http://www.newsarama.com/comics/dc-announces-before-watchmen-120201.html

DC has announced Before Watchmen. 7 mini series with a continuing backup in all of the books. Plus an Epilogue issue at the end of the whole thing.

While there are going to be various opinions on whether or not these should even be produced...they are coming, and I for one am actually looking forward to the event. It really takes nothing away from the original work...if it actually sucks, ignore it. If it's really good, it adds to the overall story.

Alan Moore needs to understand that he wrote this as a work for hire, that had the possibility of reverting rights to him and Dave Gibbons of it was out of print for a certain amount of time...from what I understand.

Too bad for him that he wrote one of the better stories of all time, and it has been in print ever since. It's the price of doing business. He based the original story in the Charlton characters, and only changed it when DC decided that they wanted to do something else with them.

I'm on board for this whole thing, and am looking forward to this event. For whatever reason, I think it looks pretty good, and there is some great talent involved.


I'm going to comment on each of the series below. There is a little order to my choices for best being first, and then going down in interest...but I am looking forward to all of them.

(6 issues) – Writer/Artist: Darwyn Cooke

I'd but this book no matter what it was about. Darwyn writing and drawing a period piece such as this with no real rules to follow is a guarantee to be a good fun read, and be totally beautiful to behold.

I think with him being involved, it gives the whole thing a bit more of a positive spin. He says in one article I read that he initially did not want to be involved, but then an idea hit him that he could get behind...that says a lot for me about this project.




(4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artists: Andy and Joe Kubert

This is the second book that I am really looking forward to. I like the Nite Owl character, and while Straczynski can sometimes be hit or miss, I think this is a great arena for him. Plus the Kuberts on art...WIN!

(4 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: Lee Bermejo

Azzarello writing Rorschach?!?!?! I cannot think really of a better writer. Lee Bermejo, artist of the Joker Graphic Novel...this looks to be good, and could easily bounce to #2 on my favorites list.




(6 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: J.G. Jones

Okay...they got him to write 2 of the baddest characters in the series. This looks great as well, plus J.G. Jones on art makes this another winner.

(4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artist: Adam Hughes

I can see Straczynski doing a good job with this...and at the very least, it s going to look absolutely gorgeous.




(4 issues) – Writer: Darwyn Cooke. Artist: Amanda Conner

Cooke + Conner = Another great book. This should probably be higher on my list and probably will as it comes closer.




(6 issues) – Writer: Len Wein. Artist: Jae Lee

Gotta say, not too sure on this one...I liked Len's stuff way back when...not sure what he has done recently though. Jae Lee will give this a good look no matter what though.




back-up written by Len Wein and illustrated by John Higgins

The book that will be in all of the books. This might be interesting, it has worked with such books as the original Rune story from the Ultraverse. It could be too disjointed though being only a couple pages an issue though. I know that John Higgins did one of the War Story books with Garth Ennis, so that means I like him.

I'm buying these just to piss Moore off. So nyahhhh.

I gotta say...that in and of itself is a reason.

Beat me to the punch starting this thread, Dev! Here are my thoughts:

On one hand, I agree with Alan Moore that these prequels are cash-grabs and curiously-timed ones at that. I mean, Watchmen popularity probably peaked in the late '80s and '90s and had interest re-swirl around it a few years ago when the movie came out. Why not around the time the movie came out? Why not any time between the original release and the year the movie came out? Why NOW?!?!

Plus, well, Watchmen itself is positively LOADED with all the backstory we really need if you think about it. I'd say half or more of the thing is backstory already and the other half (maybe less than half?) is what's going on in the present! Do we really need to know any more than we are already given? Sure, there are a few things left to the imagination, but is that a bad thing?!? I don't think so. Watchmen is pretty much perfect and complete on its own, so prequels (or sequels) feel damned unnecessary.

I mean, remember how 'well' Dark Knight Strikes Again made for a sequel to its classic forbear? )

So what am I going to do? My plan is to get only one of these in floppies, Minutemen, because it's the one that DARWYN-fucking-COOKE!!! is both writing and drawing and I just can't resist that guy's stuff. As for the rest, I'll keep my eyes open for reviews and recommendations and either cave and add one or two of these to the pull or trade-wait on them. No way is DC gonna get me to buy all 34 floppies though--that's GUARANT-damn-TEED!

I hope everyone who is a Watchmen fan will chime in on this thread about where they stand on the controversy of this thing!!!!

Not sure how well the Dark Knight Strikes Again comparison holds up though Lardy.

That was a cash grab by the same creator, who totally f'ed over his loyal fans with a piece of shite. I got it for a buck a pop, and I want my 3 bucks back.

There is a ton of backstory in Watchmen, but there is a whole lot that is not there. Depending on when these books are actually set, there are whole careers left to explore. The backstory in the original was what was needed to make the original what it was.

Which of course leads into the argument of why even do this then. The real answer is...money. Pure and simple. Well that, and id Cooke says he had a revelation of a story to tell...that's enough for me to get every issue of Minutemen at least...and probably The Silk Spectre. The others, well, several have teams that totally intrigue me, and well...that leaves one series I'd say I'm a little shaky on.

My thoughts have pretty much already been posted. This is totally not needed from a storytelling perspective. Watchmen is a complete work of art - it stands on it's own. DC owns the rights and it was inevitable that they were eventually going to cash in. They're bringing in top tier talent, so some will be tempting to pick up. Minute Men has my interest the most. But there's just no way I'm going to shell out the bucks for all of them. It would totally bust my comic book budget.

I'd say it holds up in comparison as an example of a perfectly-good standalone classic that we thought we wanted more of but now wish we never did. DKR and Watchmen are always mentioned as high-water marks in comics literature, so it's hard not to compare when the latter gets a continuation of sorts, as well.

So if we got enough backstory in the original to make it feel complete, why give us more?

That's the obvious goal for DC, but even with that in mind, I question the logic. This could potentially be a bust for them. Like I said, the window for this to have created the most possible income for DC has probably already passed. And if enough people feel put off by the contoversy and perceived disrespect to the original, it could potentiall be a disaster! I personally think it will do pretty well, but the potential for it not to is there.

I love back and forths with you Lardy. So much fun to look at all sides of things.

The thing is, this whole argument can be used for any character or story. Why should anyone other than Ian Fleming written about James Bond? Why should there be and Dune books without Frank Herbert? Should anyone have written about Spider-Man after Stan Lee stopped? Should The New Gods have stopped when Jack Kirby left DC?

The argument can be made either way for any of them...I can see both sides of the Watchmen thing. But, for once, I'm just jumping in to have a bit of fun with something. I love the original story, but think that the talent involved with this can pull off something really good.

Here's a good Bleeding Cool article (actually a repost of an article from December--BC broke this story long before it was made "official" by DC) on the ethics of this whole thing. Interestingly enough, it appears Paul Levitz stood in the way of this thing while he was publisher at DC, feeling that any prequels or otherwise would diminish the original.

Never let it be said that I shy away from these things!

But to rebutt that last thing, Watchmen is unique from most things in that it was designed as a story with a complete beginning, middle and end and in an era that was just prior to one that birthed more and more creators having rights, including some rights for work-for-hire (mostly royalties). The Silver Age and before (and most of the Bronze), your choices were pretty much work-for-hire or own your own work in small press and struggle to make ends meet. Guys like Alan Moore brought comics wider recognition as a valid art form and made it more and more clear that it was the creators, not the characters, that made the stories classics.

Like him or hate him, comics creators owe a lot to Alan Moore and other guys like him who made better treatment for them possible.

What would JMS do if someone did something with Babylon 5 without his permission or involvement? CBR has JMS's response. If his response from Moore's perspective is accurate, it seems that DC went out of its way to treat Moore more than fairly with this. Apparently Moore had the chance to own the rights if he participated!

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.

Oh, forgot I had a question.

The Watchmen were originally the Charlton heroes, but wasn't the Comedian the exception?

And looking at the cover posted above, I can't believe it never occurred to me before that he's a version of the Joker, trying very hard to be a hero.

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.

A few more of my opinions on Watchmen:

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.

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.

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.

And no character's listed as being inspired by Judomaster.

I thought Ozzy was loosely based on Judomaster.

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.

Weird...I never thought of Peter Cannon -Thubnderbolt. I just always thought he was modeled after Judomaster.

The others are pretty straightforward.

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.

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...

<span class="spoiler_containter"><span class="spoiler_wording">Click Here For A Spoiler</span><span class="spoiler_text"> the Comedian killed him </span></span>

... but it always felt like there was more to the story than that. So I wonder if any of these comics will address that.

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.

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.

Known in the 21st century as a Republican.

I am sure whatever they write will be good. I liked the book, but the failure of the movie to catch the public's attention should have said something to Warner Bros. I can't see too much separation between the Charlton characters and Watchmen, but that is probably because I am post-Watchmen. I read stories and watched the cartoons where Watchmen influenced Charlton characters.

Even a movie that's unsuccessful by Hollywood standards can have enough fans to support a comic. They operate of completely different scales.

OTOH as has often been mentioned, the dollar to minute of entertainment ratio is also very different, and not in comics' favor, so maybe it evens out.

Watchmen is above all a masterpiece of structure, intricate in it's detail and really hermetically sealed as a piece of literature. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by adding to the mythos or further expanding the characters because they weren't designed that way. DC's obviously doing it for the cash, but the creators should know this is a dead end. Look at how abysmal the movie turned out because Snyder didn't understand the book and just lifted "cool scenes" while destroying the structure and therefore destroying the narrative completely. It will be exactly the same idea if you just start telling more stories with these characters. Sure you can these types of stories, but there's nothing appealing about that, because there's no creative alternatives left for them within the world of Watchmen. You're just borrowing the branding.

I think it remains the be seen whether or not there are "creative alternatives." The folks involved are paid to be creative for a reason. Most people are expecting them to fail to live up to the original, but it'll be pretty exciting to see if some of them manage to give us something awesome.

Considering all the universe rearranging going on, I see these characters as "New52" versions of Moore's Watchmen anyway.

Darwyn Cooke!! Yes!!

Len Wein?? Feh!!

I may be the only person here that hasn't read watchmen, and doesn't really care to. I have the movie, but that's about it. As to the new books, no real interest, though I would buy the Len Wein black pirate story if it was in a book by itself. I may be the only person that liked Gunfire from the bloodlines or whatever story it was.

Good article with JMS. He talks about his two mini's in this event, as well as giving thoughts on Alan Moore and his objections to it. I happen to agree with what he says here. For whatever that is worth...

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/jms-before-watchmen-details.html

I'm the opposite. The more I read about this, the more I think it's a real shame that it's happening.

I simply cannot pass up any book with Amanda Conner or Darwyn Cooke art.
The others I'm passing on.

Interesting.

I think Kesel had the right idea initially.

Agreed. Yay her.

Cooke, Connor, Jae Lee, Adam Hughes?!?! Shitsnacks on a cracker, that's some mega-talent, and some of my personal favorite artists.

I predict no lower than top 20 for all of these minis, which will make them a huge success.

That said, your old buddy MLLASH shan't be buying all these books, if any.

Can't afford 'em. And like Blacula, I don't consider WATCHMEN to be the be-all end-all of comics, though there's NO denying it IS a good read.

As for the Moore brouhaha, my opinion is if he's been paid properly for the success of his characters, then he needs to quit bitching. And I'm pretty sure he's richer than all of us combined.

After reading this, I would absolutely want Barbara Kesel as editor for any book I ever worked on.

I'm not so sure he's that rich. He lost a ton of the Watchmen money on his indie projects of the late 80s.

Yeah, she's super-awesome, a true heroine.

Part of the way I feel is probably just jealousy... I mean, Moore is mega famous and a "god" of comics. There is not ONE SINGLE COMPANY that wouldn't prostrate themselves at his feet if he indicated he wanted to write something for them, yet he still stays so bitter decades later, meanwhile I am certain he's never missed cashing a royalty check (nor should he).

I think the seeming bitterness and anger is what gets me most. That said, I hold his stuff like SUPREME and TOMORROW STORIES in the highest regard. I wish he could enjoy his success more than he does.

Many people, including Grant Morrison in his non-fiction book Supergods, have compared Alan Moore to his creation Rorschach, someone who is principled to a fault.

Moore is the Dr. Sheldon Cooper of comics. Brilliant, but off.

Actually, didn't Moore refuse to accept any of the royalties that were owed to him from the film versions of V for Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Watchmen, etc.? I think I remember reading that somewhere.

not sure about LXG, but I'm pretty sure that's the case for Watchmen, and probably for V too.

I admire his conviction, but at the same time he can afford to pick and choose his battles. Ideally, any creative person should be able to.

Kesel makes a lot o sense, especially back in the day. Yes, BW coming out now is less potentially damaging than if it had come out in the late 80s (or indeed any time right up until the movie was still in theaters).

Yes, it is probably safer now, and yes, some amazing talents are on board, and yes, Watchmen was based on the Charlton characters, and no not every Moore project is as ideologically pure/consistent with his stance on others doing Watchmen....

But just as Moore changed the Charlton characters to fit his vision, so too could the Watchmen characters be modified into fresh characters for this new project; the weight of the creators could carry it, and free it from having to tie into the original Moore/Gibbons work. The only reason not to do this is to ride on Watchmen's coat-tails among fans and presumably the larger public (which presumably is what the Warner execs want, to prep for prequel movies).

Since the suits have presumably given marching orders where Levitz and Kahn would not go, we can either condemn everyone following orders and/or participating by their own choice, or accept that if prequels have to be printed, these do look pretty damn good, and be thankful that lesser-quality spinoffs (or *shudder* post-Watchmen sequels) have not appeared ere now. (Can you imagine an 80s Joey Cavalieri/Don Heck Night Owl? A Gerry Conway/Carmine Infantino Rorschach series?)

I still hold a lot of respect and appreciation for Moore, and will hopefully never simply fall into the "well, he signed a bad deal" view. And I support his right to be critical of projects that violate his principles. But it seems a lot less black/white than he may wish it to be, and I'm not going to point fingers at any who support or create these works. I won't be rushing out to buy them, but if they hold up over time I may read them at some point.

If this is the case, then it probably says a lot about how well-off he might be from the comics (and many many trades sold) themselves.

If he is content with just the cash those made (or as I suspect: continue to make) for him, then good for him.

It would have been a public relations coup for him though, if he HAD accepted royalties and then donated them to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, or to elderly creators in need...

^ I think his share of the royalties ended up going to the co-creators/artists on the projects - Lloyd for Vendetta, Gibbons for Watchmen, etc.

My faulty memory seems to be telling me that I picked this info up from an interview with Gibbons himself, where the interviewer made mention of how Moore's principled decision greatly benefitted Gibbons. I could be wrong though.

If that is the case, good for him... that is the kind of thing I can support and respect.

Let's hope he got some income from the movie at least.

Yes, Moore refused royalties for Watchman and V, and they $$ went to his co-creators instead.

Moreover, he fell out with... I think it was Lloyd over V, after he never thanked him for it.

Refused royalties? What was his reason for that?

He didn't want either film to be made, and this was his way of protesting.

Ego.

He did not want his name used in association with it. I want to say I remember him deferring his royalties to the others that he worked with on the books. I could be remembering wrong though.

You know, if they were smart, they'd put a huge credit in the films,
"Adapted and made over the objections of:
ALAN MOORE"

I think even he'd be happy with that.

That would still have me laughing if they had done that.

I'm sure the legal department would have okayed that. not.

I am really enjoying this ... Minutemen # 1 and Silk Spectre #1 had excellent art and the stories referenced the darkness of the characters lives without going there and retelling those stories ... we get new stories instead.

Amanda Conner was perfect for the Sally Jupiter's story.

can't wait for Jae Lee's Ozymandias!

Is this not also a legal maneuver ... so in a future lawsuit, he can say he never agreed, and then claim he is owed much more?



Anyway, My thing on the controversy is ... Alan ... your fans want comics ... don't be a jerk, write them. or at least get out of the way.

I am not a fan of the original Watchmen. I thought it was over the top, and the whole nuclear thing was played out. (I confess I did just read it about 5 years ago)

also, I thought his depiction of gay characters was ... as if they were criminals or it was their dirty secret. Maybe, one could say it is accurate of the life style of some people at the time but ... i thought it was too 'sensational' or he was trying to be shocking or edgy rather than telling these character's honest stories.

Meanwhile, Mr. Cooke threw a line out there in MinuteMan #1 ... "Did you think those kids cared she was a lesbian? Would they be less thankful? Would they have owed her less?"

That was nice, if a bit forced as a redemption of the Silhouette ... and it goes to show what I like about Minuteman #1 and Silk Spectre #1 ... These stories are about heroes!

The original Watchmen wasn't about heroes at all. IMHO.

(I should probably duck!)

--------------------------------------------

and .... Adam Hughes!!! awesome!!! and Jae Lee dosn't do enough either ... he could draw the worst story and it would be beautiful. Darwin Cooke can drawn some fight scenes ... there is so much energy in the Silouhette's sequence! and he's a great writer too! The stories so far are really about the individual character's stories.

Not reading the "Before..." stuff, but thought I'd point out that Nuclear paranoia was EXTREMELY relevant at the time. There are a number of elements that probably don't age well, but as a snap shot of what 1986 was like, even an alternate reality of '86, Watchmen is highly accurate.

This was also very much a product of 1986 mentality for the depiction of gays, if anything more was slightly more progressive in addressing gays at all (other than as complete caricatures). Certainly his depiction of how they would have been portrayed by someone like Hollis decades before (when dealing with Silouhette), was completely in keeping with the times.

It's not. There are no real "heroics", just people acting according to their worldview. You have these six people with completely different views of the world whose perceptions are all challenged and no one is proven definitively right or wrong (this was the movie's biggest failing - taking sides).

well, I don't think it was extremely relevant. Gorbachev took office in 1985 I believe, and the Cold War had been going on for like 40 years at this point. We didn't have drills in case of nuclear attack or anything.


I think his gay characters are caricatures, of depravity. Another stereotype, that was going out of fashion in educated circles in the 80s. Besides, when its basically all the story they get, is how they are corrupt heros on the decline and they have all these secrets about their sexuality ... I'd prefer this not to be explored at all. He certainly didn't have anything nice to say.

At the time I don't remember the gay characters being any worse than anyone else, and so was happy to see them. As Harvey Fierstein might point out, the visibility was valuable.

I wonder if this series will be collected in individual trade paperback?

Just getting to read the first issues that are out.

Minutemen #1 was a very good introduction to the characters, with Hollis Mason (Nite Owl I) being our narrator.

We get his view on all of his teammates. Fleshing out a few of them a little more than the original book did. Nothing drastic, but filling in some holes.

The art is great. Darwyn does a faboo job as always in both the writing and art department here.

I checked out some scans from the various prequel books, and mostly my reaction was... meh.

There's no doubt the creators involved are very talented, but I was happy to leave this kind of thing to my own imagination and to that of other fans. No matter how good these books are, I'm afraid they're never going to measure up to the "mystery of the unexplained" that I already built in my head from reading the original stories.

I'd rather see the creators striking out on their own, doing something that has the feel of a personalized story, rather than something built to fit in with Moore's and Gibbon's original vibe. No matter how well the newer creators match it, I fear it still has a warmed-over, imitative feel to me. A good imitation is still an imitation.

I can appreciate that Cle, but on the other hand, if all creators did was new things that they wanted to, the very thing that drew most of us here would be long gone. If a creator feels strongly enough about a project...any project, then I say good for them. Most of the talent involved also do their own thing from time to time. But as Coleen Doran will tell you, you have to pay the bills sometimes and get the capital needed to go and do your own thing.

Silk Spectre #1.

Another good strong first issue. Does it tread any truly new ground...no, to be fair though, none of these books, as prequels) will. All they can do is expand on what was hinted at and make things clearer.

But it gives us a better look at what drives the second Silk Spectre, and why she feels the way she does about her mother. Darwyn does a good job of letting us know what pushed her to the edge.

Amanda Conner's art is gorgeous here as well.

I keep thinking of the lighthouse scene from Dylan Horrocks Hicksville graphic novel, and I'm honestly not too sure that's true. Or at the very least, if more creators had had more free reign twenty-five, fifty, seventy-five years ago, comics might not be in the ugly, ever-contracting, cultish rut they are (at least commercially) today.

But I realize that's all conjecture, you can't prove a negative, and so on.

Quote

If a creator feels strongly enough about a project...any project, then I say good for them. Most of the talent involved also do their own thing from time to time. But as Coleen Doran will tell you, you have to pay the bills sometimes and get the capital needed to go and do your own thing.

Yeah, I know. But by the same token, my own finances are extremely limited. I'm likely to choose the product that's more about the creator themselves, rather than the creator imitating something else somebody before them did just as well, or better. Since I really can't have both.

When I saw the excerpts from the Silk Spectre comic, for instance, my initial reaction was: I've seen this almost image for image before, and it was better and fresher back then.

I've stayed away from the BW projects except for Minutemen, just as I intended when all the series and creators were first announced. I'm a big Darwyn Cooke fan, so having him writing and drawing that was a no brainer for me regardless of what the project was.

And, as expected, issue 1 was a good, solid, enjoyable read. Using Hollis Mason's narration/script worked very well for me. Cooke can just TELL a damn good story with style and flair, so it's very much worth the $4 cover price, imo. I doubt it will live quite up to other Cooke classics like DC: New Frontier or the excellent Parker GNs (the latest of which I bought hot off the press 2 weeks ago!), but I rarely get ANY book that displays such craft as anything Cooke does! I'm just glad to have so much output from him to look forward to!

The Comedian #1

Wow, they threw him right into the middle of it. He hangs out with the Kennedy boys. Plays football with them in fact. Jack is President, Bobby and Teddy are there as well. As is Jackie. Interesting implications in the book about her role in things, at least in the Watchmen universe.

The story features an interesting take on the assassination of JFK. One that also answers a few questions about it, at least in this reality.

Interesting read and well thought out.

The art by JG Jones is phenomenal. So far the art on these books has been great. Maybe the winning piece of these books. That is not to say that the writers are resting on their laurels by any means.

So far these have been much better than even I expected.

Nite Owl #1

Origin story in one issue...plus a bit more.

We get Dans background. Where his money is from, how he met Hollls and how he meets Rorschach.

This one actually moves through the pages of the original story at points. A nicely done nod to what we have seen before while still offering us more than we saw.

Some nice foreshadowing to events that will happen years from now for the characters, and years ago for us. It didn't feel overly heavy handed for the most part.

The art by Andy and inks by the great Joe Kubert are great. I'm sorry, Joe Kubert could do a book with nothing but stick figures and I'd think it was good.

Another good entry to this project so far.

...and yeah, I'm skipping the Corsair story at the moment, but will get back to it at some point.

Ozymandias #1

Holy crow. The art in this thing is beautiful. I have enjoyed the art in all the books so far, and they have all been very well rendered. This though...my God, Jae Lee's work here is phenomenal.

The story is the straightforward origin of Ozymandias/ From his parents coming to America, to him donning his alter ego. The why is interesting and I am glad to see Len Wein writing a good story. I had worried about this one probably the most. Len's work has been hit or miss over the years for me. Not necessarily bad, just not my cup of tea if you will. Here he does a good job.

Minutemen #2

Darwyn steps it up a notch in this one. The art is as good as his ever is, but the story starts to get into the heart of the group.

Some of them are in it for the fame, others are in it to actually fight crime. What crime those few are going against is a horrific thing to be sure.

Darwyn also reveals some other personal relationships that are hinted at in the original, but are in your face here.

Still a good book. Definitely not for the kiddies though.

Finances demand I trade-wait these titles. I am always interested in anything drawn by Hughes, Cooke, Amanda and Jae Lee though. Thanks for the reviews, it will make deciding what to buy a little easier.

I admit that I like all of them so far. Very good job all the way around at this point. I expect something somewhere will fall flat to me eventually. But so far I am happy with what they are putting out.

Like I said, it may not be covering all new ground, but it is danged entertaining to see the stuff from in between panels mixed in with the hints that were left in the original. There is expansion on ideas, and those are very interesting. The art on all of them so far has been superb.

I agree, Dev. I've read them all so far, and this is some good stuff.

I'm dropping Night Owl, and sticking with Ozymandius, Silk Spectre and the Minutemen, which is my favorite book right now.

fyi.

I re-read the original Watchmen recently, and it didn't change my mind that it's one of Alan Moore's lesser works. If anything, I had the nagging sensation while I was reading it that Moore deliberately "dumbed down" his writing to achieve mass appeal (Saga of the Swamp Thing, despite its top-notch quality, was never a particularly good seller.)

More to the point, though, it inspired me to do some research on the prequels on Wikipedia and to re-read this thread.

Now, I'd be curious to know what people thought of the retcons in the Minutemen mini-series, particularly the ones involving Hollis Mason. I, personally was outraged that Mason not only became a murderous vigilante, but also that he lied in his book.

In the Moore/Gibbons original series, Mason was, IMO, one of the few well-rounded and sympathetic characters. Like Inspector Abberline in Moore's From Hell, Mason was a fundamentally decent men while also being very much a product of his time. I love stories that prove that the above traits are not mutually exclusive, and I think that the retcons to Mason's character are probably the most offensive thing about the whole sorry prequel project.

I'd like to know what the rest of you who read either the comics or the spoilers think of this.

I never read any of the Watchmen spinoffs. Based on what you've written, I have no desire to.

I understand that it's always a challenge to find some new angle in old characters, some unexplored terrain. But writers need to understand the essential qualities of characters, what made them "them" in the first place. Hollis Mason was the "boy scout" of the Minutemen--the one who most embodied the fantasy ideal of what super-heroes were like. That was his "essential quality." Writers should understand and build upon that quality, not seek ways to undermine it.

Hollis was not perfect. I like your point that he was a man of his time--for all the good and bad of that. But he was essentially a decent human being who sought to make the world a better place. That quality should not be forgotten or trampled upon.

Thank you, He Who. That was beautifully put, and I agree 100%.

I think that somewhere around 20 years ago, a certain cynicism and laziness became endemic upon mainstream comic book writers. Oh, there were still some good books, even from the Big Two (especially DC from about 1997 to 2002), but overall, it became a law of diminishing returns. The Watchmen prequels are but one of far too many examples.