Watchmen (the comic)

[SenseOfTumour]

To me , Watchmen is a drama, with some superhero undertones, but I'm sure the movie is gonna end up a 'superhero' movie, as that's the only way it'll get the funding.

 

[Maet]

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.

Yes... that was exactly my point. Thanks for reinforcing it.

 

[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.

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.

A flimsy excuse for bad writing. Azarello has a talent for hilariously over the top Macho dialogue (usually with homoerotic undertones) and it's served him well in 100 bullets but when he tries the same shtick on the Joker it just strips all the subtlety from the character. He did the same with John Constantine when he took over Hellblazer as well, turning a deeply threatening character into an obvious 'bad ass'.

 

[ThaBenMan]

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.

Ok, my bad. I just figured Gibbons did all the artwork since he and Moore are the only names on the cover

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.

So you're saying I should have been more like "the art style takes after the classic 'Golden Age' of superhero comics, and so you'll like it if you're a fan of that stuff."? I wanted to point out somehow that I didn't like it (make it a "negative" aspect of the review), I guess I'm just not sure how? I realize it's good, I can appreciate it, I just don't like it. And I can see myself now that I probably should have left out the comparison to something with artwork that I do like.

I don't write many reviews and so I'm still learning -_- But thanks for the feedback!

 

[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.

Ok, my bad. I just figured Gibbons did all the artwork since he and Moore are the only names on the cover

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.

So you're saying I should have been more like "the art style takes after the classic 'Golden Age' of superhero comics, and so you'll like it if you're a fan of that stuff."? I wanted to point out somehow that I didn't like it (make it a "negative" aspect of the review), I guess I'm just not sure how? I realize it's good, I can appreciate it, I just don't like it. And I can see myself now that I probably should have left out the comparison to something with artwork that I do like.

I don't write many reviews and so I'm still learning -_- But thanks for the feedback!

No problem, it's a common mistake.

You could also have mentioned that "the 9 panel setup causes the reader to reminscets about the 'Golden Age of Comics,' which in turns causes the characters to become more unsettling as thoughts of 'perfect' heroes come forward." Most people don't realize how important the page setup is in comics. It would have been good to comment on that.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

[
So you're saying I should have been more like "the art style takes after the classic 'Golden Age' of superhero comics, and so you'll like it if you're a fan of that stuff."? I wanted to point out somehow that I didn't like it (make it a "negative" aspect of the review), I guess I'm just not sure how? I realize it's good, I can appreciate it, I just don't like it. And I can see myself now that I probably should have left out the comparison to something with artwork that I do like.

I would say just appraising the art style as objectively as you can is the way to go with that section - although other people may think differently. It can be tricky to pin down your thoughts if you aren't an expert in that field, but you did a decent job here. You could have stated it was a classic comic style as part of your analysis. Examples not really necessary except to draw clear parallels or contrasts. Also maybe you could have veiled your opinion by mentioning the artwork as 'dated' or some other such phrase(although I believe it was artfully anachronistic)?

 

[theultimateend]

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.

Yes... that was exactly my point. Thanks for reinforcing it.

That's how I roll

 

[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.

A flimsy excuse for bad writing. Azarello has a talent for hilariously over the top Macho dialogue (usually with homoerotic undertones) and it's served him well in 100 bullets but when he tries the same shtick on the Joker it just strips all the subtlety from the character. He did the same with John Constantine when he took over Hellblazer as well, turning a deeply threatening character into an obvious 'bad ass'.

A flimsy excuse made by DC comics years before this graphic novel existed...

Anyways, every single novel I've ever read about the Joker has been dramatically different. Which makes sense. Much like Lincoln each new examination of the character reveals a new outlook on the character (Yes I mean Abraham Lincoln...).

Considering the Joker crippled batgirl, killed the second robin, killed batman dozens (or hundreds) of times over and over when he had the ability to control reality, and considering he's got the highest murder toll of ANY character in Batman...I don't see where this 'subtelty' comes in.

 

[barryween]

The book is amazing. I didnt even read the "novel parts" and just skipped them. Pretty depressing ending though.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

The book is amazing. I didnt even read the "novel parts" and just skipped them. Pretty depressing ending though.

Its still probably the best ending theres been to anything...ever.

I hear they've changed it in the movie *facepalm*

 

[barryween]

I
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.

A flimsy excuse for bad writing. Azarello has a talent for hilariously over the top Macho dialogue (usually with homoerotic undertones) and it's served him well in 100 bullets but when he tries the same shtick on the Joker it just strips all the subtlety from the character. He did the same with John Constantine when he took over Hellblazer as well, turning a deeply threatening character into an obvious 'bad ass'.

I think you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass. I love that story and would like to see you write a Joker story(and judging from how you would end watchmen, well...)

 

[barryween]

The book is amazing. I didnt even read the "novel parts" and just skipped them. Pretty depressing ending though.

Its still probably the best ending theres been to anything...ever.

I hear they've changed it in the movie *facepalm*

They better not or I will shove Zac Snyder's tongue through his ass.

 

[The Wooster]

I
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.

A flimsy excuse for bad writing. Azarello has a talent for hilariously over the top Macho dialogue (usually with homoerotic undertones) and it's served him well in 100 bullets but when he tries the same shtick on the Joker it just strips all the subtlety from the character. He did the same with John Constantine when he took over Hellblazer as well, turning a deeply threatening character into an obvious 'bad ass'.

I think you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass. I love that story and would like to see you write a Joker story(and judging from how you would end watchmen, well...)

and you defend it by telling people to shove their opinions up their ass. Compelling evidence that it's schlock for idiots.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

The book is amazing. I didnt even read the "novel parts" and just skipped them. Pretty depressing ending though.

Its still probably the best ending theres been to anything...ever.

I hear they've changed it in the movie *facepalm*

They better not or I will shove Zac Snyder's tongue through his ass.

Eww...But...

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/19/watchmen-ending-changed/

 

[barryween]

I
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.

A flimsy excuse for bad writing. Azarello has a talent for hilariously over the top Macho dialogue (usually with homoerotic undertones) and it's served him well in 100 bullets but when he tries the same shtick on the Joker it just strips all the subtlety from the character. He did the same with John Constantine when he took over Hellblazer as well, turning a deeply threatening character into an obvious 'bad ass'.

I think you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass. I love that story and would like to see you write a Joker story(and judging from how you would end watchmen, well...)

and you defend it by telling people to shove their opinions up their ass. Compelling evidence that it's schlock for idiots.

thanks for that "insult"
But seriously, Joker turns Joker into a pemented and nearly demonic character and I never have thought that he might be a drugie. It is short and sweet, not over staying it's welcome and the ending just wraps it up nicley, proving how crazy and "on a whim" Joker is. So, shove THAT up your ass.
P.S: Did you mean Sherlock for idiots because I dont know what a Schlock is...

 

[barryween]

The book is amazing. I didnt even read the "novel parts" and just skipped them. Pretty depressing ending though.

Its still probably the best ending theres been to anything...ever.

I hear they've changed it in the movie *facepalm*

They better not or I will shove Zac Snyder's tongue through his ass.

Eww...But...

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/19/watchmen-ending-changed/

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
But seriously, that sucks.
P.S: I didnt read the new ending so I dont know. maybe it is better then the novel...

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Changing the end of watchmen?!?! That's idiotic! The end of the book is so fantastic, it really presents you with some tough thinking.

Spoiler

You know, would you kill Rorshach to preserve the peace, or tell the truth regardless of the consequences?

Well, you saw that last panel. It doesn't matter either way.

 

[The Wooster]

thanks for that "insult"
But seriously, Joker turns Joker into a pemented and nearly demonic character and I never have thought that he might be a drugie. It is short and sweet, not over staying it's welcome and the ending just wraps it up nicley, proving how crazy and "on a whim" Joker is. So, shove THAT up your ass.
P.S: Did you mean Sherlock for idiots because I dont know what a Schlock is...

Of course you don't. If you want to discuss this further use PMs.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

The book is amazing. I didnt even read the "novel parts" and just skipped them. Pretty depressing ending though.

Its still probably the best ending theres been to anything...ever.

I hear they've changed it in the movie *facepalm*

They better not or I will shove Zac Snyder's tongue through his ass.

Eww...But...

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/19/watchmen-ending-changed/

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
But seriously, that sucks.
P.S: I didnt read the new ending so I dont know. maybe it is better then the novel...

Well, its similar...

[spoiler/] No squid, just a huge bomb [/spoiler]

Its the same situation, just more mainstream. I can understand it. I can see people laughing at it.

 

[theultimateend]

Its the same situation, just more mainstream. I can understand it. I can see people laughing at it.

So essentially the thing that made it somewhat believable for what Ozymandius was attempting to do has been removed to make it more relevant to modern day paranoia.

Wow...that's seriously retarded.

I mean it's like V for Vendetta, I liked the movie but they essentially made an entirely different story just to make it relevant to the US's extreme distaste for the 'age of bush' .

Man...that should be an MMO.

"Age of Bush"

Oh no! She got a Cheney, Everyone knows he's a Hero class! He can simultaneously be in the executive branch and not whenever it benefits him!