Export thread
Before Watchmen
#1
ThatNickGuy
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.
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.
#2
Dave
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.
#3
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
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.
http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=13655
Dude is fucking funny.
OH, NSFW by the way.
#4
sixpackshaker
- ok, ever since the ewoks (nothing personal Gas) the whole franchise went down hill.
sixpackshaker
There's no way that a Star Wars movie would ever suck!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.
- ok, ever since the ewoks (nothing personal Gas) the whole franchise went down hill.
#5
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
At least the Star Wars prequels were made by the guy that made Star Wars.
#6
Gryfter
Gryfter
Can you say money grab?.... I thought you could.
#7
Covar
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.
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.
#8
ThatNickGuy
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.
ThatNickGuy
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.At least the Star Wars prequels were made by the guy that made Star Wars.
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.
#9
Covar
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.
Peter David said: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.
#10
Espy
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.
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.
#11
Vagabond
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?
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?
#12
Espy
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.
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.
#13
Covar
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.
#14
drawn_inward
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.
drawn_inward
Is that sarcasm? If not, I really like the Sherlock series on BBC/PBS. It's better than Guy Richie's version.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.
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.
#15
Covar
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.
Covar
Oh it's definitely sarcasm.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.
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.
#16
kaykordeath
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...
#17
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I chuckled when I saw the phrase "full-on asshole." I fell out of chair laughing when they illustrated it.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.
#18
kaykordeath
kaykordeath
I chuckled when I saw the phrase "full-on asshole." I fell out of chair laughing when they illustrated it.
#19
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
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.As for Watchmen, I guess I never really got what the big deal was with this book.
#20
ElJuski
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
#21
Vagabond
Vagabond
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.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.
#22
ElJuski
ElJuski
Just means I can get started on writing Slaughterhouse Six
#23
Allen who is Quiet
Allen who is Quiet
And I can write Cat's Dreidel! It'll be great!
#24
ThatNickGuy
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).
ThatNickGuy
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.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.
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).
#25
ElJuski
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
PS, I spent the last half hour cooking this baby up: http://littosonline.com/?p=90
#26
Vagabond
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.
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.
#27
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
god, that's such a stupid excuse just to buy more of their shit.
Never said I was buying this shit.ThatNickGuy said:I'm still not 100% behind this just on principle
#28
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
I'd buy Chip Zdarsky's Watchmen 2 in a heartbeat, but I have a huge weakness for exposed anus.
#29
ElJuski
ElJuski
less "doing another Batman story" and more like "making another Nolanverse Batman story".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.
#30
Norris
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.
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.
Wiseass Answer: "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" by Alan Moore.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.
#31
Vagabond
Vagabond
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.Star Trek, James Bond
I meant by their original creators. And that's more a what-if now anyway.Wiseass Answer: "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" by Alan Moore.
#32
ThatNickGuy
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.
Star Trek: Enterprise and the JJ Abrams movie. Not to mention all the comics and novels.
#33
linglingface
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. 
#34
ElJuski
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.
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.
#35
Silver Jelly
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.
If I manage to pull it up, it could be a funny book.
#36
Norris
Star Trek has had, between all of its various novels and comics and filmed stuff, more prequels and side stories than you can shake a stick at. There are novels detailing Picard's time as captain of the Stargazer, novels detailing Capt. John Harriman (who was in Star Trek Generations for about five minutes) having adventures, novels that detail Worf's time at Starfleet Academy, at least one novel doing the same for Captain Kirk, a short lived comic book detailing Spock's adventures as a member of Captain Pike's crew, etc, etc.
And these are new stories set in the same continuity. A prequel is a new story. I happen to agree that, while Moore did a perfect job giving you everything you needed to know about the characters, there is wiggle room in the original story for adventures we didn't see because we didn't see many adventures from the old days. I'm not saying they'll be wonderful, but I don't find the idea inherently disrespectful or crass.
Norris
No, it really isn't. There was a five book long Young Bond series last decade, detailing James Bond's adventures as a teen in the 1930's. Around the same time, there was a trilogy depicting the adventures of Ms. Moneypenny, M's secretary, which took place around established Bond novels and gave the character a first name for the first time since her introduction in 1953. Going back to 1973, you had the novel James Bond: The Authorised Biography of 007, which was portrayed as the biography of the "real" James Bond upon whom Fleming based his novels. In 1968, you had 003½: The Adventures of James Bond Junior, which was about James Bond's nephew (who was inexplicably named like he was James Bond's son) which was a Hardy Boys-type thing which flew in the face of established cannon which had explicitly labeled 007 as an orphaned only child. Most recently as the aforementioned Carte Blanche, which could reasonably be labelled "Ultimate James Bond" which re-imagined the character as 1979-born veteran of the ongoing War in Afghanistan (as opposed to a WWII veteran Cold War spy) in a fresh continuity, meaning no prior adventures. Its quite good, by the way, if you like the genre.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.
Star Trek has had, between all of its various novels and comics and filmed stuff, more prequels and side stories than you can shake a stick at. There are novels detailing Picard's time as captain of the Stargazer, novels detailing Capt. John Harriman (who was in Star Trek Generations for about five minutes) having adventures, novels that detail Worf's time at Starfleet Academy, at least one novel doing the same for Captain Kirk, a short lived comic book detailing Spock's adventures as a member of Captain Pike's crew, etc, etc.
And these are new stories set in the same continuity. A prequel is a new story. I happen to agree that, while Moore did a perfect job giving you everything you needed to know about the characters, there is wiggle room in the original story for adventures we didn't see because we didn't see many adventures from the old days. I'm not saying they'll be wonderful, but I don't find the idea inherently disrespectful or crass.
#37
Gryfter
Gryfter
Sorry, this is not an attempt at art, it a money grab just like the new 52 was.
#38
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Of course it is. But the new 52 has given way to some pretty good comics, like Animal Man and Batwoman. And the creative teams behind this are some of the best in the business.
#39
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It also prematurely ended a whole lot more good comics that could have kept going, like Batman Beyond, Gotham City Sirens, and Power Girl. Batman Beyond didn't even get 12 issues, despite selling well and being demanded by the fans for YEARS. It was supposed to get more issues after a break (starting with House of 10,000 Clowns) but who knows now...Of course it is. But the new 52 has given way to some pretty good comics, like Animal Man and Batwoman.
#40
ThatNickGuy
This month, actually.
As far as cancellations go, that's just part and parcel in the business. I've seen so many comics cancelled far before their time or creative team changes that ruined a good thing (which is happening a lot in this new 52). It's just how it works. It's not fair by any means, but it's just how it is.
ThatNickGuy
http://www.comicvine.com/news/dc-comics-announces-batman-beyond-unlimited/143859/...but who knows now...
This month, actually.
As far as cancellations go, that's just part and parcel in the business. I've seen so many comics cancelled far before their time or creative team changes that ruined a good thing (which is happening a lot in this new 52). It's just how it works. It's not fair by any means, but it's just how it is.
#41
Norris
EDIT: SHIT, ninja'd.
Norris
More along the lines of "just like the whole of the film, television, and comic book industries are". These industries exist to make money through the exploitation of their intellectual property. Batman Begins was a money grab too. Being a money grab and creating a quality product are not mutually exclusive.Sorry, this is not an attempt at art, it a money grab just like the new 52 was.
I do. Though I admit the DC website isn't always up to date, I haven't seen anything proclaiming this book to be cancelled or delayed.It also prematurely ended a whole lot more good comics that could have kept going, like Batman Beyond, Gotham City Sirens, and Power Girl. Batman Beyond didn't even get 12 issues, despite selling well and being demanded by the fans for YEARS. It was supposed to get more issues after a break (starting with House of 10,000 Clowns) but who knows now...
EDIT: SHIT, ninja'd.
#42
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Ahh... never saw the announcement. Complaint retracted, though I still think Gotham City Sirens should have kept going (even with a cast a change).
#44
Gryfter
Gryfter
I disagree on Begins being a money grab. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin I would wholeheartedly agree with being done simply to get the fans to pay more money, but Begins was an attempt to do something different with the Bat franchise (to do as realistic a Batman as possible) and it has succeeded.
These watchman books are doing a prequel to a story that already had tons of solid backstory. This would be like doing a Superman story but having it take place while he was traveling to earth in a space capsule, because nobody has really explored everything that could have happened to him while his rocket was speeding to earth.
These watchman books are doing a prequel to a story that already had tons of solid backstory. This would be like doing a Superman story but having it take place while he was traveling to earth in a space capsule, because nobody has really explored everything that could have happened to him while his rocket was speeding to earth.
#45
Norris
Now, don't get me wrong, these comics have a massive problem - how do they tell a story that remains true to the original without retreading the same ground? How do they tell us something new about the characters or show us something worth seeing from/about their history? I don't know the answers, and I'm sure that at least some of the books will fail at it. That doesn't mean there's no merit in trying.
On another note, here's JMS' answers to criticisms of "How would you feel if someone gave Babylon 5 this treatment?
Norris
True, but that was simply the latest in a line of different spins and stories that Warner Bros. worked on so they could keep the Bat-Franchise going so they could have another blockbuster film. Christoper Nolan and David Goyer created a good film, but Warner Bros. would have remade the Adam West movie with Jack Black in the lead role if they thought it would have resuscitated the franchise.I disagree on Begins being a money grab. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin I would wholeheartedly agree with being done simply to get the fans to pay more money, but Begins was an attempt to do something different with the Bat franchise (to do as realistic a Batman as possible) and it has succeeded.
I would liken it more to deciding to write so stories exploring the adventures of Superman as a teenager, a time period that hadn't been examined at all. Oh wait, they did that in the forties. Stole Jerry Seigel's idea, which they had earlier turned down, when it became apparent that kid heroes like Robin sold well. And that blatant cash grab became a long running and enduring part of the mythos (at least until the lawsuit), leading to the creation of the Legion of Super-Heroes and Bizarro. Funny that.These watchman books are doing a prequel to a story that already had tons of solid backstory. This would be like doing a Superman story but having it take place while he was traveling to earth in a space capsule, because nobody has really explored everything that could have happened to him while his rocket was speeding to earth.
Now, don't get me wrong, these comics have a massive problem - how do they tell a story that remains true to the original without retreading the same ground? How do they tell us something new about the characters or show us something worth seeing from/about their history? I don't know the answers, and I'm sure that at least some of the books will fail at it. That doesn't mean there's no merit in trying.
On another note, here's JMS' answers to criticisms of "How would you feel if someone gave Babylon 5 this treatment?
“First, we have to take the word ‘permission’ off the table. Warner Bros. owns Babylon 5 lock, stock and phased-plasma guns, just as DC owns the Watchmen characters. [...] But I get that we’re talking about the emotional aspect of all this, not the legal stuff, which is pretty cut and dry,” he wrote. “So again: apples to apples. How would I feel if Babylon 5 were being made and I were shut out of anything to do with it, despite my desire to be involved? I’d feel pretty crummy about it. But as it happens, that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation in any way, manner, shape or form.”
Referring to repeated unsuccessful attempts by DC to convince Moore to revisit Watchmen — the most recent was in 2010, when the publisher offered to relinquish the rights to the comic if the writer “would agree to some dopey prequels and sequels” — Straczynski said, “He declined at every point. Fair enough. It’s his choice, and it’s his right to make it.”
“So now – apples to apples – let’s make the B5 comparison,” he continued. “Let’s say Warner Bros. came to me and said, ‘we want to do more Babylon 5, and we want you to run the whole thing. We’ll pay you anything you want, give you a proper budget, and you will have complete creative freedom.’ [...] So let’s say that Warners makes that offer, and I said, ‘No, I don’t want it, take your accursed money, your big budget and your complete creative freedom and begone, get thee behind me Satan!’ Let’s say they came back and said ‘Okay, then how about we pay you vast sums of money just to consult? How about that?’ [...] ‘What if we sweeten the deal? What if we offer to give you full ownership of Babylon 5, legally and contractually, so you own it? How about that?’
“If Warners offered me creative freedom, money and a budget to do the show the way I wanted, up to and including my completely owning the show, and I said no to that deal, and if after Warners waited TWENTY FIVE YEARS for me to change my mind they finally decided to go ahead and make B5 without me … then I would have absolutely zero right to complain about it,” Straczynski wrote. “Because it was my choice to remove myself from the process, it wasn’t something foisted upon me by anybody else.”
#46
HCGLNS
I fully support more of these prequels.
HCGLNS
I fully support more of these prequels.
#47
checkeredhat
checkeredhat
#48
fade
fade
Well, Moore only gets half the credit for Watchmen first of all. That book could've been terrible without Gibbons's visual story telling and metaphorical art. The problem with a prequel is that it's been told already. Not in detail, but it's your assumptions about the characters before the story starts that makes it good (and also makes it a difficult first comic).
#49
Espy
Espy
All I'm saying is that DARWYN COOKE doing a minuteman comic? I think thats why God made things to write and draw with.
#50
Piotyr
Piotyr
Obligatory:
#52
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
#53
Bowielee
Bowielee
Lol, I love how they made Alan Moore look like a crazed hobo... because HE LOOKS LIKE A CRAZED HOBO!
#54
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
That man fucking loves rings!
(Bet you can't tell if I'm talking about Moore, or Bowielee)
(Bet you can't tell if I'm talking about Moore, or Bowielee)
#55
Espy
Espy
I'm sorry, but I have never been able to take anyone who wears those kinds of rings like Moore even remotely serious.
Probably because the only people I know who wear them are the dorks turned "warlocks" who live in their mothers basements and wear a trench coat every day.
Probably because the only people I know who wear them are the dorks turned "warlocks" who live in their mothers basements and wear a trench coat every day.
#56
Covar
Covar
I'm pretty sure Alan Moore doesn't live with his mother. I could be wrong though.
#57
ElJuski
ElJuski
regardless, he looks like a big fucking weirdo. I guess that's genius and all that
#58
Espy
Espy
I'm pretty sure he lives in a giant mansion filled with paintings and statues of other peoples characters he's made money off having sex. Because he's so well adjusted you see.I'm pretty sure Alan Moore doesn't live with his mother. I could be wrong though.
#59
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I liked Alan Moore a lot more before he started insulting all of his long time friends and basically calling them cowards for not wanting to work outside the system like he does. He doesn't seem to realize that the only reason he CAN do that is because he's fucking Alan Moore.
#60
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
At first it looked like he had some mechanical gauntlet, like he was a cyborg.Lol, I love how they made Alan Moore look like a crazed hobo... because HE LOOKS LIKE A CRAZED HOBO!
View attachment 4359
#61
fade
fade
That's it in a nutshell. It's not that he writes necessarily better than his colleagues. He just gets to write about things that most aren't allowed to write about and get paid. And I doubt that's all on him.I liked Alan Moore a lot more before he started insulting all of his long time friends and basically calling them cowards for not wanting to work outside the system like he does. He doesn't seem to realize that the only reason he CAN do that is because he's fucking Alan Moore.
#62
Norris
That's all. Completely off topic. I've just been watching Fourze.
EDIT: You know what? On topic - I've seen quotes from Alan Moore stating that he's mad at DC Comics because they had no intention of honoring their agreement. Now, their agreement was that if Watchmen and V For Vendetta (two comics that were pretty much unprecedented in the states and kind of risky at the time) were ever out of print for more than a year, he'd get the rights back. He claims that DC was malicious in this deal and that they never planned to let Watchmen go out of print. Of course, this blatantly ignores that Watchmen was a financial risk that paid off and became on the most influential graphic novels of all time. It's no more likely to go out of print soon than Harry Potter.
Norris
SPACE IS AWESOME!I'm pretty sure Alan Moore doesn't live with his mother. I could be wrong though.
That's all. Completely off topic. I've just been watching Fourze.
EDIT: You know what? On topic - I've seen quotes from Alan Moore stating that he's mad at DC Comics because they had no intention of honoring their agreement. Now, their agreement was that if Watchmen and V For Vendetta (two comics that were pretty much unprecedented in the states and kind of risky at the time) were ever out of print for more than a year, he'd get the rights back. He claims that DC was malicious in this deal and that they never planned to let Watchmen go out of print. Of course, this blatantly ignores that Watchmen was a financial risk that paid off and became on the most influential graphic novels of all time. It's no more likely to go out of print soon than Harry Potter.
#63
blotsfan
blotsfan
He shouldve known that if it would keep being profitable to print the comics, they wouldnt stop printing them
#64
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
That's actually a more complicated issue involving creator's rights and how the Big 2 think they should own every property they print explicitly because of the Watchmen scenario. To put it simply, yes, Alan signed a bad deal... but it was the only deal he was ever going to get. If he hadn't signed the rights of his creation away to DC, they'd have simply found someone else to write the story. Alan is talented, but he wasn't the only guy in the company.
The moves the Big 2 will take to retain authority over their properties are pretty awful. You should read up on Gary Friedrich sometime... guy created Ghost Rider, but he hasn't seen a dime from ether movie deal, isn't allowed to draw him except when Marvel says it's OK, and isn't allowed to profit from his association with the character in anyway... he can't even do paid interviews about Ghost Rider or claim he's the creator. Marvel recently made him pay them 17,000 dollars because he drew some prints to get by and sold them at conventions. He's currently penniless and destitute because he's been unable to profit from his creations... mostly because of a similar deal he had with Marvel.
The moves the Big 2 will take to retain authority over their properties are pretty awful. You should read up on Gary Friedrich sometime... guy created Ghost Rider, but he hasn't seen a dime from ether movie deal, isn't allowed to draw him except when Marvel says it's OK, and isn't allowed to profit from his association with the character in anyway... he can't even do paid interviews about Ghost Rider or claim he's the creator. Marvel recently made him pay them 17,000 dollars because he drew some prints to get by and sold them at conventions. He's currently penniless and destitute because he's been unable to profit from his creations... mostly because of a similar deal he had with Marvel.
#65
Espy
Espy
Seriously? Is that for real? What is Marvel's reasoning for doing something so evil sounding?
#66
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
They'll probably just say that all Marvel characters were created by Stan Lee and to hell with anyone else.
It worked for them in the past.
It worked for them in the past.
#67
strawman
strawman
You have to protect your copyright. If they allowed him to sell items based on their copyright, they may have a much harder time proving that they own the copyright in the future, should they find the need to do so.
It would be no different if someone not related to the project started selling Ghost Rider merchandise.
Until he can prove that he has rights to do so, they can sue him for it.
It would be no different if someone not related to the project started selling Ghost Rider merchandise.
Until he can prove that he has rights to do so, they can sue him for it.
#68
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Ash didn't mention that before Marvel went after him for his con stuff, Friedrich unsuccessfully tried to sue them for a bunch of Ghost Rider money (including movie royalties and such). He tried to bite a piece of the pie which he didn't legally have a right to and Marvel it looks like is using him as an example by going after him for something that tons of other artists do and that Marvel generally ignores.
Is it right? No, it's not, but it is what the current copyright laws in the USA make them to be.
Neal Adams:
Fellow creators, we can help Gary Friedrich without taking any kind of position in his case with Marvel. Gary is sick, and he’s about to lose his house, and though he will tell you he is not destitute, he needs help.
If I have to do it alone, I will see to it that he gets his mortgage paid, and gets some money in the bank. But I would like to ask you all to help.
Gary is a victim of the deficiencies of two very bad copyright laws, and the history in the comic book industry of poor practices on everybody’s part. There will be battles in the future, and good will come of them. But this is simply just a bad situation. Gary is one of us. And while we can’t save him from Marvel, and his small place in history, we can help him have a place to live, ongoing. And I can only promise you this. If you find yourself in a bad situation, whether for heath or other reasons, I and others, will join to help you. Just as you have helped to support William Messner-Loebs, Dave Cockrum and others.
While I hope that Marvel would step up and help out too, I can understand that they find themselves in such an unfortunate position that they cannot do so. I would like to believe that they would if they could.
It’s up to us. We will get information out to you as best we can. If you have a piece of artwork that we can sell or auction, you can send it to Continuity studios, 15 W. 39th St, 9th fl, New York N.Y. 10018. 212 869-4170.
Thanks so much for any help you can offer.
-Neal Adams
Is it right? No, it's not, but it is what the current copyright laws in the USA make them to be.
Neal Adams:
Fellow creators, we can help Gary Friedrich without taking any kind of position in his case with Marvel. Gary is sick, and he’s about to lose his house, and though he will tell you he is not destitute, he needs help.
If I have to do it alone, I will see to it that he gets his mortgage paid, and gets some money in the bank. But I would like to ask you all to help.
Gary is a victim of the deficiencies of two very bad copyright laws, and the history in the comic book industry of poor practices on everybody’s part. There will be battles in the future, and good will come of them. But this is simply just a bad situation. Gary is one of us. And while we can’t save him from Marvel, and his small place in history, we can help him have a place to live, ongoing. And I can only promise you this. If you find yourself in a bad situation, whether for heath or other reasons, I and others, will join to help you. Just as you have helped to support William Messner-Loebs, Dave Cockrum and others.
While I hope that Marvel would step up and help out too, I can understand that they find themselves in such an unfortunate position that they cannot do so. I would like to believe that they would if they could.
It’s up to us. We will get information out to you as best we can. If you have a piece of artwork that we can sell or auction, you can send it to Continuity studios, 15 W. 39th St, 9th fl, New York N.Y. 10018. 212 869-4170.
Thanks so much for any help you can offer.
-Neal Adams
#69
Norris
Norris
I don't think you'll find anyone who will dispute that work-for-hire agreements, especially in super hero comics, have a lot of drawbacks for the artist. They do. But the trade-off comes from them not being the ones taking the financial risks of publishing. For every one character Marvel or DC owns that hits big (long publishing history, other media adaptations, etc), there are a bunch more that don't. Combat Kelly and The Deadly Dozen or Captain Savage and The Leatherneck Raiders were just as much Gary Friedrich's creations, presumably under the same terms, at Marvel, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) he's not disputing their ownership.
#70
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Oh snap. Ty Templeton, a dude I've always dug for his multitude of appearances on this old weird Canadian comic book show called The Anti-Gravity Room I watched religiously as a kid, made this.
#71
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
See, when presented like that, it makes a bit more sense. Also, love the Silver Age Red Tornado reference.
#72
Norris
Norris
Unless there's something I didn't catch, you might be thinking of Golden Age Red Tornado, but that's Forbush Man.See, when presented like that, it makes a bit more sense. Also, love the Silver Age Red Tornado reference.
#73
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Ahh yeah... saw the pot and the cape and thought Red Tornado.