Alan Moore Spitting Venom On Watchmen

Moore may have a point about legitimate artisitc issues within film, I mean most of us can watch a movie and not realize how very regurgitated it truly is, but if Moore writes an amazing Graphic novel, and the film is as faithful to it as you can get, is he not trashing his own work or does the transfer of said medium automatically qualify it as not good enough?
As far as Im concerned, if the movie is incredibly faithful to the graphic novel, doesnt he then have to hate his own work upon which the movie is not really based, but is actually the SAME thing.

What a complete child Alan Moore is! he should have got on board like Dave Gibbons and made himself a ton of cash, what an idiot, this film will be massive either that or a gigantic flop!

On one hand he's got a point about the translation of graphic novels into movies: not just the fact that the material often gets tee-rashed (League of Extraordinary Crapplemen), but that there are specific elements to the art form that he's explored and developed like nobody else and thinking you can turn that into a movie and not lose something is wrong.

On the other hand, lighten the fuck UP, you gloomy bastard!

No, he's pretty much spot-on about the state of MOST films today.

Even Moore must know, at this point, that this isn't any kind of legitimate position. He's being a petulant child, holding his "I don't want to go to the beach; I'll just sit in my room and read a book, you jerks" position as long as he can.

He's happy about the lawsuit? I mean, the only thing I can compare that to is Dan Aykroyd being happy about the demise of the Wired movie in 1988 (and saying, lightheartedly, that he'd "cursed" it). But that was totally different!

Now he's pissed because movies themselves are somehow illegitimate? When he put references to The Day The Earth Stood Still and Casablanca into Watchmen, had somebody told him about those movies (since the art form is apparently too illegitimate for him)? Oh, wait, those are older movies and the art form has only "become" illegitimate.

At this point he can't embrace the movie without reversing all his lofty rhetoric, so he won't. (Again, like a petulant child.) What a strange guy.

I know, I for one am sick of giving a $hit as to what alan Moore thinks of films. Maybe it's because his work is so 'heady' and clearly best demonstrated in his own head that the films are never up to par? There comes a point, where when it appears everyone else is wrong, maybe it's time to look in the mirror pal.