Hollywood VS. Alan Moore (rant)
 

If you're a comic book reader, you're undoubtedly familiar with the works of Alan Moore. He is responsible for some of the best work in the medium. Works like 'V For Vendetta', 'Watchmen' and 'From Hell' are known not just for their quality, but for their uniqueness and an almost overachieving literateness. His work is uniquely comic - that is, it is written specifically for use in the medium of comics and that is where it works well.

This is made clear by the recent adaptations of his works: 'From Hell', while not a bad movie, was a very mediocre one that failed to exploit what made Moore's work so interesting: He focused on the HOW and WHY, while the film seemed only interested in WHO. Faring MUCH worse is the recent 'LEAGUE', which completely ****** on Moore's book.

The reason for this diatribe is that I recently learned about a movie in production called 'Constantine' - it is a film based on a character from a comic book called 'Hellblazer' who was created by Alan Moore back when he was writing 'Swamp Thing' in the early eighties. Now, the character of John Constantine is supposed to be a dark, mysterious, chain-smoking, magical, SOB who is very British with a very messed up past. Now who do they have cast as him? Keanu F'n Reeves!

Now I know Moore doesn't really care about the movies based on his work, and he really has no say in the Constantine character after Swamp Thing. But this just shows Hollywood's complete and utter lack of understanding of what makes something interesting in the first place - and if you don't try to exploit that, why try at all?

BTW, 'Watchmen' is also slated to become a motion picture soon. And if someone like Terry Gilliam would be attached to direct, it might bode well - but even he understands, since he's gone on record, and has said that it is almost inadaptable, therefore, we'll probably get a hack like Brett Ratner to direct a comic book masterpiece like Watchmen and have it turn into an irrelevant mess.

If you think From Hell and League were disappointing, you should read Sam Hamm's original script for The Watchmen. :yack:

What an abortion!

Oh jeeze... Please, please, please tell me that you're both kidding about The Watchmen. It is unadaptable and damn near perfect as is... Sam Hamm eh? Blech.

Keanu as John Constantine = :lol: L-A-M-E.

Screenwriter (?) mgazine had a brief bit with Dave Hayter, who's doing the new Watchmen.

He's not including in the script...

How he plans to pull that off, I wonder. I mean, it's only the, um, ending.

Gilliam said he wouldn't do Watchmen as it would require ten films to do it justice, he said.

Lousy movies made of Alan Moore's work have absolutely zero impact upon my great admiration for his comics. In fact, I really think his comics as written are impossible to adapt to film with any great accuracy -- like "From Hell," where you lost about 90% of the story in the adaptation.

Comics is comics, movies is movies, and I don't mind when they don't necesarily become interchangable.

Watchmen's been "slated" to become a movie for about 15 years now, so I wouldn't hold my breath personally. Anywhere online someone can read that Sam Hamm script? I am curious to see just how inept it is...

Gilliam is definitely right, Watchmen is simply too complex and intricate for it's own good. For a while i was hoping the BBC would turn it into one of it's mega-successful series; it would necessarily need to be extremely long and drawn out.

I can understand Hayter's reluctance to include the destruction of NY, esp. post 9-11, i think that's something most people in the US wouldn't want to see...

Here's some interesting bits from the "faithful" Sam Hamm script.

1. All of the Minutemen, except for the Comedian, are gone.

2. The only featured characters are Rorshach, Nite Owl (II), Silk Spectre, Dr. Manhattan, Ozymandias, and Comedian.

3. There is actually a superhero team called "The Watchmen" :rolleyes: , and the film opens with them failing to stop the destruction of the Statue of Liberty.

4. The ending (and thus the overall MAIN STORYLINE) has been radically altered:

(Spoiler, although I doubt this script will ever by used.)



:yack:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. 10 part HBO miniseries ala Band of Brothers, From the Earth to the Moon. Produced by Terry Gilliam.

Sam Hamm? I guess that guy was just a flash in the pan. I remember when everyone thought he was a genius for Batman.

That's nice to hear Terry Gilliam respects the material but this guys on a downward slope with his breakdowns and his last failure which was a movie with Johnnie Depp that got shutdown after a week(?) of filming.

Hayter is supposedly in line to direct his script. I'd prefer a seasoned director but he seems to like the material. I hope he's as true as he can be and still make a "film" of Watchmen.

Keanu as Constantine is just ridiculous - hope he doesn't try to do a British accent. I did hear that Rachel Weisz is going to be in it, which might make me see it. Maybe.

Alan Moore should try to get some creative control over his properties when he sells his options. Now that he's going to retire from comics, he should have the time.

From every interview he's ever done, Alan Moore has made it abundantly clear that he cares not one whit what they do with movies based on his creations.

Well, it isn't just Alan Moore. All kinds of books, graphic novels and conventional, get poor treatment on the screen.

Very true, its not like Hollywood just likes screwing up Alan's work.

A 2 hour Watchman film will NOT work. A big HBO or BBC miniseries could have potential though.

Keanu as Constantine? What the hell are they thinking?? John Constantine has been one of my favourite comic characters for years and I really hoped for a good film someday, but so far they are off to a bad start. :(

And comic book adaptations of movies are always crap as well. The point is what? As somebody said earlier, comics are comics, and movies are movies. Whether it's the work of Alan Moore or anybody else, there is always something lost in the translation, wether it's from page to screen or screen to page. There will NEVER be a perfect adaptation either way, and the sooner we accept that the better. I am sure Terry Gilliam's version would have to alter things as well. How would he do the pirate comic book in his version?

The only Alan Moore work I want to see done is Big Numbers, since he was unable to finish the graphic novel, if they just do it as a mini series for BBC or whatever, then there would be nobody able to complain about anything becuase the graphic novel was never completed and the mini series would be all there is.

If you watch Lost In La Mancha you will see that there were TONS of factors outside of Gilliam's control that led to the downfall of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Gilliam himself is not on a downward slope.

Wow, that Watchmen script from Sam Hamm sounds even worse than I thought. :yack:

"Watchmen" should be done as a 1-part HBO miniseries.

With the "Black Freighter" parts done as traditional animation.

Hollywood has treated Alan Moore very well. Really, I mean it.

Consider this: he has been paid for the rights to two of his projects. As is typical in Hollywood, the projects were changed dramatically from Moore's version. The movies reused some characters and situations from Moore's work, but there's certainly nothing distinctively Moore-like about the finished products.

Here's the thing, though: the characters and situations Hollywood reused *weren't Moore's in the first place*. The things Hollywood used were elements that, as Moore would I'm sure be the first to admit, he did not invent and could not own.

FROM HELL: All of the various elements of the conspiracy theory used in the movie version come from the vast amount of Ripperology that's been published over the last 100 years, not from Moore (Moore indeed points out where he got all his ideas in the comic itself.)

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN: All the characters were invented by people other than Moore. The notion of teaming up popular characters in the public domain is obvious (just look at the huge number of "Sherlock Holmes and ..." books that have been written.) About the only thing in the movie that bears any trace of Moore is the treatment of Mina Harker.

You could make a stong case that the studios could have made the movies they ended up making without paying Moore a thin dime. However, it was legally more convienient to pay off Moore - writers are cheap, after all, and it's better to be safe to be sorry.

So there's no reason to look at Moore's treatment by Hollywood as especially horrible. Moore essentially got paid for a bunch of things he didn't create. Which is not a slam: it couldn't happen to a more talented guy. He is, however, a very lucky guy as well.

That's good to know. I like Gilliam's work a great deal.

Gilliam is filming Brothers Grimm in Prague as we speak. :) Huzzah!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Inverse
About the only thing in the movie that bears any trace of Moore is the treatment of Mina Harker.[QUOTE]

:confused: Is Mina even a vampire in the comic? Hers is the position of leader and tactician and she has a messed up throat. I thought she was the furthest from Moore’s characters.

Hyde (minus his predilection for anal rape) was the most spot on in my opinion.

I can’t believe how many of the fans hated this movie. It’s not like they came and took away our comics and replaced them with this. We have both. They’re different and both are super cool (IMHO). Keep in mind that when they began production of this film, issue one had not yet been published*. One of the people involved with From Hell loved the source material so much that he asked Moore “what else ya got up yer sleeve?”. They met and Moore discussed with him the concept of League before he’d even finished scripting it. They came to an agreement, Moore and O’neill did their thing and the filmmakers went off and did theirs.
Of course it diverged.
I was skeptical about Dorian Gray when I first heard and he turned out to be one of my favorite embellishments. I felt this flick was a great achievement. We get a great comic with a great concept PLUS we get a movie of a different flavor based on the same great concept. A concept I like so much that I would check out the video game, the greeting card line and the breakfast cereal to name a few. I totally dug this flick. Doesn’t mean I’m now a traitor to the superior comic. It’s still my favorite of the last two years.

*source is (I believe) Sci Fi Channel magazine article read during lunch at B. Dalton magazine rack in Embarcadero 1 on lunch break one day.

I finally saw The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen today (itfinally arrived yesterday here in Puerto Rico) and I loved it. I prefer the comic but I really dug the film. But I wish Norrington had finished editing the film because there's a noticeable shift in pace after reel three. Too bad he apparently has disowned this because a few tweaks wouldactually make it even better.

But my only gripe was The Phantom's true identity.

Also, is it just me or does anyone else feel there were a lot more introspective scenes filmed than those featured in the finished cut?

Either way, this is a film I will certainly purchase on DVD.

I can't wait for Keanu reeves to drive up in the "Constantine mobile". I saw pictures of that months ago and couldn't stop laughing.

the Hamm-Watchmen script has been floating around for years and I've never read it. it looks like I'm not missing anything.

I did not know this.

I admit, i'm one from the "the book is always better" club and i thought the movie was based just off the comic. Since the movie is an interpretation of the concept it makes things that much more interesting.


BTW, i liked the movie as well. Can't wait to see what will be on the DVD (extra's wise)

I'd buy that if had said pre-production. That's a big difference. Filming didn't start till Summer 2002.

Watchmen is like, the greatest story ever told. If I became a billionaire, I would seriously buy the rights, hire a whole bunch of people and then make a word for word adaptation :)

And you'd be my hero. Can I co-write and direct? ;)

The only thing I didn't like about Watchmen was Other than that minor gripe, I think Watchmen is a fantastic read and could only work as a long series of 4+ hour movies that are panel-by-panel adaptations of the comic book. The only thing that would have to change are the text pages. Perhaps they can be turned into interviews featuring the characters who wrote the books the texts are taken from as they discuss the same topic found in their writings.

May I produce and edit this collaboration? :D

NO! ONLY ME AND ALAN MOORE! THE REST OF YOU CAN PISS OFF!

;)

BREAKING NEWS!!!
Production has started on a feature-length film version of the popular comic series Preacher. Starring Freddie Prinze Jr. as Jesse Custer, Matthew Lillard as the fun-living vampire Cassidy, and Sarah Michelle Gellar as Custer's girlfriends Tulip, Preacher is expected to be released late summer of '04.


;)

Okay. That certainly works for me. I think this ending probably didn't work for me cos it seemed like it was trying to be the typicial dun dun dun ending. It makes sense that it wasn't though it was certainly pretending to be (much as Watchmen wasn't truly about superheroes but about too much power resting in the hands of a few, how these crimefighters in the end arejustmen and women who screw up like the rest of us, and how the quick fix is never the answer).

BTW, other than the subtle hints in the book,

Watchmen, in my mind, is about how real Superheros would be, in our real world :)

to answer your question:

Except for it's slam against Steve Ditko because Moore doesn't like his ideology. What a **** nut.

I agree with your take on the theme though I think it goes farther than that. As we saw in the book, thse so-called superheroes were as fallible as you and I. Yet the general public, for a time,saw that as being more than just the simple men and women they were.

As for your response pertaining to Hodded Justice's true identity, those were the subtle hints I was reffering to. I guess that really was him.