this is a tricky one - recommending a film we haven't seen. Trailers look - middling-to-good-ish. Harrisson gives it the thumbs up, Kermode the thumbs down.....

Taking this uncertainty into account, the undeniable quality of the graphic novel means that you should probably go there first instead. Because THAT's something which we can garuntee the quality of. Otherwise, when you see the Watchmen movie and it potentially sucks monkey brains you'll be turned off grpahic novels foever. I can tell you're a man on the edge...

The most revealing fact for me is that none of these films have the Alan Moore seal of approval. Whatever your view of graphic novels, Alan Moore is writing only for this medium (and not for a prospective film deal) and believes that they can't be converted onto the big screen.

I've just re-read Watchman in advance of the film. Like you, Archie, I'm expecting to be disappointed, but you never know.

... and he don't, then that's good enough for me. Ever read 'Nobody's Perfect', Mr Lane's collected crit? It's hard to argue with the man's taste. Here's an example: http://tinyurl.com/yt4p7f

Speaking personally, I have nothing against comic books in principle - I'll read Posy Simmonds all day long, me... it's just hugely muscular/breasted men/women in tights that I have a problem with. Probably my loss.

"The Dark Knight Rerturns" hasn't fared well in retrospect however both "Watchmen", "V for Vendetta" and Moore's forgotten classic "The Ballad of Halo Jones" all repay re-reading.

Graphic novels will never give you what a novel gives you but it can give you something else. If you go expecting literature you'll be disappointed but if you go with an open mind...

As for the movie - its anyone's guess. It seems to be the first serious attempt to faithfully adapt one of Moore's books so I'm optimistic but expect it to fall short of the book.

that in the same way that a person today could listen to Sgt Peppers and fail to understand how it could have been considered noteworthy, the same might well happen with something like The Dark Knight Returns.

When DKR came out, it added levels of complexity to the character that had only been hinted at before. In fact, Batman had been neutered as the camp SOCK! POW! caped crusader of the Burt West TV series. He was a joke that didn't sell very well. Miller added moral ambiguity, doubts, claustrophobia, the creep of age-related obsolescence and real-politiks and saved the character. The battle between Batman and Superman was unprecidented in how it shone a light on those two characters and their status as American archetypes. DKR was a relevation that along with the innovations that were in Watchmen totally revitalised the comics world.

Today, these things are part of the standard vocabulary of comics and unremarkable.

Personally, I think Watchmen is a considerably better book that DKR; the political and social commentary is (generally) more nuanced and effective. Having seen the other adaptations of Moore's work, only V for Vendetta comes within a mile (but no closer than that) of what the comics were doing. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is the movie that caused Moore to refuse to be associated with any adaptations of his work, and rightly so; tis a crock of the bad stuff. From Hell shares little more than a title with the Moore book and is utterly risible.

Watchmen looks like it might come close to what Moore wrote.

By the way, don't get too caught up with the idea that Graphic Novels are somehow different from comics. "Graphic Novel" is just how you market a comic to someone who doesn't read comics.

The major problem I have with the whole Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Super-hero genre and their treatment either in graphic novels or on film is that you are being fed someone else's imagination and interpretation. The joy of reading any book is in the imagery the words create in one's own mind. To have concepts and ideas spoon fed to the reader denies this and makes much of the experience somewhat passive. And I believe this is doubly true in this field where an imaginative narrative can transport the reader anywhere. Instead, everything's done for you.

Perhaps I'm missing the point? Having read several articles over the last week that highlight the influences and allusions within Watchmen there is clearly more to it than I'm picking up. But, I'm afraid when I see straplines proclaiming a big screen adaptation of yet another super-hero graphic novel I yawn and switch off.

I don't think I'll be queuing for tickets somehow unless someone can make a really compelling argument in its favour - without using pictures.

alan moore's work aren't much cop compared to the comics. I like v for vendetta because I like post-bomb scifi tales, being an 80's kid.
As for alan moore taking his name of the films i just think that's cool. He's bascially saying he sold the rights to the film after that they are nothing to do with him and this is the crucial bit if they are bad it's not his fault and importantly if there are any good he wants none of the plaudits and I believe none of the money. I just think it's artistically refeshing to see an artist making a moral stand which effects their own earnings for a change.
As to what to read there are 2 threads about this elsewhere I think the trick is to visit the library or a mates and browse theirs before diving in and watchmen is worth reading just to have an idea of how great a genre can be if done 100%.

Indeed.

The genre leaves me stone cold. I fail utterly to see why graphic novels should satisfy anyone over the age of 12. And the output of the entire super-hero film industry has me equally underwhelmed. Toooooo noisy, dude...

Can we move on now?

Impossible to transform. The level of complexities to it is amazing. Six adults have all tried to follow the 15 part instruction page and failed to turn it into either a plane or a humanoid robot (I believe it's Starscream).

The movie was poor and the toys are even worse.

... Moore and Eddie Cambell's Jack The Ripper Book.

Film was appalling and bore no resemblance to the book so don't let that put you off. There's no superheroes in From Hell and it' s based on true events so there should be little of the things wich immediately put you off reading it.

If you like writers like Iain Sinclair, JG Ballard, Will Self etc, then you ought to like From Hell. Even with the pictures.

neither the book nor film mentioned in the original post have anything to do with Alan Moore.
Can you determine whether Moore is for you on the strength of 2 films?
The films you mention are based on his books - but often very loosely - V for Vendetta is close to the source, LoEG is miles removed from it. From Hell - dunno if you saw that - falls somewhere in between. Watchmen looks like it's fairly faithful, but I don't know if a film can really capture something on the scale of the comic series.
Would you conclude that anything Shakespearian isn't for you cos you didn't like Baz Luhrmann's R & J or that Midsummer Night's Dream starring Ally McBeal? Would you ignore Dickens cos the Muppet's Christmas Carol didn't float your boat? Of course not. Try the film, try the book.

The 'League' and 'From Hell' movies were full-on travesties, to the extent that you wondered why they'd even bothered to adapt complicated books into brain-dead movies. 'V For Vendetta' was OK but rather missed the point that V is not a hero but an amoral force for anarchy - and it was a bit over keen on the old ultraviolence too. But any WORD reader would get a lot from the original graphic novel collections of 'League Of Extraordinary Gents', 'From Hell' or 'V For Vendetta'.

I thought the 'Watchmen' movie was excellent, partly because it understands what works in the comic and doesn't try to "moviefy" it. Lots of the lines are lifted straight from the panel and for me as a geek, it was really gratifying to hear them get the same reaction from a movie audience as they got in my head when I read them years ago. But do read the book before you see the film.

Re. the question of "why are they always about superheroes?" - there are a lot of great comics that aren't about musclebound people in long undies, but to me a comic book that isn't about the superhero idea is a bit like a rock record with no guitars on it. It can be wonderful, but it's not really what the form is about.

..Get a copy of "Voice of the Fire" - Moore's prose work. It's a timeline of events that take place in the same geographical location - essentially 12 separate stories with this as a common thread. Beware the first chapter doesn't put you off, written as it is from the point of view of a 4000BC settler with a limited vocabulary. Beyond that, it's a marvellous read (no pun intended).

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinem...

And while Mark Kermode hasn't delivered his judgement yet, he did give an indication what was coming last Friday, when he said, "What's it like? It's a Zak Snyder film."

Anthony Lane's review also tends to confirm me in my suspicion that I probably wouldn't like the books anyway. I suspect that like heavy metal, or lower league football teams, comic books are one of those things that - if you didn't like them when you were 12 years old, you're not going to change your mind at the age of 41.

Alan Moore had already disavowed Hollywood by this time. Basically, he had a title, and a concept, but hadn't written the book yet. The studio bought the title and concept and the two were written separately.

One is an Alan Moore GN, the other a committee-driven mess.