Alan Moore on 'Watchmen' movie: 'I will be spitting venom all over it'

For the record, Alan Moore has not softened his view on Hollywood nor its plan to bring his classic graphic novel "Watchmen" to the screen next March.

"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."

Moore is often described as a recluse but, really, I think it's more precise to say he is simply too busy at his writing desk. "Yes, perhaps I should get out more," he said with a chuckle. In conversation, the 54-year-old iconoclast is everything his longtime readers would expect -- articulate, witty, obstinate and selectively enigmatic. Far from grouchy, he only gets an edge in his voice when he talks about the effect of Hollywood on the comics medium that he so memorably energized in the 1980s with "Saga of the Swamp Thing," "V for Vendetta," "Marvelman" and, of course, "Watchmen," his 1986 masterpiece. The Warner Bros. film version of "Watchmen" is due in theaters in March although the project has encountered some turbulence with a lawsuit filed by 20th Century Fox over who has the rights to the property. Moore has no intention of seeing the film and, in fact, he hints that he has put a magical curse on the entire endeavor.

"Will the film even be coming out? There are these legal problems now, which I find wonderfully ironic. Perhaps it's been cursed from afar, from England. And I can tell you that I will also be spitting venom all over it for months to come."

Moore said all that with more mischievous glee than true malice, but I know it will still pain "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder when he reads it. The director of "300" absolutely adores the work of Moore and has been laboring intensely to bring "Watchmen" to the screen with faithful sophistication. But I don't think there's any way to win Moore over, he simply detests Hollywood. Moore said he has never watched any of the film adaptations of his comics creations (which have included "V for Vendetta," "From Hell," "Constantine" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen") and that he believes "Watchmen" is "inherently unfilmable." He also rues the effect of Hollywood's siren call on the contemporary comics scene.

"There are three or four companies now that exist for the sole purpose of creating not comics, but storyboards for films. It may be true that the only reason the comic book industry now exists is for this purpose, to create characters for movies, board games and other types of merchandise. Comics are just a sort of pumpkin patch growing franchises that might be profitable for the ailing movie industry."

There is one film that Moore is supporting right now. It's the new DVD release entitled "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" and it's an artfully executed documentary that is built entirely around Moore sitting in his somewhat spooky living room and ruminating about art, storytelling, magic and culture. The movie was made by Dez Vylenz, who was still a student at the London International Film School when he sent Moore a letter expressing interest in creating a documentary film on the writer as his senior project.

That project went well and, several years ago, the filmmaker and the author decided to do it again for a film that would be released to the public. Vylenz has intercut images and used visual effects that give the film a psychedelic swirl and shamanistic textures (it reminded me a bit of the sensibilities of a Godfrey Reggio film, such as "Koyaanisqatsi," but on a far, far smaller scale production-wise).

"It was very enjoyable to sit there in a chair and talking and talking and talking because, as anyone who knows me for even an hour will tell you, that is my second nature. The idea of it -- just me talking -- sounded incredibly boring to me but Dez Vylenz is very talented and if there is anything about the film that is not a success, I would blame the flaws of its central character." The film was made in 2003 but is just now reaching stores, with a Sept. 30 on-sale date as a two-disc DVD from Shadowsnake Films.

In the film, Moore makes it clear that he believes magic and storytelling are clearly linked and that, upon closer examination, the definitions of what is real and what is imagined are far more slippery than generally considered. This documentary is not the compelling success that "Crumb" was but, like that 1994 film by Terry Zwigoff, this one will leave casual viewers with the impression that some of the more peculiar geniuses of our day tend to gravitate to comics.

Moore sometimes wears metallic talons, describes himself as an anarchist and, in the past, has told interviewers that he worships an ancient Roman snake god. But what's really unusual about him is that he seems to be the very last creator in comics who would hang up on Hollywood anytime it calls.

"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 "

Moore said he is now working on new installments in his marvelous comics series "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," which is far more nuanced and daring than the forgettable film of the same title. The new stories take the narrative to the moon where there is a war underway between the giant insects (inspired by the H.G. Wells 1901 book "The First Men in the Moon") and nude lunar amazons. "The idea, it pretty much sells itself, doesn't it?"

He is also at work on a massive, 750,000-word novel. "It's the grown-up kind, with no pictures at all," he said. "Although modern binding technology may be overwhelmed by the size of it. It's a huge mad fantasy called 'Jerusalem.' "

The story is partially a history of his native Northampton that dates back to its Saxon settlement days in AD 700, but it is also a "demented children's story" that features Charlie Chaplin, Oliver Cromwell and "an explanation of the afterlife that conforms to all known laws of physics."

There's also a huge sort of reference book of magic that he is toiling on with contributions from notable artists and writing peers. It delves into Kabbalah, astral projection, seance, tarot, practical applications of magic and deep research into the origins of magic history, such as the true beginnings of the Faust tales. Talking about the book, the skeptical shaman of comics sounded positively giddy, especially for a parchment wizard trapped in a crass digital age.

"Magic is a state of mind. It is often portrayed as very black and gothic and that is because certain practitioners played that up for a sense of power and prestige. That is a disservice. Magic is very colorful. Of this, I am sure."

-- Geoff Boucher

Photo of Alan Moore, circa 2001, in Northampton, England, shot by Graham Barclay for the Los Angeles Times.

Images from "Watchmen" courtesy of Warner Bros.

Cover image from "The Mindscape of Alan Moore," courtesy of Shadowsnake Films.

Artwork of Rorschach from "Watchmen" graphic novel, drawn by Dave Gibbons, courtesy of DC Comics.

Comments

[egc52556]

Some of Moore's complaints about "modern film" are true for film in general as a hot medium. For reference, see Marshall McLuhan. If you don't know who that is, reference your brain.

[Andrew Adler]

Alan Moore is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He takes Hollywood's megabucks with a smile, and then does everything in his power to disparage the movie process and undermine the film's success. Any author with an iota of knowledge of the movie process knows that a written or graphic work cannot be translated verbatim to the screen. He should also be aware by now that the Hollywood people will change the work whose rights they purchased to suit their conception of the audience and their own bottom-line sensibilities. With all the movies made from his work he can hardly claim naivete on this subject.

He took the money and gave up control of his creation; whose responsibility is that? It is the height of irony that, after huge paydays, Moore feels victimized. If he's so protective of his work, all he had to do was say "No!" when Hollywood came calling. They didn't twist his arm, after all.

Playing the wounded artist is stupid and unconvincing. Moore comes across as a self-indulgent, mediocre pompous ass

[Traj]

Andrew,

Who crapped in your cornflakes?

I am sure if you created something in a medium that was then licensed and sold for another medium, you would get a cut of that whether or not you would want it because rights are rights.

You sound more like a pompous ass for being on your high horse and telling people not to succumb to a system we are all a part of regardless if we signed up for it or not.

Traj

[Jim Sparks]

If this guy hates movies so much, then why does he sell the rights to his books to movie makers? Maybe because he loves the money more than he hates the movies.

[andy]

He always as an illustartor; law allows the illustrator to sell rights as an equal co writer though most royalties of the books goes to moore. i bet the book sales are boosting now. i reserved watchmen @ my library; but it doesn't seem lyk i'll get it anytime soon.

[Jamie Coville]

Actually Alan doesn't take Hollywood money, he tells publishers to give what would be his half of the Hollywood option money to the artist(s). He did take it for the first couple of adaptation of his work (From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) but quit once he got dragged into a lawsuit involving LoEG (somebody sued the movie studio, claiming they stole their ideas). Alan has refused money on Constantine, V for Vendetta and Watchmen.

With those last 3 movies, the characters are owned by DC Comics and not Alan. He has no say in them becoming movies or not. All of them come from work he did more than 20 years ago.

[Sophie]

I respect JD Salinger alot more. We all know Salinger's views about Hollywood, and Catcher in the Rye will never get made into a film while Salinger can help it. But we don't need to hear about it in the media, 24/7. Moore, on the other hand, likes the sound of his voice, and has no problem with self-promotion. That truly is boring, as he himself states. His comics on film (even when done badly) are much more interesting.

[Jeff]

Because Alan doesn't own the right to (much of) his work. DC / Marvel etc. does. Part of his contract says he gets some money if they sell it, but it isn't up to him if they sell it or not.

He has in the past given his share of the money to the artist(s) involved in the work.

[Ricky]

Many comic-to-movie translations don't involve the original creators at all. Back in the 80's it was common for the publisher to own certain, even all rights to a character or series. Just because you created something doesn't mean you actually own it.

Concerning the Watchmen movie, don't you people even wonder why two studios are fighting over the movie rights? In your infantile world Moore must be guilty of selling the rights to this movie to two studios.

[Peter Lee]

Do you people even bother to think before you post? Open up your copy of Watchmen - what name is next to the copyright symbol on the front pages? Alan Moore? No, I don't think so. It's DC Comics. DC Comics is the owner of Watchmen, not Alan Moore. Alan Moore may have created Watchmen he was a work-for-hire artist and DC Comics OWNS it. He can no more stop DC Comics from selling the movie rights than you can. Duh.

Nothing like "fan" boys scorned; so quick to mock and ridicule the man who they profess to admire while completing ignoring the opinions he expresses. Yes, attacking a man's character with false slurs of hypocrisy are SO much easier than actually engaging the man's ideas. No wonder so many artists want nothing to do with their so-called "fans."

[J]

To all you infantile graffiti posters who fling insults as some would a handful of gravel

MOORE TAKES NO MONEY FOR THESE THINGS HE GIVES IT AWAY.
Yup,
Hate to break it to you.
And the reason he hates it so much is that in SPITE of his having NOTHING TO DO with the translations of his work so far He has been hauled into court several times by idiots and gold diggers related to these projects.
Instead of read 4 lines about a real honest to god person{NOT SPIDERMAN or JACK SPARROW} and proceeding to spit insults at a great Author and Magus perhaps you should go elsewhere and digest more of the vomitus piffle put out by Hollywood such as I am Legend with Will "What the hell issat SMELL!" Smith.

[Ben]

Ah Constantine. Not a bad movie actually. I know that A.M. created J.C. in Swap Thing, but I've always felt that the movie was really about Jamie Dellano's J.C. 'Strewth!

[Doug]

Who really needs -his- opinion on movies? He doesn't even watch the adaptations... I'm sure I will continue to prefer the comic over the movie regardless of how well it is done because the movie won't EVER cover everything the comic does. Yet... I want to see this in movie form, for better or worse. If it sucks, then I'll say it sucked and the comic will remain sacred, if its great, than all it can do is raise up an already great graphic novel, to a new level and just by watching the torrent sites, has already made his art form that much more popular.

So... he can go lock himself up and keep writing great stuff, and I'll keep going to see how the directors feel like portraying the same story to the masses.

[SMC]

In reading this article, I must admit that I agree with Moore. I believe, as with most of his work, that he is correct in stating Watchmen is "inherently unfilmable."

Though I am a fan of the work, I really do not want to see this film made, as it will likely be as bad an adaptation as "From Hell" was. I hope I'm wrong about that, but Moore's adaptations are flat without the nuance. Also, I can't see this work done justice by a single 2.5 - 3 hour movie. (Yes, it's going to have to be a long one just to cover the main story arc)

If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor & do so before the movie comes out.

[Dr. Cosmos]

*APPLAUSE* *APPLAUSE* *APPLAUSE*

He sat there staring at the screen. How could he explain? How would they know?

By being denied the worm, they were given a world.

GO READ IT.

[Dropbear]

For an author who has borrowed characters from other media to put into a comic book, specifically in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, he sure seems against people appropriating his work. Personally, I think it would be much more useful of him to actually watch the films, critique them and open up a dialogue with the directors etc. about their differing views. It would make him not seem like a snob who's trying to put Hollywood films down as an artform. Shouldn't all media be equal? Many people see the comic book as juvenile and low-brow, a stance I'm sure Mr. Moore is opposed to. Somewhat hypocritically he decides to get on his high horse, practically saying ''Your art can never compare to my art'.
Give people the right to interpret and represent your text, because that's what the Hollywood directors they're doing. The film of V for Vendetta'' was vastly different from the Graphic Novel, and that made it interesting and worthwhile. The world will be better off for it.

[LJM]

Moore is given the opportunity to make lots and lots of money from these films, despite DC's ownership. He turns down the money and all screen credits, allowing his artists to do as they please. So, no, he is not a hypocrite. And unlike some of you angry posters, he usually bothers to know what he's talking about.

[Gerry Duggan]

Sadly, Moore doesn't own the rights to any of his writing except The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen -- and he does two things when Hollywood calls:

1) he strips his name from the film
2) he gives his half of any money to the artist.

There's simply no basis to call him hypocritical - I regret he doesn't own more of his material.

[Carto07]

Alan Moore donates his share of the cash to the artist who co-created the comic. As far as he is concerned, once it is published, it's public property, so people can do whatever they want with it.

[El Sloano]

Ol` Moorie is perfectly within his rights to critiscise Hollywood; after all, Constantine, From Hell and LOEG were utterly, utterly ABYSMAL. Alan also takes pleasure in rubbishing his own current AND previous employers such as DC Comics and Marvel and never forgets any slight or insult such as when Marvel took action against Eclipse comics in the 1980s publishing his fab Marvelman strip for the American Market and preventing Eclipse from calling the comic MARVELman because Marvel Comics obviously have a universal copyright on the word `Marvel` at all times and in all territories (plus Marvel "messed" up the trade paperback reprint of his Marvel UK published Captain Britain and Alan had it in for Joe Quesada ever since as he claimed certain promises weren`t kept on Quesada`s part).

However, I thought that the celluloid version of V For Vendetta was a great film and I`m not a fan AT ALL of the actual comic and it`s Alan`s prerogative to slate it as much as he wants and never watch it either AND donate his share of the money to artists like Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd - which must confuse these Hollywood execs massively....

There`s the comics and there`s the movies - the comics will always be superior, every time. Now, my favourite Alan Moore story is F Sharp Bell from one of the mid-eighties Tales of The Green Lantern Corps annuals! Film that, Warner Animated!

[Wesker_1984]

I hate this guy, he have a too much big idea of himself. Moore your not god.

[keeyop]

Moore has always had a problem with the regurgitation of ideas, the problem is not hollywood using the characters or ideas and taking them in a new direction, its more a problem with them having no interest in treading new ground and trying instead to tell exactly the same story but in a different medium that is the flaw. If something has already been expressed and put out into the world, why would it need to be done again?

As a fan of his work (and comic books in general) I get increasingly annoyed at having to qualify my statements down the pub, say you're a fan of "V" for Vendetta (or even X-Men, Spider-Man, Daredevil, etc) and the majority of people think you are refering to the film, even if you do point out that it's the original you prefer the movies remain their only frame of reference.

Of course you also have the problem of film being a directors medium which cares very little about the writer, hence a lot of comic and even television writers who try their hand at movies have pretty bad experiences (Joss Whedon, Rob Thomas, etc).

Although I don't agree 100% with his viewpoint, as I personally like having the choice of what to watch / read and if something is truly bad (like "The Dark Knight") then at least I can return to the original medium, or even take sollace in the handful of adaptations that have worked (ghost world, history of violence, road to perdition, etc) but I do understand why he feels the way he does and he is certainly more than entitled in that respect.

[Michael Koby]

@Dropbear For LoEG, Moore took characters whose copyrights had expired and were already in the public domain. Therefore there was no permission needed to utilize those characters. He also didn't re-invent those characters either. He simply used them in a different context.

The V for Vendetta film was nearly identical to the comic book version except for most of the 3rd and final act. It also completely missed the point that Moore was trying to make in the comic book version of the story and was instead turned into an Anti-Bush film. So in that respect no, a Hollywood interpretation is not always better or worthwhile.

As for the Watchman movie, I'm actually excited to see it as it looks like (at least from the previews) that Mr. Synder did a fantastic job of translating the book to film. But that is simply based on a single preview and I will be seeing the movie to make final judgments.

[smacky-dackity]

DROPBEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[redcrow]

As previous comments have noted, Moore does indeed refuse all monies related to the film adaptations, and has insisted that his share go to his collaborators on each project. As towering a figuring as Moore deservedly is, lets not forget that Watchmen, V for Vendetta, From Hell and LXG were all co-created with the artists who illustrated them. While Moore might not want, or need, the money from these movies, I think its great that Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd have gotten well-deserved slices of the Hollywood money pile. Eddie Campbell took his daughter to the grand premiere of From Hell. How often do comics artists, usually slaving away for years in relative isolation, get to enjoy that kind of public acclaim, and get their kids to meet Johnny Depp? That might sound like a bunch of silliness, and it sort of is, but it's certainly a fun diversion from the drawing board for a bit. Even if the films lack something in translation, and they all do, even the better ones like "V", they do tend to drive people to the original works, and that's all good. Watchmen is prominently featured in just about every bookstore right now, and has gone back to press in huge print numbers. Thats pretty good for a twenty-year old comic. You can bet Moore isn't turning down the money from the graphic novel sales, and the buzz around the movie has also allowed Dave Gibbons to create a new book about the art development of the comic, which means more income for him. Again, thats all good.