Watchmen Prequels - It's Official

[malpractice]

I respect you steve and i think we are coming from the same place for the most part. I think where we differ is you seem to feel that since others have been screwed over and treated unfairly, why is this any different and why should you care.

for me, it's that this isn't some case with a whole bunch of grey areas about a bunch of guys that aren't even alive anymore to defend themselves or reap the rewards, etc. with the watchmen case, it is clear cut. these events started within the the lifetime of the current readership, the people involved in the project are all still alive, and there is a crystal clear right and wrong and everybody from the suits to the new "creative teams" to the readership to the press chooses WRONG.  How the hell are we ever supposed to change the macro if we don't change the micro. If everyone in comics said no to Before Watchmen, they wouldn't be doing Before Watchmen, simple as that (or Dan Didio would be writing and drawing it and nobody would be talking about it). and especially when it's talent that aren't desperate and don't NEED to do this (they aren't even selling their souls correctly, it's not like they are each getting millions out of this). and it's one thing for talent to cross the picket line but to have fans and the press cheering them on when they do so is abhorrent behavior. pieces like the one on newsarama and ifanboy are what's wrong with the current culture (not just comics but as a whole), "let's feel sorry for dc's board of directors" give me a fucking break. This is a chance for the readership to actually make a difference for once, if we all don't buy Before Watchmen they don't make any more of it and we send DC a clear message about this product.

And i can't speak for Alec, but for me this wasn't a bubble bursting about the industry. I have long known about how fucked up the comics industry really is (and let's be frank about how every industry runs for that matter) but that does not mean i can't be disappointed or even disgusted with this particular example. Especially when it is coming from DC, a company which has done their share of underhanded things but for the most part has treated creators right, was trying new things and new properties, and had a fairly progressive stance on comics (at least under Paul Levitz, Jenette Kahn, and Karen Berger over at Vertigo). It is very clear to me that era is over and i don't think we'll ever be seeing that again from DC, and it is sad. Also call me delusional but i don't think you would of been seeing this behavior from DC, the creators, the press, and the fans 20 years, 15 years ago, 10 years ago, hell even 5 years ago, it's just a reflection of the times i guess and it's sad.

and steve, i am well aware of creator owned work, it is 75% of my pull list (and let's not kid ourselves, there are plenty of shady tales to tell in that arena of comics as well).

[timber-munki]

Karma to Alec B.

AFAIC I think Dr. Manhattan's line from Watchmen #9:

Would it be greatly improved by an oil pipeline?

sums up my opinion on the prequels.

On the plus side I was flicking through Watchmen to find the quote and was struck by the simple brilliance of panel 2, page 24 of #9 - the positioning of the letter N in the reflection of Laurie's face to match the Comedian's scar, it's something I'd not noticed before in twenty years of reading Watchmen and that is a microcosm of why I'm disappointed -  I seriously doubt that anything like that is going to appear in the prequels, and DC don't need my money, so I'll pass.

[JimN]

I respect you steve and i think we are coming from the same place for the most part. I think where we differ is you seem to feel that since others have been screwed over and treated unfairly, why is this any different and why should you care.

for me, it's that this isn't some case with a whole bunch of grey areas about a bunch of guys that aren't even alive anymore to defend themselves or reap the rewards, etc. with the watchmen case, it is clear cut. these events started within the the lifetime of the current readership, the people involved in the project are all still alive, and there is a crystal clear right and wrong and everybody from the suits to the new "creative teams" to the readership to the press chooses WRONG.  How the hell are we ever supposed to change the macro if we don't change the micro. If everyone in comics said no to Before Watchmen, they wouldn't be doing Before Watchmen, simple as that (or Dan Didio would be writing and drawing it and nobody would be talking about it). and especially when it's talent that aren't desperate and don't NEED to do this (they aren't even selling their souls correctly, it's not like they are each getting millions out of this). and it's one thing for talent to cross the picket line but to have fans and the press cheering them on when they do so is abhorrent behavior.

I think part of the problem we're having in this thread is that some people see this in purely black and white terms (as you seem to above) and some of us don't. There is no picket line and frankly, I see no clear right and wrong either. I certainly don't see anything more abhorrent in the behavior of creators willing to take on this work than in Alan Moore using classic children's fiction characters in a pornographic graphic novel. What is the great crime these creators are committing? Is creating more stories featuring characters from Watchmen somehow a greater sin than creating new stories featuring Conan, Sherlock Holmes or Dracula because the authors of Watchmen are still alive and one of them doesn't want to see it happen?

For some of these creators, the opportunity to work on this project might be a dream come true, just like working on Batman or Superman is for some people. They might actually be inspired to deliver some of their best work, to do something great, just like Moore has been inspired over the years to do some great work with the creations of others. They're not selling their souls any more than Moore sold his by working on corporate-owned characters in the 1980s or than Gibbons has by doing the work he's done for DC in the past decade or more.

[Alec B.]

And i can't speak for Alec, but for me this wasn't a bubble bursting about the industry. I have long known about how fucked up the comics industry really is (and let's be frank about how every industry runs for that matter) but that does not mean i can't be disappointed or even disgusted with this particular example. Especially when it is coming from DC, a company which has done their share of underhanded things but for the most part has treated creators right, was trying new things and new properties, and had a fairly progressive stance on comics (at least under Paul Levitz, Jenette Kahn, and Karen Berger over at Vertigo). It is very clear to me that era is over and i don't think we'll ever be seeing that again from DC, and it is sad. Also call me delusional but i don't think you would of been seeing this behavior from DC, the creators, the press, and the fans 20 years, 15 years ago, 10 years ago, hell even 5 years ago, it's just a reflection of the times i guess and it's sad.

and steve, i am well aware of creator owned work, it is 75% of my pull list (and let's not kid ourselves, there are plenty of shady tales to tell in that arena of comics as well).

Nah. You can speak for me. That was it. I'm not naive. Most of you know I've been paying attention to comics more closely than I should over the years.

Like Mal says, it's not about bubble bursting. It's more about the acceptance. This seems like a clear instance where people could, understanding the circumstance of it, turn their backs on Before Watchmen. DC will publish it nontheless, but audience reaction will determine it's success. From where it currently stands, it seems DC will win out.

I'm not sure if that would have been the case 5 years ago, but after Alan Moore's code seemed to get in the way of everybody's fun, people seemed ready to rebel against the old man. I guess this is the result.

[RickV]

I understand where malpractice and Alec B. are coming from, but Before Watchmen doesn't change anything for me. In the time that I've been paying attention to how things work (the last 25 years or so), here are a few things I've seen:

• Marvel screwing one of the three tentpoles of their company, Jack Kirby (a genuine architect)
• Comico listing the Rocketeer as one of their assets when they went belly-up (they didn't own it), throwing the situation into years of litigation and delaying Dave Stevens' work on the book significantly.
• the realization that Watchmen would never go out of print and that DC would own it forever (this realization occurred for many of us in the early 90s)
• First Comics' bizarre "ownership" of creator-owned titles Nexus, Badger, Grimjack and possibly others, and the hoops the creators had to jump through to finally get their creations back years after the company folded.
• Todd McFarlane buying Eclipse IPs, possibly including creator-owned properties as Miracleman (Marvelman) and Scout. Or not owning them. And all the attached lawsuits.
• Marvel suing over the name Marvelman.
• Marvel filing a nusiance suit over the name the Rocketeer because they once published a short story called The 3 Rocketeers, even though they never did anything with the characters and never trademarked the word Rocketeer, in an effort to bully a creator without corporate muscle behind him.
• Jim Shooter getting squeezed out of Valiant Comics.
• Marvel buying Heroes World Distributing, and setting the entire industry down the path where we now only have one significant distributor instead of three or four.
• Seeing a friend design a couple of robots for a board game...the designs went on to appear in video games, an animated series, and in toys. After the thousands and thousands of dollars it generated, he received a copy of each toy as compensation. (To his credit, he never once bitched about the situation and isn't bitter, but as a bystander, I thought, "What a shitty thing to do.")
• Alan Moore blocking his collaborators, Rick Veitch and Steve Bissette, from collecting their series 1963.

Additionally, I learned about some of the stuff that happened before I was paying attention, Seigel and Schuster's battle with DC, Bob Kane screwing over every one of his collaborators, DC firing their longtime freelance writers when they asked for healthcare benefits and replacing them with untested talent...

What I'm getting at is that if this is your tipping point, that's fine. I understand it. I can relate to what you're going through. But for me, this happened long ago. I went through a cynical period and came out of it. I like to think of myself as an optimistic pragmatist.  Or maybe a pragmatic optimist.

DC is no different today than it was a week ago, before this project was announced. They're no different than they were two years ago when this project started. Or three years ago when the Watchmen movie was released. Or 20 years ago when we realized that Watchmen wasn't going to go out of print and that Moore and Gibbons weren't going to ever get the IP back.

I don't see Cooke, Connor, JMS, Joe or Andy Kubert, or anyone else working on this as scabs. If you do, however, bear in mind that Moore lost this battle 20 years ago, and that everyone who has worked at DC over the last 20 years probably qualifies as a scab, as well. I can't view it in such black-and-white terms.

DC Comics is no less creative today than it was before this announcement. They're still the home of Vertigo, an imprint that produces several of the most engaging creator-owned and creator-shared properties in comics history.

And they're really no less reverent than they were before, either. I'm sure there was a corporate edict that came down to exploit this material, and DiDio, Lee and Johns lined up the best available talent for the gig. Bear in mind, everything being produced is in prequel form, not following up the ending of Watchmen. They're merely filling in the blanks, not determining what came next.

Comics, as a medium, are no less creative than they were a week ago, two years ago, three years ago, or twenty years ago, simply because a corporation did what it does. Comics remain an exciting and vital storytelling medium. Like JimN said, if this treatment of creators truly bothers you, throw your support behind creator-owned comics. Image, Dark Horse,  IDW and a number of publishers in the back of the catalog publish a terrific variety of genres. In fact, you can drop hundreds of dollars a month on some truly amazing books without spending a dime on a single Big 2 book.

You are pretty much explaining exactly what happened to me. The more you read comics the more you learn about the history of comics the more it seems wrong to support Marvel/DC at all. Also another bit that really bugs me is the seeming shrugging off of it just because the history has been one of exploitation means 'meh guess the present and future will be aswell'.

That is the scary part comics fans complacency with the problems in the industry they love and their general preference on the billion dollar companies and the IPs rather than the people who create the books.

[JimN]

You are pretty much explaining exactly what happened to me. The more you read comics the more you learn about the history of comics the more it seems wrong to support Marvel/DC at all. Also another bit that really bugs me is the seeming shrugging off of it just because the history has been one of exploitation means 'meh guess the present and future will be aswell'.

That is the scary part comics fans complacency with the problems in the industry they love and their general preference on the billion dollar companies and the IPs rather than the people who create the books.

There is complacency but I don't think the "shrugging off" of this particular announcement necessarily indicates that contemporary comics fans are somehow condoning the exploitation of creators. That attitude probably stems from acceptance of the circumstances, which have existed for years. The rights battle over Watchmen was lost long ago and DC has been finding ways to continue making money off Watchmen for years. This is just another step in that process, one many of us expected would happen sooner or later. It's a case of company continuing to exploit the right to a property they already have the rights to exploit, not a new circumstance in which someone is being screwed over and exploited. The announcement of the prequels is new but the Watchmen rights issues are old, old news.

Gibbons and Moore may have lost control of their characters but as I understand it, they've also made a lot of royalty money off Watchmen book sales so this is far from the most egregious cases of creator exploitation in comics history. It's more like a cautionary tale about the language of contracts.

[William Joseph Dunn]

http://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/the-new-watchmen-are-here.jpg

[ScorpioSteele]

"I own WATCHMAN (sic). When we finish with the WATCHMAN (sic) series, then it reverts to us." ~Alan Moore interviewed in the December, 1985 issue of Mile High Futures, the newsletter magazine of Mile High Comics.


"(I)t's obviously very nice to think that sometime in the future they might do a V FOR VENDETTA movie or a WATCHMAN (sic) movie and I could be rich forever. But that's not the prime thing. The prime thing is the act of creation itself. If I look after that, I have an almost religious conviction that the rest will look after itself." ~Alan Moore interviewed in the December, 1985 issue of Mile High Futures.

(This interview was conducted before WATCHMEN was released, hence the interviewer, Leanne C. Harper, getting the name of the book wrong.)

[wolfstone]

He should have wrote a less good book then he might got the rights back as it is tough luck

[legion of daves]

i can't read this thread title without hearing krazy eyez killa say "that's official."

[David]

(This interview was conducted before WATCHMEN was released, hence the interviewer, Leanne C. Harper, getting the name of the book wrong.)

Welcome to the forum.

[JimN]

 

That was awesome. Ty Templeton rules.

Thanks for posting that, Mr. Dunn!

[Julian Lytle]

I have a feeling if this was done by Vertigo and Karen Berger (not saying she would've done it or is cool with it) that this would have like -100% hate. I just thought of this while at work.

[Farrell]

I have a feeling if this was done by Vertigo and Karen Berger (not saying she would've done it or is cool with it) that this would have like -100% hate. I just thought of this while at work.

I don't have any hate for this, only sadness.  A whole lot of sadness.  And Vertigo and Karen Berger spearheading the whole thing would make me +100% sad.

[Wood]

Yeah, it's hard for me to hate anything related to comics. That's a strong word.

I'm at best indifferent and, maybe to Farrell's point, just think the whole thing is sad.

[S. Earl]

http://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/the-new-watchmen-are-here.jpg

Best thing I've read all year. Hilarious.

[RickV]

Sorry to dredge this up but this piece is the perfect one on the subject and it required a kind of weeks distance to write it seems and it shows.

Tom Spurgeon 21 notes on the project from a Distance.
http://tinyurl.com/6stagjg

[Jeppe]

Sorry to dredge this up but this piece is the perfect one on the subject and it required a kind of weeks distance to write it seems and it shows.

Tom Spurgeon 21 notes on the project from a Distance.
http://tinyurl.com/6stagjg

Thanks for posting the link. Even when I don't agree 100 per cent with him, Spurgeon is always worth reading.

[JimN]

Sorry to dredge this up but this piece is the perfect one on the subject and it required a kind of weeks distance to write it seems and it shows.

Tom Spurgeon 21 notes on the project from a Distance.
http://tinyurl.com/6stagjg

Thanks for the link. He has some interesting thoughts on the subject although, in the end, he ends up being just another person judging and making assumptions about work before he's even seen it. Admittedly, he's right when he says these mini-series are product but is he right that they aren't art? How can he tell without actually seeing and reading the work? Perhaps Mr. Spurgeon has forgotten that Watchmen was product from the very beginning. I understand the distinction he tries to make between product and art but few comics have qualified as the latter without also being the former.

I don't expect any of these series to equal the original but even if they don't, it hardly renders them worthless as creative endeavors. An awful lot of the work comics fans hold in high esteem is derivative work, work created using or re-purposing existing characters  and ideas or mining and exploring in worlds created by others. It's fascinating to me that this one, particular work is deemed so untouchable by so many.

I've known for decades that comics fans had placed Watchmen on a pedestal but I don't think I realized just how high that pedestal was until the reactions to this Before Watchmen announcement.

[RickV]

First off his third point is addressing the very thing you seem to point out that this is all talk about series that have not yet been released. I don't see though how you can have such absolute standards in an artistic medium sure all comics are sold and a great deal of them are reusing or reinventing existing characters but there are degrees of the artistic merit attached to a project that can be discerned from even before the books come out, from the creator interviews to the company interviews to the Dave Gibbons gun-to-the-head-quote, to the fact that they are "reinventing characters for a modern stage" by telling a prequel to something 25 years old.

There are so many problems from the ground floor that I don't see how you can fault people for being incredibly skeptical, is there a chance that these books will be good? Sure. Is there a chance they can reach the heights of the original? We may need the Miracle Machine for that.

Same as you I find it funny that now 25 years after the book is out there seems to be enough distance for people to question/mock/ironically look at the pedestal that the comics industry/fans have created for a work/piece of art that is worthy of its acclaim.