NEW YORK TIMES PROFILES MOORE'S V PROBLEMS

[MattBrady]

In a lengthy and wide-ranging piece by Dave Itzkoff, The New York Times looked at the controversy between V for Vendetta writer Alan Moore and the producers of the soon to be released film. The story appeared on the front page of the paper’s Arts and Leisure section on Sunday, March 12th, and is one of the longer profiles of creator’s issues in comics that has appeared in the mainstream media in a long time.

From the article:

In Mr. Moore's account of his career, the villains are clearly defined: they are the mainstream comics industry — particularly DC Comics, the American publisher of "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" — which he believes has hijacked the properties he created, and the American film business, which has distorted his writing beyond recognition. To him, the movie adaptation of "V for Vendetta," which opens on Friday, is not the biggest platform yet for his ideas: it is further proof that Hollywood should be avoided at all costs. "I've read the screenplay," Mr. Moore said. "It's rubbish."

Itzkoff goes on to note that Moore ceased working for DC when it, in Moore’s eyes, became clear that DC was never going to allow V for Vendetta or Watchmen (perennial best-selling trades for DC) go out of print. DC’s Pubilsher and President Paul Levitz is quoted as saying that DC has honored all of its obligations to Moore, and that he doesn’t think Moore was dissatisfied at the time the original work came out, but grew to be dissatisfied with how he was treated by the company several years later.

The Times: Mr. Moore recognizes that his senses of justice and proportion may seem overdeveloped. "It is important to me that I should be able to do whatever I want," he said. "I was kind of a selfish child, who always wanted things his way, and I've kind of taken that over into my relationship with the world."

The article then goes on to talk about the film adaptations of Moore’s other work, especially noting the creator’s experience in giving a video testimony in regards to the suit Larry Cohen and Martin Poll brought against the producers of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, claiming that the film plagiarized their work, and that Moore’s comic had been created as a “smokescreen” to cover up the theft by the studio.

The ten hours of testimony, as the article revealed, is something that Moore is still particularly bitter about: "If I had raped and murdered a schoolbus full of retarded children after selling them heroin," he said, "I doubt that I would have been cross-examined for 10 hours." When the case was settled out of court, Mr. Moore took it as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself.

The article also details Moore’s wishes to be disassociated with the V for Vendetta film as well as DC Comics, and quotes producer Joel Silver, who said that Moore was unmoved by his apology for misconstruing Moore’s excitement about the project 20 years ago as something that continued to this day. "He said to me, 'I'm going to hang up on you if you don't stop talking to me,'" Mr. Silver recalled. "It was like a conversation with a tape recording." Itzkoff wrote.

Releated articles:

Directing V: Talking to James McTeigue

David Lloyd: A Conversation

Movie Review: V for Vendetta

Why V for Vendetta Matters - Especially Now

[rouge2]

The front page link to this is incorrect.

Good article, though.

-thanks

[adamania]

....is really what Alan wants.

If he wasn't such a pain in the a$$, maybe he could have done with this film what Frank Miller did with Sin City.

[sequart]

"If I had raped and murdered a schoolbus full of retarded children after selling them heroin," he said, "I doubt that I would have been cross-examined for 10 hours."

Sad and funny statement at the same time. Moore's right though, it was a mockery of the system.

[BradyKiller]

I bow down before Mr. Moore, as in my eyes, he is the most amazing talent in graphic literature of all time.

I want to stand on his side and not see this movie - but I already have whored myself out to From Hell and LXG...that I feel I must complete the unholy trinity.

I do however put a firm foot in the ground against seeing any kind of Watchmen film (unless of course its a HBO 12-part TV series.)

Now I know how Judas felt like.

My deepest apologies to you Mr. Moore.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by adamania
....is really what Alan wants.

If he wasn't such a pain in the a$$, maybe he could have done with this film what Frank Miller did with Sin City.

Moore doesn't even accept royalties from any of the movies of his work. He defers it all to the artists associated with the project.

I highly doubt money is a motivating factor to him. And I highly doubt that film adaptations, under any circumstances, would appeal to him.

[MattBrady]

Originally posted by adamania
....is really what Alan wants.

If he wasn't such a pain in the a$$, maybe he could have done with this film what Frank Miller did with Sin City.

Let's not be going off making inciteful claims and statements, the truth of which, you can know nothing about, please. His view of the film versions of his work has been consistent for years, as has been his practice of giving away money that was due him, to his collaborators.

MattB

[ZAXILLA2]

"Itzkoff goes on to note that Moore ceased working for DC when it, in Moore’s eyes, became clear that DC was never going to allow V for Vendetta or Watchmen (perennial best-selling trades for DC) go out of print. "

Why would he want them to go out of print?

[Chip Zdarsky]

Why would he want them to go out of print? [/b]

Because then the rights revert back to the creators.

[Midas]

Originally posted by Kepler
Moore doesn't even accept royalties from any of the movies of his work. He defers it all to the artists associated with the project.

I highly doubt money is a motivating factor to him. And I highly doubt that film adaptations, under any circumstances, would appeal to him.

I'm sure you're right and I'm sure that V for Vendetta will be no exception. I can say (based on seeing the pre-screening at Wondercon), however, that the movie is actually good in it's own right, unlike prior Moore adaptions...

[Snake]

He's a great writer. I enjoy his work.

But unless he realizes two things, he'll die miserable:

1. DC is not about to let books like Watchmen or V go out of print for the sake of Alan Moore's ego. Like it or not, they are popular, cash-generating titles that fans want and that DC wants fans to buy.

2. Other than Sin City, which had enough involvement by Frank Miller to earn him a co-directing credit, no movie adapted from a comic book or graphic novel (that I've seen) is a dead-on interpretation of the original source material. Alan Moore is no more special than any other writer who's original printed work has been "distorted" by the film industry; it comes with the territory.

[Fletcher]

I don't want to seem like I am slamming Moore, I think Watchmen is one of the best pieces of fiction written in a looooong time, but what would make him happy? I can understnad about being ticked off that someone accused him of plagerizing the LOEG but what about the other films? I don't even think he liked From Hell. I wonder what it would take for a director or film studio do to make him not want to take his name off of a movie based on one of his books?

[MattBrady]

Originally posted by Snake
2. Other than Sin City, which had enough involvement by Frank Miller to earn him a co-directing credit,

Just to clarify, Miller got co-directing credit, becuase he co-directed the film with Rodriguez. It wasn't an honorific in exchange for sweat equity.

MattB

[Fletcher]

Originally posted by Snake

2. Other than Sin City, which had enough involvement by Frank Miller to earn him a co-directing credit, no movie adapted from a comic book or graphic novel (that I've seen) is a dead-on interpretation of the original source material. Alan Moore is no more special than any other writer who's original printed work has been "distorted" by the film industry; it comes with the territory.

It's not just comics either. Its prose books too. Sometimes what is written in the book can not be translated onto the screen. Other times things have to be taken out to get the film under the time limit that the studio has put on it. However, you would think comic books would not be as badly mutliated as other works of fiction since a comic book is basically a movie story boarded.

[Poppabie]

Moore seems pretty unhappy with everything that comes from his work. Yes LXG was tits, but from all accounts, V is a brilliant film. Maybe thats the problem though. Maybe the fact that V validates the truth. The truth is it is impossible to directly translate a comic to film. Changes have to be made, the fact that the film is directed at a massive audience that is not just made of comic fans makes it impossible to really translate a film directly from a comic. Ever wondered why batman always has body armour in the films- because in a comic you can perceptualize a man who can just avoid bullets. In a fim you cant do that without Matrix powers. To make a comic book film for a wider audience, you have to take away the comic book. Its unfortunate, but true.

Moore seems to really despise this idea. I love his work, but the guys horse is so high, he'll never get off it. Quit whining. Its because of his misery that we have to get slapped with "from the jerks who brought you the matrix sequel crapfest". Put your name to your film already. Id rather hear "from the twisted mind of alan moore" a lot more

[jsf]

I like Moore's stories, but he's definitely full of himself.

All this nonsense about the "rights reverting back to the creator" means is that he wants complete control over the financial aspects of his stories, nothing else. His "artistic integrity" is in no way compromised by DC or Marvel, and never has been. He's produced tremendous works of comic literature from the very beginning, no matter who the distributor of his work has been. That said, clearly how much net profit he receives IS affected by who publishes his book. I find the whole thing a bit of a sham argument.

[adamania]

Let's not be going off making inciteful claims and statements, the truth of which, you can know nothing about, please. His view of the film versions of his work has been consistent for years, as has been his practice of giving away money that was due him, to his collaborators.

Matt, I did not mean to incite anything, just express an opinion....mine.

I see many of your notorious trolls blindly slamming any and all projects and creators from a particular publisher without any response whatsoever. Why, then, do I get slapped down for questioning the motivations of Mr. Moore?

[Neuromancer]

Originally posted by Fletcher
....However, you would think comic books would not be as badly mutliated as other works of fiction since a comic book is basically a movie story boarded.

True, but sometimes it's a LONG storyboard, LOL! I think a lot of times, screenwriters just don't "get it" when it comes to comics. Still and all, I thought Brian Bendis' anecdotes of his experiences formulating a Jinx script in Fortune and Glory was pretty revealing about this side of the issue.

[Mediancat]

I sympathize with Moore's difficulties with LXG, both with the lawsuit and the lousy movie it was turned into.

That said, it's ludicrous for him to expect DC to allow either one to go out of print, considering how good and profitable they are; and all accounts of V for Vendetta so far, including the one made by the artist (whose opinion has to count for as much as Moore's) are that it's pretty good, and at least a decent adaptation, if not letter-for-letter.

Rob aka Mediancat

[wishlish]

Originally posted by Fletcher
It's not just comics either. Its prose books too. Sometimes what is written in the book can not be translated onto the screen. Other times things have to be taken out to get the film under the time limit that the studio has put on it. However, you would think comic books would not be as badly mutliated as other works of fiction since a comic book is basically a movie story boarded.

So what? A movie's a lot more than storyboards. And the storyboards are for a different medium.

I've heard this claim that since both mediums are visual, comics and film are sister mediums. It's just not true. Comics deal with spatial relationships on paper; movies deal with real time and sound. There's so many technical differences that we're lucky any movies based on comics material work at all. Sure, you can take the story from comics and use them as source material, but that's it.

[BatmanBegins]

[QUOTE
Itzkoff goes on to note that Moore ceased working for DC when it, in Moore’s eyes, became clear that DC was never going to allow V for Vendetta or Watchmen (perennial best-selling trades for DC) go out of print.

Why would you want them to go out of print?

[RedHood]

I don't want to seem like I am slamming Moore, I think Watchmen is one of the best pieces of fiction written in a looooong time, but what would make him happy? I can understnad about being ticked off that someone accused him of plagerizing the LOEG but what about the other films? I don't even think he liked From Hell. I wonder what it would take for a director or film studio do to make him not want to take his name off of a movie based on one of his books?

I think what would make him happy is to have creative control over the work he produced, and the power to adapt/exploit it as he sees fit.

I like comics, I like movies, and so I like comic book movies. However, I respect Moore's aversion to film/Hollywood adaptions. Its like w/ Bill Watterson and Calvin and Hobbes: he's said many times that he is a cartoonist and created a strip, not a property whose control is ceded to a filmmaker, actors, animation studio, etc. Unfortunately, all too many comic book "creators" are in the industry simply for the opportunity to sell the rights to toy makers, video game companies and movie studios.

Part of it is the persistent belief that movies are higher on the artistic hierarchy, and that an comic adapation somehow validates the work. Why can't Watchmen just be a great comic? As people demand a sequel, people demand a movie version...even though most admit it will be inferior. At the very least, if Moore had complete control, he could choose how, when, and who would transfer his art.

Now, the one "pro-comics" argument for movies that makes some sense is the fact that it gets wide, mainstream attention, and, hopefully, gets people into comic book shops. However, does anyone think that From Hell, LXG (ugh), or Constantine either:
a) Made a dedicated comics fan out of anyone, or
b) Faithfully represented the work/ability of Moore, likely the greatest writer to EVER work in mainstream, superhero/adventure comics?

[DrBat]

Mr. Moore says he was objecting to language in his contracts that would give him back the rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" when they went out of print — language that he says turned out to be meaningless, because DC never intended to stop reprinting either book. "I said, 'Fair enough,' " he recalls. " 'You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.' "

What I don't get is how DC put in the contract that he would get the rights back when they went out of print, if they never intended to have it go out of print.

I wonder if Moore would still disapprove of any move adaptation, even if it was a literal adaptation.

[A.Vandelay]

Originally posted by Poppabie
Moore seems pretty unhappy with everything that comes from his work. Yes LXG was tits, but from all accounts, V is a brilliant film. Maybe thats the problem though. Maybe the fact that V validates the truth. The truth is it is impossible to directly translate a comic to film. Changes have to be made, the fact that the film is directed at a massive audience that is not just made of comic fans makes it impossible to really translate a film directly from a comic. Ever wondered why batman always has body armour in the films- because in a comic you can perceptualize a man who can just avoid bullets. In a fim you cant do that without Matrix powers. To make a comic book film for a wider audience, you have to take away the comic book. Its unfortunate, but true.

Moore seems to really despise this idea. I love his work, but the guys horse is so high, he'll never get off it. Quit whining. Its because of his misery that we have to get slapped with "from the jerks who brought you the matrix sequel crapfest". Put your name to your film already. Id rather hear "from the twisted mind of alan moore" a lot more

That's his whole point. It is pretty much impossible to translate his comics directly to the screen. After seeing how crappy the films based on his work were and actually being forced to testify for 10 hours in relation to the LXG movie, he's decided that he doesn't want anything to do with them anymore and wants his name taken off of them.

I really don't understand all this backlash I've seen against Moore lately. All he's done is fought to take his name off of a product that he views as substandard. He's not trying to break whatever contracts he signed when he gave up the movie rights. He just doesn't want to be associated with these movies and doesn't even accept the royalties that are due to him. I haven't seen V for Vendetta so I don't know if it's any good or not, but Moore has apparently read the script and he views it as a continuation of the tradition of bad movies based on his comics.

[mister_costa]

Frank Miller technically co-directed Sin City because the comics translated almost perfectly into storyboards, sets, dialogue, choreography, etc. His sparse storytelling style makes that possible.

Most of Moore's stuff is a bit too rich and laden with intrigue for that to translate directly to film.