Something I've been meaning to say for a while:

[wolven7]

I love Alan Moore. I really do. I try to read everything he's put his hand and amazingly wonderful brain to, and he's got some of the best theories on magic, thought, and substance dualism, in the field.

He's a Very Cranky Old Man.

He gave up the adaptation rights to these things. Movies, video games, novelizations, comic adaptations of the novelizations of the movies made of his stuff (don't laugh, that shit happened). All of it. He said: "Take it. I don't want my name attached, I don't want any input to it, I don't want to look at it, hear about it, smell it, or have the faint aftertaste of it mar my Superior English Palette."

So where the fuck does he get off being angry at what happens to the things of which he has washed his hand?

I think that Mr. Moore would do well to remember, as often as possible, the story about Raymond Chandler:

When The Big Sleep was made into a movie, and reporters would go to interview him, they would tell Chandler "they ruined your book," and he would get up, walk to the bookshelf, grab a copy of it and say, "No, it's right there."

It's Still Right There, Mr. Moore. It's Still Right There.

Comments

[momentai.livejournal.com]

Just b/c he doesn't want to be associated with derivatives of his work does not negate his opinion on said derivatives. He doesn't want to have anything to do with them for whatever his reasons, but if he happens to see the movie or hear a review of it, he still might get mad. Then, if someone just happens to hound him down for an interview, then hey, conversations happen.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but if you refuse to have any hand at all, in the process, there's only so much one gets to bitch.

It's actively like not voting, and then complaining about what happens. You did nothing to try to stop it, and now it's out there. Are you going to vote next time?

Well, unless you just like bitching, then, I would recommend it.

[momentai.livejournal.com]

It's nothing like not voting and than commenting on the state of the government, not that there is anything wrong with that.

It's like taking a pointless ideological stance to prove a point and then minding your own business and having strangers come up to you and asking what your thoughts are on the latest movie based on your old work. He could ignore them, but he does in fact hate adaptations of his work, so why not tell them that?

And even if he does randomly spout off to whoever is listening, he still has the right to be angry. Saying he doesn't is like saying he doesn't have the right to be hungry. He has a mind. It's going to formulate thoughts every once in awhile. If the thoughts that get publicity are the ones that go

"...jesus, that is a stupid fucking movie..."

than so what? Now, if he does this often it does in act ruin the point of not wanting to be associated with the movie, so you'll just have to ask him why keeps answering these questions. Maybe he's bored.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Because he could have Stopped these adaptations, by retaining the rights, and burying all of it.

It's why the Sandman movie isn't anywhere near ever being made.

[momentai.livejournal.com]

Maybe he could have stopped them maybe not. And if he could have, maybe his reasoning was why screw the other creator(s) out of royalties just b/c he knows that the adaptation would suck?

Whatever his reasons were, I'm just saying that he has a right to be pissed at the final product if it does in fact suck, regardless of if he was involved or not. Most authors hate adaptations of their work, but they are either legally precluded from saying so in public or feel it would be hypocritical and/or impolite.

And let's face it, he's only Alan Moore. He may have respect within his field, but his work has not made huge amounts of money therefore he would have no negotiating clout to keep crap out of the adaptations had he retained his rights. Since the movies would be below his liking regardless than why put his name on it?

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Faulty logic, on both counts.

Voting doesn't gurantee you get what you want and neither does working with a studio. The author of the Never Ending Story had his name pulled from the movie because they butchered it in his opinion despite his involvement.

The idea that voting or participating in the system equates to real change or really any change is faulty, I mean shit didn't you read V for Vendetta ;)

Alternately if you vote for someone who screws up, can the rest of us hold you personally accountable?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

It's true, but I don't think that voting necessarily means things will be perfect, just that they have a higher likelihood of matching the creator's vision, if that creator leaves him/her/itself open to the possibility of working towards that.

On the other hand, if I do nothing, I have NO major chance of effecting change.

And I believe that we can be held responsible for what was available for reasonable consideration. If I work with a director, knowing they did, say, some Sci-Fi original movie, then yeah, I share some of the blame, if the end product is shite, but not all of it.

But if all we have to go on is one spectacular success, and the director's buried several flops, somehow, and I decide to work with them, then I'm acting on information I didn't know was incomplete. Not as clear a responsibility.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"just that they have a higher likelihood of matching the creator's vision, if that creator leaves him/her/itself open to the possibility of working towards that"

I disagree, I don't think there is a higher likliehood. Aside from which in Moore's case the creator's vision is not ever going to be matched more perfectly than it was by the creator in the medium they chose to create with. Film adaptations can often be good examples of film making (The Princess Bride as an example is one o the best adaptations of a novel I've seen)but adaptations are never in practice and hopefully not in intention meant to be a refining of the creator's vision.

"On the other hand, if I do nothing, I have NO major chance of effecting change."

Moore isn't doing nothing, he's putting his energy into creating new projects instead of fighting losing battles with production companies.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Not refining, matching. Doing, in film, or television, or comic, or whatever, something that better approaches in scope, meaning, and intensity, the thing for which the original creator was aiming.

And I mean if I do nothing, in regards to the film, not in regards to my whole life and works.

[moonandserpent.livejournal.com]

He doesn't bitch about the movies, though does he? He's bitched incessantly about people trying to put his name on the movies or talk to him about them, but he hasn't actually bitched about them, has he? At least recently.

Given that the first time I heard that Chandler story was from Alan in an interview, I'm pretty sure he has that in mind. Now his fans? His fans bitch enough for everyone.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Now his fans? His fans bitch enough for everyone.

True Dat.

He wasn't very happy with the idea of the Watchmen movie, in any way shape or form, and just seems to despise the entire concept of adaptation.

It's weird, for me...

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's entirely weird to despise turning art into a commodity.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I don't really think of it as turning it into a commodity, so much as wanting to do something new with something you love.

Ideally, that's what adaptation should be. Not saying it always is, but that's the ideal.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Ideally it is, the reality is almot always different.

The Watchmen isn't becoming a movie because studio execs want to explore the story in the millieu of film, they're doing it because right now comic book movies make bank.