Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Notes from the drinks...I mean meeting

Some things we talked about tonight:
  • If it's your month, you call the shots on how you run it; topic/book/film, questions, directing conversation etc
  • Catch-ups are at the discretion of the person who's month it is, they choose if they want one at all, the date, location etc  Understanding that some people will be unable to make it.
  • After you've run your month it would be interesting to see a wrap-up reviewing the topic/book/film and whether your ideas have changed.  This could be the basis for an Off The Shelf review, as well, if you would like to do so. 
For everyone who went tonight and asked about the article I read where Alan Moore condemned the movie, it was in a copy of FilmInk, but I found this one online, and it quotes similar sentiments.  The writer's response to it is very interesting, what does everyone think?


PJ said...

Interesting article. The photo of Alan Moore is a bit scary - that beard!!! And the eyes, looks a bit like Charlie Manson!!!!

My opinion: you can't just say an adaptation will be a waste of time and money until you see the end result. I know a lot of "Lord of the Rings" fans didn't want the Peter Jackson movies to come out, but they were fantastic! Many people who would never read the book get to see the story and be exposed to the ideas. I have also seen movies that I preferred to the book (don't ask me which ones, I will try to remember).

I do agree 100 million dollars is a lot to spend on a movie, but there are many other areas in Western life where we waste money on a colossal scale. It's a bit unfair to pick on movies alone....

detecktive said...

Actually its interesting with LOTR - I was working at a book shop at the time and we had lots of people come in to read the books after they saw the movie versions.

I thought this was particularly interesting as Tolkien is not an easy read, and these people were not traditional readers. They only came in because of the movie.

detecktive said...

Alan Moore has a history of condemning his works into film (some I think with justification given the end result).

I find it interesting that he feels as though movies can't convey the depth or soul of a story - mainly because they are made by accountants. In some respects he's got a point, but from another point of view I think he is being a bit elitist.

Actually, a lot elitist with an air of moral superiority!

If he thinks that book companies are any better than movie companies, he's kidding himself. Only recently I was listening to a DC Comics podcast from Comic Con in NY and I can honestly tell you that the people driving many of the stories were accountants, and were just as concerned about the bottom line as any movie maker.

At the end of the day, I think you need to evaluate each piece of work on its merits, regardless of maker and medium. Sure, they may influence the quality, but not just reject all examples of a medium out of hand, like Moore does with comic book films.