Feeling Angry About Before Watchmen? A Few Quick Words on Why You Shouldn't
Blog entry
Share this blog
Posted by Sam Moyerman on Feb 4, 2012 at 08:00
Category : News & Reports
Tags: alan moore, amanda conner, andy kubert, before watchmen, brian azzarello, darwyn cooke, dc comics, jess nevins, joe kubert, watchmen
So DC made a big announcement. I haven't seen people this mad since... Well since they made their last big announcement. And here we are 5 months later and we have questions, have stuff we don't like, and have stuff we do. Kinda like before. But I've never seen Jess Nevins this angry before. The majority of Rich Johnston's posts have been negative, with quotes from Alan and Leah Moore setting the tone.
We all love Watchmen. It's the pinnacle of the super hero genre, a superb story, and marked the emancipation of the art form. It was listed as one of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century by Time magazine. It created a vivid and real world with amazing characters. But here's the thing, Before Watchmen will change none of that.
DC and the creators involved are just telling other stories with these characters in this world. And that's ok. Surely there were other good tales to tell involving these characters. We love Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and countless other superheroes because there are hundreds of tales of their adventures, not merely two or three.
Besides, have you seen the talent working on these? Two of the three legendary Kuberts! Azzarello and Bermejo, the men who created best-selling graphic novels featuring Lex Luthor and the Joker, taking on Rorshach! Adam Hughes! And Darwyn freaking Cooke!!!
Speaking of Darwyn Cooke, didn't he do a prequel of sorts with characters we loved? A book that only added to the legacy and legend of characters? Yes he did. Were we worried then? No we weren't. So why did we love DC: The New Frontier, but decide to immediately hate Before Watchmen?
I get the "why can't they do original stuff?" argument. But here's the thing, they do. All of these creators have done original work. But they've all worked on company owned characters too. And it was usually really good. Why can't they do this then too?
Alan Moore said, "As far as I know, there weren’t that many prequels or sequels to ‘Moby-Dick". I say, "That's rich coming from the guy that put Ishmael on the Nautilus."
Head to Twitter to disagree (and I know you will) with me (@el123chico) or argue with us all @brokenfrontier, Facebook or right here below in the Comments.
Comments
-
AdamCrocker (Feb 4, 2012 at 11:00am)
<i>'Alan Moore said, "As far as I know, there weren?t that many prequels or sequels to ?Moby-Dick". I say, "That's rich coming from the guy that put Ishmael on the Nautilus.'</i>
Though League of Extraordinary Gentlemen isn't a sequel to Moby Dick, or 2000 Leagues Under the Sea, or Dracula...
...it's a weird mash-up of these literary heroes that allows Moore explore the notion of the hero and the tropes of heroic fiction by calling the reader's attention to it through existing fictional characters. And often reimagining them in the process.
But Before Watchmen? It's telling canon prequels in regards to a story that thoroughly explored the histories of the characters. Is there anything left to explore in that regard? Particularly when J. Michael Straczynski says he's going to answer the burning question as to how Dr. Manhattan walked into the testing chamber that gave him his powers in the first place? That was dealt in all of three panels in the original story with "oh, no I left my coat in there." And its really indicative of what a bad project this is and how emblematic it appears to be of mainstream comics' inbred creative thinking. Moore purposefully reworks old literary characters for new purposes while DC is dredging up a story that's not receptive to things such as prequels to do what...? (I mean besides sell comics.) -
AdamCrocker (Feb 4, 2012 at 11:00am)
Crap, my message got muddled with no paragraphs. Still trying to get an understanding of the comment system here.
-
Jason Wilkins (Feb 4, 2012 at 12:12pm)
I'm ok with DC trying to sell comics. And I'm not even that surprised they're trying to capitalize on Watchmen. My issue is that while all of these creators have gifted us with high level original works, none of that original work has been within the mainstream DCU/MU. When was the last time the big 2 actually published a successful superhero comic that could hold its own against the archetypal characters of the Golden and Silver Ages? Wolverine comes to mind but other than him, who else? There's maybe arguments for Cable but he's been killed off or cancelled a couple of times and hasn't had Logan's legs (snicker). Will I read Before Watchmen? Not likely until the tpbs hit. One way or the other, there has to be someone out there (especially considering the talent involved in this event) capable of creating a solid, viable superhero archetype for modern audiences. Incidentally, this isn't just an opinion that's limited to the current subject but is a question I ponder most days I pick up a mainstream book. Before Watchmen is just another indication of a wider problem, imo. Having said that, and despite being a huge Moore fan, I do think he has a rather unrealistic understanding of the mainstream comics publishing. You don't own the characters. You never did. If you didn't see this coming, then maybe it's time for a haircut.
-
Jason Wilkins (Feb 4, 2012 at 12:14pm)
BTW Sam, this was a great blog! Hope it generates some conversation/debate!
-
AdamCrocker (Feb 4, 2012 at 1:04pm)
Jason;
Well arguably Moore did expect this given his previous criticism of mainstream comics publishing, but he's nonetheless disappointed and annoyed by this development. Also his own stance on the ownership of the characters has to be assessed in light of the fact that when the original contract had specified that the rights would revert to him and Gibbons if the book remained out of print for a year. And at the time that was made, comics remaining continously in print was an unusual development. (To say nothing about how his attitude was shaped by subsequent developments.)
And with that said another point I wish to address is...
"My issue is that while all of these creators have gifted us with high level original works, none of that original work has been within the mainstream DCU/MU. When was the last time the big 2 actually published a successful superhero comic that could hold its own against the archetypal characters of the Golden and Silver Ages?"
Well why would they? Marvel and DC have made it utterly clear they are only interested in pushing pre-existing company owned properties in their mainline of comics. And in that line they even have trouble launching and selling titles focusing on lower tier characters.
Arguably you could say that what this really calls for is fresh new ideas in mainstream comics, but the fact that DC seems to think you can write prequels to WATCHMEN - arguably a work totally unsuited for such a spinoff - suggests that neither publishing company really understands this. -
Jason Wilkins (Feb 4, 2012 at 1:28pm)
I knew there was some contract issues but not the specifics, so thanks for some insight there :) At the end of the day though, DC's holding the all the trump cards (not to mention dealing the hand), it seems.
I understand it's much easier to bank on established viable properties where the big two are concerned but it's their focus on the current aging market that's tied them to a strategy of recycling past successes. It just seems sad that we're still reading the adventures (no matter how creative or inventive) of characters that have been around for most of a century. Considering it that way, I sort of understand (if not agree with) Moore's remarks about comics as literature. Still, I would argue works like Lemire's Essex County, most of Blank Slate's efforts, Watchmen, Dark Knight and a slew of other books - both mainstream and indy - refute his stance as examples of literary comics.
You know, I'll likely pick these tpbs up just out of curiosity but it won't be without a hint of resignation and wondering what if DC had just given all of these talented folks the green light to create something relevant and exciting within the confines of their established universe. I certainly can't blame them for not refusing an offer to play with these particular toys. It's their publisher that needs a stronger vision. -
Sam Moyerman (Feb 9, 2012 at 12:12am)
I don't get the idea that because something is a mash up, it shouldn't count in any way as a sequel. It's telling the tales of characters that takes as canon their other stories. Hence sequel. Is it a different type of sequel? Sure, I'll give you that. But you cany deny that there was Alan Moore, writing Melville's character, using Melville's dialogue. But apparently it's ok because Herman Melville is dead. (I didn't hear the original quote; I'm hopeful Moore was joking when he said that.)
It also makes no sense that a mash up is acceptable, but this is not. Under that logic it would be OK if Rorschach fought Batman in his book. Or maybe Spawn so we can crossover publishers. I now wish Todd McFarlane had bought the Watchmen characters somehow.
I have no idea what JMS is going to do. His recent output more likely means I won't even like it. But there are Dr. Manhattan stories that could really interest me. What about the first time he realized he could split himself and effectively be everywhere at once? We know Rorshach and Nite Owl went on patrol together in the past, if there time together was so entertaining in Watchment why wouldn't their other ones be too? And if there was nothing at all that could possibly be interesting in these characters' respective pasts then why did Moore reportedly toy with the idea of writing a Minuteman book?
It's been my impression that most people don't want to like this just because Alan Moore doesn't like the idea. But historically (and I'm trying to work on a blog post about this) it's been almost automatic that Alan Moore doesn't like anything. -
AdamCrocker (Feb 9, 2012 at 1:07am)
Sam;
>> "It also makes no sense that a mash up is acceptable, but this is not. "
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear the first time, but it's not so much about the mash-up per se as what Moore does with it. As I said there's a difference between the purposeful re-imagining that Moore does in LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN than say...Geoff Johns doing his CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS sequel where Alexander Luthor and Superboy Prime are clumsily plothammered into villain roles so we have DC's superheroes work through a bunch of tired cliches. And if LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN is a sequel to MOBY DICK and DRACULA, it's a rather unusual one in that it purports less to be a continuation of the original stories' events, tone, themes, etc., than it is reframing these familiar ficitional charaters in a very different story. Plus, JMS comments about what he wants to explore don't auger for the story.
As for why I oppose this, well to quote Paul O'Brien: ?For god?s sake, why?
"Even assuming Moore had no objections to the project ? and let it be noted, Dave Gibbons was presumably happy to have his endorsement in the press release ? the whole enterprise would still beg the question: who on earth wants to read prequels to Watchmen? Has anyone been demanding to see this?"
http://www.housetoastonish.com/?p=1263
And there's the wider question of whether this is even the kind of work that it makes sense to franchise given how detailed it is in terms of exploring the characters' past, the finality of the ending, and really whether there are any franchisable elements to work with given the nature of the work. -
Bart Croonenborghs (Feb 9, 2012 at 4:45am)
1) I don't think there's anything left to tell about these characters. Watchmen is just such an intense and full circle exploration of these fictional characters that there's really nothing left.
2) The thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the fact that indeed the deal made with DC was that the rights are reverted if the book is out of print for over a year and once DC noticed it was a hit, they just kept it in print indefinitely without ever reaching a new agreement with the creators. So basically they realised the deal for the creators was crap and gold for them and they never succeeded in re-negotiating a fairer deal for all involved. That is just wrong. -
Bart Croonenborghs (Feb 9, 2012 at 4:46am)
and how the hell do you people do those paragraphs? :p
-
Tony Ingram (Feb 9, 2012 at 5:29am)
As far as I'm concerned, this whole exercise is just a cheap cash-in which rubs salt into Moore's wounds again. On principle alone, I wouldn't touch these books with a barge pole.
-
Bart Croonenborghs (Feb 9, 2012 at 6:57am)
And Tony has a large barge pole! (supposedly, that's what he tells me anyway)
-
AdamCrocker (Feb 9, 2012 at 1:13pm)
Bart;
"2) The thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the fact that indeed the deal made with DC was that the rights are reverted if the book is out of print for over a year and once DC noticed it was a hit, they just kept it in print indefinitely without ever reaching a new agreement with the creators. So basically they realised the deal for the creators was crap and gold for them and they never succeeded in re-negotiating a fairer deal for all involved. That is just wrong."
Bart, that is probably the most intelligent and ethical examination of the original deal, and even one I certainly didn't consider when I generally come down on creators' side on this thing. Thanks for posting that. -
Sam Moyerman (Feb 9, 2012 at 2:15pm)
without having any inside information at all on it, i refuse to comment on the ownership rights of the book. it is well known that the initial contract called for the rights to revert 1 year after going out of print, but i have heard mixed reports on the attempt to renegotiate. i honestly don't trust any of the sources enough to fully take their side (for instance, why is moore so angry but dave gibbons not?). but it's just another way that this book was the game changer. not just in story, but publishers changed their publication standards because of it. should the contract have been renegotiated? sure. but you can't fault anyone involved with any decisions. why pull a book that keeps selling? and did moore think so little of his book that he didn't realize it would stay in print? even if they did stop publication after a year, did he have any assurances it wouldn't come back into print? did he think that little of the readers that they wouldn't want this book around? (probably)
and adam, it seems like you are saying that the book's acceptability with you deals with the creators and how they use the characters. and while i share your trepidation on what JMS is planning, how is it that you've already passed judgement on the rest of the books when they haven't even been released yet? -
Bart Croonenborghs (Feb 10, 2012 at 3:56am)
1. Regarding the ownership rights, without going into detail what I said above is true. That's how it went down based on the various articles over the years that reached the light of day. What is not said specifically is that Moore is notoriously hard to deal with so it could be that Moore wished for more than DC could give, there's a bit of leeway in that interpretation of the events.
2. Alan Moore vs Dave Gibbons approval of Before Watchmen -> I think it can be said that Gibbons is not that hard of a bargainer as Moore based on the communication surrounding the Watchmen movie. Moore is just too caught up in his string of negative experiences with DC / Wildstorm while Gibbons has always had a leisurely attitude towards DC.
3. An ethical stand is a purely subjective stand that each must decide on his own. But I do agree that condemning the quality of the books before having read them is not done. Though I do not think that any creators involved are up to Moore's standards.
4. One thing that no-one talks about is the art involved. I wouldn't underestimate Gibbons classical drawing style that equally evokes the fantastic and the realistic befitting the style of the story which was a big attraction at the time. Artists like Jae Lee, Amanda Conner and Darwyn Cooke represent a totally different experience so it will be interesting to see how that works out. -
Tony Ingram (Feb 10, 2012 at 6:27am)
Sam, I don't think it has anything to do with Moore not having faith in his work. the fact is, Watchmen was one of the first trade paperbacks; Moore had no reason to believe it would stay in print for more than a year, simply because there were no previous instances of TPBs staying in print for over a year. This was new territory at the time. It was probably a perfectly reasonable expectation that the book would stay on the shelves for a few months at most and then go out of print, because there were no examples of anything other than that happening, at least as far as the American market was concerned.
-
Sam Moyerman (Feb 10, 2012 at 1:31pm)
Again, I know the original contract. I have also read that DC tried to renegotiate and Moore took a really hard stance with them. This changed the mold. Old contracts obviously didn't cover it. With anything beyond the original contract we are all working on hearsay. You want to believe Alan Moore? Fine, go ahead. I'll just say I don't trust any of them. Ask Rob Leifeld about contracts with Alan Moore. You'll get a lot different view then, but in the end we'd just be adding another person with shaky believe-ability to the list.
BTW - Was Dave Gibbons getting part of the ownership back? Seems adequate to ask in light of the current Walking Dead controversy. Bart seemed to want to dismiss his opinions on it because he has/had a better relationship with DC. I'd say he deserved 50/50. And if his opinion isn't colored with bitterness and anger, maybe he's a better source than anyone else.
-
Sam Moyerman (Feb 10, 2012 at 1:35pm)
also, i can't wait for the discussion on my next blog post, should i ever get the time to complete it.
-
AdamCrocker (Feb 12, 2012 at 2:00pm)
Sam;
"and adam, it seems like you are saying that the book's acceptability with you deals with the creators and how they use the characters. and while i share your trepidation on what JMS is planning, how is it that you've already passed judgement on the rest of the books when they haven't even been released yet?"
That's only part of it, but it's also due to the points raised by the House to Astonish blog entry I posted: WATCHMEN is a work that really doesn't lend itself to franchising the way Superman (who was explicitly designed for that sort of thing) does or Dracula (who wasn't but somehow various parties managed to find qualities in the character that you could work with...though literary characters like Dracula that do get reworked that way are pretty rare). I may not be able to condemn the quality of the project itself, but it simply strikes me as a flat-out bad idea given the proposed project.
In any case, the point my earlier post was to draw a distinction between the kind of reusing of literary characters that Moore does in LOEG and how that is different from say...what's going on in BEFORE WATCHMEN or superhero comics. Hence why I choose Geoff Johns' sequel to CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS. It's patently not the same and I'm quite baffled why people think it is. Again, Moore places old literary characters in new contexts to explore ideas different and somewhat askance to the original work like the notion of the hero or sexual imagination. Geoff Johns just dredges up old characters who are put through a series of stale (and clumsy) genre fiction exercises.
Which is also another reason for my why I'm pessimistic about this project: it strikes me as utterly symptomatic of Marvel and DC's wider creative inbreeding that gave use Geoff Johns and the upcoming AVENGERS v. X-MEN crossover. Marvel is presenting the latter as something that has never happened before. The 1987 X-MEN v. AVENGERS mini notwithstanding, how is this different than any other superhero team v superhero team punch up that we've seen in the past several decades?
In order to post a comment you have to be logged in. Don't have a profile yet? Register now!
Preview: CLiNT #2.1
Sneak peek by Richard Boom
CLiNT #2.1 will be available from all good magazine retailers and comic stores on Wednesday May 23.
12-Gauge Comics Solicitations For August 2012
Solicitations by Richard Boom
12-Gauge Comics has sent out their August 2012 shipping titles.
Preview: Captain Marvel #1
Sneak peek by Richard Boom
This July, take flight as Marvel is presenting a first look at Captain Marvel #1!
READ ALL HEADLINES