Beware the Watchmen
That's what they're saying about me now? That I'm paranoid?
Read Full Article
That's what they're saying about me now? That I'm paranoid?
Read Full Article
Beware the Watchmen
- Thread starter Steve Butts
- Start date
To be honest, I myself think this is a bad idea for the same reasons.
If I was going to do something with The Watchmen, which I probably wouldn't out of respect to the creator and how it stands on it's own, I'd go reconstructionist with it, as it's already a deconstructionist work. Bssically I'd do sequels.
A big part of the Watchmen, which is just one part of the whole, is how the heroes themselves were treated, and how human they were, but how at the end of the day they were still heroes, and the world needed them, but turned it's back at them. It's a powerful thing to see a bunch of forgotten and betrayed heroes heading out to try and save a world that turned on them and honestly doesn't deserve them. I personally also saw a kind of subtext as to whether the world ending crisis with the USSR would have existed had the heroes never been knocked out of comission despite being very human.
At any rate, it struck me that while a complete story, that comes to an intended end, in the overall arena of comics it ends with what could be considered a cliffhanger. The bad guy, has apparently won, a city is destroyed, he's in a position to pretty much rule the world he "saved" through his action. The heroes or dead, or have apparently surrendered and given up. BUT, let's not forget that part of the point is that at the end of the day these guys ARE super heroes, and even when things get this bad they don't actually give up, and they by their nature ALWAYS save the day in the end.
Nite Owl was not doing the super hero thing, but is apparently just as much of a gizmoteer as Ozy, the heroes who couldn't beat him were out of practice. Doctor Manhatten can alter reality and maybe rebuild a city, Rorscharch could always be resurrected by such a character or despite apperances might have actually been sent somewhere else.
Picking up the story with Ozy ruling the world, things not going as well as he planned, and the other heroes returning, or picking themselves up and setting things right despite the former deconstuction could potentially end the story on a typical comic note. You could make a GOOD story out of that compared to rehashing material that was already covered in prequels. Of course even if it was a good story, it would arguably diminish the original and the entire point. The heroes failing, and the bad guy arguably saving the world represents a powerful point, that would kind of be lost if you didn't stop there and followed through and reconstructed the genere within that universe.
If I was going to do something with The Watchmen, which I probably wouldn't out of respect to the creator and how it stands on it's own, I'd go reconstructionist with it, as it's already a deconstructionist work. Bssically I'd do sequels.
A big part of the Watchmen, which is just one part of the whole, is how the heroes themselves were treated, and how human they were, but how at the end of the day they were still heroes, and the world needed them, but turned it's back at them. It's a powerful thing to see a bunch of forgotten and betrayed heroes heading out to try and save a world that turned on them and honestly doesn't deserve them. I personally also saw a kind of subtext as to whether the world ending crisis with the USSR would have existed had the heroes never been knocked out of comission despite being very human.
At any rate, it struck me that while a complete story, that comes to an intended end, in the overall arena of comics it ends with what could be considered a cliffhanger. The bad guy, has apparently won, a city is destroyed, he's in a position to pretty much rule the world he "saved" through his action. The heroes or dead, or have apparently surrendered and given up. BUT, let's not forget that part of the point is that at the end of the day these guys ARE super heroes, and even when things get this bad they don't actually give up, and they by their nature ALWAYS save the day in the end.
Nite Owl was not doing the super hero thing, but is apparently just as much of a gizmoteer as Ozy, the heroes who couldn't beat him were out of practice. Doctor Manhatten can alter reality and maybe rebuild a city, Rorscharch could always be resurrected by such a character or despite apperances might have actually been sent somewhere else.
Picking up the story with Ozy ruling the world, things not going as well as he planned, and the other heroes returning, or picking themselves up and setting things right despite the former deconstuction could potentially end the story on a typical comic note. You could make a GOOD story out of that compared to rehashing material that was already covered in prequels. Of course even if it was a good story, it would arguably diminish the original and the entire point. The heroes failing, and the bad guy arguably saving the world represents a powerful point, that would kind of be lost if you didn't stop there and followed through and reconstructed the genere within that universe.
I concur, Steve. Watchmen was an insulary singular work, the only thing prequels can achieve is just going through the motions. Another reason why I'm not buying them.
Prequel: a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age.
The only person that has ever made this work properly was Salvador Dali.
Azzarello - however good his work on Hellblazer - and it was damn good, is no Dali.
And the main point is that Moore has already provided all the prequel that was needed.
Sorry, the main point is that WATCHMEN IS ABOUT WATCHES.
[HEADING=3]I know this is somewhat obvious to anyone who's read the books, but the entire point of the project is that it's a self-contained mechanism. That's why there's so much talk/imagery of clocks everywhere. That's why Doctor Manhattan's last lines are so effective.[/HEADING]
If you create a prequel, you create the same story. And all we have is another Veidt trying to make things better again.
The only person that has ever made this work properly was Salvador Dali.
Azzarello - however good his work on Hellblazer - and it was damn good, is no Dali.
And the main point is that Moore has already provided all the prequel that was needed.
Sorry, the main point is that WATCHMEN IS ABOUT WATCHES.
[HEADING=3]I know this is somewhat obvious to anyone who's read the books, but the entire point of the project is that it's a self-contained mechanism. That's why there's so much talk/imagery of clocks everywhere. That's why Doctor Manhattan's last lines are so effective.[/HEADING]
If you create a prequel, you create the same story. And all we have is another Veidt trying to make things better again.
Well, yes and no. Like I said, I'm hopeful, but also realistic.Bucht said:
None of my arguments have anything to do with whether or not this is fair to Alan Moore. This is DC's property and, from a business perspective at least, it's perfectly fair for it to do what it wants to with it, regardless of Moore's objections. That said, Moore absolutely has a point about the exploitation here. Len Wein, who's writing Ozymandias, and whose Swamp Thing was eventually taken over by Moore himself, talked to Wired, citing "the need to inject new blood, new ideas, new approaches..." The Watchmen prequels don't really seem to fit that approach.
Like I said in the post, though, my main concern is that the original series' exhausted all the interesting and relevant parts of each character's biography. Watchmen is its own prequel and I still have no idea what these new titles are for.
Of them all, the one that I think has the best chance to succeed is Darwyn Cooke's Minutemen. Not only does he know how to handle that kind of material (New Frontier was basically a 20-year prequel for all of DC's continuity), but it's also the one project that interested Moore and Gibbons in the wake of Watchmen's original success.
One wonders what would happen if Moore and Lucas swapped places. Now there's a story that should be told.Steve Butts said:
While I completely understand people's reluctance to endorse prequels or sequels, I also wonder why anyone bothers worrying about it. It's true, all the books of Before Watchmen could mightily suck. On the other hand, they might all, or at least some, be really good. Whether or not anyone thinks anything new or important can be gleaned from these stories, the fact of the matter is that nothing that DC can do to the characters can change, distort or ruin what Watchmen is. Even if DC decided to have a team completely re-write and re-draw Watchmen itself, we would still have the original, it would still be available and it would still be a masterpiece of comic book art.
Personally I save my judgement until I'm actually able to read them. I'll also wait for each individual story to be collected in one book. I think some of these art and writing teams might be able to craft some really good stuff.
It's pretty fashionable to rag on sequels and prequels these days, but from DC's point of view there's nothing to lose by using these characters and everything to gain. Sure, Alan Moore is pulling his usual hissy fit bullshit, and to say that Gibbons has stopped just short of "washing his hands of the whole affair" is a bit disingenuous, at least. From a Wired.com article I read, Gibbons has in fact "given his stamp of approval to the sprawling project" (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/exclusive-before-watchmen/), far from "washing his hands" of it.
I think we might see some interesting stuff come out of this. Will it be on par with Watchmen itself? Most likely no. Will it be entertaining? Entirely possible.
Personally I save my judgement until I'm actually able to read them. I'll also wait for each individual story to be collected in one book. I think some of these art and writing teams might be able to craft some really good stuff.
It's pretty fashionable to rag on sequels and prequels these days, but from DC's point of view there's nothing to lose by using these characters and everything to gain. Sure, Alan Moore is pulling his usual hissy fit bullshit, and to say that Gibbons has stopped just short of "washing his hands of the whole affair" is a bit disingenuous, at least. From a Wired.com article I read, Gibbons has in fact "given his stamp of approval to the sprawling project" (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/exclusive-before-watchmen/), far from "washing his hands" of it.
I think we might see some interesting stuff come out of this. Will it be on par with Watchmen itself? Most likely no. Will it be entertaining? Entirely possible.
Pretty much. Moore is a huge dink and it's just lucky for him that his shitty attitude and penchant for histrionics doesn't detract from his writing ability.Bucht said:
Okay, speaking from this perspective then, that the Watchmen character's biographies have been exhausted, all the relevant bits covered, why do we still get multiple(!) new Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc. comics every month? What in the living, breathing fuck can anyone do with Superman or Batman that hasn't already been done to death? Seriously, somebody like the Joker should have been killed dead for good decades ago and probably at the hands of Batman himself. But no, we get endless retreads of these characters year in and year out. Yet finally DC wants to utilize different characters but because they are from Watchmen all the boo birds come out and decry the lack of "new blood, new ideas", meanwhile they've just comic from their local with a stack of DC comics featuring characters that have been exhaustively chronicled for decades.Steve Butts said:
It's a silly double standard. I'm sorry, but the 12 issues of Watchmen is barely enough room to scratch the surface of so many characters and I can't see the harm in giving them to a teams of talented artists and writers and seeing what they come up with.
Yeah, Moore is a talented writer... but he's also kind of a smug, elitist asshole.Zom-B said:
Personally, I don't hold out a lot of hope for the prequels. The have to escape the shadow of Moore and Gibbons' original and do it while under the microscope of fans who will rip on any continuity errors.
Yeah, I harbour no illusions that these prequels are going to be the best thing since sliced bread, on the other hand, there's no point in pre-judging them. All we've seen so far is a couple covers and writers and artists names, nothing of substance. I'm not hoping, per se, but I will hope to be pleasantly surprised.Otaku World Order said:
Agreed, it's a good writing team and I don't necessarily think it'll be bad, it's just completely unnecessary and will inevitably lack in comparison to the original work.
I remain cautiously optimistic, but I'm not expecting greatness. I'm just unsure of where things can go, or rather, come from. We already know that Rorshach used to be a bit nicer, and we know his tipping points. Expanding more on Jon's disconnect from humanity serves almost no end. Adrian getting more time to show how he decided on that particular plan just becomes useless exposition. Sure, you could do a bit with the Comedian, but I keep running into the idea that it's entirely not necessary. Hell, right off the bat we have the idea that "The Watchmen" have more or less disbanded, with the flashbacks and dialogue telling us how things were, and how things ended. I'm not sure what else is needed. I'd be pleasantly surprised to find that I'm wrong, however.
Will they be as good as the original? Probably not.
But here's another question: Why do they HAVE to be?
Just because a piece of work is connected to a previous piece of work, does not mean it can't be simply judged on its own merits, rather than having to be obsessively compared to one another, and being judged a failure if the new does not quite match the standards of the old.
So long as Before Watchmen is good, what does it really matter if it's not AS revolutionary as the original? Even if it sucks, the original didn't go anywhere, so what's the fuss? I fail to understand this modern trend of being obsessed about how sequels/prequels/spin-offs hold up against the originals. Nobody looks at the New Testament and says "Feh! Nothing can compare to the literary Majesty of the Old Testament. By carrying on the story they've sullied the impact of the original. Religion is RUINED FOREVER!"
But here's another question: Why do they HAVE to be?
Just because a piece of work is connected to a previous piece of work, does not mean it can't be simply judged on its own merits, rather than having to be obsessively compared to one another, and being judged a failure if the new does not quite match the standards of the old.
So long as Before Watchmen is good, what does it really matter if it's not AS revolutionary as the original? Even if it sucks, the original didn't go anywhere, so what's the fuss? I fail to understand this modern trend of being obsessed about how sequels/prequels/spin-offs hold up against the originals. Nobody looks at the New Testament and says "Feh! Nothing can compare to the literary Majesty of the Old Testament. By carrying on the story they've sullied the impact of the original. Religion is RUINED FOREVER!"