Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:02 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Alan Moore 
Author Message
Post Alan Moore
ed_metal_head wrote:
Back to Fincher for a second: we've established that his films have great opening credits, but he chooses some nice exit music also. The Pixies at the end of Fight Club and (I believe) Bowie at the end of Seven.

majoraphasia wrote:
One day, though, I'll make my way through V for Vendetta. Comic book, graphic novel -- it's a thin line to me, the uninitiated.


I've read a handful at most, but Alan Moore completely fascinates me. I'm contemplating whether to give Lost Girls a read, but I'm afraid the synopsis won't live up to the comic.

Lost Girls is a graphic novel depicting the sexual adventures of three important female fictional characters of the late 19th and early 20th century: Alice from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Dorothy Gale from The Wizard of Oz, and Wendy Darling from Peter Pan. They meet as adults in 1913, and describe and share some of their erotic adventures with each other.

In addition to the three women's erotic flashbacks, the graphic novel depicts sexual encounters between the women and other guests and staff of the hotel, as well as with each other. The erotic adventures are set against the backdrop of cultural and historic events of the period, such as the debut of Igor Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.


Christ in pants, that's a book written by a man who looks exactly like this:

Image

What a summary you've given! Words... fail. FAIL!


Sun May 24, 2009 1:50 am
Post Re: Best Credit Sequences
ed_metal_head wrote:
I've read a handful at most, but Alan Moore completely fascinates me. I'm contemplating whether to give Lost Girls a read, but I'm afraid the synopsis won't live up to the comic.
I've got a bunch of his books, and just recently finished From Hell. It's absolutely incredible.

It seems to be in fashion these days for the cool kids to rag on Moore. I assume it's because he dares to insinuate a number of things that makes the average comics reader uncomfortable. Most folks are quick to disagree with what makes them uncomfortable, regardless of its merits.


Sun May 24, 2009 2:25 am
Post Re: Best Credit Sequences
Ken wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:
I've read a handful at most, but Alan Moore completely fascinates me. I'm contemplating whether to give Lost Girls a read, but I'm afraid the synopsis won't live up to the comic.
I've got a bunch of his books, and just recently finished From Hell. It's absolutely incredible.

It seems to be in fashion these days for the cool kids to rag on Moore. I assume it's because he dares to insinuate a number of things that makes the average comics reader uncomfortable. Most folks are quick to disagree with what makes them uncomfortable, regardless of its merits.

Out of curiosity, who exactly is ragging on Alan Moore? I ask out of a fascination I have with seeing stupidity in action.


Sun May 24, 2009 3:31 am
Post Re: Best Credit Sequences
majoraphasia wrote:
Christ in pants, that's a book written by a man who looks exactly like this:


He does look batshit-crazy, but I've watched a number of his interviews on youtube and was pleasantly surprised. He's always polite (just don't piss him off) and he apparently loves to speak (he does so very eloquently) on any of a number of topics.

Ragnarok73 wrote:
Ken wrote:
I've got a bunch of his books, and just recently finished From Hell. It's absolutely incredible.

It seems to be in fashion these days for the cool kids to rag on Moore. I assume it's because he dares to insinuate a number of things that makes the average comics reader uncomfortable. Most folks are quick to disagree with what makes them uncomfortable, regardless of its merits.

Out of curiosity, who exactly is ragging on Alan Moore? I ask out of a fascination I have with seeing stupidity in action.


After he completely thrashed the V for Vendetta movie, and later the Watchmen movie, a not insignificant percentage of the population thought he was an ungrateful asshole.

Have a look at his imdb board:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0600872/board

Most of the people there seem to dislike him.


Sun May 24, 2009 12:04 pm
Post Re: Best Credit Sequences
ed_metal_head wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
Christ in pants, that's a book written by a man who looks exactly like this:


He does look batshit-crazy, but I've watched a number of his interviews on youtube and was pleasantly surprised. He's always polite (just don't piss him off) and he apparently loves to speak (he does so very eloquently) on any of a number of topics.


I know nothing of his work other than the general acclaim he's received from virtually everyone this side of the universe. His books have been listed alongside Moby Dick, Catch-22, and countless others. I'm looking forward to V for Vendetta and, as of right now, my expectations are unreasonably high. I don't believe I've seen any of the filmed adaptations of his work but I've heard, and you've verified this, that he's had his name removed from at least most of them. The comic universe is far removed from my own, it would seem; I've never read a single panel from anything other than a Calvin and Hobbes and I'm guessing that's not exactly what people speak of when they speak about comics.


Sun May 24, 2009 12:20 pm
Post Re: Best Credit Sequences
ed_metal_head wrote:
He does look batshit-crazy, but I've watched a number of his interviews on youtube and was pleasantly surprised. He's always polite (just don't piss him off) and he apparently loves to speak (he does so very eloquently) on any of a number of topics.
What's really fascinating is the way he criticizes writers and artists in comics--not how harshly he does it, but how softly. On the subject of Chris Ware, Moore alleged that he focuses more on artwork than on story, but was also very quick to praise the artwork and deem Ware one of the finest designers in the medium. It's the friendliest, gentlest bashing I think I've ever seen.

It's hardly what you'd expect from someone who's almost universally portrayed in the media as a confrontational lunatic. But I think Hollywood is seen as having a certain manifest destiny, which gets taken for granted. If there is a popular book, video game, or comic, the natural response is to wonder when the movie is coming out. This is rarely because the property in question lends itself especially well to the cinematic medium, because the vast majority of people don't think about it on that level. It's simply expected, without analysis.

When somebody dares to wonder aloud if there are certain works that shouldn't be made into big-budget blockbuster movies, there is often a shockingly negative response from the general public. I find it a little funny that Moore is labeled a douchebag for not wanting one of his own works to be filmed without his permission, by filmmakers who generally have no intention of matching the level of artistic quality in the source material.


Mon May 25, 2009 3:42 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
There were any number of ways to introduce a thread on Alan Moore but taking an aside from an altogether different thread -- he deserves a better intro than that.


Mon May 25, 2009 10:57 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
majoraphasia wrote:
There were any number of ways to introduce a thread on Alan Moore but taking an aside from an altogether different thread -- he deserves a better intro than that.

Heheh, if you think I should rename the thread let me know.
But that's what these posts were about.


Tue May 26, 2009 5:23 am
Post Re: Alan Moore
Trevor wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
There were any number of ways to introduce a thread on Alan Moore but taking an aside from an altogether different thread -- he deserves a better intro than that.

Heheh, if you think I should rename the thread let me know.
But that's what these posts were about.


No, it's fine. I envisioned an Alan Moore fan wandering in and unloading into me with a vitriol unseen since Mrs. Alan Moore forget to pick up some Ovaltine at the market. It all will balance out if people are interested in his writings.

In defense of Alan Moore, a man I've yet to read, I want to offer up his criticism of adapting his graphic novels. He's said that the visual work had been done once the novel was published and the film versions were effectively unnecessary. Now this is something I mostly agree with and will further his argument by asking why an extremely faithful non-graphic novel adaptation be produced. I'm all for keeping the spirit of a book and taking a wild ownership of the material (Adaptation, in a movie first, managed to keep the musings of the book completely intact while changing virtually everything about the narrative) but graphic novels -- which look as if they may be in storyboard mode before anyone has had a chance to option the rights -- don't beg for a filmed adaptation. It seems like it could be redundant*. Is this why the faitful readers of Moore found Watchmen to be unspectacular?

*For the record, I don't really believe this.


Tue May 26, 2009 6:23 am
Post Re: Alan Moore
majoraphasia wrote:
In defense of Alan Moore, a man I've yet to read, I want to offer up his criticism of adapting his graphic novels. He's said that the visual work had been done once the novel was published and the film versions were effectively unnecessary. Now this is something I mostly agree with and will further his argument by asking why an extremely faithful non-graphic novel adaptation be produced. I'm all for keeping the spirit of a book and taking a wild ownership of the material (Adaptation, in a movie first, managed to keep the musings of the book completely intact while changing virtually everything about the narrative) but graphic novels -- which look as if they may be in storyboard mode before anyone has had a chance to option the rights -- don't beg for a filmed adaptation. It seems like it could be redundant*. Is this why the faitful readers of Moore found Watchmen to be unspectacular?

*For the record, I don't really believe this.


Alan Moore didn't always object to movie adaptations of his comics, although he was never involved in any of them. He also distanced himself from these movie adaptations in so far as he stated, that comics and films are different works of art and nobody would confuse the two.

His attitude became antagonistic after he was sued for having allegedly plagiarised an unproduced screenplay with a content similar to the screenplay for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This lawsuit was utterly ludicrous because the screenplay for LXG is completely different to the comic in content as well as quality, as anybody who has read the comic book and seen the film can testify. Nevertheless, the studio in charge of the adaptation did not support Moore and settled the issue, which pissed him off. In addition, when "V for Vendetta" was promoted, the producer claimed publicly that Alan Moore had endorsed the film version, which Alan Moore vehemently denied. he also demanded a public apology, which never came.

That being said, I wouldn't hold it against him if he objected to the movie adaptations of his comics on the basis of these films alone. With the exception of Watchmen - also not an unqualified success - they have been absolutely rubbish and hardly bear any resemblance to the comics. Also, the strength of Alan Moore's writing is the way he uses the medium comic book, which cannot be replicated in movies. Despite of the superficial resemblance of a comic book and a storyboard, both are considerably different. What works in comics doesn't necessarily work on screen and vice versa.


Tue May 26, 2009 7:04 am
Post Re: Alan Moore
I've only read Watchmen. I think he gets much more praise for this than is deserved. I think it's absolutely insane to compare the amount of writing it takes to produce a graphic novel to something like Moby Dick or Catch-22. The 2 mediums just aren't comparable. It's much tougher to write hundreds of pages for a novel than it is to write 5 or 6 sentences per page. The dialouge in Watchmen is relatively simple, and, at times, a bit heavy handed (the entire intercut Pirate storyline is so unbelievably unnecessary, and a bit boring, it only functions to spell out the theme for the reader). Moore does a great job exploring the psychological profiles of each character, is thematically complex, and he uses the mythology behind the entire comic book genre very much to his advantage. I think Watchmen has a fantastic premise and is executed very well (I liked the graphic novel very much), but I cannot get on board with putting it alongside some of the greatest works in American Lit. This might be suicide on a message board, but it just doesn't take the same level of writing skill to pen Watchmen as it does to write Moby Dick. Marginalize it and call it snobbish if you want, but it's the truth.


Wed May 27, 2009 11:20 am
Post Re: Alan Moore
PeachyPete wrote:
I've only read Watchmen. I think he gets much more praise for this than is deserved. I think it's absolutely insane to compare the amount of writing it takes to produce a graphic novel to something like Moby Dick or Catch-22. The 2 mediums just aren't comparable. It's much tougher to write hundreds of pages for a novel than it is to write 5 or 6 sentences per page. The dialouge in Watchmen is relatively simple, and, at times, a bit heavy handed (the entire intercut Pirate storyline is so unbelievably unnecessary, and a bit boring, it only functions to spell out the theme for the reader). Moore does a great job exploring the psychological profiles of each character, is thematically complex, and he uses the mythology behind the entire comic book genre very much to his advantage. I think Watchmen has a fantastic premise and is executed very well (I liked the graphic novel very much), but I cannot get on board with putting it alongside some of the greatest works in American Lit. This might be suicide on a message board, but it just doesn't take the same level of writing skill to pen Watchmen as it does to write Moby Dick. Marginalize it and call it snobbish if you want, but it's the truth.


I completely agree: comic books are not literature. But that doesn't mean that comics are not an art form in their own right, which uses different tools for artistic expression than literature or painting/drawing. I think that Alan Moore is held in such high esteem, because he actually advanced "the art of comics", along with some others.


Wed May 27, 2009 12:04 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
Unke wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
I've only read Watchmen. I think he gets much more praise for this than is deserved. I think it's absolutely insane to compare the amount of writing it takes to produce a graphic novel to something like Moby Dick or Catch-22. The 2 mediums just aren't comparable. It's much tougher to write hundreds of pages for a novel than it is to write 5 or 6 sentences per page. The dialouge in Watchmen is relatively simple, and, at times, a bit heavy handed (the entire intercut Pirate storyline is so unbelievably unnecessary, and a bit boring, it only functions to spell out the theme for the reader). Moore does a great job exploring the psychological profiles of each character, is thematically complex, and he uses the mythology behind the entire comic book genre very much to his advantage. I think Watchmen has a fantastic premise and is executed very well (I liked the graphic novel very much), but I cannot get on board with putting it alongside some of the greatest works in American Lit. This might be suicide on a message board, but it just doesn't take the same level of writing skill to pen Watchmen as it does to write Moby Dick. Marginalize it and call it snobbish if you want, but it's the truth.


I completely agree: comic books are not literature. But that doesn't mean that comics are not an art form in their own right, which uses different tools for artistic expression than literature or painting/drawing. I think that Alan Moore is held in such high esteem, because he actually advanced "the art of comics", along with some others.


You're right. If I came off as sounding like I was saying comics have no artistic merit, I apologize. For the record, Watchmen is well worth reading. I enjoyed the graphic novel a good deal. There is no doubt it is a fine piece of art. I can also understand Moore being lauded for advancing "the art of comics" as you say. I guess my problem is with Moore being considered a writer and being placed alongside someone like Melville (sorry for the constant Moby Dick references, I only use them because major used Moby Dick as an example). A huge aspect of writing is being able to "paint a picture" for the reader. In comics, that is obviously not the case. Moore may be great at what he does, he just does something totally different than Melville.


Wed May 27, 2009 12:47 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
PeachyPete wrote:
I've only read Watchmen. I think he gets much more praise for this than is deserved. I think it's absolutely insane to compare the amount of writing it takes to produce a graphic novel to something like Moby Dick or Catch-22. The 2 mediums just aren't comparable. It's much tougher to write hundreds of pages for a novel than it is to write 5 or 6 sentences per page.


In all fairness, Watchmen is pretty heavy on the word count. Aside from the comic itself, the breaks between the chapters contain an inordinate amount of detail (excerpts from fictional books, magazine articles and scientific papers).

While I have no figures, I'd guess that Watchmen's word count is comparable with a novella such as Animal Farm.

Mind you, I agree that Watchmen shouldn't be compared to something like Moby Dick. They are different forms of literature and should be considered as such. However, I don't feel that word count (or effort) should be the barometer used to measure something's merits. For instance, I could use the "effort" argument and say that Melville never had to draw and colour hundreds of panels, most of which are incredibly detailed.


Wed May 27, 2009 2:11 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
ed_metal_head wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
I've only read Watchmen. I think he gets much more praise for this than is deserved. I think it's absolutely insane to compare the amount of writing it takes to produce a graphic novel to something like Moby Dick or Catch-22. The 2 mediums just aren't comparable. It's much tougher to write hundreds of pages for a novel than it is to write 5 or 6 sentences per page.


In all fairness, Watchmen is pretty heavy on the word count. Aside from the comic itself, the breaks between the chapters contain an inordinate amount of detail (excerpts from fictional books, magazine articles and scientific papers).

While I have no figures, I'd guess that Watchmen's word count is comparable with a novella such as Animal Farm.

Mind you, I agree that Watchmen shouldn't be compared to something like Moby Dick. They are different forms of literature and should be considered as such. However, I don't feel that word count (or effort) should be the barometer used to measure something's merits. For instance, I could use the "effort" argument and say that Melville never had to draw and colour hundreds of panels, most of which are incredibly detailed.


True, but do those excerpts count as part of a graphic novel? I'd argue that they do not. They are considered supplements and it's up to each reader as to whether or not to read them. The story can be understood without them. I actually thought those excerpts were the best part of the book, but I digress. The "effort" argument doesn't work because Moore didn't exclusively draw or color the panels. I'm not sure if he drew or colored a single panel, actually. I may be wrong, but I don't think he's credited for doing either.

I'm not saying word count or length should be used to judge the merits. I'm saying that the comparison isn't an apt one because novels and graphic novels are completely different entities and are unsuitable for comparison (apples to oranges, if you will). My personal opinion is that novels are much more difficult to write (not draw or color, but actually writing prose) than graphic novels. To me, it simply doesn't take as much writing ability to do that.


Wed May 27, 2009 2:49 pm
Post Re: Best Credit Sequences
ed_metal_head wrote:
After he completely thrashed the V for Vendetta movie, and later the Watchmen movie, a not insignificant percentage of the population thought he was an ungrateful asshole.

Have a look at his imdb board:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0600872/board

Most of the people there seem to dislike him.


I guess this is a reason for me to make an impression that the majority of people who post on the IMDB forums are mouth-breathing morons who wouldn't know a good film if it bit their nuts off.

I wonder how many of those idiots realize that Moore isn't actually making any money off of the film adaptations of V for Vendetta or Watchmen? Moore gives every impression of simply wanting an accurate artistic impression of his work, which he feels is impossible when trying to adapt either of those comics into a film. I feel that he's correct- Snyder replicated the look without capturing the spirit, and the less said about that abortion that was the adaptation of V for Vendetta, the better.


Wed May 27, 2009 2:52 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
PeachyPete wrote:
It's much tougher to write hundreds of pages for a novel than it is to write 5 or 6 sentences per page.
You've clearly never seen the script for Watchmen. The write-up for the first panel, by itself, takes up an entire page--single spacing, no line breaks.

Unke wrote:
I completely agree: comic books are not literature.
I'm curious: why do you think so?


Wed May 27, 2009 3:41 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
Ken wrote:
You've clearly never seen the script for Watchmen. The write-up for the first panel, by itself, takes up an entire page--single spacing, no line breaks.


You clearly missed the boat on this conversation. Alan Moore didn't write the script for Watchmen, he wrote the actual graphic novel (which in the illustrated comic sections has about 5 to 6 sentences per page, give or take). He had written the script, it still would have no bearing on what I've been debating. I'm not really sure what this comment was supposed to prove.


Wed May 27, 2009 3:52 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
PeachyPete wrote:
You clearly missed the boat on this conversation. Alan Moore didn't write the script for Watchmen, he wrote the actual graphic novel (which in the illustrated comic sections has about 5 to 6 sentences per page, give or take). He had written the script, it still would have no bearing on what I've been debating. I'm not really sure what this comment was supposed to prove.
Alan Moore did write the script. I'm not quite sure what that particular comment is getting at.

If I'm reading you right, your contention is that the number of words on the page have something to do with the quality and difficulty of producing that page. In fact, you specifically discussed "the amount of writing" that goes into a book. The amount of writing that goes into Moore's books might not be readily apparent in the final product, but there is quite a bit.

Of course, that's academic, because the assertion is false to begin with. Four words or four thousand, it has nothing to do either way with quality.


Wed May 27, 2009 4:36 pm
Post Re: Alan Moore
Ken wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
You clearly missed the boat on this conversation. Alan Moore didn't write the script for Watchmen, he wrote the actual graphic novel (which in the illustrated comic sections has about 5 to 6 sentences per page, give or take). He had written the script, it still would have no bearing on what I've been debating. I'm not really sure what this comment was supposed to prove.
Alan Moore did write the script. I'm not quite sure what that particular comment is getting at.

If I'm reading you right, your contention is that the number of words on the page have something to do with the quality and difficulty of producing that page. In fact, you specifically discussed "the amount of writing" that goes into a book. The amount of writing that goes into Moore's books might not be readily apparent in the final product, but there is quite a bit.

Of course, that's academic, because the assertion is false to begin with. Four words or four thousand, it has nothing to do either way with quality.


http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Watchmen.html

That's a link to the script. He didn't write it, man. It was obviously based on Watchmen, which he wrote, but he did not write the movie script. He's stated that he wanted nothing to do with the movie.

Again, though, none of that matters in this debate. I was comparing how difficult it was to write a novel as opposed to a graphic novel. That has nothing to do with the movie script, regardless of who wrote it.

My assertion has more to do with everything that comes along with writing a novel, that isn't present in writing a graphic novel. It has nothing to do with actual word count. Yes, there are more words, but writing a novel entails more than just a word count. Think about everything that is conveyed in a graphic novel through the visuals (setting, character look, symbolism, visual metaphors, atmosphere, etc.). A writer has to convey all of that through words without help of the visual. He has to be skilled enough to help readers visualize exactly what he means without the help of highly detailed pictures. The actual writer (not illustrator or colorer) of a graphic novel does not have to worry about any of this. This is all conveyed through the visuals. As an art form, I'm not saying one is above the other, just that as a writer, it is much more difficult to write hundreds of pages of this stuff than it is to write a graphic novel.


Wed May 27, 2009 4:59 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr