Post 1 of 16
Meanwhile, AICN have a rather spiffy blog direct from the production designer, including some sexy black and white photos.
All together now: Please don't screw it up, Zack, please don't screw it up, Zack...
You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.
Post 1 of 16
Post 2 of 16
Post 3 of 16
Post 4 of 16
That's true but he has always been standoffish about the whole thing, especially after From Hell and then V for Vendetta, both of which seemed to be bad experiences for him. You never know it might surprise even him.
Axeman wrote:Considering Alan Moore has already gone on record stating he thinks Watchmen should never be made into a film, and has ordered DC and Warner Brothers NOT to ever, ever contact him regarding the project, I think its already screwed up.
Post 5 of 16
Post 6 of 16
Post 7 of 16
Post 8 of 16
You just keep paying them more and more money until they final relent. At least that seems to be the standard drill nowdays.
Tarn wrote:how long do you go respecting the author's wishes?
Post 9 of 16
That is true I can see where Axeman is coming from... and I'd completely forgotten about League of Extraordinary Gentlemen... I'm sure you can imagine why!
Tarn wrote:After the debacle of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell, you can't really blame him for being pissed off about the whole thing. While V For Vendetta was a much better film than those prior two, it still pales in comparison to the book.
Axeman has a good point about respecting the author's wishes. However, with comics it's not quite that simple - Dave Gibbons is a massive part of Watchmen, and is quite clearly very positive and excited about the film project.
JRR Tolkien probably wouldn't have wanted his books made into films either - how long do you go respecting the author's wishes?
Post 10 of 16
Post 11 of 16
LXG the film was indeed a horrifying travesty in regard to its comic origins. The actual comic is pretty gritty and hardcore. For example, at one point Mr. Hyde rapes the invisible man.
Pooky wrote:I thought LXG was a really fun movie. I haven't read the graphics novels yet though, so maybe those are genius and nuanced, in which case LXG would, indeed, be a travesty
Post 12 of 16
Wow. I don't see how your, or anyone else's, viewpoint (with the exception of Dave Gibbons) should even be a factor. Its his creation. But your view is, unless he agrees with you, his input on what is done with it shouldn't matter?
Hybrid-Halo wrote:Whilst I'm a fan of a lot of Moore's works, I don't agree with his anti-movie stance and therefore don't care for his wishes to be honored.
Moore's biggest complaint is the basic fact that Watchmen was designed, and constructed from the ground up, to do things that a graphic novel can do that no other medium can. Seems to me like the entire format of the book is going to have to be drastically reworked to get it to even remotely work as a film. But, maybe they'll pull it off. Maybe now that he has "X-Men" and "The Scorpion King" under his belt, David Hayter has mastered his scriptwriting skills.
Hybrid-Halo wrote:I'm really looking forwards to Watchmen, and am glad to see that every effort is being made to respect it's art and not just its author.
Post 13 of 16
Hehe, oh dear.
Axeman wrote:Maybe now that he has "X-Men" and "The Scorpion King" under his belt, David Hayter has mastered his scriptwriting skills.
Respect it's art? What, because they make the sets look like the panels in the book? They seem to me to be doing everything they can to disrespect the author.In what way? Other than by simply making the film, of course. But otherwise I haven't seen any specific disrespect towards Moore. The director specifically wanted Moore on board the project, as I understand it.
Post 14 of 16
True enough. I was just getting a bit carried away. The basic fact that they are making the film is basically what I was talking about. Deliberately doing the exact opposite of what he wants seems pretty disrepectful though. Which isn't to say that they are doing it because he doesn't want them to, but still...
Tarn wrote:Respect it's art? What, because they make the sets look like the panels in the book? They seem to me to be doing everything they can to disrespect the author.In what way? Other than by simply making the film, of course. But otherwise I haven't seen any specific disrespect towards Moore. The director specifically wanted Moore on board the project, as I understand it.
Post 15 of 16
Then again, if he sold the rights to the story, or wrote the story for DC back in the day, it's really not just up to him. Either he was hired to do a job, in which case it's not really up to him what hapepns to the finished product, or he relinquished control over the property. Whatever the reasons for relinquishing that control, it was a decision he made and I'm sure he understood the potential consequences. And it's not like he's been locked out - I'm sure they'd have loved to have him involved, as with Dave Gibbons.
Axeman wrote:True enough. I was just getting a bit carried away. The basic fact that they are making the film is basically what I was talking about. Deliberately doing the exact opposite of what he wants seems pretty disrepectful though. Which isn't to say that they are doing it because he doesn't want them to, but still...
You really found the book cinematic?Absolutely. The visual language is very much that of cinema, with slow zooms and intercutting. Panels suggest camera movement quite vividly.
So much of what makes the book brilliant, to me at least, is the way he weaves multiple narratives over the top of each other, and through each other, that are taking place in completely different times. Dialog from events now is overlaid onto past evens seamlessly, and that seems like something that will not convert well to film. There are entire chapters of the book where he is changing decades almost every panel; again, something extremely difficult to do in a film without losing the audience.True, the intercutting between scenes/decades would be difficult to replicate in movie form, but not impossible. There have been plenty of non-linear films (just check out Christopher Nolan's non-Batman stuff), and films which intercut many and varied stories (Magnolia?).
Every chapter ends with a huge chunk of backstory in written form, creating a contrast with the visual format of the main story.Also true, but then LotR has a massive appendices and timeline, and the filmmakers thought up clever ways to work them into the main films.
Post 16 of 16
That's entirely true. I think I mentioned earlier that they did have the legal right to make the movie, and Moore can't do a thing about it. And it isn't wrong in that respect for them to adapt it to a film. But any degree of respect for the author should impel them to consider his wishes.
Tarn wrote:There's basically at least three parties involved here: The author, the artist and the publisher/financier/owner of the comic. Just because the author is (rightly or wrongly) against the film doesn't mean it shouldn't be made.
In some cases the author doesn't have final say over a piece of work. It all depends how and why the work was created, and where the rights lie. And I'm coming at this as a writer - if you don't hold onto the rights to your work, then that's that, really.
Oh, you mean in regard to the artwork. Again, I completely agree with you. Gibbons did an excellent job of visually telling the story Moore wrote. I was thinking of the actual story, and the format of it, when I made the comment about its cinematic-ness. And while it certainly isn't impossible to adapt said story to film, it would require a significant amount of major re-structuring to get it to work as a film on anywhere near the same level of brilliance that it works as a graphic novel.
Tarn wrote:The visual language is very much that of cinema, with slow zooms and intercutting. Panels suggest camera movement quite vividly.