« The Mummy 3 | Filmstalker | Demi Moore with Costner and Hurt »


Alan Moore talks V for Vendetta

VforVendetta_Poster.jpgThe news that Alan Moore wasn't happy with V for Vendetta wasn't astounding, he hasn't really been happy with any of the film versions of his work or indeed DC, the company who own some of his material. However it's never really been made clear why, to the average film fan it sounds like he's a grumpy, angry old man...well he's not, and this huge two part interview tells us why.

Through Boing Boing at Mile High Comics, there's a lengthy two part interview with the man.

The full article has some snippets where he talks about the differences between his book and the movie as well as some of the more concrete issues around him asking for his name to be removed from the books and movies.

I decided to use this to political effect by coming up with a projected Fascist state in the near future and setting an anarchist against that...It seemed to me the two more absolute extremes were anarchy and fascism. This was one of the things I objected to in the recent film, where it seems to be, from the script that I read, sort of recasting it as current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism. 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...

...A couple of weeks ago I did ask DC Comics to take my name off the book. This was after a long, long string of gradually worsening relationships which had been kind of obliviously ignored by DC comics. It's got to the point where I've become very, very distanced emotionally from a lot of the work which I don't own...

...It was when I realized that in fact Watchmen and V for Vendetta had been taken from me. And I though, all right, fair enough. I was fooled once, and I decided I didn't want to work for DC Comics again or indeed for any of the big American comic companies...

...I had an American producer actually lying about my involvement in the film, which made me look like a liar...

...but wouldn't it have been better for Paul Levitz to think about that before his company cheated me out of the ownership of my work and then peddled it to another part of their parent company? This wouldn't have arisen if they hadn't done this initial unfair act and despite the fact they've been given several opportunities to put it straight and logical reasons to do so when in fact it would have made them more money. Can you imagine how nicely this could have gone? It could have gone swimmingly.

Wow, some strong words there, and after reading that he's gone from being an embittered man to somewhat of a rational and honest bloke. It's a very good interview, and here are the links should you wish to read the lot - Part 1 and Part 2.

It's interesting how the authors of work can sell their entire rights to something they've created and not have any say in how it turns out. I wonder how many times this really does happen and the authors just stay quiet for the money in order to live and write their next work?



I don't know Richard, still sounds like sour grapes to me.

The guy wouldn't be happy no matter what is done with his work.

Maybe the movie doesn't say exactly what he'd want it to, but that's part of adapting someone's work into a film, you can only do your own interpretation of their work. Clearly the Wachowski's saw something in it that he didn't.

If he has any valid point, it's in his complaining over his lack of control of his work. But he knew what he was getting into when he went to work for DC, so again, he probably has no real grounds to complain.

He sounds like a guy who wants his work sitting unread on a shelf somewhere collecting dust, since that's the only thing that will satisfy his artistic sensibilities.

I'm pretty happy he doesn't have control over his own stuff... this way at least it's still alive and breathing instead of rotting somewhere and being slowly forgotten.

True Josh, it's good that his work is seeing an audience. Interestingly the work under his control I've not heard much of...mainly my fault for not searching, but still.

I don't know though, it's really difficult to tell if people really get screwed at contract time or it's just a story to cover up a hastily signed contract.

Personally I read every contract I sign very carefully...just in case. However who really knows? I'm sure there's another side, and another...

Thanks for the first link by the way!

Alan Moore used to get upset because DC printed "Suggested for Mature Readers" on the cover of his Swamp Thing comics.

As another comic writer noted recently Moore can hardly complain about people walking over his work when he has done much worse to the creations of others.

For example in his comic "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (which is nothing like the film) he had The Invisible Man raping Pollyana.

Better late than ever.

I agree with Alan Moore. The movie shines only when it´s faithful to the original.

Which, unfortunately, it´s not very often.


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34