DC Unveils Watchmen Prequels

[Falcon123]

I love how so many people are convinced this is going to suck BEFORE a single issue has come close to hitting the stands. The novel will always be there, and it will always be everything it was to you when you read it, but these stories (written by some pretty solid writers from what I can tell) have a chance to be something different. Do we hate everything Spiderman because One More Day was shit? No! It would be stupid. One of these Watchmen series probably won't work. Maybe more than one. But some could be quite good. It's not like these characters are so overwhelmingly unique that no one other than Moore could write them without ruining everything.

Yeah, the intentions behind why this is happening aren't pure. Money's involved. It's a business. People need to get over that. There have been many moves in the comic book industry (New 52, any major crossover event) that were done for money that ended up really successful (39 of 52 series getting consistently high marks by IGN and other reviewers, with 5 of the six that didn't getting cancelled in two months and things like Marvel's Civil War respectively) AND were really fun reads.

My point (to which it took me far too long; sorry ) is that until the first issue hits the stand, we should hold our judgment, or else we're just limiting ourselves from a potentially interesting comic.

 

[Hoplon]

Let me explain; Sometimes IP mining (and this is blatant IP mining) goes O.K.

I'm gonna have to ask for an example on this one. Sorry, but I can't think of a single example where something is mined without the express permission of the author that doesn't turn against everything the author has worked for.

I have VERY relevant exaple; The Watchmen Movie. Alan Moore said; 'I will be spitting venom all over it' yet the film was, if anything, TOO faithful to the comic. It basically filmed as much as the comic pannel for pannel as was humanly possible.

So there.

...No. Schneider took realistic violence and turned it in to ultra violence porn. that hack mother fucker can die in a fire.

Let me preface this with an acknowledgement that Alan Moore is a madman of epic proportions.

He still makes JMS look like fucking Stephenie Meyer.

For me this is like people writing prequals to hamlet and getting dan brown to do it, DC can fuck right off.

 

[tautologico]

I'm was all for complaining about this, but Brian Azzarello writing Rorshach and the Comedian? Well played.

Edit: Also

The perception that these characters shouldn't be touched by anyone other than Alan is both absolutely understandable and deeply flawed. As good as these characters are and they are very good indeed, one could make the argument, based on durability and recognition, that Superman is the greatest comics character ever created. But I don't hear Alan or anyone else suggesting that no one other than Shuster and Siegel should have been allowed to write Superman. Certainly Alan himself did this when he was brought on to write Swamp Thing, a seminal comics character created by Len Wein.

Leaving aside the fact that the Watchmen characters were variations on pre-existing characters created for the Charleton Comics universe, it should be pointed out that Alan has spent most of the last decade writing very good stories about characters created by other writers, including Alice (from Alice in Wonderland), Dorothy (from Wizard of Oz), Wendy (from Peter Pan), as well as Captain Nemo, the Invisible Man, Jeyll and Hyde, and Professor Moriarty (used in the successful League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). I think one loses a little of the moral high ground to say, "I can write characters created by Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle and Frank Baum, but it's wrong for anyone else to write my characters."

The whole point of having great characters is the opportunity to explore them more deeply with time, re-interpreting them for each new age. That DC allowed these characters to sit on a shelf for over two decades as a show of respect is salutary, but there comes a time when good characters have to re-enter the world to teach us something about ourselves in the present.

- J. Michael Straczynski

It's a good point by JMS, but the analogy he makes is faulty. There is a difference: one thing is taking a character and writing him/her in a new or reimagined context, taking from them what the author perceives as essential but (possibly) changing what's nonessential to fit your vision. It's another thing to take characters and their context/universe (both characters and universe having previously been heavily imbued with the "voice" of the author) and trying to add to that universe writing new stories for the same character. Comparisons with Superman are also failed, as he was a character intentionally created for serials.

The difference is better explained by an example: one thing is re-imagining the Sherlock Holmes universe and characters and writing a new story in this new setting. This is what the recent movies do; be the result good or bad, it's not trying to be what it's not. What DC is doing would be like writing new Sherlock Holmes stories trying to keep the exact same universe and stylings of Arthur Conan Doyle. It would, inevitably, sound fake.

I'm not saying the prequels will be bad. The writing team seems to me to be very good. I just find it hard to see how they will be able to add to the original Watchmen universe without sounding fake or just completely superfluous. It's a closed story, all you need to know is there. You don't need to "better explain" things or "fill the blanks", and this often leads to a cheapening of the original works (see: the prequel Star Wars trilogy).

 

[The Pinray]

I don't like this idea, but I'm not judging until I read them. I'll keep my fingers crossed that they'll be good.

 

[sheah1]

Ugh, really? Really? Really?! I don't even..... This tires me, at least Moore is keeping away, I don't want him to do a Miller.

 

[Carl The Manicorn]

I really liked the Watchmen. I loved the movie. And I really kind of want to read these because they have a lot of great writers and artists doing the work of Alan Moore. If anything, this is more like the artists and writers paying tribute to the crazy old man. He wrote a ton of great classics and I see this as a "thank you" from the writers and the artists.

I can't wait to read these. Especially the Crimson Corsair and the Nite Owl ones. They should be good.

 

[liquidsolid]

Yeah it's going to be complete shit, especially because Alan Moore will have nothing to do with it. It's kind of ironic that the comic was originally written as a post-modern deconstructionist view of superheros and comics and now is getting what every other comic gets, a reboot with new continuity.

Watchmen was good enough without some suits deciding there needed to be more (money) to be taken out of the story. Personally I'd be interested in what happened with the Minutemen and all that but not if Alan Moore isn't writing it because Alan Moore thinks there is another story there...that might involve rape...again...

wait..I dotn think this is a reboot with a new continuity (they arnt THAT stupid) just some preaquels...I think

Alan Moore also doesnt like alot of things

I misinterpreted this:

Before Watchmen series editor Len Wein had to following to say: "To me, a reboot is what DC is essentially doing with the New 52, which is changing costumes, origins, relationships, essentially looking at old characters through new eyes. What we're doing is filling in a lot of the blank spaces in a story that has already, to some degree, been told. There were still a lot of gaps in the histories of Watchmen's characters, and events only mentioned in passing or touched on briefly in the original story. We're filling in those gaps in the most creative and inventive ways we can."

to mean that it was a reboot of sorts. Re-reading it reveals quite the opposite. They are just prequels.

Yeah he said that it's "shameless" that DC still works off of ideas he had 25 years ago. He does get rather grumpy.

 

[zombflux]

Moore has already criticized the project, calling it "completely shameless", and stated he was not interested in monetary compensation, but rather ?What I want is for this not to happen.?

That aside, I won't believe anyone's opinions on this till I read an issue, though I can't help but side with the one guy who has not been paid to speak on Before Watchman's behalf.

 

[Vivi22]

I think JMS's point is kind of flawed, in that classic super-heroes such as Spider-man and Superman were from the beginning franchises, the stories was always serialized and meant to continue. Were as Watchmen is a stand-alone story, all of the characters have been wrapped up, they have gone through all of their character developement. We know everything that we need to know, their motivations, their flaws, everything.

I don't think you can really make the argument that the JMS quote is flawed because characters like Superman and Spider-Man were meant to be serialized from day one when Moore has clearly worked with characters that the original authors almost certainly never intended to be serialized themselves (characters like Dr. Jeckyll, the Invisible Man, and Captain Nemo in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen for example).

I actually agree with JMS on this one. And I would be one of the people who cringed at the announcement of prequels. Yes, Watchmen was a stand alone, self contained story that was made for a very specific time period, yet still stands the test of time today. But those who don't wish to see prequels to it don't need to. Simply ignore them. Their mere existence does not make Watchmen less enjoyable, regardless of how they turn out.

As much as Watchmen is one of those works that many hold up, and perhaps rightly so, as being untouchable, that also means that it's still going to be damn amazing if these prequels are released and turn out to be terrible.

 

[ars731]

Dear DC comics

Please don't screw this, thats all I ask

 

[The Great JT]

Prequels to Watchmen? Ugh, just...just play the Nostalgia Critic clip.


DC, at this point why not just stab Alan Moore in the heart and get it over with?

 

[lordmardok]

I'm just gonna stick my head in the sand and pretend the prequels don't exist. Seems like a more valid response given how badly DC has been mishandling their characters lately.

 

[Hyper-space]

I don't think you can really make the argument that the JMS quote is flawed because characters like Superman and Spider-Man were meant to be serialized from day one when Moore has clearly worked with characters that the original authors almost certainly never intended to be serialized themselves (characters like Dr. Jeckyll, the Invisible Man, and Captain Nemo in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen for example).

That doesn't change shit, Watchmen is still a stand-alone story even though Alan Moore used characters that (NOTA BENE) were in the public domain for another story.

These prequels will either be complete shit or just unnecessary.

 

[Vivi22]

That doesn't change shit, Watchmen is still a stand-alone story even though Alan Moore used characters that (NOTA BENE) were in the public domain for another story.

These prequels will either be complete shit or just unnecessary.

You saying it doesn't change shit won't make it so. Fact is, Moore doesn't own the characters which means DC can let anyone they want use them however they want, regardless of whether it was originally a stand alone story. And the fact that Moore has done much the same with characters which were no longer owned by their creators makes him somewhat of a hypocrite for being so adamant about it not happening. He doesn't have to like it, but there's nothing he can do about it.

Moreover, there aren't just two options here: either they're shit or unnecessary. In the hands of capable writers, I think there absolutely could be more stories to tell in that universe with those characters, and they could be every bit as relevant to the world around us as Watchmen was in the 80's. The fact that these prequels are in the hands of some of the best writers in the industry today certainly gives them a good shot at it.

They may not necessarily be relevant to the original Watchmen story, but they don't have to be to still be good and meaningful reads.

 

[Orthon]

Apparently, some people seem to argue that because Moore has previously used characters that did not belong to him, it is hypocritical that he should feel enraged when DC decides to use his characters(copyright notwithstanding). To those people I would like to point out that Alan Moore borrowed these characters from people who were either:

1. Fine with it.
2. Dead.

Moore is neither. DC should at least have the decency to concede to Mr Moore's wishes, or hire a professional and make it look like an accident.


P.S. Is it just me, or does the Dr Manhattan cover look borderline pornographic? I mean, I guess they had to cover his junk up with something, but did it have to be the Silk Spectre?

P.P.S.
I don't really care about these prequels. I hope they're fine and not terrible but that's about it.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I'm was all for complaining about this, but Brian Azzarello writing Rorshach and the Comedian? Well played.

Edit: Also

The perception that these characters shouldn't be touched by anyone other than Alan is both absolutely understandable and deeply flawed. As good as these characters are and they are very good indeed, one could make the argument, based on durability and recognition, that Superman is the greatest comics character ever created. But I don't hear Alan or anyone else suggesting that no one other than Shuster and Siegel should have been allowed to write Superman. Certainly Alan himself did this when he was brought on to write Swamp Thing, a seminal comics character created by Len Wein.

Leaving aside the fact that the Watchmen characters were variations on pre-existing characters created for the Charleton Comics universe, it should be pointed out that Alan has spent most of the last decade writing very good stories about characters created by other writers, including Alice (from Alice in Wonderland), Dorothy (from Wizard of Oz), Wendy (from Peter Pan), as well as Captain Nemo, the Invisible Man, Jeyll and Hyde, and Professor Moriarty (used in the successful League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). I think one loses a little of the moral high ground to say, "I can write characters created by Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle and Frank Baum, but it's wrong for anyone else to write my characters."

The whole point of having great characters is the opportunity to explore them more deeply with time, re-interpreting them for each new age. That DC allowed these characters to sit on a shelf for over two decades as a show of respect is salutary, but there comes a time when good characters have to re-enter the world to teach us something about ourselves in the present.

- J. Michael Straczynski

QFT

This is old hat for comic books. Most of the best comic books ever made are based upon existing properties. If Batman had ended when his creators died we wouldn't have The Dark Knight Returns, Batman Year One, Arkham Asylum, the Nolan movies ect. If Superman had just been dumped we wouldn't have All Star Superman or Red Sun. I could go on.

To be honest I think this has been a long, long time coming. I'm kind of shocked this didn't happen back when the movie was released. And if it's going to happen they might as well get some great talent on it, which they have most definitly. I'm going to wait until I actually get a chance to read some of it or hear reviews before I judge it.

EDIT: That being said, going ahead with this without his concent is sketchy at best. But then the day you get Moore to concent to this is the day the cells in my body turn into geese.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

This is no more legitimate an addition to Watchmen as Hamlet 2 was to Hamlet.