cleverlymadeup:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

But they are crap. As a comics writer, it's not up to him to go round tidying up films based on his works. If the directors, screenwriters et al were doing their jobs properly, we'd have several well-made Alan Moore movies by know. As it is, V is the only one worth a look.

but the thing is they've asked him to help out with the movie and he's told them off and said he doesn't care about what they do and then he complains about the crap job they do, if you think they do such a bad job then offer your input instead of complaining about it.

Moore has never, to my knowledge, volunteered any criticism of the movies made from his work. However, every time one of his comics goes into film development and then again when it is released, there's a reporter there sticking a recorder in his face and asking him what he thinks of the movie. I thought his criticism of V was fairly measured, and I have no recollection him ever dignifying LXG with a comment, aside from saying he had nothing to do with it.

I genuinely believe that we wouldn't hear a peep out off Moore regarding the movie adaptations if people would quit asking him about them.

Moore also has a history of intellectual property disputes with both DC and Marvel, and I believe his disinvolvement with the movies is part of his avoidance of any more legal BS in that sphere.

mshcherbatskaya:

I genuinely believe that we wouldn't hear a peep out off Moore regarding the movie adaptations if people would quit asking him about them.

Moore also has a history of intellectual property disputes with both DC and Marvel, and I believe his disinvolvement with the movies is part of his avoidance of any more legal BS in that sphere.

the directors and writers have asked him to be a part of the creative process, he's said no and then when asked he complains how much it sucks and refuses to have his name on it or get any money from it

i'm aware of his legal issues with both DC and Marvel and in interviews he's stated it's not because of those issues he's not doing anything with his movies cause he didn't like one or two adaptations after he told them to bugger off

as i said look at Frank Miller, he was in the same spot as Alan was but had his mind changed by Sin City

Fun game: count all the references or direct indications of 5 or V. Eg: EVEY= (E= 5th letter in the alphabet) V, E again, and (Y= 25th, √25=5 thus another 5), additionally V's knives make almost 5 Vs as they fly in the air to the first fellows in the subway station.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

As a comics writer, it's not up to him to go round tidying up films based on his works.

Mr. Lucas...are you reading this?

Alan Moore is an extremely talented, very intelligent and highly creative asshole. That's the best way to sum him up, and to his credit, he's generally not an audible asshole--his spite and ill-will are usually reactionary, and he doesn't offer them until asked. You also have to understand that he has been majorly ripped off by both Marvel comics AND DC Comics, he's had multiple adaptations of his films that have taken his original concept and twisted them though a vice of shittiness, and his only solace now is writing comics about Victorian-era superheroes, or else writing erotica based around Victorian era literature and undertones of WWI.

Frankly, the man has been shat on for much of his creative career, and the fact that he hasn't dove in front of a passing train is at least something worth admiring, because frankly, if I were in his shoes, I would be extremely distressed at how eagerly people would be willing to take advantage of me. The main thing is that Alan Moore is a genius, and like most geniuses, he's a bit of a dick--look at Trent Reznor, for instance.

So, honestly, let's just leave the poor man alone, eh? Its not like he's gotten a cushy throne of awesome things that he lounges in, dicatatorially proclaiming disdain for anything not written by him. He's a LSD-induced, British hair worshipper of a notoriously fake Roman Snake God Thing who spends his spare time doing magic tricks, monologues, and writing porn involving Wendy from Peter Pan.

There isn't much more anyone can say about him.

The_root_of_all_evil:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

As a comics writer, it's not up to him to go round tidying up films based on his works.

Mr. Lucas...are you reading this?

One can hope.

PurpleRain:

ElArabDeMagnifico:
I didn't really like the movie, many of those reasons have previously been stated, but one thing that completely killed it was this...

I assume this is a 'spoiler"

Ha, that was good. But isn't anarchy when people rise against the government, not so much chaos?

I guess that fits more with "revolution" - looks like they got it half right.

EDIT: 'Doh! Thanks!

ElArab, your spoiler links aren't working...

Anyways, the V in the movie was more freedom fighter than anarchist, so the ending of the movie ties in with more the V presented in the movie. I haven't read the graphic novel, but if the public does what they do in the movie, then it doesn't quite fit.

Interesting discussion in general, but I need to correct one lingering misconception: Hugo Weaving was NOT "only V's voice, not his body". Hugo Weaving physically played V...there were numerous promotional shots taken of Weaving on set in the costume. I find it hard to believe anyone missed all of that or believed it a promotional hoax of some sort. David Leitch did all of V's stunt work and was credited for it, but Weaving was the one behind the mask for all dialogue scenes. As for rumors that a lot of footage actually features James Purefoy, the actor Weaving replaced in the role, that isn't true either. The only Purefoy scene remaining in the final film is the introductory sequence where V gets into costume. Weaving reshot the rest, and worked with Leitch to ensure seamless character continuity, though they're physically different enough to be discerned from one another. Weaving did rerecord all of V's lines in a studio after each day's filming because the mask muffled a lot of the dialogue, but the recording was based on the original performance, not a canned rendering looped in months afterward.

As for the argument/discussion of the GN vs the 2005 film, I don't feel like I should be forced to choose one or the other, and don't feel that an "adaptation" has to be a note for note copy to capture the spirit of the original...rather the opposite in fact. Films are a different medium than novels and must be approached differently. A literalist interpretation is pointless because the GN doesn't need embellishing or reiteration--it's already complete and masterful on its own terms. A film must be different to justify its individual existence. (Also, the GN's byzantine storyline is far too complex and novelistic to fit into a standard feature film comfortably.) The fact that the film is different and made for and about a different era doesn't somehow retroactively negate or damage the GN. Both are perfect dystopian looking glasses for their respective eras and formats. And Alan Moore himself is notorious for his "liberal interpretations" of Peter Pan and other works, so he shouldn't be so defensive when someone creatively reiterprets his work.

Razzle Bathbone:
Iron clad rule: The book is always better. No exceptions.

Im gonna assume that you have never read the book die hard was based on

ANTI-SANTA:
I liked that movie, better than most crap that was released around that time

Hello, Anti-Santa >:D

On topic...I enjoyed the movie, my favorite scene was near the end, specifically, the Creedy-V fight.

I don't remember the lines exactly, so forgive any and all mistakes:

Creedy: [To V] You and I aren't so different.

V: Behind this mask, there is more than flesh; there is an idea. And ideas, Mr. Creedy, are bulletproof.

V then continues to strangle Creedy, and as he leaves the room, he drops a bloody piece of chest armor onto the floor. Sheeeer brilliace.

Zombie_King:

ANTI-SANTA:
I liked that movie, better than most crap that was released around that time

Hello, Anti-Santa >:D

On topic...I enjoed the movie, my favorite scene was near the end, specifically, the Creedy-V fight.

I don't remember the lines exactly, so forgive any and all mistakes:

Creedy: [To V] You and I aren't so different.

V: The only thing we have in common is that we are both about to die.

Creedy: And how will that happenn?

V: With my hands around your neck.

Creedy: We've swept this whole place; you've got nothing. We have guns; all you have are your knives and silly parlor tricks.

V: No, Mr. Creedy, what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty, I won't be left standing. If not, you'll be dead before you know it.

After an exchange of bullets and knives, all of Creedy's goons are dead. V slowly approaches Creedy.

Creedy: [Firing at V] Die! Die! Why won't you die!?

V: Behind this mask, there is more than flesh; there is an idea. And ideas, Mr. Creedy, are bulletproof.

V then continues to strangle Creedy, and as he leaves the room, he drops a bloody piece of chest armor onto the floor. Sheeeer brilliace.

That movie is sheer brilliance and you can never doubt anything because it plays out so well. From a small town girl to full blown rebel, Evey is probably excellent and the person who played V played him so well to the point of that the movie actually turned from an Action/Noir Story to an Action/Noir/Mystery Story

TheGhostOfSin:

Razzle Bathbone:
Iron clad rule: The book is always better. No exceptions.

Im gonna assume that you have never read the book die hard was based on

Have you read it? Because a quick perusal of the reviews of "Nothing Lasts Forever" by Roderick Thorp on Amazon.com leaves me feeling pretty confident of the continued infallibility of the iron clad rule.