Beware the Watchmen

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Beware the Watchmen

That's what they're saying about me now? That I'm paranoid?

Read Full Article

It's official nothing is sacred, this is like writing a prequel to Don Quixote. ,3,

Moore and Gibbons aren't wrong. There is no way these will be anything but trash written by morons.

To be honest, I myself think this is a bad idea for the same reasons.

If I was going to do something with The Watchmen, which I probably wouldn't out of respect to the creator and how it stands on it's own, I'd go reconstructionist with it, as it's already a deconstructionist work. Bssically I'd do sequels.

A big part of the Watchmen, which is just one part of the whole, is how the heroes themselves were treated, and how human they were, but how at the end of the day they were still heroes, and the world needed them, but turned it's back at them. It's a powerful thing to see a bunch of forgotten and betrayed heroes heading out to try and save a world that turned on them and honestly doesn't deserve them. I personally also saw a kind of subtext as to whether the world ending crisis with the USSR would have existed had the heroes never been knocked out of comission despite being very human.

At any rate, it struck me that while a complete story, that comes to an intended end, in the overall arena of comics it ends with what could be considered a cliffhanger. The bad guy, has apparently won, a city is destroyed, he's in a position to pretty much rule the world he "saved" through his action. The heroes or dead, or have apparently surrendered and given up. BUT, let's not forget that part of the point is that at the end of the day these guys ARE super heroes, and even when things get this bad they don't actually give up, and they by their nature ALWAYS save the day in the end.

Nite Owl was not doing the super hero thing, but is apparently just as much of a gizmoteer as Ozy, the heroes who couldn't beat him were out of practice. Doctor Manhatten can alter reality and maybe rebuild a city, Rorscharch could always be resurrected by such a character or despite apperances might have actually been sent somewhere else.

Picking up the story with Ozy ruling the world, things not going as well as he planned, and the other heroes returning, or picking themselves up and setting things right despite the former deconstuction could potentially end the story on a typical comic note. You could make a GOOD story out of that compared to rehashing material that was already covered in prequels. Of course even if it was a good story, it would arguably diminish the original and the entire point. The heroes failing, and the bad guy arguably saving the world represents a powerful point, that would kind of be lost if you didn't stop there and followed through and reconstructed the genere within that universe.

I concur, Steve. Watchmen was an insulary singular work, the only thing prequels can achieve is just going through the motions. Another reason why I'm not buying them.

Let's be honest now, you should have your head examined if you don't want to pick up a Rorschach comic written by Brian Azzarello.

Edit: Also I think this is spot on.

Prequel: a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age.

The only person that has ever made this work properly was Salvador Dali.

Azzarello - however good his work on Hellblazer - and it was damn good, is no Dali.

And the main point is that Moore has already provided all the prequel that was needed.

Sorry, the main point is that WATCHMEN IS ABOUT WATCHES.

I know this is somewhat obvious to anyone who's read the books, but the entire point of the project is that it's a self-contained mechanism. That's why there's so much talk/imagery of clocks everywhere. That's why Doctor Manhattan's last lines are so effective.

image

If you create a prequel, you create the same story. And all we have is another Veidt trying to make things better again.

Bucht:
Let's be honest now, you should have your head examined if you don't want to pick up a Rorschach comic written by Brian Azzarello.

Edit: Also I think this is spot on.

Well, yes and no. Like I said, I'm hopeful, but also realistic.

None of my arguments have anything to do with whether or not this is fair to Alan Moore. This is DC's property and, from a business perspective at least, it's perfectly fair for it to do what it wants to with it, regardless of Moore's objections. That said, Moore absolutely has a point about the exploitation here. Len Wein, who's writing Ozymandias, and whose Swamp Thing was eventually taken over by Moore himself, talked to Wired, citing "the need to inject new blood, new ideas, new approaches..." The Watchmen prequels don't really seem to fit that approach.

Like I said in the post, though, my main concern is that the original series' exhausted all the interesting and relevant parts of each character's biography. Watchmen is its own prequel and I still have no idea what these new titles are for.

Of them all, the one that I think has the best chance to succeed is Darwyn Cooke's Minutemen. Not only does he know how to handle that kind of material (New Frontier was basically a 20-year prequel for all of DC's continuity), but it's also the one project that interested Moore and Gibbons in the wake of Watchmen's original success.

Steve Butts:
This is DC's property and, from a business perspective at least, it's perfectly fair for it to do what it wants to with it, regardless of Moore's objections.

One wonders what would happen if Moore and Lucas swapped places. Now there's a story that should be told.

While I completely understand people's reluctance to endorse prequels or sequels, I also wonder why anyone bothers worrying about it. It's true, all the books of Before Watchmen could mightily suck. On the other hand, they might all, or at least some, be really good. Whether or not anyone thinks anything new or important can be gleaned from these stories, the fact of the matter is that nothing that DC can do to the characters can change, distort or ruin what Watchmen is. Even if DC decided to have a team completely re-write and re-draw Watchmen itself, we would still have the original, it would still be available and it would still be a masterpiece of comic book art.

Personally I save my judgement until I'm actually able to read them. I'll also wait for each individual story to be collected in one book. I think some of these art and writing teams might be able to craft some really good stuff.

It's pretty fashionable to rag on sequels and prequels these days, but from DC's point of view there's nothing to lose by using these characters and everything to gain. Sure, Alan Moore is pulling his usual hissy fit bullshit, and to say that Gibbons has stopped just short of "washing his hands of the whole affair" is a bit disingenuous, at least. From a Wired.com article I read, Gibbons has in fact "given his stamp of approval to the sprawling project" (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/exclusive-before-watchmen/), far from "washing his hands" of it.

I think we might see some interesting stuff come out of this. Will it be on par with Watchmen itself? Most likely no. Will it be entertaining? Entirely possible.

Bucht:
Also I think this is spot on.

Pretty much. Moore is a huge dink and it's just lucky for him that his shitty attitude and penchant for histrionics doesn't detract from his writing ability.

Steve Butts:
Like I said in the post, though, my main concern is that the original series' exhausted all the interesting and relevant parts of each character's biography. Watchmen is its own prequel and I still have no idea what these new titles are for.

Okay, speaking from this perspective then, that the Watchmen character's biographies have been exhausted, all the relevant bits covered, why do we still get multiple(!) new Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc. comics every month? What in the living, breathing fuck can anyone do with Superman or Batman that hasn't already been done to death? Seriously, somebody like the Joker should have been killed dead for good decades ago and probably at the hands of Batman himself. But no, we get endless retreads of these characters year in and year out. Yet finally DC wants to utilize different characters but because they are from Watchmen all the boo birds come out and decry the lack of "new blood, new ideas", meanwhile they've just comic from their local with a stack of DC comics featuring characters that have been exhaustively chronicled for decades.

It's a silly double standard. I'm sorry, but the 12 issues of Watchmen is barely enough room to scratch the surface of so many characters and I can't see the harm in giving them to a teams of talented artists and writers and seeing what they come up with.

Zom-B:
Pretty much. Moore is a huge dink and it's just lucky for him that his shitty attitude and penchant for histrionics doesn't detract from his writing ability.

Yeah, Moore is a talented writer... but he's also kind of a smug, elitist asshole.

Personally, I don't hold out a lot of hope for the prequels. The have to escape the shadow of Moore and Gibbons' original and do it while under the microscope of fans who will rip on any continuity errors.

Otaku World Order:

Zom-B:
Pretty much. Moore is a huge dink and it's just lucky for him that his shitty attitude and penchant for histrionics doesn't detract from his writing ability.

Yeah, Moore is a talented writer... but he's also kind of a smug, elitist asshole.

Personally, I don't hold out a lot of hope for the prequels. The have to escape the shadow of Moore and Gibbons' original and do it while under the microscope of fans who will rip on any continuity errors.

Yeah, I harbour no illusions that these prequels are going to be the best thing since sliced bread, on the other hand, there's no point in pre-judging them. All we've seen so far is a couple covers and writers and artists names, nothing of substance. I'm not hoping, per se, but I will hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Nothings sacred in america! Yay!
Not that i ever bought any comics(my girlfriend owns watchmen), but still...

There will be people who will say its crap, people wholl defend it and people like me, who dont care and still tell random people on a forum...maybe i should get myself checked up...

Ehh. To celebrate their release, I'll just read the original and watch the super-long extended version of the film or something.

But yeah, one has to wonder if this would even be happening, were it not for the film.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Prequel:
If you create a prequel, you create the same story. And all we have is another Veidt trying to make things better again.

here is where i agree most, i've said in the news thread that i don't think prequels and projects like this have the automatically be bad but in this case the more i think about it the less of a good idea it seems.

You are very correct, the history of these characters is explained at very great length. Two entire eras of their backstrpy are shown (minitemen and the crimebusters eras). Everything in service of a characters story and their development was explored. One of the main points of watchmen was to be a character study for each of these flawed people attempting to embody the classic ideals of a "Superhero".[1] This is already achived fully in the book across multiple timelines which massive amounts of exploration of entire watchmen alternate universe complete with news articles.

Simply put; there is nothing to be explored here. Its the opposite of something like Firefly where there was a so much bigger universe hinted at. In Watchmen we have already seen everything. Its all there and already perfect.

[1] The many layers of how Watchmen deconstructs the genre throught these flawed characters are too long to list here; The uselessness of self proclaimed heroes in the face of real superpowers, the dissconnection that power gives etc etc

Agreed, it's a good writing team and I don't necessarily think it'll be bad, it's just completely unnecessary and will inevitably lack in comparison to the original work.

Zom-B:
While I completely understand people's reluctance to endorse prequels or sequels, I also wonder why anyone bothers worrying about it. It's true, all the books of Before Watchmen could mightily suck. On the other hand, they might all, or at least some, be really good. Whether or not anyone thinks anything new or important can be gleaned from these stories, the fact of the matter is that nothing that DC can do to the characters can change, distort or ruin what Watchmen is. Even if DC decided to have a team completely re-write and re-draw Watchmen itself, we would still have the original, it would still be available and it would still be a masterpiece of comic book art.

Personally I save my judgement until I'm actually able to read them. I'll also wait for each individual story to be collected in one book. I think some of these art and writing teams might be able to craft some really good stuff.

It's pretty fashionable to rag on sequels and prequels these days, but from DC's point of view there's nothing to lose by using these characters and everything to gain. Sure, Alan Moore is pulling his usual hissy fit bullshit, and to say that Gibbons has stopped just short of "washing his hands of the whole affair" is a bit disingenuous, at least. From a Wired.com article I read, Gibbons has in fact "given his stamp of approval to the sprawling project" (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/exclusive-before-watchmen/), far from "washing his hands" of it.

I think we might see some interesting stuff come out of this. Will it be on par with Watchmen itself? Most likely no. Will it be entertaining? Entirely possible.

Bucht:
Also I think this is spot on.

Pretty much. Moore is a huge dink and it's just lucky for him that his shitty attitude and penchant for histrionics doesn't detract from his writing ability.

I think this comment (found in the link as a response to the article) sums up my feelings on the matter:

"Alan Moore's intelligence dwarfs most of the people who are going to comment on this article. You may not like him, but he is responsible for most of the comics that my generation considers canon today. He is smarter than you. Better educated. If he sees no reason for his original (albeit derived) graphic novel to be expanded upon then at least give him the benefit of being the source and not a dumb, uninformed opinion."

As far as I'm concerned, only one good thing has ever come out of an adaptation of Moore's works (that being thee Watchmen movie). He has every reason to think this is a shit idea.

I remain cautiously optimistic, but I'm not expecting greatness. I'm just unsure of where things can go, or rather, come from. We already know that Rorshach used to be a bit nicer, and we know his tipping points. Expanding more on Jon's disconnect from humanity serves almost no end. Adrian getting more time to show how he decided on that particular plan just becomes useless exposition. Sure, you could do a bit with the Comedian, but I keep running into the idea that it's entirely not necessary. Hell, right off the bat we have the idea that "The Watchmen" have more or less disbanded, with the flashbacks and dialogue telling us how things were, and how things ended. I'm not sure what else is needed. I'd be pleasantly surprised to find that I'm wrong, however.

Will they be as good as the original? Probably not.

But here's another question: Why do they HAVE to be?

Just because a piece of work is connected to a previous piece of work, does not mean it can't be simply judged on its own merits, rather than having to be obsessively compared to one another, and being judged a failure if the new does not quite match the standards of the old.

So long as Before Watchmen is good, what does it really matter if it's not AS revolutionary as the original? Even if it sucks, the original didn't go anywhere, so what's the fuss? I fail to understand this modern trend of being obsessed about how sequels/prequels/spin-offs hold up against the originals. Nobody looks at the New Testament and says "Feh! Nothing can compare to the literary Majesty of the Old Testament. By carrying on the story they've sullied the impact of the original. Religion is RUINED FOREVER!"

Hang on. I thought the backstories WERE given in Watchmen. Showing what happened BEFORE they became they way they were. e_e I guess not.

Kaulen Fuhs:
I think this comment (found in the link as a response to the article) sums up my feelings on the matter:

"Alan Moore's intelligence dwarfs most of the people who are going to comment on this article. You may not like him, but he is responsible for most of the comics that my generation considers canon today. He is smarter than you. Better educated. If he sees no reason for his original (albeit derived) graphic novel to be expanded upon then at least give him the benefit of being the source and not a dumb, uninformed opinion."

As far as I'm concerned, only one good thing has ever come out of an adaptation of Moore's works (that being thee Watchmen movie). He has every reason to think this is a shit idea.

But that quote is utter bullshit. Intelligence is extremely difficult to quantify, for one thing, and there's no be all and end all definition. If Moore is a great writer but complete shite at maths and, ahem, interpersonal relationships, how do we define his intelligence? Where does he fall on the spectrum of intelligence? Second, from all accounts Moore has had little formal education, so claims that he's "better educated" are in direct opposition to his biographical details and sounds like it's coming from someone who's spouting of a completely uninformed opinion.

Here's a partial quote from the Alan Moore wikipedia page: 'Subsequently disliking school and having "no interest in academic study"... ' Does that sound like a man who's better educated than... well, whoever the dickhole of a commenter is encompassing in his blanket statement of comic readers?

Another quote from a fan site bio: 'He was expelled from a conservative secondary school and was not accepted at any other school. In 1971, Moore was unemployed, with no job qualifications whatsoever.'

Why would you immediately believe unsubstantiated claims from an unknown internet commenter, without doing some research on your own?

I'll not deny that Alan Moore is intelligent and a talented writer, but he's also rude, opinionated, condescending, arrogant and so full of his own fucking self that he can't see past his own sizeable ego. True, he can think anything he wants is a shit idea, but that's just an opinion. Unfortunately for Alan Moore his opinion on Before Watchmen is just that, an opinion and until we see the finished comics they can't be fairly judged.

Is Before Watchmen just a cash in? Yes and no. Obviously DC wants to make money off of characters they own, but with Watchmen still relevant and popular decades after it's original publication, it's worth exploring those characters if for no other reason than pure entertainment.

I don't care. I'll read them, probably like them, probably have a lot to complain about regardless. Mostly I think this is LOL-ARIOUS because of how Moore will react. Honestly, he is up there with Tarantino as guys who I hate to love. The guys who every time I read or watch something of theirs and like it, it pisses me off.

Whoops, sorry, accidental double post

Zom-B:

Kaulen Fuhs:
I think this comment (found in the link as a response to the article) sums up my feelings on the matter:

"Alan Moore's intelligence dwarfs most of the people who are going to comment on this article. You may not like him, but he is responsible for most of the comics that my generation considers canon today. He is smarter than you. Better educated. If he sees no reason for his original (albeit derived) graphic novel to be expanded upon then at least give him the benefit of being the source and not a dumb, uninformed opinion."

As far as I'm concerned, only one good thing has ever come out of an adaptation of Moore's works (that being thee Watchmen movie). He has every reason to think this is a shit idea.

But that quote is utter bullshit. Intelligence is extremely difficult to quantify, for one thing, and there's no be all and end all definition. If Moore is a great writer but complete shite at maths and, ahem, interpersonal relationships, how do we define his intelligence? Where does he fall on the spectrum of intelligence? Second, from all accounts Moore has had little formal education, so claims that he's "better educated" are in direct opposition to his biographical details and sounds like it's coming from someone who's spouting of a completely uninformed opinion.

Here's a partial quote from the Alan Moore wikipedia page: 'Subsequently disliking school and having "no interest in academic study"... ' Does that sound like a man who's better educated than... well, whoever the dickhole of a commenter is encompassing in his blanket statement of comic readers?

Another quote from a fan site bio: 'He was expelled from a conservative secondary school and was not accepted at any other school. In 1971, Moore was unemployed, with no job qualifications whatsoever.'

Why would you immediately believe unsubstantiated claims from an unknown internet commenter, without doing some research on your own?

I'll not deny that Alan Moore is intelligent and a talented writer, but he's also rude, opinionated, condescending, arrogant and so full of his own fucking self that he can't see past his own sizeable ego. True, he can think anything he wants is a shit idea, but that's just an opinion. Unfortunately for Alan Moore his opinion on Before Watchmen is just that, an opinion and until we see the finished comics they can't be fairly judged.

Is Before Watchmen just a cash in? Yes and no. Obviously DC wants to make money off of characters they own, but with Watchmen still relevant and popular decades after it's original publication, it's worth exploring those characters if for no other reason than pure entertainment.

I'm not really concerned with his IQ. He's a better writer of comics than anyone else weighing in on this, so I defer to him before any of you.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two "prequel" areas that fit the following criteria:

- not already explored in-depth in Watchmen itself
- possibly interesting enough to be worth more than the mention it got in Watchmen

The two areas in question?

1 - Ozymandias mentioned having a direct confrontation with the Comedian at some point in which the Comedian tried to kill him, on the excuse that it was an accident, a case of "mistaken identity" I believe was the reasoning used. The details around that specific conflict might be worth fleshing out; hard to say without knowing more about what they were doing.

2 - The period of time surrounding Rorschach's becoming Rorschach. The specific trigger for this change is covered in great detail in Watchmen in Rorschach's psych eval., but there's nothing around it. I think I'd be curious enough to read a brief prequel covering a period of time from, say, two or three weeks prior to that incident up to two or three weeks following that incident. Some stretch of time to observe the speed at which he transformed from pre-Rorschach "Rorschach" to the real thing and how his peers - Nite Owl in particular, obviously - responded to his dramatic personality shift. We basically just get to see a snippet of "before" Rorschach in one of the flashbacks, then everything else is way, way after, when everyone has already come to terms with who he has become, as much as they are able.

In shorter terms, I'm interested in seeing how Nite Owl and Rorschach got along in the days immediately following his change as compared with how they worked together before that. I can imagine it, and maybe my imagination is better than what a prequel would produce, but I'm curious all the same.

I will not be as kind to them. It's an objectively stupid idea. I don't have the quote in front of me, but part of the announcement said something to the effect of 'shining lights on the less explored parts of the story'. Well guess what, smuht guy, no lights were shone on those parts deliberately. There's this thing called 'ambiguity' that means you sometimes don't have to say everything that happens, and sometimes you leave it to the audience to come up with their own interpretations. You might as well decide to write a prequel that explains everything that happens in Finnegan's Wake.

Austin Mcgough:
It's official nothing is sacred, this is like writing a prequel to Don Quixote. ,3,

...Is this a reference to how someone wrote an 'unofficial' sequel to Dom Quixote when it came after? And then Cervantes had one of the characters in the fake sequel show up in the real sequel and talk about how much the 'real' Quixote and Sancho were better than the fakes he had met? And then he killed off Quixote at the end so no one could write any more sequels?

Kaulen Fuhs:
I'm not really concerned with his IQ. He's a better writer of comics than anyone else weighing in on this, so I defer to him before any of you.

Well, not to be pedantic, but you brought up the issue of intelligence. Anyway, his comics writing ability definitely gives him some insight and as the original writer of Watchmen he's in a special position. But he's still an asshole. :p

I understand that it is some sort of Internet rule to automatically hate things in general when you find out about it, then to ignore it when your suspicions were proven wrong, but it stopped being cute when Geek culture was proven wrong about Toby Macguire being Peter Parker.

Because I am not in the "Alan Moore is the Graetest Comic book artist of all time" mindset and I do not like the Watchmen at all, I am going to wait and see about these prequels. I'll read a trade when it is bundled up, then decide how I feel about them.

To save time, Alan Moore made some groundbreaking stuff in the early 80s and everything he made after his ego inflated is terrible. That includes everything he made from the 90s to today.

Shjade:

- not already explored in-depth in Watchmen itself
- possibly interesting enough to be worth more than the mention it got in Watchmen

Agreed I think some of the stuff like Ozimandas' journey of discovery or the Comedian's WW2 military service would be interesting to see the events that forged them.

Zom-B:

Kaulen Fuhs:
I'm not really concerned with his IQ. He's a better writer of comics than anyone else weighing in on this, so I defer to him before any of you.

Well, not to be pedantic, but you brought up the issue of intelligence. Anyway, his comics writing ability definitely gives him some insight and as the original writer of Watchmen he's in a special position. But he's still an asshole. :p

I realized after you responded that perhaps the comment I posted should have been trimmed. I don't know anything about Moore's intelligence, and don't know how that would figure into his ability to judge this situation anyways. Maybe he's an asshole; I don't know that, either. I do know that he created the Watchmen, and that he would as such be in a better position than anyone else to say whether or not an extension to his comic is a good thing.

This is normally why I don't get involved in comics in the first place. People taking the inventions of others and putting not-all-that-creative spins on their character seems to me a minefield of malcontent.

Addendum: You said, earlier, "True, he can think anything he wants is a shit idea, but that's just an opinion." Isn't it just your opinion that that kind of thinking makes him a shitty person? Wouldn't it be foolish of me to call you a prick for having an opinion, no matter what it was, on this issue? As I said before, Moore has good reason to not look forward to this.

Cut and paste the part where Rorschach talks to the jail shrink, and I would buy it again. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only way the prequels will ever work.

What I've noticed is that prequels either use everything that happens later, and come off more as an homage, or they bend the truth, and create something that turns fan rage up to toxic levels.
No one should have talked about Halo's Forerunners
No one should have talked about midi-chlorians
And no one should take Alan Moore's work and bend it for money.
Make new stories, people. It's harder, I know, but the only thing you'll get from copying other people is hate mail.
Which makes me wonder if it's worth it to make a Halo-themed graphic novel about the cultural stagnation of the Snagheili during the end of the war. I

J. Michael Straczynski? I've never been a fan of the Watchmen (It's just not my thing, nothing against it personally) but Straczynski is a goddamn genius. B5 is one of my favorite series of all time.

Personally I'm very conflicted about this whole "Before Watchmen" thing. On one hand it is a very very VERY obvious attempt for DC to increase sales numbers now that there "New 52" reboot is no longer the center of attention.
On the other there is some serious talent behind this and I'd be lying if I said I'd never thought about an expanded Watchmen universe.

Having said that DC would have to be complete morons to release anything Watchmen related that wasn't at-least A minus quality or better.
Watchmen holds a very special place in the hearts of comic readers, For me it was the graphic novel that broke the hold that manga had on me in High School and got me back into American comics. Its the first graphic novel my younger brother read when he started getting into comics.
Everyone I've ever asked will tell a similar story.

I guess what I'm saying is that I will read that Before Watchmen stories but unless they are something truly special I won't be counting them in my own personal canon.

Edit:

Bucht:

Edit: Also I think this is spot on.

I kind of Agree, Alan Moore is one of if not the best writer in the medium. Even when he's writing Lovecraftian Fish Rape Porn, its still good. Hell everything I have every read by him has made me re-think the given subject (Watchmen:Comics, LXG:Classic Literature, V for Vendetta:Anarchy and Fascism, Neonomicon: H.P. Lovecraft)
Having said that the man can be extremely immature. I can see him not wanting to return to Watchmen Now, But to condemn the project entirely as he's done is just wrong, especially when he's gone on record stating that back when Watchmen first came out HE WANTED TO DO THE SAME THING, but DC wasn't interested at the time.

Daaaah Whoosh:
A Halo-themed graphic novel about the cultural stagnation of the Sangheili during the end of the war.

Actually I would probably read that, but I'm weird that way.

As far as Watchmen goes, I'm always one to accept the possibility that projects like this can turn out to be good despite the odds. However that doesn't mean that it should have happened in the first place. If they're good I won't mind that they exist, but I'm not really sure if anyone should have bothered at all.

In any case, I actually liked the movie (Ultimate cut) more then the book anyways. So chances are my opinion doesn't line up with most of the other fans here.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here