Before Watchmen

[ThatNickGuy]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/01/before-watchmen/

Ordinarily, I'd be one of the very first outspoken people raging against this. Watchmen works great as a self-contained series that gives you all the backstory needed and ends on a note that hints at a future but wraps up enough that you don't need anymore.

...but goddamn is DC ever throwing everything behind this. They've got some amazing creative teams behind these prequel mini-series:

Rorschach by Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo
Comedian by Brian Azzarello and JG Jones)
Minutemen by Darwyn Cooke
Silk Spectre by Darwyn Cooke and Amanda Conner
Doctor Manhattan by J Michael Straczynski and Adam Hughes
Nite Owl by Joe Michael Strazynski (and presumably Andy and Joe Kubert)
Ozymandias by Len Wein and Jae Lee.

The two series by Darwyn Cooke alone might be worth the price of admission.

I'm still not 100% behind this just on principle, but I can't deny that my interest is definitely piqued.

 

[Dave]

I'm not behind this at all. It would be like someone taking a classic like "Star Wars" and creating a bunch of prequels. I'll bet they'd suck.

 

[Frank]

Chip Zdarsky tweeted that this news brings him hope he can do his Watchmen sequel!

http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=13655

Dude is fucking funny.

OH, NSFW by the way.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'm not behind this at all. It would be like someone taking a classic like "Star Wars" and creating a bunch of prequels. I'll bet they'd suck.

There's no way that a Star Wars movie would ever suck!

- ok, ever since the ewoks (nothing personal Gas) the whole franchise went down hill.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

At least the Star Wars prequels were made by the guy that made Star Wars.

 

[Gryfter]

Can you say money grab?.... I thought you could.

 

[Covar]

I don't really care about this. Watchmen didn't need any more backstory. I also have the feeling that this will just feel off. Like how the Retrospective books DC did last year just felt off. Like they were one half from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but still painfully obvious that they were written in 2011.

Also I just think the new DC logo is awful. It looks less like the logo of a major brand and more like a generic book publisher.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

At least the Star Wars prequels were made by the guy that made Star Wars.

Given that he didn't exclusively do his original trilogy, I don't think that argument holds water. Unlike the original trilogies, he wrote and directed the prequels. And we all saw how well that worked out.

Plus, at least half of the Watchmen team (Dave Gibbons) has given his support. Not that I'm trying to defend DC's actions here.

 

[Covar]

Newsarama did a piece asking creators about it. I really like Peter David's response, it wonderfully sums up my issue with Alan Moore.

When you’re talking about “creators,” I suspect you’re mostly talking about Alan Moore. David Gibbons’ judicious phrasing about the endeavor, I think, expresses a positive mindset in seeing the work as a tribute, an homage, especially when one considers that Watchmen began its creative life as an updating of the Charlton characters; if it had remained that, then Moore would have had nothing to say about ownership to begin with, “draconian” contracts or no.
I think Moore is on more slippery grounds, asserting that these prequels are DC's simply depending upon 25 year old ideas of his, implying that it’s a sign of some sort of creative bankruptcy. Yes, Moore — whom I’ve never had the honor of meeting — is correct that there is no sequel to “Moby Dick.” But Moore’s position is odd considering he took characters created by Jules Verne and Bram Stoker and turned them into superheroes, and transformed beloved literary heroines into subjects of erotica. Does public domain automatically make one morally superior in recycling the iconic characters created by authors who are no longer around to voice their protests? Considering his Moby Dick comparison, apparently he doesn’t think so. Does the fact that it's a corporation taking the initiative rather than a single individual automatically make the endeavor inferior? That’s a hard argument to make considering that a corporate entity desiring to utilize its properties led to “Watchmen” in the first place. The fact that Moore is so vehemently opposed to the other authors working upon his characters — characters that are pastiches of Charlton Comics creators — might tell you something about how L. Frank Baum would likely have reacted to Moore's handling of Dorothy. And if that's the case, people who stridently protest Watchmen prequels might want to reconsider the moral validity of their ire.

To me, DC's announcement simply means that Alan Moore's work has reached the iconic status of such characters as Superman and Swamp Thing, about both of whom Moore has graced us with some of the most compelling and memorable stories ever told. Let us hope that the storytelling bar that Moore has set in his own work on other people's creations will be met — and perhaps even exceeded — by those who are now following his lead.

 

[Espy]

I don't care about this at all. I used to. I might care if Moore was doing it 10+ years ago, now if he did it would just be them all having sex over and over.

I will say though, as much I as I don't give a shit... Darwyn Cooke doing the Minuteman? DAMN. Thats probably an immediate buy.

 

[Vagabond]

A lot of these writers and artists do great work, and I'm sure the stories they've been assigned to here will continue to be just that.

That doesn't stop this entire project from being one notch above fan fiction. Here we are revisiting a perfectly self contained story 25 years after the fact, a story that was pretty much a criticism of this exact scenario in the first place.

I love my superheros, I do. But the stagnation that comes from never wanting to move on from the past is, at times, infuriating. You end up with shit like this, or One More Day, or Liefeld taking over three New52 DC titles. When does it end?

 

[Espy]

I really think the whole "how dare they do this" argument is kind of funny in this case. Almost everything that has made Moore famous, from Watchmen to LXG to Lost Girls is based on him taking other people's creations and doing whatever the hell he wants with them.

Thats all cool though, but when DC wants to have some of the top talent in the comic industry write some stories about the characters that someone created that someone else wrote about one time and suddenly it's sacrilege.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this is "necessary" or "good". Just that the outrage on the net over this is... well kind of silly and hypocritical I guess.

 

[Covar]

And what's with Sherlock on BBC? I think we can all agree that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said all that needs to be said on his characters.

 

[drawn_inward]

And what's with Sherlock on BBC? I think we can all agree that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said all that needs to be said on his characters.

Is that sarcasm? If not, I really like the Sherlock series on BBC/PBS. It's better than Guy Richie's version.

As for Watchmen, I guess I never really got what the big deal was with this book. I haven't picked up a comic in years though, so what do I know. I really like the idea of Kuberts with JMS though.

 

[Covar]

Is that sarcasm? If not, I really like the Sherlock series on BBC/PBS. It's better than Guy Richie's version.

As for Watchmen, I guess I never really got what the big deal was with this book. I haven't picked up a comic in years though, so what do I know. I really like the idea of Kuberts with JMS though.

Oh it's definitely sarcasm.

Watchmen really just showed what could be done with a comic book on a literary level. It unfortunately also helped to usher in both the "gritty and real" period and the "mainstream comics suck and are terrible" readers. It's not nearly as amazing and defining as some people would leave you to believe, yet at the same time it is wonderfully executed and well done.

Also the movie was utter crap that somehow managed to completely miss the entire point of the work while attempting to tell you what it was about with as much subtlety and restraint as Lady Gaga.

 

[kaykordeath]

While I am interested in this (I came to comics and then Watchmen late in the party...only read it for the first time a year or two before the movie) my biggest concern is that the original really did a good job of showing a complete character arc for each one involved. While seeing some "early" Rorshach or Comedian stories could be fun, I think the original really did encapsulate who these "heroes" were and how they got to the point there were at on page one...

 

[AshburnerX]

Chip Zdarsky tweeted that this news brings him hope he can do his Watchmen sequel!

http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=13655

Dude is fucking funny.

OH, NSFW by the way.

I chuckled when I saw the phrase "full-on asshole." I fell out of chair laughing when they illustrated it.

 

[kaykordeath]

I chuckled when I saw the phrase "full-on asshole." I fell out of chair laughing when they illustrated it.

 

[sixpackshaker]

As for Watchmen, I guess I never really got what the big deal was with this book.

As for some one that was reading comics the year that it came out... IT IS A BIG DEAL. Sure Comics from the mid-80's were improving, but Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns just set the standard for the next several years of comics. When I look around now, I don't really see anything that has topped them in the last 25 years.

 

[ElJuski]

sounds dumb, won't read it, but will read tons of comics fans rationalize this dumb bullshit for the next several months on forums such as this one

 

[Vagabond]

And what's with Sherlock on BBC? I think we can all agree that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said all that needs to be said on his characters.

That's an adaptation to a different medium, not the Doyle estate suddenly giving permission for other authors to write prequels to The Hound of Baskervilles.

 

[ElJuski]

Just means I can get started on writing Slaughterhouse Six

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

And I can write Cat's Dreidel! It'll be great!

 

[ThatNickGuy]

That doesn't stop this entire project from being one notch above fan fiction. Here we are revisiting a perfectly self contained story 25 years after the fact, a story that was pretty much a criticism of this exact scenario in the first place.

Is that really so different from any another mainstream pop icon, like Superman and Spider-Man? The original creators have either passed on or passed away. Everything since then is basically fan fiction then, isn't it? Since they're still just using concepts and mythology created by someone else? Sure, they might add to that mythology with their own stories, but it still required the original to create it.

Which, you know, reading Peter David's remark about Moore, Watchmen, and the Charlton characters, I've heard similar comments made before but for some reason, it's hitting me more this time. He's right. Moore's work in Watchmen - while certainly revolutionary in terms of quality and presentation of comics as a literary form - is still derivative. Watchmen as a story might still have been told, but it relied on the foundations formed by creators like Steve Ditko, who created The Question and Blue Beetle (who Moore turned into Rorschach and Nite Owl, respectively).

 

[ElJuski]

god, that's such a stupid excuse just to buy more of their shit.

PS, I spent the last half hour cooking this baby up: http://littosonline.com/?p=90

 

[Vagabond]

It is different. The Watchmen story was told. There's nothing of significance to add on. It's kind of the motif.

As far as I know, neither Supes nor Spidey were written with a definitive THE END in mind. Which is why the stories can continue on, open to different interpretations, for years and years and years.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

god, that's such a stupid excuse just to buy more of their shit.

I'm still not 100% behind this just on principle

Never said I was buying this shit.

 

[Frank]

I'd buy Chip Zdarsky's Watchmen 2 in a heartbeat, but I have a huge weakness for exposed anus.

 

[ElJuski]

It is different. The Watchmen story was told. There's nothing of significance to add on. It's kind of the motif.

As far as I know, neither Supes nor Spidey were written with a definitive THE END in mind. Which is why the stories can continue on, open to different interpretations, for years and years and years.

less "doing another Batman story" and more like "making another Nolanverse Batman story".

 

[Norris]

So I take it that the folks dead set against this haven't ever watched a James Bond flick that wasn't based on one of the books? Or read any of the books from after 1966 (which would be a shame, because Jeffery Deaver's Carte Blanche was pretty good)? They were, after all, the creative vision (or based on the creative vision) of one author. Some of the flicks strayed very far from the character that Fleming intended.

I would also imagine they would avoid any Star Trek works created after the fall of 1991. After all, Gene Roddenberry's vision of humanity's future is what made that series. He even spoke against some of the directions the franchise was starting to take when he was alive (and he most likely would have disapproved of The Dominion War and Star Trek: Insurrection for the same reasons).

Or one could accept that any creative work undertaken at the behest of a large corporate entity runs the risk of "outgrowing" its creator. Exploiting an iconic (and therefore lucrative) property can be done in any number of ways and DC Comics is exploiting Watchmen by hiring some of its most critically acclaimed writers and artists (and the editor of the original mini) for a series of prequel one-shots. Not a sequel, not an ongoing title. No artwork by Rob Liefeld or story by Jeph Loeb. Is it a cash in? Yup. Is it what Alan Moore wants? No, but he seems to consider his works alone untouchable. Is it somehow disrespectful or crass? I don't think so.

As far as I know, neither Supes nor Spidey were written with a definitive THE END in mind. Which is why the stories can continue on, open to different interpretations, for years and years and years.

Wiseass Answer: "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" by Alan Moore.

 

[Vagabond]

Star Trek, James Bond

See what happened there was different. The original works are still (mostly) that, original. They haven't been revisited with alternative viewpoints or prequels or whatever. No one wrote a book detailing the adventures of M in Live and Let Die, or....something about Star Trek (I have no idea there). Instead, the continuities soldiered on with new stories set within the same universe.

Wiseass Answer: "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" by Alan Moore.

I meant by their original creators. And that's more a what-if now anyway.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Bond: The Daniel Craig movies were essentially a reboot.
Star Trek: Enterprise and the JJ Abrams movie. Not to mention all the comics and novels.

 

[linglingface]

There was definitely enough backstory in the original, however... I'll probably read these! Let's just hope they don't make another movie.

 

[ElJuski]

I think you guys are oblivious to the principle, and not some half-assed attempts at showing how on-going serials can be on-going serials.

Moore is right; you don't right the prequel to Moby Dick. To do so would be cheap, and a true writer would probably have enough dignity to stay away from such a vanity project.

 

[Silver Jelly]

This isn't abour Watchmen, but you just gave me an idea for something to write. You see, I've never read Moby Dick. What if, as a bad writer who gets his chance to be published based on the demands of a greedy publisher, I wrote a ridiculous prequel to Moby Dick, based on the vague notions of the novel I got from derived media (mostly parodies and references), and ridiculous historical and pulpy stereotypes? also, the author could keep slipping into sci-fi/fantasy territory, his true passion, and even get confused and mix Moby Dick with other novels.
If I manage to pull it up, it could be a funny book.