he does himself a disservice to condemn all of Hollywood just because from time to time they churn out a stinker.
    Why do it, why cut oneself off like that? Seems childish, really.

  103. Duncan White says:

    To get an insight on how Alan Moore possibly feels. Its like if someone created a wildly successful movie adaption of your life. The people looked vaguely like you, but the events of your life were melodramatic and pasteurized. Would anyone be happy with their life being defined by this abstraction? Especially when this false view of you was put on a pedestal and your real life pushed to the side.
    But on the flip side does that negate the possibility that something worthwhile and insightful for other people could arise from an examination of your life in the media?
    That about sums up the experience. Alan is fighting for the independence of his work here, and I can respect the absolute necessity of that. But on the flip side I will enjoy the heck out of the film.

  104. Allen Smith says:

    As far as I know, Moore doesn't own the rights to Watchmen or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, so he didn't have any say in how they were treated by the movies. He let Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons have a share of his payments for the Watchmen movie, so I've heard, so it's not really a case of Moore taking the money and then running with it.

  105. ~Foo Fighter~ says:

    The first post really says it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#.22
    ~Foo Fighter~

  106. Garp says:

    God, I hate you smarmy people. The individual creates, the flies gather.

  107. Daiv Whaley says:

    Well plenty here have already defended Mr. Moore's stance and attitudes about Hollywood, so I won't be redundant. As an aspiring writer myself, I would be deeply angered to see precious charcaters that emerged from my mind become cliched and silly cinematic buffoons. Watching the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was downright embarassing. Clearly, the writer and director on that movie had little respect for the source material. That's just an uncool system and I applaud Moore for having the vision and resources to avoid the whole bloody mess!!!

  108. WATCHMEN MOVIE – Signed poster from the studio in charity auction at: <a href="http://www.hollywoodcharityauction.com” target=”_blank”>www.hollywoodcharityauction.com

  109. Baines says:

    Andrew,
    Alan Moore is definitely a weird one but he intentionally didn't take any movie profits for neither V for Vendetta, Constatine, or the upcoming Watchman. In fact, he turned over his share of his profits to his co-creators.

  110. Nick says:

    Alan Moore is a genius and yet we all have to understand that the medium of preference in this day and age is the moving picture, people want to see the action on the screen and don't particularly care if the script is good or if the reference material is cited correctly. Take for example the Bourne series of movies which had very little to do with the books except for a few characters, a super spy and amnesia. Tim Burton gave Batman .50 cal machine guns in the first couple of Batman movies and many others out there. Movies are going to be the preferred medium to expose people to literature and perhaps this movie is not a strict adaptation at least the director didn't go the direction the studios had intended and tried to mainstream it and make it applicable to today's situations from what I've seen it has been compacted but hey what book made into a movie hasn't been crunched to fit into the time frame allowed? Anyway Alan Moore is allowed to have his opinion of his work but DC owns the property and can do with it what they will, we should all be thankful that this adaptation stays relatively faithful to the original.

  111. AM says:

    Probably in a couple of years it'll be like Jack Kirby getting his artwork back, but this time it'll be Dave Cockrum etc getting millions for their ideas, and I bet Alan Moore is going to lead the way :D
    He'll be like : "Look at this your honor, 6 movies made from my ideas, from which I had no control over their development, just snatched from the crib." It's probably going to be a 250 million dollar lawsuit that he'll win, and I say go for it, these comic book companies are fooking weasles!

  112. Claireabelle says:

    I think Alan Moore has something to say and a platform to say it on. Movies are viewed through glass screens, Alan.

  113. Elizabeth Griffith says:

    A positive thing happening because of the movie is that people previously uninterested are reading the graphic novel. I have a friend who is a comic store owner in the Midwest. He told me that they are selling all of the copies they can keep in stock because "nobody knew what the movie was about".
    It's something.

  114. Sam says:

    I admire Alan Moore's work, not Alan Moore. I know he received no money from the release of the last 3 film adaptations of his work but he no less comes off in this interview as a condescending and hypocritical bitter old man .I feel worse for Zack Snyder who put so much effort into keeping Watchmen true to the source material being insulted by a man he obviously admires.

  115. Christian Barkley says:

    Snyder is a true fan of Moore's work, He loves comics with a passion. He can turn any graphic novel into a highly praised motion picture. Moore did not enjoy "V for Vendetta" because it was updated to modern times. Snyder has kept the 1985 setting and If Moore would stop judgeing the film before he even saw it, he would probably have a different view point. Infact Moore completely judged Snyder bacause of what people told him about "300." Stating that it was "Homophobic," which if you look in the nearest history book, Sparta was homaphobic, and "Plainly stupid." Which means he did not even see the film. So basically Moore is judgeing the book by the cover or in other words saying that if I heard he didn't do a good job for "300," he's going to bomb my Graphic Novel as well. I enjoy Alan Moore storytelling, I'm not against him, I don't personally know the gentleman, but All I can say is people are different, give the guy (Snyder) a chance.
    P.S. "The Dark Knight," is a fantasic motion picture, and you must be fool to not enjoy it!"

  116. Matt says:

    I feel sorry for Moore. He needs a serious dose of Jesus Christ, as an antidote for his mind poison. This neo-pagan thing is removing the great from great Britain. There is a reason why we don't follow the pagan ways anymore, something about child sacrifice…. The fact is Moore is still sacrificing children. The sacrifice is any child who gets sucked into his nihilistic anti-god anti good worldview. After suffering through V for vendetta and watchmen, all I can see is that it's only purpose is further brain damage. It's just a bit of a twist from the days when Moore was pushing drugs. Oh well so much for Western civilization.

  117. seethroo says:

    Yay, so glad the last comment ended on a good note. I was on the fence about seeing this, now I think I will re-read the book and see it. Though I must admit the thought of picking up that old book again gets me more giddy than the thought of seeing the movie. It's a good thing, right? :)

  118. marko says:

    Well, what a little devil Alan Moore is.

  119. MF says:

    Alan Moore is brilliant. One of the finest living writers. He just happened to start out in comics and totally revolutionized the industry.
    He has as a high a level of integrity as any celebrity could ever have.
    If he wanted he could be a multimillionaire Hollywood darling at the snap of a finger.
    Instead he chooses to live where he was born, turning out elaborate deep and intense works.
    Hopefully he doesn't read critiques of the losers who think they know it all.

  120. Adrienne says:

    The Watchmen movie killed the meaning of the comic. By changing the ending to a drab, easy-to-digest Hollywood canned finale, the entire meaning of the story became convoluted. I was so angry when I walked out of the theater! Good for Moore, he must have known that they would ruin his masterpiece in typical generic Hollywood fashion. I regret having seen it actually.
    I understand omitting some parts as was necessary, but changing the ending killed the depth found in the novel. And it was such a crappy ending! Turning the Doc into a martyr?!?! Owch, so painful. So terribly sorry Alan! I'm so glad that you have the conviction to "spit venom" on this film. I too spit on it, they just killed this exquisite and meaningful piece of art.

  121. Rob says:

    For Mr. Moore,
    I hope at some point you read this Mr. Moore.
    You are, without a doubt, an infintile winer. What did you expect to happen? You create literary classics yet, when time comes for the masses entire to enjoy, you cause strife and unease because they attempt to enjoy your works regardless of medium. What purpose did you hold in writing these stories in the first place if it were not for all to enjoy? Did Dr. Thompson frett when Fear was laid before us? No, he enjoyed the concept of a new medium expressing his words which in turn brought forth a new generation to lift a book to read and open their minds. It's sad to see that you do not share this ideal. I do enjoy your work sir but you are a mirror to what you claim to distain. As does Hollywood, you seem to need to make public your thoughts. You pose for the public eye in magazines wearing trinkets and you seem to revel in publid admiration (whilst attempting to poorly portray yourself as a recluse). I'm sorry but you will never be a Hemmingway or a Thompson no matter your aggressive attempt so just admit you're just as alike as that which you say you hate.
    R

  122. to says:

    He's a writer, do you guys really expect someone who isn't into himself and little loose upstairs? Of course he hates the movie industry, I don't blame him. Comics are a dying medium outside of Japan because Hollywood is dumbing the culture down, people don't appreciate good storytelling and artwork that much. Every artist has a 'vision' of their work, and Moore is just one of those who doesn't want his creations melded into another form which no matter how it tries, can never be the original and will deviate from what he sees as it being. On the other hand, when one of his comics IS made into a movie, it stirs interest in the original source. Watchmen book sales went up pretty significantly before the movie was released. Comics and Hollywood are in a sort of perverse relationship as of late.
    I do hope the increase of adaptations encourages more original work. It does introduce a whole new audience to something they might not have even known they'd liked, and perhaps a new generation of writers and illustrators will be inspired to create original comics and stories. I don't believe Hollywood is a totally horrible thing for comics in the bigger picture. It keeps them from dropping out of sight and brings more fans and therefor more consumers and interest of the books.

  123. Dodger says:

    Actually, the movie was really good.
    Sure, I was irritated by the bowdlerisation — but interestingly, it wasn't where you would expect it. There was glowing blue penis, there was sex that made you feel like you were watching something private that you shouldn't, there was violence — in some cases more (but let's be honest, a big screen audience would realise he had Rorschach ripping off Mad Max with the hacksaw bit anyway). The odd part that they bowdlerised was the cigarettes. That was just plain damn weird.
    Yes, the ending was changed. Thank the gods. The one part of the original graphic novel that always bothered me was the absurd notion that a society — even one with Dr. Manhattan in/near it, would believe the silliness of "Giant mutant brain creature from another dimension destroyed Manhattan" or that that should somehow make the world unify. It was always stupid. Yes, I love the graphic novel — until they were stolen I had the original separate issue releases of the whole thing sitting right on the shelf next to my Cerebus phone books…
    But the interesting thing about this is that it's being a blockbuster, and the reviews are coming out mixed because guess what… it's been determined to be an excellent companion work to the book, almost like a regular novel might have a book or illustrations or a calendar to accompany it, the Watchmen movie is being seen by a lot of people (just browse RottenTomatoes for instance) as almost impossible to understand if you didn't read the book.
    And this is making people read the book.
    And this is making people read comics. Things that aren't simply crappy Liefeld-posed spandex clad people with tiny feet trying to look cool with a glowing stick in various poses for multiple pages or something.
    This movie is selling Mr. Moore's book. People like it but don't understand it BECAUSE it sticks very closely to the book, and so they feel the need to go out and read it and figure out what this whole world is about.
    This one worked.

  124. Antony Giorgio says:

    WATCH or READ the WATCHMEN?
    I remember seeing Watchmen the comic book on the shelves of the old comic store in Virgin on Oxford Street when it was first released. I never bought the book but flicked through it's pages…There was something oddly different about it, my friend commented later that it was one of the best comic book mini series he'd read. I later went on to read V for Vendetta and my idea of what a comic book could be was forever changed. I saw the V for Vendetta film adapation and was vastly dissapointed but no so dissapointed with the adaptation of Spiderman. Hollywood seems more suitable for translating the stereotypical genre of comic book heroes which contain less complex themes but then here I will contradict myself as I have just remembered Sin City, was't that a great adaptation of an adult comic? I haven't seen WATCHMEN the movie yet, still haven't even read the comic, I'm certain I will do both, certain that I won't be dissapointed by the comic but hope the movie won't just spoonfeed me worms…

  125. Mike says:

    Other people have said it, but I'll add to the pile – Moore often has no financial recompense from these films at all. It is not hypocritical for him to dismiss them. He doesn't get 3p in is pocket for every Rorschach action figure you buy, so he's not beholden to the company, and is free to express an opinion, like everyone else. The rights to Watchmen only revert to AM and DG once DC stops publishing it or matter related to it, which they haven't for the past 20 years, and are unlikely to do any time soon.
    Why do people blast Moore for having integrity? The Hollywood adaptations, while entertaining, frequently miss the point of the source material. Why tell a story, if you miss the whole point of it. It's like the film adaptation of 'A Clockwork Orange' – completely misses the whole point of the novel.

  126. Geg says:

    Sorry, people. Alan Moore does indeed own all of these books/creators. That is why he's able to take LEOG to Top Shelf publishing for another sequel. If he didn't co-own any of it, his name wouldn't be in the credits (likewise for the artists in the movies Moore's had his name taken off of.) You see, Gerry Conway and Ross Andru don't get money for the Punisher movie. They don't even get offered money. Because Marvel owns the character. DC has the print rights to Watchmen and V due to a contract stipulation that Moore himself agreed to. And he took the money for the film rights looooong ago. Just because he refuses the profits now doesn't mean he hasn't made a sh*tload of cash from Hollywood indirectly. And, no, he doesn't refuse the comic sales money either after they spike due to the films. He's making plenty of money from an industry that he "loathes". Alan Moore is a hypocritical whiner, pure and simple. Oh, and the height of arrogance as well, supposing no film can match his incomparable genius. Maybe he should watch them first before deciding.

  127. Bob The Builder says:

    It wouldn't kill him to at least watch the films before he slanders them.

  128. myname is so long it says:

    What ever about Alan Moore… But a person who can dream up all these things… can you? Dare you?

  129. Esther says:

    I've been watching godawful Allan Moore movies without knowing it, silly tripe like V for Vendetta and the League of Extraordinary Men. Some authors translate into gorgeous films, and some don't. These movies all flopped because the source material is not very good. Watchmen was a plodding slow-mo mess. The dialogue was hilarious when it meant to be deep and sad when it tried to be funny. And when a super model in latex screams while breaking a crystal fort on Mars I'm sure she meant to show some sort of deep feeling, but I kept waiting for Tyra Banks to appear and applaud her for her "fierce" photo shoot. If the film were re-cut to eliminate the excessive slo-mo and trim the many extraneous shots the film could actually improve.

  130. Hailey says:

    Andrew Adler: Are you seriously saying that if Hollywood drove a dump truck full of money onto your lawn so they could butcher your dearest work, you wouldn't take it? And what if the film was absolutely awful? Would you shrug your shoulders and say nothing?
    Alan Moore's strength lies in his characters. He writes neither males nor females, but simply people. This concept is lost on Hollywood, where strong men and weak women are valued. Every one of Alan Moore's lovely creations has been mercilessly slaughtered by this. Evie Hammond went from being a very stupid girl to a very brave person in V for Vendetta. In the movie, she goes from being a stupid girl with an attitude problem to a stupid girl who knows how to flip a lever.
    I wonder so often why this doesn't bother anyone.

  131. mickey says:

    Alan Moore is nuts. the film is probably the best superhero film ive ever seen, all though all the other films based on he's graphic novels weren't that great he still should check the film out i mean i think he would be blown away by the opening fight scene and opening credits. i rest my case

  132. Download says:

    Download and watch the new movie Watchmen http://blog-movie.com/Watchmen.html

  133. Mark says:

    Moore is a genius and is always great as a somewhat bombastic character. His opinions on Hollywood aren't wrong, but of course aren't universally true either.
    I really wish he would have softened his position a bit to at least see V and Watchmen. I think both treatments were done lovingly by folks who grew up as genuine fans of his work and, in both cases, I think they truly did justice to his vision.
    While Watchmen isn't everyone's cup of tea, I believe those who didn't like the movie most likely wouldn't like the novel as well (based on the complaints I hear them voice about the movie). This is high praise.
    I will always respect Moore, but I think it's never good to hold too extreme of a position. V and Watchmen are very good pieces of film-making and if they allow his work to reach folks it would not have otherwise, and provoke thought that potentially leads to social change on some level, then isn't that true to the mission?

  134. Matt says:

    "Alan Moore is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He takes Hollywood's megabucks with a smile, and then does everything in his power to disparage the movie process and undermine the film's success. Any author with an iota of knowledge of the movie process knows that a written or graphic work cannot be translated verbatim to the screen. He should also be aware by now that the Hollywood people will change the work whose rights they purchased to suit their conception of the audience and their own bottom-line sensibilities. With all the movies made from his work he can hardly claim naivete on this subject.
    He took the money and gave up control of his creation; whose responsibility is that? It is the height of irony that, after huge paydays, Moore feels victimized. If he's so protective of his work, all he had to do was say "No!" when Hollywood came calling. They didn't twist his arm, after all.
    Playing the wounded artist is stupid and unconvincing. Moore comes across as a self-indulgent, mediocre pompous ass"
    Wow. What a retard. Is there any of that that's even close to true? That's amazing that someone can be so retarded and have absolutely no idea. Impressive, Andrew, impressive. And no, I won't go into detail: you've made everything up, there's no need for detail.

  135. David says:

    I have always found that when I see a film based on a book that I really loved I am almost always disapointed. The film "Zodiac" got great reviews but I absolutely hated it having read the two books it was based upon. Now having said that I enjoyed "Watchmen" but I never read the comics. If I had who knows??

  136. Heisenberg says:

    To the haters:
    Moore doesn't take a dime of filmmaker money. In order to get his books published, he (obviously) has to sign with a publishing company (i.e., DC). Therefore, they control enough of the copyright of the comics, as does the graphic artist (see: Dave Gibbons of Watchmen book/movie), to sellout to film studios.
    The man is a genius, but it's not like he has a printing press/worldwide distributor for his stories. It's simply not his decision.

  137. Agent Koala says:

    Why should any novel, graphic or otherwise, have to be "adapted" just to suit the dictates of the big screen?
    Its an insult to the audiences intelligence and a slur against the authors creativity

  138. MOURENADAS says:

    we are all illicit masters of spacetime

  139. Syzygy says:

    I've enjoyed reading many of Moore's comic book stories, and I have to admit, to a lesser extent, I've also enjoyed seeing many of Moore's stories adapted into movies, some more than others.

    That said, I enjoy reading Moore's scathing commentaries regarding the commercialization of the movie industry on a completely different level.

    My thanks, all due respect, and a tip of the hat to Alan Moore, to those whose work he steals, and to those who steal his work.

  140. Ruhayat says:

    Umm. To those who say Moore should at least watch the films before having a go at them… Well, he simply can't watch them, because what he is inherently against are no the movie adaptations per se, but the concept of Hollywood itself. See:

    "He also said he was offended by the amount of money and resources that go into the Hollywood projects. “They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It’s obscene and it’s offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for."

    So for him to step into a movie theatre – especially one showing a Hollywood movie – would be like telling a Hindu to eat beef, or a Muslim to eat pork, before they should refrain from eating it.

    *Yes, I know this is an old thread. But so what.

    • tako666 says:

      An oldie but a goody!

      I've re-read this over a million times just to keep myself in a nirvana like mindset when faces with writers block!

  141. [...] Alan Moore has tried to distance himself from movies made out of his projects and added in another interview that he would spit venom all over the Watchmen movie when it was released. If one looks at [...]

  142. [...] of the heroes featured in the original book. Original Watchmen writer Alan Moore has always been opposed to efforts to expand upon the graphic [...]

  143. QPP says:

    If a good filmmaker would talk to Moore about creating a script for an original film instead of continuing to mis-adapt some of his older creations, things might be different.

  144. [...] if you know anything about his scripts, this is from Marvelman they are extensive. You might say Alan Moore was acting as an art director. So there are the two writers that are sort of the asterisks that [...]

  145. dls says:

    This guy is another wannabe for Frank Miller…….

  146. [...] screen time. No Law & Order but c’mon- there’s a million crime/thrillers already. Alan Moore deemed Watchmen (2009) unfilmable, but bam, we’ve had it for three years [...]

  147. [...] assisting in the development of films based on his work — actually, in truth, Moore has been openly negative about any adaptations of his tales — so maybe a film created with Moore’s assistance, [...]

  148. [...] Watchmen, there’s more grounds for comparison. Whatever you may think of its themes or tone, Alan Moore‘s comic book was about as densely packed a use of the mainstream comic form as one could [...]

  149. [...] said it was a fitting project to follow “Watchmen,” his 2009 adaptation of Alan Mooore and Dave Gibbons‘ iconic comics [...]

  150. David James says:

    I kind of understands why e never watches the movies based on his comic books. He created his comics with an artistic vision in mind, but Hollywood tends to add in extra ingredients into the movies to make them more palatable for the masses. Who would want their creation to be messed around with?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close
E-mail It
Powered by ShareThis