Watchmen Prequels - It's Official

[Kenney]

So don't describe it like that. Pry your mind open a little and realize that these writers and artists probably aren't approaching it from the narrow point of view you are. They probably aren't saying "Well, Moore and Gibbons hit all the highlights of these caharcters lives so there's no way we're going to find anything meaningful to say or do with them".  Somehow, I think characters like Rorscach and the Comedian probably had at least one or two experiences in their lives that weren't covered in Watchmen that might make for interesting reading.  Moore and Gibbons found something interesting to say with pre-existing characters and many comics creators have done likewise over the years. Perhaps some of the creators working on these books can do the same.

Jim

PREACH!

[RickV]

So don't describe it like that. Pry your mind open a little and realize that these writers and artists probably aren't approaching it from the narrow point of view you are. They probably aren't saying "Well, Moore and Gibbons hit all the highlights of these caharcters lives so there's no way we're going to find anything meaningful to say or do with them".  Somehow, I think characters like Rorscach and the Comedian probably had at least one or two experiences in their lives that weren't covered in Watchmen that might make for interesting reading.  Moore and Gibbons found something interesting to say with pre-existing characters and many comics creators have done likewise over the years. Perhaps some of the creators working on these books can do the same.

Jim

The characters in Watchmen are not pre-existing they are analogues the difference there is quite vast. I don't know about the rest of what you say, those chapters do a pretty great job of covering every major event that plays into the main story during it. Also I don't want to know what Edward Blake was like as a 10 year old because the portrait of Edward Blake informs how that character developed, just like the rest of the characters. The book includes all the major events because if any other ones existed they would be in the book.

I love universes and mythologies that can stand and have parts be ambiguous, mysterious without being mined for all their worth.

Not to mention the only reason this is able to happen in the first place is that DC has created a completely toxic atmosphere with the creator to the point where they can just go ahead with it.

[S. Earl]

I'd love to see everyone's opinion on this board, and around Twitter if it was Marvel doing this (if they owned the properties of course). It would be this shit storm times 10. Cries of "REAL ART IS DEAD." And other dramatic nonsense.

It's a cash grab, I'll live. I've been buying cash grabs from these guys for decades. At least it's gonna look pretty.

[ValorPhoeniX]

i really can't get upset about a type of music, movie, comics existing. just because a comic exist, doesn't mean i have to buy it. and now for the first time in the history of comics- its not going to go away. you will be able to get it on demand.

but don't mind me, a month ago i watched all the die hards in a row and I'm still hungry for more.  


this thread did make me reflect on just how much of moores work is filled with public domain characters though.

[RickV]

I think the public domain point is a complete wash in this concept.

In LoEG and Lost Girls Moore takes established characters and provides new spins on them in a universe created to merge all of their stories.

This Watchmen thing is direct Prequels to the existing story taking place in the same place time and location.

They are completely different ballgames.

[Sean M.]

I'm almost certainly going to get the books- i liked Watchmen and i have no problem reading more stories about the characters. What I find interesting though is that there isn't a single British creator involved.

[Farrell]

I'm almost certainly going to get the books- i liked Watchmen and i have no problem reading more stories about the characters. What I find interesting though is that there isn't a single British creator involved.

Gibbons was asked, apparently, and turned it down.

Charlton was an American company, though, and Watchmen set in the US.  Other than the fact that British creators did the series in the first place, I'm not seeing the connection.

[GrimlocksPS]

Chris Roberson tweeted this earlier http://chrisroberson.tumblr.com/post/16863572079/watchmen-was-not-work-for-hire Which make the whole thing even more of a dick move on DC's part.

[krelyan]

The only one I'm excited about is Cooke's Minutemen because 1) It's Cooke and 2) I think this is the only one of the group that really has a fair amount of leeway creatively.  I like a lot of the creators involved but just don't see the other projects having a lot of potential.  I'd love to be proven wrong, but... 

[JimN]

The characters in Watchmen are not pre-existing they are analogues the difference there is quite vast.

I wasn't just referring to Watchmen but what they did with the analogs could just as easily have been done with the pre-existing Charlton characters and, in fact, that was actually the original intent.

I don't know about the rest of what you say, those chapters do a pretty great job of covering every major event that plays into the main story during it. Also I don't want to know what Edward Blake was like as a 10 year old because the portrait of Edward Blake informs how that character developed, just like the rest of the characters. The book includes all the major events because if any other ones existed they would be in the book.

Apparently Moore and Gibbons didn't feel that way. Wikipedia sites the following from a Comics Journal interview with Moore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen#cite_note-TCJ106-9

Moore stated in 1985 that if the limited series was well-received, he and Gibbons would possibly create a 12-issue prequel series called Minutemen featuring the 1940s superhero group from the story.

^ a b c Heintjes, Tom. "Alan Moore On (Just About) Everything". The Comics Journal. March 1986.

I love universes and mythologies that can stand and have parts be ambiguous, mysterious without being mined for all their worth.

I do too but one set of sequels isn't going to mine these characters for all they're worth and while some sequels are bad, sequels (and prequels) aren't inherently bad. People found great new ways to tell stories about Batman more than 30 years after his creation. There's no reason some great stories can't be told about these characters too.

Not to mention the only reason this is able to happen in the first place is that DC has created a completely toxic atmosphere with the creator to the point where they can just go ahead with it.

That may be a reason to disapprove of these mini-series but it has no real relevance regarding the creative possibilities of the subject matter.

[legion of daves]

Chris Roberson tweeted this earlier http://chrisroberson.tumblr.com/post/16863572079/watchmen-was-not-work-for-hire Which make the whole thing even more of a dick move on DC's part.

i'm sorry, but keeping one of your most profitable and popular works ever in print isn't a dick move, it's smart business.

[RickV]

I wasn't just referring to Watchmen but what they did with the analogs could just as easily have been done with the pre-existing Charlton characters and, in fact, that was actually the original intent.

Apparently Moore and Gibbons didn't feel that way. Wikipedia sites the following from a Comics Journal interview with Moore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen#cite_note-TCJ106-9

I do too but one set of sequels isn't going to mine these characters for all they're worth and while some sequels are bad, sequels (and prequels) aren't inherently bad. People found great new ways to tell stories about Batman more than 30 years after his creation. There's no reason some great stories can't be told about these characters too.

That may be a reason to disapprove of these mini-series but it has no real relevance regarding the creative possibilities of the subject matter.

If it was with the Minutemen and the characters we barely saw any of I would be more for it, however it is not it is 90% the people we know every detail that is required.

[S. Earl]

@BizarroStanLee wins the day

Alan Moore never intended "Watchman" to have sequels, But the creator of Snow White never intended her to eat out Cinderella either.

 

[JimN]

Chris Roberson tweeted this earlier http://chrisroberson.tumblr.com/post/16863572079/watchmen-was-not-work-for-hire Which make the whole thing even more of a dick move on DC's part.

It's a "dick move" to keep a successful book in print?

In the quote at that link, Moore said, "We’re sort of signing a legitimate contract just like anybody else would where there is a specified cut-off date."

It sucks that they never got the rights back but it sounds like if there had actually been a specified cut-off date in the contract, the rights would belong to them. There's no way they could have predicted the book would stay in print so long so I sympathize with them (I know I'd be frustrated if the same thing had happened to me) but if they assumed the book would go out of print when they should have insisted on that specific cut-off date, then ultimately that was their mistake. As I said, that sucks but a publisher shouldn't be expected to allow an extremely profitable book to go out of print.

[Julian Lytle]

Sorry if this is all about money and not some straight money making dick riding then Where is my Azzarello/Bermejo Bane HC solicit. Like for real Batman makes Warners more money period in multiple facets of their company plus it ties in their big summer/year tentpole release of the TDKR.

Man whatever I'm salty I don't have Mortal Kombat comics from DCe.

Why can't this energy be put into making dope Earth 4 comics? If you don't think they can sell-make them sell. Get some new minds in there to do different types of marketing for comics with limited budgets. MAKE THINGS HOT.

[GrimlocksPS]

It's a "dick move" to keep a successful book in print?

In the quote at that link, Moore said, "We’re sort of signing a legitimate contract just like anybody else would where there is a specified cut-off date."

It sucks that they never got the rights back but it sounds like if there had actually been a specified cut-off date in the contract, the rights would belong to them. There's no way they could have predicted the book would stay in print so long so I sympathize with them (I know I'd be frustrated if the same thing had happened to me) but if they assumed the book would go out of print when they should have insisted on that specific cut-off date, then ultimately that was their mistake. As I said, that sucks but a publisher shouldn't be expected to allow an extremely profitable book to go out of print.

i'm sorry, but keeping one of your most profitable and popular works ever in print isn't a dick move, it's smart business.

Keeping Watchmen in print is a financially sound move, but also denying the creators the work they were promised is a dick move. It's a shame they can't come to some arrangement.

But where money is involved these situations are to be expected.

[Julian Lytle]

It's a "dick move" to keep a successful book in print?

In the quote at that link, Moore said, "We’re sort of signing a legitimate contract just like anybody else would where there is a specified cut-off date."

It sucks that they never got the rights back but it sounds like if there had actually been a specified cut-off date in the contract, the rights would belong to them. There's no way they could have predicted the book would stay in print so long so I sympathize with them (I know I'd be frustrated if the same thing had happened to me) but if they assumed the book would go out of print when they should have insisted on that specific cut-off date, then ultimately that was their mistake. As I said, that sucks but a publisher shouldn't be expected to allow an extremely profitable book to go out of print.

Sorry but business decisions can be and are at time dick moves, they may be good business but that doesn't stop them from being dick moves.

Hate the player(s), not the game.

[JimN]

If it was with the Minutemen and the characters we barely saw any of I would be more for it, however it is not it is 90% the people we know every detail that is required.

Well, at least that means you know you don't need to give it any more thought. You can ignore the comics and keep on reading what you like.

By the way, one of the comics is the Minutemen.

Honestly, I understand why you're not interested but I think there's a difference between saying something doesn't appeal to you personally and suggesting the creative possibilities just aren't there.

[JimN]

That @BizarroStanLee tweet made me laugh out loud.

I liked this quote from Darwyn Cooke:

Darwyn Cooke – “The nature of the undertaking is going to polarize a lot of the readership…I think a lot of people will be excited about this and there are a lot of people that will be dead against it… I don’t feel any more trepidation than Alan did by refitting the Charlton characters. It feels like the right time and the right place and I think I have a strong idea.”

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/01/before-watchmen-gallery-quote-file/

[JimN]

Sorry but business decisions can be and are at time dick moves, they may be good business but that doesn't stop them from being dick moves.

Touché. Actually, when looked at that way, a lot of business moves are dick moves!