‘This Is Not the Culture I Signed Up For’: Alan Moore and Hollywood

[4 March 2009]

Who will watch the Watchmen? Not their creator, Alan Moore. And while he seems to be alone in his condemnation with the latest adaptation of his work, Moore's steadfast position deserves some real attention.

By Ben Hamilton

It would be safe to say that nobody expected this. Watchmen, widely hailed as the greatest graphic novel of all time, is finally hitting the big screen, emerging from a messy production history with its hype intact. The film has been perfectly pitched to the public. Bubbling anticipation, false starts, surprisingly accurate and moody trailers, not to mention the comic’s already gargantuan reputation—all of these have worked together to build anticipation carefully, when it could have fizzled out long ago.

It has been a long time coming. There were murmurs way back in the late 1980s about a possible adaptation. In the early ‘90s, Terry Gilliam’s name was thrown around as possible director, which fell through due to funding issues. David Hayter wrote a script relatively recently that seemed to circulate a bit of excitement, but this came to a halt quickly and mysteriously. It seemed like it was never going to take off, with Gilliam’s claim that it was “unfilmable” echoing in the ears of anyone who wanted to see Watchmen on the screen.

Interestingly, one man not involved in this perennial kerfuffle is the writer of the original work, Alan Moore. Portrayed as an eccentric magician who lurks in some unknown corner of England called Northampton (which is just surreal if you’ve ever been to the place), he isn’t exactly someone who blends in with the crowd. He has also been the major detractor of the Watchmen movie, claiming, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, that he will be “spitting venom all over” it in the days running up to its release, bursting every blogger’s ecstatic spit bubbles in the process. He stated that this was ‘“not the culture I signed up for” and his patience had ebbed away a long time ago.

Indeed, Moore is not a person who minces his words when it comes to film adaptations of his work. In a recent feature for TotalFilm.com, Moore hopped on his tip-toes, clenched his fists, and threw his most barbed jabs yet:

The main reason why comics can’t work as films is largely because everybody who is ultimately in control of the film industry is an accountant. These people may be able to add up and balance the books, but in every other area they are stupid and incompetent and don’t have any talent.

It is for comments like this that Moore gets his reputation for being mean-spirited and elitist when it comes to the movie industry, but it’s only recently that people have really begun to take issue with his ferocity. From Hell didn’t matter—it didn’t do too well at the box office, and no one was exactly begging to see it adapted for cinema anyway. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film was a ludicrous idea from the start, and Moore’s objections couldn’t be heard over the groans and head-slappings that emanated from every screening. V for Vendetta was, well, a bit of a curious one. It seemed to have credibility when the news first broke, and there was a fair amount of excitement, but the contentious nature of the subject matter—with the obvious comparisons to the contemporary terrorism climate—didn’t get much of a rise out of the establishment and so missed out on some valuable controversy. It all came across as a little bit silly and a little bit desperate.

Watchmen is different. As a comic, it has attracted the broadest range of fans, sold the largest amount of copies, and there is just something inherently cinematic about the book itself. It is with this latest attempt to adapt Moore’s work that the creator’s voice now stands alone in its fury. All of a sudden Moore is old-fashioned and egotistic. He hasn’t got a grip on modern popular culture, and he should just learn to go with the flow. Doesn’t he want to see the fortress of Ozymandias on a high-definition screen?  Not even a little bit?

It is a strange thing when being consistent in one’s beliefs brings about this kind of quasi-backlash. While he may be accused of going over-the-top at times, losing his cool and spitefully lashing out over something a lot of us would consider fairly trivial, Moore is often crystal-clear in his justifications and backs himself up with common sense. He explains that his contract with DC Comics was immensely unfair, effectively stripping him of any control of his own creations, and he reasons that a film costing 100 million dollars is bordering on the immoral, especially when the end result is so often disappointing, if not outright atrocious. In his own words:

100 million dollars—that’s what they spent on the Watchmen film which nearly didn’t come out because of the lawsuit, that’s what they spent on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which shouldn’t have come out but did anyway. Do we need any more shitty films in this world? We have quite enough already. Whereas the 100 million dollars could sort out the civil unrest in Haiti. And the books are always superior, anyway.

Perhaps this is uncomfortable for us to confront. All we do is spend a few pennies to see the film, enjoy it for two hours or so, and then go back to our lives—it all looked expensive, but what does it matter how expensive? Once we are faced with figures reaching over 100 million dollars our minds tend to go fuzzy.

To put it in perspective, consider the budget for the comic. The work of a couple of people, printed on ordinary paper, distributed at a relatively cheap price, 23 years ago. The fact that it takes millions of dollars, decades of stop-start progress, and incessant promotion to even adapt something that—if we’re being honest—is seriously unlikely to top the original just seems like a waste of time. Call me a square, but why not just read the comic? It is available to everyone, after all.

The situation takes on a vicious edge when you consider how Moore’s objections have barely been acknowledged by the fat cats over in Hollywood. Zack Snyder, the director of the new blockbuster, has managed to cobble together some praise for Moore and a few meek near-apologies, but he took up the job anyway, knowing that the man he supposedly admired was against it. One can easily relate to Snyder’s apparent eagerness to direct such a genre-defining comic, but I really don’t see how he can be all that comfortable knowing that somewhere, deep in Northampton, England, the writer of the original work is doing all that he can to deflate—if not magically curse—the Watchmen merchandise machine.

What is perhaps a unique feature about the most recent Moore adaptation is how apparently faithful to the source material it is, as well as (reportedly) quite good as a film. Early reviews have been reasonably positive, and it doesn’t seem like there have been too many compromises in bringing the film to a potentially new audience. The reason Moore stopped accepting checks was, after all, because of the poor quality of From Hell. He didn’t want his name associated with such debacles, to the extent that he asked that his name be completely absent from the V for Vendetta adaptation (and that became a fruitless struggle, leading to an even greater rift between him and the American comics industry). Perhaps he should be happy that, finally, after all these years, one of his works will not be presented to the wider public as a complete travesty.

Of course, to Moore, this is not the point. Aside from the mistreatment of such a revered writer, one has to ask how necessary the adaptation really is, and what this means for both the comic and film industries. Who is not sick of the constant lack of originality in Hollywood? Fair enough, characters like Batman, Spider-Man, and Superman are beyond comics—it would be ridiculous to claim them for one artistic form only. When it comes to just taking entire stories and adapting them, however, especially when the story is so steeped in comic lore and makes use of specific techniques that would either be impossible to reproduce on screen, or would just cause scratching heads among the non-comic-reading audience, it becomes greedy. This pillaging of an art form is merciless, and, in cases like the recent film of The Spirit, disrespectful and depressing.

But it also works against the comics industry. In Moore’s case, he’s been pushed away so often that he vows to no longer work for mainstream American comics, which is a loss to all of us who like to read them. On a larger scale, we are stuck with comics that resemble movie storyboards, ready for the screen, rather than works that celebrate their own form and are not glancing towards the film execs with every wide-screen shot and every sickly piece of snappy dialogue. Both fields—at least in their mainstream form—are in a constant bridge-building process, sharing their respective, heart-stoppingly unexciting ideas.

I want to add my voice to Moore’s, not because I’m snobbish or I see movies as the enemy, but because I care about both forms and want to see the best out of each of them. I also care about the treatment of one of the greatest comic creators of all time, and feel bad for people who are put off from exploring his work because of a rubbish film involving Sean Connery. It has to end here, with Watchmen. I’ll do my bit to send a message by never stepping anywhere near the film, and if you think that’s childish, do feel free to watch it. Just don’t complain when a film sequel to Watchmen becomes a harrowing reality.

 
Bookmark and Share

Comments

well, after two articles, popmatters has made zero good arguments for why people should not see the film.  these “who will watch the watchmen” columns are not very clever.

so, with this one, we should be upset because a vocally anti-authoritarian writer is upset about his work being bourgeoisieified and hyper-commodified?  sorry, but this fight is long over, and if anyone knows it it should be popmatters (who have advertisements for bourgeois shit all over their site—yet we’re still supposed to think that their writers are staging A RADICAL BOYCOTT OF HOLLYWOOD).  please.

if you think that by not going to see this movie you are doing something radical, then you have misunderstood what doing something radical means.

Comment by charles from new york — March 4, 2009 @ 6:48 am

Actually, Charles, I thought this was well written.  I’m not a comics fan and I don’t usually go for such movies.  I don’t usually go for reading such content.  But Ben lured me in and had me interested to the end of the piece.  That’s good writing—far more interesting than your junior-high level snotty boy comment.

As for advertising—how the hell do you expect such sites to stay in business?  Will you pay to read on the web? I doubt it.

Comment by Nick from Brooklyn — March 4, 2009 @ 7:53 am

As the other would-be radical, I should like it known that I don’t see myself as doing anything more radical than refusing to watch a shitty and unnecessary movie.

Comment by Monte — March 4, 2009 @ 7:56 am

“he should just learn to go with the flow. Doesn’t he want to see the fortress of Ozymandias on a high-definition screen?  Not even a little bit?”

Can I answer for him?  NO.  Just because you want to doesn’t mean the creator does or should.  Is it that hard to believe that a person wouldn’t be pleased with an out-of-hand adaptation of his work? 

I won’t watch it anyway (the trailer looks abominable); but, then again, I doubt I’ll read the book, either.  I’m not a Watchmen fan, but I am pleased to see an artist stand his ground over what he finds to be a reckless adaptation.

Comment by Victor Perkins — March 4, 2009 @ 8:23 am

Clarification of my previous comment: It was not directed at the author of this piece, even though it quoted him.  My point was directed at those who would protest the Watchmen creator’s distaste for the project.  I found the PopMatters piece to be written well.

Comment by Victor Perkins — March 4, 2009 @ 8:26 am

Positive? It has a 44 on Metacritic after 9 reviews, including three scores under 20. I think “mediocre” would have been a better word.

Comment by Jason Cook from Mass. — March 4, 2009 @ 8:43 am

What is becoming increasingly odd about the film industry is why every book or comic must be hacked and cut into a digestible 2 to 3 hour experience that will rush by as it punishes your bladder. Take a cue from HBO and make it into a mini-series that does justice to the material. DVD and digital distribution already easily keeps pace with box office sales.

As Moore said about film in the interview with Wire he just did, a condensed film just roars by. You have no chance to feel the emotion, re-read panels from the comic, or just linger on a facial expression. The more films try to become non-stop action or scene for scene recreate their subject mater, the more they get away from the strengths of film in the first place.

Comment by L.B. Jeffries — March 4, 2009 @ 9:44 am

“Positive? It has a 44 on Metacritic after 9 reviews, including three scores under 20. I think “mediocre” would have been a better word.”

Can I just say that at the time of writing the article only a couple of reviews had been released, and they were pretty glowing. I am aware that a lot of critics have slated it since, which is a pretty depressing because it means Moore’s work will still be associated with bad movies.

Comment by Ben from England — March 4, 2009 @ 11:20 am

— PopMatters sponsor —

A very nicely written piece, I thought, and well reasoned too. Given my respect for Moore, I feel I have to take his opinion seriously and give it due consideration. (Pointing out the consistency of his position over time makes that even more true.)

Does that mean I won’t see the film? Well, probably not—- although I might wait for my local library to get the DVD, thus keeping the evil revenue generation to a minimum. I think Moore has every right to say and think what he does, but ultimately the work is beyond his control by law. Personally, I doubt that his disdain will keep me from taking in the spectacle, although probably with the same unclean feeling I get when studying a traffic accident.

I think I’ll go price WATCHMEN: ABSOLUTE EDITION now.

Comment by Ken Fasimpaur — March 4, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

Nice piece, Ben. I read The Watchmen comics when they came out (I was 12 or 13) and was absolutely fascinated, although I was too young to pick up on everything at the time. I guess I’ve been in denial about the movie. I won’t see it in the theater, but I may watch it at some point down the line.

“Call me a square, but why not just read the comic? It is available to everyone, after all.”

This is the bigger point, isn’t it? Why not read more books in general? Because watching movies is a lot easier, as Zack Snyder can tell you. The man gave faster zombies to the ADD generation, after all!

Comment by Kelly Roberts from Los Angeles — March 4, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

Excuse the inarticulate previous comment. It has been a long day.

One thing about the Wire interview: I actually think Moore went a bit far with some of his remarks. He was quite insulting towards comic fans and seemed to be inadvertently parodying his views somewhat. I still stand by my defence, but he doesn’t help himself all that much when he acts so aggressively instead of being reasonable and good-humoured.

Comment by Ben from England — March 4, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

I appreciate Moore’s viewpoint and wish things were different, but my love for the comic outweighs my love for its author.  I’m willing to give the movie a chance because of the comic.  If it sucks, so what?  It’s not like I haven’t seen plenty of crappy movies in my life.  One mo(o)re won’t kill me.

Comment by Grunston Dubberbuntz from Tennessee — March 4, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

here is a personal observation: four or five years ago i decided to finally read the watchmen comic (sorry “graphic novel”), it was something i had never gotten around to. i went to the local hastings and found one dog-eared copy on the shelf. this past weekend, i noted the tables at barnes and noble covered with watchmen comics. i’m assuming that alan moore is still making money off the sales of the book so I’m not going to cry for him too much. for him the movie is a gigantic commercial and a damned effective one as i see things.

Comment by riko from NM — March 4, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

Like the author, I’m bothered by Hollywood’s compulsion to recycle everything; and I agree that damn few movies measure up to the books their based on (although The Magnificent Ambersons and The Godfather spring immediately to mind as counter-examples).  I don’t, however, care at all what Moore thinks on this point.  He made the book, it’s been released into the wild and he’s done with it.  His opinion on the movie has no more weight than anybody else’s.

Comment by Steambadger from Atlanta, GA — March 4, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

Imo they should just stop trying to convert comics to the big screen. All they are going to end up doing is destroying something that a lot of people enjoy. Tbh if they do intend to keep destroying comics for the sake of money then they should at least get the blessing of the original writer before hand.

Comment by Adam H from England — March 5, 2009 @ 8:47 am

I have no time for people who presume to criticize what they have not seen, heard or read. It just doesn’t work that way.

Comment by Todd Draper from South Bend, IN — March 5, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

The film is completely unnecessary, of course. At best, it will be a slavishly faithful adaptation, in no way approaching the breath-taking originality of the comic. At worst… I do not even want to think about it. And it is positively disgusting how Hollywood machinery is completely unable to function without parasitising on the already existing works. Also, I am really sorry that Moore has to spend so much time discussing film adaptations of his comics. He is such an astonishing person, and his interviews always a joy to read, so it is a shame he is being asked so much about totally boring issues. On the other hand, Moore himself has often used other people’s works in a way that would probably make the original authors shudder. Therefore, while I completely understand his views on the Watchmen ownership, I feel that he has to accept the fact his comics are also fair game.

Comment by Lav — March 5, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

“I have no time for people who presume to criticize what they have not seen, heard or read. It just doesn’t work that way.”

If I cannot sit through the trailer because it is so overwrought and ridiculous, why then should I feel obligated to see the full movie?

Comment by Monte — March 5, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

“If I cannot sit through the trailer because it is so overwrought and ridiculous, why then should I feel obligated to see the full movie?”

You’re not obligated, you just don’t get to review it. You’re perfectly correct in criticizing the trailer if you wish.

Would you give a film a positive review after watching a good trailer?

<i>Oh, that’s a great book. I haven’t read it but I love the cover.</i>

See how ridiculous it sounds?

Comment by Todd Draper from South Bend, IN — March 8, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

I wonder what everybody’s thoughts are on the matter now that it turns out the movie does… well, suck.  Sorry, can’t think of a more descriptive term.

I, for one, was willing to give Snyder a shot—because I really, really wanted to see the story on film.  After seeing it, I agree with Terry Gilliam.  I don’t fault ZS too much; I think the story is unfilmable.

Comment by Steambadger from Atlanta, GA — March 8, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

A well written, clear, thoughtful article from someone with some serious affection for both mediums.  Only on the internet would someone feel the need to respond venomously to such an article.
Certainly, we have to allow that an adaptation is a sepearte piece of work which we, as consumers, choose to acknowledge and participate in or not.  I chose to participate and was disappointed around the 45 minute mark.  This is not bad. I did not expect something as magnificent as the graphic novel but i did expect something made with care and vision.  I believe it was made with care and vision but, too, the hand of the accountant becomes obvious as the violence becomes more and more graphic.
There are many good questions that arise when adapting such a renowned piece of work but let us not forget that most adaptations are made of renowned pieces of work.  We protect what we love; we hold the sacred in its place.  When we see something in another’s hands we naturally watch closely. 
This makes the question, “Who watches the watchmen?” so pertinent as opposed to just a quick chance at word play.

Comment by Chris from Sydney, Aus. — March 12, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

A very interesting article as are the comments in response.
J.R.R. Tolkien also said that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmable. He said this due to the length of the story and also the time structure and order of events. However, Peter Jackson’s primary concern was always with making a good film first and following the rules of his own medium to achieve this. When I saw Watchmen after initially reading the graphic novel my feeling throughout the screening was that the director was concentrating too much on loyalty to the book rather than manipulating the techniques and devices of his own medium to make the best possible film out of the story. Where the film did depart from the graphic novel it made sure to include some compensatory nod towards the direction the graphic novel had taken, as if by way of apology. Since the film will never be long enough to fill in all the details, trying to follow the structure of the book will always make it feel thin.

Comment by Steven from South Africa — March 25, 2009 @ 3:25 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?