Alan Moore is wrong: like the comic book industry, publishers have long found it easy to bastardize classic piece of literature with superfluous sequels and prequels. So while his precise example of there not being “that many prequels or sequels to Moby-Dick” may be true enough, I know I’ve personally spent way too much fucking time covering shit like Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, and there’s more of that kind of thing to come…
And that’s exactly what I’m going to classify Before Watchmen — a recently announced roadmap of limited series Watchmen prequels from DC — as in my head. While yes, the original publisher is adding to the continuum in a way that will extend the “canon” in whatever metaphysical consumerist conception of storytelling the comic book universes represent, I still have no way to view this as more valuable than, say, Watchmen Vs. Frankenstein.
As you might imagine, Alan Moore is emphatically opposed to the publication of the series, though assuring that legal action is not in the cards because as he says, “I don’t want money. What I want is for this not happen.”
In any event the plans for the series are as follows (from the press release):
This summer, DC Entertainment will publish all-new stories expanding on the acclaimed WATCHMEN universe. As highly anticipated as they are controversial, the seven inter-connected prequel mini-series will build on the foundation of the original WATCHMEN,the bestselling graphic novel of all time. BEFORE WATCHMEN will be the collective banner for all seven titles, from DC Comics.
BEFORE WATCHMEN includes:
- RORSCHACH (4 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: Lee Bermejo
- MINUTEMEN (6 issues) – Writer/Artist: Darwyn Cooke
- COMEDIAN (6 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: J.G. Jones
- DR. MANHATTAN (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artist: Adam Hughes
- NITE OWL (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artists: Andy and Joe Kubert
- OZYMANDIAS (6 issues) – Writer: Len Wein. Artist: Jae Lee
- SILK SPECTRE (4 issues) – Writer: Darwyn Cooke. Artist: Amanda Conner
Each week, a new issue will be released, and will feature a two-page back-up story called CURSE OF THE CRIMSON CORSAIR, written by original series editor Len Wein and with art by original series colorist John Higgins. There will also be a singleissue, BEFORE WATCHMEN: EPILOGUE, featuring the work of various writers and artists, and a CRIMSON CORSAIR story by Wein and Higgins.
Obligatory.
What’s great is that even the qutoe from Dave Gibbons they shoved into the press release sounds vaguely insulting…
““The original series of WATCHMEN is the complete story that Alan Moore and I wanted to tell. However, I appreciate DC’s reasons for this initiative and the wish of the artists and writers involved to pay tribute to our work. May these new additions havethe success they desire.”
…which ostensibly translates to: “Alan and I’s shit is still brilliant and unfuckwithable, but I get that DC is going to cash in for whatever dollars they can. I hope that $$$ happens for them.”
There’s a lot of bullshit from the company about “the time for new stories” and keeping characters “relevant” which is hilarious considering the only reason you would ever pull a cash-in like this is because the characters are already still relevant.
Go ahead DC. Keep tooting that “keep all of our characters relevant” horn… we all know you need Watchmen more than Watchmen needs you.
Naturally, Moore has the most concise and wickedly sharp way of characterizing the endeavor.
“I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that they are still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago.”
At the end of the day I don’t care enough to call this a disgrace, nor do I discount the possibility that a good writer could write good things with these good characters. But those same writers could continue turning their attention to perpetuity characters rather than tacking on bullshit to a purposefully close loop story. Frankly, I’m just shocked that Rorschach is only managing a 4-issue series after long being the most (hilariously ironic) target of geek worship and misplaced iconography.
Still, it’s silly to get angry because once these are published and fade from the mind, they’re the kinds of things you’d run across in an archive box (or more likely, a digital file list) in a few years and think to yourself, “Oh yeah, they did that.” It all tumbles out to apathy after a few moments pondering, but don’t worry DC, you have thoroughly earned my rolled eyes of scorn this morning.
Twitter
Comment Below
Message Board
Azzerello and Bermejo on Rorschach? Have to say . . . I’m totally down with that.
I wish Cooke was handling the whole thing. Bermejo and Azzarello on Rorschach and The Comedian seems boring.
I couldn’t agree less. These books have amazing creative teams and more Watchmen isn’t bad per se. And Alan Moore is an absolute cunt. He should just go be scrawny and wear weird jewelry and not be asked questions.
The creative teams are a massive mixed bag, and none of the writers there are worthy of kissing the original’s spats. Even Darwyn Cooke, the biggest talent on that list, is a brilliant graphic storyteller but a pretty mediocre writer when you get down to it–he’s already had his shot at tackling a comics classic with “The Spirit”, and the results were pretty disappointing. As for Straczynski…don’t get me started.
Alan Moore is a talented guy who is angry because he has been repeatedly fucked over by the comics industry. And he cares about artistic standards, which is something you can’t say for most comics fans, hence all the shrugging about this. Moore wrote a book that tried to show people that superhero comics could aspire to be among the great works of art; publishers are now trying to turn it into a commodity, and fans are deliberately lowering their standards so that they can continue to defend the massive corporations that churn out the sludge they apparently need to exist. “Doesn’t matter if it’s good, as long as it’s there!” seems to be the rallying cry of the superhero fan these days. It’s affecting our whole culture, but comics in particular.
Have to agree with this; I get that Moore has his fair share of reasons to hate mainstream comics and Hollywood from his personal experiences, but his attitude is annoying as hell…plus, im pretty sure that when he croaks, the ghosts of Verne, Wells, Carroll and company will have some words for him about his use of their characters and ideas.
The books have good, even great creative teams and in the end, they wont alter the original body of work nor its impact and importance; this is a non issue to be annoyed or up in arms about.
As someone who actually gives a shit about good comics, I think it IS worth getting up in arms about, because it’s taking one of comics’ few works that make a stab at true literary and artistic significance, and turning it into another commodity.
Please don’t misunderstand: if some young hotshot creator had arrogantly come along and said “I want to do more Watchmen stories!” and DC had let him, I’d admire his chutzpah, even if the result was terrible. That’s the same thing Moore is doing with the various LoEG characters. But that’s not what this Watchmen stuff is. This is a massive corporation farming out what they see as a franchise. Artistic merit doesn’t enter into it. And at a certain point, I think we have to stop shrugging and saying “well, it’s all just grist for the mill”. That’s the attitude that’s kept comics–and increasingly, movies, TV, books, and everything else–sliding down into a cesspit of endless reboots and franchises, devoid of originality, in which there are no creators, just “content producers”.
First off: what makes Alan Moore a cunt? The fact that he’s weird (though in interviews comes off as a quite rational dude with a few eccentricities – aka: a cool person)? His artistic integrity? His being absolutely right that DC is dependent on ideas he had 25 years ago? That he’s been right to bemoan the film adaptations of his work, in that they’ve all been terrible?
Second: There’s nothing wrong with more Watchmen? Even though it told a self-contained story where the ambiguity of the ending was the point? Even though the back stories of the characters comprise roughly half of the book? This attitude leads to obesity. Some cake is good. Too much cake is bad. Simple shit.
Third: you don’t get to bitch about remakes or endless sequels anymore (or, you do, since it’s your site, but it’ll come off as hypocritical. In that it will be hypocritical). Rob Zombie doing another Halloween? Why not, nothing wrong with more Halloween. George Lucas continuing to drag Star Wars through the mud? Why not, nothing wrong with more Star Wars? They want to remake Citizen Kane, or do an prequel to the Godfather, filling in some of the blanks of Don Corlioni’s rise to power that weren’t shown in Godfather 2? Why not? Nothing wrong with more Godfather!
And as to any potential these have b/c of the “amazing creative teams”, keep in mind: Rob Zombie made The Devil’s Rejects before he made Halloween 1 &2. George Lucas made the original trilogy before he made the prequels. Coppala made Godfather 1 & 2 before he made Godfather 3. Amazing creative teams one and all!
When you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and you are wrong.
While my gut reaction is one of, “ooooh… bad idea,” the notion of some untold stories with these characters isn’t a horrible one. Do I wish Moore & Gibbons were doing it? Sure. But, really, this situation isn’t all that dire. If they’re good, awesome. If they suck, too bad. Watchmen, as is, ain’t going anywhere and won’t be changed in the least by new books. People who read them can decide for themselves whether they fit into their conceptual continuity of the Watchmenverse (ugh. sorry.).
The notion of telling more stores with the Watchmen characters IS a horrible one. Even if Moore was writing it. Some stories are meant to stand alone, and Watchmen is one of them.
So then don’t read them. The original is still out there, unchanged. They could do 500 new Watchmen books and this will still be true.
I agree that this whole thing is nothing more than a nostalgia cash grab, plain and simple. And that usually ends up being a disaster, but take this example: have you stopped watching The Godfather & The Godfather, Part II because 3 was so awful? Did those first two movies suddenly become shit after 20 years because Coppola went back to the well? Admittedly, this example points out the folly of doing this kind of thing, but it isn’t always a disaster. Aliens was a return to the well after 7 years for 20th Century Fox, and that turned out pretty well. So did Terminator 2.
And yeah, I know my examples are from another medium, but I think it still applies. And no, I’m not holding out much hope that these Watchmen prequels will fare any better than the countless failed attempts at something similar in books, comics, movies, TV shows (etc., etc.), nor do I think they will be meticulously interwoven into the world that Moore & Gibbons created in any kind of well-thought-out artistic way. But I’m willing to be proven wrong, as I try not to make a habit of judging a book by its (officially released) cover based on personal bias. Am I excited about this? No way. Will I give them a shot anyway? Of course. Will I save my emotional response until after all is said and done? Absolutely.
Even if these books turn out to be great (and I’m not completely opposed to, for instance, the “Crimson Corsair” story), I’m opposed to the mentality that bred them. It’s not ruining the original; it’s a mindset that’s ruining modern comics, right here and now. These books only exist because the Big Two are now seen as content farms, and some suit monkeys demanded that Watchmen start producing. If they’d come from someone’s artistic vision of a Watchmen sequel/prequel/spinoff, I’d be more lenient towards it, though I still wouldn’t exactly be happy.
Oh, I’m with you on the mentality. That shit’s been stuck in my craw for awhile. It burned me out in the mid-90′s, which is why I’ve only been, at best, only a casual comic book reader for the last 15 years or so. And I agree about the dubious origins of this latest Watchmen venture. Suits ruin everything, eventually. But there have been mainstream successes in almost every medium lately that, despite their origins, turned out to be pretty great. Will these new Watchmen comics fall into this category? Who knows. I suspect not. I suspect any possibility that these can be good will be hobbled by the people at DC who think “artistic” is a dirty word. I hope they’ll be worthwhile, but I’m certainly not putting much behind that hope.
the mentality does breed a disadvantage, but handing it to talented guys kinda nerfs it. Plus im sure anyone working in the industry has toyed around with ideas for watchmen prequels/sequels in their heads.
Do we need sequels/prequels to Watchmen? No. Is Alan Moore talking out of his ass again? Yes.
God you people can be stupid. Explain how exactly he’s talking out of his ass. Did he create the original? Yes? Did he give it a complete beginning, middle, and end? Yes? Are other comic books ruined by the open -ended nature of their stories? Yes?
Then maybe, just maybe, he has a right to be upset about this shit. Beyond that, maybe, just maybe, his opinion is correct.
I already posted this on the boards, but… how did Azzarello miss the opportunity, upon getting the phone call from Dan Didio, to say “Raw shark… why would I be interested in writing about…?”
My biggest problem with the creative side of it is that I’ve never particularly thought there was anything compelling about the Watchmen characters outside of their interaction in that story. We’ve already seen the two big origin stories, and much of the important background for the others; the comic makes it pretty clear that the interim between those times and the events of Watchmen, was more or less business as usual. They’re really not characters: they’re placeholders for Moore’s percption of the ills of superhero comic storytelling, and the world they reflect. So, they do what– fight crime? Eh.
I’m curious enough to flip through the eventual collected editions at the bookstore, but can’t see laying out coin.
Moore originally wanted to use the DC characters to tell his “Watchmen” story, but DC balked at the thought of their precious characters behaving like real people. Therefore, Moore created his Minutemen.
Following this logic, producing early adventures of these characters is a bit redundant, since we already have these stories, i.e.: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman…
Actually, the Watchmen were patterned after Charlton Comics characters, which had been acquired by DC around the time that Watchmen was starting to take shape, so it would have essentially been a reboot of that universe if Moore had been allowed to use them. Some of the Charlton characters were already sort of different takes on DC characters, which means that some of the Watchmen themselves are variations ON variations of better-established DC characters.
A. How is this different then any other successful comic property? What if people said oh my god the dark knight returns is so brilliant we cant ever have another batman story? and so on….
B. Lee bermejo and Brian Azzarello is consistently a great writer/artist team and his take on Rorschach is welcome.
C. wtf is the deal with this tangent “Rorschach is only managing a 4-issue series after long being the most (hilariously ironic) target of geek worship and misplaced iconography”
How is Rorschach enjoyment any different then any other vigilante anti hero? (the punisher?) sounds like Rorschach envy… or just looking down on other comic geeks for not liking the cerebral choice Dr Manhattan….
Alan Moore is mostly a genius. but also a giant cranky nasty cunt. he has his reasons, but when someone eventually makes a good movie /book of his material he will be just as cunty as ever.
Regarding Rorschach only being 4 issues, what’s the problem with that? The writer of the article doesn’t want it to happen in the first place, and now he’s concerned that it’s too short? As far as comic mini series go in general, a lot of them COULD stand to be shorter. As much as I don’t mind “talking head” issues (*coughBendiscough*) when they’re written well, there’s usually still a good way to get the message across in fewer pages. It’s when they try to charge as much for a hardcover of a three-issue story as they do for a six-parter that I get annoyed.
I don’t know if there are any other big Garth Ennis fans on here, but in addition to his more drawn out stuff like Preacher, he’s also done a lot of brilliant short, self-contained mini series that actually WOULD lend themselves pretty well to a big screen treatment, with “Unknown Soldier” and “Pride and Joy” probably being 2 of my favorite examples. He’s similar to Mark Millar in that sense, but not nearly as a big of a whore about it.
I agree with C. (A too, but I don’t have anything to add. I don’t disagree with C, I just don’t have data.) Looking at Moore’s other work, he really ISN’T a nihilist. Rather than believing in nothing, he seems to believe in everything. Rorshach is the violent misanthrope who unswervingly fights crime with murder, but he actually IS the hero of Watchmen. He can’t veer from his code, so he demands that Dr. Manhattan stop him by killing him. He basically sacrifices his life for the greater good. And Ozy IS the villain. Why else would he dream that he is the damned, misguided murderer from The Black Freighter (i.e., the whole reason to have The Black Freighter in the comic)?
We could go on and on arguing theme and plot of The Watchmen. I doubt anybody will have debates like this with these new prequels, other than the inevitable “How much do they suck?” debate.
I meant I don’t disagree with B.
A. How is this different then any other successful comic property? What if people said oh my god the dark knight returns is so brilliant we cant ever have another batman story?
- Answer : The story was a one off, the characters were designed with a specific arc in mind.
Batman was written as a character to be used over and over again, so it makes zero difference if one version is successful.
Why has it taken so long for this to happen? Because everyone appreciates the appeal of Watchmen as a self contained work of fiction, and because this is clearly cashing in.
And no, it’s nothing like The League of Ex Gentlemen.
In years to come people will be embarrassed that they thought this was a good idea.
I love Watchmen. I read it once a year. I also think that Snyder’s movie is a strong, though flawed, movie.
That said, while I get why Moore is mad and disdainful, I also get DC’s point here. What if only BOB Kane/Bill Finger could do Batman? What if only Stann Lee could do Spiderman? What if only Roddenberry could do Trek? All of these cultural phenoms would have been forgotten, since no one else could touch or do anything with these characters…
Whether these books will be good or crap is one thing, but I see that other creators CAN try their hand at these characters.
Chaos Corner
Blasphemy! It’s as bad as somebody doing new stories about Captain Nemo, The Invisible Man and Mister Hyde! How dare they!!!
You don’t understand the points of things.
Artistic integrity means not cashing the checks, Alan.
I’m down with the Rorschach series.
He doesn’t – get your facts straight Professor.
And yes, it does seem about your level.
“Even if these books turn out to be great (and I’m not completely opposed to, for instance, the “Crimson Corsair” story), I’m opposed to the mentality that bred them. It’s not ruining the original; it’s a mindset that’s ruining modern comics, right here and now. These books only exist because the Big Two are now seen as content farms, and some suit monkeys demanded that Watchmen start producing. If they’d come from someone’s artistic vision of a Watchmen sequel/prequel/spinoff, I’d be more lenient towards it, though I still wouldn’t exactly be happy.”
Nice work there Prankster. It’s not about Watchmen per se, it’s about Comics.
And Jesus Christ Nick – you’d better hope you never meet Moore in person because the violence of the 180 you’ll perform in re-making him into the loveliest man you’ve ever met (and beloved personal friend!) will twist your head off like a bottle cap.
Some of these titles sound awesome, fuck the haters. C’mon who doesn’t want more Comedian?
People who understood the original comic, and aren’t fanboy slaves to brands.
Agreed, neoninja007. I will never understand the sense of ownership some people develop over characters and stories they did not have any hand in creating.
You mean like the sense of ownership of Alan Moore, creator of the characters and story?
Let me ask you a hypothetical: take your favorite stand – alone movie of all time. Not a part of an ongoing franchise like a James Bond or Star Trek, but you’re favorite one-and-done film. Got it? Good.
Now, imagine if I, person completely unrelated to the creation of that property in any way, shape or form, suddenly bought up the rights and decided to make a sequel/prequel/remake/whatever – not only without the consent ad approval if the original creator, but in the face of their outright disapproval. Would you be okay with that? Would you feel the least bit angry?
Or would you shrug it off and then pay for the product I put out? If the answer is this last scenario, then you might just be a rube.
I wasn’t referring to Alan Moore, I was referring to the fans who seem to think they “own” something just because they’re fans of it. And to answer your hypothetical question, I can honestly say I wouldn’t give two shits if they remade HEAT (my favorite film of all time) with Russell Brand and Dane Cook. Why would I not care? Because I have and always will have the original with DeNiro and Pacino to enjoy whenever I want. The last thing I would do is waste time and energy whining on Internet message boards about the lame remake/reboot. Truman Capote was once asked how he felt about Hollywood ruining his books. His reply was “They didn’t ruin my books, they’re right there on my bookshelf!”. That says it all.
1. Alan Moore’s outrage is based on the same points that us fans outrage is.
2. Let me get this straight: you wouldn’t waste time “whining on the internet” over that hypothetical Heat remake, but like in this case, you’d happily castigate fans who would be vocally opposed to it? That’s somehow less of a waste of time?
3. If you can’t see why some people, who consider the art that they love more than just a commodity to waste a few hours on, would be angry that they money men who own the rights are bastardizing it?
4. Truman Capote at least had the option of not selling the rights of his book. Moore was screwed over on his rights deal. If it were up to him, he’d go all Salinger and never let this or a film happen. That should be up to the artist, unless your one of those who side with corporations. Aka, an asshole.
1. Why? Watchmen is not yours. I repeat, NOT. YOURS.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. I’ve been called worse.
For those of you who don’t understand the outrage, the fear is simple enough to explain: what if these books are artistically terrible, and financially successful?
I hate to be the one to invoke the Other Franchise — the one that started all this “prequel” business, but look what’s happened there: the terrible prequels made a lot of money, and were therefore expanded upon, until that version of the franchise eventually outnumbered and commercially overshadowed the superior originals. And that sucks. You can sniff dismissively and say its stupid to get worked up over that, but we’re *fans.* We’re supposed to care about this shit. It’s what we do. (And, incidentally, it’s what allows these companies to continue to capitalize on 25-year-old properties to begin with.)
Lucas proved that crummy additions to a piece of work can and do diminish the originals — and that was with a story that, ostensibly, “needed” to be told. Stories like these new Watchmen tales, which have no artistic imperative to begin with, face a very, very difficult challenge. Skepticism is warranted.
Which is a fair viewpoint. But using ad hominem insults at people who’d LIKE to see some more issues based on these characters is also entirely wrong, isn’t it?
I’m a very passive comic book reader – and I liked Watchmen. Was it the single greatest graphic novel I’ve read? Not really. But I liked it. I’d love to see some back story to this entire thing. Like what happened with Nixon. Vietnam. And so on.
At the same time, I can also see some of the challenges with developing this material. Most of the history is explored. Moore makes it VERY clear that the history of superheroes in the world of Watchmen is a short one. There was an original superhero team, and then there was a second one. That’s it. The rapes, the scandals and so on are touched upon. There’s really no room for more supervillains, or even new heroes. Perhaps there’s some room in the future of the mythos – but that’s better off as a mystery; whether Rorshach ever got his story out is a beautiful mystery.
Nonetheless, you have to see where the others are coming from as well. Prequels HAVE worked well in the past. Whether it be Christopher Tolkien’s tales based on his father’s notes, or the prequels to Dune, or even the Old Republic games, or the fifth Hitchiker book – they HAVE worked before.
I get that the internet is a moronic place, but I’d expect chud to be more receptive and less close-minded nonetheless. Corporations work for profit. Period. That’s not going to change. Working within that system is a challenge, but it could work.