Watchmen Movie

[Figure Fan]

Hm, interesting. I'm actually willing to believe this, because I have heard about the long-lasting battle for the rights to the show.

I've never for a second believed that FOX wanted to stop the release of the film. They just want something else, and they're using it as huge leverage.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Well, I must say, if they do use this to get the old Batman show released on DVD, a lot of people will be happy with that, so this might all turn out for the best.

[steamteck]

Rumor has it that Alan Moore didn't want the movie to be made.  Anybody else heard this?

Moore doesn't want anything to do with any of the movies made from his books. He doesn't want his name in the credits, and lets the artist have all the royalty money. This is due to his falling out with DC Comics in general, plus some bad experiences he had with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie. He talks a little bit about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html

Works for me. I like the movies way better than his comics, which I tolerate at best. If  I can get a film that I like out of a comic I hate, that works for me. The  reverse seems to happen just as often though. Comic or books I love becomes movies I hate. I really liked the league movie. I own the DVD.

{MOD EDIT}

[Jakew]

Works for me. I like the movies way better than his comics which O tolerate at best. If  I can gey a film I like out of a comic I hate works for me. The  reverse seems to happen just as often though. Coinic or book I love becomes movie I hate. I really liked the league movie. I own the DVD.

:o

[TheMarvell]

I like a lot of the movies based off of Moore's work, but Moore himself sounds like a complete and utter jerk bag...

[Jakew]

Why does he sound like a "jerk-bag"?  :huh:

[BentonGrey]

I'd say he definitely sounds more like a nut-job, but that's another matter.

[The Enigma]

I don't know about the trailer. I watched it when it appeared, watched it again and didn't cry at any point (apart from the shot of Ozy vs man in lobby where they screwed up the composition). But it's just visuals and there's little indication of how much of Moore's dialogue will remain. Colour me cautiously optimistic (the Sin City adaptation was a very good adaptation, but it mostly suffered the same problems as the source material). I do, however, understand Moore's reluctance to be involved. From Hell was average as a film at best and pretty poor as an adaptation, LXG was beyond terrible, even when I hadn't read the source material and V For Vendetta got a great many things wrong by changing them for no real reason, and was not more than an ok film itself. I understand that slavish adaptations make for poor films (Sin City, 300) but that change will only upset me. Moore (and Gilliam) is probably right in that it is 'unfilmable'. Maybe a 13-part TV series would be the way to go, but then the budget has to be higher again... *shrug*

[TheMarvell]

Why does he sound like a "jerk-bag"?  :huh:

because he's so full of himself. He acts like such a pompous arse when it comes to movies. I understand he's had plenty of falling-outs with DC and movie producers, but acting like a pretentious a-hole doesn't make him any better.

[BWPS]

poor films (Sin City, 300)

I really enjoyed both of those movies. And I hate Frank Miller with all my heart.

[Jakew]

because he's so full of himself. He acts like such a pompous arse when it comes to movies. I understand he's had plenty of falling-outs with DC and movie producers, but acting like a pretentious a-hole doesn't make him any better.

Can you direct me to an interview, article or clip which shows him being "a pompous arse when it comes to movies"?

[TheMarvell]

read any of the links posted above about him. But here's an example:

"In a telephone interview, Mr. Silver said he had misconstrued a meeting he had with Mr. Moore and Dave Gibbons nearly 20 years ago, when Mr. Silver first acquired the film rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta." (Mr. Silver no longer owns the rights to "Watchmen," though Warner Brothers is still planning an adaptation.) "I had a nice little lunch with them," he said, "and Alan was odd, but he was enthusiastic and encouraging us to do this. I had foolishly thought that he would continue feeling that way today, not realizing that he wouldn't."

Mr. Silver said he called Mr. Moore to apologize for his statement at the press conference, but that Mr. Moore was unmoved. "He said to me, 'I'm going to hang up on you if you don't stop talking to me,' " Mr. Silver recalled. "It was like a conversation with a tape recording."

Plus, you know, there's the fact that he has nothing but really negative things to say about movies based on his work even when he hasn't seen them. I thought V for Vendetta was an awesome movie and it got great reviews, but from what little he saw he merely nitpicked it like a whiney internet fanboy (one of his comments was about the breakfast V makes. I mean come on...) I also liked League, but I could see why he might have a problem with that film, and I've never seen From Hell.

It just seems like he's this bitter old man. I don't even know why anyone wants to know what he has to say about films based on his work when it's always something negative. He has reason to be bitter, sure, but not wanting his name credited because of his bitterness is what I consider pretty pretentious and full of himself.

[JKCarrier]

He has reason to be bitter, sure, but not wanting his name credited because of his bitterness is what I consider pretty pretentious and full of himself.

"America is one of the few places where the failure to promote oneself is widely regarded as arrogance." -- Gary Trudeau

[Jakew]

TheMarvell ... I don't think you can even compare Moore's written work and the movies that have been based on them. From Hell, LXG, and V For Vendetta largely don't even use his writing ... they just use the artists character design and the loose framework of the plot.

The comics From Hell, LXG, and V For Vendetta were all really well researched and written. The films threw all of that out the window. Now imagine being a writer who has written something pretty amazing but largely being known internationally as the guy whose name was on the credits of that awful movie with Johnny Depp playing an psychic Irish Opium-addict detective, very loosely based on your own work.

Besides, Alan Moore not only takes his name off the credits but signs over the $$$ to the artists involved. How is that not cool?

[UnkoMan]

I agree. Again, I'm admittedly a huge Moore fan, but I think he was just screwed over one too many times and now he simply wishes to not be involved in that sort of stuff in any way. It's like if you went to a restaurant but kept getting punched in the face instead of a sandwich, and this was your general experience with all restaurants. Then, later in life, somebody asks you if you want to go to a restaurant. Okay, that's a terrible metaphor, but whatever.

Anyhow, I think this arguement is just about done. Some people say yay, and some say nay. We'll all have to agree to disagree and then get back to hoping this movie turns out to be actually good, since Watchmen is pretty much still THE epic super hero opus that people use to give comic books legitimacy in the mainstream public.

[Figure Fan]

How is V for Vendetta that different from the book? I've managed to read parts of the book, and I just don't see a tremendous amount of change from the source material besides the obvious ones, like Eve's profession, ect.

I don't doubt that there is a discernible difference, though. Does anyone have a link for a comparison or something?

[TheMarvell]

He doesn't sign over the money to the writers because he's a nice guy, he signs it over because of his bitterness. If he never had a falling out with DC or Hollywood, you can guarantee he wouldn't be signing over any money. He's not some martyr of comic book writers. He's just a bitter guy who wants nothing to do with the "filthy money" he'd normally get.

Like I said, he has reason to be bitter, but I think at this point he's just being petty by holding a grudge. Even when people apologize to him, he lifts his nose and turns away. And I guarantee he isn't the only writer who's work was misrepresented on the big screen. I mean, really, how many other comic book stories have come to the screen and were absolutely terrible adaptations? Or better yet: they're good movies but hardly at all follow the original source? I'll throw Spider-Man out there. Does Stan Lee act the same way? Not that I know of.

I don't want to "argue" about this, but I'm just explaining what I originally said about Moore. He has written some great stories and I DO think it's good that he's giving his earnings to the writers (regardless of actual reason behind it) but his behavior is immature.

[Jakew]

How is V for Vendetta that different from the book? I've managed to read parts of the book, and I just don't see a tremendous amount of change from the source material besides the obvious ones, like Eve's profession, ect.

I don't doubt that there is a discernible difference, though. Does anyone have a link for a comparison or something?

You probably didn't notice the changes because you haven't read the entire book ... the movie is a skeleton of the book, with paper-thin characters and slow-motion kung-fu scenes. From Wikipedia:

Differences between the film and graphic novel

The film's story was adapted from an Alan Moore comic originally published between 1982 and 1985 in the British comic anthology Warrior, and then reprinted and completed by DC. These comics were later compiled into a graphic novel and published again in the United States under DC's Vertigo imprint and in the United Kingdom under Titan Books.


Alan Moore's original story is darker, with a greater emphasis on anarchist themes.There are several fundamental differences between the film and the original source material. For example, the comic is set in the '90s, while the film is set in 2038: Alan Moore's original story was created as a response to British Thatcherism in the early 80s and was set as a conflict between a fascist state and anarchism, whereas the film's story has been changed by the Wachowskis to fit a modern political context.[15] Alan Moore charges that in doing so, the story has turned into an American-centric conflict between liberalism and neo-conservatism, and abandons the original anarchist-fascist themes. Moore states, "There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged. I mean, I think that any references to racial purity had been excised, whereas actually, fascists are quite big on racial purity."[15] Furthermore, in the original story, Moore attempted to maintain moral ambiguity, and not to portray the fascists as caricatures, but as realistic, rounded characters.[15] The time limitations of a film meant that the story had to omit or streamline some of the characters, details, and plotlines from the original story.[4] Chiefly, whereas the original graphic novel has the fascists elected legally and kept in power through the general apathy of the public, the film introduces the "St. Mary's virus," a biological weapon engineered and released by the Norsefire party as a means of clandestinely gaining control over their own country.

Many of the characters from the graphic novel underwent significant changes for the film. For example, V is characterized in the film as a romantic freedom fighter who shows concern over the loss of innocent life. However, in the graphic novel, he is portrayed as ruthless, willing to kill anyone who gets in his way. Evey Hammond's transformation as V's protégé is also much more drastic in the novel than in the film. At the beginning of the film, she is already a confident woman with a hint of rebellion in her, whereas in the graphic novel she starts off as an insecure, desperate young woman forced into prostitution. V and Evey's relationship, strictly platonic in the original novel, develops romantically in the film, ending with mutual pledges of love. In the graphic novel's finale, she not only carries out V's plans as she does in the film, but also clearly takes on V's identity.[5] Whereas in the film Inspector Finch sympathizes with V, in the graphic novel he is determined to stop V and goes as far as taking LSD in order to enter into a criminal's state of mind.[5] Characters who were completely omitted from the film or had a significantly reduced role include Rose Almond, Alistair Harper, and Mrs. Heyer.

The graphic novel's main villains also underwent changes in the film adaptation. While the Chancellor within Moore's text is a brutal dictator, he is also a lonely, socially inept man who truly believes in fascism, and, in the end, wishes merely to be accepted and loved by his people. The film, however, presents none of these human qualities. Creedy, meanwhile, evolves from a relatively minor character in the graphic novel to one of the chief characters of the film adaptation; in the film, he is revealed to have been the brains behind the bioterror attack that Norsefire used to seize power. His personality is also somewhat revamped in the film; whereas he is a coarse, petty opportunist in the graphic novel, in the film he is an icy sociopath whom V calls "a man seemingly without a conscience, for whom the ends always justify the means."

The setting and plot of the film were also changed from the original story. Whereas the film only mentions the United States' civil war and collapse, in the graphic novel, it is mentioned that a global nuclear war has destroyed much of the world outside of Britain. With a nuclear winter causing famine and massive flooding, there is a real fear that a collapse of the Norsefire government would lead to disaster. Whereas the film ends in a relatively peaceful overthrow, in the graphic novel there is a violent collapse of authority. Other differences include the computer system "Fate", which is completely missing from the film. (In the original story, Fate was a Big Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did) V's terrorist targets are also different in the graphic novel, as he destroys Parliament and the Old Bailey in the beginning, and destroys 10 Downing Street for the finale.

[Jakew]

He doesn't sign over the money to the writers because he's a nice guy, he signs it over because of his bitterness. If he never had a falling out with DC or Hollywood, you can guarantee he wouldn't be signing over any money. He's not some martyr of comic book writers. He's just a bitter guy who wants nothing to do with the "filthy money" he'd normally get.

Oh yeah, he's awful for signing over that money  :rolleyes:

Like I said, he has reason to be bitter, but I think at this point he's just being petty by holding a grudge. Even when people apologize to him, he lifts his nose and turns away. And I guarantee he isn't the only writer who's work was misrepresented on the big screen. I mean, really, how many other comic book stories have come to the screen and were absolutely terrible adaptations? Or better yet: they're good movies but hardly at all follow the original source? I'll throw Spider-Man out there. Does Stan Lee act the same way? Not that I know of.

You're comparing the Spider-Man films to From Hell, LXG and V For Vendetta? I really don't even want to touch that one, because if you can't recognise that Sam Raimi treated Spider-Man (a character created in 1962 with a HUGE amount of stories and history to sift through) with a ton of respect, then I dunno ... I don't want to be the one to explain the difference to you.

I don't want to "argue" about this, but I'm just explaining what I originally said about Moore. He has written some great stories and I DO think it's good that he's giving his earnings to the writers (regardless of actual reason behind it) but his behavior is immature.

As I said, he doesn't want to have anything to do with the people who keep mangling his painstakingly detailed work into crappy films. He doesn't talk about the movies, have his name on the credits or collect $$$. Big deal. I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, if the film is good or bad, let it stand on its own merits without slapping "created by Alan Moore" on it.

[TheMarvell]

Oh yeah, he's awful for signing over that money  :rolleyes:

when did I ever say or imply that? I thought I made it pretty clear that despite his reasons, giving the money to the writers was a good thing. But that doesn't make him a "cool person" when he's only doing that because of his past grudges.

You're comparing the Spider-Man films to From Hell, LXG and V For Vendetta? I really don't even want to touch that one, because if you can't recognise that Sam Raimi treated Spider-Man (a character created in 1962 with a HUGE amount of stories and history to sift through) with a ton of respect, then I dunno ... I don't want to be the one to explain the difference to you.

No, I was giving an example that even the best of current comic book movies aren't perfect, and their creators don't gripe and nitpick about it as much as Moore does. Again, I thought I was pretty clear on that too. Any kind of entertainment that shifts from one form of media to another goes through changes because it has to adapt. Now, I've never seen From Hell, and LXG had it's moments, but V for Vendetta was still a great film whether or not it follows the book. Jurassic Park hardly followed the book at all either, but still managed to be a great film. Does Michael Crichton make snide remarks like Alan Moore? Nope. That's all I was comparing.

As I said, he doesn't want to have anything to do with the people who keep mangling his painstakingly detailed work into crappy films. He doesn't talk about the movies, have his name on the credits or collect $$$. Big deal. I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, if the film is good or bad, let it stand on its own merits without slapping "created by Alan Moore" on it.

You were the one who asked me why I thought Alan Moore sounded like a jackass, and I gave my reasons. You don't agree, and that's fine. But every time I read about Moore in an article, he sounds more and more pretentious, and don't understand why there's so many who worship him.

[Figure Fan]

To be honest, I see Marvell's point. I really respect Moore's work and I see his point of view, but him signing over the money is certainly not out of the goodness of his heart. At least, not totally.

Also, I thought V for Vendetta was an amazing movie. Based on the differences between the book and the film, according to Wikipedia, there are parts I like in each. I just think that saying V for Vendetta is a terrible movie is simply a case of "I read the book and now every other interpretation sucks". From a film standpoint, it was actually very well done. Adaptation or not.

Oh, and Marvell: I see what you're saying about people being in love with Moore, but I think it's more about loving his work, not the man behind the work. I think he's quite 'out there' to be honest, but his stories are very good. Watchmen is a masterpiece.

[Jakew]

Oh yeah, he's awful for signing over that money  :rolleyes:

when did I ever say or imply that? I thought I made it pretty clear that despite his reasons, giving the money to the writers was a good thing. But that doesn't make him a "cool person" when he's only doing that because of his past grudges.

Er, no... you said: "He doesn't sign over the money to the writers because he's a nice guy, he signs it over because of his bitterness... He's just a bitter guy who wants nothing to do with the "filthy money" he'd normally get." ie, he's giving the artist's "filthy money" just to spite the studio. I'm not sure why you think that would spite the studio, because he can keep the money and still complain, but anyway....

Also ... I said signing the cash over was "cool". I didn't say that act made Alan Moore a "cool person". You misread me.

You're comparing the Spider-Man films to From Hell, LXG and V For Vendetta? I really don't even want to touch that one, because if you can't recognise that Sam Raimi treated Spider-Man (a character created in 1962 with a HUGE amount of stories and history to sift through) with a ton of respect, then I dunno ... I don't want to be the one to explain the difference to you.

No, I was giving an example that even the best of current comic book movies aren't perfect, and their creators don't gripe and nitpick about it as much as Moore does. Again, I thought I was pretty clear on that too. Any kind of entertainment that shifts from one form of media to another goes through changes because it has to adapt. Now, I've never seen From Hell, and LXG had it's moments, but V for Vendetta was still a great film whether or not it follows the book. Jurassic Park hardly followed the book at all either, but still managed to be a great film. Does Michael Crichton make snide remarks like Alan Moore? Nope. That's all I was comparing.

Apples and oranges. LXG = six-issue series. spider-man has been published for 46 years. Jurassic Park was a detailed science fiction novel. Some need to be changed more, updated, excised, abbrevited, condensed, whatever ... some more than others, obviously. Regarding V, Moore's complaint was that the film ran contrary to the theme of his original work, which was to place two political extremes (fascism and anarchism) against one another. He argued his work had been recast as a story about "current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism". That changes the CORE of his Moore's work ... imagine Jurassic Park ending with Sam Neill going "yeah, it's cool to play God after all". Of course an adaptation from one media to the other is going to change the piece of work ... but you're using selective examples of some decent adaptations. I could name just as many crappy novel-to-film adaptations.

As I said, he doesn't want to have anything to do with the people who keep mangling his painstakingly detailed work into crappy films. He doesn't talk about the movies, have his name on the credits or collect $$$. Big deal. I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, if the film is good or bad, let it stand on its own merits without slapping "created by Alan Moore" on it.

You were the one who asked me why I thought Alan Moore sounded like a jackass, and I gave my reasons. You don't agree, and that's fine. But every time I read about Moore in an article, he sounds more and more pretentious, and don't understand why there's so many who worship him.

Yes, that certainly is your opinion. I think we have different definitions for "pretentious". And by Alan Moore sounding like a jack-arse, you mean the way Hollywood studios have described him, not ACTUAL interviews WITH Alan Moore. Maybe you should read some interviews with the guy himself, or why he doesn't like the films based on his movies ... or even just the guy's actual comics. They're pretty good.

Also, bwaha at Unko!

I agree. Again, I'm admittedly a huge Moore fan, but I think he was just screwed over one too many times and now he simply wishes to not be involved in that sort of stuff in any way. It's like if you went to a restaurant but kept getting punched in the face instead of a sandwich, and this was your general experience with all restaurants. Then, later in life, somebody asks you if you want to go to a restaurant. Okay, that's a terrible metaphor, but whatever.

[Figure Fan]

I do want to point out that fascism and anarchism are still very much alive in the film adaptation of V for Vendetta. While the film's fascist characters are quite apparent, the anarchic characters are romanticized--and not just in terms of character relationships--which might be why the anarchy theme could be misinterpreted. It is definitely still there, though. I mean, V seeks to cause chaos within the British people, which is usually the main goal of an anarchist. It is then up to the people to decide on whether or not to be inspired by his message or to follow the current rule, however strict and harsh it may be.

[The Enigma]

But they don't use the word 'anarchist', they use the word 'terrorist'. V might well be that as well as an anarchist, but the implication is that he's no different from Muslim extremists or IRA members or whoever. Maybe he isn't, but in the current political climate, it's a very highly charged word. I appreciate that a book set in the 1980s might be less politically relevant in the 2000s and that the Wachowskis might have wanted to change things as a result, but to go from a subtle analysis of fascism and anarchism to a simple good vs. evil story was not their best move.

[JKCarrier]

It should be noted that Moore's bitterness about the movie business isn't just about the quality of the films. 20th Century Fox was sued over League of Extraordinary Gentlemen by a writer who claimed that the story was plagiarized from a script he'd pitched years earlier. Moore got caught up in this, and had to testify in a deposition. In the end, Fox decided to settle out of court. This infuriated Moore, because he took it as an admission of guilt. The upshot of this, and various other major and minor disputes he's had, is that Moore felt that he and his work were being treated with contempt. Therefore, he doesn't want anything to do with these people, and doesn't want to put himself in a position where he's beholden to them in any way.

You can argue that he's being overly sensitive or whatever, but at least he's putting his money where his mouth is. It would be easy for him to gripe and moan, and then cash the check anyway. Most people in comics would kill their grandma for a chance to get into movies, and I think it's kind of refreshing to see someone who isn't so completely starstruck.

[TheMarvell]

While I don't really care to carry this conversation any further, I feel I have to respond to the last response directed at me.

Apples and oranges. LXG = six-issue series. spider-man has been published for 46 years. Jurassic Park was a detailed science fiction novel. Some need to be changed more, updated, excised, abbrevited, condensed, whatever ... some more than others, obviously. Regarding V, Moore's complaint was that the film ran contrary to the theme of his original work, which was to place two political extremes (fascism and anarchism) against one another. He argued his work had been recast as a story about "current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism". That changes the CORE of his Moore's work ... imagine Jurassic Park ending with Sam Neill going "yeah, it's cool to play God after all". Of course an adaptation from one media to the other is going to change the piece of work ... but you're using selective examples of some decent adaptations. I could name just as many crappy novel-to-film adaptations.

While I might be stretching this a bit, one could say that this change for the film isn't that drastic as neo-conservatism vs current American liberalism could easily be considered two political extremes. While certainly not along the same lines as fascism vs anarchy, I think the change for the film was actually for the better, especially considering the demographic. It doesn't change the core completely, especially when it's only an underlying aspect. Jurassic Park ending that way WOULD completely change the theme of the movie, but your comparison isn't the same when applied to V. And of course I'm going to be selective with my examples. I'm not going to pick bad examples to make my point, as that would make it completely void. My original point still stands that was basically even though the movie might not follow the book closely at all (Jurassic Park), it could still be a great movie.

Yes, that certainly is your opinion. I think we have different definitions for "pretentious". And by Alan Moore sounding like a jack-arse, you mean the way Hollywood studios have described him, not ACTUAL interviews WITH Alan Moore. Maybe you should read some interviews with the guy himself, or why he doesn't like the films based on his movies ... or even just the guy's actual comics. They're pretty good.

I might be completely misreading this last part directed at me, but there seems to be some pretty snide insinuations here, and I don't really appreciate it. You're putting words into my mouth and assuming I've only read one or two articles recently about Moore because of the example I posted above regarding his rude behavior. I've read about Moore over the last few years around the time LXG came out because I've never heard of him and liked the movie enough to be interested in him. No, I don't know the guy or am in any way some expert on his history (not even close), but I've read actual interviews with him AND about him and that's where my opinion is stemming from. Just because I didn't supply enough links for you to be satisfied doesn't mean I'm just spouting off an uninformed opinion (and at this point, I'm not going to supply the links of the interviews I've read, as A) it was a long time ago, and B) I don't think it matters at this point). And you're also assuming I've never read anything by him either, even though I've said multiple times that he's a great writer. From the complaints I've seen about the movies based on his work FROM HIM seem mostly petty to me, like what V made Evey for breakfast and what they called it. Or him prematurely bad mouthing the Watchmen movie. They could make the most faithful adaptation of his work and he'd still hate it. That's what I find immature, pretentious, and silly about him. Alan Moore could be the nicest guy on earth, but you'd never know that just by going by his interviews.

If that isn't what you meant with that last paragraph, then I apologize. I don't care to get into internet bickering, but I just don't like it when it's an assumed "you don't know what you're talking about" when it's just a different opinion.

[Jakew]

No, the comment wasn't intended to be snide. But it does seem like you're slagging Moore off when you haven't even read the books AND movie adaptations yourself. So you don't really know what Moore's complaining about, but you're calling him "immature, pretentious, and silly" for doing so.

:huh:

[TheMarvell]

No, the comment wasn't intended to be snide. But it does seem like you're slagging Moore off when you haven't even read the books AND movie adaptations yourself. So you don't really know what Moore's complaining about, but you're calling him "immature, pretentious, and silly" for doing so.
:huh:

No, you're only assuming I haven't read anything by him because you disagree with me. Regardless though, whether or not I've read all his books is besides the point. Most of his complaints that I've read about I think are just nitpicky or I plain just disagree with. Being a great writer doesn't justify rude behavior. Going back to Watchmen, Zack Snyder approached him with respect because he understood his issues and loves his work, but Moore wrote him off as just another dumb Hollywood exec because he associates Zack with 300, and he didn't like 300, not because he didn't like the movie, but because he didn't like the graphic novel it was based on. He said himself he's never seen the movie, so he dislikes Zack Snyder because he doesn't like the comic that the movie was based on, completely ignoring how faithful the movie is to the book. How is that not silly?  :huh:

[Jakew]

So have you read LXG, From Hell and V For Vendetta, as well as seen the respective movie versions?

Because, from your posts, it doesn't seem like it.

As I said, you seem to be criticising Moore without actually knowing what his problem is with films made from his work.

[TheMarvell]

What difference does it make? Whether or not I've read anything by him doesn't change my opinion on his rude behavior - which is the sole reason why I said he seemed like a "jerk bag" to begin with. He doesn't have to like the movies his work is based on, but that doesn't justify rude and immature behavior either.