Alan Moore on superheroes, and other things

[Z³]

I cant help but think that Alan Moore has some very good points here, and one section in particular echoes my thoughts on film these days, his description of CGI.

I think the amount of work we contribute to our enjoyment of any piece of art is a huge component of that enjoyment. I think that we like the pieces that engage us, that enter into a kind of dialog with us, whereas with film you sit there in your seat and it washes over you. It tells you everything, and you really don't need to do a great deal of thinking. There are some films that are very, very good and that can engage the viewer in their narrative, in its mysteries, in its kind of misdirections. You can sometimes get films where a lot of it is happening in your head. Those are probably good films, but they're not made very much anymore.

There seems to be an audience that demands everything be explained to them, that everything be easy. And I don't think that's doing us any good as a culture. The ease with which we can accomplish or conjure any possible imaginable scenario through CGI is almost directly proportionate to how uninterested we're becoming in all of this. I can remember Ray Harryhausen's animated skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts. I can remember Willis O'Brien's King Kong. I can remember being awed at the artistry that had made those things possible. Yes, I knew how it was done. But it looked so wonderful. These days I can see half a million Orcs coming over a hill and I am bored. I am not impressed at all. Because, frankly, I could have gotten someone, a passerby on the street, who could have gotten the same effect if you'd given them half a million dollars to do it. It removes artistry and imagination and places money in the driver's seat, and I think it's a pretty straight equation—that there is an inverse relationship between money and imagination.

If you haven't got any money, you're going to need lots and lots of imagination. Which is why you'll get brilliant movies by people working upon a shoestring, like the early John Waters movies. People are pushed into innovation by the restrictions of their budget. The opposite is true if they have $100 million, say, pulling a figure out of the air, to spend upon their film, then they somehow don't see the need for giving it a decent story or decent storytelling. It seems like those values just go completely out the window. There's an inverse relationship there

The Lord of the Rings example I feel is perfect, I personally the movie lost a great deal of the charm of the book because of all the eye candy and the overly epic battle scenes. I dont mean specifically to change the subject, or to say that Peter Jackson did a bad job, just to use this as an example of something I feel Alan Moore gets absolutely right in his article.

I'm a little worried that I'll experience a similar sensation with the Watchmen, that the eyecandy is going to overwhelm the subject matter, but I'll probably still enjoy it... and it wont change the quality of the book.

[Jasper]

One minor point I'd like to make is that while the Tolkien movies had a lot of CGI, it was technically a low-budget movie.

Other than that, I basically agree with everything else.

[AFK]

I totally do not agree with the CGI critique in regards to the LOTR movies.  I think that criticism is best levied against someone like Lucas and the Star Wars franchise.  I think LOTR was successful with CGI in the creation of a totally CGI character, Gollum, who was very lifelike and compelling and not just some stupid cartoon character, Jar Jar Binks was that.  So I agree with the spirit of the criticism, I just don't agree with the LOTR franchise being a target of the critique. 

[Jasper]

My SRSB senses are tingling.  Heh.

I don't think anyone's saying LoTR wasn't good, I think what's being said is that the use of CGI takes all the wonder out of film, because time was people had to be creative to get good "special effects" as they used to call them.

[AFK]

Yes, I understand that, and I guess I didn't articulate that very well.  That's why I pointed to the creation of Gollum because I believe that is an example of how the CGI was used in a way that did create a sense of wonder.  Gollum, as a CGI creation, I felt was very believable. 

[Faust]

cgi on its own looks awful.
cgi used over a template or to touch up an existing object works well. cgi on its own doesn't feel tangible. gollum is the closest that they have come to real feeling, and he's still not perfect, he has that polished glow that artists are over eager to add to their work when making cgi.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that there exists a huge difference between a story and that story in a specific medium.

LoTR was awesome as a book, the depth and detail, the mythology the history... its an entire world that one can immerse themselves in.

LoTR was awesome as a movie because its a cool story with lots of fighting and crazy mythical creatures straight out of hardcore fantasy.

If you break down a wall, don't freak out when everyone goes across it. "OH NOES, I MADE UNIQUE SUPERHEROES THAT WERE FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD... NOW EVERYONE DOES IT!!! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!"

ON NOES, We have the ability to make somewhat realistic critters on screen... WHAT WILL THE AUDIENCE USE THEIR IMAGINATION FOR?!??!?!

Anyone who confuses the 'art' of turning a book into movie, with the 'art' of writing a book from scratch needs their head examined. Anyone with a budget and the right team of people can make a movie whatever movie, with CGI or Puppets. Its a a 'kind' of art... but only Tolkien could have written LoTR and that is a much different, and to my mind, a far more interesting kind of Art. The art of the storyteller and the art of the author are two very different things. Can you imagine the theater critic who was pissed that they actually allowed women on stage, rather than the audience using their imagination? Or the first time there was a complete stage set? OMG, THERE IS ACTUALLY A TREE ON STAGE!!! WHAT THE FUCK WILL THE AUDIENCE DO WITH THEIR IMAGINATION?!?!?! I mean once you have backdrops and fly-in's I'm sure the audience stopped using its imagination entirely....

As much as I hate to say it, Alan Moore in that interview reminded me of RU Sirius in the Pranksters class... "Oh woe! For the cool thing I used to do is not as it once was! WOE!!!"

[Jasper]

"As much as you hate to say" it my ass, you're frothing at the mouth.

[Faust]

I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.

[Jasper]

I don't give him credit for the run of dystopian heroes we've had lately.  He has made an impact, but it seems to me like a larger pattern that no single writer can take credit for.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"As much as you hate to say" it my ass, you're frothing at the mouth.

I just hated to have to compare ALAN MOORE with RU Sirius...  Esp cause I once thought RU Sirius was awesome (and I still think Alan Moore is).

I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.

I dunno... do the beatniks and dadaists that wanted to break down the fourth wall get to criticize YouTUBE?  Its exactly what they wanted... no difference between "artist" and "audience".

You break down a wall, you gotta be ready for the consequences...

HIKEM BEY!!!! YouTUBE IS YOUR FAULT!!!

[Fuquad]

I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.

He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.

[Faust]

I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.

He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.

Did he claim to have created it? He said he tried something new and hoped to see others trying new stuff and was left wanting from the superhero genre. The authority took a pretty unique stab at it though it was through homage/parody of characters. grant morrisons stuff is pretty unique as well. maybe its just a marvel thing.

[Fuquad]

I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.

He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.

Did he claim to have created it? He said he tried something new and hoped to see others trying new stuff and was left wanting from the superhero genre. The authority took a pretty unique stab at it though it was through homage/parody of characters. grant morrisons stuff is pretty unique as well. maybe its just a marvel thing.

"Watchmen" was put out by D.C.

The characters in "Watchmen" are based directly off of Charlton Characters that D.C. had acquired before "Watchmen" came out. And when I say based on I mean he wanted to use the Charlston characters and was initialy told he could and later told he couldn't.

And really if he didn't create it he wasn't trying anything new.

[zen_magick]

I don't know man, just because he started the trend doesn't mean he isn't allowed to complain about it becoming a cliche. Frankly if he has contributed to the medium I think that entitles him to critic it just as much if not more then someone who hasn't.

He can Critique it all he wants. The fact is that all he did was bring that Distopia into mainstream comics. It existed before he did it and it was only a matter of time before someone else did it. He didn't create a new genre he just gave it a new home and claimed that he created it.

Did he claim to have created it? He said he tried something new and hoped to see others trying new stuff and was left wanting from the superhero genre. The authority took a pretty unique stab at it though it was through homage/parody of characters. grant morrisons stuff is pretty unique as well. maybe its just a marvel thing.

"Watchmen" was put out by D.C.

The characters in "Watchmen" are based directly off of Charlton Characters that D.C. had acquired before "Watchmen" came out. And when I say based on I mean he wanted to use the Charlston characters and was initialy told he could and later told he couldn't.

And really if he didn't create it he wasn't trying anything new.

I have to say that Moore did create something new with the Watchmen.  Many people forget that it was written back in the '80's and he was presenting superheroes as 'real people' with real life problems.  Especially, the lesbian superhero who was outed and kicked out in the backstory. 

Moore has been ahead of the times throughout his career.  And Lost Girls was NOT SHIT it is erotica for an audience that is not homophobic or dogmatically straight.  It 'the Lost Girls' opens up new doors and I'm going to be interested to see what emerges.

OK sorry, for that all, I'll put the soap box away now
                                                                      z_m