posted
The Hobbit was complete, why the hell did he write Lord of the Rings? Bilbo's story was whole and satisfactory, what did it have to gain by bringing in a nephew that we never heard of?
I'm sure after the Star Wars prequels, people are reasonably reticent to spend money on Before Watchmen, and that's fine and reasonable, but the whole "unnecessary" label to me just makes no sense. The original Watchmen was unnecessary too. Superman is and was unnecessary. The new 52 sure as hell was unnecessary. The entire industry is unnecessary.
But hey, Clone Wars seems to be doing okay for Lucas. And after all those Batman animated series, I'm still glad they made Brave and the Bold.
I mean, I know you mean "unnecessary to the original story", but is any issue of Superman necessary to those that came before? And who says anyone's trying to add to that particular story arc in the Watchmen's timeline anyway?
Yeah, I guess the word just bugs me in this context.
A more logical question might be "Why do prequels, because you know where the story has to go?" Well that of course is a problem, but the bigger problem is that most of the Watchmen were dead at the end of the original, so it's hard to use the characters people want to read about later in that particular timeline.
At least in a world where death means something and isn't reversed, which is one thing I think drew people to Watchmen.
It's probably better to just ask what they think they'll achieve, and whether it's likely they'll manage that.
Why give us more? Well certainly some people want more, and obviously they hope enough people do that they'll make some money.
Now my favorite part of the whole Tolkien oeuvre is the Silmarillion, so I don't have a problem with prequels and "historical" pieces. Though I also understand I never would have cared about the Silmarillion if I hadn't known LoTR first.
From: Manhattan, NY | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty much 100% with Lardy and Jerry on this. On one hand, I really see no point from a larger creative standpoint, but on the other hand, I have too much love and respect for one or two of the creators not to pick it up (and likely be blown away by it).
I find the argument that "DC owns the characters and will make money with them" to be inherently true. However, the same argument applies to "insurance companies can deny your claims if they do not fit exactly within the policy wording" and "oil companies can raise gas prices to whatever they want if the market is going that way". So sure, corporations make money. Doesn't mean its morally good. At the end of the day, this isn't something I feel all that emotional about, its just if we're going to go there, let's be 100% honest about it.
Where I stand in terms of the morals of the whole thing is there is no need for sequels and prequels to Watchmen, as it is a masterpiece that stands entirely on its own. This is akin to Phantom Menace more than anything, except the creator involved is getting squeezd. Clearly Moore regrets ever signing any contract with DC, and this is exactly why. It's no wonder modern creators don't create new concepts for the major corporations Warner Bros. and Disney (oops, I mean DC and Marvel); why would you? They'll just consume it like a Roman army sacking a major city, and you'll have to sit by and watch.
Moving on to the books themselves and what I will or will not be getting. Like Lardy and Jerry there is no way DC is getting me to pick up all of these. My general outlook is: I won't even bother trying it unless it looks like something I absolutely can't live without. There are very few of these in the industry in general, but here there is at least one, possibly two.
I love Darwyn Cooke and he is my favorite comic book creator, so I'll definitely be getting Minute Men. I also like Amanda Conner quite a bit, and Cooke is writing her title, so probably I'll get at least the first issue of Silk Spectre.
While I recognize Azzerello and JMS have done some great stuff, both IMO tend to do just as many bad comic books as they do good ones. Since I have a bad taste in my mouth about the whole project in general, I'll probably skip all of their comics from the onset since I don't trust either writer to deliver. Lastly, while I'm a big of Len Wein and Jae Lee, it's just not enough to overcome my feelings for the project.
[ February 03, 2012, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Cobalt Kid ]
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, it was based on the Charlton heroes at first but at the end of the day, Moore did not use those characters. He did somethign entirely different. I co-own and have read all of the Charlton heroes stories before Watchmen was published, I can say with 100% accuracy that there is almost nothing at all similar between them and Watchmen beyond an aethestic 'look'. The Watchmen characters are entirely different. Sure, there is a handful of similar 'looks', like Rorschach and the Question have a trenchcoat and fedora hat, but their personalities are totally different. Obviously, Moore would have taken any characters from anywhere and applied his own stamp on them.
I will admit, however, a major point. If not for DC Comics or a similar corporate entity, Moore could have probably gotten this done elsewhere but it would not have gotten the exposure Watchmen did and therefore, might not have been successful. DC didn't contribute all that much creatively, but they certainly did utilizing their distribution, marketing and corporate partnership platform. It's impossible to say how much that helped. But clearly, Watchmen was a hit from Day #1; it very easily could have been an obscure 80's OGN that was only given its recognition 15-20 years after it was published. Hell, most people still have never read Maus or A Contract with God.
[ February 03, 2012, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Cobalt Kid ]
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I vaguely recall, Moore wanted to use the Charlton characters, meaning these personalities (roughly) would have been what "became" of them, mixed I suppose with a little bit of "this is what they were all along but we didn't see it", and of course some plain old reinterpretation.
Once they determined the Charlton characters wouldn't be used, I'm sure he departed even more from the previously published characters.
Since then, some of the originals have taken bits from Watchmen. The Question became a conspiracy theorist (at least in JL animated) and Captain Atom turned all silver.
Answering my own question from earlier, Wikipedia says the Comedian was based on Peacemaker.
From: Manhattan, NY | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, that makes sense on the Comedian. Interesting.
I know Hooded Justice of the Minute Men is based on an old Quality Comics (or another company) character. I think one or two others might be based on non-Charlton characters as well.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most material I've read says he's based on Peter Cannon- Thunderbolt, and he's certainly got that same "using the full potential of body and mind" thing going.
From: Manhattan, NY | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fall on the side of "DC did their due diligence to do it correctly but ultimately it's their right and I'm glad that they're at least treating it with the respect it deserves by getting the best talent" camp.
I really wish they hadn't decided to put out a truck-load of miniseries though. There's no way I'm getting all of them. I'd have preferred one mini or maxi that actually had all these characters interacting with each other - when they were a team.
And you know a big reason they're doing prequels is because ******** died at the end of the original series.
From: New York, NY | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Watchmen but I'm certainly not one of those who hold it up on a pedestal as THE BEST COMIC EVER or whatever. In fact, if anything, I resent it for beginning the 'darkening' of super-heroes that so permeates the comic industry now and IMO is a prime reason for its decline.
I probably won't buy these books anyway but I'll be interested to find out if they answer the one question that I always wondered about when reading the original series. And that's -
"Whatever happened to... the Hooded Justice?"
I know it was hinted at that...
Click Here For A Spoiler the Comedian killed him
... but it always felt like there was more to the story than that. So I wonder if any of these comics will address that.
From: Australia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's implied and then was confirmed in an interview I think that HJ was gay and in a relationship with one of the other heroes. I forget which one though.
And yeah, I think it's also implied the Comedian eventually killed him.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, if you read the backstory for each chapter closely, it lays out that Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis were a couple and the Comedian killed HJ (which adds even more layers to the scene where Comedian crushes Metropolis' "Crimebusters" idea). Also the irony that Metropolis comes across as a conservative crusader for 50's morals, while being a closeted homosexual.
From: Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dave Hackett: Also the irony that Metropolis comes across as a conservative crusader for 50's morals, while being a closeted homosexual.
Known in the 21st century as a Republican.
From: Manhattan, NY | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
