From The Page to The Screen

I went to see Zack Snyder's much-anticipated movie adaptation of celebrated graphic novel, Watchmen last weekend and was, for the most part, pleased. Almost immediately after its release in 1987, speculation ran rampant concerning if it could be put to film successfully. I consider myself to be one of the bigger Watchmen fans out there, of my generation at least. I didn't read it until 2004 but I bought it immediately (in paperback graphic novel form) and have read it six times to date. So the idea of a movie being based on such a great work both thrilled and terrified me. Now, I know that even if the movie was absolutely horrible, it can't change the fact that the novel is amazing. But still, I think most fans of any work in any medium would hate to see it reduced to something less in another form.

So I'll quit screwing around here and get to it: do I think the movie should be considered a success? Well, I guess I already gave that away by earlier stating that I was "mostly pleased" with it. Ok, yes, I think it was a success. I believe it could have been better. But I still believe it was very close to what I wanted. I won't get into what I liked and didn't like, this isn't a review. I just wanted to talk about Alan Moore's well-known complete lack of involvement in the making of the movie, right down to vowing that he'll never even WATCH it. Ever. Just like the film version of V For Vendetta (another success in my opinion, albeit on a much smaller scale as the source material was far easier to adapt), you'll find Moore's name absolutely nowhere within the credits. Only artist Dave Gibbons is credited but this is at Moore's own insistence. I don't actually know Moore's reason(s) for not being completely opposed to film versions of his works (in that he doesn't keep them from being made) but I figure it mostly comes down to these two: as a writer who always works with at least one artist, he cannot claim sole ownership of the property and...money. Moore's name may not appear in the credits of any film based on his work but you can bet he still receives some of the revenue said films generate. I think he sold the rights so they could made into movies so I don't think royalties apply but my point is their being made into films has made him money. And that's fine. I'm not here to say Moore's a douche or that he shouldn't be allowed to do or not do whatever he chooses with his own creative property. As a writer I plan to make damn sure that I maintain creative and legal control over any works I produce.

But I will say that in my own humble opinion, I believe that Moore is wrong. His original intentions regarding the film based on V For Vendetta remain mostly unclear: he's had various disputes with DC over the licensing thing and this caused him to leave the publisher behind. But various sources claim that Moore was initially supportive of efforts to make movies from V For Vendetta and Watchmen and reversed his position years later. I don't know. I have no idea what to believe. But then they made V For Vendetta, without his involvement but also without his forbiddence, and Moore had this, among other things to say: "the [book] had specifically been about things like fascism and anarchy. Those words, 'fascism' and 'anarchy', occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country." (this quote can be found on wikipedia) So he wasn't happy with it. Fine. But maybe he WOULD have been happy with it if he'd involved himself somewhat in its production.

As near as I can figure, Moore doesn't choose to do this simply because he doesn't believe in the medium of film, insofar as adaptations of comics and and graphic novels go anyway. Again, if that's his belief, that's cool. It's just that Moore decided to find fault with V For Vendetta for reasons that had nothing to do with its medium; basically he criticized the film's producers for what he perceived to be mistakes. Mistakes that could have been avoided if he'd chose to involve himself in the making of the film.

Why I think Moore is wrong is because he seems to be contradicting himself. Either he believes his works are unfilmable or he doesn't. And yet it's clear that at least some of the flaws he found in V For Vendetta were not a cause, direct or indirect, of the medium of film. It seems to me that Moore can say others can adapt his works if they wish but he doesn't care to involve himself because he believes said works won't work on film - that's fine with me - but he does this and then finds other things to bitch about.

As far as Watchmen goes, I guess Moore figured they were going to fuck it up so badly that he'd make sure to never even watch it. A few months ago, in an interview with Tripwire magazine, Snyder said this about Moore's position on the movie: "Worst case scenario - Alan puts the movie in his DVD player on a cold Sunday in London and watches and says, 'Yeah, that doesn't suck too bad." When Moore got wind of this, he replied: "That's the worst case scenario? I think he's understimated what the worst case scenario would be...that's never going to happen in my DVD player in 'London' [Moore lives in North Hampton]. I'm never going to watch this fucking thing." (I read this in Wizard #209)

As I said, he can do or not do whatever he likes. And if he doesn't want to watch the movie, that's all well and good. But I think he is wrong in his decision to distance himself from movie versions of his works. Anyone who knows me is well aware of my position of movies based on comics and novels - they never replace the source material, they never represent it as well and they are never better. People have heard me rant endlessly on this and yet...I am still a fan of movies and am not often personally against movie adaptations of comics and books I like. I guess efforts like the movie versions of Akira and Jurassic Park - quite different from their source material but still really good - give me hope.

Maybe that's the difference between Moore and myself - while I also don't really believe in the medium of film when it comes to translation of stories originally told through text and art, I still LIKE films. So I usually want them to try. I simply lower my expectations and hope for the best. Which is precisely what I did for Watchmen and I came out mostly happy. And you'd have to be an idiot to read into this that I think we should just always be ready to settle for less when it comes to movies based on comics and books, that we should accept mediocrity. I am not saying that all. What we should be willing to accept is the limitations of a medium, whatever it may be.

A staggering amount of Stephen King's works have been put to film. And a staggering amount of them are bad. And even the best efforts are easily inferior to their original forms. But King still greenlights this stuff. I wish I had the exact quote but King recently said he does this because he's a big believer in "what if" as well as different perspectives. He was actually speaking in reference to some of his stuff being turned into comics there but I know it applies to the movies as well. And what he didn't say there is something that's well-known anyway: Stephen King is a big fan of movies. And I truly think this is his main motivation behind his decision to allow so many of his books to be made into movies, even though he knows they will ultimately fall short.

As near as I can figure, Alan Moore is NOT a fan of movies. Again, that's cool. I'm not condemning him for a personal preference like that. But it seems to me Moore has two options when it comes to movies based on his stuff - he can either involve himself in their production and try his best to help the film makers to come up with something that truly represents his creations or he can flat out refuse to allow something he made to be adapted into a medium he personally doesn't care for or believe in. But what he seems to be choosing to do is sit somewhere in the middle, telling people they can adapt his stuff and he'll sell the rights and get his money one way or another but at the same time he'll make his disdain for their efforts well known.

My feeling is that if I ever write some stuff that's worth a damn and the question of will I allow it to be put on screen comes up, I'll either throw myself head-first into the production and work with people to adapt it as best as possible, according to my own feelings OR I will just say, "no thankyou, I don't believe this will work on film and don't want to see an inferior version of my story" and I'll do whatever it takes to ensure no film ever comes about. Moore is a strange man but also in many ways, a brilliant man. I can't pretend to know everything about him and I can't pretend to understand him. But I do think that in this instance, he is wrong. It's not as if anything I say could bother him. If you saw Watchmen and liked it, read the novel. If you saw Watchmen and didn't care for it, read the novel.