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

[Rippke]

"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."

This from the man whose last graphic novel is a pornographic take on Peter Pan, the Wizard of Oz, and Alice in Wonderland. The same Alan Moore whose League of Extraordinary Gentleman books are re-imaginings of public domain characters like Captain Nemo, Mina Harker, Alan Quartermain, the Invisible Man and many others. His work in the last decade has been somewhat less than original.

I admire (but disagree with) Moore's principled stance of disavowing adaptations of his comics work and giving any money he stood to make from the films to his artist collaborators. However, I have to laugh when he makes statements like this. I wish he would create some more original characters before he craps all over anybody for "regurtitating" someone else's ideas.

[Free Xbox 360 Premium]

Great article. Thanks for the information.

[Mr.Spore]

It's really too bad he doesn't get involved with movie projects cause I would love to see his work created for the big screen.

[PirateJenny]

While it's understandable that a lot of LA Times readers may be regular worshippers at the Church of Hollywood, and thus take Moore's comments as borderline blasphemy, I defy anyone to read the original comics and not come away from the movies feeling a bit, well... cheated.

Moore is a breath-taking cartographer of the imagination - and he's right about the limitations of the passive imaginative experience that is a typical Hollywood movie.

If you love story, read the originals and feel your mind spark to life!

[Eric G]

Breaking News! Alan to spit venom over movie adaptation of his work....wait this just in: the sun rose today and water is still wet.

[Tielk]

> Posted by: Dropbear | September 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM
> Shouldn't all media be equal?

Comics and movies are not equal, not the same thing. There are things you can do in comics that you cannot do in film. That is why Moore says Watchmen is "unfilmable".

[Joel]

I read a "real" script of the Watchmen and there was a major change to it from the comic. I hope it wasn't real because it will seriously ruin the entire movie for devoted fans and moviegoers alike.

Also, you can't blame Moore for his animosity towards an industry that has butchered close to if not all of his films (Vendetta was watchable.) Although that DVD of his looks good- got to get my hands on that

[Gus Mastrapa]

This story does a great disservice to Moore's position by leaving out the fact that he's, essentially, been ripped off by DC. Stories like this color him as an Anti-Hollywood grouch (which he is) but leaves out the fact that he's one of a long line of creators that have been screwed by the work for hire system.

[Kris]

Moore can think and say what he likes about Hollywood and its adaptations. I can understand his reasoning and see his point about the negative influence of Hollywood on the comics industry. But I've also seen some adaptations from other media that were very, very good. I've seen remake movies that were downright brilliant.

I don't think there's any harm in adapting stories from one medium to another. Storytelling by its nature involves retelling. Cultural absorption. To be honest, if the film adaptation of Watchmen is true to the books in spirit as well as in plot and details, the whole mythology will secure a revered place in the public consciousness for decades to come.

At the very worst, the movie will be mediocre and will just serve as an extended commercial for the trade paperback. Which I am also fine with, but less so, since I would really like to enjoy the movie.

I'm counting on enjoying it, though. I've heard nothing but positive things from the cast and crew, who are all really excited about the project. Snyder himself already had an almost religious reverence for the book before taking the film on. These people did not jerk it around, they love the source material.

[DB]

Frankly, for someone that says comics are 'a useful medium not used to their fullest potential', I'm honestly not seeing him give a solution to the perceived problem. Also, instead of complaining about what is wrong with movie adaptations of comic-related material, how about try to fix it?

Seriously. It's the old adage, 'those that can, do; those that can't, teach.'

Moore is a great writer but until he comes down off of his high horse about other industries, he will come off as nothing more than a crazy hermit that knows how to write great comic books.

[Shane harris]

Geoff, you always write about the coolest stuff. I want your job.

[Eddie C]

Does anybody here know anything about comics or Alan Moore? Moore does not make any money off of the film adaptations of his work; he willingly gave that up, all money goes to the artists involved. Years ago, Moore sold the rights to many of his stories to Hollywood and upon seeing the first few minutes of "From Hell," vowed never to have anything to do with Hollywood. At least that's the story I heard. He regrets it, but as some may know, it often takes years for movies to be produced after a work is optioned for film.

[Dropbear]

> Posted by: Tielk | September 19, 2008 at 11:13 AM
> Comics and movies are not equal, not the same thing. There are things you can do in comics that you cannot do in film. That is why Moore says Watchmen is "unfilmable".

You miss my point. Watchmen as a graphic novel is ''unfilmable'', but Snyder's version isn't going to be the same as the graphic novel. The art comes from appropriating a text into a different medium. On top of that, he's going to put in his own interpretation, because his experience of Watchmen is innately different to Alan Moore's. It's just basic reader-response theory.

[Harrybro]

In recognition of Moore's tremendous contribution to comics over the years -- he, even more than Frank Miller, redefined and revitalized the medium at a time when it seemed to be circling the drain -- I will cut him miles and miles of slack when it comes to his current feelings. Is he a madman? Of course he is, and in more ways than most people, yers truly included, can wrap their heads around. If he weren't, he wouldn't be Alan Moore. It's that simple.

That said, the supreme irony is that even as I read Watchmen in its monthly installments more than two decades ago, I realized that Dave Gibbons' artwork could serve, unaltered, as the storyboards for a Watchmen movie. It seems Zack Snyder realized it, too, if the trailers for the movie are anything to go by. If (and maybe it's a big if) the rest of the movie is as faithful to the source material, then it will take my breath away. In that case, even without his name on the film, Watchmen will be an Alan Moore production all the way.

[Jason]

Moore writes fantastic stories, some of which have been horridly translated to film and some that have been relatively good and I believe Watchmen will be one of the latter.

Aside from that... Alan Moore is quite simply a 'Douchebag' who deserves great respect as a writer but deserves an equal amount of disdain for being an uncivilized jerk who thinks he's better than everyone.. sorry Alan, your delusions of grandeur are just that 'delusions'!

[Alif]

Zack Snyder fanboys need to stop pretending like they know anything about Alan Moore at all and just sit quietly in the back with their dunce caps on.

Seriously, how can a fan of Watchmen be offended by the fact that the author doesn't approve of the film adaptation?

[Hal O'Brien]

"There are things you can do in comics that you cannot do in film."

Such as?

They're both 2-D representations on a plane. There's literally no difference between what can be done in each medium.

Now, one can argue that there are things that the *audiences* in each medium won't put up with from the other... Moore cites the "book-within-a-book" thing. But there's no technical reason you couldn't just put the text onscreen. (I know, we'll call it something new and avant-garde like... "silent movies." -- Nahhhhhhhh.)

"That is why Moore says Watchmen is "unfilmable"."

Really? You have a better idea than Moore does what his motives are? You can express those motives better than he can himself?

Sheesh. And people call *Moore* arrogant.

[Petar Cacic]

To all people who are thinking that movies and comics are the same because they are "2D representations on a plane", I can just say to read Scott Mccloud's excellent "Understanding Comics".
Comics are essentially more close to literature than film, because there is pause between two frames which gives the reader the opportunity to use his imagination and to put things together, as if he was reading the book. Movies just effortlessly serve bunch of images to your brain.
Mccloud says that it is the most important narative tool in comics.
And I couldn't agree more with him or Moore: I never watched movie adaptation of comic book I liked that could compare to that comic in any way.

[My Name ...is Alan Moore. ...I mean Robert Paulson.]

What's the worst that could happen?
There is no arguing with him on this point. His truth will not allow for change or growth. He cannot be objective in this. What if...he actually watches the film, and a little voice inside him actually likes the movie. How can he reconcile this with the rest of his commentary without appearing weak and unprincipled? He can never risk liking any of these movies because he can't afford to like any of them. Furthermore, this has to extend to all movies, as they are meaningless drivel meant to whisk us away from our meaningless lives - which implies that his life is more meaningful than everyone else's, and that the only movie worth his time is a movie made about him. Comics have always been considered a "low" medium, which, I am sure, was part of the challenge of making a great comic book, which he has indeed done. Is not the motion picture also a "low" medium that would serve to gain new masterpieces with the touch of his magic pen?

Many people ousted HR Giger from the "art" community once he gained success in the film world. He had his problems with it as well, but chose to profit from that which he created - and doesn't that make sense? There are those who are happy to deny the sensible in support of an ideal, and they can co too far, not unlike extreme religious groups, who believe you should be killed if you do not believe what they believe.

But, whatever. To each their own. I, for one, LOVE the Watchmen comic book. It gets better every time I read it. You won't ever be able to take the movie, no matter how great it may be, to a cafe and quietly read it with your coffee...(I mean, I guess you could on your laptop, but it's not quite the same, you know...I love a good book...)

Anyway, I know of the Sting of being effed over in Hollywood. I have my own reasons, and let's just say...well, yes, it's all true, in Hollywood. But there are others, and they make for some very strong allies. This is a small town, after all...

Rant...done.

[Andrew]

I've always felt film adaptations are good when they capture most of the spirit and at least some of the techniques and iconic qualities of the original, whatever medium the original is in. Watchmen, along with MarvelMan, took a good hard look at what might happen if there were such a thing as a "super" hero. This, after fifty years of super hero comics. Now, thanks largely to the Spider-Man movies, Nolan's Batman and the rest of them, the average filmgoer (read: not comic fanboy) has had a chance to form their own opinion of "super" heroes. A good film is theoretically possible.
That said, I've never seen a comic book movie that came close to being as enjoyable as its source material. Batman Begins was to Batman:Year One as Grant Hill is to Michael Jordan; Stan Lee, along with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, created a universe Andy Warhol would have been comfortable in. Sam Raimi and a bazillion dollars served up a splinter of it. Alan Moore rules!

[Chongchen Saelee]

Alan Moore is one of my literary heroes. People can be different in many ways, the guy practices magic (a little weird for even me), but those with a message will always try to communicate with each other. I think a lot of people don't like the guy because they can't relate to him, they don't read his stuff, don't get a sense of what he does for a living. How many people can truly say that they've actually made an impact on culture? I'm sure Alan Moore can. And for those that want to "see the light" too, might want to pay attention to how the man works. Now, if only I can get a "complimentary" copy of Lost Girls to review because I'd think that would translate incredibly well into an art film.

[Venn Geppert]

Hal O'Brien, what "pause between two frames" in comic books are you talking about? I see a mess of images nowadays. Most serems to have the McFarlane touch on them. No frames just splash pages inside splash pages.

I want to add Walter Simonson to the ranks of writers/illustrators who revitalized 80s comics. Also Carl Potts, Chris Claremont, John Byrne to name a small example.

[J.]

LJM is right. Some of you people appear to like dwelling in ignorance and speak before actually know what you're talking about.

Alan Moore has made an huge impact on today's society on a medium, by the time he started, otherwise overlooked in importance.

He is faithful to himself and his co-workers and an inspiration to many and is absolutely right on the money. On a world as today's he stresses the importance of true professionalism Vs money whoring and sellout.

I suggest you take the opportunity to see some of his interviews on youtube.

The whole issue on Watchmen and DC comics where royalties on promo material were denied to both him and Gibbons are just an appaling case of creative work theft and plenty enough reason for him to stop working for the major comic industry. The whole process is testimony to the Corporate Vs Individual issues we're all somehow or sometime down our life victims of.

Even so the man managed to make a living out of his name, and that's no doubt related to the unique quality of his work and commitment to it. Instead of criticising I would dare you to do the same, just have the guts to believe in yourself and your capabilities and go as far as a professional as he did (and does) on your own. Then, and only then (and that's still a big MAYBE) you'll be on a position to criticize. But then, if you were working hard as he does you'd probably wouldn't be here spending time on sharing your uninformed debased views, but working on improving yourselves.

[SM]

As has been noted above several times, Moore accepts no payment for the use of his work in a medium he detests. He's famous for this! You opinionators do nothing but reveal your PROFOUND ignorance.

I will not go to see Watchmen the movie. Anyone who has read the graphic novel will acknowledge that it is OBVIOUSLY unfilmable. The layered complexity revealed only through multiple readings is a key element of the work, in some sections it's a consideration of the nature of time, (some would say this aspect of the original is the entire POINT of the graphic novel) which can only be appreciated by having a physical book in front of you, flipping back and forth at your leisure to make things add up and look at key scenes from multiple points of view. The only way a Watchmen movie would succeed in echoing the source matieral is if every viewer had a personal bookmarking system with the projector and could instruction them to fast forward or rewind as they saw fit. THEN it would be accurate reflection of Watchmen the graphic novel. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a cynical cash-in.

Which Moore has every right to despise utterly.

[Robert]

I'm just glad Moore hasn't died from a drug overdose yet and can still create. Most of his friends in the industry seem to think that will be the way his life will end sadly, but who knows, maybe the old addict will outlive us all.