[alanmoore] Re: A Dream of Filming
- David G Misner wrote about his dream of making a Miracleman film:
"Nowhere does it say you have to cram everything into one movie. What I want
to do is take the Comic book and make the movie from it word for word.
Every scene and every word from the Comic would go in the movie with out
changing anything. I would make it a trilogy kinda like Back to the Future
or Star Wars "
>What's the point of making a word for word remake of Miracleman? The comicdoes a perfectly good job. What would a word for >word film version add?
Who said it would add anything. Maybe a new dimension to see Miracleman?
I think there is a mentality that Hollywood has that if you are tranfering
from one media to another you have
to make it different. This is not true since only a limited amount of have
read the comic
a movie would open it up to a larger audiance
>It's like the resent Psycho remake. What was the point of making a scenefor scene remake? I saw the new version and thought it >was superb. It's a
very good copy of the original, with very minor differences so in theory and
in this case practice, I should like it >as much as the original. But it
leaves me wondering why do it?
>Why make a Miracleman film verbatim? I can think of four reasons why onewould want to embark on this endeavour:
Because it would be a great movie
>1. Film is a more valid medium than comics, therefore the film will be ofgreater artist worth than the comic.
>I think most people on the list have the wits to knock that idea flat onthe ground. One artistic medium is no more valid than >another.
I never said that. They are just different. But not more valid
>2. To bring Alan Moore to the attention of a non-comic reading publicSpiner as the kid is not going to give the project much >critical credence.
>That's a nice idea, but slavishly copying Miracleman for the big with Brent
No. Just bring a well made Superhero movie to the non comic reading public
>3. As an experiment in transforming a project in one medium into another.make? We could only have a subjective answer to this >one.
>Ultimately like Psycho, what's the point? What conclusion could you ever
What the hell are you talking about?! Why does anybody make a movie? Look
at Titanic. We all knows how
it ends so what it the point? I would imagine if your rules were subjected
to movies most of them
would not get made. For some that would be great for others that would be
>4. To make money.backing. Books One and Two do not have very cinematic >endings. Great
>A word for word, scene for scene, Miracleman trilogy would never get
endings for a comic, but I don't think they are great ending if they were
literally transferred to film.
You have to be joking! It is perfect for the movies. Though I have to
admit I have to come up with a good ending
and start off the next movie with Michael stepping in the elevator with Mr
Cream. I might add something before
that though to start if off but it would pretty much be the same.
There is a saying. If it ain't broke do not fix it. I remember the
Punisher movie. They took out almost everything that
made the character so popular. And then they wondered why the movie did
not do so good
Also I never said it would get backing. It is just my wishfull thinking
>And:change the name of the lead character, (from >Marvelman to Miracleman)?
>How are you going to make it word for word anyway, when the comic had to
I would just use Miracleman. That is what they use in the comic book
>Plus, you have the Warpsmiths story + the Warrior Summer Special + 3Dspecial etc, etc to think about. How can you aim for an >exact copy when
there isn't really a definitive version in comic form. You as a reader get
as much of the story as you can by >searching comic shops for all the
related stuff. The three trade paperbacks are not Miracleman. There's more
to it. Branagh >managed it with Hamlet, so if you're going to do the whole
of Miracleman verbatim in a series of films, you've got to put it all in.
And I will. I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it
>How are you going to deal with the captions? Are you going to replace themwith a narrator? What are you going to do about the >episode titles? How
about shot composition. A comic is a collaborative work between the writer
and the illustrator. Are the shot >compositions going to be the same? They
should be if you intend to go into such details with the dialog. Moore
spends just as >much time on the scene's composition as he does on dialog.
Well I was going to do it much like Magnum PI
Also again you are clouding the issue. Trying to make it more difficult
than it has to be.
>Will all the camera's be static because you don't see the comic's panelspan, zoom or track? Will ever shot consist of a cut? >There's not fade to
black, no dissolves or wipes in a comic, no matter how hard you try in your
panel composition. Things like this >are equal to dialog. I don't think
you've thought things through.
Yes I have thought this stuff through. I know exactly what I am talking
I would have fades a wipes and stuff. I would only change what really had
to. I would not mess
with the story at all. I would keep it just as it is
>I don't have a problem with making film versions of comics. Most I've seenhave been dire and give comics a bad name, though I >do have my hopes for
The reason the are so bad is they drastically change them from the comic
books. Look at Batman.
In the comic his parents are killed by some punk robber but in the movie the
kills his parents. They also changed other stuff too. Same with Punisher
>I think Miracleman, V, Watchmen and the rest could be transferred to film.I think in reality the likelihood of them being any good is >slim. The
chances of them surpassing the original is near impossible, which begs the
question "why bother?"
Yes indeed why bother? Climbing Mount Everest is really hard to so why bot
her. Before they went to the
Moon it was said that it would be impossible to do so why bother. Heck
there is a chance that why might
get in a car accident going to work so why bother leaving home?!
>If you are going to transfer a comic to a film then you've can't make anexact copy. It's stupid trying. There are things that film can >do that
comics can't. There's things that comics can do that film can't. Whatever
medium you are working in, you've got to exploit >the best qualities of that
medium. For any of Moore's works to have a chance in the cinema, they've
got to be changed.
You are so wrong! That is why all the other comic book movies were so bad.
There is a saying. If it ain't broke
don't fix it
>If anyone else on the list has seen Trainspotting and read Trainspotting,then you will know what I'm getting at. Making that film a >word for word
copy would have resulted in a disaster, but because they aimed to copy the
spirit of the book, the film was a >success.
Never saw it
>If you've going to try to copy anything for Moore's books, try copyingtheir magic and their spirit,
And that would be a big mistake. That is what everybody else did and they