What's Alan Moore's Problem?

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Why is he such a crabby bastard about 'Watchmen', etc.?

I'm guessing he has his reasons.

What I'm looking for is a concise explanation with as few inside references as possible. (In other words, I'm on the outside looking in, and I need a little help.)

I'm guessing that he had some bad experiences with studios in that past, and he feels burned.

But, if that's the case, were his experiences any worse than what the normal creative type has when they go head to head with the suits? (As much of any of us can possibly know what happened, that is.)

Or is he just reacting more strongly than others to the same nonsense that every creative type has to deal with?

[Mistral]

From what I have heard he is disgusted with the Hollywood system in general and very protective of his work-I don't think he wants them to change one word. Literally. I read V and saw the movie and it was darn faithful-but he disowned it.

[ancient]

I believe he doesn't think his stories are filmable. If this has anything to do with his crankiness I have no idea.

I know a lot of stories are not made for Hollywood adaptation, and require massive rearrangement to become movies.

For example, take the classic The Strange case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. The book has no love intrests. Most of the action takes place via flashback. Mr. Hyde is actually barely in the book at all. The story ENDS IN A FLASHBACK. The main character is actually Utterson, who is just an observer, and thusly useless unless you were to keep the mystery aspect. and of course, everyone knows what's going on so the mystery aspect is also useless. Turning that into a Hollywood formula requires that the entire storyline be essentially thrown out and replaced, even though the book is excellent as a book.

It's possible Moore is simply unhappy with Hollywood commandeering his work. A lot of artists are possessive of their ceations, which I can sympathize with. I guess Hollywood clinging to his coattails annoys him. Others write their stories specifically so they will be easy to adapt.

[CaptainCanada]

He dislikes how all of his projects have been filmed so far (in general, he doesn't believe in film adaptation, saying that they were written for one medium and so should stay there), and there have been some other complications (such as a lawsuit accusing him of ripping off another screenplay when writing League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).

He also has issues with filming things that he doesn't own, such as Watchmen, where DC played fast and loose with the contract rules on certain merchandising items and on ownership in general.

Mistral wrote:

---

From what I have heard he is disgusted with the Hollywood system in general and very protective of his work-I don't think he wants them to change one word. Literally. I read V and saw the movie and it was darn faithful-but he disowned it.

It was a good film on its own, but it completely changed the message of the original (and he also disliked the way the British characters were written, which he thought was laughably inauthentic).

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

There was a long discussion, which turned into quite a heated debate, about Alan Moore and his attitude and actions regarding film adaptations of his work on a Newsarama message board thread. The thread can be found here. Skip ahead to page five of the thread if you want to start reading at the point where film producer Don Murphy (From Hell, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) enters the discussion and things start getting interesting.

[Lapis Exilis]

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

---

Why is he such a crabby bastard about 'Watchmen', etc.?

I was always under the impression that he is simply a crabby bastard. I rather like that in an artist from time to time. It's refreshing instead of the "love me, love me" narcissicism so often found in those who play along with the system to hawk their creations in whatever form will bring them a buck.

[grabmygoblin]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

I was always under the impression that he is simply a crabby bastard.

exactly. he's a big gruff guy who writes amazingly but is not one of those writers you could easily have a beer with.

I rather like that in an artist from time to time. It's refreshing instead of the "love me, love me" narcissicism so often found in those who play along with the system to hawk their creations in whatever form will bring them a buck.

sometimes I like it, but other times, his attitude can be extremely frustrating. Marvel finally talked him into letting them print his old Captain Britain work. a printing error later, and he revoked their rights again, even after profuse apologies.

I guess I'd probably be cranky as well if I had to deal with contracts and lawyers and protecting my intellectual properties, but I hope I wouldn't be as cranky.

[davejames]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

I was always under the impression that he is simply a crabby bastard. I rather like that in an artist from time to time. It's refreshing instead of the "love me, love me" narcissicism so often found in those who play along with the system to hawk their creations in whatever form will bring them a buck.

Yeah even though his attitude does kind of rub me the wrong way, it IS refreshing to see an artist who actually doesn't give a crap about Hollywood, and isn't looking to cash in anywhere he can.

[ancient]

sometimes I like it, but other times, his attitude can be extremely frustrating. Marvel finally talked him into letting them print his old Captain Britain work. a printing error later, and he revoked their rights again, even after profuse apologies.

Sounds like he's reminding them who is in control and screw you moneymakers this is my stuff. Which I can respect.

[Leroy]

Moore doesn't want his work stained by bad movies mention League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to anyone and they'll think of that shitty movie instead of the awesome comics.

[Temis the Vorta]

ancient wrote:

---

Sounds like he's reminding them who is in control and screw you moneymakers this is my stuff. Which I can respect.

If it really is his stuff, how can anyone get the legal rights to do a Watchmen movie? Why doesn't he just refuse to sell the rights?

[FALCONX0N]

^I'm not entirely certain on the details, but I hear that there was some sort of an arcane deal with DC back in the day that said that Alan Moore gets so much of the property, but the ultimate stay is for DC, for as long as they are actively printing his comics.

Needless to say, Watchmen has been given a new printing in TBP form every year since it's initial release. So Moore doesn't actually have the rights in anything else but name only.


But hey, this is purely uncited, just what I remember reading.

[Goliath]

Are we sure his name isn't really Howard Roark?

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

^^^
That deal with DC wasn't over Watchmen. It was over V for Vendetta, and it wasn't to do with the film rights (Moore had those and he sold them). That deal was to do with the V for Vendetta publishing rights. Moore would have got ownership of the publishing rights if V for Vendetta had gone out of print. But it never did because of its continuing popularity (something that Moore wouldn't have anticipated at the time the publishing deal was struck with DC because at that time a continuing backlist of graphic novels wasn't yet part of the industry). A lot of this stuff is in the thread I linked to above.

[Mr Light]

Alan Moore is a genius, but an extremely bizarre one. He practices magic and worships a fiction deity he invented. Read his wikipedia page, it's pretty out there!