![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
von_geisterhandWhy is is that Frank Miller gets two conversions of his work within a couple of years, both of which stick very to slavishly close to the original graphic novel while Alan Moore has his work ritually disembowelled and bowlderised? (If somebody runs into Mr. Norrington, please slap him)
Do "Sin City" and "300" not prove that the usual proviso "Well, you can't do that on film" is merely a flimsy excuse?
Or does it have anything to do with the right wing slant on life at the heart of Mr. Miller's work?
Don't get me wrong, I loved "Sin City" and greatly enjoyed "300", but looking at the halfhearted concoction that "From Hell" was and trying to erase all trace of "LXG" from my memory (Alan Moore described it as "regretable". I agree.), not to mention the idiotic attempts at "Sandman" (Slumber party), I could not help pondering this disparity.
My hopes for "Watchmen" are limited.
Do "Sin City" and "300" not prove that the usual proviso "Well, you can't do that on film" is merely a flimsy excuse?
Or does it have anything to do with the right wing slant on life at the heart of Mr. Miller's work?
Don't get me wrong, I loved "Sin City" and greatly enjoyed "300", but looking at the halfhearted concoction that "From Hell" was and trying to erase all trace of "LXG" from my memory (Alan Moore described it as "regretable". I agree.), not to mention the idiotic attempts at "Sandman" (Slumber party), I could not help pondering this disparity.
My hopes for "Watchmen" are limited.
