While I and my fellow nerds are squeeeing all over the Internets about the prospects of a way-cool Watchmen flick, there's one person who is decidedly unenthusiastic about the film: Watchmen writer Alan Moore.
Over at the Los Angeles Times, there's a fascinating article and interview with the always-interesting Moore, who says he will be "spitting venom" all over the movie. He's entitled. Moore's a purist about his work and the comics medium in general:
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 believes "Watchmen" is "inherently unfilmable."I agree with Moore only to the extent that it's impossible to pack into even a three hour movie all the complex layers, subplots, and backstories that embody Watchmen. (There's already a rumor that the comic-within-a-comic, Tales of the Black Frieghter, was filmed but cut from the movie due to length -- and will be put on the DVD release as a bonus feature.) In fact, I've always argued that it would make an ideal 12-part made-for-cable film, rather than a full-length feature.
That being said, I'm still excited about the film. And Alan Moore is more than allowed to be crabby. He's earned it.
The interview with Alan Moore is here -- and I warn you in advance not to read the comments, as they make me want to punch some people in the face. (For the record, Moore earns nothing off the film adapatations of his work -- he signed the film rights to Watchmen, for example, over to artist Dave Gibbons.)
Posts
