What is Digg?43 Comments
- TheWriteGuy, on 10/17/2008, -0/+10Probably because all the movies that have been adapted from his most famous works have been underwhelming: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell and V for Vendetta. So far, V has been the best Moore to movie translation so far, but it still has a lot of faults.
That said, I'm cautiously predicting that Watchmen the movie will be the best one yet. - zyklon, on 10/17/2008, -0/+10So he was for it before he was against it? Inconceivable!
I'm sure a lot of writers would've been very proud to have made movies out of their books or recreations in the early stages, but unfortunately Hollywood makes some supreme trainwrecks for movies, thinking that's what people want. Look at Wickerman... the older one was a classic, and the new one was simply rubbish. - Shorties, on 10/17/2008, -0/+8As much as I liked 300, and as beautiful as it was, it really wasn't that great of a movie, it was mostly visual art, the story was just a little too shallow. Sin City was wonderful and so was V for Vendetta, The two recent batman movies have been great. (Not to say Tim Burton's Batman was bad). And I even think Iron Man was one of the best mainstream adaptations yet (Though it was along the same lines as 300, the story wasn't too deep but the action, and in this case, witty dialogue made up for it).
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/17/2008, -0/+8Alan Moore's opinion of Hollywood is completely justified. Just take League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as an example. That utter piece of garbage movie alone gives Moore the right to hate Hollywood forever. doubt a thousand awesome movies adapted from his work could make up for that travesty of a movie for him.
That said, I liked V for Vendetta and am looking forward to Watchmen. Moore can bitch all he wants, and is justified in that, but just because Hollywood makes some crappy movies doesn't mean they can't make good ones too. - bigtizzle, on 10/17/2008, -0/+7Who let Dennis Miller get an account on Digg?
- TheScotsman1980, on 10/17/2008, -0/+7Maybe we have advanced our culture in a positive way since the 80's afterall.
- amoirae, on 10/17/2008, -1/+7On Watchmen he's refusing credit as well as the money.
- AskMike2005, on 10/17/2008, -0/+6Part of the reason is because Alan was invoved in a court case with 20th Century Fox over League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen where he was sued or plagiarism...
Alan's comment on this - "They seemed to believe that the head of 20th Century Fox called me up and persuaded me to steal this screenplay, turning it into a comic book which they could then adapt back into a movie, to camouflage petty larceny."
This led to Moore giving a ten-hour deposition - he believes he'd have suffered less if he'd "sodomised and murdered a busload of children after giving them heroin." - babylonian, on 10/17/2008, -4/+9Moore was/is immensely talented, but he is the only piece of Hollywood source material that is somehow whinier than its own fanbase.
- oblique63, on 10/17/2008, -0/+4nothing to do with the article, but I just finished reading V for Vendetta again today, and I gotta say, this man is a genius...
I can't blame the man for his current stance though, I would probably be paranoid as well, after seeing people practically wreck greats such as From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen , and even V for Vendetta to a fair degree... had those projects not happened, I bet Moore would be more than content to endorse Watchmen today... - Johnichi, on 10/17/2008, -0/+4Basically, he was a virgin to the world of Hollywood when Watchmen was first coming out and his good nature had him trust those behind the Watchmen film back then and even DC Comics who was publishing Watchmen. I mean I think anyone would be ***** stoked to hear about all this interest in something you created. Then the reality hit...over and over again. Hollywood wasn't out to treat Alan Moore like the genius that he was (and still is). Instead, they did what they do best: They took the concepts of his works and stuck some ideas that might attract casual moviegoers. After about a few decades of this *****, Alan was through with being ***** over and the result is a bitter, bitter man that would rather never hear from anyone near the top of any industry again. He was too naive about the whole system of things. Hollywood doesn't care about you as an artist when the only people that have heard of you are a tiny cluster of comic book geeks...
- inactive, on 10/17/2008, -0/+4yeah, that was it. thanks.
- neocreo, on 10/17/2008, -1/+5cripes, did a comic book movie molest you when you were a baby?
I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I find in the last couple of years I have not been disappointed at any movie adaption of a comicbook. If you want to see a bad one so that you can see how good recent efforts have been, I recommend Howard the Duck, Fantastic Four (1994), and Judge Dredd. - inactive, on 10/17/2008, -1/+5"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 read that, but it's too vague. i remember reading this whole story that it was something specific like DC Comics screwing him over.
don't answer if you have nothing to contribute ;( - inactive, on 10/17/2008, -3/+6kudos to anyone who can explain to me why alan moore hates hollywood so much..
..i heard rambles that it's because he was deceived or something? can anyone clarify? - inactive, on 10/17/2008, -0/+3Just like Paror Vlidmichov endorsed "Zashchita Luzhina" back in 1921...
Zhizn! - HaSatan, on 10/17/2008, -0/+3Diggers will look up and shout "Digg me up!". And I'll whisper "No".
- Mujokan, on 10/17/2008, -0/+3And it had Britt Ekland...
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3231619072/nm0001180 - Sabretou, on 10/17/2008, -1/+4I think Moore's quip is something like, Hollywood is cheap entertainment. No matter how good a Hollywood movie will get, it's still just 2 hours of cheap thrills and fun. Graphic novels, books, etc. are complex, immersive, poetical and artistic. They're completely different worlds.
- inactive, on 10/17/2008, -1/+4and we wouldn't have cared about it then either...
- solid12345, on 10/17/2008, -1/+4"Any X-Men movie"
But it was the first X-Men that made comic book movies respectable. Be honest, they were decent films, so what if you didn't get to see your yellow spandex Wolvy, but we got a good plot, good writing and were entertained. - sassyjack, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2He defers payment to the artist he worked with, as well as credit. In fact, he's so pissed at DC for issues with Watchman (before movie) in addition to other ***** ups on DC's part (mostly relating to observing Moore's very reasonable demands to keep his name off of adaptations of his work, as well as Q.C. of reprints) that he doesn't want his name on ANY Watchman relating things. If Snyder wanted any sort of anything from Moore, he shouldn't have adapted the work. That being said, while Moore is within the bounds of good sense to be venomous toward "Hollywood" and "the industry" despite the fact that most Americans that love his work loved V for Vendetta, are excited about Watchman, and share his hatred for most of his other adaptations, Moore doth protest too much.
- uskomaton, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2I can't believe I forgot both FF movies.
@Shorties
I love comics, which is why most movies based on them suck in my eyes. With the few exceptions. And no, 300 wasn't a great movie, but it was true to the comic. Yes, V was also fairly ok, especially in comparison to some of the recent crap.
And no, neither Batman movie was good and Tim Burtons wasn't either.
The only good thing about Dark Knight was The Joker and I guess we all know why. - CrimsonBlur, on 10/18/2008, -0/+2There are just as many ***** graphic novels, books, etc. as there are movies (more, probably). It's not as if every book and every graphic novel released is amazing, it's no different. The only difference is movies are a much less mature art form and an evolving medium, and Moore simply isn't willing to admit that maybe movies can be just as relevant as his graphic novels.
To say movies, even Hollywood movies, are all only cheap entertainment is disingenuous and narrow-minded. There are plenty of Hollywood movies that are complex, immersive, poetical and artistic, but we've only been making movies for a hundred years or so.
To knock the length of movies makes no sense. How long does it take you to analyze a painting for the first time? How long does it take you to read a short story? How long does it take to read a graphic novel? The amount of time it takes to view something the first time around has nothing to do with the quality of what you are looking at or listening to, so the fact that a movie is generally two hours long isn't really relevant. - inactive, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2Dugg for "Oh my god they still ride around on horses!"
It's amazing how awful the scripts for Watchmen have really been. I just hope the picture isn't that awful. - arcangelgabriel, on 10/17/2008, -1/+3Well when you sell the rights to your work you really have no bitch...
- solid12345, on 10/17/2008, -2/+4I can understand Moore's frustration with adaptation of his works, but to call movies shallow culture pieces to distract people from their boring lives and demeaning jobs? I mean what are comic books for? The same exact thing!
- cquinnd, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2To my knowledge he has refused the royalties from all the film adaptations of his works, or deferred the money to charity or some other cause he thought deserving.
- Mujokan, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2Brian Grazer has pointy hair.
- LeepII, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2Most people don't remember that this was BEFORE he saw how V for Vendetta was ruined by being brought to film. It is way more than likely that just like the V for Vendetta film, the Watchmen film will also have its core message removed and something more "hollywood" inserted.
I do find it funny that so many people can have a negative opinion about an author wanting to properly represent his work. I guess he is supposed to clamor for the almighty dollar like the rest of the low lives. - Iatethecrayon, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2Hollywood is like the boss at your job who has NO idea what goes on and has NOTHING to do with your project until they get their grubby fat hands on a piece of it and, to feel like they have some kind of impact, start spouting out ideas that are not only moronic, but ruin the entire idea behind the project.
If I were Alan Moore and THAT happened to something I took pride in, I'd be angry too. Who knows, MAYBE he'll see the movie and maybe he'll like it. But if I were him, I'd have low expectations too. - Yaanu, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2As movies, they're fine. As official canon, they're debatable. To the fans, however, no matter how detailed it is, it's still butthurt.
- gandhi2, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2@arc and babylonian
He never wanted to sell his rights. He never had the rights in the first place, because that's how comics work. You work your ass off building a property, and then the large studios end up ***** around with it. Moore's stance is understandable: since he can't do anything to prevent the studios from producing ***** movies with his property(as they've done with 3 or so other of his creations) he just wants his name off of it. He's got every right to be defensive about his creations when you examine horrid horrid films like, *shudder*, Constantine and League of Extraordinary Gentleman. - Rapter09, on 10/17/2008, -0/+2You know how filmmakers make a movie into a book and say "Gosh, that would NEVER work on screen so we had to change a bunch of stuff" And then they release their super awesome SPECIAL made for Film version, and it sucks.
Has anybody ever asked a writer and director why they don't just shut the ***** up with their stupid postulations and just remake the god damn book? I'm not talking about Watchmen, here, I just mean in general. Every time they try to convert a book to a movie they use the old "some things won't translate properly to film." line and then their film turns out to be a steaming pile of *****.
Just make the goddamn thing the way it was supposed to be made for once. You might be surprised. - onryo, on 10/21/2008, -0/+1The week that the trailer was released the Watchmen TP went to number 1 seller on amazon.com for its category. This from the Trailer alone. If Al wants to impress me with his rants, then he has to give the money up he got from all those sales. Else, just shut the ***** up.
- Billthe4th, on 10/17/2008, -3/+4Does anyone else think Moore is creating all this fuss about being anti-hollywood so that he gets some credit for the film without appearing to 'sell out'?
Seems to me there are better ways to shun a movie adaption of your book than bad mouthing Hollywood in the LA Times... - Obermeister, on 10/20/2008, -1/+2I just finished reading Watchmen for the 1st time last weekend...There is no way you could make that into a profitable American movie without selling out. That's not the kind of movie Hollywood makes. Tarantino could make this into a movie successfully, no way anyone else could.
- onryo, on 10/17/2008, -2/+2Alan Moore . . .what a dick.
- uskomaton, on 10/17/2008, -3/+4Have you seen Transformers, Spider-Man 3, any X-men movie, Superman Returns, Hulks (Yes, they both suck ass), Punishers, Hellboy 2 and on and on, in fact the only good movies made from a comic book have been Sin City and 300.
- Goldbricker, on 10/17/2008, -1/+1Was the 2004 election the exact moment in this country when a person could no longer change their mind about something without facing derision?
Alan Moore, while being a talented comics writer, is a bit full of himself and I'm frankly tired of hearing about his eccentricities. - solid12345, on 10/17/2008, -3/+2Kind of like Democrats and the Iraq war!
- shibagarden, on 10/17/2008, -2/+1He should refuse his royalty check from the film in protest.
- BobbyMC, on 10/17/2008, -6/+3READ THE ***** ARTICLE
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is