DC Comics announces prequel to WATCHMEN

UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA:Redwood City, CA Icrontian
edited February 2012 in Lifestyle


  • Interesting, and as you point out, troubling.

    Why do we need prequel stories when most of the origin stories are already written into Watchmen? I don't get it.
  • UPSLynxBobby Miller :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    That's exactly my beef with it. There is origin stories left and right in Watchmen. We don't need to know how The Watchmen were formed and how they fell apart - all of that is in the original book.

    A member of 4Chan said it best - so Before Watchmen is basically the intro of the film spread across seven books?

    Still, I'd love to see more of early Rorschach, Nite Owl, and Comedian. Especially during the Vietnam days. Manhattan might be cool too, but I'm pretty sure we know everything we need to know about him. I think Ozymandias, Silk Spectre, and Minuteman are the least exciting of the four. More on them is a bit pointless.

    Thing I'm most concerned about though is the implications this will have on the original. We will no longer be able to just talk about Watchmen. Having prequel books makes it much more difficult to discuss, and the whole thing becomes convoluted.
  • If it's not endorsed by Alan Moore it is not legit and I have zero interest.

    Brian Azzarello more or less ripped off Frank Miller's Sin City when he created 100 bullets, so no surprise he will ride Moore's coat tails for more Watchmen content.
  • So really this comes down to who really will watch the (pre) Watchmen?
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf- Icrontian
    Moore doesn't get a say any more. He's a crazy person now.
  • BHHammyBHHammy Somewhere in Hell Icrontian
    Oh, hey, look. More of DC's shenanigans. More screwing the folks they made sign contracts way back when over the control of their content? STOP THE PRESSES!

    To be fair, though, DC has been hitting critical-mass levels of shameless lately.
  • @CB - Could a truly insane man give us The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Alan Moore is eccentric no doubt, but crazy, I'm not sure I'd call him that. He has a gripe with his corporate masters. Many great artists do at some point.

    I quote Rush,

    "One likes to believe in the freedom of music (or art),
    But glittering prizes and endless compromises
    Shatter the illusion of integrity."
  • RahnalH102RahnalH102 the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature Enthusiast New Mexico Icrontian
    Like what has already been said: Is this really needed, considering each had their back-story explained in the original?

    I can understand little spin-off adventures, but other then that I don't see a point.

    I'll just hope for the best and be prepared for the worst.
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf- Icrontian
    He gave us some great works in the past, but like George Lucas, his creativity and his ego seem to have swirled around one another until a monster was formed.

    At least he hasn't also been writing shit stories lately, like Frank Miller. Poor guy.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited February 2012
    I'm with @CB on this one. Moore's lack of involvement is much less a concern for me today than it would have back in the late 80's. He really has become a bitter old coot who stays pent up indoors all day long.

    He hates on his previous work all the time. He's become infamous on his hate for The Killing Joke. I love Killing Joke, and I consider it to be one of the most important pieces of Batman canon. It's important, and Moore doesn't care.

    He's just... very bitter. George Lucas is the perfect comparison.
  • George Lucas is still my hero, I don't care what you bitter old fanboys say. :p

    @UPSLynx - Alan Moore does not hate The Killing Joke, he just says its not his best work, its not interesting to him in the way other books are. I find that kind of self criticism kind of refreshing... That said, I think The Killing Joke is a fantastic bit of Batman fiction, but at the end of the day, it Batman fiction.... It's not Shakespeare, and I think that's all Moore wanted to say. He can't win, if he says its the finest Batman story ever, he looks like an egomaniac, if he says, meh, not my best work, you are let down that he discounted something you love.


    That said, Alan Moore wrote the Watchmen, it's his, and as long as he is living and breathing any artist that would tread on his turf is a scum bag for not going to him for his blessing. @CB - you are a published author. I figured you would be on Moore's side?
  • WinfreyWinfrey waddafuh Missouri Icrontian
    Heh, there's no rule that authors stick up for one another, some even actively hate one another for no other reason than their work.

    See: Hemingway, Ernest.
  • That's not a fair case, Hemingway hated himself!
  • WinfreyWinfrey waddafuh Missouri Icrontian
    edited February 2012
    Fair enough, I retract my argument and eat another gummi bear.
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf- Icrontian
    edited February 2012
    I'm all for author's rights, but it's not that simple. A novel or short story, like what I write is a solo enterprise, invented only from my head, and not commissioned by anyone.

    A comic book or graphic novel is completely different.

    First, it's a commissioned work. In this case: DC hired Moore to write an edgy graphic novel with little known characters. It was not his idea from the start.

    Second, he wasn't the only one who worked on it. He was the writer the same way the writer of a screenplay is the writer of the final film. Sure he drafted the original, but it went through many other hands, including all the artists, who are as much a part of the creation as Moore is.

    In this specific case, Moore didn't even invent these characters. Here's the story:

    -DC was in a buying binge, picking up the rights to a bunch of defunct and little used comics properties, including Charlton Comics' characters in 1983.
    -DC decided that they needed new titles to show off their new acquisitions, and get them back into the public conciseness.
    -A project was started that would feature the Charlton characters in an alternate earth. This is the project that would eventiually become Watchmen.
    -After Moore submitted a draft for the project featuring the Charlton characters, DC decided that the characters wouldn't be suitable for that story (why is just supposition, but I think it was because the story was too terminal for the characters). They instead decided that the Charlton characters would be worked into the main DC story-world (this happened in the Criss on Infinite Earths event in '85).
    -Moore was told that the project was still on, however, he just needed to change the characters.
    -Moore changed the names and costumes of the Charlton characters and the Watchmen were born.

    This isn't authorship anymore, it's an artistic process, one which was owned, funded, published, and marketed by DC, who Moore was employed by.
  • @CB - I'll concede to a reasonable and well positioned argument. Well played.

    I still think Moore has a reasonable gripe on some degree of principle, but your case is well made and I see your point.

    Screen cap this one, it may never happen again!
  • KoreishBrad Meyer I'm a penguin, deal with it. KCMO Icrontian
    @UPSLynx I'm pretty sure that this was not the first generation of the Watchman it's the second generation of the Watchmen which is a spinoff from the MinuteMen. Not a big deal but, I thought I'd point it out.
Sign In or Register to comment.