Alan Moore = Such a downer

[Papercut]

After reading this entire thread, and then going back to read the actual interview in question, a few things in the article stood out for me:

"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."

and

"I got into comics because I thought it was a good and useful medium that had not been explored to its fullest potential," Moore told me.

He went on to explain that it was the late Will Eisner who brought a cinematic approach to comics in the 1940s after watching "Citizen Kane" dozens of times and transferring its visual style and approach to transitions to the pages of "The Spirit." "As much as I admire Eisner, I think maintaining that approach in recent history has done more harm than good. If you approach comics as a poor relation to film, you are left with a movie that does not move, has no soundtrack and lacks the benefit of having a recognizable movie star in the lead role."

Moore said that with "Watchmen," he told the epic tale of a large number of characters over decades of history with "a range of techniques" that cannot be translated to the movie screen, among them the "book within a book" technique, which took readers through a second, interior story as well as documents and the writings of characters. He also said he was offended by the amount of money and resources that go into the Hollywood projects. "They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It's obscene and it's offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for. I'm sure I sound like Bobby Fischer talking about chess."

From within this context, this interview reads to me like a man who a) is not a fan of the modern film industry and b) thinks the stories he writes specifically for the comic medium will be diminished when adapted into another.

So what makes him abnormal is the fact that while most comic writers would kill for their work to be adapted into film and just live with the "Hollywood treatment" of their story, Moore not only looks at the process as being "offensive" to the source material, he's actually vocal about it.


Now your mileage may vary regarding how much of his bellyaching you can take and how that colors your perception of the man and his work... 

I know the conversation in this thread shifted to encompass people's overall feeling on the public persona of the man, so in that regard all I can add is: I love his work. I'll keep reading his work. He can be as anti-social or ass-holey (see, this is catching on) as he wants and that won't change my opinion of his work. This whole conversation may soon fall into this old topic that I brought up months ago, but I do appreciate everyone's take on the man so far. So like Jacob, KARMA all around.

[Matt H.O.W.L.]

Karma to YOU for adding the quote. The thread had gotten myopically focused on the persona of Moore. The man's words were enlightening.
I do take issue, however, with: "I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination."
I'm sure he's talking about Hollywood blockbusters, but he's definitely NOT saying that explicitly. Attacking the entire medium of film (in its modern form) makes him sound ignorant (and I can safely say from reading much of his work that he is nothing if not ignorant). Has he seen Little Children, The Station Agent, or Protagonist? I don't think anyone who had would say that those films spoon-feed us anything, but maybe that's just me? Just an immediate reaction, that's all. 

[citizenDave]

Has he seen Little Children, The Station Agent, or Protagonist? I don't think anyone who had would say that those films spoon-feed us anything, but maybe that's just me? Just an immediate reaction, that's all. 

I've never heard of those movies. They must be huge blockbuster hits that are indicative of the Hollywood mainstream, right?

[JimN]

Still, he seems to have it out for a company that is now filled with new(er) people who really had nothing to do with those deals, or the way the company used to work. It almost feels like he's approaching the company itself as an individual (if that makes any sense).

I see what you mean,. I can understand his decision not to work for a particular company any more, even if the people involved have changed. Sometimes an experience just leaves a sour taste and you find that you'd rather work elsewhere. As long as that's possible, it can be best to leave the baggage behind (if you know what I mean). Moore doesn't seem like he lets go of a grudge too easily so maybe he's doing the folks at DC a favor by choosing not to work with them.

Good points, man. I think I agree with most of that. Despite how negative I come off in all this, I really know nothing of the man besides what's out there in the public. I guess, for me at least, it's a downer to see someone I look up to become so uptight and pretentious, whether it's warranted or not.

I feel the same way. The man might be better off to just say "no comment"  once in a while.

Jim

[thefreakytiki]

Time/Warner could do that themselves if Moore doesn't want the money.

Because they can't.  Moore has already decided to give all his profits to Dave Gibbons.  Which is cool and bonus for Mr. Gibbons.


the Tiki

[Paul]

Because they can't.  Moore has already decided to give all his profits to Dave Gibbons.  Which is cool and bonus for Mr. Gibbons.


the Tiki

Exactly!  If that qualifies as Moore "shitting" on Gibbons, I'd like to have some of that golden Moore Defecation directed this way!

[Paul]

Paul, I'm not going to say your perspective isn't valid, far be it for me to proclaim anyone's opinion right or wrong (except Vince, who gets shit wrong ALL THE TIME). What I'm saying is that Alan Moore isn't a nice person. Period. I'm not making a judgment over whether he's a real "artist" [whatever the hell that means in the context of producing mass produced products intended to sell to consumers], I'm suggesting that he's a dildo. A guy who IS a fantastic writer and may or may not be a hypocrite [I can see valid arguments on both sides of that one], but just comes across as an asshole of the first degree every chance he gets.

Dude, take another look at From Hell (or even LEOG with all of the text pieces and increasingly impenetrable references) and tell me that he's writing these things for the masses.

[Paul]

You see an asshole. I see a man who has the balls to stick to his principles and who values his artistic integrity over the coveted dollar.

There's FAR to few of those.  Maybe that's why nobody knows how to understand him.

[Paul]

I guess I've been checking out the wrong interviews.  Pompous and egotistical?  Sure.  But again, we can say that about many, many comic book creators.  Angry?  Like other artists and writers that have been screwed over?

You see someone as you want to see them.  I'm not about to, nor try to, change that.  But I know what I'm getting with Alan Moore.  And nothing smacks of "asshole" to me when it comes to him.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Perfectly said, David.  Karma!

[Chad (Grilled Cheese Sandwich)]

Okay...a few final thoughts on Mr. Moore...

I like his work, he's got a really cool beard, and he's wacky with the Roman snake god worship (but religion's a personal thing, so he's free to practice as he wishes and free to think I'm wacky for worshiping a stump in my backyard that I swore once gave me winning lottery numbers  )

He's been screwed over by different companies, but the umber of times it has happened makes me think that he might be a reason behind these disputes as well. If you look at the level of thought that goes into a lot of his work, think about how he might breakdown personal interactions...some people think far too much and it gets them in trouble...(casual psycho-babble gleaned from seeing this time and time again with the uber-intelligent crowd...)

He trusts no one in comics but is forced to interact with them in order to put his work out there. The fact that he continues to put work out there means that he wants to see it published and therefore wants feedback in someway. If it were all about the money he could sell rights, live off royalties, take the move money, etc...

He always becomes vocal about his movies...always...has there been a movie that was made from his work where he didn't express concern or dislike? In some ways, "methinks he doth protest too much."

From within this context, this interview reads to me like a man who a) is not a fan of the modern film industry and b) thinks the stories he writes specifically for the comic medium will be diminished when adapted into another.

So what makes him abnormal is the fact that while most comic writers would kill for their work to be adapted into film and just live with the "Hollywood treatment" of their story, Moore not only looks at the process as being "offensive" to the source material, he's actually vocal about it.

I look at the general vocal nature of his statements and say that they are the same as someone railing against their own actions...I think he regrets signing away the movie rights to his works or signing any of his original contracts and that goes into his misanthropic nature...

Now your mileage may vary regarding how much of his bellyaching you can take and how that colors your perception of the man and his work... 

I know the conversation in this thread shifted to encompass people's overall feeling on the public persona of the man, so in that regard all I can add is: I love his work. I'll keep reading his work. He can be as anti-social or ass-holey (see, this is catching on) as he wants and that won't change my opinion of his work. This whole conversation may soon fall into this old topic that I brought up months ago, but I do appreciate everyone's take on the man so far. So like Jacob, KARMA all around.

I echo the KARMA sentiments...

Because they can't.  Moore has already decided to give all his profits to Dave Gibbons.  Which is cool and bonus for Mr. Gibbons.

It just really seems to go against his comments to give the money to Gibbons...why not, as someone else said, donate the oney to an organization to try and balance out the resources used as a result of his work?

[deadcowaroma]

A different part of the quote above sticks out for me:

"I got into comics because I thought it was a good and useful medium that had not been explored to its fullest potential," Moore told me.

He went on to explain that it was the late Will Eisner who brought a cinematic approach to comics in the 1940s after watching "Citizen Kane" dozens of times and transferring its visual style and approach to transitions to the pages of "The Spirit." "As much as I admire Eisner, I think maintaining that approach in recent history has done more harm than good. If you approach comics as a poor relation to film, you are left with a movie that does not move, has no soundtrack and lacks the benefit of having a recognizable movie star in the lead role."

Moore said that with "Watchmen," he told the epic tale of a large number of characters over decades of history with "a range of techniques" that cannot be translated to the movie screen, among them the "book within a book" technique, which took readers through a second, interior story as well as documents and the writings of characters. He also said he was offended by the amount of money and resources that go into the Hollywood projects. "They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It's obscene and it's offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for. I'm sure I sound like Bobby Fischer talking about chess."

This goes back to what I've been trying to get at: that Moore has been trying to grow comics beyond movie story boards and the adaptation of comics into films is counter to that cause. I'm definitely behind him on that front

(...even though I'm excited about the movie......it's like the problem we men have with thinking with our junk over our brains)

[Dave A]

Re: Moore being an asshole:

Have any of you heard his appearances on Indie Spinner Rack or Fanboy Radio? They may change the minds of people who think he's a jerk. He's incredibly thoughtful, soft-spoken, and generous with his time. I could listen to the guy talk all day.

As far as the other stuff... I don't think I want to stick my nose into other people's business affairs. Moore hasn't seen any of the movie adaptations of his work, so he's inherently incapable of making any serious criticism of said films. All he's saying is "I've seen the caliber of films Hollywood is capable of, and have no interest." As far as what he does with his own money, that's his business, no?

If he sold the rights himself, I'd tell him to shut up, too... but when his publishers sell those rights on his behalf, despite his ardent protestation, I can see being a bit testy.

[Equinox]

Paul, I'm not going to say your perspective isn't valid, far be it for me to proclaim anyone's opinion right or wrong (except Vince, who gets shit wrong ALL THE TIME). What I'm saying is that Alan Moore isn't a nice person. Period. I'm not making a judgment over whether he's a real "artist" [whatever the hell that means in the context of producing mass produced products intended to sell to consumers], I'm suggesting that he's a dildo. A guy who IS a fantastic writer and may or may not be a hypocrite [I can see valid arguments on both sides of that one], but just comes across as an asshole of the first degree every chance he gets.

While most of the time, at least in his print interviews, he does come off as a bit "asshole-ish", in this one, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213004,00.html, I thought he came across pretty level-headed.  He still had his regular condemnations of the comics industry and movie adaptations, but this time around he wasn't in full rant mode.

[Equinox]

So what about John Byrne then? 

A tool 

Frank Miller?

Control freak

Jim Shooter?

Nazi

Ethan Van Sciver?

Saint 

Warren Ellis?

Schizo

Neal Adams?

Eccentric

Todd McFarlane

Legend in his own mind

Rob Liefeld

The lost Wahlberg brother

Pat Lee?

Could give two shits about


and yes, most of this stuff is with tongue planted firmly in cheek. 

[Equinox]

Final thought from me on Mr. Moore:

Love the work, Meh on the man... 

[Matt H.O.W.L.]

I've never heard of those movies. They must be huge blockbuster hits that are indicative of the Hollywood mainstream, right?

My whole point was he said "modern film," which includes independents and everything else shot on video or celluloid, when he seemed to be meaning "huge blockbuster hits that are indicative of the Hollywood mainstream." Film, as a medium, is not broken.

NY TIMES Article about Watchmen trouble

[Equinox]

My whole point was he said "modern film," which includes independents and everything else shot on video or celluloid, when he seemed to be meaning "huge blockbuster hits that are indicative of the Hollywood mainstream." Film, as a medium, is not broken.

NY TIMES Article about Watchmen trouble

Unfortunately for some genre's of movies, I'd much rather watch a "blockbuster" movie than an indie downer such as Nights and Weekends: http://www.ifcfilms.com/viewFilm.htm?filmId=1077.

A little too much reality in my entertainment for me...

[Papercut]

My whole point was he said "modern film," which includes independents and everything else shot on video or celluloid, when he seemed to be meaning "huge blockbuster hits that are indicative of the Hollywood mainstream." Film, as a medium, is not broken.

NY TIMES Article about Watchmen trouble

There are some folk in the world that don't think there's been a decent movie since GODFATHER II. I know a guy who's actually said that the music biz has been crap since Elvis "died." Some may say TV isn't worth watching since DALLAS went of the air. Others just don't watch movies, or TV or listen to music...  

Sure some may be hyperbole, some legitimate feelings, but the point I'm trying to make is that Moore may actually feel that way -- he may bundle up the entire industry and pitch it out the door (though obviously documentaries are exempt from his personal distaste). All right. I disagree, but otherwise, no skin off my nose.

[Chad (Grilled Cheese Sandwich)]

Tomatoe - Tomahtoh - let's call the whole thing off   

Oddly enough...that's the title of his newest work, available only in film format...

[Paul]

There are some folk in the world that don't think there's been a decent movie since GODFATHER II. I know a guy who's actually said that the music biz has been crap since Elvis "died." Some may say TV isn't worth watching since DALLAS went of the air. Others just don't watch movies, or TV or listen to music...  

Sure some may be hyperbole, some legitimate feelings, but the point I'm trying to make is that Moore may actually feel that way -- he may bundle up the entire industry and pitch it out the door (though obviously documentaries are exempt from his personal distaste). All right. I disagree, but otherwise, no skin off my nose.

Total karma!  If only for the quotes around the word "died"!