The Big Picture: There Will Never Be Another Watchmen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Too right there wont, because the first one was shit.

I fail to see the discussion here :P

walsfeo:

Lono Shrugged:
Holy Fuck you did not just say Adam Hughes is a "big talent"

Just GIS "Adam Hughes" and you'll he represents the very worst elements of comic book art since Liefeld.

Wait.. why? I don't know the guy, but just checked out his site and it looks pretty good.

He's not BAD he just has this habit of really oversexualizing his female characters. Which I guess is ok for some people, but considering MovieBob is supposed to be a forward thinking comic book nerd that threw me for a loop.

The Liefeld remark might have been a little overdramatic...

EDIT: and as bad as he is (IMO) he's certainly no Greg Horn http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/media/2011/04/batman-and-catwoman.v4.jpg

Diane Miller:
Actually, I only heard about the prequels last week, and fully intend to ignore them. Your comments about the state of the Marvel/DC universe, though, give the principal reason I haven't read comics on any kind of a regular basis since about 1986. Except for a couple of minor "gee, that looks vaguely interesting", there really hasn't been anything worth reading.

OK I don't want to say you're wrong or bad or anything like that, you read whatever you want I don't want to come across as telling you what you should enjoy but my inner comic nerd won't let me rest unless I post this for the record.

A Condensed List of Great Comics Post-1985:
Hellblazer,
Animal Man,
The Sandman,
The Invisibles,
Arkham Asylum,
From Hell,
Transmetropolitan,
Kingdom Come,
Marvels,
The Ultimates,
Planetary,
The Authority,
Top Ten,
The Filth,
Irredeemable,
Wanted,
Final Crisis,

And probably more that I can't remember right now.

Am I the only one that likes Watchmen, both comics AND movies, but thinks they're far from sacred holy ground that should never be tampered with?

Can you imagine if only Stan Lee was ever allowed to write Spider-man, Fantastic Four, or X-men? Can you imagine if Bob Kane was the only person to ever touch Batman? Even Todd McFarlane's Spawn received a boost from new writers and artists.

Watchmen is good. It is. But it's very narrow-minded to assume that NO good stories could be told in that universe, that NO good character arcs and new characters could come from new creative talent, and that NO work will ever surpass the originals due to sheer nostalgia and narrow-minded thinking.

To me, that's like saying Empire Strikes Back should never have been made because George Lucas didn't direct it, the new "True Grit" movie shouldn't exist because John Wayne was great in his role decades ago, or that they should never have made more than one Final Fantasy game because the creators didn't intend on the original game spawning a franchise.

My feelings exactly. Even if I did like Alan Moore, I couldn't really care whether his characters got fucked by DC seeing as he is the one who, among other things, fucked the Joker forever and by association gave Mark Miller the liberty to fuck Batman forever. I already knew about the secret origin of Watchmen a long time ago and at the time it was DC who stopped Alan Moore from fucking Blue Beetle, Question, Peace Maker, Captain Atom, Peter Cannon and Nightshade forever. Apart from the fact that Watchmen relies heavily on flashbacks to some of the most crucial and interesting events in its own universe, there isn't a proper reason for branding the Watchmen universe as sacred.

And for a film that was released in the 21st century, the film ending was much more appropriate than psychic vagina-squid monsters.

I like Watchmen, although I don't hold it in such a high regard as most people, maybe because I read it just few years ago. As far as Alan Moore's work goes, V for Vendetta is my favourite.

In any case, I'll probably end up checking them out eventually, if just to see what they did.

But I'm not going to pay for them. I'll get them for free.

(from a library)

Further note on the ending, the absurdity of the comic version is also more cohesive with the overall story arc of the Comedian. The ultimate joke if you will. The Manhattan version does not work as well in this context.

As for the whole prequel thing, beens said already, but there just isn't anything interesting to tell there. All the important character evolution has already been seen.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
First things first, can we stop acting as if Watchmen is the only comic from the eighties that changed people's perceptions of superheroes? The Dark Knight Returns was every bit as important and revolutionary in it's impact, and considering it's (the goddam) Batman, I'm surprised it constantly gets overshadowed by its sibling. I know Frank Miller ain't cool anymore, but you have to give the man his due: TDKR was every bit as important as Watchmen in re-shaping the superhero landscape in the mid-80s.

Yes but they shaped it in very different ways, Watchmen made things smarter, more detailed with mutilayed narratives and more intellectual dialog, DKR just made thaning darker and more manly. Watchmen paved the way for Vertigo, the British invasion and ultimately Kingdom Come. DKR conversely set us up for Rob Liefled, Image and the Ultimate universe. Now not all of the former have been good and not all the latter have been bad but overall Watchmen did far more good than DKR did.

My opinion of 'Before Watchmen' is that I trust Azzarello will write two interesting stories that will be well worth reading even if they are needlessly expanding upon a story that had it's conclusive beginning, middle, and end. Definitely interested in reading his stuff. The others I can live without.

Aiddon:
This just reinforces my stance on the comic industry being in one, big stagnant state ever since the post-Dark Age collapse.

Don't lump an entire medium into the superhero genre. There are some fantastic books coming out right now outside of the DC/Marvel sphere.

Is this really gonna be a thing? Of course it is... it's geek culture we are talking about. Everything is gonna be a thing.

Books, comics, movies, albums, TV series, magazines, even web sites... these things all mean something to us. I'm a movie nerd. A theater is a church to me and Martin Scorsese is the spiritual leader of my order. I get why people get protective of creative works they love. I understand why one's emotional attachment to Moore's Watchmen can be so strong it will color their opinion of the movie and make the proposed prequels seem like anathema to them.

But this is the thing. Those artists called upon to make those prequels... and a large support staff at DC... are gonna get paid because these aren't really treasured tomes handed down from gods... comics, movies, music, etc., is all product. It's product. It is made to sell. We buy it.

Those artists and support staff will buy groceries and clothing and pay a mortgage. They'll send their kids to school and buy medicine when they get the flu. And along with them, the people who make paper and ink and who run printing presses will also get paid. Truck drivers get a slice. Comic book shop owners as well as big box book store owners will see a share.

Comic book fans will buy the books and if they choose to read the books at night, they consume electricity and possibly need a lamp from a lamp-maker and a bulb from Westinghouse.

Do I see anything wrong at all with making these books? No. Nothing. And if your emotional attachment to the original is so strong that anything new will weaken your experience, then don't buy them. Moore's original will not change. It will remain available in the exact same form is always has for you to cuddle up with at night and devour over and over again.

Back to my priest, Martin Scorsese. I'd be pretty unlikely to go see a children's animated movie spun off of a Scorsese film... say Goodfella Babies or Casino Kids... and I'd probably not give a damn about a series of romantic short stories based on the younger days of the the psychologist from The Departed and her sexcapades in college... But nothing they did could ever change the fact that I love and enjoy and treasure Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, or any of the great man's work. In fact, if some truly ill-advised spin-offs lead new fans back to the source... bonus.

That's pretty much always been my viewpoint on Moore's moral outrage.

"How dare you desecrate my unique and glorious vision" has a significantly weaker punch when coming from the man who wrote a scene wherein Mr. Hyde sodomizes The Invisible Man.

Anyway. On the the whole movie ending vs comic ending.

I actually prefer the movie ending myself. Largely because the creation of the...thing that happens in the comics flies right in the face of the rest of the core concepts of the story.

Axolotl:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
First things first, can we stop acting as if Watchmen is the only comic from the eighties that changed people's perceptions of superheroes? The Dark Knight Returns was every bit as important and revolutionary in it's impact, and considering it's (the goddam) Batman, I'm surprised it constantly gets overshadowed by its sibling. I know Frank Miller ain't cool anymore, but you have to give the man his due: TDKR was every bit as important as Watchmen in re-shaping the superhero landscape in the mid-80s.

Yes but they shaped it in very different ways, Watchmen made things smarter, more detailed with mutilayed narratives and more intellectual dialog, DKR just made thaning darker and more manly. Watchmen paved the way for Vertigo, the British invasion and ultimately Kingdom Come. DKR conversely set us up for Rob Liefled, Image and the Ultimate universe. Now not all of the former have been good and not all the latter have been bad but overall Watchmen did far more good than DKR did.

The Dark Knight returns single handedly changed the way narrative was handled in comic books.

It was the first comic to move away from structured first-person/third person narration of the events, and instead adopted a stream-of-consciousness narrative style that was more fragmented, and grounded in the unexpected order in which events happen in real life.

This is something that practically every superhero comic ever since has copied. Before TDKR, narration in comic books was provided either in clunky, patronising prose such as "Our intrepid heroes have found the lair of their archnemesis. Will this be their crowning moment of triumph? Or will their fearsome foe foil their fearless attempts to bring him to justice?" or basic first-person exposition of the likes of "I've finally found the lair of my old archnemesis. I sure hope he doesn't ruin my attempt to bring him to justice!"

TDKR was the first comic where the narration actually reads like a window into the main character's head. It's full of musings, tangents, recalled memories and bitter remorse. Instead of simply describing everything he sees, Batman tells us how events make us feel, how certain characters remind him of other characters, how he has certain fundamental fears and doubts always working in the back of his mind... Not only that, but the way Miller played with the way in which narration is integrated into the comic panels themselves is, again, a work of genius.

More than just the techniques involves, however, TDKR returns is every bit as psychological and intelligent as Watchmen. It doesn't simply paint Batman as a 'manly man'. It paints him as an obsessive individual who quite clearly hovers over the definition of 'psychopath', and as a man who is unable to let go of the demons that lurk within him. Superman is an all-powerful being who has been shackled into service of the US government, and only does so because he fears not doing so would lead the USSR to engage the US in all out nuclear war.

TDKR is no more to blame for the hundreds of poorly written "uber-dark" comic books than Watchmen is. Both comics set the standard for mature, adult storytelling in a superhero story, and both were then copied by a thousand lazy imitators who simply didn't get the point.

Yeah, the new books are pretty unnecessary, but I can get behind the talent on them. I'll take any excuse to read a book by JMS.

I know its nitpicky, but is that how you pronounce "Waid?" I've always heard it pronounced like "Wade" and "weighed."

This episode came off as boring and really uninteresting. Probably because Bob sounded bored and really uninterested in the topic.

Slightly topic adjacent,

I kind of wish that the Japanese manga production had evolved here instead of the current model.

In Japan a publisher will put out what they think is good and will only let it run so long as the fans, ie those actually making purchases, think it's good.

The Japanese system has its downsides, many a great story have died well before their time, but at least I don't have to worry about Goku, Ichigo, or Naruto starting over or getting alternate stories once they've come to an end.

Unfortunately this means characters are only around as long as they are still popular and they won't live past their author regardless of where the story is when they die, or get sick (I really liked Beet the Vandal Buster).

I do appreciate how iconic the western characters are, but I'm also really tired of seeing what "they" are going to do with Superman, Batman, or Spiderman now...

*Edit I have to admit. I am interested in seeing what DC would do with a story like Sailor Moon as the decades pass by (for better or worse) but I'm very glad I don't have to worry about that happening.

Bob missed the point of what really was screwed up about the Watchmen movie. They changed the entire tone and the style so radically that it has only the basic plot from the original comic.

But hold on, you say, didn't Snyder make a big deal about making every panel directly into the film? Well, yes, he did. But Snyder lacks any and all emotional storytelling talent. If you listen to his commentary on Watchmen, all of his comments boil down to the level of "that looked cool, that's why we did that", there's nothing there. He is as empty as his movies.

So what was the change? Making the Watchmen into superheroes, something they distinctly weren't in the comics. Sure, Veidt caught a bullet in the ending, but that was a climactic and even more incredible beat in the story where everything before that had been mundane, down to earth to a degree.

But in Snyder's film, the characters leap from building to building, beat off brick from walls, leap from incredible distances to the ground etc etc. It undermines everything that the comic was about and ruins (well, along with Snyders film 101 music choices and music video directing) the adaptation right from the beginning.

Now there's a big picture.

I'm not going to go into detail on the prequels (other than that I'm more-or-less okay with them; frankly, I've always thought Moore was kind of overrated anyway). I just wanna know: is Mark Waid's last name really ponounced "Wide"?

One of the very few times I completely agree with everything you said.

It's too bad the filmmakers didn't understand that there will never be another Watchmen, otherwise they might not have embarrassed themselves trying way too hard to be as "shocking" and "edgy" as the comics were. That slow-motion blood-spattering thing, which was so provocative in the up-until-then-heavily-sanitized comics of the day, now just comes off as corny in an age of cinema that has already seen the likes of Tarantino and Rodriguez.

The only people who are still shocked by gory violence in movies are the people who weren't going to see a film with this subject matter anyway. People are still shocked by SEX, but if you made the sex scenes too explicit, you get slapped with an NC-17 rating and no theater will carry the film.

And you know why the film would have worked without it? Because Watchmen wasn't about the gore. It was about what that gore represented. It was about what it meant.

Shjade:
Personally, while I think the film's altered ending makes more narrative sense in tying the characters so tightly to the events, I think the comic's ending - as bizarre as this is going to sound, considering what that ending is - works better in terms of likeliness to succeed. As others have mentioned above, though he is definitively inhuman, Manhattan is definitely seen as a distinctly American figure.

I wholeheartedly agree.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a First Contact sci-fi thriller where, instead of crashlanding outside the suburbs of Anytown USA, the aliens crashland in war-torn Iraq or Afghanistan.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
First things first, can we stop acting as if Watchmen is the only comic from the eighties that changed people's perceptions of superheroes? The Dark Knight Returns was every bit as important and revolutionary in it's impact, and considering it's (the goddam) Batman, I'm surprised it constantly gets overshadowed by its sibling. I know Frank Miller ain't cool anymore, but you have to give the man his due: TDKR was every bit as important as Watchmen in re-shaping the superhero landscape in the mid-80s.

It may have been "important," but it didn't change nearly as much about the way comics are perceived, simply because TDKR didn't do nearly as much differently from the standard comic book fare. The setpieces were darker and gorier, and some of the narration mechanics were fairly (though not completely) unique, but the story itself? Just as juvenile and shallow as the comics it was supposed to be parodying, and the much-vaunted "social satire" was clunky and heavy-handed.

This became even more apparent with the sequel, TDKSA, which was criticized for not holding up well to its predecessor, even though it suffered from the exact same flaws, and the flaws that pervades all of Frank Miller's work: He's obsessed with the superficial trappings of "maturity" but has no interest in mature storytelling.

In that regard, TDKR wasn't so much a sibling to Watchmen as it was an ancestor to the endless slew of Watchmen knockoffs.

Yes, there will never be another Watchmen, but why would we *want* another Watchmen?

Allow me to clarify; I love Watchmen, it's my favourite graphic novel- hell, book of all time- and I read a lot of both. However, I'm not saying the world shouldn't want another because of this, I'm saying that comics and graphic novels shouldn't try to make the same kind of lightning strike twice. When a brilliant piece of fiction is released in whatever form which defies convention and makes the entire collective of creators, audience and distributors rethink the way they function, the truly inspired take cues from the original to create something new. Fools try to create a carbon copy of the new work or declare the entire industry dead as nothing will ever be as good as X.

Neither of these approaches make any sense; the originality of artwork X was what made it special, copying it only devalues what you create. But by the same token, as someone's already made Citizen Kane, should people stop making films? Alice In Wonderland has been written, so I guess the world doesn't need any more children's literature. Hell, we have Beowulf, David Copperfield and 1984; let's just stop writing books altogether.

Post-great-fiction-X creators are inspired by X, but use that to create something which shows its influences but is brilliant in its own right. Eventually, as the ideas of X diffuse through the collective consciousness of the creators, they will fade into the artistic tradition until the next X comes along and shatters boundaries etc. We have already seen the first stage of this within the comic book industry; brilliant stories such as Justice, The Nail and Batman and Robin Must Die! take cues from their predecessor, without being copies, and generally the shift in tone of comics (after it settled down from the OTT 90s) post-Watchmen ushered in a slew of brilliant stories which allowed their characters to become much more complex. We are also seeing several 'next X' contenders emerge; from Mike Mignola's mythology influenced universe to the beautiful Persepolis. These take graphic novels in new and exciting directions in a completely different way to Watchmen.

All-in-all, comics are currently experiencing an unprecedented era of diversity, and this includes the major players. Despite the reboot, the comics industry is far from stagnating, now more than ever.

Sylocat:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
First things first, can we stop acting as if Watchmen is the only comic from the eighties that changed people's perceptions of superheroes? The Dark Knight Returns was every bit as important and revolutionary in it's impact, and considering it's (the goddam) Batman, I'm surprised it constantly gets overshadowed by its sibling. I know Frank Miller ain't cool anymore, but you have to give the man his due: TDKR was every bit as important as Watchmen in re-shaping the superhero landscape in the mid-80s.

It may have been "important," but it didn't change nearly as much about the way comics are perceived, simply because TDKR didn't do nearly as much differently from the standard comic book fare. The setpieces were darker and gorier, and some of the narration mechanics were fairly (though not completely) unique, but the story itself? Just as juvenile and shallow as the comics it was supposed to be parodying, and the much-vaunted "social satire" was clunky and heavy-handed.

This became even more apparent with the sequel, TDKSA, which was criticized for not holding up well to its predecessor, even though it suffered from the exact same flaws, and the flaws that pervades all of Frank Miller's work: He's obsessed with the superficial trappings of "maturity" but has no interest in mature storytelling.

In that regard, TDKR wasn't so much a sibling to Watchmen as it was an ancestor to the endless slew of Watchmen knockoffs.

Firstly, TDKR came out before Watchmen. I don't understand how it can be considered in any way a 'knock-off' when Watchmen came out after TDKR did.

Secondly, read this article. In terms of artwork, The Dark Knight Returns was a revolution for the industry. Frank Miller rewrote the rules of comic book artwork, allowing for bolder artwork, greater texture detail, and an infinitely larger pallet of colours by demanding that TDKR use the highest quality paper and printing available. Not only that, but the way he intelligently and creatively played with the panelling of his pages, using panels to create mosaics of images, was again unheard of. Frank Miller didn't just use panels as a way to border his panels, he used them as a fundamental part of the story, switching from composite, mosaic images to Tv screens to windowed buildings composed of panels to suit whatever the story required. No other comic book artist had ever used the conventions of the medium itself so intelligently before.

Regardless of how you feel about how TDKR changed the way comics are percieved, there is absolutely no doubting that TDKR changed the way comics are made in absolutely fundamental ways, ways that Watchmen has never come close to achieving.

The rest of the article provides a far better analysis of the story and artwork of TDKR than anything I could accurately sum up here. Needless to say, I believe that you are wrong. Not only did the artwork for TDKR fundamentally change the way comic books are drawn and coloured, the story painted superheroes in a mature, adult, realistic light months before Watchmen ever came out. It was the first DC title to treat its characters as dysfunctional real people, and is the single most important depiction of Batman in any medium, having influenced every subsequent portrayal of him to some degree.

Okay, two things I need to say about Watchman. It's overrated and the movie was better.

I'm not saying Watchman is bad, I'm saying people give it more praise than it deserves. I personally did not like it. It seemed obtuse, and I felt like it thought too much of itself. If that makes any sense.

Oh, and I think I'm the only one who doesn't want a Watchman Prequel, but a Sequel. It ended with too much in the air!

Sylocat:
You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a First Contact sci-fi thriller where, instead of crashlanding outside the suburbs of Anytown USA, the aliens crashland in war-torn Iraq or Afghanistan.

So something more District 9-ish with even less stability in the surrounding social structure, maybe?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
snip

The Dark Knight Returns contributed a great deal to changing the way comics are made.

Watchmen contributed a great deal to changing what comics are about.

Honestly, if we're going to go on a tangent about Miller's additions to comics, I think Ronin is a more important example than TDKR overall.

Alan Moore is not some visionary. He got lucky in the 80s and that was about it. Nothing he's done since he took his ball and ran back to England is a good as the stuff he made here. Yes that does include the "(Promethea, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Tom Strong, Lost Girls or anything else). Nuff Said" rebuttal that I've gotten the last time I complained about Alan Moore. I do mean what I said: his work 90s onward are not only pretentious, but also boring to boot.

For a man that made a career taking already established creations and giving them his own unique spin of them, he sure does have an ego about it.

Shjade:

Personally, while I think the film's altered ending makes more narrative sense in tying the characters so tightly to the events, I think the comic's ending - as bizarre as this is going to sound, considering what that ending is - works better in terms of likeliness to succeed. As others have mentioned above, though he is definitively inhuman, Manhattan is definitely seen as a distinctly American figure.

The in-fiction issue with the movie's ending is that the other thread of the story is cold war paranoia, and something that looks like a nuke would be responded to appropriately. Remember that at the height of the story the president is actually at NORAD, finger hovering over the big red button, because all out nuclear war is percieved as imminent.

The last shot of the movie should have been everyone's missiles in the air and we're all fucked, because someone just nuked a major city and no, they're not going to wait around to realise that it wasn't really a nuke it was a pretend nuke.

Also, I disagree that there will "never be another Watchmen", because in the comics publishing world post Watchmen (and more significantly post Sandman) there are hundreds of them. There are really good comics that don't require you to have any continuity buy-in released all the time, they just don't have a DC or Marvel logo on the front.

RoseArch:
Comic watchmen's ending: Makes sense
Movie's ending: Doesn't make sense.

And that's all I can say without going in to spoiler territory.

No.

No, No, No. This type of nostalgia I simply will not allow.

I want you to try and picture the endings flipped. If the Comic had ended with the Doctor's ending, and the movie had decided to take the alien route, people would have flipped their shit. It would have been catastrophic in terms of geekdom. I can't even imagine what people would have done.

While I guess I can see people who were looking forward to seeing giant aliens getting disappointed, the movie ending not only is more logical and hypothetical, I think it's ultimately better. It gives the characters much more drive, and gives much better closure to Manhattan. People who had not read the comics would have been extremely confused. It would have doomed the movie right there.

If you wanna hate the movie, go for it. But the ending was one of the smartest decisions I've ever seen an adaptation make.

malestrithe:
Alan Moore is not some visionary. He got lucky in the 80s and that was about it. Nothing he's done since he took his ball and ran back to England is a good as the stuff he made here. Yes that does include the "(Promethea, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Tom Strong, Lost Girls or anything else). Nuff Said" rebuttal that I've gotten the last time I complained about Alan Moore. I do mean what I said: his work 90s onward are not only pretentious, but also boring to boot.

For a man that made a career taking already established creations and giving them his own unique spin of them, he sure does have an ego about it.

Top 10. Nuff said.

;-)

JoesshittyOs:

RoseArch:
Comic watchmen's ending: Makes sense
Movie's ending: Doesn't make sense.

And that's all I can say without going in to spoiler territory.

No.

No, No, No. This type of nostalgia I simply will not allow.

If you wanna hate the movie, go for it. But the ending was one of the smartest decisions I've ever seen an adaptation make.

1) I read the novel a month or two before the movie was released
2) - Comic's version offers a common enemy that forces the Earth's nations to come together and combine their forces.
- Movie's version offers a common enemy that basically is as powerful as God to which there is no defense whatsoever.

GloatingSwine:
The in-fiction issue with the movie's ending is that the other thread of the story is cold war paranoia, and something that looks like a nuke would be responded to appropriately. Remember that at the height of the story the president is actually at NORAD, finger hovering over the big red button, because all out nuclear war is percieved as imminent.

The last shot of the movie should have been everyone's missiles in the air and we're all fucked, because someone just nuked a major city and no, they're not going to wait around to realise that it wasn't really a nuke it was a pretend nuke.

Also a fair point.

I thought the movie was great, but that the chump they hired to select the music picked every cliched track in the world, making important scenes seem comical, i'd love a version without them so I could edit in my own choices, couldn't be worse!

RoseArch:
Comic watchmen's ending: Makes sense
Movie's ending: Doesn't make sense.

Could not have said it better myself.

And on the topic of whether I will buy these or not, no. No, I will not. And I know a large portion of the people I know who have read it (comic nerds and non) are not going to buy it. You don't make a prequel to Watchmen. That's just unacceptable.

Being a non North America citizen I have to say, the end of the movie is pure garbage. It's simple not acceptable, in any level. The rest of the world simple don't share the same vision of the North America that the north americans have.

I find myself being more forgiving to adaptations overall, so I didn't have much of an issue with how the film version handled the ending.

As for the prequels, I'm not going to read them for two reasons: 1) I read more than enough series as it is, so piling on another entire slew of miniseries seems like too much. And 2) I'm positive they'll never be as good as the original. The writers and artists for them will probably do an admirable job, but at the end of the day it'll be a lot of superfluous fluff.

Do I think there'll never be another Watchmen? Depends on what you mean by "another". I don't think there ought to be something that's exactly the same as Watchmen, but I'm sure someone will end up making a book that challenges readers and conventions, that it can be comparable to Watchmen. Alan Moore, as great a genius as he is, can't be the last great comic writer ever. I refuse to believe that.

unacomn:
I agree with your opinion about the ending of Watchmen. To me it made more sense to do that, instead of the other thing. The other thing seemed a bit too dismissable, though, that's probably not important, considering how it ends with that thing that gets found by those guys.

I came here to say this. When I read Watchmen before seeing the movies, I was impressed. When I saw the movies, I felt like that was the definitive version. For my generation, the ending speaks to things we can relate to. Whoever wrote the script for the movie had nailed what the comic had tried to do for the cold war generation that I couldn't relate to.

I will always have a special place in my heart for the chthonian horror though.

Artistically it is completely unnecessary, and I really don't like the way that Moore has been treated by the DC (though I am glad we got a movie out of it) but having said that, I will read these anyway. I was one of those people who just wanted more after finishing Watchmen and while these probably wont be worth to stand in its shadow I would like to see the characters in a modern art style and I would love to see more Rorschach.

Dude, I never even thought of that.

Falseprophet:

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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
Register for a free account here