Geek Out Episode 7: Alan Moore

Alan Moore is the much celebrated author of many acclaimed Comics/Graphic Novels including V FOR VENDETTA, LEAGUE of EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, FROM HELL and WATCHMEN. Many of his books have been adapted into films without his cooperation. This episode of THE GEEK OUT touches on the various works by Moore, how they have been treated by fans and Hollywood alike, and what one can expect when their favorite book or comic becomes a film.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Mack
• Duncan
• Geek
• Out
• Alan
• Moore
• Comics
• Graphic
• Novels
• Watchmen
• League
• of
• Extraordinary
• Gentlemen
• Batman
• DC
• Hollywood

[AdamVDE]

I just order The League of... men and V for Vendetta. I already have Watchmen and it is awesome!

[MackDuncan]

Yes, the books awesome. The whole LoEG series is pretty good (although the mid-50s book with the 3-D chapter gets a little weird, even for a Moore book). V is a decent movie (but is not the book), and avoid the League movie like the plague. It's awful, regardless of the source material.

[VariedInterest]

You shouldn't speak for Alan Moore so much. You could just offer your own insights regarding the adaptation of Alan Moore material into film, as opposed to saying "Alan Moore hates DC; Alan Moore says go read a book!" because he didn't actually say that. Of course we can gather that he is not on good terms with Times Warner (DC Comics), as he is an Anarchist and, thoughtful, and he definitely respects the intelligence of his audience, but you didn't do his observations justice here.

[MackDuncan]

Thanks for the insight.

[VariedInterest]

Will Eisner invented the Graphic Novel for his Contract with God trilogy. Those are great reads, too, check them out.

And in my opinion, Watchmen doesn't take a fan of comics, it takes a fan of thought in general. I love comics, so I can read some slightly weaker ones (like Werewolf by Night for example), but as a person who studies philosophy and science and novels in general, Watchmen is mind blowing.

Truly, if you like the movie AND the book, you can't possibly appreciate the book.

[MackDuncan]

I really appreciate your comments, and you're right on the money for the most part.

I do take issue with this statement: "Truly, if you like the movie AND the book, you can't possibly appreciate the book." I've been working very hard at viewing and evaluating individual work on its own merrit vs. its ability to recreate something. I do appreciate the book, and I was okay with the movie. They are not the same thing.

[MackDuncan]

What made the book special cannot be translated into film language. The filmmakers drew upon the source material and made a somewhat entertaining film... the book still stands alone as an exceptional achievement.

[VariedInterest]

interpreted highlights which all failed entirely to grasp any of the essence or tone, and certainly didnt maintain any of the political or social resonance of the book. Add the fact that the movie shouldnt have rightfully been made to begin with, and that that is almost as great an offense as any of its countless eventual artistic and intellectual failures.

[VariedInterest]

If you have so little to say yourself that you are content with robotic mimicry, you should at least have the first idea what the material is and represents, before you attempt to plagiarize it. And that's what this is, no matter how much Snyder insists he loves and respects Alan Moore, and regardless of illegitimate contractual laws, unless you have the approval of the creator, it's not a collaboration or interpretation, you are merely a studio shill, and a corporate plagiarist.

[VariedInterest]

But this is where the movie failed on so many levels. First of all the goal was to as accurately as possible, transfer the graphic literary source onto film. That is an exercise in pure redundancy, and is neither a noble or a wise choice. And the idea that Zack Snyder has the artistic depth to recreate something as profound as Watchmen is laughably offensive. I felt like I was watching Daredevil, it was just so flimsy and superficial. Not only that, it WASNT accurate, it was poorly

[VariedInterest]

But I am always careful and sparing with comparisons, thats why I didnt actually compare the book and movie, I just commented on the basic sensibilities required to appreciate both. I tend to agree with Buddha that all comparisons are odious. Another mistake people make in comparing an adapted work into another medium, is the confusion that accuracy is the same as successfulness. Most of the best adaptations stray a great deal from the source. Total Recall being a fine example.

[VariedInterest]

I am always the first one to call people out for comparing works in different mediums, especially books to films. It's a bit like saying that Portishead's 'The Rip' is better than 'Tron', or than Camus' 'The Stranger', or something equally ridiculous. "The book was better than the film," has always been a foolish statement to me. Often I find people say it just so that others will know they have read a book, haha. I am talking about North America of course, where reading is quirky...