Export thread

Alan Moore Speaks Watchmen 2 To Adi Tantimedh Bleeding Cool Comic Book News and Rumors

I don't know about you guys, but I never get tired of reading Alan Moore, either his comic work or interviews. He's such an eloquent speaker, which flies completely in the face of his look that says "crazy mountain man."

It's a lengthy interview, but one of my favourite bits that jumped out: I have got a great deal of respect for that work. I do not want to see it prostituted. This has always been my position. I don’t want to see it prostituted and made into a run of cheap books that are nothing like the original WATCHMEN which, anyway, wouldn’t work if it was dismantled. Those characters only work as an ensemble. A comic book about Doctor Manhattan would be really obtuse and boring. A comic book about Rorscharch would be really miserable. They only work together in WATCHMEN, although I’m sure there are perhaps people out there in the industry who would like to be the artist or writer on some WATCHMEN prequel or sequel simply to have their name attached to a successful property for once. When Dave Gibbons phoned me up, he assured me that these prequels and sequels would be handled by ‘the industry’s top-flight talents’. Now, I don’t think that the contemporary industry actually has a ‘top-flight’ of talent. I don’t think it’s even got a middle-flight or a bottom-flight of talent. I mean, like I say, there may be people out there who would still be eager to have their name attached to WATCHMEN even if it was in terms of “Yes, these are the people who murdered WATCHMEN”. I don’t want to see that happen.

It's certainly quite insulting to basically knock any current comic writer today and not calling any of them "top-flight" and even lower. But then, I thought about it some more and...well, I don't agree that there aren't any middle or bottom-flight talent, there are not really any on Moore's calibre. I can't think of any other creator who has used the comic medium to not just tell a story, but to use literary devices within the medium to its full advantage. Watchmen is a very dense book, requiring multiple reads to get everything. Hell, every time I crack it open, even just to flip through, I've still found new things that I hadn't noticed before. Say what you will about the ending, but you can't deny that there are very few, if any, comics since then that have managed to do what Watchmen or other works of Moore have done. There's the psychedelic "sex" issue in Swamp Thing. Or the very dense works of V for Vendetta and From Hell. The insane amount of ideas from his ABC line of comics.

I'm not saying that there aren't good creators or good comics out there. Chew, Atomic Robo, Sleeper, Criminal, Elephantment, Essex County, The Unwritten, etc. Actually, The Unwritten might be the closest thing to what I would consider "literary." I've already started to consider it something on par with Sandman. So, there's a lot of good and even great comics out there, but on the level that Moore worked on, most especially Watchmen? I have to agree. And if, somehow, DC did start putting out Watchmen-related spin-offs and such? I wouldn't buy them and never would even consider them.

His opinions are also why I feel the movie didn't need to be made. It works great as a comic because it's a comic. The same things don't work the same in a movie medium. I was very happy, however, that after the trailer was first released, sales for the book skyrocketed.

Thoughts?

I'll just sorta leave this here, too.

I love Alan Moore. I love Watchmen. I think this is a horrible idea.

that being said, Moore is... maybe a little to full of himself. I tend to be more a Warren Ellis fan. He's an asshole, just like Moore, but he's less interested in you thinking he's that much better than you and he just wants you to have some damn fun with your funny books.

Moore wrote The Killing Joke, he can be as full of himself as he likes.

Oh, he can and is. The problem is he seems to think that no one else is doing good stuff (which I assume to him means, "as good as what I do"). While there is very little in comic-dom that is "as good" as the majority of Moore's work, there is an awful lot of fantastic stuff thats come out since Watchmen.

Shegokigo said:

Moore wrote The Killing Joke, he can be as full of himself as he likes.

Click to expand...

because he wrote one of the 3 worst Batman stories of all time?

Don't feel bad Covar, not everyone can have decent taste in comics.

Only one comic has every won the World Fantasy award. Gaiman is just as good a writer and not nearly so full of himself. Moore is a great writer, but he'll never get past himself.

I know, you like The Killing Joke.

ThatNickGuy said:

I'll just sorta leave this here, too.

Click to expand...

well put. well put I say.

Krisken said:

Only one comic has every won the World Fantasy award. Gaiman is just as good a writer and not nearly so full of himself. Moore is a great writer, but he'll never get past himself.

Click to expand...

Sandman, fortunately, is up there with Watchmen among the topmost recommendations for comics.

Art Spiegleman's Maus won the Pullitzer, as well. And Dark Knight Returns was pretty much alongside Watchmen in revolutionizing the industry.

That said, I do agree that there has been some very good, if not great, stories told. But few have had that same level of intricate, literary detail that requires multiple readings to fully get and appreciate all of it. For example, Ed Brubaker is probably the best writer in the biz right now, but even I'll admit that his stuff isn't on the same level as Moore's.

I agree with Espy, though. Warren Ellis is awesome. He knows how to write pure, good, fun comics. Nextwave and Planetary both come to mind. I've never gotten into Transmetropolitan, though. Read the first volume and it just didn't grab me. Now that I'm quite a bit older and more well-read in comics, I keep meaning to give it another go.

Yeah, I've read a few of Moore's books, and they can be good (although I personally felt The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to be a grand idea that was a silly book), but his pretension is painful. The Sandman series blew all of them way, way out of the water IMHO.

Moore's best stories were "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and "For the Man Who Has Everything"

I find Alan Moore to be so "meh" that I have to continually re-learn who he is and what he has done whenever these discussion occur.

Covar;436088][QUOTE=Shegokigo said:

Moore wrote The Killing Joke, he can be as full of himself as he likes.

Click to expand...

because he wrote one of the 3 worst Batman stories of all time?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but Killing Joke doesn't even come close to the 3 worst. I would consider the three worst to be:
1) The Dark Knight Strikes Again
2) All Star Batman & Robin
3) Batman: Cacophany (wherein Kevin Smith tells us that Batman lost bladder control during Batman: Year One)

He's the guy that wrote that book about underage girls having sex.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

ThatNickGuy;436098][QUOTE=Covar;436088][QUOTE=Shegokigo said:

Moore wrote The Killing Joke, he can be as full of himself as he likes.

Click to expand...

because he wrote one of the 3 worst Batman stories of all time?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but Killing Joke doesn't even come close to the 3 worst. I would consider the three worst to be:
1) The Dark Knight Strikes Again
2) All Star Batman & Robin
3) Batman: Cacophany (wherein Kevin Smith tells us that Batman lost bladder control during Batman: Year One)[/QUOTE]
You have my one and two. I'll admit I didn't read Cacophony after the first issue, because I didn't really feel like reading Batman versus [STRIKE]Jay[/STRIKE]The Joker.

Covar said:

He's the guy that wrote that book about underage girls having sex.

Click to expand...

Icarus?

Lost Girls is supposed to be literary pornography, according to Moore. From what I've heard, it might be raunchy and sex filled, but it's very well written.

So... MET art isn't just pornography?

From the linked interview

At the end of the day, if they haven’t got any properties that are valuable enough, but they have got these ‘top-flight industry creators’ that are ready to produce these prequels and sequels to WATCHMEN, well this is probably a radical idea, but could they not get one of the ‘top-flight industry creators’ to come up with an idea of their own? Why are DC Comics trying to exploit a comic book that I wrote 25 years ago if they have got anything? Sure they ought to have had an equivalent idea since? I could ask about why Marvel Comics are churning out or planning to bring out my ancient MARVELMAN stories, which are even older, if they had a viable idea of their own in the quarter-century since I wrote those works. I mean, surely that would be a much easier solution than all of this clandestine stuff? Just simply get some of your top-flight talent to put out a book that the wider public outside of the comics field find as interesting or as appealing as the stuff that I wrote 25 years ago. It shouldn’t be too big an ask, should it? I wouldn’t have thought so.

Click to expand...

He is either ignorant of the industry of comics or intentionally insolent in his replies.

Either way I'm back to "meh" again.

ThatNickGuy said:

Lost Girls is supposed to be literary pornography, according to Moore. From what I've heard, it might be raunchy and sex filled, but it's very well written.

Click to expand...

So are the articles in "Cartoon Underage Dumpster Sluts" but in the end it's still just creepy old dudes writing about little girls having sex.

Covar said:

Moore's best stories were "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and "For the Man Who Has Everything"

Click to expand...

i stated my opinion about alan moore in the bold claims thread so i'm just stopping by to say the justice league episode about the man who has everything was awesome, as in better than the comic awesome.

was he on this pedestal before watchmen became the best gasmsplooge comic of all time*. OF ALL TIME!.

*i do not share this common opinon of watchmen

Krisken said:

So... MET art isn't just pornography?

Click to expand...

What's the difference between art and pornography...

a government grant!

Moore has a point. Why not do something new instead of anything related to Watchmen?

HCGLNS said:

He is either ignorant of the industry of comics or intentionally insolent in his replies.

Either way I'm back to "meh" again.

Click to expand...

The point he is trying to make is, instead of returning to something that was written 25 years ago, why not create something entirely new to work with?

Of course, the exact same thing could be asked to any Hollywood executive these days.

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

Espy;436109][QUOTE=ThatNickGuy said:

Lost Girls is supposed to be literary pornography, according to Moore. From what I've heard, it might be raunchy and sex filled, but it's very well written.

Click to expand...

So are the articles in "Cartoon Underage Dumpster Sluts" but in the end it's still just creepy old dudes writing about little girls having sex.[/QUOTE]

The...Lost Girls are...very mature...for their age?

escushion said:

Moore has a point. Why not do something new instead of anything related to Watchmen?

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I think he's so right on the money. Having "top flight" talent work on watchmen stuff instead of new stuff is just a waste.

From a business perspective? An established franchise will always sell better than a new property. It is the safer bet. It sucks, and a lot of stuff which was cool gets ruined by it, and a lot of great new stuff doesn't get developed properly, but I can kinda understand it from the company perspective.

Well sure it's a "safer" bet, but if the comics industry continues to rely on the "safer" side of things sales will keep going down, comic shops will keep closing and you will keep paying 3-4+ dollars for a 22 page comic.

Personally, since we are talking business here, I believe if comics are to survive in any real form they have to actually get their heads out of their asses and embrace the digital model as fast as they can. If I could download a comic for 99c on iTunes and read it on my computer or iPod/pad or ereader I would buy a hell of a lot more than I do now and I have a feeling I'm not the only one.

I've always hoped that comics would do their usual big name, franchise stuff but keep lots of room open for new, experimental things. Hell, even go as far as to put ads for said new things in your franchise books. Because honestly, Superman and X-Men are always, always, ALWAYS going to sell.

I've seen what it is like on the store side. Selling comics is a shit business. Buying the comics from the distributor, you have to sell half the comics to break even and have to buy in bundles of 6. So that means selling half your order to break even. It's not just content driving the comic industry into the ground.

ThatNickGuy said:

3) Batman: Cacophany (wherein Kevin Smith tells us that Batman lost bladder control during Batman: Year One)

Click to expand...

First, that'd be Widening Gyre. Second, he says Batman had an involuntary physical reaction due to a combination of fear and the unexpected heat of a fiery demonstration. He is commiserating with a fellow vigilante, one just starting out. Now, mileage may vary here, but that scene was neither written nor came off as "dur hur hur, Batman pissed his pants derp!" but as "wow, Batman is a person who can get scared". Humanizing, if you will. Since Batman's whole shtick centers on his plain old humanity, I liked it. The mini-series on the whole is kinda meh (though I love Flanagan's art) but that scene is not what it is made out to be.

As far as Moore goes...I like a lot of his work. Those first four Top Ten volumes are some of the best comics of the past twenty years. But Jesus Christ, the man is such a raging egotist that I can't stand to read his interviews.

While I agree with the general point about the terrible idea of a Watchmen franchise, that "why can't they make anything new" is pretty tough talk for a guy who made a huge part of his career making memorable stories from derivative ideas. Heck, Watchmen was originally supposed to be a story about the Charlton Comics stable, but DC said no, so Moore made facsimile characters so he could keep the story.

There's nothing wrong with derivative works, of course. Watchmen was awesome, and "The Man Who has Everything" is a huge favorite of mine. I just think Moore is on a serious high horse with no legs on that point.

I disagree. As you said yourself, there's nothing wrong with derivative works. I've argued many times before that most of literature is inspired by something that came before. Shakespeare, for example, borrowed heavily from several fellow playwrights to create his work. He stold lines almost word for word right out of travel journals for The Tempest.

There's nothing wrong with taking something and being inspired by it to create your own thing. Watchmen and the Charlton characters are very different. Watchmen grew out of something different, as a result.

You can make something new out of something old and still make your product something original.

ThatNickGuy said:

You can make something new out of something old and still make your product something original.

Click to expand...

Of course you can.

But Moore making many of his bones through derivative works and stories based on licensed IP is undeniable, and his dismissal of other people trying to do the same thing just reeks of ego (and hypocrisy, were I to think that Moore doesn't honestly believe what he's saying about himself).

If he thinks that the industry's "top-flight" people are crap, what difference does it make whether they work on licensed IP or original works? If they're good, the work has an excellent chance of being good. If they're crap, the work has excellent chance of being crap.

ThatNickGuy said:

I disagree. As you said yourself, there's nothing wrong with derivative works. I've argued many times before that most of literature is inspired by something that came before. Shakespeare, for example, borrowed heavily from several fellow playwrights to create his work. He stold lines almost word for word right out of travel journals for The Tempest.

There's nothing wrong with taking something and being inspired by it to create your own thing. Watchmen and the Charlton characters are very different. Watchmen grew out of something different, as a result.

You can make something new out of something old and still make your product something original.

Click to expand...

Watchmen only has "original" characters because DC made him. SpecialKO is right. He's a hypocrite. Hell 2 of the top 3 titles he's known for use pre-existing characters. Yes I mean Watchmen in that because the characters are as original as the Shi'ar Imperial Guard.

It's interesting watching Twitter, Gail Simone is annoyed at him for calling all the artists he worked with that are still in the industry worthless. Bendis is a little hurt, and Ed Brubaker is annoyed. Simone and Brubaker pointed out how full of hot air his statements were since he loudly and publicly admits he doesn't read comics today and hasn't for a long time.

Covar said:

Watchmen only has "original" characters because DC made him. SpecialKO is right. He's a hypocrite. Hell 2 of the top 3 titles he's known for use pre-existing characters. Yes I mean Watchmen in that because the characters are as original as the Shi'ar Imperial Guard.

Click to expand...

Let me think... here's his derivative works.

- Anything with a DC Character other than John Constantine (So all of his work with them except Hellblazer).
- Anything with a Marvel Character
- Anything with an Image Comics/Awesome Entertainment Character (Spawn, WildC.A.T.S, Supreme,Glory, Youngblood)
- Lost Girls
- League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
- Skizz (heavily inspired by E.T)
- D.R. and Quinch (heavily inspired by National Lampoon characters)
- All his Dr. Who stuff
- From Hell (Thanks Wana)

His Original Works

- The Ballad of Halo Jones
- Big Numbers
- V for Vendetta
- Tom Strong
- Top Ten & Smax
- Watchmen (Giving it to him, even if it wasn't originally planned)
- Hellblazer (He made John Constantine)
- Prometha

I'd say he's half and half.

AshburnerX said:

- Hellblazer (He made John Constantine)

Click to expand...

John Constantine originated in Swamp Thing. Moore never actually wrote any Hellblazer. Plus, if there was ever an example of someone creating amazing work derived from Alan Moore's creations, Hellblazer is the perfect example.

SpecialKO;436255][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:

- Hellblazer (He made John Constantine)

Click to expand...

John Constantine originated in Swamp Thing. Moore never actually wrote any Hellblazer. Plus, if there was ever an example of someone creating amazing work derived from Alan Moore's creations, Hellblazer is the perfect example.[/QUOTE]

Did he originate in Alan Moore's run of Swamp Thing?

escushion;436269][QUOTE=SpecialKO;436255][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:

- Hellblazer (He made John Constantine)

Click to expand...

John Constantine originated in Swamp Thing. Moore never actually wrote any Hellblazer. Plus, if there was ever an example of someone creating amazing work derived from Alan Moore's creations, Hellblazer is the perfect example.[/QUOTE]

Did he originate in Alan Moore's run of Swamp Thing?[/QUOTE]

Yes, he did. Alan Moore created the character (John Constantine, not Swamp Thing). DC liked the character, so they greenlit Hellblazer, which was written first by Jamie Delano, who Alan Moore suggested to DC to write stories about Constantine.

AshburnerX;436251][QUOTE=Covar said:

Watchmen only has "original" characters because DC made him. SpecialKO is right. He's a hypocrite. Hell 2 of the top 3 titles he's known for use pre-existing characters. Yes I mean Watchmen in that because the characters are as original as the Shi'ar Imperial Guard.

Click to expand...

Let me think... here's his derivative works.

- Anything with a DC Character other than John Constantine (So all of his work with them except Hellblazer).
- Anything with a Marvel Character
- Anything with an Image Comics/Awesome Entertainment Character (Spawn, WildC.A.T.S, Supreme,Glory, Youngblood)
- Lost Girls
- League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
- Skizz (heavily inspired by E.T)
- D.R. and Quinch (heavily inspired by National Lampoon characters)
- All his Dr. Who stuff

His Original Works

- The Ballad of Halo Jones
- From Hell
- Big Numbers
- V for Vendetta
- Tom Strong
- Top Ten & Smax
- Watchmen (Giving it to him, even if it wasn't originally planned)
- Hellblazer (He made John Constantine)
- Prometha

I'd say he's half and half.[/QUOTE]

from hell was a comic adaptation of a book written by someone else.

Alan Moore is good. He, along with other contemporaries like Frank Miller, helped break comics out of there slow spiral into absolute boredome. Thesedays, he's a bit old school, and doesn't have the creative juices flowing like some of the new guys (Ennis/Ellis). As for the whole 'literary genius of the comic book world' thing.....sorry but no. At the end of the day Watchmen is still about super heroes and so is most of his work. Its like calling William Gibson a literary genius. Yes, what they did in their relatively limited genre was great, and groundbreaking, but they show the limitations of their work by staying in such a small realm. Then of course theres the issue that he seems to expect people to call him a genius. Simply the way he carries himself shows an astounding ego that, frankly, is not backed up by his work.

The Killing Joke, for instance, is a damned good Batman Comic. Its also one of the most arrogantly written batman comics of all time. If it hand't had his name on it it would not have been published. Retconning the Joker into a compassionate character? That's stepping out on a limb, but its almost doing it just because you can get away with it. And frankly the ending is lazy. But its still a good comic.

Anyways, I digress.

Want to know the standard I compare him to?



That is a genius of the comic book world. Art Spieglman, the creator of Maus. He consistently has shown how the medium can be used to tell stories that have nothing to do with a guy in a cape, or a bad guy in a cape, or little girls.

Oh yeah, forgot to say: I totally agree with his belief that having Watchmen spinoffs would be stupid. I did think the ending to the movie was about 20 times better than the comic book, and I think he even realizes that they wrote it better, but I also think that its finished, and there is no more you can do with it.

The rep system keeps telling me that I haven't given enough rep, so consider this a +1 post for you, Necro.

I used to find Alan Moore amusing. Now I just find him annoying. Especially with his slams on comic writers (Did you hear that, Geoff Johns? Rather than writing new stories for Green Lantern, you apparently need to re-hash classic literature (especially as porn) to be a "real writer"). And all I got from that interview is that he's a passive-aggressive ass towards Dave Gibbons.

I think he's just mad the Watchmen movie had a better ending.

Sara_2814 said:

I think he's just mad the Watchmen movie had a better ending.

Click to expand...

I don't think he's delusional.

Are you saying the original ending was better? What kind of writer creates a deus ex character (Dr Manhattan) and decides that the perfect ending for his book is to randomly invent a second deus ex and cram it into the story like so much round peg into square hole when you already have the square peg to begin with? Dr Manhattan was already the perfect character to end the story, there was absolutely no reason to create the second one, especially when it didn't even work as well.

Read Watchmen again. It alludes to the monster trough out. An alluded to catastrophe is not deus ex machina.

Also having the threat to the world nullified, by Jon leaving Earth, would not bring about the peace Ozi wanted.

New Ending is tidier than explaining all the loose ends that the comic can cover, but it is not in anyway better.

Yes no one would suspect anything other than Dr Manhattan doing it himself. It's not like it was known around the world that he was working with Ozymandias to create generators for a new energy source based off himself.

and you know Alan Moore just pulled his ending out of his ass. It's not like it was based of anything from current events of the day or something...

I guess my take on it was that all Ozi needed for his plan was a source of real fear. You can't create God as a means to get people to work together, but you can create Satan. I still think that the monster was a Deus Ex as well. Both the Alien and Dr Manhattan were able to arbitrarily and monumentally alter the course of the story whenever they wanted and didn't really need any explanations for their ability to do so. That is what I consider a deus ex, but maybe I have the concept wrong.

And two deus ex machinas are worse than one. I like suspending my disbelief as little as often. I'll do it, but don't push the limits. I like the movie ending better too.

I don't read a lot of comics. I hadn't read Watchmen before the movie came out though I have since - the movie was an incredible adaptation of the graphic novel that made some necessary changes. I haven't read V for Vendetta or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; the previous was a pretty decent movie, the later wasn't.

I don't care what Alan Moore's opinion is on most things, and he's sure got a high opinion of himself, but I can see not wanting his work degraded like that.

MindDetective said:

And two deus ex machinas are worse than one. I like suspending my disbelief as little as often. I'll do it, but don't push the limits. I like the movie ending better too.

Click to expand...

It is a comic book... suspension of disbelief goes with the territory.

The original ending was a WTF moment. But pinning the destruction of the major cities on Dr. Manhattan and having him leave the world does not work. There is nothing left to struggle against.

Pinning the destruction of the cities on a bio-engineered alien and having Dr. Manhattan leave, means that your Deus Ex Machina is not around to repel the alien invasion. Taking out the Alien took away from the big reason the Comedian's mind was pushed over the edge... because Ozi was doing grotesque, unnatural things on that island. It also takes away from Ozi's need to kill him.

Recall that Ozymandias was planning the annihilation of potentially billions of people, simultaneously, around the world. In the comic book, it was just the one Squid Monster. In the movie, New York, Beijing, Moscow, and several other massive cities were destroyed. Faced with a cataclysm effecting everyone from a source beyond human control or understanding, the nations of the world unified to rebuild in peace. The constant escalation of the cold war was replaced by devastation forcing humanity together against the senseless attack of a godlike being.

The Comedian was a violent sociopath who believed that human beings were at their core selfish, uncontrolled barbarians with a veneer of civilization - attempts to appeal to people's better nature was a joke to him, as was the concept of "justice". He enjoyed fighting and if someone wound up dead, well, tough luck for them. Being a masked crimefighter was, to him, a great way of having fun and getting paid and admired for it. But to sit down and plot the murder of millions, and consider it to be a morally justified act, was what caused the Comedian to break down - the scope of the plot and the idea that it was somehow for the greater good were more than he could handle.

sixpackshaker;436928][QUOTE=MindDetective said:

And two deus ex machinas are worse than one. I like suspending my disbelief as little as often. I'll do it, but don't push the limits. I like the movie ending better too.

Click to expand...

It is a comic book... suspension of disbelief goes with the territory.

The original ending was a WTF moment. But pinning the destruction of the major cities on Dr. Manhattan and having him leave the world does not work. There is nothing left to struggle against.

Pinning the destruction of the cities on a bio-engineered alien and having Dr. Manhattan leave, means that your Deus Ex Machina is not around to repel the alien invasion. Taking out the Alien took away from the big reason the Comedian's mind was pushed over the edge... because Ozi was doing grotesque, unnatural things on that island. It also takes away from Ozi's need to kill him.[/QUOTE]

This is a really good conversation.

The comedian was pushed over the edge simply because someone was going to kill so many people in the name of peace. While, this has been said as a justification in the past (vietnam), this time it was different, mainly because it was sincere and could work. I think the irony of sincerely doing evil for the sake of true good was what broke him. He was an anarchist/nhilisht, and that led to his ability to murder without thought, but for him to see someone doing such a wholesale murder, with much thought, for GOOD, that broke his mind. So I don't think you need the alien for the comedian to break, but I do appreciate that it was glossed over a bit in the movie.

Back to the alien/dr manhattan conundrum. Pinning the destruction on Dr Manhattan alone could work, even if he leaves. For one, he very well could come back. They were researching his powers, so possibly they could come up with some defense against him. Beyond that though, acts of wholesale annhilation like that have a very different effect on people than the slow carnage of war. Take the nuclear bombings in Japan. Those acts were so shocking that people still think of them today as motivations for pacifism. The firebombings that took place everywhere else? I don't think people cared that much. So maybe who caused the damage doesn't matter, all that matters is that the shocking nature of such an event clears the mists from peoples eyes and they can see clearly how much they value life. It also helps that Dr Manhattan was ultimately alien himself. When humanity is being threatened by a non-human source, we can finally stop looking at each other as alien, we now have a true alien to fear (just like ET, they should have burned him before he laid eggs in Eliot).

Even as I am writing this though, I do see your point that the Alien does work in its own way. Personally I prefer the other way, but maybe that's because I figured out a way to make it work, and maybe that way doesn't work for other people.

I'm amazed we're all having this conversation again.

I think the Dr. Manhattan route could've worked in the hands of a better writer--but the movie tells it all very sloppy, changing some things to suit itself, but not others. If Snyder wanted to adapt rather than reproduce, he should've done so, not driven for half and half.

As it is, I think the book kept its shit together much better.

sixpackshaker said:

Pinning the destruction of the cities on a bio-engineered alien and having Dr. Manhattan leave, means that your Deus Ex Machina is not around to repel the alien invasion. Taking out the Alien took away from the big reason the Comedian's mind was pushed over the edge... because Ozi was doing grotesque, unnatural things on that island. It also takes away from Ozi's need to kill him.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I think the idea of nuking NYC would have pushed the Comedian over the edge, too.

For a book that presented itself as a "realistic" look at superheroes, I think it needed a realistic ending, not a "comic book" ending. The psychic octopus is just too much. It's ridiculous, not horrifying. It's like a Rube Goldberg Deus Ex Machina, requiring psychic brains and genetic engineering and teleportation, whereas a nuclear explosion is simple and it's something everyone feared (without the need for psychic manipulation), along with the added terror of the most powerful man on the planet allegedly setting it off. Dr. Manhattan would be what the world struggles against as a 'common enemy' (even though the reader knows he is not a threat).

And that there's no way to possibly defeat him. I'd see the world descending into doomsday cults and mass suicides if god-man decided to kill them all, before they thought to turn to peace.

If we're talking realistic, anyway.

The problem with using Dr. Manhattan as the source of disaster comes down to one thing: he's American. He's a product of American science. That peace would not be very long lasting, if at all, once that conclusion was reached.

An alien, on the other hand, is a gigantic, outisde threat that no one relates with, no one has ever heard or seen before, It's something that the entire planet can unify against because they don't know when or where those beings could strike next. It wasn't just a physical attack, because there was a huge psychic backlash from the monster as well (part of its creation that was hinted at throughout the book). It's something so completely out there and so completely against any human logic that it's uncomprehendable.

Dr. Manhattan, despite how alien he might seem, still has a human appearance, was still human before and still has aspects of his humanity remaining. He's still something relatable. The giant squid, no matter how ridiculous it was, is something COMPLETELY unrelatable in every sense of the word. You can't call it a deus ex machina because a true deus ex machina comes completely out of nowhere and has nothing to do with the story. But this was Veidt's plan from the very beginning and was foreshadowed sporatically. It's buried under the rest of the investigation and character development, though. It's meant to startled you, as if it came out of nowhere. But the entire book is a build up from issue one for that grand moment at the beginning of the final issue.

Neither is Dr. Manhattan a deus ex machina. We're shown what kind of abilities he has. If anything, Veidt outsmarts him by blocking Manhattan's view of the future through radiation or psychic energy that the creature released. Manhattan doesn't stop resolve anything in the end. The only thing he does is blow up Rorschach. In fact, it's what he doesn't do that makes it more interesting. For all his power and what he can do, he chooses to do nothing.

Necronic said:

This is a really good conversation.

Click to expand...

What. This is an online forum, mister, not a ... a ... place to have really good conversations! :humph:

Maybe you should think about what you've done. :blue:

Sara_2814 said:

For a book that presented itself as a "realistic" look at superheroes, I think it needed a realistic ending, not a "comic book" ending.

Click to expand...

It's not meant to be a realistic look at superheroes. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had Dr. Manhattan, the only guy among all of them that has powers. And he's featured heavily throughout the book. Not just in what he does, but in what's going on in the background. There are electric cars and flying airships. It's already an unrealistic setting. It's FICTION.

The psychic octopus is just too much. It's ridiculous, not horrifying.

Click to expand...

As I just described above, it's meant to be ridiculous. And those piles of bodies and stories of people ripping out their own eyes from the psychic backlash isn't a horrifying image? And as I said, it's not a Deus Ex Machina becuse hints of Veidt's plan were sprinkled throughout the book.

requiring psychic brains

Click to expand...

Like Moloch.

and genetic engineering

Click to expand...

Like Bubasis (sp?), who was Veidt's first test with genetic engineering, and therefore, has absolutely NO purpose in the movie.

and teleportation

Click to expand...

Like Dr. Manhattan shows on numerous occasions.

Dr. Manhattan would be what the world struggles against as a 'common enemy' (even though the reader knows he is not a threat).

Click to expand...

As I said, he's not a common enemy if he was American-made. Heck, he helped America win Vietnam.

And we, the reader, know the alien isn't a threat, either.

ThatNickGuy said:

It's not meant to be a realistic look at superheroes. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had Dr. Manhattan, the only guy among all of them that has powers. And he's featured heavily throughout the book. Not just in what he does, but in what's going on in the background. There are electric cars and flying airships. It's already an unrealistic setting. It's FICTION.

Click to expand...

Not realistic in the sense of no extraordinary things, but realistic in the sense of a gritty, flawed, 'nothing is easy' antithesis to Superman punching out the wacky alien villain of the week. It just seems that in a story like this, something "mundane" (in comic book terms) like a nuclear explosion would be a more fitting end.

As I said, he's not a common enemy if he was American-made. Heck, he helped America win Vietnam.

Click to expand...

Okay, I can see that, and what you said does make more sense of the original ending. I suppose it just comes down to the alien works best in the book, though I think the nuclear explosion was better for the movie because it doesn't require as much explanation.

If they had had the time to go into the details of the alien's creation, it MIGHT have worked. Snider was too busy putting things in slow-mo and making softcore porn scenes. I have to agree, though. It's very unlikely the alien would've looked good in the movie. And given how much fans are split on it being in the comic, alone, I imagine it would've been even worse for movie goers.

As much as I don't like the movie, I won't say it's entirely terrible. For the things they got right (Rorschach, the special effects), they got them really right. Unfortunately, for the things they got wrong, they got them really wrong. For example, in the comic, Laurie mistakes the ship's flamthrower for a lighter. For a smoker, that's a very honest mistake. In the movie, she doesn't smoke, so she just looks like a moron. Secondly, as I said, Bubasis serves absolutely no purpose or reason the movie, thanks to the change.

Using Dr. Manhattan as the scapegoat, for example. They could've used anything else other than the squid. Giant robots, mysterious alien ship hovering over the skies and do Independence Day, etc. I just don't think Manhattan worked. Someone else said to me that Veidt's plan fallls flat, given the fact that Dr. Manhattan leaves the earth, anyway (like he does in the comic). Whereas the squid is there and shown throughout the world and stays there, as a constant reminder that something else might be out there.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Also, to your "nothing is easy" argument, that still works in Watchmen. If it were just like Superman flying in and punching out the alien, that's what Manhattan would've done. We'd have a two-page spread of a giant Dr. Manhattan wrestling with a giant squid. Instead, it's a bitter, no-win ending where the bad guy basically wins. It's a kind of ending that was never done in comics before. Before, it was always "the good guys beat the bad guy."

ThatNickGuy said:

For the things they got right (Rorschach, the special effects), they got them really right.

Click to expand...

I think I am slightly biased to the movie just because of Rorschach. He totally made that movie. Jackie Earle Haley was brilliant.

We'd have a two-page spread of a giant Dr. Manhattan wrestling with a giant squid.

Click to expand...

That will be the ending of Watchmen 2! :lol:

Sara_2814 said:

I think I am slightly biased to the movie just because of Rorschach. He totally made that movie. Jackie Earle Haley was brilliant.

Click to expand...

Having recently re-watched it, I have to agree. Rorschach and Laurie were kind of like opposing scales in that movie for me. Rorschach helped tip the balance in favor of me liking it.

ThatNickGuy said:

It's very unlikely the alien would've looked good in the movie. And given how much fans are split on it being in the comic, alone, I imagine it would've been even worse for movie goers.

Click to expand...

Meh, imo they could have simply adjusted the visuals to actually make it look creepy, disgusting and otherwordly, and it would have worked just fine... but that would have taken a lot of effort to work out... you know, they could have done it like in Alien, taken inspiration from some surrealist painting...

@Li3n;437144][QUOTE=ThatNickGuy said:

It's very unlikely the alien would've looked good in the movie. And given how much fans are split on it being in the comic, alone, I imagine it would've been even worse for movie goers.

Click to expand...

Meh, imo they could have simply adjusted the visuals to actually make it look creepy, disgusting and otherwordly, and it would have worked just fine... but that would have taken a lot of effort to work out... you know, they could have done it like in Alien, taken inspiration from some surrealist painting...[/QUOTE]

Admit it: You simply like tentacular brain aliens...

@Li3n;437144][QUOTE=ThatNickGuy said:

It's very unlikely the alien would've looked good in the movie. And given how much fans are split on it being in the comic, alone, I imagine it would've been even worse for movie goers.

Click to expand...

Meh, imo they could have simply adjusted the visuals to actually make it look creepy, disgusting and otherwordly, and it would have worked just fine... but that would have taken a lot of effort to work out... you know, they could have done it like in Alien, taken inspiration from some surrealist painting...[/QUOTE]

Ironically, the reason it's supposed to look like it does in the comic is because it's design was drawn by a surrealist artist.

ThatNickGuy said:

Lost Girls is supposed to be literary pornography, according to Moore. From what I've heard, it might be raunchy and sex filled, but it's very well written.

Click to expand...

I have read it. It is flat out porn.

AshburnerX said:

Ironically, the reason it's supposed to look like it does in the comic is because it's design was drawn by a surrealist artist.

Click to expand...

Nick'd from Lovecraft is more like it.

Silver Jelly said:

Admit it: You simply like tentacular brain aliens...

Click to expand...

Why does it look to you like i'm trying to hide it, fleshbag?!

No, I can see you hide nothing... THAT isn't a tentacle...

Silver Jelly said:

No, I can see you hide nothing... THAT isn't a tentacle...

Click to expand...

Your avatar makes that hilarious.

Null;438660][QUOTE=Silver Jelly said:

No, I can see you hide nothing... THAT isn't a tentacle...

Click to expand...

Your avatar makes that hilarious.[/QUOTE]

Luckly, you didn't include my signature in the mix.