Watchmen (the comic)

[ThaBenMan]

In anticipation of the upcoming film version, I recently read the graphic novel Watchmen. I had heard very good things about it - indeed, it was the only graphic novel included on TIME Magazine's list of the 100 Best Books and won a Hugo Award. And it lived up to the hype, for the most part.

Written in 1986 by celebrated comic scribe Alan Moore (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta) and illustrated by Dave Gibbons (The Originals), Watchmen is a unique take on the exploits of superheroes and masked crusaders. They are not perfect paragons of virtue like Superman - they have flaws and imperfections: they're alcoholics and racists or just plain psychotic, and they deal with depression and confidence issues. And in the case of the one actual superhuman, frighteningly inhuman.

The story goes back and forth between the Minutemen, a crimefighting group formed in the 1950's, and their successors and children in the 80's, unofficially dubbed the Watchmen. This is as "real" as a superhero comic is likely to get, examining the sordid details of the costumed heroes' interactions with each other and society. And a labyrinthine plot must be uncovered when someone starts killing them off one by one...

The writing is excellent, as is to be expected of Moore. The dialogue is intelligent and realistic, and the characters are very well-developed and interesting. The storyline is great - the backstories of the various masked heroes and the murder mystery are riveting, and the setting (for it's day, at least) is politically charged.

The artwork, I have more mixed feelings about. The composition of the scenes and panels is fantastic, very dynamic and interesting. But the coloring and style of drawing - they're good, but I just don't care for the "classic comic book" look (even though it's probably intentional here and important for the subversion of those classic comics). I much prefer something in the style of, say, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

And another problem that I, at least, came across: it's quite long and very dense. There is a lot of dialogue to read and process, and at the end of each "issue" there is an excerpt from a newspaper article or book that helps further flesh out the setting. They're interesting and just as well written as any other part, but I found myself wanting to just skip them and get back to the "comic" proper. This may just be me, but I usually pick up a comic as a more breezy, quick interlude between "proper" novels and books. It's probably my own fault for approaching it in the wrong way, but it seemed to drag in parts.

So in conclusion, Watchmen comes highly recommended. It's a brilliant deconstruction of the superhero genre that any fan of graphic novels should definitely check out.

 

[Maet]

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Fine review. I'm tempted to say it's too short, but I'm not one for writing long reviews myself. Really quick read with a good chunk of information. Good stuff.

 

[theultimateend]

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Fine review. I'm tempted to say it's too short, but I'm not one for writing long reviews myself. Really quick read with a good chunk of information. Good stuff.

The Watchmen is one of the best Graphic novels I've ever read.

Likewise Rorschach is one of my top 3 favorite characters.

1) Joker
2) Rorschach
3) Captain America

I know...talk about a change in seriousness from top to bottom .

 

[PumpItUp]

Your review hit about every nail on the head, but you missed one. It's also a very important work politically, as it is set and was written near the end of the Cold War (although at the time, people thought it'd be a different sort of "end"). It masterfully took the tensions of the Cold War and blended them into a gritty superhero story.

And I also read it preparing for the movie. Which had better do the comic justice or it will be flamed into oblivion.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

good review... i wouldn't have thought that Watchmen could be distilled effectively in so few paragraphs, but you did a commendable job...

 

[Marv21]

Yes great concise review of a great novel.

Hope Zach Syndar doesn't hold down the comic and rape it and have a "happy ending."

Ozmandias just freaking averted WW3, and Rosarch's last act of justice was to send his journal to the newspaper, thus furthering the notion that Apcolypse is behind very door and every alley, it is by chance or divine people that avert it for a few more days, months or years.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

To give Snydar credit, he CARES about Watchmen, he was the only director who had the balls to make it a proper period piece, alternate history, outdated politics and all. Similarly I doubt it'll have a tacked on happy ending, 300 and Dawn of the Dead didn't, that's not Snydar's style.

That said, the man is a bit of a hack and I don't think he'll do the project justice, but it won't be for lack of trying, just lack of talent.

 

[The Wooster]

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Fine review. I'm tempted to say it's too short, but I'm not one for writing long reviews myself. Really quick read with a good chunk of information. Good stuff.

The Watchmen is one of the best Graphic novels I've ever read.

Likewise Rorschach is one of my top 3 favorite characters.

1) Joker
2) Rorschach
3) Captain America

I know...talk about a change in seriousness from top to bottom .

Oh no. Judging by your avatar you've gone for Douchebag post movie, 100 bullets bullshit Joker. Azarello's take on the character was horrible.


I'm looking forward to the Watchmen movie but, in contrast to your average Watchmen fan, I think they should change the ending. In my ending Rorschach beats Ozymandias to death with a coffee table.

 

[MindBullets]

To give Snydar credit, he CARES about Watchmen, he was the only director who had the balls to make it a proper period piece, alternate history, outdated politics and all. Similarly I doubt it'll have a tacked on happy ending, 300 and Dawn of the Dead didn't, that's not Snydar's style.

That said, the man is a bit of a hack and I don't think he'll do the project justice, but it won't be for lack of trying, just lack of talent.

Every time I hear or read says "Based on the graphic novel illustrated by Dave Gibbons" I am reminded that Alan Moore wants nothing to do with it. Fair enough, he did try to write Watchmen to be "unfilmable", but the writing was what made it so good, and it seems to be a sign that, as close as they get to the comic, they won't be able to do it justice.

Anyone expecting it to be nearly as good as the comic will be disappointed. I'm trying not to, although anticipation gets the better of me sometimes. I'm still expecting it to be good, just not as good as the comic. I need to find a bit of a balance with regards to that.

 

[The Wooster]

To give Snydar credit, he CARES about Watchmen, he was the only director who had the balls to make it a proper period piece, alternate history, outdated politics and all. Similarly I doubt it'll have a tacked on happy ending, 300 and Dawn of the Dead didn't, that's not Snydar's style.

That said, the man is a bit of a hack and I don't think he'll do the project justice, but it won't be for lack of trying, just lack of talent.

Every time I hear or read says "Based on the graphic novel illustrated by Dave Gibbons" I am reminded that Alan Moore wants nothing to do with it. Fair enough, he did try to write Watchmen to be "unfilmable", but the writing was what made it so good, and it seems to be a sign that, as close as they get to the comic, they won't be able to do it justice.

Anyone expecting it to be nearly as good as the comic will be disappointed. I'm trying not to, although anticipation gets the better of me sometimes. I'm still expecting it to be good, just not as good as the comic. I need to find a bit of a balance with regards to that.

Moore wants nothing to do with any movie projects involving his work. He's distanced himself from all of them, not just because they were shite either.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Why is that?

As for the review, I was very pleasantly suprised how much information it told in spite of its brevity. The section on the artwork wasn't too great, I don't think a review should explain or draw attention directly to the writers bias. Just justify your opinion and let it speak for itself. Maybe at most, just explain the appeal of the novel to fans of certain works.

.
It's probably my own fault for approaching it in the wrong way, but it seemed to drag in parts.

Its quite hard to approach it in the completely right way, short of reading it when it was released after being a lifelong comics fan.

I would have prefered more depth in the review, but I still quite liked this one.

 

[Maet]

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Why is that?

I watch a lot of movies, and review most of them. I'm aware of the Watchmen's mammoth rabid fanbase, so much like Twilight, any criticism will draw either kudos or death threats (both of which are a lot of fun).

As to why I don't have any interest in the Watchmen comic/graphic novel/"whatever the hell you want to call it", I don't read very much, comics and graphic novels least of all. Not to mention reading something I've had no idea even existed until a movie comes along that was based on it gives me the idea that I'm embracing a bias, either positively or negatively. Take Angels and Demons for example: I read that book long before I knew of any movie coming along, but I'm not going to read it again a week before release just because of it since that will likely twist my expectations.

 

[Psychochik]

The artwork, I have more mixed feelings about. The composition of the scenes and panels is fantastic, very dynamic and interesting. But the coloring and style of drawing - they're good, but I just don't care for the "classic comic book" look (even though it's probably intentional here and important for the subversion of those classic comics). I much prefer something in the style of, say, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

And another problem that I, at least, came across: it's quite long and very dense. There is a lot of dialogue to read and process, and at the end of each "issue" there is an excerpt from a newspaper article or book that helps further flesh out the setting. They're interesting and just as well written as any other part, but I found myself wanting to just skip them and get back to the "comic" proper. This may just be me, but I usually pick up a comic as a more breezy, quick interlude between "proper" novels and books. It's probably my own fault for approaching it in the wrong way, but it seemed to drag in parts.

First, let me state, I received Watchmen as a Christmas gift this year, from a friend who knew I would be interested in the movie- he wanted me to know the source. I'm thankful he did, because this comic is AMAZING- breaking almost all the comic steriotypes you can think of.

Like everything else, people are entiled to there own opinions... So, I have great respect for your review..... That being said, I'm going to add a little personal opinion, and a pepper of facts.

As for the colouring style (as you probably know) MOST comics rely on the 3 primary colours. (red, blue, yellow)... When the human eye sees these colours, it's attention is drawn, and you sense that these people are "righteous"- yes, our mind has a natural preference for certain colours, and WILL draw conclusions based on sight.
The choice for picking the 'secondary' colours (orange, purple, green) is because our minds automatically 'shift' its perception of what the comic/characters are about. The artist wanted to create a feeling of unease, that something just isn't quite right with that world.

Now for the style, like you suggested, they did have a reason. As this comic was set as a period piece, they wanted to hint at that from every angle; one way was to set the comic page in panels like they did during that era. Playing around with boarders/panels really didn't become popular (widely used) until the 90's.

Peronal Opinion: As for the additional material added into the comics (newpaper clippings), like you I sometimes skipped over those parts- aching to know what happened to 'my' characters. That being said, on a second read I took the time to read it proper, and was astounded at the depth it led to the comic. Moore just didn't create a comic, he created a WORLD- and reading those clips gives you a sense of how this narrowed story connects to everything going on. Not to mention the fact that it has a few 'teasers' hidden in it- if you read, you'll get an idea of what's coming in the story.

Anyway, good review to a great comic... And I can only hope they don't mess up the movie TOO bad.... (although, from what I've already heard, I'm not holding my breath)

 

[Undeadpope]

this was the second of Moores graphic novel,none of which I own(I stole both of a friend whom lives with me every night until I was done) the first being V for vendetta,I saw the film of VfV before I read the novel I thought the Novel was alot(ALOT) better,I will be going to see the of watchmen but I should think it would be hard to squeeze so much of the details of the novel into a moive(even if it was 2 to 2 and a half hours long).

also as seemly I should give opinion of the the review
I certainly can not see anything wrong with it,length I think should'nt matter in a review,because if say its a factor than they will try and make it longer by rabbling on about things which would'nt even require so much written about it.
you talk about the artwork,for me I don't think it matters that much if its well drawn in an interesting style its certainly adds to mood and makes a grahpic novel,well grahpic but what I am trying to say is that artwork is icing on the cake,but not amount of icing will cover a cake made of cement bad(and very hard) taste.

 

[theultimateend]

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Fine review. I'm tempted to say it's too short, but I'm not one for writing long reviews myself. Really quick read with a good chunk of information. Good stuff.

The Watchmen is one of the best Graphic novels I've ever read.

Likewise Rorschach is one of my top 3 favorite characters.

1) Joker
2) Rorschach
3) Captain America

I know...talk about a change in seriousness from top to bottom .

Oh no. Judging by your avatar you've gone for Douchebag post movie, 100 bullets bullshit Joker. Azarello's take on the character was horrible.


I'm looking forward to the Watchmen movie but, in contrast to your average Watchmen fan, I think they should change the ending. In my ending Rorschach beats Ozymandias to death with a coffee table.

I've read every graphic novel that has ever included the Joker. (and many comic arcs for that matter)

So I'd practice your judgment skills. Especially since you've already failed with the line "X has a horrible take on him." Short of a few things you can't do the Joker wrong, he changes who he is with every day according to the world around him. Likewise as for 'douchebag' the guy is so sadistic that when one of the Infinite Earth Luthors (I think it was Luthors son in another dimension...too lazy to go verify) formed a league of evil doers there was one dude he left out. The Joker, because of all the possible bad guys in all the known universe there was only one person that he feared. It ended up being a big mistake on his part .

To be honest other than the non-canon television show there has never been a rendition of the Joker where he wasn't the most sadistic villain in the entire DC universe. All of the most famous renditions of him have accentuated this perfect. The Killing Joke, The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum, and many others.

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Why is that?

I watch a lot of movies, and review most of them. I'm aware of the Watchmen's mammoth rabid fanbase, so much like Twilight, any criticism will draw either kudos or death threats (both of which are a lot of fun).

Except that Twilight was crap. The only people giving you death threats for bashing twilight are adolescent girls. It's just a teenage version of every other by-the-numbers vampire romance story.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Good review, the comic is great. But you hit the nail on the head with how dense it is. I read comics when I really can't be asked to read a book. I mean, they're pritty books with pictures. But Watchmen isn't like that at all, its dense, its layered, its deep and its actually a pretty difficult read. If you don't go in with the right mind set, chances are you won't get though it. It took me a few goes to get into it, but once you do you won't want to put it down.

I seriously doubt the movie will be any good. I'm deffinitly seeing it, but my expectations are low. After all, they're filming the unfilmable comic.

 

[sheic99]

The artwork, I have more mixed feelings about. The composition of the scenes and panels is fantastic, very dynamic and interesting. But the coloring and style of drawing - they're good, but I just don't care for the "classic comic book" look (even though it's probably intentional here and important for the subversion of those classic comics). I much prefer something in the style of, say, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

The only complaint I have is the inclusion of Dave Gibbons as the colorist. He only did the pencil work. Also, John Higgins(colorist) said that he did not like the final coloring. The absoulute Watchmen will contain a rework of the color done digitally.

 

[sheic99]

I will watch (and gleefully review) the movie, but I have absolutely zero interest in the source material.

Fine review. I'm tempted to say it's too short, but I'm not one for writing long reviews myself. Really quick read with a good chunk of information. Good stuff.

The Watchmen is one of the best Graphic novels I've ever read.

Likewise Rorschach is one of my top 3 favorite characters.

1) Joker
2) Rorschach
3) Captain America

I know...talk about a change in seriousness from top to bottom .

Oh no. Judging by your avatar you've gone for Douchebag post movie, 100 bullets bullshit Joker. Azarello's take on the character was horrible.


I'm looking forward to the Watchmen movie but, in contrast to your average Watchmen fan, I think they should change the ending. In my ending Rorschach beats Ozymandias to death with a coffee table.

I've read every graphic novel that has ever included the Joker. (and many comic arcs for that matter)

So I'd practice your judgment skills. Especially since you've already failed with the line "X has a horrible take on him." Short of a few things you can't do the Joker wrong, he changes who he is with every day according to the world around him. Likewise as for 'douchebag' the guy is so sadistic that when one of the Infinite Earth Luthors (I think it was Luthors son in another dimension...too lazy to go verify) formed a league of evil doers there was one dude he left out. The Joker, because of all the possible bad guys in all the known universe there was only one person that he feared. It ended up being a big mistake on his part .

To be honest other than the non-canon television show there has never been a rendition of the Joker where he wasn't the most sadistic villain in the entire DC universe. All of the most famous renditions of him have accentuated this perfect. The Killing Joke, The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum, and many others.

Many of the comics written in the 60's contained the joyous prankster rather than the sadistic villain.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

I've read it and it is great. It's very complicated and intricate and I hope the movie can fit it all in. I think everyone should read Watchmen. I've never read anything like it.

 

[theultimateend]

Many of the comics written in the 60's contained the joyous prankster rather than the sadistic villain.

Many of the comics in the 60's contained a joyous prankster no matter what the villain was.

You could still be arrested for producing 'unfriendly' material then. We just got done reading about someone who got arrested for producing copies (for sale legally) of a piece of art because it was considered vulgar around the 60's.

Keeping in mind I couldn't even make out what was going on in the image I can only assume it was vulgar because it didn't match up with the norm at the time. It was really modern looking to me (which equates to it looked like random splatters of paint).

There weren't really ANY 'deep' or 'brooding' issues in comics at all until the Xmen. Even then it was relatively soft stuff at first and as the culture progressively accepted that life wasn't always flowers and gold (and that in war people actually die) they began to touch on more relevant material.

The thing about American comics is that the gore in DC or Marvel is rarely excessive, it is justified for the message they are attempting to portray, which is something I like. Just bugs me when people pop out of the woodworks "Back in the day X was so much different." well yeah...back in the day you couldn't speak your mind if it wasn't strongly supportive of the social norms.

Even now its iffy at times.