Posted on 03/20/2006 7:47:23 AM PST by Chiapet
THE most vivid characters in Alan Moore's graphic novels are antiheroes of ambiguous morality and identity: costumed avengers like Rorschach, the disturbed street vigilante of "Watchmen," or the crusader known only by the letter V, who commits catastrophic acts of terrorism in the dystopian tale "V for Vendetta."
With inventions like these, and a body of writing that spans nearly three decades, Mr. Moore, a 52-year-old native of Northampton, England, distinguished himself as a darkly philosophical voice in the medium of comic books — a rare talent whose work can sell solely on the strength of his name. But if Mr. Moore had his way today, his name would no longer appear on almost any of the graphic novels with which he is most closely associated. "I don't want anything more to do with these works," he said in a recent telephone interview, "because they were stolen from me — knowingly stolen from me."
In Mr. Moore's account of his career, the villains are clearly defined: they are the mainstream comics industry — particularly DC Comics, the American publisher of "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" — which he believes has hijacked the properties he created, and the American film business, which has distorted his writing beyond recognition. To him, the movie adaptation of "V for Vendetta," which opens on Friday, is not the biggest platform yet for his ideas: it is further proof that Hollywood should be avoided at all costs. "I've read the screenplay," Mr. Moore said. "It's rubbish."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He was a scratch comicbook writer at the time and nobody really thought he'd be one of the few who seperated himself from the masses as a writer to be read without regard to the title. He probably didn't have any kind of representation at the time (few comic writers do) so he signed on the dotted line to get a paycheck. But he does also say they beat him fair and square, he felt he got screwed but understands he signed on the dotted line so he learned from it and moved on. He's never tried to get those stories freed from DC, just himself.
No way dude. The movie sucked.
(Homer on the phone): Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night! They just plain sucked! I've seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked! ... I gotta go, my weiner kids are listening.
I completely agree. One of the saddest and most stagnating developments major market film, IMO, is this tendency to re-contextualize literature (sometimes good lit and sometimes bad) to make it reflect current events. I think they believe it makes the movies more marketable, but they really just end up being mediocre and banal.
You don't know very much about the director, Brian Singer. ;)
It's a good, bombastic score, but as soon as I heard they were re-using it, I knew this would stink. I don't go to the movies to hear old scores re-used, and this is indicative of the creatively bankrupt Hollywood mentality. Granted, John Ottman is no John Williams, but the point is to try to rise to the challenge.
Bryan Singer didn't direct this film. He did the X men films.
He directed Superman Returns, which is what I was refering to.
But the U2 version (which I liked0 was only played over the end credits; Elfman did a good job of using it in the score.
PS I cut and pasted the wrong clip from the article, for some reason; I made my comment in reference to the line about Superman looking like family entertainment.
My bad.
Actually, it's not--it's kind of a joke. It has almost no credibility because it's just a fan award. Any award that keeps going to Lois McMaster Bujold isn't very prestigious.
He didn't have access to the Grand Chancellor's torture chambers. Evey wasn't captured by the government, but by V himself, in disguise. She was held in the chambers and "tortured" (water dunking, isolation, etc.) by V. The chambers were in V's underground hideout. V planted the story about the gay actress on the slip of paper in the cell to give Evey the strength to overcome her fear of death and torture so that she would become a defiant freedom fighter. He hated what he did to her, but he felt he had to do it to make her the fighter she wanted to become.
The politics in the film were kind of annoying, especially the over the top lionization of homosexuals, but they were not center to the story. Any oppressive government similar to the one depicted in the film, whether they're systematically exterminating Christians, Jews, homosexuals, or petty thieves for that matter should be brought down. The filmmakers' biases were showing pretty badly, but I don't think that they hurt the central story too badly.
Actually my bad, not yours, for cutting and pasting the wrong line. Damned technology! I am only this week getting my first laptop--high-tech for me is the doorknob and the light switch.
It's always reffered to as the highest award in the genre. Sort of like the Edgar Allan Poe award for mystery writers. I haven't followed the genre itself closely enough to dispute your point though.
That Burger King guy is just CREEPY
Sounds almost like God talking to Christ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.