MovieChat Forums > The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) Discussion > Alan Moore - Hypocrite

Alan Moore - Hypocrite

posted 15 years ago by turnupthesun311
45 replies | jump to latest

Now I've not read the graphic novel, nor have I seen the movie the whole way through and I am aware that there are some major differences, but my point concerns a few of the characters.
Alan Moore is notorious for getting annoyed at films which he thinks 'ruin' his work, but doesn't he ruin other people's?
For example, I am not aware of any version of the Dracula story where Mina Harker becomes a vampire. Yet Alan Moore decided to make her one.

Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde. I haven't seen how he's depicted in the graphic novel, so I may be wrong about this, but in the film when Jekyl turns into Hyde he grows to Hulk like proportions. If the graphic novel is similair, this has been changed too. As far as I'm aware Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde look the exact same, only Hyde is evil,perhaps there are more differneces but nothing as radical as what I seen.

Dorian Gray. I'm admidatley a little rusty on this, but I know Dorian Gray keeps his appearance and his portrait changes, but does he have the power to re-generate?

Lastly, Tom Sawyer. Ok I know Jack about Tom Sawyer, but from what Futurama told me, he paints fences.

I accept that if these characters were true to the source, it wouldn't make much of an adventure story (perhaps a good buddy movie though!) But my problem is with Moore for moaning about people changing his work when its made into a film, It's clearly done to make it more interesting. Yet somehow it's fine for him to change the work of Stoker, Twain, Wilde and Stevenson for the purpose of his graphic novel?

Anyway, that's my two cents! Thanks for reading!

[–] gildedmuse 15 years ago

This is so old, why am I answering this?

I'm not a huge fan of Moore, but in terms of what the movie did with the characters:

"Dracula" does, indeed, have a seen where Dracula feeds Mina on his blood, insinuating that when she dies she will turn into a vampire. She just didn't die in the novel, is all.

In the books, I believe Hyde and Jekyl do not look the same. Believe it or not, the original story was meant to be a mystery (now the fact that they are the same person is common knowledge, but their identity was suppose to be a reveal) and having them look exactly the same would have ruined that just a bit. However, Hyde is actually shorter than Jekyl, as I remember it.

Wilde's Dorian Grey never faces quite the level of physical harm the league's Dorian is put through, so I'm not sure how to answer this. His picture did change to reflect his decent into immoral soullessness, but the book mostly covers that in terms of aging and emotion. It's entirely untrue that looking at his picture undid all this damage - looking at it is how he fist realizes the picture is cursed! Instead the trick is to stab the portrait, but I suppose that would not have made for as good of action scenes. So since the legend obviously received an update to fit the more action oriented genre of the film, I would say it's perfectly reasonable to assume he could regenerate and - in fact - loved the scene with the ashes dripping from him. That was a nice visual representation of the state of his soul, I thought, and found no fault with it.

I was more annoyed by his look. They went for a darker Dorian, when the very point of the novel is that he is so wonderfully innocent and beautiful looking - blond hair and rosy cheeks - and this is what he fears losing.

Tom Sawyer was a huge rascal in Twain's books, but later did turn into something of a detective so the portrayal of him in the film was not entirely off. A lot of comic fans loathe his addition, but I'm so taken with Twain's Tom Sawyer that I didn't care. However, I felt he could have been a bit more imaginative, as he was in the novels.

[–] Carycomic 14 years ago

Nicely said, Gildedmuse. :-)

[–] morden1018 14 years ago

IMO, the trouble with Alan Moore is that while he is brilliant, he'd be the first to tell you so. His ego is so big that it has its own gravitational pull and he takes himself and his work entirely too damn seriously. He has a right to be proud of his awesome body of work, but he comes off as extremely arrogant whenever he talks about how people get his stories and trash them when making adaptations. One poster commented a few months back that he'd like to see an Alan Moore directed movie adaptation of one of his graphic novels, but I have to respectfully disagree. Such a movie would likely be six hours long because I doubt that Moore could bring himself to cut any detail, no matter insignificant. And that's assuming that it was even filmable - there are so many visual elements that simply wouldn't translate to film or would look like crap when translated in an Alan Moore work that a fairly liberal adaptation is all but necessary. I'm not absolving the makers of prior adaptations entirely - they could have been a good bit more accurate to the source material then they were, but Mr. Moore just has to learn to occasionally meet people halfway.

[–] muito-merda 8 years ago

Such a movie would likely be six hours long because I doubt that Moore could bring himself to cut any detail, no matter insignificant

Which is why he wouldn't make a movie of his comics in the first place.

[–] brucedgo 14 years ago

As far as I'm aware Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde look the exact same, only Hyde is evil,perhaps there are more differneces but nothing as radical as what I seen.

The novel depicts Hyde as smaller than Jekyl. The reason given is that the evil part of his personality is smaller than the good part.

Showing it the other way around is similar to the common belief that Frankenstein was the monster instead of the creator of the monster.

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ...well, I have others.
-Groucho Marx

[–] simbob4000 14 years ago

The size thing comes up in the comic more the once brucedgo. This is a bit where they talk about it.

Samson: Sounds to me like you don't care for the feller much

Nemo: Indeed. Especially considering it was his genius that gave you independent life.

Hyde: His genius? What, Jekyll? Jekyll's a flinching little presbyterian spinster frightened by his own erections. He's probably doomed us both.

Nemo: What do you mean?

Hyde: I mean by separating us in the first place, all because he wanted to be pure. F^cking idiot.

Samson: He was a doctor, wasn't he? I should've thought he'd not have many sins to purge

Hyde: Exactly! Exactly! First sensible thing you've said. Should I tell you what they were, eh? These evils he was so desperate to get rid of? Well, he'd once stolen a book. More borrowed and never returned, but still...oh, and he played with himself, sometimes while he thought about other men. That's about it. Anyway, what the silly bastard did, he thought if he quarantined all these bad parts, what was left would be a f^cking angel. huh-huh.

Samson: Hang on. If you're this chap's sin's, how did you end up so bloody big?

Hyde: Good point. That's a very good point. I mean, when I started out, good god, I was a f^cking dwarf. Jekyll, on the other hand, a great big strapping fellow. Since then, though my growth's been unrestricted, while he's wasted away to nothing. Obvious, really. Without me, you see, jekyll has no drives...and without him, I have no restraints.

And then the two other people find out Hyde raped the Invisible Man to death.

[–] brucedgo 14 years ago

Hyde: Good point. That's a very good point. I mean, when I started out, good god, I was a f^cking dwarf. Jekyll, on the other hand, a great big strapping fellow. Since then, though my growth's been unrestricted, while he's wasted away to nothing. Obvious, really. Without me, you see, jekyll has no drives...and without him, I have no restraints.

Interesting! And really cool dialog, too.

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ...well, I have others.
-Groucho Marx

[–] Oddark123 10 years ago

For the records, we should add here that in the original story Hyde is more shrivled and smaller but towards the end it is described that Hyde "grew in statute".

A lot of people Moore included interpret this that Hyde was growing in general size and as Moore has in the comics as he lived he may have reached hulk like levels.

The other interpretation is using stature more to mean health. As Hyde grew more solid and not the smaller and weaker looking person he started as.

Nowadays the word stature is often defined as 'a person's natural height.' but can also still be used to mean 'importance or reputation gained by ability or achievement.' So yes it could really be implied the way Moore saw it to some, and very differently to others.

Personally i'm one that thought more health than size. But I'm sure if we actually polled people here we'd find people on both sides.

Communities left for being out of touch: Gamefaqs, Home Theater Forum
Also left a group on Flickr

[–] jhjslj 10 years ago

I read the graphic novel and I did enjoy it but I have to say that this is a case where I actually liked the movie more than the source material.

I mean in the graphic novel the characters are not really very likable.

Quatermain was an opium addict, The invisible man was molesting adolescent girls at a girls academy which if I remember correctly was being run by a prostitute or something? I don't know who she was supposed to be but she didn't come across as being a very wholesome influence for teenage girls., Mina was a snobbish stuck up prude.

I just don't think they would have made very good characters for an action flick.

==========
My teenage son examining a Moebius strip for the first time:
"Physics is messed UP!"

[–] Roselite 14 years ago

While I don't know about the others, I do know that there is a book that takes place after "Dracula" where Mina is a vampire due to Dracula feeding on her in the main book many years prior.

[–] Prismark10 14 years ago

Moore may be a hard man to please but he does rightly question why Hollywood studios wish to adapt his graphic novels that are difficult to do in the first place.

I personally believe that Warner Brothers did a good job with V for Vendetta and Watchmen.

Moore has basically said about V for Vendetta, if the filmmakers wish to comment on the American governments war on terror and its implications, then do not use a British story as a surrogate.

Its that man again!!

[–] shempzine 13 years ago

Amazing! You blame Moore for all the things not in his series that the hacks who made LXG came up with!

I'm watching Michael Moore expose the Awful Truth/I'm listening to Public Enemy and Reagan Youth...

[–] thickape 13 years ago

** Alan Moore is notorious for getting annoyed at films which he thinks 'ruin' his work,

The truth is complex. My interpretation is the following: He has always believed that his work and his collaborators' work stands on its own. In other words, the work is designed to function as a comic and not as the storyboard for a film. At first he was amused by the, in his mind, futile, prospects of his work being filmed, and happy to reap the profits. He saw "From Hell" and didn't like it and said so. This is consistent with his idea that he creates comic books and does not create movie templates. It is also consistent with his pattern of insisting on publicly giving opinions that are authentic to his experience.

"The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" film was a cluster bomb for Alan Moore. As you may be aware, the film script differs significantly from the comic book. Moore didn't care much about this, except that it allowed him to distance himself from the picture and reinforced his contention that his work is generally unfilmable. However, a different gentleman (*heh*), claimed that the script was significantly similar to his work. This different gentleman elected to sue the filmmakers AND Alan Moore for intellectual property theft. One possible outcome of this might have been that Moore would have lost his proceeds and future rights from/to "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" comic book. The possibility of this outcome frightened Alan Moore. He ceased to be amused in watching others do what they wanted on film with his work. From that point Moore has been outspoken on two points: 1.) He roots for the failure of films based on his work. 2.) He distances himself from the films at every opportunity. Following "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Alan Moore receives no proceeds from films based on his work. For him what is at stake is loss of creative control of his comic books in the comic book medium only. His public statements are consistent with his desire to not lose creative control of his work. Creative control is dear to him.

Alan Moore is not: whiny, winjing, annoyed, ungrateful, nor arrogant. He fears losing things that are very important to him, and he acts and speaks accordingly.

P.S. Alan Moore did not lose his rights to "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"

[–] pufnstuff 13 years ago

Oh, no... Moore is VERY arrogant. I've spoken to him, and he'll tell you that himself.

Snoogans.

[–] mrdjx 13 years ago

There are two reasons why he hates the idea of people making films based on his work.

Reason 1: He wants to keep creative control. When Moore produced Watchmen finished off the V For Vendetta series for DC, he did so under a contract that said DC was required to give the rights for both comics back to him, once they ran out of print. The success of Watchmen however, was unprecedented at this time, and when it finished, DC began marketing Watchmen and V for Vendetta as graphic novesl. Demand for Watchmen and V For Vendetta didnt run out, so the rights never reverted back to Moore. Moore realised DC had basically stolen the works that he was most proud of, in a way that he could never legally recover them unless DC decided to cancel both comics. So in an effort to keep his creative control, he left the mainstream industry.
When the League was being filmed, Moore was dragged into a lawsuit that accused Fox of plagarising a script called Cast of Characters. The Plaintiffs argued that Fox rejected their script and asked Moore to create The League comic as a smokescreen. While the case was settled out of court, Moore was pissed that he almost lost the rights to another one of his works for reasons that were completely false. So as way to protect the rights to his work from ever being taken away from him, he has refused to let anyone touch his work.

Reason 2: He writes his work for its respective medium. He does things that he can only ever pull off in a comic.For instance, Watchmen includes a fictional document at the end of each issue that substantially fills out the back story of the characters and provides crucial information on the history in Watchmens alternate timeline.

[–] wtdk123 12 years ago

In a sense "League" was good for Moore--while is shares the same idea with his series it also uses an original story. "Watchmen" did a good job of capturing much of the essence of Moore's work. The fact is that whenever something is adapted to a new medium, the original work STILL exists so it takes nothing away from the source.

Some stories can't be adapted (for a variety of reasons) to film from a novel, graphic novel, etc. but that doesn't mean the idea should be abandoned.

Having adapted novels and stories to screenplays before (none of them produced I should add), you sometimes have to restructure or alter material because there's no way to dramatically structure material so that it will work (a good example would be the struggle that John Logan had in writing "Hugo" as a screenplay--there were some sequences that were a bit awkwardly structured but it was the best solution to the problem in one where there wasn't a perfect one).

Having read Moore's graphic novel AND seen the movie, I can enjoy each on their own. I think that "League" took some nasty hits from critics but time has been kind to the film--it's better than I remembered and works pretty well despite some major structural flaws.

-"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense." -Steve Landesberg

[–] Oddark123 10 years ago

Serious question thought would Moore have really lost much of anything other than some money had the lawsuit have won?

There has to be a reason Disney and Universal haven't launched major lawsuits over the years for other studios/people producing materials that cross over the same public domain characters and have similarities. I'm pretty sure they don't think they'd win.

In this case I'll be straight honest I think the lawsuit was a gamble to get some money from Fox. Since no attorney in their right mind would WANT to put someone like Alan Moore on the stand. And even if Fox won this case, it certainly would have opened them up to other lawsuits in a hornet's nest of back cases.

Since let's talk about this seriously there's only three ways a court case like that can end. Two of which are hornet's nests that would cause other studios to be demanding a lot of back money, or the more likely one it's going to be ruled unless it's exactly the same you can't sue.

I'd say the better chance is Fox got played big time for some cash because they knew they'd settle out of court.

Communities left for being out of touch: Gamefaqs, Home Theater Forum
Also left a group on Flickr

[–] smoogster 10 years ago

If you've not read the graphic novels (nor it would seem, the original stories), how can you call Moore a hypocrite? Fyi, none of the characters in the movie reflect his interpretation of them.
1. Mina was not a vampire; all she had was a strong will and a horribly scarred neck. She was actually the leader and main character in the graphic novels but I guess the movie studio (and Connery) decided Sean was more important.
2. Quartermain was a hopeless, and initially useless, opium addict is is only bought back to his former self through Minas tough love. Again, I'm guessing the studio and Connery decided it wasn't palatable making his character anything other than a 1 dimensional hero.
3. Dorian Grey was never in the books. The closest was a picture on a wall in their HQs and a vague, oblique, reference.
4. Hyde in the novel was a stunted, ape-like man who indulged in every form of depravity. In the graphic novels he was a large angry but also cunning and intelligent beast. The discrepancy is explained by Hyde that he initially was a 'dwarf' but gained control, and with control, size. By the end, jekyll was no longer seen as he no longer had the strength to force hyde to change back.
5. The Invisible Man was an opportunistic, cunning, selfish a$$hole who beat & raped Mina and tried to sell the earth out to invading aliens. He had no redeeming characteristics, unlike in this turkey where, of course, they had to make him change at the end and be a 'good guy'.
6. Sawyer, like Grey, was not in the novels so, again like Grey, you cannot point any bone at Moore for the changes made.

That all said, you do raise a good point that its a bit hypocritical of Moore to complain about people changing his stories when he has taken others' characters and changed them as he sees fit. True, the difference between his changes and Hollywoods is that his were good, but both are still guilty of doing the same thing.

Also, you really should not only read Moores graphic novels but also the original books. Both are brilliant.

[–] Pinhead-lament 10 years ago

There are arguments to be made to equate Alan Moore to the word hypocrite....but this opening post is clearly not one of them.

[–] Prof_Gotham 10 years ago

Exactly, the OP even admits that he didn't read the graphic novel.

Mina wasn't a vampire in it and Dorian Gray only shows up in a literal portrait. Tom Sawyer isn't in it at all.