So there we go 8 new Watchmen stories announced with teams... and you know what the world hasn't ended. The Internet hasn't broken and we're all getting on with our lives...
... I hope
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/01/before-watchmen/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/01/before-watchmen/)
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/01/before-watchmen-gallery-quote-file/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/01/before-watchmen-gallery-quote-file/)
There's some very good teams on there too.
Interesting... no reason at all why these couldn't turn out great. I would have liked to see some different artists there but I'll reserve judgement for now.
Er, that Dr Manhattan cover is a bit unfortunate isn't it?
My prediction is that one or two of the series will be ok, the rest will be either mediocre or a bit crap, and the whole thing will be largely forgotten within five years.
Anyone need to send it to VIZ for "Up The Arse Corner"
(https://p.twimg.com/AkkPUPRCEAE5sO2.jpg)
Dave Gibbons "blessing" is brilliantly ambigiously worded.
*sigh* Why can't they just leave Watchmen alone? I wonder what Mr.Moore thinks of all this...
Quote from: NorthVox on 01 February, 2012, 03:59:53 PM
*sigh* Why can't they just leave Watchmen alone? I wonder what Mr.Moore thinks of all this...
Not happy according to article on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16840456
I have only read Watchmen about 6 months ago, but I would be most interested in seeing a series on Tales of the Black Freighter.
Quote from: NorthVox on 01 February, 2012, 03:59:53 PM
*sigh* Why can't they just leave Watchmen alone?
I'd guess 'cos lots of people want to read more stories about them and loads of talented people want to create more stories about them...
... oh and the money.
'S no skin off my nose, since I won't be buying them, but oh Dan DiDio:
"After 25 years, the Watchmen are classic characters whose time has come for new stories to be told. [Emphasis mine]"
Says it all really - there are no such characters in the book. He's thinking of the film.
Well, my feelings are mixed. About as mixed as mixed feelings can get, in fact.
On the one hand, I think it's a shame that DC are doing this. I fully get why Mr. Moore would not be a happy bunny about it.
Watchman could and really SHOULD, in my opinion, be left alone as its own entity. I only read it for the first time last week, and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I think there's a risk that it could be chepened or damaged by trying to add anything to it.
On the other hand - some very strong talents are attached to these books. Darwyn Cooke? SOLD!
One thing's for certain: These books would ALWAYS face an uphill struggle for acceptance by fans. I'd expect DC are quite aware of that.
Mixed feelings meself, but sure with that array of series & creators at least some of it should be good. We won't have too long to wait and see I suppose...
This kind of shit is what gives comics a bad name.
Buy Before Watchmen and reward DC for screwing over the brightest talent the medium has ever produced, not to mention decrease the chances of anyone that good ever wanting to work in comics again.
Never really liked Watchmen that much tbh, and i dont think its Alan Moores greatest moment, though of course i own a copy. Cant remember if i bought it, or whether it came free with the book shelf though, ;) but this pretty much stinks.
I find it inconceivable that people working within the comics industry are not aware of Moores feelings, so at some point everyone who signed up to this has had to have had a "fuck you - im writing/drawing me a Watchmen comic" moment.
Sad.
Quote from: ChrisDenton on 01 February, 2012, 08:01:41 PM
...not to mention decrease the chances of anyone that good ever wanting to work in comics again.
I'm intrigued to know how you reach that conclusion?
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this project, which seems to create a lot of melodrama, how does this effect the desire of anybody with talent entering what is a very different market place?
If you want to create and own your own characters (and there's another debate about creating and using other peoples characters to be had) there are plenty of ways to do just that. More than there was in 1986. Though its very worth noting there were well proven ways of doing it then, if you had that desire. If you had the desire to write a story about characters based on those of other peoples' you had that option too. Alan Moore made his choice and tomorrow's creators will too.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 01 February, 2012, 08:35:51 PM
I'm intrigued to know how you reach that conclusion?
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this project, which seems to create a lot of melodrama, how does this effect the desire of anybody with talent entering what is a very different market place?
If you want to create and own your own characters (and there's another debate about creating and using other peoples characters to be had) there are plenty of ways to do just that. More than there was in 1986. Though its very worth noting there were well proven ways of doing it then, if you had that desire. If you had the desire to write a story about characters based on those of other peoples' you had that option too. Alan Moore made his choice and tomorrow's creators will too.
DC and Marvel pretty much have the US Comics market sewn up, and they operate like particularly unenlightened Victorian industrialists. Consequently few creative people in comics makes any money from, or even own the rights to their work. There are allegedly alternatives, but virtually all of them require creators to regard the minimum wage as some distant dream of unimaginable wealth.
Therefore there really is nowhere for talented would-be comic creators to go, and won't be until DC and/or Marvel are overthrown or mend their ways. Neither will happen whilst comic buyers unaccountably support titles such as Before Watchmen.
So this is an instance where we can download them illegally and stick two fingers up at DC?
Quote from: TordelBack on 01 February, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
'S no skin off my nose, since I won't be buying them, but oh Dan DiDio:
"After 25 years, the Watchmen are classic characters whose time has come for new stories to be told. [Emphasis mine]"
Says it all really - there are no such characters in the book. He's thinking of the film.
Oh man, internet fans can be shrill when Dan The Man comes up in conversation, but you seriously couldn't make the guy up if you sat down and tried. I personally liked how he referred to Static as "Static Shock" (the former is the character, the latter is the name of the cartoon show based on the former) in his official response to (Static creator) Dwayne McDuffie's death. I suppose you could say it's an easy mistake to make - if you weren't
1) a comics publisher
2) commenting on the death of the creator at the time of the gaffe, and
3) someone who went through a great deal of legal and creator-wrangling to strip-mine a beloved underdog comics line and bury forever fan-favorite characters just to acquire the one character whose name you apparently don't even know. What makes it even more awesome is John Rozum's revelation that after going to all this trouble, Didio put a man in charge of writing the comic that not only hadn't written comics before, but hadn't read a single issue of the original comics run, or even seen an episode of the cartoon show, and the whole enterprise was for no other purpose than getting a minority character on the roster of Teen Titans, a book no-one buys or cares about, not even Dan Didio, but which once had a cartoon show based on it that was actually based on Young Justice, a comic book which now has a cartoon based on it which is actually based on Teen Titans.
I wish I had the balls to make all my decisions with a dartboard and a javelin. Common sense is getting me nowhere.
Quote from: Alski on 01 February, 2012, 08:58:54 PM
So this is an instance where we can download them illegally and stick two fingers up at DC?
That's what I'll be doing. Fuck 'em.
Quote from: ChrisDenton on 01 February, 2012, 08:55:08 PM
DC and Marvel pretty much have the US Comics market sewn up, and they operate like particularly unenlightened Victorian industrialists. Consequently few creative people in comics makes any money from, or even own the rights to their work. There are allegedly alternatives, but virtually all of them require creators to regard the minimum wage as some distant dream of unimaginable wealth.
Therefore there really is nowhere for talented would-be comic creators to go, and won't be until DC and/or Marvel are overthrown or mend their ways. Neither will happen whilst comic buyers unaccountably support titles such as Before Watchmen.
I say all of this as a complete outsider, so much may be wrong. But from that lowly vantage point.
I'd suggest some of the old entry points are still there. We type on one of the boards belonging to one such place (entry to the US market that is getting into the level of 2000ad is another thing altogether).
There are so many more new avenues as well. As ever only the very best will make it but that's ever been the case? Things like 'Kickstarter', self publishing is more available (?), the small press market more visible (?), web publishing readily available. A hundred channels, none of which will be a sure fire way to success, all of which with the right talent might be the door way though?
Buying the 36 (someone elses head count may well be wrong?) issues of a property one of the big two own is no more killing opportunity than buying 36 Spider-man comics, or Batman comics by that argument as I (mis?)understand it.
We've just had a friend round, and as she was leaving she asked me what I thought of all this Watchmen kerfuff. She and her boyfriend are huge admirers of the original, and she'd been following the explosion of horror on Twitter all day, and wanted to see if I felt the same as her. My answer of "I don't really care, and I'll probably buy the Rorschach one, but that's it" summed up how her and her other half felt too. We did have a jolly good laugh at Alan Moore's expense though- with a not-altogether-fair appraisal of his career that basically went "Skizz/ ET, Captain Britain- old character, Marvel Man- old character, Swamp Thing- old character, V For Vendetta- Guy Fawkes, Watchmen- Charlton, LoEG- old characters, From Hell- other people's works, Lost Girls- old characters, Neonomicon- Lovecraft. When is he going to do something new?" but like I say, that's not altogether fair.
Not being a fan of the original series (but I liked the movie), this news makes me think this: OF COURSE DC should do it, and they should have done it years ago. Does the following 14000 pages of Amazing Spider-Man diminish the seminal nature of the original short story in Amazing fantasy #15? No, of course not. Like I say, I'm only really interested in Rorschach, and I bet that's true of most of the potential audience. I bet it's him that gets the monthly title off the back of this.
SBT
It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean there's millions of people the world over who would love to see their comics published by DC, granted most of them are probably shite, but with that many hopefuls they're bound to come across something good. Some new franchises and new characters might actually lift the industry to new heights. However, like in many other mediums, they seem set to just try and re-tell and rehash stuff that worked over two decades ago. I mean it's fine if an ongoing series has stayed strong and has developed a fanbase, and there's still interest in it, but is the entertainment industry, and comics especially, really that stuck in finding new ideas? Do they need to risk destroying a great story for a few extra pennies?
Bah, I'm ranting.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 01 February, 2012, 09:12:52 PM
I bet it's him that gets the monthly title off the back of this.
HA! That really would make the internet explode!
Quote from: NorthVox on 01 February, 2012, 09:26:16 PM
It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean there's millions of people the world over who would love to see their comics published by DC, granted most of them are probably shite, but with that many hopefuls they're bound to come across something good. Some new franchises and new characters might actually lift the industry to new heights.
The two aren't mutually exclusive though, not that I'm saying DC does do this much I should point out, just saying they aren't mutually exclusive. There is an argument that mining one 12 comic series, created by a work for hire team, based on some characters from a different company they'd purchased, for all the many, many dollars its worth, they might have more revenue to explore new ventures? Whether they do this is open to debate (and one that might well lose) however it could be the case?
Either way, right or wrong, mining the Watchmen is not whats preventing DC, or any other company, unearthing new talent, or finding new stories. It might be strengthening the market as a whole?
I'm a huge fan of Alan Moore and I can totally see his point of view - I think he's still smarting from the fact that he and Dave Gibbons truly thought that the rights to Watchmen would revert to them shortly after publication.
The trouble is, I really want to read these comics! I'm really looking forward to seeing what these new creative teams can do with the characters.
I think I will probably end up buying the comics and unfortunately I'll probably have a pang of guilt about it - but all i want to do is read good comics. It's such a shame that all this corporate bastardry has soured the milk.
As for the bigger picture of creators rights etc - I think things are improving in the industry and they'll continue to improve.
Alan Moore will surely go down in history as an important advocate of creator rights and as a positive catalyst for change in the industry.
Watchmen has its place in history secured however dubious the virtues of any spin offs may be.
I probably won't be buying unless the word is fantastic but have no issue with DC. It all comes down to the contract that was signed - DC can exploit the characters all they want because they can. Moore can moan but can do nothing about it because he can't. The deal was good enough to sign at the time, the fact he's made a big name for himself since doesn't affect what he agreed to then.
I wonder if he's still entitled to a royalty though and if so whether that goes to Gibbons like the movie stuff.
Quote from: Alski on 01 February, 2012, 08:58:54 PM
So this is an instance where we can download them illegally and stick two fingers up at DC?
Interesting moral dilemma.
I do agree that Moore signed contracts and that's that, and also that as a result he has no say in the whole prequel thing - it's just an idea that I have absolutely no interest in or respect for.
However, it's always worth remembering that when Moore and Gibbons signed the contracts for Watchmen they were expecting the rights to revert to them after relatively few years, once the collection went out of print. There had never been a comics collection that had been continuously in print for a quarter of a century, or even 5 years, at that point, and no reason to imagine there would be. The comics world changed completely with Watchmen, DKR and Year One, and the contract Moore signed belonged to the old one - and to rub the salt in, it was his work that was one of the main agents of change. I'd be pissed off too.
The contract clearly isn't as clear-cut as some pro-DC'ers like to insist. If it was, DC would have done this long ago and not asked Moore for permission and to "sign off" on prequels/sequels in return for the rights of the original being returned to him.
As has been mentioned a few times, Moore has cause here to bring DC to court. DC knows this too, hence trying to buy him off so they can avoid any legal squabbles. I very much doubt that Moore has the means of taking on the behemoth of Warner Bros. legal department (he has, after all, been subject to their dirty tricks in the past re: LOEG) but DC knew that of all people he'd be contentious enough to try. People seem to think this was a cut-and-dry contract: it wasn't. Just look at DC's behaviour in regards to this in the past.
The thing I find saddest about this is that the creators working on these prequels, I'm sure, are getting paid handsomely and will be treated well, working with nice, fair contracts. Do you know why? Because people like Moore fought for that. People like Moore walked away from lots of money and job security to fight for the kind of creator rights these guys are now enjoying. The very least these creators could do is respect his wishes in this matter.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 01 February, 2012, 09:11:24 PM
I say all of this as a complete outsider, so much may be wrong. But from that lowly vantage point.
I'd suggest some of the old entry points are still there. We type on one of the boards belonging to one such place (entry to the US market that is getting into the level of 2000ad is another thing altogether).
There are so many more new avenues as well. As ever only the very best will make it but that's ever been the case? Things like 'Kickstarter', self publishing is more available (?), the small press market more visible (?), web publishing readily available. A hundred channels, none of which will be a sure fire way to success, all of which with the right talent might be the door way though?
Buying the 36 (someone elses head count may well be wrong?) issues of a property one of the big two own is no more killing opportunity than buying 36 Spider-man comics, or Batman comics by that argument as I (mis?)understand it.
Kickstarter is a joke and self-publishing is obviously fine as a hobby, but clearly not much use if you're trying to make your living in comics. I don't think you realise quite the extent to which comic creators are forced to chase work from these corporate supervillains simply because they are the only people who pay actual wages.
Oh, and I didn't say anything about the Batman/Superman/Spiderman franchises. Those are obviously house characters and, although, in most cases their creators got screwed too, I think house characters have an important part to play in mainstream comics.
The situation that is more worrying is that if you do manage to defy the system to the extent you do actually do something that is a proper, authentic work of art that reaches a sizeable audience, the system will then screw you totally.
I don't really see why anyone who was really serious about writing or drawing as a career would want to work in an industry where your choice is either utter poverty or sell out and work on crap.
Quote from: ChrisDenton on 01 February, 2012, 10:33:11 PM
Oh, and I didn't say anything about the Batman/Superman/Spiderman franchises. Those are obviously house characters and, although, in most cases their creators got screwed too, I think house characters have an important part to play in mainstream comics...
No quite right, I mentioned them in an attempt to understand the point you made about ???? destroying any desire for new creators to enter the industry. I concluded from your second post, but thought I should check, that you were saying that buying from DC (and Marvel) was what was doing this
QuoteDC and Marvel pretty much have the US Comics market sewn up, and they operate like particularly unenlightened Victorian industrialists. Consequently few creative people in comics makes any money from, or even own the rights to their work.
You now seem to imply that's not what you mean and its specifically Watchmen? If so again I'm curious as to why?
QuoteI don't really see why anyone who was really serious about writing or drawing as a career would want to work in an industry where your choice is either utter poverty or sell out and work on crap.
and yet they seem to. As fair as I can see, due to the channels now available, whatever your opinion of them, in far greater numbers?
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 02 February, 2012, 06:22:38 AM
No quite right, I mentioned them in an attempt to understand the point you made about ???? destroying any desire for new creators to enter the industry. I concluded from your second post, but thought I should check, that you were saying that buying from DC (and Marvel) was what was doing this.
I think they are basically harmful and I don't buy any DC and Marvel stuff myself. However I have a particular problem with Before Watchmen.
Quoteand yet they seem to. As fair as I can see, due to the channels now available, whatever your opinion of them, in far greater numbers?
Not really talented people. And as I said, the channels you mention are flawed.
I wouldn't say that Marvel or DC are partiuclarly "harmful" to the industry, and as an aspiring comic writer myself, Before Watchmen isn't so much making me worry about working in the industry. My only problem with Before Watchmen is that it just feels like a lazy cash in and I can only see it doing more harm than good to the original. Watchmen is a fantastic book, and all the side stories and plot twists feel like a well oiled machine and work perfectly in tandem with each other. These Before Watchmen episodes won't, IMHO, add anything to the story, and might even take away what made the original plotlines stand out so well. Personally, I'd rather see DC make some new characters and stories, rather than raid the piggy bank.
It's only a comic.
I think the apologists are missing the point - it's not that DC are legally wrong to do this, it's that what they're doing is cheap, shameless and artistically bankrupt. Presumably someone owns the rights to The Shawshank Redemption. That's a film people like - a sequel would probably turn a profit on name recognition alone - why not make that? I'm guessing because the idea is dumb, and such a project would be an insult to the makers of that film.
What DC are doing is the equivalent of this:
(http://www.dvdactive.com/images/news/screenshot/2009/3/sdarkor1artworkpic2_copy0.jpg)
(http://mooviemart.ie/Catalogue/Image_Files/AmericanPsycho2.jpg)
And am I being cynical to suspect that Len Wein's involvement is mainly due to his association with Swamp Thing - it would be a very corporate way of thinking - "we can't get Alan Moore - what's the closest name we can attach?".
It's also weird that Before Watchmen is going to be far longer and more expansive than the orignal series - and it's all but guaranteed that a great deal of it will be substandard or contradict the original in some way - why dilute and devalue the brand of what is the closest the superhero genre has to a classic work to make a quick buck?
Oh well, I just hope it turns out to be as good as The Dark Knight Strikes Again...
Quote from: radiator on 02 February, 2012, 12:21:01 PM
it's all but guaranteed that a great deal of it will be substandard or contradict the original in some way
I don't see why either of these things are a foregone conclusion. There's tons of scope to tell 'untold stories from the past' of all the main Watchmen characters.
It's not like they're making a sequel, which would ultimately mean telling us what happened to Rorschach's journal and therefore fucking up Moore's ending.
If we divorce the moral argument from the creative for a moment, I don't see why setting stories in the history of the Watchmen universe is any more creatively devoid than 'Young Anderson' for example.
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: radiator on 02 February, 2012, 12:21:01 PM
it's all but guaranteed that a great deal of it will be substandard or contradict the original in some way
I don't see why either of these things are a foregone conclusion. There's tons of scope to tell 'untold stories from the past' of all the main Watchmen characters.
It's not like they're making a sequel, which would ultimately mean telling us what happened to Rorschach's journal and therefore fucking up Moore's ending.
If we divorce the moral argument from the creative for a moment, I don't see why setting stories in the history of the Watchmen universe is any more creatively devoid than 'Young Anderson' for example.
Watchmen is a self-contained unit, there is no Watchmen universe there is no watchmen continuity outside of the expertly woven tapestry that is watchmen.
I'm not saying there are no possible stories worth telling, but there would need to be a good reason for revisiting Watchmen. Expanding back stories of very well drawn characters is not a good reason.
Anderson, Batman, Spiderman, Dredd and the like are not closed units, they are a platform for telling many stories.
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 12:37:29 PM
If we divorce the moral argument from the creative for a moment, I don't see why setting stories in the history of the Watchmen universe is any more creatively devoid than 'Young Anderson' for example.
To be clear, I don't really care about the project one way or another, and I certainly don't think the morality of it is at issue, within the context of the comics industry as it existed in 1986 and exists today (measured against some
actual sense of decency, it may well stink).
But for me the difference with Young Anderson, and SBT's Spiderman analogy, is that Watchmen was conceived and executed as a single piece of clockwork. There are no superfluous cogs or teeth, and no missing ones. Adding bits on is like saying 'Yeah, I like Michelangelo's
David fine, but wouldn't it look great if we got Damien Hirst to do
Goliath and stick it in the same room, sort of looming over him?'. Not saying that'd be wrong (okay, I probably am), but I certainly think it isn't necessary and can only detract from the original - get Hirst to go do his own David and Goliath somewhere else.
EDIT: I see Steven has said much the same and better.
EDIT EDIT: Maybe if they got Ron Mueck to do Goliath it'd work... hmmm.
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 12:49:27 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: radiator on 02 February, 2012, 12:21:01 PM
it's all but guaranteed that a great deal of it will be substandard or contradict the original in some way
I don't see why either of these things are a foregone conclusion. There's tons of scope to tell 'untold stories from the past' of all the main Watchmen characters.
It's not like they're making a sequel, which would ultimately mean telling us what happened to Rorschach's journal and therefore fucking up Moore's ending.
If we divorce the moral argument from the creative for a moment, I don't see why setting stories in the history of the Watchmen universe is any more creatively devoid than 'Young Anderson' for example.
Watchmen is a self-contained unit, there is no Watchmen universe there is no watchmen continuity outside of the expertly woven tapestry that is watchmen.
And Watchmen will always be able to be read like that. And providing they make no sequel which will ruin Moore's ending then I still don't see the problem.
I would agree that there need to be rules regarding any contradiction (I wouldn't like to see a Highlander 2 type sitiation for example!).
I think these books should be judged on their own merits and not just seen as sullying the good name of Watchmen.
By way of an example - Tom Brown's Schooldays is a self contained unit but I still enjoy the Flashman novels.
Quote from: TordelBack on 02 February, 2012, 12:55:26 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 12:37:29 PM
But for me the difference with Young Anderson, and SBT's Spiderman analogy, is that Watchmen was conceived and executed as a single piece of clockwork. There are no superfluous cogs or teeth, and no missing ones. Adding bits on is like saying 'Yeah, I like Michelangelo's David fine, but wouldn't it look great if we got Damien Hirst to do Goliath and stick it in the same room, sort of looming over him?'. Not saying that'd be wrong (okay, I probably am), but I certainly think it isn't necessary and can only detract from the original - get Hirst to go do his own David and Goliath somewhere else.
This seems like a pretty rubbish analogy. If Goliath was looming over David it would mean you had no choice but to view David in that context (without the use of some kind of elaborate viewfinder).
If I decide not to but 'Before Watchmen' I don't expect someone from DC will come around and wave a copy of it in front of my face everytime I read the original.
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 01:00:28 PM
By way of an example - Tom Brown's Schooldays is a self contained unit but I still enjoy the Flashman novels.
I know what you mean, but is that a fair parallel? I know Tom shows up in Flashman (only to be disgusted and storm off quite quickly), as does Speedicut and of course the beastly Flashy himself, but
Tom Brown's Schooldays is hardly about cads rogering their way around the globe, but presumably the Watchmen comics will be about masked vigilantes.
You're right about the Goliath analogy being rubbish though. I really need some kip.
Quote from: W. R. Logan on 02 February, 2012, 12:11:05 PM
It's only a comic.
The phrase "only a comic" is a pretty reductive critcism of the whole medium. Disagree.
Quote from: TordelBack on 02 February, 2012, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 01:00:28 PM
By way of an example - Tom Brown's Schooldays is a self contained unit but I still enjoy the Flashman novels.
I know what you mean, but is that a fair parallel? I know Tom shows up in Flashman (only to be disgusted and storm off quite quickly), as does Speedicut and of course the beastly Flashy himself, but Tom Brown's Schooldays is hardly about cads rogering their way around the globe, but presumably the Watchmen comics will be about masked vigilantes.
Well yes the comics will be about masked vigilantes but that's still a pretty broad scope. What the tone of the books is remains to be seen. As such, on the inofrmation available at the moment I have no problem with the project in theory or, I think, any basis on which to say the project is creatively devoid.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, Wide Sargasso sea, the Flashman novels and to a degree all historiographic metafiction could be cited as justification. But they were also part of my original point.
All involve re-purposing historical or fictional characters, in some cases expanding on very peripheral characters. The juxtaposition between the original and the post modern re-interpretation is normally part of the creative core. Creating a new work based on historical or fictional characters is neither pointless nor unheard of but there does have to be a point and they do have to bring something new and distinctive. Expanding back stories of already fleshed out characters does not fall into this category.
Quote from: TordelBack on 02 February, 2012, 12:55:26 PM
But for me the difference with Young Anderson, and SBT's Spiderman analogy, is that Watchmen was conceived and executed as a single piece of clockwork. There are no superfluous cogs or teeth, and no missing ones.
Ah- but so was Spider-Man. Conceived as a short story in the final issue of a dead magazine. Yes, it was an origin, but if it hadn't have been successful, and that issue of Amazing Fantasy seen such a bump in sales, we would not have had Amazing Spider-Man #1 and fifty years of stories. It would have been just one of those endless Lee/ Ditko shorts that they did- most of which *could* have been expanded into an ongoing series, if the potential profit was high enough. Yes, Watchmen is a twelve issue limited series, and AF15 is- what, eight pages? But the point still stands. Both are (I'm told) perfectly constructed engines of story, doing their job, both reflect their respective eras and both have remained in print ever since.
Watchmen is obviously a special thing. I don't like it at all, but that's not to say I don't recognise its skill and importance. But I just see this as the comics equivalent of those "What Heathcliffe did next" books that came out a decade or so back, the hundreds of "Continuing adventures of Sherlock Holmes" stories, Star Trek: The Next Generation, NuWho, or "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" for that matter. In fact, 'Watchmen with Zombies'- a reprint of the original series, but with extra panels depicting them fighting zombies... I'd definitely buy that!
SBT
The Watchmen Graphic Novel is the cream of the crop, artistically and narrative wise. It pushed the envelope of what is possible in the Graphic Novel medium further and used the founding principles of the Graphic Novel started by the late great Will Eisner. I've used the word Graphic Novel alot as it is not the same as the term Comic which the likes of The Watchmen is not.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 02 February, 2012, 01:32:36 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 02 February, 2012, 12:55:26 PM
But for me the difference with Young Anderson, and SBT's Spiderman analogy, is that Watchmen was conceived and executed as a single piece of clockwork. There are no superfluous cogs or teeth, and no missing ones.
Ah- but so was Spider-Man. Conceived as a short story in the final issue of a dead magazine. Yes, it was an origin, but if it hadn't have been successful, and that issue of Amazing Fantasy seen such a bump in sales, we would not have had Amazing Spider-Man #1 and fifty years of stories. It would have been just one of those endless Lee/ Ditko shorts that they did- most of which *could* have been expanded into an ongoing series, if the potential profit was high enough. Yes, Watchmen is a twelve issue limited series, and AF15 is- what, eight pages? But the point still stands. Both are (I'm told) perfectly constructed engines of story, doing their job, both reflect their respective eras and both have remained in print ever since.
Watchmen is obviously a special thing. I don't like it at all, but that's not to say I don't recognise its skill and importance. But I just see this as the comics equivalent of those "What Heathcliffe did next" books that came out a decade or so back, the hundreds of "Continuing adventures of Sherlock Holmes" stories, Star Trek: The Next Generation, NuWho, or "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" for that matter. In fact, 'Watchmen with Zombies'- a reprint of the original series, but with extra panels depicting them fighting zombies... I'd definitely buy that!
SBT
Pilot's that don't get picked up aren't self-contained stories they are just pilot's that don't get picked up.
Spiderman was I would imagine always intended as a new possible on-going character and as a central character with witch to tell stories. Watchmen was intended as 12 intricate issues.
the cashin's you mention are quite a good analogy. take the money and run but if you like DC but don't pretend it's artistically valid
Quote from: dracula1 on 02 February, 2012, 01:40:32 PM
. I've used the word Graphic Novel alot as it is not the same as the term Comic which the likes of The Watchmen is not.
Er, Watchmen
is a comic. In fact, it's twelve comics- I have them all upstairs. Since when was "comic" a dirty word. As for "graphic novel"- I'd just as soon pretend that horrible chinstrokey tweed and elbowpatches phrase had never been invented. It's just bleeuuh. Do you ever say "I'm going into town to buy a novel"? No, of course not. "I'm off to buy a book", more likely. So why not "I'm off to buy a comic"? Watchmen is a "book of comics", or a "trade collection" or a "big comic". And (and I'm sorry this makes me smile), with the sudden appearance of more comics tied to the Watchmen "universe", it ceases to be an "entirely self-contained story" and so even by the definition of the "graphic novel", stops being one. HA HA.
SBT
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 02 February, 2012, 01:50:49 PM
Quote from: dracula1 on 02 February, 2012, 01:40:32 PM
. I've used the word Graphic Novel alot as it is not the same as the term Comic which the likes of The Watchmen is not.
Er, Watchmen is a comic. In fact, it's twelve comics- I have them all upstairs. Since when was "comic" a dirty word. As for "graphic novel"- I'd just as soon pretend that horrible chinstrokey tweed and elbowpatches phrase had never been invented. It's just bleeuuh. Do you ever say "I'm going into town to buy a novel"? No, of course not. "I'm off to buy a book", more likely. So why not "I'm off to buy a comic"? Watchmen is a "book of comics", or a "trade collection" or a "big comic". And (and I'm sorry this makes me smile), with the sudden appearance of more comics tied to the Watchmen "universe", it ceases to be an "entirely self-contained story" and so even by the definition of the "graphic novel", stops being one. HA HA.
SBT
I would tend to agree. A graphic novel is the same as a comic book and a graphic narrative book but not a periodical or a collected periodical both of which can be comics or trade paper backs and possibly graphic novels all of which are graphic narrative strips/books but none of whitch are pictuer books... unless they are.
The term Graphic Novel was coined in the 80's by pseudo-intellectual newspaper columnists so they could talk about the new grown up comics like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns without having to resort to using the dirty word: comics.
They are comics and I will proudly refer to them as such.
On the subject of these new Watchmen comics, I'm not interested in them in the slightest. For the same reason I've never been interested in any so-called 'expanded universe' bum-wash; at best they will be inferior to the original and at worst they will ruin the original.
Star Wars has been ruined for me with the endless books, video games, cartoons and stupid prequels. I'm sick of hearing about the next, 'The Adventures Of That Wolf Head Kind of Alien Looking Thing Who Is Visible For About 4 Seconds In The Cantina Scene In Star Wars' quadrilogy of shit books.
The characters in Watchmen weren't created to have monthly adventures fighting baddies and all the other boring, dumb looking shit that every other super-hero gets up to. It's a self contained story which already fleshed out the back story of every single one of the characters in it.
This is unnecessary and I really hope it fails miserably.
QuoteI don't see why either of these things are a foregone conclusion.
Because Watchmen was the work of two artists working in extremely close collaboration and mutual understanding. Having tons of different creators coming in will inevitably dilute it, and discrepancies and contradictions are bound to pop up. If you're doing a spin-off to one of the most successful and popular comics of all time, all you're ever going to produce will be a pale shadow of the source material.
And to anyone who says "Watchmen will always be there, you can ignore the sequels/prequels", I refer you to Star Wars and The Matrix - classics whose legacy and many people's enjoyment of has been spoiled by rubbish sequels and spin-offs. What with the film etc I'm
already a bit sick of Watchmen to tell the truth.
What next!? Bringing Johnny Alpha back from the dead?!
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 01:30:10 PM
Expanding back stories of already fleshed out characters does not fall into this category.
[quote author=Steven Denton link=topic=35271.msg649820#msg649820 date=1328189410
Just because a story features a pre-existing character, and is told in a time period prior to the character's first appearance does not necessarily mean that the story's entire reason for existing and the zenith of it's creative value is to 'flesh out the back story of an already fleshed out character'.
Quote from: radiator on 02 February, 2012, 02:31:07 PM
QuoteI don't see why either of these things are a foregone conclusion.
Because Watchmen was the work of two artists working in extremely close collaboration and mutual understanding. Having tons of different creators coming in will inevitably dilute it, and discrepancies and contradictions are bound to pop up. If you're doing a spin-off to one of the most successful and popular comics of all time, all you're ever going to produce will be a pale shadow of the source material.
And to anyone who says "Watchmen will always be there, you can ignore the sequels/prequels", I refer you to Star Wars and The Matrix - classics whose legacy and many people's enjoyment of has been spoiled by rubbish sequels and spin-offs. What with the film etc I'm already a bit sick of Watchmen to tell the truth.
This is certainly possible, and is probably likely, but I don't think it's fair to say that this project and the writers and artists involved have no chance of creating a quality product.
Quote from: Lee Bates on 02 February, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
The characters in Watchmen weren't created to have monthly adventures fighting baddies and all the other boring, dumb looking shit that every other super-hero gets up to.
Don't forget that the Watchmen characters started out as Charlton characters who did exactly that.
If it wasn't for all that 'dumb looking shit' there would be no Watchmen.
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 03:04:48 PM
Don't forget that the Watchmen characters started out as Charlton characters who did exactly that.
If it wasn't for all that 'dumb looking shit' there would be no Watchmen.
Funnily enough had Moore been allowed to use the Charlton characters, rather than virtual stand-ins, I wouldn't have any problem with the project. But Watchmen would have been quite a different prospect, and I'd suggest neither as popular nor as successful. It's its self-contained nature that is part of its appeal - a single pure point in the sea of resurrections and crossovers and alternate future bloodlines that doesn't expect you to have read a single word that doesn't appear between those covers.
QuoteI don't think it's fair to say that this project and the writers and artists involved have no chance of creating a quality product.
I'd say with so many different creative teams on board it's unavoidable that at the very least it's going to be of hugely variable quality, and will definitely feel somewhat disjointed.
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 01:30:10 PM
Expanding back stories of already fleshed out characters does not fall into this category.
[quote author=Steven Denton link=topic=35271.msg649820#msg649820 date=1328189410
Just because a story features a pre-existing character, and is told in a time period prior to the character's first appearance does not necessarily mean that the story's entire reason for existing and the zenith of it's creative value is to 'flesh out the back story of an already fleshed out character'.
To reiterate and very slightly elaborate
Creating a new work based on historical or fictional characters is neither pointless nor unheard of but there does have to be a point and they do have to bring something new and distinctive for there to be any kind of creative imperative.
I don't really understand your rebuttel as i did not claim that all prequils are of no value or that they are inerently there to 'flesh out the back story of an already fleshed out character'
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 02 February, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
The characters in Watchmen weren't created to have monthly adventures fighting baddies and all the other boring, dumb looking shit that every other super-hero gets up to.
Don't forget that the Watchmen characters started out as Charlton characters who did exactly that.
If it wasn't for all that 'dumb looking shit' there would be no Watchmen.
The watchmen are just Charlton characters argument is redundant. The story was at a very early stage intended for Charlton characters that were then largely developed beyond all recognition. A jumping off point is not the same as actually using characters. If someone used the watchmen characters but vastly changed them, their names, and the world they were in beyond all recognition I doubt Alan Moore or anyone else would have anything to say on the matter.
And watchmen deconstructs (all that 'dumb looking shit') essential pointing out that it is indeed dumb looking shit to the postmodern intelligencia's eye.
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 01:30:10 PM
Expanding back stories of already fleshed out characters does not fall into this category.
[quote author=Steven Denton link=topic=35271.msg649820#msg649820 date=1328189410
Just because a story features a pre-existing character, and is told in a time period prior to the character's first appearance does not necessarily mean that the story's entire reason for existing and the zenith of it's creative value is to 'flesh out the back story of an already fleshed out character'.
To reiterate and very slightly elaborate
Creating a new work based on historical or fictional characters is neither pointless nor unheard of but there does have to be a point and they do have to bring something new and distinctive for there to be any kind of creative imperative.
I don't really understand your rebuttel as i did not claim that all prequils are of no value or that they are inerently there to 'flesh out the back story of an already fleshed out character'
At the risk of going round and round in circles...
You cannot judge if there is anything new and distinctive until you've seen the product.
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 03:20:32 PM
And watchmen deconstructs (all that 'dumb looking shit') essential pointing out that it is indeed dumb looking shit to the postmodern intelligencia's eye...
...and people who have grown up and are now thoroughly bored of the endless, grinding morass of the super-hero genre.
The main reason Watchmen was and is so popular is because it did something new and interesting with a genre which had become - and remains - on the whole, as predictable and formulaic as Coronation Street and Eastenders.
The Watchmen/Charlton argument is dumb and grasping at straws. I'm shocked to see actual creators using this argument to justify what they're doing.
It's like claiming Neil Gaiman's Sandman owes everything to the earlier incarnation of the character and it's success is entirely the result of being based on some obscure, two-dimensional nothing series. Nuts!!
The only persons reasons I respected for doing this are Brian Azzarello who essentially said "I'll fucking show you naysayers" I like that attitude and can respect it, though I remain skeptical. JMS had the absolute most pathetic defense possible.
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 02 February, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
The characters in Watchmen weren't created to have monthly adventures fighting baddies and all the other boring, dumb looking shit that every other super-hero gets up to.
Don't forget that the Watchmen characters started out as Charlton characters who did exactly that.
If it wasn't for all that 'dumb looking shit' there would be no Watchmen.
The watchmen are just Charlton characters argument is redundant.
It isn't an argument - I'm merely pointing out that the project starting in the first place was partly due to a group of characters that were already in existence and had been involved in lots of 'dumb looking shit'. That Watchmen developed beyond, and transcended, its beginnings isn't in doubt.
JMS's reasoning for doing them should reassure critics, surely? Although i have never watched an episode of babylon 5 i did greatly enjoy his run on spidey and may well be inclined to pick up his watchmen comics now. Nice to see someone talking sense about this whole thing.
SBT
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 03:33:28 PM
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 01:30:10 PM
Expanding back stories of already fleshed out characters does not fall into this category.
Quote from: Steven Denton link=topic=35271.msg649820#msg649820 date=1328189410
/quote]
At the risk of going round and round in circles...
You cannot judge if there is anything new and distinctive until you've seen the product.
I haven't judged any workQuote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: Steven Denton on 02 February, 2012, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 February, 2012, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 02 February, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
The characters in Watchmen weren't created to have monthly adventures fighting baddies and all the other boring, dumb looking shit that every other super-hero gets up to.
Don't forget that the Watchmen characters started out as Charlton characters who did exactly that.
If it wasn't for all that 'dumb looking shit' there would be no Watchmen.
The watchmen are just Charlton characters argument is redundant.
It isn't an argument - I'm merely pointing out that the project starting in the first place was partly due to a group of characters that were already in existence and had been involved in lots of 'dumb looking shit'. That Watchmen developed beyond, and transcended, its beginnings isn't in doubt.
It is an often repeted argument.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 02 February, 2012, 03:43:13 PM
JMS's reasoning for doing them should reassure critics, surely? Although i have never watched an episode of babylon 5 i did greatly enjoy his run on spidey and may well be inclined to pick up his watchmen comics now. Nice to see someone talking sense about this whole thing.
SBT
He's one of the few people whose stuff I've read as I just recently bought the first issue of the Marvel collection featuring his Spider-Man story.
To be honest, I thought it was embarrassingly awful, and the fact that it's held up as a modern super-hero comic worth reading just about says it all for me. If this is the calibre of writer they've got to fill Moore's shoes then it can only end in laughable disaster.
But then, you see, i reckon much of moore's recent work is laughable, and if i were to pin down the last decent thing he'd done, would have to go for From Hell. Or maybe league vol one, if i were being forgiving. Prometheus, top ten, the recent league stuff- its as shockingly, appallingly awful as people assume this new watchmen will be. And jms's run on spidey absolutely ticks the right boxes for me, and i love it.
It doesnt help either that each time i read a quote from moore, i dearly wish he'd stop smoking cannabis and pretending to be a 'magician'. At the moment, my contempt for him colours my appraisal of his output.
SBT
You're a funny lady.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 02 February, 2012, 04:12:21 PM
But then, you see, i reckon much of moore's recent work is laughable, and if i were to pin down the last decent thing he'd done, would have to go for From Hell. Or maybe league vol one, if i were being forgiving. Prometheus, top ten, the recent league stuff- its as shockingly, appallingly awful as people assume this new watchmen will be. And jms's run on spidey absolutely ticks the right boxes for me, and i love it.
Each to their own, but you're totally wrong. And possibly mad ;)
Tough gig, though. All issues of morality aside, I can't really understand what stories from these characters possibly need to be told that weren't already, and that aren't overshadowed anyway into utter insignificance by the events of Watchmen.
Still, I'm looking forward to seeing this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w&feature=player_embedded (for the benefit of the very small percentage who may not have caught it the first time round.)
Quote from: Jon on 02 February, 2012, 05:00:10 PM
All issues of morality aside, I can't really understand what stories from these characters possibly need to be told that weren't already
That's the problem with your inhuman omniscience, Doctor Osterman.
Quote from: TordelBack on 02 February, 2012, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: Jon on 02 February, 2012, 05:00:10 PM
All issues of morality aside, I can't really understand what stories from these characters possibly need to be told that weren't already
That's the problem with your inhuman omniscience, Doctor Osterman.
:P But it's more a lack of imagination.
Wow so much has been said while I've been away and so much is based on assumption and preconceived ideas. We can't possibly know if the ideas in books still months from coming out will be worthwhile, or good or whatever value you decide to put on them.
Except maybe unnecessary, I guess you could argue, that but that's not really an assessment of quality.
There's a lot of hysteria about this, as the Watchmen is held in such high regard and arguments seem to get polarised through the lens of people's admiration for Alan Moore. Just because you, me or someone else can't conceive of a story that would justify the return to these characters, doesn't mean that the talented, professional creators involved and JMS (well I'm going to make childish statements too!) can't.
As for some debate over the characters being reworkings of Charlton characters, yeah I can see the point, though the origins of the final characters are still very recognisable. Still there is a host of Alan Moore's work that far more blatantly does take fiction characters, from 'closed' stories and reworks them in ways that its hard to imagine the original creators doing.
Oh and finally whoever it was that said Len Wein is on board due to his connections that's kinda unfair. He may well be involved 'cos he's a talented creator with a long track record, who may well have had a good idea? we'll have to wait and see on that one as well huh?
Can of worms... who opened it???
I'm reserving judgement, may or may not read some.
However I do think it is a shame that the creator doesn't get much say (or any as is probably the case).
That said, piracy is still piracy. Anyone who thinks they can justify it in this case can probably justify shop lifting and burglary.
Quote from: Lee Bates on 02 February, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
Star Wars has been ruined for me with the endless books, video games, cartoons and stupid prequels. I'm sick of hearing about the next, 'The Adventures Of That Wolf Head Kind of Alien Looking Thing Who Is Visible For About 4 Seconds In The Cantina Scene In Star Wars' quadrilogy of shit books.
Ahh You mean the
Shistavanen Wolfman,
Lak Sivrak . Who later joined the Rebellion and fought on
Hoth.
V
I am looking forward to this in much the way I've been eagerly anticipating Dan Brown's Young Raskolnikov series. On the other hand, Mr Moore's always fond of pointing out that the films of his work don't affect the original material as it's all still there and I feel this applies equally here. Unlike Radiator, I really don't think The Matrix is retrospectively made shit by its unfortunate sequels.
I imagine this will be the sort of thing that lasts six months to a year before quietly forgotten until disinterred by disembodied pop culture ephemerists of the future to give a wry reappraisal. Unpick the muddled up tenses in that sentence, bitches.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 02 February, 2012, 05:49:09 PMPrometheus, top ten, the recent league stuff- its as shockingly, appallingly awful as people assume this new watchmen will be.
Fuck you, I have Spawn: Blood Feud on a shelf somewhere, and next to it, all other Moore comics look like Shakespeare and Babylon 5.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 02 February, 2012, 05:49:09 PMAnd jms's run on spidey absolutely ticks the right boxes for me, and i love it.
I enjoyed it at the start even though it was a rehash of the only decent work on the character Gerry Conway had done in the 1990s (the resolution of the long-running Puma plot in Web Of Spider-Man which I suspect was ghost or co-written by then-incoming scribe JM Demattius, though he wasn't credited), and the decision to make Parker a teacher went a significant way to making him look like a responsible adult rather than an opportunistic sponger, but for the most part JMS was on cruise control with competent but unremarkable stories. He came off as a bit of a jerk when he departed in the wake of OMD, too, but dammit, I think the worst thing about his Twitter sniping and grousing in interviews is that he has a point.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 02 February, 2012, 05:49:09 PMAs for some debate over the characters being reworkings of Charlton characters, yeah I can see the point, though the origins of the final characters are still very recognisable. Still there is a host of Alan Moore's work that far more blatantly does take fiction characters, from 'closed' stories and reworks them in ways that its hard to imagine the original creators doing.
People seem to jump to the Charlton thing rather quickly as a rod to beat Moore with, and I'm not sure why - Watchmen was originally conceived
to specifically use those characters when they were folded into the DC line proper (one presumes as an alternate Earth story, before Crisis On Infinite Earths came along and made that approach unworkable), and Moore creating an entirely new cast and then telling a story that he'd never have been able/allowed to tell with characters like Blue Beetle and Captain Atom just highlights how good he is at what he does, which I suspect is where a great deal of the venom aimed in his direction really flows from. There seems to be genuine hate and contempt for Moore disproportionate to his perceived crimes that reminds me of how some online commentators used the death of Jeph Loeb's son as a rod to beat his (Jeph's) writing with, which is especially hateful when you consider that Loeb has a reputation with anyone who's met him as a really decent guy, something I also hear about Alan Moore and which colours my opinion of him a great deal more than the fact he wrote Halo Jones or any comments he may make about snakes that live in his brain telling him to be nice to people.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 03 February, 2012, 12:56:43 AM
Watchmen was originally conceived to specifically use those characters when they were folded into the DC line proper (one presumes as an alternate Earth story, before Crisis On Infinite Earths came along and made that approach unworkable), and Moore creating an entirely new cast and then telling a story that he'd never have been able/allowed to tell with characters like Blue Beetle and Captain Atom just highlights how good he is at what he does, which I suspect is where a great deal of the venom aimed in his direction really flows from.
As I understand it, Moore had conceived of Watchmen's story first, then DC (or someone from DC, possibly Dick Giordano) suggested using the Charlton characters. When they saw Moore's outline and saw what he wanted to do with the characters, they got cold feet (they did, after all, want to fold these characters into the DCU) and so Moore used them more as a template or jumping off point.
I agree with all your points. I went to San Diego Comic-Con a few years ago and was in the audience for the Watchmen film panel. The cast, the crew, Dave Gibbons and however the hell many people they can pack into that giant Hall H. On a few seperate occasions throughout the panel, the moderator mocked Moore and made snide comments about his refusing the Hollywood paycheque and essentially dismissed him as an idot for having principles and wishing to maintain his integrity. The audience laughed and applauded this guy.
There's a problem in comics and it runs a hell of a lot deeper than DC. I can understand them: they want money and marketshare. Some of the weird, seething anger directed at Moore for having the audacity to have principles and desperate attempts to undermine his reputation by spreading distorted facts and wild generalisations are far more disturbing.
Also Top Ten is awesome. Whoever said it was crap above is completely mad and wrong :D
Promethea is amazing, but Top Ten remains the last truly great superhero team book from an American publisher before the concept went up its own arsehole and forgot that story is kind of important alongside marketing your brand-name characters/writers. The pacing and handling of all those characters and plots, and building a world at the same time? Fantastic stuff.
I'll admit I found Promethea hardgoing. Incredibly impressive and admirable in respect to Moore's stated aims with the series but personally I'm not particularly interested in the subject. I think I got to Book 4. It remains the only Moore series I've never finished.
I really liked Tom Strong too. It's maybe not the most consistent but when it works, it bloody well soars.
Gene Ha recently stated he signed exclusive to DC and expected to be doing more Top Ten but sadly DC don't seem interested without Moore's involvement. A shame as I'd love to read more.
I've tried the 'it's only a comic' argument now I shall trump it with the 'who cares' argument.
Promethea is not only my favourite Alan Moore comic, it's also wobbling about near the very top of my list of all time best comic evar!!11! It's just utterly superb. There is so much invention, experimentation and joy in each issue, it's mind boggling. It's a love letter to the world, imagination, life, art and everything and it makes me glad to be alive every time I re-read it.
I realise it's not to everyone's taste but for me it's what comics are all about.
Top Ten is fantastic too. Just brilliant. The very antithesis of the usual pointless drudgery of super-hero comics.
Quote from: W. R. Logan on 03 February, 2012, 08:33:35 AM
I've tried the 'it's only a comic' argument now I shall trump it with the 'who cares' argument.
It is only a comic but this is a comic's forum and this post is in the section for general comic's discussions.
And as for who cares, quite a lot of people care, that's why they are talking about it. Also some people don't really care and that too is a valid viewpoint.
"I dont care" is a valid viewpoint, but not really one that's worth expressing on an Internet forum.
Otherwise, why not go through every thread posting "I don't care"? Until you get banned.
I'd have to disagree with the Axis of Denton here. Logan is a renowned fan of 2000AD, former fanzinist, and sometime aide to Mr. Wagner - by throwing in 'it's only a comic' and 'I don't care', he's making a valid point, coming as it does from a man who clearly does care about (certain) comics. Yeah, it'd be pointless running around writing 'I don't care' on every thread (although Grud knows it's been done), but here? Seems like a timely reminder that it's possible for 2000AD fans to not care one way or the other about prequels, sequels or musical stage productions of Watchmen.
Or it could just be that he is a self-confessed grumpy fucker.
I love Watchmen and every year at some point get out my ultimate Watchmen copy and reread it, usually when I'm away with Cadets.
But at the end of the day it's just a comic owned by a company that want to make money.
It'd be nearly as bad as me saying that I don't buy or read the Prog when it's a non Wagner Dredd week.
Plus I am a grumpy fucker and really don't care.
Quote from: TordelBack on 03 February, 2012, 11:15:51 AM
I'd have to disagree with the Axis of Denton here. Logan is a renowned fan of 2000AD, former fanzinist, and sometime aide to Mr. Wagner - by throwing in 'it's only a comic' and 'I don't care', he's making a valid point, coming as it does from a man who clearly does care about (certain) comics. Yeah, it'd be pointless running around writing 'I don't care' on every thread (although Grud knows it's been done), but here? Seems like a timely reminder that it's possible for 2000AD fans to not care one way or the other about prequels, sequels or musical stage productions of Watchmen.
Or it could just be that he is a self-confessed grumpy fucker.
'The Axis of Denton' where were you when we were deciding on a name to publish our comics under!
Also I was just politely answering Logan's posts. It is only a comic but this is a place for talking specifically about comics. No one really seems to have flown too far off the handle. but i can see his point I think. No matter how emotionally invested we are in comics or books or films they are still just a comic book or film or a TV show. (unless i got that wrong?)
And who cares? Well I care as do many other people it would seem. Logan didn't specify that he didn't care so I didn't address that or make any assumptions about his position.
I was thinking about the money thing again and if Before Watchmen is a cash in I wonder how well it will work? Regular comic buying fans of Watchmen seem to be split over the new books, that cut's down your market from the start. Watchmen fans who don't read comics regularly are not much of a market... they don't buy comics after all. Collected editions may trick some people who don't buy comics and haven't read watchmen into buying one the prequels by accident but that seems like a lot of trouble to go to for tricking the odd bookshop browser into purchasing the wrong thing. They will have to stand on their own and appeal to comics fans who aren't fans of watchmen to sell well as far as I can see. And that is without taking into account the possibility of a poor critical reception. It's a massive gamble.
Quote from: W. R. Logan on 03 February, 2012, 11:31:24 AM
I love Watchmen and every year at some point get out my ultimate Watchmen copy and reread it, usually when I'm away with Cadets.
But at the end of the day it's just a comic owned by a company that want to make money.
Yeah, it's a great comic owned by a company who don't respect it, but I broadly agree.
Quote from: TordelBack on 03 February, 2012, 11:15:51 AM
I'd have to disagree with the Axis of Denton here.
The Axis of Denton does not tolerate dissent. Also, we affirm our right to peacefully developing nuclear capabilities.
Quote from: Steven Denton on 03 February, 2012, 11:45:51 AM
They will have to stand on their own and appeal to comics fans who aren't fans of watchmen to sell well as far as I can see.
Not quite sure why they would have to appeal to non Watchmen fans. The sells for Watchmen are of course massive (in trade form) if a relatively small proportion of those hear about these new books and pick them up when they are collected I'd say that'd be pretty astonishing sales wise in the current market?
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 03 February, 2012, 11:51:57 AM
Quote from: Steven Denton on 03 February, 2012, 11:45:51 AM
They will have to stand on their own and appeal to comics fans who aren't fans of watchmen to sell well as far as I can see.
Not quite sure why they would have to appeal to non Watchmen fans. The sells for Watchmen are of course massive (in trade form) if a relatively small proportion of those hear about these new books and pick them up when they are collected I'd say that'd be pretty astonishing sales wise in the current market?
Watchmen crossed over to non-comics readers, many of whom have no interest in comics hence them being non-comics readers. My point was I'm not really sure how many of them will have any interest. If the prequels are reviewed in the book review sections of newspapers and magazines and the reviews are good maybe some of these people will pick up the new comics in collected edition. But that's a lot of if's and that's why it's a big gamble.
I think it may well sell ok due to novelty value, but most people that buy it will hate it.
Also the non-comics critics who know/admire Moore's work will all definitely hate it (and those that don't know Moore will ignore it), so any good reviews would have to come from DC fanboys in the mainstream comics press.
I tend to come back to the fact that Watchmen remains one of the few non-Manga non-Europorno comics my wife has read and enjoyed, and certainly the only superhero book (although she may just have said that to get into my pants - you know what women are like, they'll say anything to get some of that sweet sweet Tordlel love). I know part of that is her hatred of starting into something where she's expected to know things she doesn't (with the comics, not the lovin') - and Watchmen isn't like that.
I really do think a significant part of Watchmen's appeal that risks being lost is that all you have to read, all there is to read, is there in your hands (almost as if it were some kind of... novel). In that sense it's not a conventional 'modern' superhero comic at all. For example, I found myself lost in some of the New 52's first few issues because it was blatantly presumed, even in the midst of a line-wide reboot, that I would know who everyone was and what they were up to, and I didn't - and in my case I'd be at least peripherally aware of this sort of thing.
Even in Watchmen's use of comic book conventions (sometimes off-putting to non-readers), you can see the elements of that medium (panel, gutter, page, caption, speech bubble, colour to distinguish scene) being set out for you almost from first principles, and then being reworked back into an overlapping whole.
Making it 'just another comic', with attendant spin-offs and limited series and so forth, diminishes its integrity. I'll happily partition all this chaff off from the original in my own mind (hey, I'm a SW fan, I'm used to it), but for new readers coming to it in the future? I'll be 'which book should we start with?' all over again. And I think that's a pity, for what really is, for me, a very special case.
I bet these prequels will be stuffed full of really obvious, wink to the camera foreshadowing of the events of the original series.
Quote from: ChrisDenton on 03 February, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
I think it may well sell ok due to novelty value, but most people that buy it will hate it.
Also the non-comics critics who know/admire Moore's work will all definitely hate it (and those that don't know Moore will ignore it), so any good reviews would have to come from DC fanboys in the mainstream comics press.
I understand the logic. Brand recognition = interested parties = sales for the first issue at least, if people like the first issue then sales will remain stable or go up if they don't they will drop. By releasing a lot of 4 issue series they get about 8 cracks at a first issue. But I was questioning the maths for the potential readership and to an extent seeing if that really did offset the potential for bad publicity.
Quote from: ChrisDenton on 03 February, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
I think it may well sell ok due to novelty value, but most people that buy it will hate it.
Also the non-comics critics who know/admire Moore's work will all definitely hate it (and those that don't know Moore will ignore it), so any good reviews would have to come from DC fanboys in the mainstream comics press.
Wow a heck of a lot of presumptions there based on your preconceptions surely?
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 03 February, 2012, 01:08:40 PM
Wow a heck of a lot of presumptions there based on your preconceptions surely?
Yes, and you have some bewildering preconceptions about how great Before Watchmen is going to be. I presume you either really dislike Alan Moore or really, really like DC.
Ack! After all my heartfelt protestations, I just saw the covers for the Crimson Corsair and (original) Nite Owl books. They do look kewl, it must be said. Curses...
It is a bit mean spirited of the Kubert boys to draw Nite Owl shitting down Alan Moore's chimney, all the same.
:lol:
I thought that Nite Owl (II) cover was terrible. I can't even imagine how Dan got up there, he just looks like Batman he isn't actually him...
Quote from: ChrisDenton on 03 February, 2012, 01:15:09 PM
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 03 February, 2012, 01:08:40 PM
Wow a heck of a lot of presumptions there based on your preconceptions surely?
Yes, and you have some bewildering preconceptions about how great Before Watchmen is going to be. I presume you either really dislike Alan Moore or really, really like DC.
Hopefully you're wrong there, but I'll allow others to make that call. I've tried all the way through to say. I'm fine with these, but I'll wait to make any judgements on quality until I see them.
I certainly don't hate Alan Moore and admire most the work of his I've read. I disagree with some of the things he says, an increasing amount as time goes on I find. I do however admire the way he tries to ensure that he's honours what he says particularly when it comes to financial matters.
I like DC comics that's plain to see in some areas of the site and I've never hidden that (blooming heck I can't believe I've said that as though there would be a reason to hide it. Anyhoo). As for DC Entertainment as a company they have all the same problems and greed of any other commercial organisation, which while I might wish that was different I'm forced to accept in the context of the world we live in.
I try to separate liking the comics and therefore having admiration for many of the people who create them from the other side of this, the business side.
I've tried to write everything I've written here with enough if, and I guesses etc to make it clear that I'm not stating my option on the matter as fact and I'm suggesting alternatives views? If I've failed in that so be it.
Quote from: TordelBack on 03 February, 2012, 01:16:54 PM
Ack! After all my heartfelt protestations, I just saw the covers for the Crimson Corsair and (original) Nite Owl books. They do look kewl, it must be said. Curses...
This is why I think it might sell well.
Hmmm.
This quote cracked me up -
Quote from: NY Times
Brian Azzarello, a comics author who is writing the mini-series for the Watchmen characters Rorschach and the Comedian, said he expected an initial wave of resistance because "a lot of comic readers don't like new things."
Yeah, 'new things' like characters from a 25 year old comic. Ha Ha!
Bozo...
Quote from: Lee Bates on 03 February, 2012, 01:53:11 PM
This quote cracked me up -
Quote from: NY Times
Brian Azzarello, a comics author who is writing the mini-series for the Watchmen characters Rorschach and the Comedian, said he expected an initial wave of resistance because "a lot of comic readers don't like new things."
Yeah, 'new things' like characters from a 25 year old comic. Ha Ha!
Bozo...
I read that article and interpreted it as:
Brian Azzarello said 'I like to group every ones concerns together as stupidity and fear and then dismiss them as the bleating's of fools.'
(http://www.michaelowencarroll.com/pics/before-watchmen1.jpg)
LMAO, nice one!
Quote from: The Cosh on 03 February, 2012, 12:06:45 AM
I am looking forward to this in much the way I've been eagerly anticipating Dan Brown's Young Raskolnikov series.
Please don't. It's bad enough when Moore compares himself to Melville.
QuoteOn the other hand, Mr Moore's always fond of pointing out that the films of his work don't affect the original material as it's all still there and I feel this applies equally here. Unlike Radiator, I really don't think The Matrix is retrospectively made shit by its unfortunate sequels.
A better example might be 'Psycho'. No one's ever gone off that because 'Psycho IV' is a bit rubbish.
Kate Halprin? That's a name I haven't heard in a l-o-o-o-n-g time. Welcome back!
I'm so sick of all this re-hashing. Just give us something original for God's sake.
I want to see a series about robot blacksmith whose life falls apart after he is re-programmed to be a paedophile.
Still, don't worry Watchmen fans...
...it could have been worse! (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/02/kevin-smith-turned-down-writing-before-watchmen/)
All joking aside, he seems to be the only one with the right attitude to this project.
Moore talks about Before Watchmen on his recent webchat: http://vimeo.com/36211102
I'd have had more respect for him if he'd vented to Bleeding Cool in a cloud of bitterness, but he makes a total jerk of himself by responding intelligently and politely incidental to raising funds for the widow of Harvey Pekar, a move which just increases my contempt for Moore as a human being and stiffens my resolve that no matter what objective evaluation of his work comes to the conclusion that he is actually good as a writer, I will forever hate him and vocally point this out at any opportunity in the hope I feel less small.
Although his comments about Grant Morrison were fun: Morrison has gone out of his way to engineer a feud with Moore in recent times, and it would seem that it's because of passing comments made in 1988 that Zenith might be a bit derivative of Miracleman. That Morison has held a grudge about this for 24 years is utterly hilarious.
More like Be-WHORE Watchmen, amirite?
I've thought long and hard about this since it was confirmed/announced last week and the more I've thought about it and discussed it online the more firmly entrenched I've become in my resolve not to touch this fetid project with a 10' barge pole. I wish DC hadn't commissioned it; I wish the book teams (I can't bring myself to call them 'creators', 'necrophiliac grave-robbers' is nearer the mark) had had the integrity to tell DC to get stuffed; I wish the fanboys gleefully rubbing themselves into a masturbatory frenzy over the fact they can now buy a Rorschach comic ('though it looks like some of them might just be doing the same thing over a copy of Dr Manhattan as well!) had the self-respect to realise just how cynical this project is. But wishes ain't fishes... so I'm just going to tell my comics dealer when he (inevitably) asks me which titles I want "Thanks but no thanks", which is a bummer because I'm sure he could use the revenue these titles will undoubtedly generate but I'm damned if I'm going to give DC one penny of my hard-earned cash towards this incredibly cynical exercise.
Cool story, bro.
Quote from: demos99 on 06 February, 2012, 01:36:01 AM
I'm damned if I'm going to give DC one penny of my hard-earned cash towards this incredibly cynical exercise.
What about all the other cynical exercises DC & Marvel put out every week? Hope you don't buy them either.
People queue round the block to buy Soap's mom's cynical exercises.
And why is everyone awake.
Quote from: Roger Godpleton on 06 February, 2012, 01:58:23 AM
People queue round the block to buy Soap's mom's cynical exercises.
And why is everyone awake.
Really easy w/e.
Told my bro in law about this yesterday as he is a huge fan of Watchmen, GN and film, and he was abit meh but said he will buy the collected edition.
So good or bad it's just a win win for DC.
V
Quote from: Professah Byah on 06 February, 2012, 12:21:35 AM
Moore talks about Before Watchmen on his recent webchat: http://vimeo.com/36211102
I'd have had more respect for him if he'd vented to Bleeding Cool in a cloud of bitterness, but he makes a total jerk of himself by responding intelligently and politely incidental to raising funds for the widow of Harvey Pekar, a move which just increases my contempt for Moore as a human being and stiffens my resolve that no matter what objective evaluation of his work comes to the conclusion that he is actually good as a writer, I will forever hate him and vocally point this out at any opportunity in the hope I feel less small.
:D
QuoteAlthough his comments about Grant Morrison were fun: Morrison has gone out of his way to engineer a feud with Moore in recent times, and it would seem that it's because of passing comments made in 1988 that Zenith might be a bit derivative of Miracleman. That Morison has held a grudge about this for 24 years is utterly hilarious.
I love Zenith, but it definitely owes a lot to [Marvel|Miracle]man. It's also by far the best thing Morrison's ever done. There may be a connection there.
What does Moore actually say about GM? (I would watch the webchat but it's 150 mins long and, somewhat ironically, certain commenters seem annoyed that video even exists.)
They do have a point about putting private correspondence in the public eye, and it didn't actually occur to me that it was meant to be a private conversation given that Moore is so polite and well-spoken on even contentious topics during the chat, so that must mean that he's like that all the time and not just for his many public appearances at conventions - what a jerk! Being polite all the time even when it avails him not - at least when certain creators at cons are being disingenuously polite for the occasion, that makes it
special. Don't you just
wish you were half the writer Moore was hate his arrogance?
Also, I seem to have erroneously said Miracleman above instead of Captain Britain. My bad.
Quote from: Bleeding Cool on 06 February, 2012, 04:26:53 PM
Moore approached the long-simmering (and mostly one-sided) "feud" between himself and Grant Morrison cautiously but candidly, stating that the only time he met Morrison in person was when Morrison was an aspiring who approached Moore at a signing and then later was given the chance to accompany Moore (and others) to a dinner.
According to Moore, Morrison was a self-professed fan of his work, and upon seeing his work in 2000 AD Moore stated that he found it derivative of his work on CAPTAIN BRITAIN and before adding "I thought he'd grow out of it."
Moore then discussed recommending Morrison to Karen Berger for a "proposed Alan Moore farm with Vertigo Comics," only to then start becoming aware of numerous disparaging comments made about him by Morrison.
Moore claimed to have no real issues with Morrison, per say, stating that he didn't even think of him much... although he did recently turn-down a third-party offer (presumably from Morrison himself, although not confirmed by Moore to be such) in which they would allow bygones to be bygones. Moore stated that he turned down the offer, citing a complete lack of interest in Morrison as a person or creator, before closing his answer with a playful story about how the only point of contention between himself and his "dear friend" Michael Moorcock was about which of them Morrison had stole from more over the years, with each one stating that it was the other.
Grant Morrison always claimed Zenith was 'sampled' and Book 1 was too heavily influenced by Marvelman. But I think this is him just being disarming and modest.
Alan Moore never liked Arkham Asylum and had been instrumental in Grant not getting a MM short story in Warrior.
I think they are just chalk vs cheese. Smooth vs Beardy. Punk vs Hippy.
If anyone influenced Zenith it was Pete Milligans hero who I can't remember drawn by Brendan.
Thanks, Prof.
Moore is pretty good at falling out with people, so I can't really ascribe this rift to any particular fault of Morrison's, much as I would tend to side with the beardy one. Creative differences, pure and simple.
However, Arkham Asylum is absolute crap (and it's only that good because of McKean's fantastic artwork).
I think The Gutters summed up the Watchmen prequels better than anybody with today's comic; http://www.the-gutters.com/ (http://www.the-gutters.com/)
(I also had my own long winded winge about it here; http://www.hadroncolliderscope.com/wp/2012/01/blog/watchmen-2-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-caring-and-just-let-the-corporations-suck-the-jelly-from-my-idols-bones/ (http://www.hadroncolliderscope.com/wp/2012/01/blog/watchmen-2-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-caring-and-just-let-the-corporations-suck-the-jelly-from-my-idols-bones/) about three days before they even announced it.)
To summarize; it's not the end of the world and it's not the end of Watchmen as a piece of art, but it IS pretty unfair to Moore and I'm not gonna read it.
The Doc Manhattan/Silk Spectre one looks like it might have dirty bits in it so I'll buy that one.
Tcch, I think your February attic buddy has you all flustered.
I was in two minds whether or not to post this, as it may well just stir up bad feeling again, (just look at the comments on Bleeding Cool just after some snippets of it appeared there) BUT having read only the first couple of pages there's no denying its very interesting, so what the heck.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/13/if-dc-want-to-soil-themselves-in-public-and-kill-the-reputations-of-a-number-of-otherwise-possibly-halfway-decent-writers-and-artists-then-im-certainly-not-going-to-stop-them-and-i-shall-take/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/13/if-dc-want-to-soil-themselves-in-public-and-kill-the-reputations-of-a-number-of-otherwise-possibly-halfway-decent-writers-and-artists-then-im-certainly-not-going-to-stop-them-and-i-shall-take/)
Alan Moore has opinions, the Internet argues... most it always be so?
Everyone's opinion will remain exactly as it was before.
I do think it's interesting that DC doesn't actually own the copyright to Watchmen however. Am I correct in saying it still belongs to Moore/Gibbons but DC has the right to publish the original series? Meaning these prequels are copyright infringement?
I read the whole interview, and it made me quite sad. I think I understand Alan's standpoint better than I have previously, but I mainly ended up just feeling terribly sorry for the man. I also find myself agreeing completely with him on the subject of what makes the Watchmen prequels so ill-advised, however seductive they may appear.
I think it might do Alan some good to read a bit more broadly in the comics undergrowth - the tights-and-capes guys may have stagnated in the way he describes, failing to move in the literary or even creative directions he alludes to, but there's a lot of other great stuff that's been done in the last 25 years, far beyond the usual suspects dredged up of DKR and Maus.
I'd hope he'd be able to take some heart from the fact that it's not all juvenilia and corporate IP farming out there.
His comments about the dearth of talent/originality is squarely aimed at Marvel/DC and superhero comics. He's spoken of non-mainstream comics a couple of times, most recently Craig Thompson. I'm sure he likes his daughter's comics too :D
A lot of people seem to be focusing on that more than anything else which is disappointing. Comic fans are odd and seem to take a lot of this stuff way too personally. Why not concentrate on the main point he makes repeatedly throughout the interview: the Big Two's business model is entirely self-destructive and that's why their sales are shit and getting shittier. It's the way they do business.
Comics must be the only business in the world that punishes its most successful and profitable creators.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 14 March, 2012, 12:38:10 AM
His comments about the dearth of talent/originality is squarely aimed at Marvel/DC and superhero comics. He's spoken of non-mainstream comics a couple of times, most recently Craig Thompson.
Yes, but in that interview he states that he doesn't read comics anymore, so it's understandable why the reader might form the impression that he
doesn't read comics anymore, and thus that his view of current comics might be somewhat restricted.
Re-reading my own comment, I can see it might look like I was being snidely patronising or dismissive in saying I feel sorry for Alan: it wasn't meant that way, I genuinely do feel sorry for the situation he finds himself in, particularly with respect to fellow creators whose rights he has so vigorously defended and whose careers he has contributed to. I agree almost entirely with his views on the Big Two.
Quote from: TordelBack on 14 March, 2012, 12:46:13 AM
Quote from: PreacherCain on 14 March, 2012, 12:38:10 AM
His comments about the dearth of talent/originality is squarely aimed at Marvel/DC and superhero comics. He's spoken of non-mainstream comics a couple of times, most recently Craig Thompson.
Yes, but in that interview he states that he doesn't read comics anymore, so it's understandable why the reader might form the impression that he doesn't read comics anymore, and thus that his view of current comics might be somewhat restricted.
I do always read that as he doesn't read comics from The Big Two, just cos' I've seen pull quotes from him on a couple of non-mainstream books over the years but yeah, it's is a fair point that he's seemingly contradictory. Even if it is a contradiction or he's not clarifying every thing he says, I do think a lot of people are focusing on this small point of his and using it to dismiss everything else. Maybe he figures if it WAS that good, it'd be selling incredibly well and he'd be hearing about it in other areas rather than just comicdom. In which case, he has a point :D Some US creators are taking it really personally yet their reaction makes it clear Moore still carries a lot of weight in comic book circles.
I didn't read your initial comment as dismissive either by the way and I'm 100% in agreement with you on your last point. What's even sadder is how it's driven such a wedge between Moore and numerous friendships (and yes, I do think his paranoia/bad blood got the better of him there. I get the impression he thinks this too maybe, he mentions it a few times)
I thought his little insights into how DC editorial is operating is interesting: the idea that the New 52 was pushed forward cos' they were worried about the legality of Before Watchmen. That does mesh with reality: New 52 was very rushed while it seems the work on the Watchmen prequels has been done and dusted for a surprisingly long time now. Also it appears to me that he seems to be more specifically talking about Brian Azzarello than anyone else; he does mention at one point that he liked Azzarello's Constantine run with Richard Corben and provided a "fulsome" pull quote for the collected edition (and deservedly so, it's a great story!) He mentions the Rorschach comic specifically and there's a few other lines in there too that suggest he's more hurt by his inclusion than some of the others.
The whole thing just points to how fucked-up the thinking of the Big Two really is. We could be living in a world where Alan Moore was still happily making comics. Maybe that could be one of their 52 bloody universes, eh?!
(http://dyn4.media.forbiddenplanet.com/products/2502335.jpg.size-580_maxheight-580_square-true.jpg)
I know this is an old-ish thread but after seeing this thing, I got to thinking... Is it just me, or does that not look like one hell of a jaunty Rorschach? I keep hearing the old Mister Men theme tune.
I just hope I don't get the same tune in my head should I bother with the rest of the Before Watchmen stuff, though I'm now starting to expect it from the look of some of the tat in with the non-tat...
Ha! Yeah, he's definitely got a touch of Wallace about his gait. "It's the wrong trousers, Night Owl."
He looks like he's about to click his heels!
Here's one to chill the blood. Bleeding Cool have an interesting piece on DCs original plans for Watchmen prequels in the mid-80s (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/05/04/before-watchmen-nineteen-eighties-style/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/05/04/before-watchmen-nineteen-eighties-style/)) - and then you reach the last line:
QuoteAnd quite specifically he confirms another anonymous ex-DC source that... Michael Fleisher would be offered Rorschach.
There's an alternative universe to ponder. Maybe we would all have been spared so much torment, and maybe Rorshach would have ended up with a really big gun and dreadlocks.
He's certainly not the first man I'd go to to write new stories for existing properties...
I'm surprised they didn't ask Mark Millar this time.
Is it just me or does that Barbara Kessel quote sound like the most sensible thing anyone's said about 'Before Watchmen' so far?
Quote from: The Corinthian on 07 May, 2012, 07:04:18 PM
Is it just me or does that Barbara Kessel quote sound like the most sensible thing anyone's said about 'Before Watchmen' so far?
It certainly is.
Quote from: Goaty on 01 February, 2012, 02:28:24 PM
Anyone need to send it to VIZ for "Up The Arse Corner"
(https://p.twimg.com/AkkPUPRCEAE5sO2.jpg)
I'm on it. Massive bonus: Alan Moore is a Viz reader
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Bakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Bakers)
I'm so missing the likes of Eisner, Moore. and Miller in his creative prime in the comic industry today.
:'(
Lucky you, I'm missing Roy Thomas!
Quote from: starscape on 15 May, 2012, 09:05:56 PM
Lucky you, I'
m misasing Roy Thomas!
Lol ... your older than me then!
Should this be a new thread now the first issue is actually out?
Anyway, Minutemen issue one is now on Comixology.
Bought it, read it, loved it.
Darwyn Cook, as always, rocks. Beautiful artwork and brilliant storytelling. Cant fault it.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 06 June, 2012, 10:56:42 PM
Should this be a new thread now the first issue is actually out?
Anyway, Minutemen issue one is now on Comixology.
Bought it, read it, loved it.
Darwyn Cook, as always, rocks. Beautiful artwork and brilliant storytelling. Cant fault it.
Cookes issues are probably the ones I'm most looking forward to. The preview pages I read were great.
Apart from the (usually rock-solid) sound recommendation by Bluemeanie, reviews online are very positive.
I was gonna pick it up from Comixology this evening, but have decided to buy the print / digital combo pack tomorrow.
Yeah, its a genuine shame that the controversy around this will stop a lot of people who would otherwise love this book from checking it out
Slightly off-topic, but I just saw Cooke's New Frontier & Catwoman stuff goin for €0.79 an issue on Comixology. Bargain.
It look's beautiful but I cannot get my head around characters whose voices, have their very own singular origination and destination, given by a very individual hand. Therefore I can't get excited. As much as I'd like to as I love the characters.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 07 June, 2012, 12:13:44 AM
Yeah, its a genuine shame that the controversy around this will stop a lot of people who would otherwise love this book from checking it out
You think that's the genuine shame?
I didn't buy this, nor will I. I look forward to Cooke's next Parker book however. You know, that series of books he's doing where he prioritised getting the permission of the original author before going ahead with the project. That one.
I'm trading waiting to see what opinion is on what works and what doesn't, its a heck of a lot to pick up otherwise. The Cooke stuff is what I'm looking forward to most and the reviews seem to justify my faith in him.
After all the fuss, just imagine, we might actually have some good comics!
yeah... knew I shoulda tried to start another "Talk about the comic if you've actually read the comic" thread to discuss its content
Not gonna be able to do that here
I'll bite.
I read it, mainly because I couldn't resist the Cooke effect.
So far it's just Hollis narrating a different draft of 'Under the Hood', in (admittedly gorgeous) comic form.
Some of it is very dull, mainly where it features the main characters (Eddie, Sally) whose stories are (AFAIC) fully told already (oh look, Eddie [spoiler]was an abused child[/spoiler], oh look, Sally's adventures [spoiler]were stage-managed setups[/spoiler], wake me up when it's over), but the fleshing out of some of the bit-players is predictably intriguing: the two pages of Cooke's version of Byron's story in particular was worth the download fee, and more time with Nelson in his prime was always going to be good.
I'm less sure about this version of the Spirit Silhouette. Implying that[spoiler] the sole lesbian character was raped by the Nazis, and all that follows from that,[/spoiler] seems very tired.
Perhaps surprisingly it's perfectly possible to keep all this 'new' information mentally separate from Watchmen, since Hollis' authorial voice is quite different here, and Cooke's lovely lovely art is so distinctive. The (Snyderian?) heightened abilities of the characters also helps place this in a more traditional superheroey universe (Nite Owl's [spoiler]leap from a tumbling car [/spoiler]is surely Batman-level agility, the [spoiler]Mothman suit can really fly[/spoiler] etc.). On that level it's an inoffensive alternate alternate universe, and I think I want to see more of it.
More critically, I think the opening sequence, where a version of the Moore/Gibbons 'repeated motif/composition' trick is re-used, is a big mistake. It suggests an aspiration to closely mirror the visual storytelling of Watchmen, and not just the characters and their world, which the rest of the comic doesn't deliver on. It's distracting and, well, cheap.
The only thing I really disliked, other than the persistent feeling that I was spitting in the one good eye of a creator I revere above all others, was that damn snippet of Pirate comic at the back. It was too bloody short, and I am not buying every book in this set just to see the rest.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 07 June, 2012, 03:12:41 AMI look forward to Cooke's next Parker book however. You know, that series of books he's doing where he prioritised getting the permission of the original author before going ahead with the project. That one.
Can we get one thing straight? Alan Moore gave his permission for 'Before Watchmen' back in 1985 when he signed the contract. He now regrets that - fine. He objects to 'Before Watchmen' now - also fine. He didn't foresee the full implications of it - fine. But he still did it, and I would respect him a hell of a lot more if he could man up and admit some responsibility for his own mistakes.
Quote from: The Corinthian on 07 June, 2012, 10:00:07 AM...I would respect him a hell of a lot more if he could man up and admit some responsibility for his own mistakes.
He has. Repeatedly. You won't find a more self-effacing person than Alan Moore. It's just that he believes that his mistakes were putting trust and faith in the individuals and the industry he was dealing with. He holds his hands up to his own naivety, but still holds that those who have profited from his work should behave like decent human beings and respect his wishes as a creator, and not act like the rapacious corporate entities they work for. Is that so awful a position to hold?
Moore has claimed personal responsibility for alienating co-creators many times over, but as for the falling-outs with people like Rob Liefeld and Alan Davis... well, let's just say if the experiences of other industry professionals are any indicator, I wouldn't go holding those incidences up as indicative of anything other than Moore not being a doormat.
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 June, 2012, 09:09:56 AMSo far it's just Hollis narrating a different draft of 'Under the Hood', in (admittedly gorgeous) comic form.
I found the sudden turning to his dog (the reader) and admitting that he wasn't "Tolstoy" to be a telling moment in the narrative, and a disappointing one to happen a whole three pages in.
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 June, 2012, 09:09:56 AMI'm less sure about this version of the Spirit Silhouette. Implying that[spoiler] the sole lesbian character was raped by the Nazis, and all that follows from that,[/spoiler] seems very tired.
[spoiler]Agreed, but what is truly tiresome is that you will never be able to broach this subject without a tidal wave of anti-Moore sentiment that will insist that because Watchmen featured a rape attempt Moore is
obsessed with rape and it is thus okay that rape happen all the time in comic books, except - tellingly - to male characters who are dressed just as scantily and ludicrously as their female counterparts.[/spoiler]
Minutemen is a solid book, but if you've read more than two Cooke outings it might feel a bit familiar, though this didn't harm mid-1990s Frank Miller's career and I don't see it being a barrier to Cooke's either. The spandex pants brigade will no doubt love it for the more traditional take on the universe Moore and Gibbons created, but there's some ultraviolence and rapey subtext to assure them they're reading Grown Up Comics, and a heartfelt "THINK OF THE PLIGHT OF THE LESBIANS" plea that I can't decide if it's parody or not, even in the context of a very po-faced story.
Quote from: The Corinthian on 07 June, 2012, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: PreacherCain on 07 June, 2012, 03:12:41 AMI look forward to Cooke's next Parker book however. You know, that series of books he's doing where he prioritised getting the permission of the original author before going ahead with the project. That one.
Can we get one thing straight? Alan Moore gave his permission for 'Before Watchmen' back in 1985 when he signed the contract. He now regrets that - fine. He objects to 'Before Watchmen' now - also fine. He didn't foresee the full implications of it - fine. But he still did it, and I would respect him a hell of a lot more if he could man up and admit some responsibility for his own mistakes.
Yes let's get this straight, shall we? Alan Moore was up for doing prequels and other ancillary material on the understandnig (understood and agreed to by DC Comics at the time) that he and Gibbons would be involved and that they had as much control over it as editorial.
DC Comics at the time boasted about what a bright new future they were giving creators and Watchmen was representative of that. They then pulled the rug out from under that in search of a quick buck. Even Jim Lee admits Moore is getting screwed by DC and what they're doing isn't necessarily 100% to the letter of the original contract.
Should Moore have been more careful and less naive? Yes. Had he understood the difference between the US legal system for contracts ('to the letter of the law) and British (giving credence to the 'spirit of the contract' to an extent), things may have been different.
But criticising someone for placing trust in others is a pretty depressing way of going about things.
Anyway we can go round and round in circles on this. I won't drag this off-topic anymore (or past-topic!). Feel free to use this thread to discuss the series. I'm somewhat curious to see what the response is, though I have no real interest in reading them myself.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
But criticising someone for placing trust in others is a pretty depressing way of going about things.
DC are pretty much relying on Alan Moore keeping to his word that he won't have anything to do with the property in order to be able to publish these books at all, as one determined ambulance chaser and these titles wouldn't have got past the promo material.
Still, I imagine this makes Moore an even bigger hypocrite somehow. It usually does.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 08 June, 2012, 12:57:47 AM
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
But criticising someone for placing trust in others is a pretty depressing way of going about things.
DC are pretty much relying on Alan Moore keeping to his word that he won't have anything to do with the property in order to be able to publish these books at all, as one determined ambulance chaser and these titles wouldn't have got past the promo material.
Still, I imagine this makes Moore an even bigger hypocrite somehow. It usually does.
No idea what you mean by this!? DC have co-opted Moore's power of attorney in order to allow them to publish BW. If you're implying that Moore should sue DC, then you're the one being naive now. Warner Bros are part of a massive conglomerate and could drag this out for years, essentially bankrupting any single individual. And in so doing, it would mean that Moore could not talk about it while the case was ongoing. He's already said in interviews that he's considered it but would prefer to, you know, have enough money to live and time to go about his current writing duties. And seemingly everyone at DC acknowledges that he'd at the very least have a case but WB have assured them to go ahead. It's called bullying and corporations are quite adept at it.
As an aside, Moore agreed over a decade ago to do a short new story for DC for the Watchmen anniversary but due to their inability to stick to the agreement, he pulled out. It's fair to say this was primarily a Warner Bros decision and it is they who want to exploit the Watchmen IP because DC comics general sales are so unbelievably dire and their current business model isn't going to stop that downward spiral.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
Alan Moore was up for doing prequels
Was he? The whole idea of Watchmen prequels seems like a self-defeating (not to mention money-grabbing) exercise to me, surely the whole story was a self-contained saga onto itself, with each character and their backstory an interconnecting part of the overall tapestry, to separate each character into his/her own title just doesn't feel right to me, this whole
Before Watchmen exercise is a lot like
Prometheus - a totally gratuitous and utterly pointless attempt to squeeze a few more commercial drops out of a property that should have been left alone two decades ago, here endeth the lesson...
Quote from: Beaky Smoochies on 08 June, 2012, 04:06:08 AM
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
Alan Moore was up for doing prequels
Was he? The whole idea of Watchmen prequels seems like a self-defeating (not to mention money-grabbing) exercise to me, surely the whole story was a self-contained saga onto itself, with each character and their backstory an interconnecting part of the overall tapestry, to separate each character into his/her own title just doesn't feel right to me, this whole Before Watchmen exercise is a lot like Prometheus - a totally gratuitous and utterly pointless attempt to squeeze a few more commercial drops out of a property that should have been left alone two decades ago, here endeth the lesson...
Apologies, I misspoke (mistyped?). Moore had been at the very least open to doing other Watchmen material in the past, namely some extra backmatter and spinoff merchandise but nothing as substantial as a direct prequel.
There's so much misinformation put out there by DC and their fanboy apologists that it's sometimes hard to keep track of, you know, the facts.
This article on The Beat gives a pretty good summary of the events, focusing mainly on Moore's relationship with DC and their incompetence throughout the years (giving a certain amount of justification for Moore's current attitude) :: http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/25/the-creators-position-viewed-through-the-lens-of-alan-moore/ (http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/25/the-creators-position-viewed-through-the-lens-of-alan-moore/) and this article is all you really need to know about the matter, frankly :: http://4thletter.net/2012/04/if-newsarama-knew-better-it-would-do-better/ (http://4thletter.net/2012/04/if-newsarama-knew-better-it-would-do-better/)
Again, I'll leave this thread to those who wish to discuss the comics as they're now coming out. No point in getting dragged into more circular arguments. I presume anyone buying this stuff is aware of exactly what it is they're endorsing with their money, regardless of quality. And I'll leave it at that :)
The prequels were going to be Minutemen - the golden-age heroes. And it was Dave, rather than Alan, that wanted to do it. It's quite a different story really with lots to play around with. I don't think it would spoil Watchmen at all as most of the characters are different. The atmosphere of hope would be a total change as well. I imagine something more along the lines of Tom Strong, than Prometheus.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 01:27:09 AMNo idea what you mean by this!?
Remember that period for a few years when you couldn't buy Superboy merchandise anywhere, and in the Legion of Super-Heroes cartoon the character was renamed Superman Junior? And the Siegal/Shuster copyright issue as a challenge to the limits of work for hire was a lot more airtight in DC's favor than their nebulous good faith contract with Moore, as was Todd McFarlane's ownership of Angela right up until the courts gave the character to her original creator.
If Alan was half the grumpy cunt people accuse him of being he could derail Before Watchmen quite easily.
Personally, I think it would be hilarious if he waited for a few issues to hit before doing so, frustrating those who made and bought it and stranding DC's only surefire moneymaker in legal limbo for years while also making them look like chumps. Maximum fuckage!
I'm sure Moore's cooking up some arch thaumaturgy right now. It worked before when he destroyed the box-office of Snyder's Watchmen.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 08 June, 2012, 03:21:02 PM
If Alan was half the grumpy cunt people accuse him of being he could derail Before Watchmen quite easily.
One of the (many) things I love about Moore is that he sees the self-defeating nature of endless litigation, regardless of how it might inconvenience the 'enemy' or even potentially profit him. He knows that feeding corporate lawyers is an ultimately pointless way to spend your alloted time, and he knows that the only settlement worth having is an agreement between gentlefolk.
Quote from: Beaky Smoochies on 08 June, 2012, 04:06:08 AM
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
Alan Moore was up for doing prequels
Was he?
Yep. At least according the guys who created the Watchmen RPG (they made sure to involve Alan Moore, in return he was very helpful and supportive) in parallel with the comic so it'd come out at the same time, so it reflects his ideas as everything was still coming together:
QuoteWinninger reveals that, in the beginning, Alan Moore didn't plan for "Watchmen" to be a self-contained book: "very early on I remember that Alan was excited about extending 'Watchmen' in various directions. I remember him mentioning a couple of things he was interested in -- a 'Tales From the Black Freighter' comic with Joe Orlando and some of the other old EC artists and maybe a 'Minutemen' miniseries," says Winninger. "Obviously his falling out with DC killed any possibility we'd ever see these projects but I also got the sense he was starting to believe that perhaps 'Watchmen' was better left alone."
www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17997
Sometimes, TB, there is occasion for gentlefolk to engage in pugilism, and I think DC's conduct over the years have bought them a good shafting right here and now when so much is hanging on BW's success.
Quote from: starscape on 08 June, 2012, 02:32:00 PM
The prequels were going to be Minutemen - the golden-age heroes. And it was Dave, rather than Alan, that wanted to do it. It's quite a different story really with lots to play around with. I don't think it would spoil Watchmen at all as most of the characters are different. The atmosphere of hope would be a total change as well. I imagine something more along the lines of Tom Strong, than Prometheus.
I will say, in my opinion, that the Minutemen angle is about the only element of Watchmen that could have worked for any new material from Moore and Gibbons. Maybe not a full-series but a fun little flashback could have worked and still not messed with the core Watchmen book.
Comics based around the Comedian and Rorschach are ridiculous though and completely unneccessary. I'm morbidly curious about what the reaction to those two in particular will be. And Straczynski, since I don't think he's written a decent comic in a very long time and his whole ethos is one based on sentimentality as opposed to the nihilistic realism of Watchmen.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
Yes let's get this straight, shall we? Alan Moore was up for doing prequels and other ancillary material on the understandnig (understood and agreed to by DC Comics at the time) that he and Gibbons would be involved and that they had as much control over it as editorial.
I don't believe that the basis of Moore's objections to
Before Watchmen is that he's not contributing to it. He doesn't want it to happen at all.
QuoteDC Comics at the time boasted about what a bright new future they were giving creators and Watchmen was representative of that. They then pulled the rug out from under that in search of a quick buck.
There's almost a 25 year gap between the final issue of
Watchmen and the first of
Before Watchmen. This is clearly some meaning of the word "quick" of which I was not previously aware.
QuoteEven Jim Lee admits Moore is getting screwed by DC and what they're doing isn't necessarily 100% to the letter of the original contract.
But surely the accusation is that DC are perversely sticking to the letter of the contract in order to screw him over?
QuoteShould Moore have been more careful and less naive? Yes. Had he understood the difference between the US legal system for contracts ('to the letter of the law) and British (giving credence to the 'spirit of the contract' to an extent), things may have been different.
But criticising someone for placing trust in others is a pretty depressing way of going about things.
I'm not criticising him for putting faith in others. I'm criticising him for painting this entirely as a "DC are evil and they tricked me" rather than saying "I don't want this to happen, and I regret doing the thing that allowed it to happen".
And there's a big difference between being innocent and wilfully naive. According to legend, Moore didn't even read the contract but just took it on trust that everything was being okay. Even if this isn't true it's hard to believe that he could have shown it to a lawyer, an agent or a union rep' without someone saying "maybe you should add a specific time period for rights reversion". Anyone in the book trade would have spotted that; the problem was that Moore doesn't seem to have thought he was in the book trade. It was just him and his new best mates at DC. That's a terribly lax way to approach your work.
DC haven't shafted him. They're just taking advantage of a contract in which they are disproportionately the beneficiaries. They're doing Before Watchmen because they can, because they have the right to, because Alan Moore gave them written permission to do it. He now wishes he hadn't, but he did. He made a mistake. I completely understand why he's upset*. I completely agree with his stance on creator's rights. But why is it that - among all the sound and fury - he can't say "I made mistake".
(* His supporters less so, if only because I doubt they'd be so upset if it was A.N. Other writer's characters getting the prequel treatment. I don't remember anyone going mental online when Marvel relaunched
Omega the Unknown above and beyond Steve Gerber's objections!)
Quote from: The Corinthian on 08 June, 2012, 07:54:20 PM(* His supporters less so, if only because I doubt they'd be so upset if it was A.N. Other writer's characters getting the prequel treatment
I'm sorry, have you
met the internet? Bitching about even minor changes to characters comprises 90 percent of US comicbook chatter.
You're also being disingenuous in suggesting there's no difference between Omega The Unknown and Before Watchmen.
Quote from: The Corinthian on 08 June, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: PreacherCain on 08 June, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
Yes let's get this straight, shall we? Alan Moore was up for doing prequels and other ancillary material on the understandnig (understood and agreed to by DC Comics at the time) that he and Gibbons would be involved and that they had as much control over it as editorial.
I don't believe that the basis of Moore's objections to Before Watchmen is that he's not contributing to it. He doesn't want it to happen at all.
I was referring to ten or fifteen years ago, when Moore was on a slightly less aggressive relationship with DC and was more willing to accede to certain spinoffs in other formats etc.
QuoteQuoteDC Comics at the time boasted about what a bright new future they were giving creators and Watchmen was representative of that. They then pulled the rug out from under that in search of a quick buck.
There's almost a 25 year gap between the final issue of Watchmen and the first of Before Watchmen. This is clearly some meaning of the word "quick" of which I was not previously aware.
I was referring to the initial "breach" of contract from Moore's point of view. That DC very quickly went back on their agreement (through the Watchmen merchandise etc.) in favour of quick buck. Had they played the long game and been more amenable to the original creators wishes, I think it's fair to say they
might have got more Alan Moore comics they could be selling by the truckload every year.
I just wanted to clarify those two statements. Again, feel free to discuss BW in this here thread, I'm out :)
Soooooo...anyone actually admit to buying the first issue? :lol:
Yes. I saw it on the shelves of FP on friday, picked it up to have a quick flip through and look at the art, liked what I saw and bought it. I didn't go to buy it, i'm trying to drop titles not buy more, but it looked.....right. I like Darwyn Cooke's style, I can't comment on the story as i've not had chance to sit down and read it yet. I'll let you know what I think as and when.
Stew.
Bought it. Read it. Nice art. Can't remember the story, even though I only read it yesterday.
Which tells you one of two things; I've got Alzheimers or it isn't that memorable
Went in to have a look, maybe buy Minutemen, but as soon as I saw that terrible cartoon/manga-influenced stylised art, I put it straight down. If there's one series that should have more life-like art, then it's a Watchmen spin-off. Compare that to Gibbons, Buscema, Cooper etc., and it looks like a Dyno-Mutt the Dog Wonder comic. A total turn-off for me and completely inappropriate for the subject. Comic art seems to have left me behind for the most part.
TY TEMPLETON'S PROBLEM (http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/before-bun-toons-yay/)
Ty Templeton's cartoons so often get to the nub of the matter so very well. The blokes gold his commentary on Before Watchmen are no exception.
http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/ethics-lesson-bun-toons-yay/ (http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/ethics-lesson-bun-toons-yay/)
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 10 June, 2012, 07:10:09 AM
Ty Templeton's cartoons so often get to the nub of the matter so very well. The blokes gold his commentary on Before Watchmen are no exception.
http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/ethics-lesson-bun-toons-yay/ (http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/ethics-lesson-bun-toons-yay/)
I like his cartoons for the most part. Can't say I agree with the one you linked to though. Far too much false equivalency going on in comic circles. It's the Strackzynski defense: it's ok to screw people over cos' other people got screwed over in the past. It just doesn't hold any water, in my opinion.
As has been pointed out ad infinitum, the Watchmen deal was not equal to the deal Siegel & Shuster, Kirby et al signed. The latter all
knew it was work for hire. Watchmen was supposed to be something different; Moore/Gibbons were supposed to own the characters with DC just licensing them out for publishing for a certain period of time (the infamous 'out of print' clause).
This argument really annoys me because it's so blatently attempting to dismiss the particulars of the Watchmen case and how it differed to older deals (I would say Siegel & Shuster got screwed a lot worse than Moore, in fairness!). This
was pushed as a big step towards creator rights at the time before DC saw there was a quick buck to be made and threw the baby out with the bathwater.
If you're looking for a comparison then Moore has provided one himself in the case of Constantine. Constantine is a character who Moore created and knew that he would belong to DC afterwards and that other people would work on the character and expand his story. Constantine is equivalent to Superman, Batman et al. Watchmen is not.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 10 June, 2012, 07:57:55 AM
It's the Strackzynski defense: it's ok to screw people over cos' other people got screwed over in the past. It just doesn't hold any water, in my opinion.
You're making an assumption there about what people are saying when they make that argument, one that doesn't follow my line at least. I view it more as using Alan Moore's own argument against him. He has said (and I paraphrase) literature has a long history other creators using the characters of others and that's why he does it and he's fine with that. Comics surely is a prime example of this. So rather than 'two wrong make a right' its a case of I have little sympathy with a creator r who does this not being happy when it happens to his creations.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 10 June, 2012, 07:57:55 AM
This argument really annoys me because it's so blatently attempting to dismiss the particulars of the Watchmen case and how it differed to older deals (I would say Siegel & Shuster got screwed a lot worse than Moore, in fairness!).
It does indeed differ and in this particular case the contract gave DC ownership until a certain set of circumstances were met. To everyone's surprise (and this does include DC I'd be amazed if when they drew up this contract they in any way thought it'd still be making money off the comics 25 years later. If they did they are commercial genius, with more precognitive than Nostradamus and Mayan Calendars combined!) they weren't met (and other similar contracts have met these circumstances and the owners have their properties back) and so just like other contracts they used it to continue to make money. Alan Moore had a number of choices when he took this route and apparently did so with out taking care. Lessons learnt and all that. Most working stiff may well wish they had different contracts. Such is life. Its not fair on a purely personal level and Alan Moore has ever right to be annoyed, I would hope as much with himself as anything, but alas that's the world we live in and a lot worse things are done. At least DC have tried to throw money at him to smooth things over (the currency they deal with) and to his credit Alan Moore has stuck to his guns as its not the currency he deals in.
Ultimately though I think your missing the point of the cartoon and I think Ty Templeton is parodying the way internet folk are arguing over this... which I have just done so shame on me!
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 10 June, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
Alan Moore's...has said (and I paraphrase) literature has a long history other creators using the characters of others and that's why he does it and he's fine with that.
Of course, there's an even longer history of it with comics - virtually 100% of it's history. If you're talking years, I wonder when Moore thinks it is ok to rip off Watchmen? How many years must pass then?
Quote from: starscape on 10 June, 2012, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 10 June, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
Alan Moore's...has said (and I paraphrase) literature has a long history other creators using the characters of others and that's why he does it and he's fine with that.
Of course, there's an even longer history of it with comics - virtually 100% of it's history. If you're talking years, I wonder when Moore thinks it is ok to rip off Watchmen? How many years must pass then?
I suppose the difference between the cases of
Watchmen and
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is the immediate cultural capital of the characters involved. Though the names of (some)
LOEG characters would have been familiar to readers, they (and the literary works they appeared in) had largely fallen out of mainstream culture's round of remakes and reimaginings.
Watchmen, however, is still very much in print, being read, and was an
active bone of contention between authors and copyright holders; making the difference between the two cases analogous to either having a boot at a ball you find lying forlorn at the kerbside or running onto the pitch and making off with the match ball.
I'd turn
starscape's question on its head, and ask when exactly it became legitimate to use characters like the wife of Bath, Piers Plowman, and Robin Hood whose creation predated copyright law? And in the case of a character like James Bond; if the near-collapse of MGM had placed the character in some kind of copyright limbo, would everyone just have to resign themselves to waving goodbye to that character and his world because
rules is rules?
Copyright law and publishing contracts exist for very good reasons, but their creation was only ever made necessary by the persistent inability of both publishers and authors to act in good faith and show some common fuckin' sense.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 10 June, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: PreacherCain on 10 June, 2012, 07:57:55 AM
It's the Strackzynski defense: it's ok to screw people over cos' other people got screwed over in the past. It just doesn't hold any water, in my opinion.
You're making an assumption there about what people are saying when they make that argument, one that doesn't follow my line at least. I view it more as using Alan Moore's own argument against him. He has said (and I paraphrase) literature has a long history other creators using the characters of others and that's why he does it and he's fine with that. Comics surely is a prime example of this. So rather than 'two wrong make a right' its a case of I have little sympathy with a creator r who does this not being happy when it happens to his creations.
But Moore is fine with people working on Constantine/Hellblazer, a character he created. He even gave a pull quote for the trade collection of Brian Azzarello's run with Richard Corben (oh, the irony!).
We can sit here all day arguing about the morality of using characters who are in the public domain but it won't get us anywhere; it's an accepted law and one which most authors (I presume) would be familiar with when they're creating things. Or the morality of the Superman/Batman/Kirby characters deals but again, when those characters were created it was done so on the understanding that there would be other people working on the character afterwards.
Moore's assertion is that he created and wrote Watchmen on the understanding that he and Gibbons would own the rights and characters eventually and would have a say in what happens afterwards (no Rorschach/Green Lantern teams ups!). Had that not been the case, he wouldn't have done it (says he, in hindsight!). Moore created plenty of characters and IP for DC when he was working with the publisher but it's specifically the Watchmen deal which he is annoyed about because the contract - or his interpretation of it, an interpretation endorsed and promoted by DC Comics at the time - was broken.
I see the DC people making the argument again and again and I just can't accept that they don't see a difference. They're choosing to ignore these inherent differences and trying to say 2+2=5.
Damn you, Ty Templeton.
In Templeton's defence, he states outright in the comments section that he sees no problem with using characters or names in the public domain - though what this means his cartoon is about I now cannot say: is Moore a hypocrite for wanting characters he created to not be used by others because he has used characters in the public domain in his past work? If so, how so? The creators haven't asked him not to do so, and in the case where there's doubt (Ormond Street Hospital/Peter Pan characters/Lost Girls) Moore has prevented the work being published. It's almost like there's no equivalence between the two things to successfully draw the conclusion the strip does...
Get a load of this cover. Ugh.
(http://i2.cdnds.net/12/24/618x952/watchmen-silk-spectre.jpg)
That's a chin to match even ol' Joe's!
That Silk Spectre looks like a totally different character to the one in Watchmen. Never mind the costume - the pose, the hair - everything is different.
Wasn't the whole point of Silk Spectre II's costume that it looked kinda ridiculous?
I also remember her looking somewhat like a real woman.
That cover alone sums up why I won't be having anything to do with Before Watchmen.
By contrast, Darwyn Cooke's Minutemen series at least looks visually quite appropriate for the Watchmen universe.
Well as I've actually read it (damn you and your easy delivery Comixology) ....
Really enjoyed it. Cook on scripting duties and Amanda Conner on art who can do no wrong in my book.
Basically Laurie in high school and the conflicts of that against her mothers insecurity and desire for her daughter to become what she was. Its a bit teen soap opera but I have no problem with that as it suits the backstory they want to tell.
I dont like that Jim Lee cover either though.
And I gotta admit I never liked how the character was drawn in the original. Gibbons is a brilliant artist but Laurie always looked like a drag queen to me. It never spoiled the book or anything but didn't match up too well with how the characters were perceived by others in the story.
Don't get the drag queen thing - to me she looked like a regular woman in her mid-thirties wearing a silly looking costume - much like Dan was a slightly paunchy bloke in his late thirties wearing a silly looking costume. The whole point was that she
didn't look like a typical comic book buxom bimbo - and the costume was supposed to look goofy because it was designed by her mother - it wouldn't be something she'd choose to wear. Trying to draw her to look all sexy basically indicates to me they don't understand the character at all.
I suppose these comic book prequels would make more sense - and be less offensive - if they were explicitly based on the Watchmen movie rather than the comic - as the movie similarly missed the point.
QuoteBasically Laurie in high school and the conflicts of that against her mothers insecurity and desire for her daughter to become what she was. Its a bit teen soap opera but I have no problem with that as it suits the backstory they want to tell.
Sounds like it adds very little to what we already know about the character.
Not wanting to butt in- i'll pick and choose which of the BF comics i'll try- but on the subject of Dave Gibbons... while the man is a ledge, and one of the greatest living exponents of the comic artist's craft, i've always thought his women look like drag queens. Or maybe just that they're quite masculine, if 'drag queen' is too extreme for you. It's never particulary bothered me, but it's alwaysbeen there- going right back to 'sharon' in the old dr who strips.
SBT
Well as I didnt want to spoil the whole comic for those who will actually read it I that was more of a summary
Think all these sequels are just going to flesh out what we already know anyway.
And it wasnt really the character, Gibbons just draws very masculine looking women
And yeah the costume was designed by her mother, but there's no way either her or her mothers costume weren't deliberatly sexualised. That was part of the conflict. It was something her mother was comfortable with and she obviously wasnt. This first issue directly deals with Laurie's embarrasment that people know who and what her mother was and how she dressed.
"BF comics"? BW, obviously.
SBT
PAGING DR FREUD.
Quote from: radiator on 14 June, 2012, 11:58:55 AM
I suppose these comic book prequels would make more sense - and be less offensive - if they were explicitly based on the Watchmen movie rather than the comic - as the movie similarly missed the point.
I understand that opinion on the movie is divided, but REALLY? I thought Zack Snyder and co absolutely nailed it in both spirit, look, and tone - no less than Dave Gibbons was unanimous in his praise of the film - there was simply no way the whole graphic novel could be fit into a reasonable movie length, but I think they fit a hell of a lot into 162 minutes (the superior theatrical cut, but that's a whole other argument), was undoubtedly one of the boldest and most uncompromisingly daring big-budget CBM yet put to film, and speaking personally, I put that movie up as the best comic-to-film adaptation to date (with Donner's original theatrical cut of
Superman: The Movie a razor-thin-close second)...
Oh, nearly forgot one more thing, if you were doing a Watchmen prequel correctly, you should concentrate exclusively on the story of the Minutemen; showing the criminality that motivated their donning the costumes, to being cultural icons, through their various battles with numerous crooks and super-villains (a young Molech, for example), and to their spectacular fall from grace as various members meet their fates... it wouldn't be strictly necessary as such, but it would make one great story!
On second thoughts (and having come to my senses), just scrub that entire last above post of mine, Watchmen needs no prequel(s), Watchmen should have no prequel(s), the Minutemen saga may be potentially interesting to explore further but ultimately pointless to the overall Watchmen narrative as it doesn't further any narrative purpose to what is already told or what happened in the actual story... I never thought I'd actually ever write this, but on this occasion, Alan Moore is absolutely right, the story is told, leave it alone, 'nuff said.
I don't really want to open this old can of worms again, but yeah I think Zach Snyder missed the point of Watchmen. Visually it was near perfect, and the casting was mostly uncannily good (Rorschach and The Comedian especially) but the tinkering with things like the opening 'fight' (it wasn't a fight in the comic) and needlessly turning Dan and Laurie into gleeful murderers akin to Rorschach damages the film beyond repair.
They got so much right, but the heart is missing. They basically made Mark Millar's Watchmen.
Combined with the inherent structure and pacing problems of making a literal adaptation - a lot of plot lines feel rushed.
Because I'm a vile excuse for a human being I stole a look at Silk Spectre 1, aka Archiemen.
Again, it looks very lovely (although some of the alternate covers are shockingly ugly), and it's a servicable story as well. Far too many gratuitous references to the original ([spoiler]two separate copies of the Tijuana Bible appear, Sally sobs alone in a dressing gown [/spoiler] etc.) hamper it being its own thing. I can see this being a common problem. The slang seems a bit more 50s than 60s (a 'boss jump'?), and it seems to be set in California which seems odd since I'd pegged Sally's move west as a much later thing (but i could be misremembering Watchmen here).
I confess to now being mildly interested in how this develops. I think reading these as 'Earth 2', or even Movieverse, versions of the Watchmen characters works well - a re-Charltoning, maybe. It's the bits where they directly ape aspects of the original that feel off, rather than the new stuff, making me wish that these were entirely new rather than prequels to something that doesn't need prequels. See also: Star Wars.
Gotcha radiator dude, understand where you're coming from, but I would merely ppoint you to this particular review of the movie - http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606439/watchmen-behind-masks-by-kurt-loder.jhtml - it really nails my own opinion of the movie more eloquently (and extensively) than I could myself...
There's some grisly stuff in Watchmen, but the sex and violence are handled very differently in the movie - its very tasteless and leering - "Cor, look at THIS!". It wallows in the violence and exaggerates way too much which gives the whole thing an air of a Mortal Kombat game, seriously undermining any pretensions the film has at being taken seriously.
If only Snyder could have excercised some restraint.
Totally disagree, but as this is a thread on the comic I wont go off on one here.
Also I've been having arguments about this film, mainly about the alley fight, since it came out and I'm boring myself with it TBH
There's a sweetness to the alley fight scene in the comic - and it's just plain nasty in the film.
Dan and Laurie are the heart of the comic - turning them into people who are capable of happily butchering a load of kids in a back alley without a second thought - even get a thrill out of it - basically turns them into complete psychopaths no better than Rorschach - and all because the director has ADHD and couldn't resist the opportunity to splash a load of gore over the screen.
There's no getting around it - it totally goes against what is presented in the book and seriously harms the narrative. Why should the audience give a shit about Nite Owl I's brutal murder when that just happened and passed without comment?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the odd bit of splatter if it suits the tone of the story, but that divergence from the source material is every bit as much a betrayal as the new Dredd film featuring a scene where Dredd becomes a social worker.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 14 June, 2012, 11:42:53 AM
Well as I've actually read it (damn you and your easy delivery Comixology) ....
Really enjoyed it. Cook on scripting duties and Amanda Conner on art who can do no wrong in my book.
Basically Laurie in high school and the conflicts of that against her mothers insecurity and desire for her daughter to become what she was. Its a bit teen soap opera but I have no problem with that as it suits the backstory they want to tell.
Really enjoyed it too.
Just got it today in physical format, and was really impressed. Best art Amanda Connor has ever produced, and sublime colouring.
Looking forward to the San Fransisco setting next issue.
For what it is (good or bad), I've gotta say; 2 great comics so far IMO.
Quote from: TordelBack on 15 June, 2012, 09:47:44 AMI think reading these as 'Earth 2', or even Movieverse, versions of the Watchmen characters works well - a re-Charltoning, maybe. It's the bits where they directly ape aspects of the original that feel off, rather than the new stuff, making me wish that these were entirely new rather than prequels to something that doesn't need prequels. See also: Star Wars.
I think you're on the right track there, TB, as anyone who's told themselves anything other than "these are fodder for adaptation into future movie projects" is slightly deluded as to the importance of comics in the DC business plan. Their only income in the last five years has come from Smallville and Batman videogame royalties, and with Smallville they've technically being paying themselves the royalties, something which did not elude the makers of Smallville who are now suing them to get that money back.
DC needed Before Watchmen out there rrrrrrreaaaaal bad.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 15 June, 2012, 07:08:13 PM
I think you're on the right track there, TB, as anyone who's told themselves anything other than "these are fodder for adaptation into future movie projects" is slightly deluded as to the importance of comics in the DC business plan. Their only income in the last five years has come from Smallville and Batman videogame royalties, and with Smallville they've technically being paying themselves the royalties, something which did not elude the makers of Smallville who are now suing them to get that money back.
DC needed Before Watchmen out there rrrrrrreaaaaal bad.
Oh cool if I'd have known you worked in DC's accounts department I'd have paid much more attention to you.
I know I know lowest form of wit and all that, but really!
Cool story, bro.
Don't be a playa hater...this weeks issue was kinda really bloody good too.
It's looking definitely like this will be some quality comic readin- just wish it wasn't so big. It's gonna cost a small fortune to get the lot.
Just finished reading the latest on my iPad, and I must concur, they are all rather good. I'm enjoying them. Maybe it's because I'm reading them without any care as to the political aspect and treating them as what they are, comics, and as it turns out bloody good ones at that.
The first two weren't half bad at all, and I'm keen to read more. The first issue of The Comedian is a pretty poor exercise in fill-in-the-blanks fan fiction, with quite nice art. There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. The [spoiler]naked Marilyn[/spoiler] stuff is also indulgent drivel. Must say this is what I feared the whole line would be like. Pirate stuff is still good though!
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 June, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
... There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. .
I read it this morning after thinking the first two were ok...but i was gobsmacked by the decision to include this scene...i mean, what on earth are they thinking?
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 June, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
... There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. .
I read it this morning after thinking the first two were ok...but i was gobsmacked by the decision to include this scene...i mean, what on earth are they thinking?
That it would make them money.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 June, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
... There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. .
I read it this morning after thinking the first two were ok...but i was gobsmacked by the decision to include this scene...i mean, what on earth are they thinking?
That it would make them money.
I guess so
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 June, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
... There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. .
I read it this morning after thinking the first two were ok...but i was gobsmacked by the decision to include this scene...i mean, what on earth are they thinking?
That it would make them money.
I guess so
Yes.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:24:53 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 June, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
... There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. .
I read it this morning after thinking the first two were ok...but i was gobsmacked by the decision to include this scene...i mean, what on earth are they thinking?
That it would make them money.
I guess so
Yes.
yes...?
[spoiler]"You know I enjoy our little chats Eddie, but just once it'd be nice if you dropped round for some reason other than the two of us being victims of a vast conspiracy".[/spoiler]
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 05:28:55 PM
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:24:53 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 June, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
... There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. .
I read it this morning after thinking the first two were ok...but i was gobsmacked by the decision to include this scene...i mean, what on earth are they thinking?
That it would make them money.
I guess so
Yes.
yes...?
Indeed.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 06:35:51 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 05:28:55 PM
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:24:53 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 June, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
Quote from: hoops on 21 June, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 June, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
... There's nothing new here, except the concept of [spoiler]Moloch and the Comedian having had prior bonding sessions[/spoiler], which completely undermines [spoiler]the unprecedented nature of Eddie's end-of-the-bed breakdown[/spoiler], a extraordinarily critical moment in the original. .
I read it this morning after thinking the first two were ok...but i was gobsmacked by the decision to include this scene...i mean, what on earth are they thinking?
That it would make them money.
I guess so
Yes.
yes...?
Indeed.
Ah, i see.
Enjoyed it. 3 for 3 as far as I'm concerned
The Comedian/Moloch scene didnt bother me.
It wasnt like they were pouring their hearts out to each other or discussing personal problems. Or even that they chose each other in any way. They were just in the same place when an outside event that obviously affected both of them occured. It was bigger than both of them and the situation they were in 2 minutes before.
Could you say that this moment of shared pain is what made the Comedian subconsciously think of Moloch later on when faced with something else that actually got to him? Possibly. I took it that way and thought it was pretty clever.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 22 June, 2012, 01:53:47 PM
Could you say that this moment of shared pain is what made the Comedian subconsciously think of Moloch later on when faced with something else that actually got to him? Possibly. I took it that way and thought it was pretty clever.
Yeah, that's one way to look at it. I think it just stumped me a little on first reading, y'know?
Quote from: bluemeanie on 22 June, 2012, 01:53:47 PM
Could you say that [spoiler]this moment of shared pain is what made the Comedian subconsciously think of Moloch[/spoiler] later on when faced with something else that actually got to him?
Never took you for a soppy muppet, Blue. Take a long look at the final splash with [spoiler]Eddie's hand resting comfortingly on Edgar's shoulder[/spoiler], and tell me that's not some gauche fan-fic.
Still gotta disagree. It's the ultimate US "Where were you when..." moment
Problem with this is people are just gonna call the whole thing fan fic.
But then you could say that about every non Wagner Dredd if you were so inclined ;)
Quote from: bluemeanie on 22 June, 2012, 02:56:01 PM
Problem with this is people are just gonna call the whole thing fan fic.
But then you could say that about every non Wagner Dredd if you were so inclined ;)
That's a pretty valid point. As mentioned above I think these books are grand when they're ploughing their own furrow, and at their weakest when they're re-using visuals or scenes from the original - not unlike Garth Ennis' tenure on Dredd.
Comedian just felt completely by-the-numbers, and I really do think [spoiler]'prequelising' a relationship for Eddie and Moloch[/spoiler] is right up there with Darth Vader being from Tatooine too - would [spoiler]Jacobi not have mentioned this Great American Shared Moment while spilling his guts to Rorshach[/spoiler]? It's presumably a matter of personal taste, but there was nothing that struck me as this annoyingly pat in the first two books.
I dunno, would he?
I mean, this is one moment in what you assume is a long history. Batman and Joker shared a joke at the end of Killing Joke but it didnt make them penpals. If anything Moloch wouldn't DARE mention the time he saw the Comedians mask slip. Depending on what happens in issue 2, he may even remember the last time he saw Comedian emotional as a precurser to some seriously nasty shit and so be suitably terrified
I think the problem is that the writers are obviously trying to be respectful to the source and riff off it. You are either going to enjoy the nods and, as I did with the scene in question, read additional context into it, or you are going to be annoyed that they are referencing the original so much.
It's all a bit fucked up and I'll happily admit that I WANT to like these books so may well be spinning everything positively. Not intentionally but I'm not naive enough to think or pretend I'm being 100% objective. That said I think DC know how highly the source is regarded so have given it to creators at the top of their game who want to do worthwhile work.
Or, to be less poncy about it all... I think they've all been fucking good comics. I like good comics. The pressure is on Nite-Owl next week
Personally, I'm more looking forward to the reviews of Nite Owl than I am the actual book - JMS is even more of a whipping boy than Moore.
"And a hooty hoot hoot to you too"
http://www.buzzcomics.net/showpost.php?p=1285623&postcount=1
As I commented on all the others
Nite Owl
A bit "meh" to be honest. Suffers in comparison to the others by being ok but nothing special. I'll give it a chance but definintely hasn't grabbed my interest like the others have
Quote from: bluemeanie on 01 July, 2012, 10:12:20 PM
As I commented on all the others
Nite Owl
A bit "meh" to be honest. Suffers in comparison to the others by being ok but nothing special. I'll give it a chance but definintely hasn't grabbed my interest like the others have
That's the main reason I haven't commented...I was quite disappointed by this one.
If DC had led the project with this book I'd be far less enthusiastic about it in general.
And it may be sacrilegious to say so...but Joe Kubert's inks muddy up otherwise crisper artwork by Andy Kubert. I would have preferred Jesse Delperdang doing the tracing.
I thought Joe's inks added a distinctive character to Andy's sub Jim-Lee mid 90s schtick that usually ruins otherwise good composition (check out his work on the first Batman vs Predator).
I thought this was the best Before Watchmen yet. Moore's shadow hangs over this project to the point no-one could ever look at it objectively so I'm just picking one and I'll say it's my favorite for some reasons I'll think of later, or possibly just make up as I go along. Seems like less effort in the long run.
The bit where his mum is like "call an ambulance I guess" when his abusive alcoholic father is having a heart attack from beating his wife while she wears a sexy nightie is totally badass. The new Nite Owl looks like he'll soon be really badass because the old one who is like Batman but not really is also really badass too. I hope they fight zombies or something in the next issue. That would be badass.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 02 July, 2012, 11:15:05 AM
I thought Joe's inks added a distinctive character to Andy's sub Jim-Lee mid 90s schtick that usually ruins otherwise good composition (check out his work on the first Batman vs Predator).
I thought this was the best Before Watchmen yet. Moore's shadow hangs over this project to the point no-one could ever look at it objectively so I'm just picking one and I'll say it's my favorite for some reasons I'll think of later, or possibly just make up as I go along. Seems like less effort in the long run.
The bit where his mum is like "call an ambulance I guess" when his abusive alcoholic father is having a heart attack from beating his wife while she wears a sexy nightie is totally badass. The new Nite Owl looks like he'll soon be really badass because the old one who is like Batman but not really is also really badass too. I hope they fight zombies or something in the next issue. That would be badass.
I *literally* can't tell when fellow forum users are being sarcastic half the time.
I just wish they'd got Alan Moore to write the new Nite Owl comic instead.
They coulda had him Hollis Mason age reminiscing about the time him, Keith Moon and Rupert the Bear took drugs and raped Jodie Foster on the set of Taxi Driver... but you know, in a clever way, reciting poetry and ancient magic texts. Genius I tell you. The fans'd love it.
No they wouldn't, they'd bang on about how they hated the writer as a human being, then someone who's actually met him will point out he's a nice bloke, then someone else will come in and point out that Moore's stance on uncontested use of identifiable fictional characters doesn't actually contradict his objections to being shortchanged by DC - but we usually ignore that last guy.
Quote from: Link Prime on 02 July, 2012, 06:49:43 PMI *literally* can't tell when fellow forum users are being sarcastic half the time.
That is because my post was not very well structured. The inks stuff and picking Nite Owl as my fave because it makes it easier to join in conversations about the project is true opinion: the bit about zombies not so much. The bit about Nite Owl #1 having a sexy wife-beating scene is also - oddly - true.
I still say Alan Moore peaked with Aqualung
Moore was in Jethro Tull? LEFT FIELD.
For me, everything Moore did was downhill after Badrock vs Violator. If there is a greater premise for a comic than "if Freddy Kruger was a clown and also the Alien and also from Hell and then fought Ben Grimm if Ben Grimm was so shit it made you angry" I have yet to see it.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 03 July, 2012, 05:19:38 PM
If there is a greater premise for a comic than "if Freddy Kruger was a clown and also the Alien and also from Hell and then fought Ben Grimm if Ben Grimm was so shit it made you angry" I have yet to see it.
Cool.
Is the Minutemen issues out yet, they're genuinely interesting, sorry if I missed it if mentioned here earlier...?
Quote from: Beaky Smoochies on 04 July, 2012, 08:34:18 AM
Is the Minutemen issues out yet, they're genuinely interesting, sorry if I missed it if mentioned here earlier...?
Yeah, 1st issue of Minutemen was out 3 weeks ago, and 2nd is due next week.
I was in a couple of comic shops recently and issue 1 still seems widely available (it was probably massively over ordered).
Out of the 4 distinct books released so far, Minutemen is my favorite. Very good stuff from the pretty much can-do-no-wrong Cooke.
Cheers Link, that's why I couldn't find it initially, but of all the BW titles being released, the Minutemen one is the only one that actually makes sense in it's being published, not least because Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons were seriously considering doing it back in the 1980's, but never did, so if they were actually considering it, then it's valid enough for me (albeit with another writer/artist team), the only thing is, should I buy them individually now, or hold out for the inevitable graphic novel where all six comics are compiled into a single volume?
Quote from: Beaky Smoochies on 05 July, 2012, 03:48:20 AM
Cheers Link, that's why I couldn't find it initially, but of all the BW titles being released, the Minutemen one is the only one that actually makes sense in it's being published, not least because Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons were seriously considering doing it back in the 1980's, but never did, so if they were actually considering it, then it's valid enough for me (albeit with another writer/artist team), the only thing is, should I buy them individually now, or hold out for the inevitable graphic novel where all six comics are compiled into a single volume?
I don't know that it was ever seriously considered. I think it had been mooted by someone, somewhere but neither Moore nor Gibbons ever seemed to confirm that. I think the closest thing Moore said was that he would have considered contributing to some other ancillary material (like an RPG) but that option was thrown out the window when DC got all handsy with his stuff ( :-\) Not sure he ever directly said he was interested in doing a Minutemen series unless maybe that's what the computer game was about?
Regardless it'll be interesting to see how this stuff sells. I'm sure the first issues should all do well but word of mouth seems to be pretty middling. I wonder did all the kerfuffle in the months leading up to it result in people just being sick of talking/thinking about it that by the time the comics actually came out so that people couldn't be all that bothered about them. I've seen relatively little talk about the actual comics other than some sheepish reviews that say 'it's ok' or 'it's a bit crap but we'll see how future issues are'.
Maybe they'll have more luck with After Watchmen, eh?
Picked up this weeks one.... Ozymandias (which I've probably just spelt wrong)
Lots for people to get angry at I'm sure, but I enjoyed it and the artwork was REALLY nice. Loved the panel layouts too which isnt something I usually notice too much. Think the last time I got that much into layouts was with JH Williams work on Batwoman.
As with some of the others its an out and out origin story
Felt a bit of a Batman Begins riff but then I suppose the character is kind of Batman gone wrong.. or more wrong... a slave to his ego at least.
Did its job though in that it made me wanna pick up issue 2, and I imagine I'll wanna get the trade too but more for the artwork as I'd forgotten how much I enjoy Jae Lee's stuff
Just read the 1st issue of Ozymandias today- thoroughly enjoyed it, and as noted above, great, great by Jae Lee.
Was very interested in Moloch's part in the back-story, and why his murder at Ozymandias' hands was far more personal than previosly revealed.
Also, despite only 2 pages a week, 'The Curse of the Crimson Corsair' is shaping up nicely. How it will tie into the overall 'Before Watchmen' story I don't know. But I like John Higgins' gruesome rendition of a shark eaten corpse, and I assume most Squakk would too.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 05 July, 2012, 04:20:42 AM
Quote from: Beaky Smoochies on 05 July, 2012, 03:48:20 AM
Cheers Link, that's why I couldn't find it initially, but of all the BW titles being released, the Minutemen one is the only one that actually makes sense in it's being published, not least because Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons were seriously considering doing it back in the 1980's, but never did, so if they were actually considering it, then it's valid enough for me (albeit with another writer/artist team), the only thing is, should I buy them individually now, or hold out for the inevitable graphic novel where all six comics are compiled into a single volume?
I don't know that it was ever seriously considered. I think it had been mooted by someone, somewhere but neither Moore nor Gibbons ever seemed to confirm that. I think the closest thing Moore said was that he would have considered contributing to some other ancillary material (like an RPG) but that option was thrown out the window when DC got all handsy with his stuff ( :-\) Not sure he ever directly said he was interested in doing a Minutemen series unless maybe that's what the computer game was about?
I've not read the source but it is the Comic Journal so it should be reliable:
QuoteMoore stated in 1985 that if the Watchmen limited series was well-received, he and Gibbons would possibly create a 12-issue prequel series called Minutemen featuring the 1940s superhero group from the story.[1] DC offered Moore and Gibbons chances to publish prequels to the series, such as Rorschach's Journal or The Comedian's Vietnam War Diary, as well as hinting at the possibility of other authors using the same universe. Tales of the Comedian's Vietnam War experiences were floated because The 'Nam was popular at the time, while another suggestion was, according to Gibbons, for a "Nite Owl/Rorschach team" (in the manner of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased), and also in the sense that the original Charlton characters Blue Beetle and The Question had worked together as a team time-to-time). Neither man felt the stories would have gone anywhere, with Moore particularly adamant that DC not go forward with stories by other individuals.[2] Gibbons was more attracted to the idea of a Minutemen series, because it would have "[paid] homage to the simplicity and unsophisticated nature of Golden Age comic books—with the added dramatic interest that it would be a story whose conclusion is already known. It would be, perhaps, interesting to see how we got to the conclusion."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Watchmen#Publication_history
Also the chaps doing the RPG talked to him a lot and this include ideas for sequels:
QuoteWinninger reveals that, in the beginning, Alan Moore didn't plan for "Watchmen" to be a self-contained book: "very early on I remember that Alan was excited about extending 'Watchmen' in various directions. I remember him mentioning a couple of things he was interested in -- a 'Tales From the Black Freighter' comic with Joe Orlando and some of the other old EC artists and maybe a 'Minutemen' miniseries," says Winninger. "Obviously his falling out with DC killed any possibility we'd ever see these projects but I also got the sense he was starting to believe that perhaps 'Watchmen' was better left alone."
www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17997
Hmm mostly second-hand (or further) accounts. And clearly Watchmen WAS intended as a self-contained work by the time it was actually made, regardless of what they'd thought about it earlier (like using the Charlton characters before DC abandoned that idea for them).
I do think Gibbons' Minutemen point is a good one though and the only series that has a leg to stand on in terms of being worth exploring narratively. Not sure that's what Cooke is actually doing, from the reviews I've read of it, it sounds like standard prequelling with nice art.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 09 July, 2012, 02:47:08 AM
I do think Gibbons' Minutemen point is a good one though and the only series that has a leg to stand on in terms of being worth exploring narratively. Not sure that's what Cooke is actually doing, from the reviews I've read of it, it sounds like standard prequelling with nice art.
I'm holding out for the inevitable omnibus edition of
Minutemen with all six issues compiled in one volume, then I'll probably enjoy it as a non-canonical bit of interesting hypothesis on what it might have been like back in the 'golden age' of masks... before it all went horribly awry! Would it be a good idea to make
Minutemen into a movie prequel to the 2009 big-screen adaptation, or should you just stop right there, might be intriguing if Zack Snyder was up for coming back to do it...!?
Quote from: PreacherCain on 09 July, 2012, 02:47:08 AM
Hmm mostly second-hand (or further) accounts. And clearly Watchmen WAS intended as a self-contained work by the time it was actually made, regardless of what they'd thought about it earlier (like using the Charlton characters before DC abandoned that idea for them).
I do think Gibbons' Minutemen point is a good one though and the only series that has a leg to stand on in terms of being worth exploring narratively. Not sure that's what Cooke is actually doing, from the reviews I've read of it, it sounds like standard prequelling with nice art.
When I first read Watchmen, I remember feeling quite disappointed that we didn't see more of the regular adventure stuff of the characters before they went their various ways. In hindsight, I think it's a good thing they didn't as that would add a lot of superfluous stuff to an already, pretty big, volume and rather specific story.
However, when I heard about these prequels, I'll admit, it sounded like a great idea. I agree, Watchmen itself is self contained and doesn't need to be added to. But then that's not what I would be looking for in these stories. (In fact, aside from being 'set before' I would hope they're not prequels in the true sense of the word.) Instead I wanted to see
different stories with the same characters in the same universe. That's been a staple of comics, from the big 2, even to the Dreddverse of 2000 AD for ages.
As it is, I've decided not to pick these comics up. I'm still curious, but I'd rather it had been Moore who had done it, or that he was at least supporting it. While I don't entirely agree with his reaction, there it is, so I won't read them. (That's not meant as a criticism for those of you who have, by the way. I'm still interested to see your reaction, this is just a personal decision.)
Quote from: Beaky Smoochies on 09 July, 2012, 06:38:45 AM
Would it be a good idea to make Minutemen into a movie prequel to the 2009 big-screen adaptation, or should you just stop right there, might be intriguing if Zack Snyder was up for coming back to do it...!?
I... I hope you're joking.
The fact that Snyder is still allowed to make films after the double-flop of Watchmen/Suckerpunch is disturbing enough.
Quote from: PreacherCain on 10 July, 2012, 12:21:31 AM
I... I hope you're joking. The fact that Snyder is still allowed to make films after the double-flop of Watchmen/Suckerpunch is disturbing enough.
I can't speak for
Sucker Punch - haven't seen it - but quite honestly, I thought Watchmen worked like gangbusters, much, MUCH better than I thought it would ever have been, and although I know opinion is sharply divided on that film, and I respect those who simply don't like it for whatever reason, I personally think Zack Snyder deserves a lot, A LOT, of credit for getting two major studios to put up $130m on a very hard R-rated, two-and-three-quarter-hour CBM based on an adult title that isn't easily marketed or merchandise-oriented, for actually achieving the no-small-feat of filming the supposedly "unfilmable" source material (the trick was not to, as it turned out, they adapted it), and for getting the studio(s) to let them keep such a dark, bold, and uncompromisingly daring film intact and untouched by the corporate leeches, and whether you like Snyder's style (which I thought suited the material well, even the slow-mo shots), the fact of the matter is that because of the massive success of
300, Snyder was the only director among the others attached to the project over the years who actually had the box-office cred to be able to do it right, and I think the lad did well; the casting, production design, the cinematography, visual effects, music, etc, were all spot-on... I honestly don't know why people fail to see the humor in
I'm Your Boogie Man playing over the riot scene when the Comedian gets medieval with the protesters, kills me every time, but maybe that's just me...
There were elements of Watchmen that I liked - primarily the production design - but I don't believe Snyder did adapt it at all. It's more of a translation. He tried that Sin City technique of lifting the panels of the comic straight and putting them on to film, which doesn't work at all for me. Lovely to look at but a shambles narratively. The acting was pretty poor throughout and frankly, Snyder's style of filmmaking is about as far removed from the tone of Watchmen as you can possibly get. Violence porn, slow motion, inconsistencies throughout (is Nite Owl a superhero or not? Cos' those fight scenes heavily suggest the he and Silk Spectre have superpowers; at other times, not at all).
I did quite like the Dr. Manhattan segment in the middle however, I think that worked pretty well. For me, it's sort of like reading Watchmen but only with Gibbons' visuals and without Moore's storytelling.
I would have preferred to see Paul Greengrass' film. Yes, he'd intended on adapting it in a much different and extreme way but I generally prefer to see adaptations that are happy to take liberties with the source material (Children of Men being a brilliant example!). I think he would have remained much more true to Watchmen as a whole, even if some of the surfaces were drastically altered.
I suppose my issue with Snyder is that I think he's a terrible director. I also find his handling of female characters incredibly off-putting and weirdly aggressive (it's at its worst in 300 and Suckerpunch). In the film Watchmen he exploits Silk Spectre's sexuality in a fetishistic way; in the comic she's perceived like that within the story by other characters but not by the reader (or by Nite Owl, for that matter!). The film gets all leery with her which suggests to me Snyder missed the bloody point in almost every conceivable way. Similar with Rorschach; his violent rage is celebrated and glorified while in the comic it's disturbing and, well, kind of sad. It's all surface and style without any real depth.
Still I'll admit Snyder's 'style' might actually suit The Man of Steel if some of his worst excesses are reigned in by Nolan and co. I don't think you can give him credit for bringing Watchmen to the screen either; surely that's to the credit of the producers. I'm pretty sure Greengrass was working under the same deal (rating/budget) but the writers strike in Hollywood threw a spanner in the works and he had to leave.
So essentially it's all down to personal taste. :P
Let's come back to this when the Before Watchmen films hit, eh?
Anyone seen the Watchmen motion comic?
It has one guy doing all the voices including Silk Spectre.... I'll just leave that one out there
And no big surprise to anyone I'm sure but chalk me up in the plus column for the Watchmen movie. Loved it.
So am I right in saying we've seen all the issue 1's now and tomorrow we get the second Minutemen issue? Wondering if DC will release a digital bundle of all the first issues a bit cheaper to try and tempt in people on the fence about checking them out. Hell, they probably expect people will buy this JUST to hate it
Quote from: bluemeanie on 10 July, 2012, 10:45:38 AM
Anyone seen the Watchmen motion comic?
It has one guy doing all the voices including Silk Spectre.... I'll just leave that one out there
And no big surprise to anyone I'm sure but chalk me up in the plus column for the Watchmen movie. Loved it.
So am I right in saying we've seen all the issue 1's now and tomorrow we get the second Minutemen issue? Wondering if DC will release a digital bundle of all the first issues a bit cheaper to try and tempt in people on the fence about checking them out. Hell, they probably expect people will buy this JUST to hate it
Plenty of haters out there, but plenty of level-headed readers who just like good comics too!
I'm afraid I'm going to have to inform your wallet that 'Rorschach' and 'Dr. Manhattan' are still to come.
DC App / Comixology sales are always popular. They'll reduce by at least 0.79 cents after one month, but I could definitely see a bigger price cut on the digital 1st issues.
So I expect you'll all be buying the toaster.
(http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads//2012/07/WatchmenToaster1.jpg?848685)
Firstly... toaster... AWESOME!!! (yeah, I know its fake). You'll look up and say "Muffins" and the toaster will look down and say "No"
Second - more issue 1's - My wallet says boo but the rest of me says cool. Only been one dud in the bunch so far and I wouldnt even class that as bad, just not as good as the rest, so up for checking out more. Just wish, as I do with all of the rare single issues I now pick up, I could get some kind of "Hey, you spent X amount on the digital copies, that gets you 25% off the collected edition"
Pretty much gone all digital with my reading now but for some reason I still need the good stuff to be sat on the shelf. It's a sickness
Quote from: PreacherCain on 10 July, 2012, 04:53:47 AM
There were elements of Watchmen that I liked - primarily the production design - but I don't believe Snyder did adapt it at all. It's more of a translation. He tried that Sin City technique of lifting the panels of the comic straight and putting them on to film, which doesn't work at all for me. Lovely to look at but a shambles narratively. The acting was pretty poor throughout and frankly, Snyder's style of filmmaking is about as far removed from the tone of Watchmen as you can possibly get. Violence porn, slow motion, inconsistencies throughout (is Nite Owl a superhero or not? Cos' those fight scenes heavily suggest the he and Silk Spectre have superpowers; at other times, not at all).
I did quite like the Dr. Manhattan segment in the middle however, I think that worked pretty well. For me, it's sort of like reading Watchmen but only with Gibbons' visuals and without Moore's storytelling.
I would have preferred to see Paul Greengrass' film. Yes, he'd intended on adapting it in a much different and extreme way but I generally prefer to see adaptations that are happy to take liberties with the source material (Children of Men being a brilliant example!). I think he would have remained much more true to Watchmen as a whole, even if some of the surfaces were drastically altered.
I suppose my issue with Snyder is that I think he's a terrible director. I also find his handling of female characters incredibly off-putting and weirdly aggressive (it's at its worst in 300 and Suckerpunch). In the film Watchmen he exploits Silk Spectre's sexuality in a fetishistic way; in the comic she's perceived like that within the story by other characters but not by the reader (or by Nite Owl, for that matter!). The film gets all leery with her which suggests to me Snyder missed the bloody point in almost every conceivable way. Similar with Rorschach; his violent rage is celebrated and glorified while in the comic it's disturbing and, well, kind of sad. It's all surface and style without any real depth.
Still I'll admit Snyder's 'style' might actually suit The Man of Steel if some of his worst excesses are reigned in by Nolan and co. I don't think you can give him credit for bringing Watchmen to the screen either; surely that's to the credit of the producers. I'm pretty sure Greengrass was working under the same deal (rating/budget) but the writers strike in Hollywood threw a spanner in the works and he had to leave.
So essentially it's all down to personal taste. :P
Let's come back to this when the Before Watchmen films hit, eh?
Yep, sums up how I feel precisely. It's an impressive production in my ways but the tone and attitude of it is just dead wrong. If you enjoy it as a movie, fine, so do I. If you think it does the material justice as a worthy and quality adaptation... perhaps you need to go back and read the comic again.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 10 July, 2012, 10:45:38 AMHell, they probably expect people will buy this JUST to hate it
I can believe that based on DCs ramshackle business models, actually, as like most of their bad decisions it's based on dated information or presumptions about the market, as if people want to read something only because they're determined to acquire ammunition for a hate tract, they'll just download it from a scanning site or read it in the store.
Hasn't it sold REALLY well though?
Based on last months comic sales chart I'd say it was a pretty good business model. Wouldnt mind betting that, like when the movie came out, the original trade has had a spike in sales too*
TOP 10 COMIC BOOKS
RANK DESCRIPTION PRICE ITEM CODE VENDOR
1 AVENGERS VS. X-MEN #6 $3.99 APR120575 MAR
2 AVENGERS VS. X-MEN #5 $3.99 APR120569 MAR
3 BATMAN #10 $3.99 APR120193 DC
4 JUSTICE LEAGUE #10 $3.99 APR120161 DC
5 BEFORE WATCHMEN: MINUTEMEN #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120137 DC
6 BEFORE WATCHMEN: COMEDIAN #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120149 DC
7 BEFORE WATCHMEN: SILK SPECTRE #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120143 DC
8 BEFORE WATCHMEN: NITE OWL #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120155 DC
9 SPIDER-MEN #1 $3.99 APR120603 MAR
10 AVX VS #3 $3.99 APR120567 MAR
* Checking the trades list, Watchmen was the 3rd highest seller of last month. Know it consistently sells but doubt it's always top ten
Gotta hand it to DC. They sure know how to coin in on their fans. I wonder how many copies Watchmen has sold since its inception?
V
Quote from: bluemeanie on 10 July, 2012, 10:08:45 PM
Hasn't it sold REALLY well though?
Based on last months comic sales chart I'd say it was a pretty good business model. Wouldnt mind betting that, like when the movie came out, the original trade has had a spike in sales too*
TOP 10 COMIC BOOKS
RANK DESCRIPTION PRICE ITEM CODE VENDOR
1 AVENGERS VS. X-MEN #6 $3.99 APR120575 MAR
2 AVENGERS VS. X-MEN #5 $3.99 APR120569 MAR
3 BATMAN #10 $3.99 APR120193 DC
4 JUSTICE LEAGUE #10 $3.99 APR120161 DC
5 BEFORE WATCHMEN: MINUTEMEN #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120137 DC
6 BEFORE WATCHMEN: COMEDIAN #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120149 DC
7 BEFORE WATCHMEN: SILK SPECTRE #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120143 DC
8 BEFORE WATCHMEN: NITE OWL #1 (MR) $3.99 APR120155 DC
9 SPIDER-MEN #1 $3.99 APR120603 MAR
10 AVX VS #3 $3.99 APR120567 MAR
To be honest, I was really surprised that they didn't sell better. These are new Watchmen comics. And they're being beaten by random issues of Batman, JL and two issues of a Marvel crossover that's in its middle period.
I'm not suggesting it's a flop by any means but I was genuinely surprised to see the first issue of Minutemen place at only #5. It suggests they've not roped in any of the million people who've bought the Watchmen trade or brought in any new readers at all (they haven't even brought in all of
their regular readers since more people bought Batman and JL!)
Maybe the trades will sell better, time will tell. It'll be interesting to see how subsequent issues sell and how big the drop-off is.
Yeah, the issue #2's will be the teller really. Also, like you said, I imagine a lot of people will be waiting for the overall reaction and possibly picking up eventual trades
While I agree that "middle" issues are where you can appraise the success of a short-run series, bear in mind that in the direct market, lower numbers pretty much just mean lower shop orders to reflect the actual sales performance of earlier issues. Ie: 100 copies are ordered but only fifty are sold, so next month's order is for 50 issues because the retailer pays for all the copies ordered and not just for the ones he manages to sell. Basically, whatever sales numbers we see for issue #2 are a more accurate picture of how many #1s were sold than direct market numbers for pre-orders.
With an IP like this, though, I'm pretty sure actual sales are redundant.
That's true. There could conceivably be a lot of issues just sitting on the shelves, not being sold. I'd assume these #1s may have drawn in a few speculators too (but in this day and age, I'm not certain how big an effect they have on sales).
I was curious over the last few weeks because - unlike what happened with the New 52 - there were no announcements of first order sell outs and second/third/fourth print runs. Pretty sure all these comics are still in their first printings which again, I find a little surprising.
Does anyone know DC's actual plans for the trades? Are they going to release them as individual 4-issue arcs? One of the main things I hear from people who read Watchmen (and don't regularly read comics) is that they like that it's all in the one book. It'll be interesting to see whether BW appeals to anyone outside regular comic-book buying circles.
Would imagine some will do well in trade just on the creators involved.
Darwyn Cook has a BIG following from book readers who would never pick up a floppy or even enter a comic shop. His Parker books, quite rightly, do really well.
Know Jae Lee has a bit of a cult following too.
It does strike me as a series that will do better in trade than in singles. Most limited series do to be fair.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 11 July, 2012, 12:07:22 AM
Darwyn Cook has a BIG following from book readers who would never pick up a floppy or even enter a comic shop. His Parker books, quite rightly, do really well.
Perhaps. Though I'm a huge fan of his Parker books and have absolute zero interest in reading Minutemen.
As I recall its the third issue that is the telling one, as second issue orders are in before 1st issues are actually out? That might have changed with more timely cut off points for changing orders, but that's certainly how it used to be.
That said my guess, and as all the talk here is its only a guess 'cos, lets be honest, none of us have any real insight into DCs 'Business models' ramshackled or otherwise, is the floppy sales are secondary to the trade sales when they hit on this one.
Watchmen's extended market and audience has almost all been in trade sales and so again I'd guess that's where DC is expecting to pick up the 'bigger' share of its sales.
So far so, so good I think. I really liked Minutemen and Comedian(felt very retro) and Silk spectre was quite good fun.
Nightowl, Ozymandias doesn't cut it for me. They both feel like they rely to much on the watchmen book, the other three feel like they could have worked even if I hadn't read the book.
I'm really looking forward to Rorsarch, if it's only half as good as Luthor or Joker then it's one of this years finest books for me :) !
I feel even if none of these books turn out to be good, or -who knows?- the best I'v read, I don't think it'll change what I feel about the Watchmen book.
It's like how I like Batman, I only like a couple of the books (very very much), which means there's alot Batman books I don't like. But that doesn't change a bit what I think/feel about those I love.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 11 July, 2012, 06:11:24 AMnone of us have any real insight into DCs 'Business models' ramshackled or otherwise,
Apart from those of us with internet access who can read.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 11 July, 2012, 05:58:33 PM
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 11 July, 2012, 06:11:24 AMnone of us have any real insight into DCs 'Business models' ramshackled or otherwise,
Apart from those of us with internet access who can read.
Bless.
As predicted, the 1st issue of 'Minutemen' dropped to €1.59 on Comixology the minute the 2nd issue became available for download.
An affordable option for anyone previously thinking about giving the best issue of Before Watchmen a go.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 11 July, 2012, 07:07:10 PM
Bless.
No joke, I look forward to stories
about DC more than I do their comics these days (Chris Roberson's are especially hilarious), but hey, their business is entertainment and does it matter how that comes about?
Quote from: Professah Byah on 11 July, 2012, 08:05:14 PM
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 11 July, 2012, 07:07:10 PM
Bless.
No joke, I look forward to stories about DC more than I do their comics these days (Chris Roberson's are especially hilarious), but hey, their business is entertainment and does it matter how that comes about?
That George Perez story was ridiculous. Movie people deciding on last minute changes to the comic!? Nuts.
DC editorial is an absolute shambles and has been for a very long time now (with the possible exception of whoevers in charge of Batman/GL, who do an admirable job considering how many plates there are to spin).
In fairness, movie people having a say in comics content is hardly new at DC, the most famous example being either Supergirl's prominence in the books around the time her movie was in theaters, or when they killed Superman off in the comics because they weren't allowed to marry him before Lois And Clark did.
See also: Marvel - the way they recently shoehorned in a black Nick Fury ala The Avengers movie is gobsmackingly contrived.
or the way Anderson has been popping up in 2000AD lately? ::)
They'd be idiots not to do stuff like this to be fair. Tho I still get slightly pissed off every time I see faux Fury in the comics. Have they moved him out of the Ultimate universe into the "real" one yet?
Just read Minutemen No. 2. I thought Comedian was so mediocre and Ozymandias so bad and so utterly pointless, glorious art aside, that I was satisfied that my pessimism about the whole enterprise was well founded.
But now I give in, I don't care what kind of a treacherous fanboy it makes me: Minutemen 2 is a great comic.
Again, what worked for me was the sense that this was another version of these characters, rather than dutiful backstory for a story that needed none. Cooke's visual style is sufficently distinct and coherent to be its own thing, and his characters either seem different or entirely new. Mothman, Silhouette, Hooded Justice and Larry hardly got a line in in Watchmen, and Cooke is wise to make them and their stories the focus of what is now a very different draft of Hollis' memoir. The divergence is plausible, but marked enough to be something all its own, with some characters' competence and abilities now bordering on the genuinely superhuman, while at the same time the Minutemen's story is shown as something quite different to what we saw in Watchmen.
This feels like Darwyn's Cooke's Minutemen, as opposed to Before Alan Moore's Watchmen. If only all the books could be like this.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 12 July, 2012, 04:25:33 PMHave they moved him out of the Ultimate universe into the "real" one yet?
Joe Quesada and Brian Bendis said in 2000 or so that the day they did any kind of crossover between the regular Marvel universe and Ultimate Marvel, the company was officially out of ideas.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 12 July, 2012, 04:25:33 PM
or the way Anderson has been popping up in 2000AD lately? ::)
Sure but I always saw those as common sense publishing ideas. There's a movie coming out, feature that character a bit more. I don't think it was ever to the degree that Perez seems to be saying (after all, he would have been working at DC Comics when a lot of these other films/TV shows were made). I suppose he didn't give any specific examples in fairness but Perez has been in this game long enough to have the necessary experience to say that a particular aspect like that has gotten out of hand. He was suggesting that it was far more extreme and hands-on than in the previous decades that he worked for the company.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 12 July, 2012, 04:25:33 PM. Tho I still get slightly pissed off every time I see faux Fury in the comics. Have they moved him out of the Ultimate universe into the "real" one yet?
They sort-of already have. 'Ultimate' Fury has a good old chinwag with Peter Parker 'Prime' in Amazing Spidermen no. 2. Which rather makes Prof. Byah's point.
Not read that but was hoping it wouldnt be used to merge the two as I know its the "real" Spidey in the Ultimate Universe. Stopped reading the Ultimate stuff when.... well I wont spoil but you know what.
Anyway as long as they dont bring SAM FUCKING JACKSON IN AN EYEPATCH over from the Ultimate stuff they can do what they like
Decided to give the regular Spidey books a try a few months back and have been enjoying them a lot more than I thought I would actually. Fun comics
(apologies for the thread drift)
If you feel the need to apologise for thread drift, this is clearly your first day on the board.
And nowt wrong with Sam Jackson as Nick Fury, though I thought the comics switcheroo would make more sense if Nick went off on holiday somewhere tropical and came back with a tan.
Yes, I did pitch this to Marvel and no, they did not get back to me.
Saw these in Forbidden Planet today and as I quickly looked at them all I thought was they feel flimsy, god haven't comics gone up in price and don't they look a bit pants.
Quote from: W. R. Logan on 12 July, 2012, 10:13:06 PM
Saw these in Forbidden Planet today and as I quickly looked at them all I thought was they feel flimsy, god haven't comics gone up in price and don't they look a bit pants.
The 'self cover' craze has led to the majority of comics having the structural integrity of a tea-soaked Hob Nob.
It sometimes feels like I'm the only Sellout / Catweasel / Traitor to humanity comic fan reading this, but my comic shop owner assures me it's selling well. I'll have good company in the darkest pits of Hell one day no doubt.
Anyway- 2nd issue of Silk Spectre anyone? Teenage angst, psychedelic drugs, the Fab Four and career defining art by Amanda Connor? I gotta admit, I'm enjoying it more than i did Century 2009.
But then, Ive already established that I have no soul.
Don't worry I plan to condemn myself to a life of worthless self recrimination only by massive overdoes of evil in the form of trades (printed with the blood of kittens I assume)...
... or I'll just read some good comics when they're collected...
... nah condemning my soul must be right...
Quote from: Link Prime on 30 July, 2012, 09:14:49 PMAnyway- 2nd issue of Silk Spectre anyone? Teenage angst, psychedelic drugs, the Fab Four and career defining art by Amanda Connor?
Well it ain't as good as
LoEG Century, but it's bloody good fun all the same. A very welcome completely new tone, as well as a chance to meet some of the biggest off-stage names from the original. It's impossible to believe this story takes place within the same world as
Watchmen, any more than it takes place in the
Archie universe it equally sometimes resembles, and that's more than fine by me: this is just a plain and simple good comic - even the gratuitous nudity is tasteful.
Hmm.
Well, I changed my mind about Alan Moore's stance on Watchmen. You could previously have characterised it as: "You signed a work-for-hire contract going in, so shut the fuck up, Alan." I now realize (more from some unearthed interviews with Dave and Alan from around the time than anything more recently said on the subject) that their contract appears to have resembled something more like a novelist's contract, where the publisher retains the publishing rights and pays royalties for as long as the book's in print. As such, yeah, Moore's been screwed. I haven't had sight of the actual contract, obviously, but if it grants DC license to publish Watchmen, then they may be on somewhat dodgy legal ground publishing Before Watchmen at all. Moore has hinted at as much, but suggested he has neither the money nor the stamina for a protracted legal battle with Warner.
I mention all this because, despite having no intention of every buying one of these comics, two of them were pressed into my hands the other day and -- since I seem to be revising my opinions of the whole issue -- I thought I might as well take a look.
Rorschach #1: How can you claim to be approaching a Before Watchmen book with any kind of respect or affection for the original work, but not have noticed that Rorschach doesn't swear? At all, as far as I can remember. And what's with the typewriter conceit for the narration? The affectation of having errors actually XXXXed out is supposed to suggest authenticity, verisimilitude, but what it says to me is that I'm supposed to imagine Walter sitting down with a manual typewriter, clacking out loose-leaf sheets of text like some novelist from a film noir. So what happened to that journal he was hand-writing in, you know, the whole of the original fucking comic? Am I supposed to believe that he was later transcribing it?! The plot is perfunctory and unoriginal, and Rorschach is just some guy dressed in the same costume. There's no part of this book where he sounds like the actual character.
Dr Manhattan #1: Well, this is basically just re-telling the whole of Dr Manhattan's origin story, with panel after panel pretty much re-drawn from the book, but with a twist (sort of) at the end. The whole thing feels like fanfic, right down to the aping of the original book's typography and the deliberate choice of Gibbons' lettering font.
So... yeah, they're horrible. I mean, both books look great, but one tries waaaay to hard to be the original, while the other doesn't try nearly hard enough.
What a shocking waste of some serious talent.
Cheers
Jim
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 31 August, 2012, 04:23:24 PM
Hmm.
Well, I changed my mind about Alan Moore's stance on Watchmen. You could previously have characterised it as: "You signed a work-for-hire contract going in, so shut the fuck up, Alan." I now realize (more from some unearthed interviews with Dave and Alan from around the time than anything more recently said on the subject) that their contract appears to have resembled something more like a novelist's contract, where the publisher retains the publishing rights and pays royalties for as long as the book's in print. As such, yeah, Moore's been screwed. I haven't had sight of the actual contract, obviously, but if it grants DC license to publish Watchmen, then they may be on somewhat dodgy legal ground publishing Before Watchmen at all. Moore has hinted at as much, but suggested he has neither the money nor the stamina for a protracted legal battle with Warner.
I mention all this because, despite having no intention of every buying one of these comics, two of them were pressed into my hands the other day and -- since I seem to be revising my opinions of the whole issue -- I thought I might as well take a look.
Rorschach #1: How can you claim to be approaching a Before Watchmen book with any kind of respect or affection for the original work, but not have noticed that Rorschach doesn't swear? At all, as far as I can remember. And what's with the typewriter conceit for the narration? The affectation of having errors actually XXXXed out is supposed to suggest authenticity, verisimilitude, but what it says to me is that I'm supposed to imagine Walter sitting down with a manual typewriter, clacking out loose-leaf sheets of text like some novelist from a film noir. So what happened to that journal he was hand-writing in, you know, the whole of the original fucking comic? Am I supposed to believe that he was later transcribing it?! The plot is perfunctory and unoriginal, and Rorschach is just some guy dressed in the same costume. There's no part of this book where he sounds like the actual character.
Dr Manhattan #1: Well, this is basically just re-telling the whole of Dr Manhattan's origin story, with panel after panel pretty much re-drawn from the book, but with a twist (sort of) at the end. The whole thing feels like fanfic, right down to the aping of the original book's typography and the deliberate choice of Gibbons' lettering font.
So... yeah, they're horrible. I mean, both books look great, but one tries waaaay to hard to be the original, while the other doesn't try nearly hard enough.
What a shocking waste of some serious talent.
Cheers
Jim
I thought the exact same thing about the typed journal! Rorschach is also wearing the wrong shoes although that may have been intentional as someone quips about his height later in the issue so maybe this is when he decides to go for elevator soles?
I thought this issue was really pretty poor - Brian Azzarello is the most overrated writer in comicdom as far as I'm concerned. No one in his stories has an authentic, unique voice. All he seems to have picked up about Rorshach's character is that he cuts words out of sentences. At one point Rorschach says something like 'bitch to be you right now' which apart from not sounding like something Rorschach would say doesn't sound much like something someone in this time period would say.
The nicest thing I could say about the Rorschach book is that it's not as bad as the Comedian one.
I thought Dr Manhatten was fairly entertaining in as much as it was a simplified retelling / re-cap of events in Watchmen but whether it was worth reading rests entirely on what happens next. The twist ending could be the start of something interesting but I suspect it will turn out to be a very sci-fi lite / Star Trek style mystery.
Wow, interest in this sure has dwindled shockingly fast - if Jim hadn't shown up, I don't think anyone would have even bothered hating it. Even I can't be bothered slagging off yet another nonsensical Brian Azzarello story that leaves me scratching my head and wondering yet again what everyone is on about when they sing his praises as I can't even figure out what the story in my hands is supposed to be about or why nobody talks like humans. I suppose that's a criticism - job done, DC hype machine!
"Opinions on this series have been heated! Better that than indifference! PLEASE CHRIST JUST PRETEND OUR BOOKS MATTER AND WE WILL PAY YOU."
Always wondered about the legal ground the prequels lie upon: in theory, the rights will revert to Moore and Gibbons at some future date (okay, they won't but in theory, hypothetically, etcetera), so where does that leave spin-off material like this? Does that mean Moore and Gibbons own the prequel material seeing as they now own the Watchmen characters and story?
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 31 August, 2012, 04:23:24 PM
Rorschach #1: How can you claim to be approaching a Before Watchmen book with any kind of respect or affection for the original work, but not have noticed that Rorschach doesn't swear? At all, as far as I can remember. And what's with the typewriter conceit for the narration? The affectation of having errors actually XXXXed out is supposed to suggest authenticity, verisimilitude, but what it says to me is that I'm supposed to imagine Walter sitting down with a manual typewriter, clacking out loose-leaf sheets of text like some novelist from a film noir. So what happened to that journal he was hand-writing in, you know, the whole of the original fucking comic? Am I supposed to believe that he was later transcribing it?! The plot is perfunctory and unoriginal, and Rorschach is just some guy dressed in the same costume. There's no part of this book where he sounds like the actual character.
Dr Manhattan #1: Well, this is basically just re-telling the whole of Dr Manhattan's origin story, with panel after panel pretty much re-drawn from the book, but with a twist (sort of) at the end. The whole thing feels like fanfic, right down to the aping of the original book's typography and the deliberate choice of Gibbons' lettering font.
So... yeah, they're horrible. I mean, both books look great, but one tries waaaay to hard to be the original, while the other doesn't try nearly hard enough.
What a shocking waste of some serious talent.
Cheers
Jim
Its a damn shame someone didnt pass on 'Minutemen' or even 'Silk Spectre' to you Jim, they're far, far superior to the Azzarello & JMS titles.
Felt I should chip in and say "Still reading them, still enjoying them".
Some more than others but nothing I'm hating.
I'm actually quite curious to know why you like Silk Spectre, BM. It's sort of a CW drama more than anything else and I'm not sure where it fits with the rest of the books' faux noir aesthetic, except that it features the character (and lots of homage to scenes) from Watchmen.
Also not sure what to make of Rorschach myself. On one hand, there's the impression that what we know of the character in Watchmen comes from his POV and that for all his talk of The Truth At All Costs he's an unreliable narrator (or at the very least prone to letting his worldview skew his recollection), while with the actual Rorschach book I'm unsure if this is still the case or if we're supposed to take what we see as reality unfiltered by the main character.
As it is, it actually seems like a decent mid-1970s exploitation crime thriller in the style of Hobo With A Shotgun, helped by the art that people seem to be ragging on elsewhere for some reason. The Steranko cover is pretty cool, too.
My biggest problem would be that it reads too much as a standard Azzarello outing, by which I mean it reads like someone doing a really funny piss-take of Garth Ennis' overly-angsty narration that kind of undermines that great establishing bird's-eye shot of night-time 1977 New York City. That it's followed by a hooker wiping cum off her face and then buying drugs makes it even more difficult to take seriously, but at least it's committed to its schtick. Like I say, if you're a fan of HWAS, this might be well worth a gander.
Well with Silk Spectre I got the first one just as I wanted to give all of them a shot. The main draw for me was the artwork as I'm a huge fan of Amanda Conner. Have her hardback art book on the shelf downstairs.
Also I read a fair variety of stuff, you only have to pick up 2000AD to do that, including quite a bit of Manga these days, but I've never really read anything dealing with.... for want of a better expression... the pressures of teen life for a girl. Thats what this book is really. Its got the superhero overtones but its still her growing up, peer pressure, parental pressure. self image etc etc
I'm not about to run out and see if theres a graphic novel of Lindsay Lohan's Mean Girls, but as a one off mini series I'm kinda liking how unlike anything else I read it is. Of course the fact it's written by Darwyn Cook, who I'm also a big fan of, helps.
Spot on re: Silk Spectre, Blue. I like it because it's fun and it looks great, and most importantly generally ploughs its own furrow in terms of visuals and tone, even when it's doing the almost inevitable homage scenes. Similarly Minutemen continues to be fresh and interesting - I'd quite happily see a Watchmen reboot series taking these two as a new starting point for a new version of the universe.
I found Ozymandias and Rorshach almost unreadable in their tired predictability and the pervasive sense of missing the point despite endless parroting of the originals. Although the art in both was excellent. Nite Owl and Comedian were just plain dull. I'm not following any of those now.
I didn't really get into Silk Spectre beyond the artwork as it heavily borrows from Brian Wood's coming of age travelogues like New York Five and Local, or Sean McKeever's Marvel titles, though fair play for giving material like that a go. It's sadly under-represented beyond the odd - increasingly rare - shojo-aping teen book.
I'll have to read these at some point. Might pick up Minute Men , S.S. & Rochac I guess.
I was optimistic about these, not knowing enough of the detail in the contract to take a moral stance. But despite some amazing talent and everyone's best efforts (Amanda Conner, take a bow), it felt like reanimating the corpse of a loved one. Turns out watching someone you love dancing across the floor with the wrong voice and mannerisms is no fun at all. You'd rather remember them as they were.
The only book I enjoyed, on an emotional level, was Dr Manhattan 1. Whether it delivers on its promise remains to be seen. Jim Campbell described it as fanfic, and I know what he means, but I guess I don't see that as pejorative. Look at Zarjaz, some great stuff there. Isn't all of Before Watchmen fanfic, initially at least? Not using the proper typography is where the others felt inauthentic, to me. Sir Dave's lettering for Rorschach IS his voice, and if you don't use it...good luck to you!
What Dr Manhattan does is capture the mood and voice of the original, but without merely copying. Adam Hughes sequentials are stunning, and just as carefully composed as Dave's, delivering some original storytelling. It respects and understands the original, then adds new dimensions. Dr Manhattan is a hell of difficult hero to tell a dramatic story with, being so powerful and detached from humanity, so the solution Straczynski devised impressed me. Can he deliver on the promise? It depends on 'what's in the box'.
I assume we're all still reading this and just pretending to each other (and ourselves) we're not???
Anyway, just finished the 4th issue of 'Minutemen' (undeniably the premier mini in this series of minis).
Cooke is a f*ckin genius. The best 'Comedien' vignette since the original Watchmen series, and some horrifying backstory for Silhouette too.
If any naysayers were at all interested in this 'Project', they should pick up Minutemen- it's a bloody good comic by a AAA+ creator.
A bit reluctant to kick start this thread as it can course bad blood and all that BUT interesting (and possibly annoying for some people) to see what DC are doing with the collections of these.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/10/before-watchmen-to-double-up-for-hardcover-collections/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/10/before-watchmen-to-double-up-for-hardcover-collections/)
Lucky with these doubling up of stories it leaves the stories I'm interested in together and while I'll probably wait longer for the trade rather than the hardback, I'll be getting the Darwyn Cooke collection (Minute Men and Silk Spectre) and I'll consider the Len Wein one (Ozymandias and Black Freighter) as and when.
I guess the logic behind this is giving book shop readers who have picked up the original a similarly chunky lump of comics rather than a smaller collection that might feel light weight in comparison to Watchmen?
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 10 December, 2012, 03:26:33 PM
A bit reluctant to kick start this thread as it can course bad blood and all that BUT interesting (and possibly annoying for some people) to see what DC are doing with the collections of these.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/10/before-watchmen-to-double-up-for-hardcover-collections/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/10/before-watchmen-to-double-up-for-hardcover-collections/)
Lucky with these doubling up of stories it leaves the stories I'm interested in together and while I'll probably wait longer for the trade rather than the hardback, I'll be getting the Darwyn Cooke collection (Minute Men and Silk Spectre) and I'll consider the Len Wein one (Ozymandias and Black Freighter) as and when.
I guess the logic behind this is giving book shop readers who have picked up the original a similarly chunky lump of comics rather than a smaller collection that might feel light weight in comparison to Watchmen?
I was actually thinking about the possibility of them doing something like this, and I can't complain how they're paired the books. Especially not the Azzarello stuff (which I'v liked the best together with Cooke's Watchmen), even if I hope for a better cover (Rorsarsch issue one is too damn mint to pass up!)
Thing is with the comedian is that it started slow, but the stories are starting to connect with each other. And I'v actually started to feel a bit sad for the guy (). Rorsarsch has been a bit predictable, but it's only two issues in and I'm sure Azzarello have some trick up his sleave (his wording that ends 100Bullets, Joker, Luthor and Spaceman are insanely good, so I'm expect no less from his two watchmen books).
Cooke's Silk spectre was good fun, but minutemen really shines.
So maybe it'll be the deluxe version of Watchmen (got a hardback, but in swedish) paired with Rorsarsch/Comedian and Minutemen/Silk Spectre. Good times in june/july :)
Quote from: Apestrife on 10 December, 2012, 04:31:57 PM
Rorsarsch has been a bit predictable, but it's only two issues in and I'm sure Azzarello have some trick up his sleave
What, like writing some dialogue that actually
sounds like Rorschach?
Cheers
Jim
I found Rorschach to be the worst of the ones I've read.
I think Silk Spectre has been the best followed by Minutemen. This has only served to make me want to check out more Darwin Cooke stuff rather than more Before Watchmen though!
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 10 December, 2012, 05:17:16 PM
Quote from: Apestrife on 10 December, 2012, 04:31:57 PM
Rorsarsch has been a bit predictable, but it's only two issues in and I'm sure Azzarello have some trick up his sleave
What, like writing some dialogue that actually sounds like Rorschach?
Cheers
Jim
Could be too much of optimism for my part since I love Lee's art, and always hype Azzarello's stuff.
But of course. Rorsarsch saying "serious smack" sounds fun, but it isn't nowhere up there with monolog about the night he flipped. But still, it's not often Azzarello is a let down for me, and I certainly hope not in this case either.