All right. I hesitated before starting this thread because I don't exactly know how to feel about this. I have a lot of thoughts here, and I will try to make them coherent so please bear with me. Also, there will be a lot of questions posed in here with some tentative answers. I apologize in advance.

I've known for a while that DC was thinking about making Watchmen prequels, but I wasn't actually sure if they were going to do it.

There have been quite a few articles on this already and I thought of linking to them, but what it all comes down to is very simply should these Prequels exist? I mean it's a moot point now given that they do or that they will.

I'm just trying to articulate my thoughts on this. My first reaction when I saw the news was, "Oh dear god no ..." I think that Watchmen is pretty much what it is going to be and if anyone should make stories from it, it should be its creator: who I believe thought that this was as far as it would go. That he made everything that needed to be said and done in that narrative.

But then there is another side too. As this article points out among other things, the Watchmen characters were derived from the Charlton superheroes and indeed, many of Moore's characters are other characters taken from other literary works and shaped to his creative ends.

Isn't that what literature is? Taking something that was created before and borrowing it--giving a wink and a nod to your predecessor--as you build another world or a derivative. And isn't that what mythology-classical or otherwise--is about as well? Taking recognized archetypes and telling various different kinds of stories based off of them?

Mythology has narratives that can be considered sequels to each other, as does literature while, at the same time, they can be taken as entities in their own right: entirely separate from the original narratives.

You see, from my perspective, I think that these Prequels such as they are or might be would not take away from Alan Moore's work at all. In fact, it can be argued that Watchmen itself is being treated as a classical work which other creators are working in. It reminds me of what little I know about Marvel or Miracleman: how Alan Moore created this whole storyline that seemed so self-contained and then passed it to Neil who--despite many people believing that he couldn't do anything with it and in some ways Moore was being very cruel to him--actually did something very unique with the material. To be honest, and as an aside, I rather liked Neil's take on Miracleman's world: making it focus more on the individual than the all-encompassing world-view but at the same time elaborating on that utopia further.

Of course, that being said, these comparisons have something more in common other than the fact that Alan Moore created them. Copyright. Brands, and publishing companies, and legal issues, and intellectual property and copyright. There is also the matter where my analogy falls flat between Watchmen and Miracleman in that Alan Moore actually willingly gave Miracleman to Neil's creative hands while Watchmen was not given--by Moore--to the hands of Darwyn Cooke, Len Wein, Brian Azzarello, and J. Michael Straczynski.

I also heard there was talk of Moore actually getting the rights to Watchmen himself and that did not actually happen. I'm not entirely sure about a few details here, to be perfectly honest, but this topic really brings up a lot of very interesting issues.

In my opinion, I think that these works--like I said--won't take away from Watchmen in and of itself. I also think that as literature and mythology--as the comics medium is or has been envisioned by some to be--that it is natural for there to be other interpretations or derivative works.

Do I think DC is doing something bold and innovative though? That is an interesting question and I think in some ways they are and in other ways they aren't at all. They are sticking with something that one of their best now former creators made and has made them money for quite some time. At the same time, they are risking fan displeasure and the creator's further anger by doing this. Some of the storytellers involved like the creators of Babylon 5 and DC: The New Frontier are excellent writers in their own right and it would really intriguing to see narratives from their perspectives: like Neil playing in the playground of Miracleman's utopia.

However, I do think ideally that if someone should have done this, it should have been Alan Moore or at least his permission should have been sought. Again, I don't know all the legal or copyright or publishing details involved here, but it does bother me as a fan and as potential creator myself to see someone's world and work being used much to the displeasure of that creator. At the same time, it has been pointed out that this is the way of the publishing world: that profit is important and "this stuff happens," and quite honestly I don't really know what to feel about that.

From the topic of DC being "bold and innovative," one other issue I have been thinking about (my mind is all over the map with this I'm sorry to say), is some of the things Moore has said about the medium of comics as well. Does this decision affect the comics medium and people's perceptions of its "legitimacy as literature?" Are Moore's as well as Frank Miller's, Art Spiegelman's, and even Neil's works (for example) so much the basis of the medium that people simply make derivative works from them and don't, as Moore has suggested in the past, try to make anything new?

I disagree. I think there are works out there that are different from these, and even if they gain inspiration from them and their aesthetic or storytelling structures, they are working in a tradition and content almost always varies. Are they trying to innovate that tradition: that medium? I don't know. Can any writer, artist or creator truly answer that?

Anyway, I am very curious about this issue and others and I want to know what other people might think about them. Also, if this has already been discussed somewhere else Mods, please feel free to lock this thread.

DC has already "offended" me many times with their re-imaginings, re-boots, resurrections, etc.. Marvel too. The Industry will eventually ruin my heroes in chasing the dollar.

I've learned to enjoy the art/stories while they're good, and if it's canon or not, who cares? When the well runs dry, I bitch about it for a day or two, and then move on to something else.

Will the new Watchmen stories be any good? *shrugs* The only good things that came out of the New 52 were the Swamp Thing reboot (which has all the right elements but hasn't found it's stride yet) and Batwoman (amazing art & story). While I follow Green Lantern regardless of how crappy it can get *koffRAINBOWBRITEWARSkoff*, they sort of wrote the New 52 around Hal so they could keep the same storyline, which is sort of interesting at the moment.

Since Moore already wrote the entire backstory to Watchmen I think they should have at the very least consulted him for scripting and overall story arcs. DC got VERY lucky the Watchmen movie didn't suck (still felt kinda hollow though) and they're rolling the dice again with the prequels. For everyone, I hope it works out.

I thought Moore intentionally made the Watchmen characters and universe non-DC because DC didn't want their meat and potatoes icons tarnished, but now you know there's going to be multiverse crossovers.

I found this from an from an Interview with Dave Gibbons :

quote:

Thom Young: You also indicated in that interview that you and Alan considered doing an adjunct Tales of the Black Freighter series as well as a Minutemen project that would, I suppose, have been a prequel to Watchmen.

Obviously, neither of those projects will ever come to fruition, but I was wondering how seriously you and Alan had discussed them, and whether the two of you had actually discussed specific story details?

Dave Gibbons: As far as the prequel was concerned, that was the only possible way that we could see it going. It had been proposed that there could be spin-offs--such as "Rorschach's Journal" or "The Comedian's Vietnam War Diary"--and it may have been in a response to that, that Alan and I thought, "Is there anywhere that we could creatively and respectively go with this?"

The attraction of a Minutemen project would have been to pay homage to the simplicity and unsophisticated nature of Golden Age comic books--with the added dramatic interest that it would be a story whose conclusion is already known. It would be, perhaps, interesting to see how we got to the conclusion. On reflection I don't think either of those projects would have been a good idea.

See, the Minutemen idea--including the title--would have been a really nice idea. There were a few characters from the 1940s era of Watchmen that I would have really liked to see expanded on: like Hooded Justice or the Silhouette (who we don't see expanded on much but I always found an intriguing character).

We already know more than enough about the main characters from Watchmen, but the segment on "Under the Hood" really seemed to hint on a lot of very interesting back-story would have been interesting to expand on: at least in vignettes. It's too bad this didn't actually happen, at least in my opinion, from the people who actually created this.

But, it will be interesting to hear about all of this nonetheless.

One small problem with a Minutemen series - Moore would insist on writing and art to be 1940's retro. He did this before in his 1963 miniseries for humor, but I don't know how readable (and marketable) 1940's retro would be long-term.

It could be done if it's not too heavy-handed. Daredevil recently finished a run (new volume #1-6, I think) with some incredible 50's-60's style art and it was great stuff, but it was also fairly "light"; not dark and gritty. I mean, Daredevil was smiling.

Alan Moore talks about an upcoming Leage of Extraordinary Gentlemen: "I'm not adapting these characters... I am stealing them."

Alan Moore: entertaining, brilliant, frustrating, crazy.

Anyone who says, "I'm going to write a comic book for a major publisher and I feel that I should have creative rights over that writing in perpetuity," is deluded.

That said, I think that Before Watchmen is probably a bad idea not because it's not possible to build on that universe and build well, but because Watchmen fans seem to be either people who thought the movie was super-cool and loved the slow-motion and pageantry of it, or grognards who rail against the movie for not including the sandwich board guy who was vital to the plot, with a narrower middle ground than with most other properties.

It's quite possible that they'll produce a fantastic series of comics and still no one will show up to read it.

The Watchman movie wasn't bad, it was just filmed like a very long music video *koffSUCKERPUNCHkoff* and kinda missed the whole atomic-clock-paranoia-ticking-to-doomsday environment of the story.

I happened to like Sucker Punch. Yes it was pretty much a 2 hr long music video but it kinda worked for that particular film.

As to the whole Watchmen film, I loved that too. I even opted for the Director's Cut so that you get everything Zach Snyder wanted. Everyone has their opinion, mine just happens to like his movies. Won't go further, just that I like them.

As to the film itself: I always hate it when everyone harps about how film adaptations aren't faithful. Then when they are, they say it was too literal. Then it gets whittled down to, faithful but didn't include this one tiny detail.

@Furious - They did have it in the background for the most part. They kept going back to the threat from Russia, which ended with New York and various other cities being blown up. I understood that version of the ending with Dr. Manhattan being blamed for it instead of a Cthulhu-Alien-Psychic-Monster explosion. I know purists probably complained about it, but keep in mind that the movies are a business like comics and that the publishers or theaters want as many copies/seats sold as possible.

That means they want repeat customers, which means they want their audience to understand what is going on. Which means that somethings need to be changed to make a wide audience and not just the people who read the comic understand. I had to read the comic at least twice to finally get what it was I was reading cause to Alan Moore's credit, he can make a story that is so multi-layered in only less than 12 issues. Do you really think they are gonna get every little detail like that?

What I got from the film and the comic was:Broken group of super-heroes faced with two threats; 1)A global nuclear war brought on by the Russian's invasion of Afghanistan and 2)A possible threat to masked heroes. Since the heroes are broken and aren't as sought after mostly because only 3 are considered legit and the rest are in hiding like Night Owl or working outside the law like always with the case of Rorschach.

End it with a hero taking a dark-grey path by saving the world by killing some of them and the rest of the heroes can't stop him or expose what he did else hasten their own doom. That to me was what it was about, and the threat of nuclear attack was set dressing. It adds to it, but isn't overall the lynch-pin of the story.

As to the comic prequels (sorry this is so damn long but I got to this one late and a lot of things I want to cover). I get why DC is doing this, they both want to continue making money off still-popular properties and hopefully add to the story with something hopefully new and exciting.

I also get why Alan Moore hates this idea with a passion. He is one of those authors who doesn't like it when people mess with his shit. Unless of course he has given his permission like was mentioned with Miracleman being handed off to Neil Gaiman. Also given the fact that most of his other works haven't panned out so well when others get a hold of it like From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, and Watchmen....which is all of them. I did like V, League and as already said Watchmen. From Hell was awful and I didn't even read the book.

Probably a good thing no one tried to adapt his version of Swamp Thing. Internet would implode from the Fanboy Rage that would ignite like a nuclear bomb and riots would ensue.

Personally, I don't like the overall idea of a prequel to Watchmen. Maybe Comedian and Ozymandias stories but only if Alan Moore did them. I understand that this happens a lot when someone's work is passed on to a new author to continue to the work, but only if it is on-going like Runaways or how Swamp Thing was with Alan Moore or any of the superhero comics.

But when you have something iconic that was also a contained story that had a beginning-middle-end to it, you don't need to beat the horse until its dead. Let it be.

quote:

Originally posted by Game Wizard:

Probably a good thing no one tried to adapt his version of Swamp Thing. Internet would implode from the Fanboy Rage that would ignite like a nuclear bomb and riots would ensue.

DC gave Swampy the whole Hollywood treatment slightly before and during the time Moore was writing the book, and they really didn't focus on Moore's storylines then, so if DC wants to completely re-imagine the Moore era Swamp Thing for another movie... i dunno. I think they would start 'fresh' with the New 52 Swamp Thing, somehow.

However, HOWEVER, one character from the Moore era DID get his own movie:


A true adaptation of the comic book character.

I can't agree with you on Sucker Punch. It was bad. George Lucas bad.

I never got the feeling of dread and suspense that we they counting down to a nuclear holocaust in Watchmen, the movie. You have to remember that Watchmen, the comic, was a 12-part mini series, so that slow drama boil could build up (much like it's been doing in Punisher Max for nearly two years now - that's good writing to keep me on a must-read-it leash for so long). But the movie couldn't be ten hours long so Snyder simply couldn't do the slow suspense.

See, I would totally read something like Minutemen in exactly the 1940s comics art-style that is being talked about here: just as long as there was something subversive and clever going on behind the mask of a 40s Golden Age comics aesthetic. But that's not the point, I guess. The market and reader-popularity are key issues. I do feel though that a lot of people, if they had seen Alan Moore's name on such a thing, would have totally bought and read it: even if they hated it at the very end of things.

I wonder what the core theme of that proposed series would have been in counterpoint and complement to Watchmen?

While I know it is not precisely the same, the art in V for Vendetta looked retro in a different way as well. The aesthetics totally took me aback, to be honest, the first time I saw it: the faded darkness of it ... like it was reading a badly reprinted magazine from the 50s or so. I guess Watchmen and Miracleman are aesthetic products of their time from the 80s-90s period where colouring was more basic and the technology and copying methods were not as gloss as they are now. But these didn't take away from the story: on the contrary, they complemented it well.

As for the Watchmen movie, I liked it: just as I liked V for Vendetta. There were aspects that needed to be adapted from the comics medium to the medium of film and sometimes I was a little iffy--and cautious--but in retrospect for an adaptation that makes sense. I liked the novel of From Hell a lot better than the film too. I won't even go into the League film and I was pleasantly surprised afterwards to realize that the books were not only better, but they were awesome reads and some of my favourite Moore creation/appropriations.

Also, I watched Constantine before reading him in Moore's Swamp Thing and all I have to say with regards to the liberal interpretations there in the film and the fact he had black hair is, "Whoa."

Sorry, but yeah: sometimes some things need to be adapted carefully and I can understand why Moore would have been rather pissed off about even being mentioned in the same sentence as some of those films. That said though: I think in his interviews about his "character-stealing," Moore is sounding less crazy and more now in the business of shit-disturbing: because that comment in the article Zoneseek put up, was totally made to rile people up. *shakes head* It just kind of says it all really.

@Furious - I didn't know that Moore did Constantine as well.

What I meant with regards to Swamp Thing movie, I know they made the two Swamp Thing films, but they were based on the first author's version and not Moore's version.

Moore's version had Swamp Thing realize that he is not Alec Holland turned swamp creature but a plant that absorbed Holland's memories and consciousness and Holland did in fact die in the lab explosion that in turn made Swamp Thing....

I read Vol. 1 of Moore's stuff and wish to read more but my local library doesn't have it and had to do an inter-library loan for me to read vol. 1. Add to me not having any money to afford the Moore volumes and you can understand my frustration of wanting to know where it goes from there.

As to Sucker Punch, this is one of those differences of opinions and how we view things. You hate it, I don't. Nothing wrong with that, and I won't try to nerd rage you into liking something you obviously don't.

I do agree with your point about the slow boil of the nuclear threat and that you could build on that. Also true that Snyder couldn't do that successfully and probably knew it too and did the best he could given the fact the most he could do was 2-3 hr movie, 2 1/2 in theaters and 3 on DVD with the directors cut. Even then, you still lose some of that overall threat. I agree with that view, but I still enjoyed it regardless of that element not being done as best as it should have been but I don't fault Snyder for it. It didn't stop me from enjoying Watchmen as a film.

@Mythos - I didn't know anything about Constantine when the movie came out and when I started looking stuff up on it and find out he is blonde and British in the comic and Keanu Reeves is obviously neither of those things, I can get why many if not all Constantine fans would be (to put it extremely lightly) a little miffed.

Personally I think they should have cast James Marster as Constantine because he can at least pull off British accent and has been seen as a blonde from Buffy (where both were in use)....granted I suppose too many would think it was his character from Buffy on screen so I guess I just argued myself out of that one didn't I?

Too lazy to Wikiconfirm any of this, but I think John Constantine first showed up in the beginning of Swamp Thing's American Gothic storyline. The character was supposed to have an uncanny resemblance to pop rock idol at the time Sting, but before Con-job got his own book and backstory, Moore hinted that John Constantine was the reincarnation of another famous J.C., which when reading the stories in that light, made them hilarious.

Moore-era Swamp Thing timeline and must-reads:

Vol 2, Issues 20-33 - Swamp Thing still battling the Sunderland Corporation/DDI and comes to terms with the fact that he isn't Alec Holland.

Vol 2, Issue 34 - taking a breather from the horror, Swampy and Abby admit their love for each other and "do it". An extremely psychedelic book.

Issue 37 - Con-job's first appearance ever.

Approx. Issues 35-50 - The American Gothic saga. Swampy travels America and encounters classic American monsters in preparation for an upcoming event (the aftershock of DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths)

Vol 2. Issue 44 - The story of the serial killer Bogeyman. An imposter pretends he's Bogeyman during the Sandman's "Cereal" convention.

Issues 49-50 - The real Crisis crossovers. Although the official Crisis book is Issue 46, here's the expertly woven meat and payoff of the Crisis and American Gothic sagas. These books are the Kevin Bacon of DC Comics; virtually every pre-New 52 DC storyline had some connection, even if only a distant one, to the events that went on here.

Issues 51-56 - Sunderland/DDI kidnap Abby and take her to Gotham. Swampy reacts by turning Gotham into Eden. DDI reacts by killing Swampy.

Issue 53 - Swamp Thing is (still) attacking Gotham City because of Abby being arrested. Batman co-stars, but the real gem here is a cameo by Lex Luthor instructing the bad guys about a weapon to destroy Swampy.

Issues 57-64 - Swampy essence is disconnected from the Earth and he's forced to do another road trip to find himself.

Issue 61 - Swampy is trapped in outer space and requires a Green Lantern to help him. Much better than how it first sounds.

Oh right, I thought you meant he also did the Hellblazers stuff. I knew Constantine was first introduced in Swamp Thing, I just thought Moore also continued with him.

So technically speaking, Moore did create him but did not raise him.

Nah, Delano and the rest of the Constantine writers did that, although Neil gave Con-job an ancestor that was a sorcerer/troublemaker like himself.

Comic updates:

- Constantine is dealing with Lucifer again.

- The Punisher (MAX universe) was permanently killed off.

- Wolverine and the X-men is a goofy book.

- Irredeemable stopped making sense two years ago.

- The Boys is inching towards its inevitable conclusion

- Daken turned from cool evil to douchebag. Again.

- I need more money to buy everything I want.

Forgive for retreading (as well as being lazy).
Below I just copied and pasted what I had aid on a social media site when I first heard the news of Before Watchmen.

quote:

I liked the characters, but to me they were a backdrop to serve the story being told. To me that story is finished and anything more from authors other than Alan Moore holds no interest for me. This is just a company trying to make more money on an intellectual property that it owns. It is well within their rights to do, but I don't have to like or support it. Comics get treated in such a strange way compared to other literature. It was a self contained story and, in my opinion, should be left that way.

When I wrote that I did not know that J. Michael Straczynski would be involved. While I don't hold him in the same caliber as Alan Moore at least they are giving the story to a hack.

For full disclosure I should note that I did not like the Watchmen movie and I especially did not like the V for Vendetta movie. I cannot speak for others, but for myself it had nothing to do with attention to detail. It had to do with nailing the essence of the story. Now the problem with this is that my interpretation of the story might not be the same as another's. This is where, in my mind, the retelling of stories from one media to another has huge faults. It is easier with say X-Men because the is such a wide range of stuff to choose from. Something like X-Men does not have a main definable story. You can just pick what you like. Of course they screwed up the Hulk twice and stories don't get much simpler than that.

As to what Furious says are Moore era Swamp Thing Must reads? I could not agree more.
I also think the Delano and Ennis did a great job on Hellblazer. I honestly have not followed it since Ennis's run.

Seems to me that it's very simple. It's legal for DC to do anything they want with Watchmen. It's rude for them to do anything that Alan Moore doesn't want them to, but not morally wrong. If the prequels are good, the rudeness won't matter. If they aren't, the fact that they had the right to make them won't matter.

It's unlikely that Before Watchmen will be as bad as what Alan Moore did in Lost Girls.

Whether the creator is alive or dead is a bogus distinction. So turnabout for fair play, let's have a porn Watchmen.

I third Furious' Swamp Thing reading suggestions. You know, I'd totally forgotten about the Bogeyman. I read the trade paperbacks so long ago now. I really need to see them again: there were just so many things in Moore's run that influenced Neil, it made me happy to see that literary continuity.

I also agree with you Lan. Some things just can't be adapted the same way to one medium as they would be in another. But I still enjoyed some of the adaptations as well.

And that is an interesting point about Lost Girls, Zoneseek. A fairly long while ago, I think I said something about how it was a really interesting experiment that failed at titillation but at least had beautiful illustrations and made someone think: if only sometimes getting a little heavy-handed in a didactic way and ridiculous in the genre it was supposed to be embodying, "subverting, and surpassing." I do like what he did with the personalities of the characters, but I will always keep my memories of them in their original stories separate from what happened in that work.

And porn Watchmen ... oh god. *chuckles* It wouldn't take much. That said, I hope that doesn't happen.

I do wish though that would call the series something other than "Before Watchmen." You know, actually make an effort to do something creative with that. But as some people have already argued here it's not really about that, but about an industry money-making and I guess the title reflects that want and impulse pretty well: to expand on something tried and true for what may or may not be a sure payback.

And this is why Alan Moore hates America.