Alan Moore The New York Times Article

[Super Monkey]

check it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

It explains a lot!

[JulianPerez]

It would be the easiest thing in the world to make Alan Moore out to be a principled creator who remains unconquered by Hollywood. He's a talented guy and he's done lots of stories we like, whereas Hollywood are the bad guys that chew out creative people and spit them out - isn't that the premise of like, every single episode of BEHIND THE MUSIC?

But from what I gather, if Alan has problems, at least half of all this livejournal drama with the studios comes from the fact he's a difficult person to work with. The source of all this is that Silver misconstrued a meeting with Moore where Moore was supportive of film adaptations, and mentioned so. Everyone, even Karen Berger, is supportive, saying variations of "We love Alan, we'd work with him in a heartbeat."

[TELLE]

I bet they would --he has made lots of money for their companies without hardly trying.

[Permanus]

Silver's remark seems very disingenuous: you don't refer to a conversation you had twenty years ago as if it were something your interlocutor had told you over breakfast yesterday.

I'm a big Alan Moore fan -- both of the work and the man, though I could do without all the magic claptrap -- so of course I'm biased, but I think he's always been consistent; sure, he should have been more savvy in his dealings with DC, but at least he left them as a point of principle: he wasn't trying to strong-arm them into paying him more, he left because the damage was already done. Much ill-will emerged when DC just offered him more money rather than an apology.

I get the impression that what he would like is for Daddy Warnerbucks et al. to acknowledge that their business practises, while entirely legal, simply aren't very nice. If that's the case, yes, it's hopelessly idealistic, but I feel the same way.

I haven't seen the film adaptation of V for Vendetta, but I feel fairly certain that it won't give fair treatment to Moore's central point with that series, which is that anarchy is a viable, in fact desirable, alternative to more conventional social systems. I somehow can't imagine a well-funded feature film endorsing that point of view.