Not having read it, I can't say I blame Alan Moore for not wanting to have anything to do with film adaptations. Although V for Vendetta was decent (haven't seen either versions of Watchmen).
I'm probably more of a stickler, as I did not like the movie despite it being a Wachowski thing so to speak. They changed the character of V (in the book he might "flirt" with Evey, but he's not actually in love with her except in the most philosophical sense -- he's the "insane" sane man that is restoring England -- but the film kind of made him into a moany Phantom of the Opera) and it all felt sensationalized, including the gay man. Like, nuance, anyone? (At least they totally NAILED the hair-cutting sequence. I'm happy about that.) Still, I would have rather had it stick more with the book in tone and effect, although then they probably wouldn't have done it because it wasn't going to be a blockbuster; it would have had to be a TV show with some decent sets, etc.
They also Americanized it, fascism in England was a bit different than what we understand of freedom and that kind of thing here.
THe book was really meaningful to me. Like, some parts are dry; but the good parts just blew me away. Now I want to read it again, after talking about it. The culmination of the plots lines is just absolutely brilliant.
I enjoyed the HBO Watchmen, which is basically a "What happened Later" riff that really deals strongly with race. Some things I wasn't as much into, but it was a great example of how to reincarnate a story -- you take the match, the life, of the first story, and use it to light a new match... which is a new match so to speak but lit with the same flame. That was the HBO version. It wasn't a remake or "more of the same," it had its own ballsy story to tell.
I tried to watch Snyder's "Watchmen" but never got more than 20 minutes into it. Big fan of the graphic novel despite its commercialization, but god that film.. eh. Again, very magnificent, and the way the artwork is so mulit-layered and self-referential...
Moore has always been roughly treated in adaptations of his work. I do not blame him either.
Sean Connery said he didn't really get what it was about, but he passed up the chance to do Lord of the Rings and the Matrix, so he thought he should do this because surely it would be the next big thing. (Did he retire after that? Can't say I blame him, especially because I'm sure he doesn't need the money.)
ROFLMAO. Yeah, I think it was his last on-screen role? He did a documentary or something later. (I should correct you to "didn't" need the money, as he died in October.
)
To be honest, I am very happy with the casting for Gandalf, The Architect, and Dumbledore as it is, so... nothing lost there. Besides, we'll always have Highlander. *snark*
That was the movie that made me stop loving movies.
I think it was very effective in that role.
