Oh boy...

I think if you really look at the original material and what makes it great, it actually makes a lot of sense to have another crack. If it isn't about celebrating the serial and pulp of comics, it isn't actually an exceptional comic (particularly with the passage of time). That is a great part of its strength and it's absurd to suggest that it can't be more than a maxi-series.

On the other hand, it is a sad sign of the times, where nothing is sacred.
It's perfectly reasonable for it to be more than it is, but maybe it's nice that it isn't. Maybe it was okay for it just to be a single moment in time. There's always the characters that inspired it, for continuation.

It's interesting that they're trying. Hard not to be interested, on multiple levels. Also hard not to look at it twice as a bit cheap, though.

Fuck. You got me excited for a movie lol. It seems ok I guess, I'll have to see whats in store for it though.

You lost me. This is right up there with the Crow sequel. Wait...there was another Crow movie? No, there wasn't. The fuck happened with my edit...bleh...nm. DEAL.

I think it's funny DC is going with a sequel/prequel, especially since the entire reason The Watchmen exists is because they DIDN'T want Alan Moore to use their original characters.

Doctor Manhattan was going to be Captain Atom. Silk Spectre was going to be Lady Phantom. Rorschach was going to be The Question. Nite Owl was going to be Owlman. I know The Comedian was going to be a pre-existing hero too.

Interesting seeing them do an about-face.

Everyone changes their mind and favors things when it becomes popular.

As long as there is less big blue dick then everything will be fine.

I'm disappointed. I might give them a glance at my LCS, but I won't be buying them, lest DC think this was a good idea.

Desptie how utterly wrong this seems to me, it all depends on who's behind the keyboard, pens and pencils, as it were.

I'll pick up Rorschach, maybe Comedian too. I have a love-hate relationship with Azzarello, but Comedian in particular seems like someone he could really work with. Anything with Bermejo's art gives me chills, so I have to say yeah...Rorschach is a must.

Len Wein on Ozymandias....ehhh. I dunno. Slightly tempting.

Won't read JMS, so Doc Manhattan and Nite Owl are out, though the Kuberts are good choices for artists on N/O.

Darwyn Cooke's art definitely suits the Minutemen concept. I've never read anything he's written, but I've heard his Superman Confidential issues were good. Same applies for his Silk Spectre, though Amanda Conner does some nice work.

This is going to be weird.

Oy. Me and Mick were just talking about this yesterday, it feels like.

I agree with most points brought up by Mick, but at the same time, I still feel this is... This has PLENTY of potential, of both kinds.

It has potential to be good, and potential to be bad. It really depends on how it's handled.

Still, I think you should just leave it be, but the inner fanboy want's more Watchmen, good or bad. Having John Higgins as an artist strikes me as a good idea. I think it's safe to say, however, that DC is probably already making movie plans.

Blue Beetle, actually.
Also, Shadaloo, you gotta read Cooke's New Frontier, or at least watch the animated version. It's up there with the original Watchmen and Kingdom Come on the "required reading" level, IMO.

I just don't like the concept. It feels like less of a "we have something to REALLY contribute to the story", and more of a "we can make money off the label" idea, especially considering the fact the original creators aren't on board.

Reminds me of Dune without Frank Herbert.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, it's totally unnecessary, it's being made withouth Moore's approval (obviously), and it's further proof that the industry is all out of ideas and everything can possibly get a sequel/prequel now.

On the other hand, it might be good. DC is a big brand and I don't think they'd release something with the Watchmen name on it if it didn't meet a certain grade of quality. Time will tell.

Without Alan Moore, this project is already doomed to fail. Plus, Watchmen stood alone on it's own. It doesn't need a sequel. It told it's story fairly well, and all the characters got the closure and such that they needed.

Can they pull a Bioshock 2? I hope so. I'll read both back to back and stack 'em up.

I would argue it's further proof that the corporates have officially moved in.

If DC's going to do this, atleast they got top notch talent on it. I like the universe that Moore and Gibbons created and I'm kinda looking forward to see how this other creators explore that world. Fanboys will kick and scream and pout in the corner all they want (like their percieved messiah Alan Moore). But honestly, the Watchmen universe deserves another look and it's ripe for the picking as far as character backstories go.

As for DC and Alan Moore: I'd usually take the side of the creators in fueds like this, but honestly Alan Moore has been almost childish in his dealings with DC, petty and unprofessional; atleast that's what it seems like to me. Yeah DC screwed you out of your shit, they also facilitated your vision. I'm not saying that totally justifies everything, but the best way to handle it isn't to throw a temper tantrum like a kid who got his toys taken away.

I guess I'm saying Watchmen is not a sacred text, its a great book. Its not beyond further exploration. As long as the new writers and artists stick to the high standards of the original.

No


And that is all I have to say about that.

I agree that there's nothing about Watchmen that puts the kibosh on a sequel. What worries me, though, is whether or not a Watchmen sequel/prequel will suffer from the exact same problems that non-Watchmen comics did in the post-Watchmen era.

I have a love/hate relationship with the book. I think it's a great story but, as Moore presumably intended, I genuinely hate the characters and what they stand for. I never read it as a deconstruction in the sense that "this is what real world superheroes would be like." I always read it like "this is what happens when people unfit for the responsibility take on the role."

And, also like Moore, I especially hate how it inspired an entire generation to feed off of its most superficial aspects, effects that we're still feeling to this day. And I can't help but imagine a Watchmen 2 being that entire generation compressed into a tight little package. And since Watchmen is so incredibly beloved (often overrated to the point of being outright worshipped) the risk of fanwank infiltrating the story is remarkably high.

There's just such a risk that Watchmen 2 would turn into an unintentional Watchmen parody that part of me would rather them just go that route on purpose. It might turn out better for it.

Some of the more seasoned names involve at least lend credence to the fact that -- on the creation side -- it won't represent those drawbacks of the post-eighties boom. A guy like Darwyne Cooke is probably gonna come at it from a different reference point, but with similar tone of intention to the original. Can't speak for how the movie-going audience will interpret the work, though. A lot of Watchmen's biggest, most stark raving fans seem to be people who haven't read many comics that came before it (or after, sometimes).

It's on my list. I've had the animated version on a disc for the longest time now and I keep forgetting to get around to it.

I love his artwork, though. Just tore through Brubaker's Catwoman vol. 1, and that was some good stuff.

Side note: I just realized that my DC Direct Rorschach is sculpted just so that he can do a fair imitation of 'Leonardo DiHapprio'. I now have Strutting Rorschach on my desk.

*facepalms*

Yawn.

My immediate response to this is to just shake my head in disdain.
When your company is always coming in second and you're going to do whatever it takes to be number one, there's a fine line between making ballsy, innovative, & groundbreaking moves...and pathetic, desperate, grasping at straws.
Between the "New 52" and this Watchmen thing...DC is just pathetic.

Upon further review, I find myself thinking to the recent "Thing" prequel.
When they announced that, some very basic questions arose that the movie, upon release, did not justify: did we really need to see what happened to the Norwegian base? Did it add anything to the overall story? Was this movie, on its own, worthy of existence?

No, no, and no.

Pretty much anything worth knowing about Watchmen was answered, in detail, in the series itself. Whatever ambiguities and hanging questions were meant to be ambiguous and left to the reader. Do I need to see the Comdedian hunt down and kill Hooded Justice? Do I care about Silk Spectre's early career? Will a prequel add anything to Rorschach worth knowing? Do I have to see the exact moment Ozymandias decided to enact his space squid plan?

Ah, better example than the Thing prequel...the Psycho remake back in '98. Why? That's really the only question: WHY?

Well, we already know the real answer: to make money.
Because this will sell and get a lot of attention, regardless of its quality. I can't condone pure masturbation in its most cynical, vapid, and prostituting form.


Oh yeah, and fuck Brian Azzarello.

He's hit and miss for me. I'll grant that Joker and For Tomorrow were awful, but I enjoyed Broken City and Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

Met him in person once, and he did seem a bit of a dick though.