Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Unfortunately i feel they changed it enough to make it less about the Biritsh context, which the comic was, and more about American politics.

Don't insult the flag. You wouldn't like us when you insult the flag. Just look at what we've done to other people's countries. (Vietnam doesn't count! )
I'm just screwin with ya. But try and avoid politics. That's how people can get Behaviour Warnings.

But V for vendetta is about politics.

But ifm you say something about politics in a furom that can be connstrewd as mean or derogitory, well, let's just say that's how I got my first warning.

Yes, of course. But I'm not criticising anyones politics I'm simply saying that V for Vendetta's film adaptation was changed in oreder to reflect American politics as aposed to British politics, particularly thatcherism, as the comics did.

whatwhat wrote:Yes, of course. But I'm not criticising anyones politics I'm simply saying that V for Vendetta's film adaptation was changed in oreder to reflect American politics as aposed to British politics, particularly thatcherism, as the comics did.

OHHHHH> Now I get your meaning. I just wanted to prevent someone else from getting a damn PM about their bahaviour.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:But ifm you say something about politics in a furom that can be connstrewd as mean or derogitory, well, let's just say that's how I got my first warning.

I think it might well depend upon the nature, timing and placement of the comment.

In this instance Mr. Whatwhat has a point with regards to the film adaptation having more of an American flavour than the original comic. To be expected in a Hollywood film, and I don't think some of the changes were all that bad. I think it lost more of the story's impact through the change in medium than any cultural switch.

I thought the reason I used this was so I didn't have to think. My brain hurts 2x.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:OHHHHH> Now I get your meaning. I just wanted to prevent someone else from getting a damn PM about their bahaviour.

ok. Well thank you for your concern.

reds8n wrote:I think it lost more of the story's impact through the change in medium than any cultural switch.

Certainly true, but that isn't an excuse. Some thing should just be left as they are, in the medium they were intended for.

Adaptation, adaptation? What adaptation? This is a total remake Hollywod style, "we take everything cool from the book and throw it down the drain but we put [cool]fight scenes [/cool] to compensate!".

I just read that, I don´t know if it´s still on the current script, that Watchmen has some kind of energetic crisis going on, I don´t remember that being in the original comic, no wonder Moore doesn´t want to have his name on the credits.

What´s next a WWII movie without Nazis because modern sensibilities might be hurt? A Moby Dick movie without the whale because hunting whales is not cool?.

M.

PS: I hated the last Potter movies due to the same problem, they raped the books to put more CG for the kiddies. Or Mr Peter "no this is not Tolkien´s story it´s mine" Jackson and his LotR alternate plots.

whatwhat wrote:Alan Moore will be uncredited in the movie as he completely oposes it's film adaptation.

Terry Gilliam was lined up to make this and eventually agreed with Alan's position that the watchmen was unfilmable so he abandoned the project. Unfortunately imo gilliam was one of the few people in hollywood who could have made it work.

Alan Moore doesn't think anything should ever be adapted from anything ever. Not only that but he did think it was filmable, it was just that one would have to make a mini-series on television, not a single film. They didn't have the money or the backing for that.

whatwhat wrote:yaaawn. Your on about yourself again i see.

Perhaps if you have read any of Alan moore's work you would know what i'm talking about. V for V was a commentary on thatcherism, the film was a pile of gak.

Well the film and the movie weren't supposed to be the exact same thing. If you wanted exactly the same thing as the comic you should just read the comic. The movie wasn't as good as the book, but then how many films are? It still wasn't a horrible film though.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Plus Alan Moores sorta an ass.

I love Alan Moore's work and own quite a bit of it, but there are areas that I don't listen to what he has to say. He'll bitch all day long about how his films should never be adapted after he has gotten his check for the rights and never see what has been made. The only reason they can make a film of it is because he sold the rights. He wants to sell the rights and at the same time appear to be taking a principled stand on his art.

Basically it goes like this:

1. Sell rights to work, get $$$
2. Wait for movie to get made
3. See increase in sales of work further increasing $$$
4. Complain about how your work should never be translated to anything and not putting my name on it
5. ???
6. Profit

It's also funny that a guy who has made a living by taking other peoples ideas and changing them (and doing so brilliantly of course) would complain that other people would use his ideas as a starting point and change them.

If Moore's so against the film, how'd they get the rights?

Miguelsan wrote:Adaptation, adaptation? What adaptation? This is a total remake Hollywod style, "we take everything cool from the book and throw it down the drain but we put [cool]fight scenes [/cool] to compensate!".

I just read that, I don´t know if it´s still on the current script, that Watchmen has some kind of energetic crisis going on, I don´t remember that being in the original comic, no wonder Moore doesn´t want to have his name on the credits.

Why don't we wait for the movie to come out before we judge it on hearsay, rumors, and projected ideas of whats going to happen? Let's judge it on the film itself instead of little snippets and internet rumors.

I've heard the same concerns about the new ending, and I'm not impressed. Surely,
I don't get it.

I will be amongst the first to see it, though. V for Vendetta was pants, but quite good pants. There was enough in it to remind me of why I loved the book so much, and hopefully Watchmen will manage at least that much.

Yes we could do that but I stand by my Post Scriptum.

Lordhat: Because in the Watchmen case the rights are not Moore´s but DC. According to Moore the rights will revert to him one year after DC ends publishing. I think it was the same for V, he sign the rights years ago for a script that never came then 15-20 years later another studio eworks the script against his wishes but as the rights haven´t reverted yet he is unable to have his say.

M.

kged wrote:I've heard the same concerns about the new ending, and I'm not impressed. Surely,

Spoiler:

if the final threat comes from Dr Manhattan's creations, then isn't he the baddie, rather than Ozymandias? And what about that brilliant and chilling line about why Dr M doesn't get involved in humanity's political squabbles ("Which do you prefer, black ants or red ants?"), where does that go now?

I don't get it.

Miguelsan wrote:Yes we could do that but I stand by my Post Scriptum.

So pre-judging things is your standard operating procedure? Judging books by their covers is an acceptable method for you? That's good to know I suppose.

Miguelsan wrote:Lordhat: Because in the Watchmen case the rights are not Moore´s but DC. According to Moore the rights will revert to him one year after DC ends publishing. I think it was the same for V, he sign the rights years ago for a script that never came then 15-20 years later another studio eworks the script against his wishes but as the rights haven´t reverted yet he is unable to have his say.

This is both inaccurate and misleading. He sold the film rights and they have never reverted back to DC. They have gone from studio to studio and producer to producer perhaps, but DC has had no real say in this area of the Watchmen. He also didn't sell the rights so that guy A only would make Movie A. He just sold the rights and then walked away.

Ahtman wrote:Why don't we wait for the movie to come out before we judge it on hearsay, rumors, and projected ideas of whats going to happen? Let's judge it on the film itself instead of little snippets and internet rumors.

Clearly, you don't understand how dakka works.
1. Hearsay and rumors
2 Accusations
3. Drama
4. Counter accusations
5. Name calling
6. Truth
7. A bunch of jokes and posting of witting phrases and photos

I wasn't looking forward to the movie, but the graphics look good, and if it gets good reviews on Yahoo, I'll probably go see it. I loved the comic, and think it is probably the best comic ever done (Dark Knight Returns is pretty high on my list too). No book or comic translates perfectly to film or TV. You have to judge the movie on its own. Having said that, I don't plan to re-read the comic until after seeing the movie (or deciding not to go).

Ahtman wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:Yes we could do that but I stand by my Post Scriptum.

So pre-judging things is your standard operating procedure? Judging books by their covers is an acceptable method for you? That's good to know I suppose.

Then I´m like you no? because you either ignore the meaning of the Post Scriptum expresion or never bothered to read it because I gave two examples of what I´m complaining of.

This is both inaccurate and misleading. He sold the film rights and they have never reverted back to DC.

On this issue I was explained by a friend that DC has the rights to Watchmen not Moore, if you know more than me I would appreciate more information.

M.

DC has the comic book rights. They can publish special editions and reprints, ect, all they want but they have no say over the film as Moore sold those rights a long time ago. He still holds some rights though I think because I recall him putting the axe to some idea a while back. I think it was an anniversary edition he was going to come back to promote and somehow things fell apart and DC and Moore went back to hating each other again.

My brain just exploded at realising how many b**ching fanboys use dakka. If this happens when I make my witchblade movie thread (WOOT!).... I'll beat the crap otua you.

Ahtman wrote:Well the film and the movie weren't supposed to be the exact same thing. If you wanted exactly the same thing as the comic you should just read the comic. The movie wasn't as good as the book, but then how many films are? It still wasn't a horrible film though.

If there not supposed to be the same thing, why are they called the same thing? If your not going to adapt it properly you should rename it and put 'based on the...' at the end. Instead of stealing the publicity the name would give it. Theres no problem with that, it's not like west side story is any worse for not being called romeo and juliet.

And ahtman, my objections to the movie adaptations are entirely my own opinion, I'm not just taking the side of Alan Moore. I know he goes on a lot, although I do respect him as I find in the interviews he gives he makes a lot of sense. Plus he was one of the figures I looked up to when I was younger and inspired me to become an artworker.

The movie is going to be horrible piece of gak compared to the TP. that is why Moore refused to be a part of the movie and signed over any royalties to the artist.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:My brain just exploded at realising how many b**ching fanboys use dakka. If this happens when I make my witchblade movie thread (WOOT!).... I'll beat the crap otua you.

It's more about the failings of the movie industry and bigshots trying to make a quick buck without tryign to be innovative, smart, and using their imagination to come up with their own material. They have to ride in on the coattails of others.

whatwhat wrote:If there not supposed to be the same thing, why are they called the same thing?

You are right. Alan Moore should also take his name off Miracleman, Swamp Thing, and change the names of all the characters in the League because they are not like the original versions but they use the same name. They way he took source material and changed it and explored it is unforgivable. Same is true with Frank Miller or any other comic writer. What a bunch of hacks.

whatwhat wrote:And ahtman, my objections to the movie adaptations are entirely my own opinion, I'm not just taking the side of Alan Moore. I know he goes on a lot, although I do respect him as I find in the interviews he gives he makes a lot of sense. Plus he was one of the figures I looked up to when I was younger and inspired me to become an artworker.

That is fantastic. Still doesn't mean prejudicing yourself against a piece of artwork you have never seen is a very thoughtful course of action.

BloodofOrks wrote:I heard Miller's a total dick though. I have a friend in the sequential art department at my school who went to a con where Miller was reviewing portfolios. Apparently Miller was drunk, belligerent, and was marking on peoples original drawings with a red sharpie. I used to like Miller a lot, but his recent work, coupled with the ever more depressing mess he has made his life has made me lose respect for him.

As far as I know, Moore is the dick. He has his head so friggin' high up in the clouds and thinks that his works are untranslatable to another medium. It worked fine with a bunch of comics and novels and while Watchmen truly is a masterpiece, I don't see why it couldn't be translated.
Granted, LXG was a huge pile of crap (I tried it a 2nd time, it doesn't even work when you know it's dumb), but I did't think that Vendetta was that bad. I found the comic to be a bit too long, the movie was good entertainment.

There was an interesting article about "the redemption of Frank Miller" on Craveonline. How he lost his way and so on, and he only produces gak these days. I haven't seen the Spirit yet, but all the reviews were horrible, so I guess that one really isn't that good.
I hear a lot of whining about Miller's All-Star Batman, which I found to be quite enjoyable. Sure, it's definetly unlike any other interpretation of the character, but that doesn't necesserily make it bad. I mean, it's not like this is in the regular Batman contunity. There are other comics who get completly ed up by a single decission and they stay that way. Did I mention yet how much I despise Spider-Man: Brand New Day?
I don't know a lot about Miller as a person, but the man wrote Man without Fear and Dark Knight returns , so he gets another free pass in my book.

Ahtman wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:Math is important, but I would say the critical thinking skills gain through literature are far more important as they teach objective thinking.

I think they are both important. It also depends on what kind of Math we are referring to as well. Understanding Game Theory, Finite Math, and Logic are very very useful tools when analyzing a situation, all of which require math to be able to approach in a modest capacity.

!? wrote:Maths really ain't that important unless you're going to become a teacher or mathematician when you are older.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not so I'm not really sure how to respond.

Which class are we talking about here. Of course there are a lot of jobs in which higher mathematics are required, but most of the math I learned in the last 4 or so years of school were to me only usefull in my final exam.

reds8n wrote:

Vandez wrote:I've heard horrible rumours that they've changed the ending for the film.

If they butcher it, I will be most displeased.

They have indeed

Spoiler:

No giant squid thing, instead the "threat" comes from Dr. Manhattan built/powered machines exploding instead. Exactly how this unifies the world as one in a manner akin to the "alien invasion" I'm not sure. How film is supposed to be very brutal apparently, lots of stabbings, burnings and cleavers hitting "meat".

Lordhat wrote:If Moore's so against the film, how'd they get the rights?

He cries all the way to his bank....

Miguelsan wrote:Yes we could do that but I stand by my Post Scriptum.

Lordhat: Because in the Watchmen case the rights are not Moore´s but DC. According to Moore the rights will revert to him one year after DC ends publishing. I think it was the same for V, he sign the rights years ago for a script that never came then 15-20 years later another studio eworks the script against his wishes but as the rights haven´t reverted yet he is unable to have his say.

M.

There was also a very weird scenario when that whole court issue came up. Warner had the comic rights, but Fox had the movie rights or something like that.

I think the change is also to do with the removal of certain subplots which would be needed to explain this otherwise. Which is close enough to what you said I guess even as I type this.

Don't think Moore gets a penny from the film itself, I guess he migt from the ma-hoosive sales jump of the graphic novel, but he aint getting squat from the tasteful and in no means fething awful merchandise that is coming out.

Personally I plan on seeing the film before I make any kind of judgment. So far Im impressed and I dont care if the ending is slightly different, as the nature of the threat was not even close to being the most important aspect of the story. Incidentally its perfectly normal for books adaptations to be different in some way. To go complaining at minor details being changed is just plain petty.

Also as far as I'm concerned, V for Vendetta was an awesome film. I don't care how it compared to the book, I realise that the book has an extreme amount of fanboism surrounding it, but on its own merits the film excelled in every way.

One of my favorite films of that year in fact.

Moore won't get anything out of the movie directly, but he sold the rights to it twice, so that's something.

edit: those halloween costumes are horrible, but the other one is quite amusing...

I (admittedly) hadn't heard of the comic before this film came out (honestly), but it looks pretty exciting. As with Lucius, I'm reserving judgement about the true value of it, however.

sA

Never read the comic. I haven't read a comic since the switched from chalk to paper. But the movie promos look, as you say, gak.

Imagine a world where superheroes actually do something. Like winning the Vietnam War for the US.

Ahtman wrote:You are right. Alan Moore should also take his name off Miracleman, Swamp Thing, and change the names of all the characters in the League because they are not like the original versions but they use the same name. They way he took source material and changed it and explored it is unforgivable. Same is true with Frank Miller or any other comic writer. What a bunch of hacks.

I'm honestly of the opinion that Sin City was quite possibly the best translation of a comicbook-to-movie. Maybe for the artistic vision that went into it, maybe for the cinematography, or maybe even the list of A-List actors (Which I'm usually against, but in this case it worked brilliantly).

Basically all other comicbook movies have simply fallen into the 'Good on their own merits, at best' category. I'm thinking that this is probably where Watchmen will end up as well.

If you judge a re-working of a piece of art based completely on the original, you will almost always be disappointed. You have to open your mind a bit, or you will probably end up disappointed.