Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Punisher

Watchmen Prequels

46 posts in this topic

Well, seems like DC needed something new to make money off of.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36724

Not sure how you guys feel about this, but i'm interested. I haven't read comics in a few years, but IMO the Watchmen universe can be great without Moore, and will most likely read them when they come out.

Pics of the covers:

http://superpunch.blogspot.com/2012/02/watchmen-prequel-covers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't always agree with Alan Moore, but i agree with Alan Moore; "Moby Dick didn't have prequels and sequels." I'm quite frustrated with DC by actually doing this.

That said, i will likely buy Doc. Manhattan and Ozymandias, Doc for the Adam Hughes art and Ozymandias because i enjoy the character. But the fact that this is happening AT ALL leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah. This is like doing prequels to The Brothers Karamazov. There's just no need for it. Watchmen was a discrete, self-contained literary commentary on superhero stories, not a "universe" that needed to be mined for further profit. I suppose they'll be integrated into the DCnU, so we can look forward to Batman/Rorschach team-ups? THEY BOTH WANT VENGEANCE! WHO WILL TAKE IT TOO FAR?!?!

Edited by Lobsterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main worry about this is that anytime a comic publisher has went back to revisit a classic story, it generally ends badly. When they revisited stories like Age of Apocalypse, Days of Future Past, Kingdom Come, The Dark Knight Returns, etc, etc, the results were almost always unreadable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, it's a world that doesn't really need to be fleshed out. Something like this has been rumored for a bit, but Watchmen really was a self-contained story that is already full of back-story and fleshing out. And also, you know, ALL OF THESE CHARACTERS (pretty much) EXIST(ed) IN THE DCU! On the other hand... Darwyn Cooke... Amanda Connor... hard to say no to that. Either way, I doubt it'll be worse than the movie.

Edited by Turtle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main worry about this is that anytime a comic publisher has went back to revisit a classic story, it generally ends badly. When they revisited stories like Age of Apocalypse, Days of Future Past, Kingdom Come, The Dark Knight Returns, etc, etc, the results were almost always unreadable.

This!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't always agree with Alan Moore, but i agree with Alan Moore; "Moby Dick didn't have prequels and sequels." I'm quite frustrated with DC by actually doing this.

That said, i will likely buy Doc. Manhattan and Ozymandias, Doc for the Adam Hughes art and Ozymandias because i enjoy the character. But the fact that this is happening AT ALL leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I doubt DC give a solitary sh*t what people think about this, as long as they're buying the crud they cook up.

"ha ha, yeah... the little piggies will still buy it, f*ck 'em. I know... I know!"

Next up, from DCD, I don't know... Bruce Wayne faeces, in... a yogurt pot? Yay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally unnecessary. Personally I feel they should leave Watchmen alone but I'll reserve judgement untill after Ive downloaded them. I dont expect it to be anywhere near as good asWatchmen, but theses are good writers so who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually blogged about this almost two years ago, when the rumors first began to swirl (here's the link, if anyone's interested). I've made my peace with it, I suppose. I'm glad they are doing prequels, at least, though if these do well I've no doubt a sequel will be on the way. It's an impressive group of creators, and I'll be hard-pressed not to read Cooke's Minutemen book at the very least. Still, it's not good news, I don't think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about these characters needs fleshing out? What was missing from the first story that need to be added? Totally unneeded.

But it will probably make DC a ton of money despite being universally panned by everybody, and next thing you know, they'll make Watchmen II based on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first thought was about how unnecessary these are. Prequels generally aren't a good idea. And with Watchmen, they already touched on many of the characters pasts, so I'm not even sure what stories they will tell. Do we need to know what happened to any of the characters between all of the events of Watchmen during the various time periods in encompasses? I don't think so. I don't need to see Rorschach in all of those years where he was already crazy and eating cold beans. I don't need to read a story about Nite Owl getting older and fatter. Watchmen covers the major events in their lives.

That said, DC has an incredible line up of writers and artists for this project so I'm a little interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It came as a shock to me that this is actually being made, but I'm in. Anything Darwyn Cooke pencils i have to check so I'm definitely excited, also Adam Hughes and Amanda conner is a plus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn DC, leave a good thing alone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting. I understand why people are opposed to the idea but I love watchmen and since I read it I've wanted more, so I think this'll be interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they initially created Age of Apocalypse the result was unreadable, IMO. *peace* :D

Damn DC, leave a good thing alone...

That about sums it up. But nothing's sacred anymore when it comes to the almighty dollar. If there was ever a comic series that deserved to be left alone, it was this. I'll stay as far away from this crap as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things:

1) I don't give a crap what DC decides to do with Watchmen. As far as I'm concerned it's a derivative work anyway (unlike Moby Dick, Alan) and if other authors and illustrators want to add to the universe, let 'em. It's not like George Lucas revisiting Star Wars every few years to eliminate your favorite parts. No one's coming to your house and taking your trade paperbacks away and you can bet that DC will continue to publish the original as is if only to keep the rights to it. (That WAS the contractual detail you foolishly dismissed, right Alan?)

2) The new DC logo works. Like it or not, it's very versatile. I know how much folks on the internet abhor change so no one expected it to be embraced immediately but the vocal opposition's already dying down. I'm curious to see what it will look like in front of the next Batman movie this summer.

3) Most importantly, this "sacrilege" offers another opportunity for DST to work with WB Consumer Products and maybe – just maybe – get the license for Watchmen Minimates. There's a potential silver lining here, folks, regardless of how you feel about the prequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I get the impression you aren't an Alan Moore fan :D

While it is true that the original story doesn't change due to subsequent sequels, prequels, re-imaginings, etc., sometimes something comes along that feels special. Watchmen was that to me. Sure, it was derivative in terms of the characters being Charlton Comics knockoffs, but what isn't derivative in the comic world in some fashion? Creativity is just taking what others have done and building on all that in new and innovative ways. The ideas and the storytelling elements in Watchmen were revolutionary in the comics medium, and it influenced a generation of comic fans and creators in a way that I doubt any other single series did in that period.

Yes, DC owns the license. They have a right to do whatever they want with the it, of course. But that doesn't mean they should IMO. Just like Hollywood shouldn't remake movies like Citizen Kane or Casablanca. Just my opinion.

Edited by karamazov80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One small distinction: DC doesn't own the license. They own the property. It's theirs. They can license it out to whomever for whatever reason with or without Moore's or Gibbons' blessing.

DC is not remaking Watchmen. They haven't hired other creators to re-write Moore's story and dialogue nor have they hired illustrators to redraw Gibbons' art. No one is altering the original work. Nothing is replacing it, even in part.

I understand your point but for myself, Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes did nothing to diminish my enjoyment of the original picture. Burton's movie was a vanity piece, plain and simple, brought on by a guy who – much like Moore – has made a career of retelling other authors' tales, using their characters but putting his own stylistic spin on them. As much as I loved seeing Rick Baker work on a Planet of the Apes movie, it didn't save the film from being utterly unnecessary and a pale shadow of the original.

Moore and Gibbons created a world plenty of fans think is pretty cool, an alternate universe that's still full of stories worth telling. Some of my favorite entertainment is a bastardization of what I considered to be untouchable work. For example, Star Trek is supposed to be about the voyages of the starship Enterprise, boldly going where no man has gone before. Along comes Deep Space Nine; no ship, no captain, just a space station half-crewed by non-Starfleet and anchored near a wormhole, essentially waiting where no one had waited before. It was practically anti-Trek. That lame concept became my favorite of all the series.

Then there's Batman, my favorite fictional character. Back in my day, Bruce Wayne was Batman, period. No one else. Then WB decided to appease Hasbro by creating a cartoon based on a teenaged Dark Knight-in-training. Again, what I thought would be nonsense turned out to be pretty enjoyable. I'm so glad that DC has allowed so many different creators to work on Batman because, while much of it is forgettable and some is outright crap, there have been some very good stories since Bob Kane and Bill Finger left off. They've even managed to make one or two good movies based on the character.

Nostalgia's a powerful drug and, believe me, I appreciate the frustration of someone pissing all over your fondest memories. I really don't think that's what happening here. This is just DC (specifically Dan Didio) saying, "Okay, enough. People have been interested in playing in this universe for a while and, out of respect for the creators, we've held off but it's time to let someone else have a turn." I get the impression Moore would take back the rights in a heartbeat and never publish the book again just out of spite but Gibbons has given his blessing and that's more than enough for me.

I'll admit that I don't hold Watchmen in the über-high regard that others clearly do (you won't find a Moore shrine on my shelf) but I am one of those curious to read the adventures of a Rorschach in his prime. Hell, if they could get Jackie Earle Haley to reprise the role for an HBO series, I'd be there. Especially if I got a Minimate out of it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from. Of course, there's no reason great stories couldn't be told about those characters, in the way that great relatively unconventional stories were told based more or less on the great, original characters/storylines in the movies and shows in the examples you show. Or that great stories could be told with just about any character you could pick out of a hat (as Alan Moore frequently does ;) ). But sometimes it just seems to me that a creation is special--belonging to a specific creative team from a specific point and space in time--and deserves to be left alone. I never felt Batman was that way personally, or Star Trek's focus on the Enterprise, or even Planet of the Apes, but I do hold Watchmen in very high regard. I suppose I wouldn't have felt that way if Watchmen 2: Electric Boogaloo officially came out in 1988, but it didn't. The source material was treated with enough respect to be left alone for almost 30 years, despite ample opportunity to rake in $$ by exploiting the story and characters. And at this point, to my mind, it really does feel like it deserves to be left alone in the comic realm.

And nostalgia really doesn't play a role in this from my POV. I was only vaguely aware of Watchmen until I went to college in the late 1990s when I first read it.

Edited by karamazov80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I don't know that WB owns the work and can do with it whatever they want with it. Hey, that's capitolism. But I don't have to pretend I think it's a good idea on it's face, nor do I have to buy it. The irony I see just in this thread is "That sucks, but I'll probably buy it anyway." Way to vote with your wallet gang. Someday, someone may lone me their copy of one of these and I'll be pleasantly shocked by liking it. It could happen. History, unfortunately, is on the side of the cynics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think people are getting a little too indignant about DC "exploiting" these characters, probably because Moore's fallout with DC was so public. And, incidentally, I don't think DC did him wrong; to thumbnail it, the original agreement with DC and Moore is that the rights to the book and the characters would revert to Moore and Gibbons when the book fell out of print. But Moore came to believe that DC had no intention of allowing that to happen, which I just don't think is true (at least not initially). I think, once it was clear that the collected edition was such a massive hit, there was never a chance to let it fall out of print. The fact that Paul Levitz was adamantly against doing any more Watchmen books without Moore's consent speaks to his good intentions, I think. Anyway, there are plenty of other cases of companies using characters without the consent of the creator; nobody complained much when Jonathan Lethem revived Omega the Unknown, except Steve Gerber.

I'm just glad they're doing prequels and not a sequel. I'm sure that's coming eventually, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DC did him wrong, and kept it in print continuously to take advantage of that contract loophole. And Moore wasn't particularly foolish to miss the loophole, because back then keeping a comic in print non-stop for 30 years would've been a laughable idea. Even mentioning the rights reversion in the agreement at all implies that it would/should happen after a reasonable period of time, so he'd have a case in court, which may also be why Levitz avoided the issue -- these days Moore has been very clear he doesn't even want the rights back, so really DC can do whatever they want. I agree though Hellpop, it was but one example of many from the big two and their mistreatment of creator rights, but it's still a biggie.

I will probably flip through it at the comic shop just to see the pretty Darwyn Cooke pictures, but Watchmen already has a beginning, middle and end, I just don't see it as this open-ended "universe" like Star Trek etc, with all these stories left to tell. Also the idea that prequels/sequels have no negative effect on the original work rings false to me -- if you're able to watch the original Star Wars trilogy now without thinking of any of the prequel crap, you are way better at compartmentalizing than I am! :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you're able to watch the original Star Wars trilogy now without thinking of any of the prequel crap, you are way better at compartmentalizing than I am! :confused:

I think certainly it lessens the overall legacy of what Star Wars is as a franchise, but it doesn't affect those original movies in my eyes. . .at least, not now that I've managed to track down nice, hi def original versions of the original films :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you're able to watch the original Star Wars trilogy now without thinking of any of the prequel crap, you are way better at compartmentalizing than I am! :confused:

I think certainly it lessens the overall legacy of what Star Wars is as a franchise, but it doesn't affect those original movies in my eyes. . .at least, not now that I've managed to track down nice, hi def original versions of the original films :yes:

Hey it doesn't ruin them for me or anything, but I consider even the briefest flash of Little Orphan Ani in my mind when I see Darth Vader to be a negative effect :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0