Discussion in 'Archive: Your Jedi Council Community' started by VadersLaMent, Dec 1, 2011.
Look, maybe I may eat these words or something. But DEAR WORLD; just because Lucas got away with SW prequels does not mean evert damned thing has to have prequels. I would be far more interested in what comes after the giant squid.
Congratulations on your decision to fuel a creatively bankrupt enterprise that is poised to mangle another artist's seminal work. Good job.
i watched the movie and was sort of enjoying myself and then the sex scene came up with whoever singing "hallelujah" and i started laughing and i turned it off.
Yeah, as we all know the mere existence of books you don't have to read destroys the original forever. Just look at Dune.
Or better yet: don't look at Dune.
What a year! New Watchmen and new Van Halen! Tattoo, tattoo!
I'm not talking about the book being ruined, I'm talking about what it says about art, commerce, and the relationship between them, about the thematic validity of the work, about the validity of the medium and the people that work in it, etc. Supporting this kind of creative mediocrity merely encourages it, so have fun endorsing the death of original storytelling in comics!
Also, no work exists in a vacuum. Yes, this does not retroactively affect the quality of the original Watchmen, but it will always have to be a part of the conversation surrounding it now (just like the Dune prequels), hell the phrase "the original Watchmen" now exists by default. That's messed up.
Because when I think of original storytelling in comics, I think of thinly veiled expies of Charlton Comics characters!
No guys, it's totally unique, because he's not The Question, he's Rorschach! It's different! Honest!
I suppose it's a good thing it is, because [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Man#Grant_Morrison_revival]nothing[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Returns]good[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_(Vertigo)]has[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellblazer]ever[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_Thing#Volume_2]come[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_Happened_to_the_Man_of_Tomorrow%3F]of[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen]using[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(Marvel_Comics)#2010s]other[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics)#1980s]peoples'[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_four#1980s_and_early_1990s]characters[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow#Comic_strip.2C_comic_books.2C_and_graphic_novels]in[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_(comics)#O.27Neil_series]the[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punisher_max]history[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmetropolitan]of[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Star_Superman]published[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Beetle#Charlton_Comics]comics[/link]. Everything is always super original.
Bottom line: if they're good runs, I'll buy them, circumstances be damned - that's why I'm in this damn hobby in the first place.
That's precisely the point: the characters were thinly-veiled analogues and quite bland; it was the superb and innovative storytelling what made Watchmen great. I don't give a crap about "The Early Adventures of Not The Blue Beetle" or "Superman Grounded 2: This Time in Blue!".
Which is fine, it's your prerogative to not read books you're not interested in, just as it's my prerogative to pick up issues I am interested in. But it's silly to argue that this is somehow "bankrupting" comics' creativity when so many great comics are based on derivative concepts. Will these be the medium shattering titans the original was? No, but then, I don't read Jeff Lemire's Animal Man expecting to have my definition of storytelling as radically altered as it was when I read Grant Morrison's run.
If you can't see the difference between a profit-motive directed cash-in on a creator's work and Alan Moore's meta-fictional appropriations of characters to comment on the nature of stories I really don't know what to say, other than that there is absolutely a difference between influene/homage/pastiche and writing prequels for the cash. They can say all they want about the intent of the work whether its "making the characters and themes relevant again" (as if they've somehow become irrelevant) or "using them to explore new themes pertinent to the modern world" (in that case why not create new characters and stories for that purpose, instead of telling stories set in the past of something that is already 25 years old?), but its clear that the real thing going on here is a need to make money, a need for DC to stay relevant (by foolishly stripmining their past characters? good luck...) a need not to collapse into the abyss that 25 years of continuity obsession, reboots, and specious "matuirty" have wreaked on the superhero genre.
Look, you're entitled to like whatever you like, and I won't, and can't, bear you a grudge for that. But by the same token you can't deny that the venture, even if you may happen to enjoy the outcome, is a creatively bankrupt one. Think for a moment about the fact that a major player in comics, that can effectively publish whatever it wants, is paying a group of (mostly) talented artists to waste time and creative energy on what is essentially a line of glorified and officially sanctioned fan fictions based on one of the few masterpieces of the genre, instead of producing original work that might become new masterpieces of the genre. Now ruminate on the fact that one of the last truly unqualified masterpieces of the superhero genre was written 25 years ago. Now think about how you vote with your dollar.
The last truly unqualified masterpiece of superhero comics finished a mere four years ago.
And, oh look, it's a "glorified and officially sanctioned fan fiction."
Stop talking down to me like I'm already committed to buying every bleeding comic in the series. I want to check out an issue of Nite Owl because I think it might be worth my time and money to do so. If it sucks, I'll stop. Why? Because if I inadvertently do miss a really great comic that just happens to be in a pre-existing universe I'm going to be more disappointed in myself than I would be for losing three whole dollars. And why's that? Because I only care about reading good comics, not some Quixotic garbage about preserving one work's artistic integrity by declaring a moratorium on anything else related to it being released, ever.
Although I guess you've got a point, I'd be devastated if somebody took characters from, say, Peter Pan, my favorite children's book, and then exploited them for prurient sexual deviancy and profit. Fortunately that never...
That they're doing this isn't that outlandish; just one more in the pile of unnecessary sequels/prequels/remakes (I'd mention the site we're on, but WDNDSWITJCC).
What's really messed up is the bedrock of their ability to do this, our copyright laws. We live in a world where these can be made against the creators' wishes while the creators are still alive, while Walt Disney's company can still sue anyone who tries to use Mickey Mouse half a century after he died.
It's almost as if copyright law has been manipulated to benefit corporations more than creators...
no one has posted the .gif from "The Office" where the guy is screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO" yet?
I would have thought this thread would be perfect for that.
Well, I needed to pick up some toilet paper from the market anyway, may as just well just stop at the comic shop and pick these up instead. Will save me a trip to the grocery store if nothing else.
As far as All-Star Superman goes, first of all, it ruled. Second, it's a completely different story. Watchmen was intended to be one story, not some become a franchise, and go on for 70 years. This just an attempt at WB to collect off of what continues to be a cash cow 25 years after Moore made it.
I don't always agree with the sentiment, but in this case **** DC!!!
See, I'm not sure just how not franchised Watchmen was intended to be, [link=http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17997]mostly because of how much Alan Moore helped with the official roleplaying game[/link]. In a hypothetical universe where he signed a better contract... who knows?
But I'd be lying if I said that rereading these arguments and going through this exact same discussion for the fourth time of the day hasn't convinced me to not spend money on the books, at least, not right away. Maybe I'll bum a loan off of a completionist or something more... alternative... *cough*.
I slightly agree with Ramza on this. I understand the solidarity held by work like Watchmen in the minds of the fanbase, but I could also make the same argument for Kirby's work on Fantastic Four or Finger's work on Batman, etc. John Byrne did amazing work on other people's characters. Every decent storyline in any recurring character's book is still a regurgitation of prior people's blueprints. Now, the case is made that Watchmen wasn't a recurring series, but I agree with Ramza's assessment that the evidence for unintended franchising is an arguement from silence.
Some creator owned work that got rebooted by modern artists proved to be shockingly good, despite my initial vitriol toward these projects. Darwyn Cooke doing Eisner's the Spirit is a great example of this. It won awards. Awards named after Eisner, himself.
As I said to Juli in (the world's longest running conversation in a) PM, the creative teams that worked on this are all talented, good people, the books exist, there is no turning back at this point, and I just hope readers give them a fair judgment, not just emotional responses to the miscarriage of justice that they even exist.
Isn't making a Watchmen prequel more or less akin to making a Blazing Saddles prequel?
I'm a Golden Age guy. I like the Minutemen more than I like the Watchmen on principle alone.
That's all cool and very respectable. I just don't see Watchmen (the original series, not the "intellectual property") being equal to those, like I don't think remaking The Italian Job is the same as remaking Citizen Kane, or making Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is as awful as making Casablanca 2: Playin' It Again. YMMV, of course.
I love the medium, and I'm sad to see they keep going back instead of trying to publish something new. Maybe it's just an effect of the current economic situation, I don't know, but I die inside a very little bit every time I see the major companies returning to their old properties instead of trying to, you know, create something new and perhaps advance the medium. I feel the same as I feel about the sequel/reboot/remake craze Hollywood has had for the last ten years, or more: it smells of creative bankruptcy, and that's worrying in itself.
Also, I can't think of any precedent of any of the classic, genre-defining, medium-shattering series of the past having had a good sequel (The Kingdom! The Dark Knight Strikes Again!). I mean... All-Star Superman was awesome because it was infinitely better than any other Superman story (IMO): what are the chances of JMS, for example, writing anything better than Watchmen? And if he doesn't, why bothering touching one of the classics?
So yeah, let's just say I won't be running to the store.
PS.: In case DC is planning to have Scott Lobdell and Rob Liefeld write and draw Before Transmetropolitan: The Rise of The Spider... don't. Same with Geoff Johns and Jim Lee, actually. Don't.
What this world needs is INSpector Justice!
...so, I take it you aren't looking forward to creative teams wholly unrelated to the original releases doing sequels to A CONTRACT WITH GOD and MAUS...?
How could I say no to MAU2: BACK TO AUSCHWITZ?