@avclub-0ae7484a9f3bbd2a21df420050c032ae:disqus it's a good job there's been no pretentious waffle spouted here then.

Honestly not trying to be a dick, it's nearly 32 degrees here and nearly home time and I don't follow your last point, can you explain it a bit please?

"What differentiates these three examples is that two were done by people
considered artists, one was done by people considered business men."

Ah ok, I see where you are coming from. You're unable or unwilling to believe that the profit motive doesn't always trump all when it comes to art. Gotcha.

Yeh your psychic abilities leave a lot to be desired. :) They do have their own ideas but the ideas aren't meta commentaries on Moore's ideas, they aren't responses to the social and political, scientific or philosophical issues that were around at the time of Moore's original work, the problem is that the adaptations…

It's not the same method. Taking from other sources and creating your own with it's own ideas, themes, examinations of culture and post-modernism is very different to a studio adapting a comic into a movie. There's literally no knot tying required.

Yeh Black Dossier is different in that respect I agree, however this doesn't change the fundamental fact that what Moore does with characters and what the studio did with the whole LxG story is different.

No it's not the same. Taking a character and placing them into a new story with other characters is different to taking one story and adapting it to the screen. The Spiderman stuff is actually closer to what Moore did without the post-modernism in fact and anyway, removing the layer of meta commentary makes it all…

No the premise is not true, what Moore did/does with characters is not the same as what Hollywood studios have done with his stories.

Heh, it's not even that. It's:

" but if someone else uses the same method"

"all anyone was trying to do is get someone to watch their work based on the familiarity that existed with an idea or theme."

Again what the studios are doing is not the same. He's not presenting LxG or anything else as adaptations of the same stories of the original authors. There's no hypocrisy in Moore's position.

But Moore is telling stories that examine the iconography of various eras, stories that examine even how we react to those and to the characters within them as well as how other people have created stories reacting to them. What he has not done is simply make a comic book version of the story of Bram Stoker's Dracula…

"League is piggy backing on established characters to sell a story that Moore wanted to tell"

9/11 turned a lot of middle aged white men into terrified 12 yr olds with anger issues.

He doesn't take the money.

Yes the point is Moore isn't just turning the novels into comic adaptations which would indeed make him a hypocrite he's using the characters, the symbolism, the metaphors to comment on the Western canon.

Sean it's like this - Moore isn't taking the novels of Stoker, Verne, Stevenson etc etc and turning them into a comic book he;s using what they and their characters mean to examine how we process and use culture. That's the huge difference and I don't really get why you can't see that and how it differs from the film…

Eh, if his snark was accurate it would help. I love O'Neal cus his humour generally aims for the right targets and illuminates something truthful about them. With the Moore snark it's based on a faulty premise.