Watchmen

[Buster Friendly]

Wants his work in print?

You know that he's asked them to remove his name from the watchmen, and v right?

Think about that for a second.

[Aza]

you people are fucked.

Dude, on the subject of Alan Moore I've only ever provided an "If... Then..." point of view: IF he agreed or didn't to such-and-such, THEN he can or cannot complain about his position." As I don't have Alan Moore's signed contract sitting in front of me, nor a way I've found yet to pull it up on the web, then I've got to go with what I have... and what I have is, on one side, a woman presenting her point of view very matter-of-factly without flying off the handle or resorting to name-calling... and on the other, you. Naturally, I'm going to pay more attention to the person with classier debate skill.

Unless I've been doing this whole "debate" thing all wrong this whole time. Maybe I'd better take some new notes...

Rules for Debating on Internet Message Boards:
1. Insist how right you are.
2. Shout colorful insults.

There we go... I should be better prepared next time.

[Amelia G]

Wants his work in print?

You know that he's asked them to remove his name from the watchmen, and v right?

Think about that for a second.

I thought that was out of objection to the sucky movie adaptations. Probably stuff I am unaware of. Does Alan Moore actually think no more people should read those comics?

[OliX]

So... To see or not to see?

[Buster Friendly]

I thought that was out of objection to the sucky movie adaptations. Probably stuff I am unaware of. Does Alan Moore actually think no more people should read those comics?

uh... yeah, pretty much.

He wrote them under the impression that he would own them when they went out of print, something that anyone who collected/read comics back in the 80's would have expected to have happened. He says now he pretty much can't do anything to get them to stop publishing those books, and they have effectively stolen them from him so since he doesn't own them, and they will never let the rights revert back to him, he doesn't want to be associated with them in any way. Including not having his name on them.

The movie stuff all happened later.

See what's so fucked up about all of this, is that if DC had just let things go the way Moore expected them to he would probably have continued to write for them, and everybody would have made alot more money in the long run. More writing, more stories, more movie deals, more money.

He wasn't originally adverse to people making adaptations of his work, back in say 1986. But after his break with DC he was kind of bitter about the whole thing.

When the movie "From Hell" came out, he realized that nobody was going to do a decent adaptation, and when the lawsuit around The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen happened he got super pissed over his treatment with that and swore to have nothing more to do with movies ever. Just wasn't worth his time. THEN the fucking Warchowski shitbirds made a press release saying he was happy about them filming V. So he was kind of upset about that. (Not to mention the bullshit that went down with America's Best Comics.)

V, and Watchmen were already a sore point for him, so to then do the movies was kind of like rubbing salt in the wound.

[Buster Friendly]

I'll also just sort of note that comic books as "publishing" sort of didn't really exist before the Watchmen.

Moore isn't single handedly responsible for what happened to comics in the mid 80's, Frank Miller, Matt Wagner, and Dave Sim are a few other names that come to mind from those days. Wagner, and Sim were both underground/independent, there was a bunch of others.

But Moore blew the fucking roof off with Watchmen. There hadn't been anything like it up to that point. Changed everything.

Miller is similar in that he wrote for bot Marvel, and DC in the 80's got fed up with their crap, and went independent with Sin City.

I like the stuff Moore has done since Watchmen just as much, From Hell is fucking amazing. It's just that he finished writing that almost a decade later, so the impact is a little less. Even if you read his Swamp Thing run Watchmen was totally different.

Anyway, we won't see any new comics from Moore for a while now at this point.

[batzilla]

so......was the movie any good? lol

Totally yes. Don't take my word for it, though -- check out this glowing review from Roger Ebert, a dude who never hesitates to call out crap when he sees it:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...903049997/1001

[Buster Friendly]

Totally yes. Don't take my word for it, though -- check out this glowing review from Roger Ebert, a dude who never hesitates to EAT crap when he sees it:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...903049997/1001

There fixed.

[bohoki]

There fixed.

i didnt like how the blue guy splated the mask guy at the end

i didnt understand silk specters latex it didnt make sense if you look at latex wrong it will rip how could her suit survive

[inox]

Inox, we're obviously not going to be able to agree on this subject. You have your opinion, I have mine... and the only difference between the two of us is that I haven't tried to stamp my opinion as "infallible fact" or resorted to name-calling.

Tell you what; I bow without hesitation to your superior ability to care what people think about a movie! Take it easy, man...

Where did I ever claim infallibility?

By name-calling I suppose you mean my "Captain Hyperbole" remark. You aren't really using that to claim the moral high ground, are you?

Of course, that certainly doesn't work when you then throw in some cheap mockery and a dismissive remark.

[batzilla]

Daaaaang, this sure stirred up some strong emotions!

I've read the collected Watchmen series twice -- it's an AMAZING work and I second Amelia's advice to read it if you haven't already. It's far more layered and complex and important than the movie, no doubt.

However, I stand by my statements about the movie above. They did a great job of fitting in as much as they could within the almost three hours of the finished film... to try to jam in some of the subtler subplots would have made the movie far too long to ever be commercially releasable, and they probably would have ended up rushed anyway. So while I would have loved to have seen the monster included, or the black freighter, or the side story about Rorschach's psychiatrist, I accept that it just wasn't feasible.

I dwelled above on the Nite Owl/Silk Spectre sex scene because I thought that people in a community like this one, that's explicitly connected to adult stuff, would be thrilled that a hot adult scene was in a mainstream comic book movie. I couldn't have been more wrong, based on people's reactions! I really don't get why, though. It wasn't hugely long, maybe two or three minutes tops. What's the objection??

Aza, regarding some of the stuff that doesn't seem to get wrapped up in the movie, I hate to disappoint but the Mars palace and the blue cat don't play a much expanded role in the comic books. Some things are just meant to leave you with a sense of awe.

I thought that the movie was remarkably faithful to the book, despite all the things they had to leave out. Many scenes were shot literally frame for frame from the pages of the comic. For those small things that were changed and that people have complaints about, well, if you really want to see an exact clone of the book but with moving pictures, check this out -- http://www.incontention.com/?p=990 -- it's actually pretty amazing. Every adaptation is going to differ in some respects from its source material and I think that the Watchmen movie did a WAY better job of remaining faithful to its roots than many comic book movies do.

While I was thrilled at how perfectly characters like Rorschach and Nite Owl were matched with actors that played them as if they'd stepped from the pages of the original, I think the important question actually isn't even whether or not the movie stayed true to the book... it's whether or not the movie is a worthwhile work on its own. And I think that this movie is very beautiful and very worthwhile.

Regarding the issue of Alan Moore's total lack of support for the movie, I was troubled by I what I read here so I did some googling to see what the story was. What I could find seemed to indicate that the dude just hates movies. Here are some quotes from him from an article on the topic:

***

"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."

He also said he was offended by the amount of money and resources that go into the Hollywood projects. "They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It's obscene and it's offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for. I'm sure I sound like Bobby Fischer talking about chess."

***

So, Amelia, if Moore was indeed screwed over by DC, shouldn't we boycott the book too, since the profits go to them? Why just the movie? Because he doesn't like any adaptations of his work? I'm afraid that I'm just not strong willed enough to pass up the chance to see this amazing story in a different format. Consider downloading the movie illegally if you feel like you can't conscience giving DC any more bucks... though I don't think a small screen will quite do it justice.

Also, for the record, I've never seen 300. And even if I had and had hated it, I don't think that would have stopped me from seeing Watchmen... unless a director is a really consistent fuckup, I'm willing to give them a chance to surprise me.

So, in conclusion, ROCK ON, WATCHMEN MOVIE!

p.s. -- If you wanna hear Moore do a cool Rorschach voice, check out this interview:

[Aza]

Where did I ever claim infallibility?

By name-calling I suppose you mean my "Captain Hyperbole" remark. You aren't really using that to claim the moral high ground, are you?

Of course, that certainly doesn't work when you then throw in some cheap mockery and a dismissive remark.

You've been presenting your opinions as fact since this debate began; your tone has rung, "This movie was flawless, and anyone who thinks otherwise can't possibly have a good reason!" You suggest infallibility by refusing to admit that's what you've been doing.

Furthermore, I don't waste the expensive mockery on people who can tell fact from opinion.

[inox]

both the strength and the weakness of a novel is that you have to fill in the pictures yourself. I would argue that a movie could never be as good as your own imagination, because it didn't come from you, unless you were the one making the movie.

But either way I think that we both agree that a movie can add to the content of a written work. The thing about comics is that they are already a visual medium. The pictures that go with the words have been filled in for you. So the only thing that a movie can add to it is sound, which can be emotionally evocative, but takes away from both the words and the pictures because it can't possibly, nor would it want to recreate them in exact detail. So I think that it takes away more than it adds to a comic story.

Well, I think your own imagination can theoretically be more vivid than any movie, certainly, but you're still limited by your own understanding and interpretation of the work.

Also, you have to consider the additive effect of moving pictures and sound...it's not that they're separate components that don't interact.

If a filmmaker is good, they can find the underpinnings of the story, and use the medium to showcase them in succession and in a manner that will maximize the emotional resonance of the work.

Did this movie do that? Well, probably not, but it sure did have its moments where it hit some high notes.

[inox]

You've been presenting your opinions as fact since this debate began; your tone has rung, "This movie was flawless, and anyone who thinks otherwise can't possibly have a good reason!" You suggest infallibility by refusing to admit that's what you've been doing.

Furthermore, I don't waste the expensive mockery on people who can tell fact from opinion.

Spare me your readings of my tone; that's the resort of someone trying to make an emotional argument. I make statements that I am happy to back up with further justification. Perhaps it only seems like infallibility since you've been so wrong.

You bunged up your last sentence, too. I just don't feel like you've got a lot more on tap, honestly.

[batzilla]

Also, from Dave Gibbons, the artist for the comic book (bolding added):

Interviewer: You’ve been involved with the development of the Watchmen film while Alan Moore, who co-created the comic series with you and is a close friend of yours, wants nothing to do with it. How do you walk the line between staying friends with Alan and being an active and vocal promoter of the film?

Dave Gibbons: First of all, I’d have to say that I don’t necessarily see that there is a conflict between staying friends with Alan and being an active and vocal promoter for the film. Alan’s position, as I’ve explained before publicly and I’ll make it clear again, Alan has had some bad experiences with Hollywood. He’s also had some less-than-happy experiences with DC. He’s decided that he doesn’t want anything to do with movie adaptations of his work. And so what he wanted at the beginning of Watchmen, when he first heard that it was going to be a movie, was to sign a piece of paper which removed his name from the movie and that would give his share of the income from the movie to me. This goes along exactly with what he’d wanted on the V for Vendetta movie. Obviously, Alan made this decision before he really knew anything at all about the movie and it was long before shooting started, or anything like that. So it’s not as a reaction to this production.

Source: http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/10...-interview.php

[Amelia G]

Daaaaang, this sure stirred up some strong emotions!

I've read the collected Watchmen series twice -- it's an AMAZING work and I second Amelia's advice to read it if you haven't already. It's far more layered and complex and important than the movie, no doubt.

However, I stand by my statements about the movie above. They did a great job of fitting in as much as they could within the almost three hours of the finished film... to try to jam in some of the subtler subplots would have made the movie far too long to ever be commercially releasable, and they probably would have ended up rushed anyway. So while I would have loved to have seen the monster included, or the black freighter, or the side story about Rorschach's psychiatrist, I accept that it just wasn't feasible.

I dwelled above on the Nite Owl/Silk Spectre sex scene because I thought that people in a community like this one, that's explicitly connected to adult stuff, would be thrilled that a hot adult scene was in a mainstream comic book movie. I couldn't have been more wrong, based on people's reactions! I really don't get why, though. It wasn't hugely long, maybe two or three minutes tops. What's the objection??

Aza, regarding some of the stuff that doesn't seem to get wrapped up in the movie, I hate to disappoint but the Mars palace and the blue cat don't play a much expanded role in the comic books. Some things are just meant to leave you with a sense of awe.

I thought that the movie was remarkably faithful to the book, despite all the things they had to leave out. Many scenes were shot literally frame for frame from the pages of the comic. For those small things that were changed and that people have complaints about, well, if you really want to see an exact clone of the book but with moving pictures, check this out -- http://www.incontention.com/?p=990 -- it's actually pretty amazing. Every adaptation is going to differ in some respects from its source material and I think that the Watchmen movie did a WAY better job of remaining faithful to its roots than many comic book movies do.

While I was thrilled at how perfectly characters like Rorschach and Nite Owl were matched with actors that played them as if they'd stepped from the pages of the original, I think the important question actually isn't even whether or not the movie stayed true to the book... it's whether or not the movie is a worthwhile work on its own. And I think that this movie is very beautiful and very worthwhile.

Regarding the issue of Alan Moore's total lack of support for the movie, I was troubled by I what I read here so I did some googling to see what the story was. What I could find seemed to indicate that the dude just hates movies. Here are some quotes from him from an article on the topic:

***

"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."

He also said he was offended by the amount of money and resources that go into the Hollywood projects. "They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It's obscene and it's offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for. I'm sure I sound like Bobby Fischer talking about chess."

***

So, Amelia, if Moore was indeed screwed over by DC, shouldn't we boycott the book too, since the profits go to them? Why just the movie? Because he doesn't like any adaptations of his work? I'm afraid that I'm just not strong willed enough to pass up the chance to see this amazing story in a different format. Consider downloading the movie illegally if you feel like you can't conscience giving DC any more bucks... though I don't think a small screen will quite do it justice.

Also, for the record, I've never seen 300. And even if I had and had hated it, I don't think that would have stopped me from seeing Watchmen... unless a director is a really consistent fuckup, I'm willing to give them a chance to surprise me.

So, in conclusion, ROCK ON, WATCHMEN MOVIE!

p.s. -- If you wanna hear Moore do a cool Rorschach voice, check out this interview:

I don't believe Alan Moore was screwed over by DC. If DC kept their word on the original agreement, and I have yet to see anything to the contrary, then how would they be considered to be screwing him?

I guess, for me, it boils down to an artistic objection to even attempting to make that movie and not at all an ethical objection to someone doing what they were contractually permitted to do.

I still haven't seen anything which seems to indicate Alan Moore would have actually wanted his own books out of print and, if he did, I do not think that him being able to do so would have benefited anyone, including Alan Moore.

I do get terribly sick of people who accept a company paycheck, succeed far more with the company's help than they ever could have going DIY, and then fucking whine about the deal they made. So really, I make an exception in viewpoint based on the immense merit of Alan Moore's work and not remotely on an ethical opinion of DC doing what a company is supposed to do.

[Aza]

Spare me your readings of my tone; that's the resort of someone trying to make an emotional argument. I make statements that I am happy to back up with further justification. Perhaps it only seems like infallibility since you've been so wrong.

You bunged up your last sentence, too. I just don't feel like you've got a lot more on tap, honestly.

The fact that you know I bunged it up means you know what I meant, hence no foul. If even you got it, everyone else is sure to.

The fact that you can call an opinion "wrong" better demonstrates your tone than anything I could hope to read from it, and the tone it demonstrates is juvenile. I've attempted to justify every statement I've made in defense of my opinion of the "Watchmen" movie. You're trying to say that you know better than I do what I do and do not like!

And to that, you're right... I have nothing left. It's just too damn fucking ludicrous a claim.

Prove to me that I liked this movie. If you can't do that, I have nothing more to add.

[batzilla]

So really, I make an exception in viewpoint based on the immense merit of Alan Moore's work and not remotely on an ethical opinion of DC doing what a company is supposed to do.

Fair enough! I think you're missing out though, and it makes me sad when people miss out. I'm always the person who is like "But you have to try it! It's delicious!!! "

[Amelia G]

Fair enough! I think you're missing out though, and it makes me sad when people miss out. I'm always the person who is like "But you have to try it! It's delicious!!! "

I'm always down for trying eating something new. Even pretty disgusting stuff, I'll try eating once.

[batzilla]

I'm always down for trying eating something new. Even pretty disgusting stuff, I'll try eating once.

The fun thing about Korean food is that a lot of times you don't even know WHAT new thing you're trying.

[Buster Friendly]

I don't believe Alan Moore was screwed over by DC. If DC kept their word on the original agreement, and I have yet to see anything to the contrary, then how would they be considered to be screwing him?

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html

I get really tired of people who think they're being reasonable, and don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Amelia G]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html

I get really tired of people who think they're being reasonable, and don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

From the article you linked:

DC, however, said it would be inappropriate to take Mr. Moore's name off of any of his works. "This isn't an adaptation of the work, it's not a derivative work, it's not a work that's been changed in any fashion from how he was happy with it a minute ago," said Mr. Levitz.

How is DC mistaken there?

Having read that entire article, it still appears that Alan Moore only complained about his name being on the books after he was understandably bent out of shape about the movie adaptations.

Where do you get the idea that Alan Moore actually wanted his own work out of print, as opposed to merely not adapted into movies?

What I had not realized before reading that article is that, after all that fuss about DC on the first go-round, Alan Moore went back to work for them a second time for years. DC did not expect Alan Moore to come along with their acquisition of WildStorm, but they honored his WildStorm agreement and appreciated his talent.

Lastly, Alan Moore is currently writing for Top Shelf who is primarily distributed by a Marvel subsidiary, so it is not like he has decided to go all DIY about it and only sell via the internet based on the strength of his name.

[batzilla]

My feeling on the whole Moore mess:

I am more interested in the work than the drama surrounding it. I would have read Watchmen even if Moore were a serial rapist, if enough people had recommended it to me. And I would have seen the movie even if the producers had killed Moore's cat and slapped him around (though I probably would have DL'ed it instead of seeing it in the theater).

[malcolm]

yaknow im not gonna lie, all the controversy over this really makes me wanna see the movie when it comes out on dvd

[inox]

The fact that you know I bunged it up means you know what I meant, hence no foul. If even you got it, everyone else is sure to.

Your insults reflect your own insecurities.

The fact that you can call an opinion "wrong" better demonstrates your tone than anything I could hope to read from it, and the tone it demonstrates is juvenile. I've attempted to justify every statement I've made in defense of my opinion of the "Watchmen" movie. You're trying to say that you know better than I do what I do and do not like!

See, it's things like this that are just plainly wrong. That's not at all what I was doing. I could give two dead gerbils what pleases you or does not.

You can say, "I did not enjoy the movie. It did not bring me joy. I didn't feel anything in common with the characters." etc. etc. all day long, and I wouldn't have much if anything to say about it.

However, when you say something is, for example, trite, that has a commonly understood meaning. Check a dictionary if you aren't clear on the word. While I offered a good bit of text as to why I believed the sex scene was not trite, you didn't answer any of it, and switched to this butthurt focus on my style of posting. That's a classic diversionary tactic when someone can't address the content.

[Amelia G]

My feeling on the whole Moore mess:

I am more interested in the work than the drama surrounding it. I would have read Watchmen even if Moore were a serial rapist, if enough people had recommended it to me. And I would have seen the movie even if the producers had killed Moore's cat and slapped him around (though I probably would have DL'ed it instead of seeing it in the theater).

I must confess the whole raping the mailman chick turned me off Bukowski. Sometimes the artist and the work are separate and sometimes it gets a bit more murky.

[Morning Glory]

Maybe I could watch and even like a work of art from someone that I thought was a disgusting human being, but I couldn't respect it.

I guess that depends on where you draw the line between entertainment and something that has emotional or personal relevance.

[batzilla]

Maybe I could watch and even like a work of art from someone that I thought was a disgusting human being, but I couldn't respect it.

I guess that depends on where you draw the line between entertainment and something that has emotional or personal relevance.

The emotional relevance I draw from something has to do with what the works means to me, not what the creator means to me. If the creator is cool too, well, cool, but that's not really the point.

[Morning Glory]

so you think that liking Hitler for his oratorical powers is Ok? the dude was a good public speaker, you can't deny that. so it wouldn't be wrong for me to say that I liked Hitler's speeches and I didn't care that he instigated the holocaust? I'm not saying that I'm a Nazi or that I approve of killing all those people, just that it shouldn't mar what an otherwise great guy Hitler was.

[inox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

[ForrestBlack]

I would have to say that I would have trouble fully disassociating the creator from the work, from an artistic appreciation standpoint. If art is supposed to communicate something, then it matters to me at least a little bit, who the message is coming from and what are they like.

However, a contract is an agreement. To say that someone should do something other than what was in their agreement if they wanted to be agreeable seems kind of flawed, and yet I hear it all the time these days.

[batzilla]

so you think that liking Hitler for his oratorical powers is Ok? the dude was a good public speaker, you can't deny that. so it wouldn't be wrong for me to say that I liked Hitler's speeches and I didn't care that he instigated the holocaust? I'm not saying that I'm a Nazi or that I approve of killing all those people, just that it shouldn't mar what an otherwise great guy Hitler was.

Godwin's law aside, you're missing my point entirely. The point is that the creator is not the point so, no, even if I loved one of Hitler's speeches that wouldn't make me think he was a "great guy" in any way. I might think it was a great speech made by a terrible man. Do you see how that's different?

[Ajax Knucklebones]

BB really is such a great site. I mean, I love comic books as much as the next guy, but you do all realize you're RAGING over a comic book, right?

Yeah, yeah, I know...."Watchmen" changed everything. I get it. Do you also understand though that it was a sign of the times? Kids that grew up with comics wanted a more "mature" comic to go along with the fact, they also were maturing. Hence...The "Watchmen" and how all future comics would be written and ALSO how much the comic industry would charge. As Kevin Smith tells it, "Go to ANY comic book store and who's buying comics? Adults". Because now it's drawn and construed for us...Adults. Fuck the kids! Fuck those who used to be us. My son isn't into comics at all. And that sucks to me. One...Because they are no longer cheap. Two...Because they're too damn adult-like. It's really too bad.

To think that a movie of such expectations to be perfect is just too damn silly. It will never be. Just like a great novel will NEVER meet totally the expectations in movie form.

"Watchmen", in no matter what movie form will never meet the expectations of those that adored the graphic over the years. I'm sorry...But it just won't. That's why "Watchmen" fans never really wanted a film made OR just that they wanted a perfect film that is impossible to make. It just isn't....Basically because of what Inox has already said. Because sooooo much of a comic is really, just like a book, up to how you imagine it. Every imagination is different and every imagination just gets soooo incredibly specific the more you love an abstract thing.

To me it's like franchise pizza. It's actually not that bad as long as you don't "see" it as pizza. Instead to me, it's just a "food" that needs not be titled. It's halfway descent in taste AS LONG as you don't call it "pizza".

See the "Watchmen" and call it something else. It's possible that if you do, you might actually like it.

[Morning Glory]

diet watchmen? same taste, less filling.

I understand your point BZ, and I hope you know that I was kidding with that analogy, just trying to be absurd. but there is a grain of truth there, and not just for the bad stuff. I think that if your divorce an artist's intent from the physical property that they've created, you've taken away a big chunk of what it is meaning, and in some cases it takes the life out of art to consider it merely an object.

[toxicat]

My friend and I won tickets at Wondercon to preview Watchmen at the Metreon Imax theater on that Sat. (the whole movie, not just the first 20 minutes) and Dave Gibbons spoke. I thought the socio-political message was well communicated and didn't know about the variations in the storyline until actual Watchmen readers told me about them.

[Bikerpunk]

I went.

I saw.

I fapped.

Okay, it's not the book, but it was fucking cool, and the Comedian (apart from being a rapist) is epic win.

[Dusk]

Well I liked the movie. I havent read the series but it was still good.