| Author |
|
Jacob P Secrest
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4068
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 8:54am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
John Mietus wrote:
For me it's the hypocrisy of pissing all over other people's creations but
when it comes time for someone else to do something with his, he gets
all hyperdefensive about it. |
|
|
I disagree, here are a few points:
1) The only two movies Moore has had any say on so far have been FROM
HELL and LOEG. Aside from a bit of random criticism of turning the lead
character of FROM HELL into an opium addict, while turning the lead of
LOEG into a non-opium addict; he's basically not had loads to say about
either movie creatively (he didn't complaing about Tom Sawyer being
added or the car chases through Venice or any of the standard
complaints)...just that Hollywood just does what it does and he was happy
to take their money and let them do whatever they pleased.
This, of course, ended when he was named in a plagerism lawsuit over
aspects of the LOEG plot that were *added* by Hollywood. At which
point, he said he had had enough and stated that he does not want his
name on any other movie project, nor will he accept their money. He is
positively livid on being made a part of the plagerism suit (since none of
the aspects the movie was being sued over came from him) and that's
that.
2) Moments after making this proclamation, it would seem that
Hollywood just *had* to bring all of his creations to the screen, optioning
Constantine, V For Vendetta, and Watchmen (again)...something which he
expressed a certain amount of amusement considering all the free money
that was suddenly been aimed his way. Moore kindly said, "no thanks" to
the money, directed them to give his share to his co-creators, and told
them to leave his name off of them. These three properties are not
owned by him and I don't believe he has any power to stop DC from
optioning them to Hollywood. So, not really a lot of hypocrasy going on
here. He said he wanted nothing more to do with Hollywood after LOEG
and the only projects that have gone forward are the ones that he doesn't
own.
I've pretty much covered V For Vendetta, the producers trying to rope him
into the project by saying that he loved what they were doing...which
Moore felt compelled to correct. It would be like Marvel saying that John
Byrne is totally onboard with whatever they're doing with Alpha Flight.
He is critical of Hollywood in general, but it seems mostly because he's
not any sort of a fan. He seems to be more a theatre and low-budget
television sort of guy. He likes seeing imagination on the screen rather
than hordes of CGI orcs.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 8:59am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I dunno, Jacob -- all I've ever seen was him bitching about Hollywood's
treatment of his characters and how he doesn't want anything to do with
them. You may have a different interpretation, but everytime I read
something he's said about Hollywood's treatment of his characters, he's
come across to me like a whiny, self-important hypocrite.
And yet he has absolutely no problem with pissing all over other people's
creations, and then getting defensive about it when people criticize him for
it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Greg McPhee
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5094
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 9:13am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
John, I agree completely. Alan Moore seems to want everyone who handles one of his creations to do so with great care and respect, but thinks nothing of running rampant over other peoples.
If Dick Giordano hadn't stepped in Moore would have mangled the Charlton characters in Watchmen.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Revilla
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2266
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 9:17am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
He is the poster child of what is wrong with comic books today. If he wanted to tell new and gritty adult stories...make his own why use others and change them to do so ?
Edited by James Revilla on 25 June 2006 at 9:18am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
David Brunt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 9:36am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I'm getting dizzy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 11:09am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
He does use others characters but never claims he's writing Bram Stokers Whilemena Harker and telling the story of Dracule. As I understand it it's the fact that the films are marketed as Alan Moore's From Hell or whatever leading you to assume that what you see is the story he wrote.You could label the accusation of theft of others creations at Shakespeare to an extent - he used to beg, steal, or borrow plots or characters from history, recent events, legends, other peoples works and use them to create lasting narratives. *** I don't recall Shakespeare using historical figures or events in ways completely at odds with how they were traditionally portrayed. His Richard III might not be historically accurate, but it was the accepted portrayal of that King at the time. He told the story of Anthony and Cleopatra that people knew, and didn't cast Cleo as a 12 year old having an affair with an in-the-closet Anthony. It is patently absurd to suggest that a writer should be able to take fictional characters created by others and invert their established portrayals. This is something Philip Jose Farmer has also made into a cottage industry. The last time I attempted to read one of his novels it was "A Barnstormer in Oz". A wonderful title utterly gutted by an opening paragraph that said, in so many words, that L. Frank Baum "got it wrong"! There is no point that I can see in using established characters unless one intends to use them as established. There is especially no point in using characters that are still the property of someone else in a totally inappropriate manner. I mean, my lack of God! Proceeds from "Peter Pan" go to support a children's charity hospital. Should such an organization really have to sue to prevent a writer perverting their property? Is the world we live in really that sick?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Mayer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 January 2005
Posts: 1397
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 11:11am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
John, Greg, how many more interviews do you want posted from the man? Could you share one of the ones you have found the present him as whiny, self-important hyprocrit? I seriously am more than happy to take a look at them. I admit I haven't read any like that, but would be interested.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Revilla
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2266
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 11:12am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Barnstormer in Oz made me ill...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jacob P Secrest
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4068
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 11:15am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
There is especially no point in using characters that are still the property
of someone else in a totally inappropriate manner. |
|
|
In complete agreement there.
Moore is definitely in the wrong in this case, and there is good argument
that he's been in the wrong elsewhere as well, though I do enjoy his work.
That however is not what I was specifically arguing, I am arguing whether
or not Moore is a hypocrite, and in my opinion he is not.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Luke Smyth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 791
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 12:22pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Ah, Jacob, like you I don't think Alan Moore is a hypocrite, however there is plenty of hypocrisy to be found in this thread.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 12:37pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
No one has yet shown me how Alan Moore making it a point to keep his
name off dramatizations of his comics writing because he doesn't feel they
do justice to his characters and then turning around and getting defensive
when people take him to task for deconstructing classic characters that he
didn't create is not hypocrisy. He doesn't want to be associated with it when
others do it, but if he does it he gets defensive if people are offended. That's
artistic integrity? Okay, guys. Whatever. I'm done. Enjoy your Alice in
Wonderland and Wizard of Oz porn.
Edited by John Mietus on 25 June 2006 at 12:38pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36086
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 12:43pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Luke Smyth wrote:
| however there is plenty of hypocrisy to be found in this thread. |
|
|
Where?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
