|
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Here are the covers for each series...
Crimson Corsair: Spoiler:
Comedian: Spoiler:
Dr. Manhattan: Spoiler:
Minutemen: Spoiler:
Nite Owl: Spoiler:
Ozymandias: Spoiler:
Rorschach: Spoiler:
Silk Spectre: Spoiler:
|
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
(Post 11100872)
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=20882
It didn't happen because DC wouldn't agree to pay Neil Gaiman something comparable to what he might get for the same amount of time working on a novel. Gaiman stated, "I get a fifteen percent royalty and an incredibly healthy advance, I did ‘Sandman: Endless Nights’ as my charity project; ‘Sandman: Endless Nights’ was a favor to Karen [Berger], it was done at the four percent royalty I've had since the beginning, for a twenty-thousand-dollar advance, and I found the time, I fitted it in and I just did it. It got them onto the New York Times bestseller list for the first time ever..." I said, "Look, I can't afford to do it. I can't actually afford to drop everything." And I said, "But, I also know you're not going to turn around and pay a million-dollar advance, nor would I force you to. So my suggestion would be that you up my royalty on the entire Sandman line by two percent." Which according to my calculations, in sixteen years would bring me up to what I would have made if I'd written a novel... Mostly, it was just sort of a pride thing. Pride isn't even the right word-a sort of saving face thing. I thought, "Well, okay, this way, it barely appears on their balance sheet," I get to to, "Well, even if it's sixteen years, I haven't actually really done this for free." Note that he doesn't say that DC couldn't afford the advance, just that he didn't think they would pay it. Also the increased royalty rate would still be well below what Alan Moore allegedly gets for Watchmen. What's interesting is that he's work with DC since. He wrote "Batman: Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" for them. Maybe they offered him a better rate, or the appeal of the project won him over. Edit: Also, despite whatever reasons Neil has for not writing new Sandman material, he's never begrudged DC or his fellow comic writers/artists from continuing it. Hence why there hasn't been controversy about the plentiful amount of spin-offs from that series. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
The Dr M. Cover looks super creepy.
|
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by kodave
(Post 11100852)
What Moore feels obviously isn't the reality of the situation
And if DC wouldn't have budged for a more limited contract, maybe he shouldn't have written Watchmen if he cared about his creative contributions so much. Neal Adams... But Moore didn't do that regarding Watchmen. There was no gun to his head to write this for DC. Also, the story doesn't detail what specifically Adams wanted in his contract, just that it wasn't the standard work-for-hire one. Would Adams have accepted a reversion clause in his contract as good enough? It's hard to say. Keep in mind that prior to Watchmen, Moore reportedly had a good relationship with DC. He had written Swamp Thing for years, and had written Superman and Batman stories. He originally approach DC with Watchmen because he wanted to use the Mighty Crusaders for the main characters, which DC owned. Moore likely asked DC for a non-work-for-hire contract for Watchmen, and they turned around and offered the reversion clause. The fact that even that was notable for a comic at the time says something about how unusual the deal was at the time. Could Moore have held out for more control? Of course. Would it have been reasonable for him to have done so? At the time, I don't think anyone would've suggested that DC would still hold the rights to it decades later as a likely possibility. So what's the point? Moore can keep living his life bitter, and DC can keep making money, and that'll be that. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
One more cover:
Spoiler:
|
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11100981)
Nobody knows what the "reality of the situation" is. Everyone has their own view on it. DC has their view, Moore has his, and you have yours. None are the reality, but I know that Moore has more of the facts than you do.
Very few people would have all the facts, but from what is known, this is just business. DC didn't outright "screw" Moore, so I'm not going to care if he's butt-hurt over this particular situation. A swing and a miss. The Neal Adams story is odd: he was illustrating an X-Men book, so he didn't have the rights to the characters, and Marvel would be the only publisher that could do anything with his work. Also, the story doesn't detail what specifically Adams wanted in his contract, just that it wasn't the standard work-for-hire one. Would Adams have accepted a reversion clause in his contract as good enough? It's hard to say. Moore was paid well, and the reversion clause was a gamble that didn't pan out like he wanted it to. Do I need to quote myself again? If Moore was SOOOOO concerned about the creative/literary/artistic integrity of the product, he could have pushed for a tighter contract or walked away from writing it. But he wasn't that concerned with it. I mean he let other people write RPGs about the Watchmen universe before he even finished the story. Sure, he worked with at least one of the RPG writers and approved most of the stuff, and obviously here he totally disapproves of this project, but the point is, Watchmen wasn't always intended to be some sacred untouchable text. After all, Watchmen was originally supposed to be told with the Charlton characters. If that had been the case, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There was hardly a master plan for this to be some closed universe stroke of genius never to be touched outside of Moore's pen. And even if there were, that's only an ethical consideration because Moore signed his rights away for money. That much is 100% certain by the contract he signed, which if was underhanded or one sided, could have and would have been litigated. But Moore is bitter so he'll just act like he could take DC to court over this but he just doesn't care to fight Warner Brothers army of lawyers (despite the fact he could afford his own army and plenty of very talented contract/IP lawyers would step up to be a part of this case anyway). If he had a case about the reversion clause being a true screw job, that would be his ticket to punch Watchmen out of DC's hands. Instead, the reversion clause is what it is. Keep in mind that prior to Watchmen, Moore reportedly had a good relationship with DC. He had written Swamp Thing for years, and had written Superman and Batman stories. He originally approach DC with Watchmen because he wanted to use the Mighty Crusaders for the main characters, which DC owned. Moore likely asked DC for a non-work-for-hire contract for Watchmen, and they turned around and offered the reversion clause. The fact that even that was notable for a comic at the time says something about how unusual the deal was at the time. Could Moore have held out for more control? Of course. Would it have been reasonable for him to have done so? At the time, I don't think anyone would've suggested that DC would still hold the rights to it decades later as a likely possibility. I'll copy and paste what Kurt Busiek knows about the contract and the situation for your reading pleasure:
Originally Posted by Kurt Busiek
Doubleday still has the publishing rights to CARRIE, for instance, because book publishing contracts generally specify that the publisher will have the rights as long as the book is in print. It's a very, very common publishing clause, not a "trick."
The reason Alan feels like it was somehow underhanded is because nobody foresaw that WATCHMEN would be so successful. No one expected it to stay in print for decades. But the fact that they didn't foresee it doesn't mean they were underhanded to put that clause in, or that they're somehow being sneaky to keep the book in print due to continual demand. The unusual (for publishing) part of the contract is that it gave DC the right to do sequels and prequels, rather than just publishing and selling the original work. That's not something Doubleday can do with CARRIE. But that wasn't underhanded either, that's simply the nature of comics at the time (and still to this day, though not as strongly) to try to lock down as many rights as they can. DC still has the WATCHMEN rights because the book never went out of print. That's not underhanded sneakiness, it's unexpected success. ----------
Originally Posted by Some Person
And DC weren't the ones to put that clause in. Moore and Gibbons asked for it. They became victims of their own success.
DC would have been happy to do it work for hire and own it forever; having it revert was a concession to Alan and Dave. The work was just so successful that even with that concession, it still works out pretty much as if it were WFH. ---------- I've been very careful about contracts because there are projects (like ASTRO CITY) where I don't want anyone to be able to create sequels or spinoffs against my wishes. And then there are others (like POWER COMPANY) where I'm willing to give up those rights. Whether it's good manners or not to publish spinoffs against the wishes of one of the original creators [let's not leave Dave out], it's not cheating, not if they have the rights. And I would expect that if Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Carmine Infantino, Jerry Siegel and many others were consulted as to whether their creations were being handled in accordance with their wishes, we'd have a much different comics industry. But that's rather beside the point that I was making, which is that the contract clause in question isn't some devious trick. It was pretty standard publishing language, probably borrowed from DC's sister-at-the-time-company, Warner Books. ---------- When he'd [Moore] been perfectly willing to do the story with the Charlton characters, where there'd have been no question that DC would own it lock stock and barrel, and DC asked him (and Dave) to change it up a bit, and granted them additional rights for it, Moore should have walked away. He and Dave got a pretty good deal, particularly for a project they went into expecting it to be a standard WFH deal. It didn't work out exactly as either side expected, but that doesn't mean DC's been venomous and scorpion-like about it. After all, another aspect of it staying in print for decades is that it's paid royalties for decades. Alan would rather it go out of print than stay in DC's hands, Dave seems to like the income just fine. So it goes. But if we're looking for examples of comics publishers being abusive to creators, there are much better ones -- this is one where the deal worked out well for everyone by normal standards. Alan has somewhat different standards, to be sure. But that doesn't make the normal standards somehow evil. ---------- [Regarding the Watchmen contract:] Pretty advanced for the times, really. Bringing in standard elements from book publishing that hadn't been used before at the mainstream publishers. The point is whose side are you on? Straczynski didn't make an accurate comparison between his work on Babylon 5 and Moore's work with Watchmen. They went into their projects with different goals and expectations, even if the end result is the same (in that a giant corporation owns their creations in perpetuity). So Straczynski isn't in the same situation as Moore is, and thus shouldn't be so dismissive. I'm with Busiek on this. DC has the right to do what they're doing in this instance and from this contract, even if later dealings with Moore weren't pleasant or went awry, like with the one Watchmen pin and the royalties for that. Ethically or however else you want to couch it, DC could do what Moore wants and make him happy, but I don't think they have any obligation to, especially when Moore signed away those rights. And as a consumer, I'm on my side. If the books are good, I'll buy them. If they're not, I won't support them. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Alan Moore Is Wrong About 'Before Watchmen' Mark Hughes, Contributor After today’s news from DC Comics about the upcoming project Beyond Watchmen, which is a series of prequel comics to the famous Alan Moore series Watchmen, Moore has been publicly denouncing the new project. And here’s the thing… I am a huge fan of Moore’s work, and I have a lot of respect for him. But he’s wrong, and he’s wrong in the worst sort of way — he’s being a complete hypocrite. Anyone recall an Alan Moore series entitled The League of Characters Other Authors Invented But Which I Took and Completely Remade Into A Superhero Team? I mean, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It had characters out of literary classics and stories, characters created by other authors. Moore took those characters and completely reimagined them and combined them together into types of stories very different from what their original creators probably ever would’ve expected. How about his series Lost Girls, which takes Alice from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Wendy from Peter Pan, and Dorothy from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and puts them together in a sexually explicit erotic comic series that includes Wendy and her brothers having orgies with the Lost Boys while a pedophile watches. It also has Dorothy having incestuous sex with her father while a teenage girl. Alice, meanwhile, has underage lesbian encounters with other girls at school, before being raped at an asylum. Does anyone want to guess how the original authors of those stories might feel about Mr. Moore creating a comic depicting those kids having explicit sex constantly in a comic book? They might be as angry as Mr. Moore is about his comic getting prequels. (It’s also worth noting that Moore was dismissive about the licensing claims made by the copyright holders of Peter Pan due to his use of characters.) The funny thing about Watchmen is, Alan Moore originally intended it to be about Charlton Comics characters who already existed. It was DC editors who got him to rework the story to use new characters; but make no mistake, they are clearly based upon characters who already existed and whom Moore had initially intended to use outright. In his angry comments to the press today, Moore had the nerve to actually say, as a comparison to the prequels to his own work, that he doesn’t recall “that many prequels or sequels to Moby-Dick.” Well, Mr. Moore, maybe that’s just because you hadn’t gotten around to taking it and using it for your own writing yet… Seriously, though, it’s actually shocking to see him directly reference classic literature as a way of trying to make a point about how wrong it is for other people to come along and take a great literary work and reuse it in some new way. Alan Moore has made a habit of denouncing and criticizing the films adapted from his comics as well. This, despite his own admission that he hasn’t actually seen any of them. He just hates them and supposedly knows they are garbage on sheer principle, in part because he thinks the film medium is mostly so worthless and commercialized… Said the man who adapted novels and other types of literature into the comic book medium, which is regularly denounced and derided as not serious art or serious literature by a lot of ignorant people, and which is pretty overtly commercialized as well. All of this, then, makes it a bit hard to take seriously his anger today and his pronouncements about his original work being taken and used by other people in ways he wouldn’t want. This man frankly made quite a career in comics using other people’s characters and works, and is angry about the reuse of characters whom he explicitly modeled — in very obvious ways — on other people’s existing characters and work. I’m sorry, Mr. Moore, but this is all a bit much. Your work is great — including all of those many pieces of work lifting and borrowing and based on other people’s work, even when they might strongly denounce what you did with their characters — but your attitude about this whole situation is hypocritical and wrong. Might Before Watchmen turn out to be bad? Sure, it could fall completely flat and be a big failure. But it might not, it might take and reuse characters in a way as great and brilliant as… well, as Watchmen basically did, albeit with changes to make them “new” while still recognizable as the characters they represented. DC is taking a big and quite bold risk, and has put some of the best talent to work on this project. And they’ve all been very gracious in their public remarks about Mr. Moore and his work, which is a far cry from Moore’s consistent public self-serving behavior. This project could just shock all of the naysayers by being a triumphant success, and could add a whole new and wonderful chapter to the already awesome Watchmen saga. I for one am hoping it’s as great as it could possibly be, and that it is a success that makes fans very happy. Why would anyone root for it to be bad? I don’t understand that, but I know many folks will do just that. Why not hope for it to fully live up to the original and become a great companion piece, to enhance the original, instead of being a bad and tragic error? There are many good arguments to be made for why this could fail or might be a big mistake etc, although I don’t personally believe there’s any inherent problem with the idea of prequels to the story. I understand the concerns and the reluctance of many fans, and I’ve seen some valid expressions of concern regarding what fans fear most about the possible ways this could all go wrong. But I hope that most fans who have those concerns are still also keeping fingers crossed that it proves them wrong and is a great series instead. And I also hope Mr. Moore, if he is going to continue complaining and denouncing it, will at least plan on actually READING the things he’s denouncing. There are a lot of truly great talents working on this project, and they are doing work similar to what Moore did when he took those Charlton Comics characters and invented a story reimagining them and trying to find new ways to make them relevant. It’s a pretty big insult to the writers and artists working on Before Watchmen to say it was fine and magnificent when Moore did it, but that they are not qualified to revisit classic, important works in a similar manner. I think they are just as entitled, just as qualified, and I wish them success — which would be the best outcome for all of us, fans and creators alike. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Who is Crimson Corsair?
|
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by kodave
(Post 11101008)
But I'm supposed to side with Moore because he FEELS screwed? Okay then :lol:
Originally Posted by kodave
(Post 11101008)
I'm not saying that the Neal Adams situation is a direct comparison. The point is, you can walk away if you don't like the contractual situation.
Originally Posted by kodave
(Post 11101008)
But he wasn't that concerned with it. I mean he let other people write RPGs about the Watchmen universe before he even finished the story. Sure, he worked with at least one of the RPG writers and approved most of the stuff, and obviously here he totally disapproves of this project, but the point is, Watchmen wasn't always intended to be some sacred untouchable text.
Originally Posted by kodave
(Post 11101008)
After all, Watchmen was originally supposed to be told with the Charlton characters. If that had been the case, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
That much is 100% certain by the contract he signed, which if was underhanded or one sided, could have and would have been litigated. It's not so much the contract itself, but DC's treatment of the contract. It's hard to say if the book is just phenomenal seller, or that DC has stretched the definition of "in print" in order to retain rights over the decades. Could you please stop acting like DC stuck in the reversion clause? It's been confirmed by multiple sources the reversion clause was Moore and Gibbon's doing, and DC conceded to it. I'll copy and paste what Kurt Busiek knows about the contract and the situation for your reading pleasure: As for who added the clause in, that's mostly semantics. I said DC added it it because I'm guessing it was them and their lawyers who drew up the contract. Of course they added the clause at Moore's and Gibson's request, they certainly wouldn't have added in of their own accord, although I don't think Moore or Gibson (or their lawyers) drew up the exact wording, nor do I think it was their idea for DC to retain sequel rights and such. I also think the contract was a bit of a negotiation, and Moore and Gibson likely didn't start with offering DC sequel rights. They may have wanted to retain all rights except for initial publishing, with reversion, and DC countered with wanting to have many more rights to the comic, at least until reversion. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by anomynous
(Post 11101026)
Who is Crimson Corsair?
|
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11101183)
You don't have to side with Moore. You also don't have to side with DC. You could acknowledge that both have valid viewpoints instead of just disparaging Moore's.
To be fair: I find it absolutely impossible to believe that DC, at any point, offered Alan “anything he wanted” as financial compensation, much less “complete creative freedom.” I’m sure they offered him boatloads of cash and I’m sure they offered him “creative freedom within reason,” but JMS is overstating in order to make a better case for his side. Also, in trying to “balance” the comparisons, JMS forgot to add the qualifier, “Let’s also say that, without getting into whether I was right to believe so or just crazy, I believed to my absolute core that the company who was trying to woo me back to Babylon 5 was a corporation who had (in my opinion) already screwed me repeatedly and who I could never in a million years bring myself to trust to deal fairly and morally with me despite contractual language in my favor.” None of what I have just said is intended to take sides or to especially bolster Alan’s side or to snipe at JMS…but as someone who was on staff during Watchmen’s original publication and first-hand witness to the many growing problems between Alan and DC, I can tell you that it’s a very thorny, very complex situation in which (IMO) both sides have valid reasons to believe that the other doesn’t deal fairly or sanely. I bring this up only because I bristle at JMS’s assertion that what he offers is a “more accurate” analysis of the overall mess instead of an equally flawed restacking of the deck. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by JasonF
(Post 11101213)
I saw this on another board, attributed to Mark Waid on the Robot 6 and Comics Alliance comments sections in response to JMS (but without a link, so I can't be sure it's really him -- but the point is a good one regardless):
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com...#comment-83849 http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/0...5/#aolc=BGLE6g And I agree with Mark Waid. He put more succinctly what's I've been trying to say since the JMS article: that JMS either oversimplified or ignored certain details, that the truth of the matter is more complex, and that both sides have valid reasons for their stances. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by madcougar
(Post 11027468)
Well la di da Mr. Moore! I wish I could just say no to trash bags full of cash! It must be nice to be British and [have] ethics and morals!
[Straczynski said] Let’s say Warner Bros. came to me and said, ‘we want to do more Babylon 5, and we want you to run the whole thing. We’ll pay you anything you want, give you a proper budget, and you will have complete creative freedom.’ [...] So let’s say that Warners makes that offer, and I said, ‘No, I don’t want it, take your accursed money, your big budget and your complete creative freedom and begone, get thee behind me Satan!’ The adult John-Girl concludes her reminiscence; "I spent most of my life in poverty after that, 'til I sold this series. And as I have matured and aged and withered, I have often thought back to that day and said to myself, 'John-Girl, what a bunch of dummies we were.' " |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I wonder if it occurred to JMS that Alan Moore has said all he wants to with Watchmen? It's a complete story that contains everything we need to know to understand it. There's really no need for any spin-offs, either prequels or sequels. Just from reading The Watchmen, I know everything I need to know about Ozymandias, Rorschach, Dr Manhattan, and the rest. The story ended where it should have and I don't need to see what happened next.
Whereas Babylon 5 (and JMS) has teased us with storylines that had no resolution. (Why did the Sun go nova in one million years? What was the ultimate fate of Garibaldi, Delenn, and Franklin?) |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11100806)
Jill Thompson has her own Delirium miniseries out now:
http://www.dccomics.com/vertigo/grap...vels/?gn=16718 |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Alan Moore responds, much in the way we probably all thought he would, but with much more attitude. I had no idea he and Gibbons were no longer friends. He also is not really a fan of, well, pretty much anyone working in the industry today, but especially not the people who took this project up. (originally saw this link at bleedingcool: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/...-shall-take/):
http://www.seraphemera.org/serapheme...Interview.html |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
"And, over here at least, we regard something like a terminally ill loved one as more important than the machinations of people who publish Batman comics. "
:lol: |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I find it interesting that through that whole interview Alan Moore continually says he's never read anything that can touch Watchmen for creative merit, but last I heard he's still good friends with Neil Gaiman. And Sandman is praised almost as much as Watchmen. I'm surprised he didn't make mention of that, nor did the guy conducted the interview. Did they have a falling out I didn't hear about?
|
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11167050)
I find it interesting that through that whole interview Alan Moore continually says he's never read anything that can touch Watchmen for creative merit, but last I heard he's still good friends with Neil Gaiman. And Sandman is praised almost as much as Watchmen. I'm surprised he didn't make mention of that, nor did the guy conducted the interview. Did they have a falling out I didn't hear about?
http://blather.net/articles/amoore/league.html Sandman, there were some very good issues of Sandman that Neil [Gaiman] did that I thought were absolutely brilliant I think it's more a mix of Moore's own opinion of his own work, that it's better than anything else, and that listing comics Moore likes wasn't the focus of the interview. From the interview: Like I said, I think I have different feelings about contemporary comics to some extent. I still read Wolverine and that kind of thing. I mean I agree, though, that nothing has ever topped Watchmen. I mean Maus is great, but not as good, and the same for The Dark Knight Returns. Those are the seminal works that have helped elevate the industry... I'm not going to go into a list of the things I've enjoyed over the years. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I'm more surprised by the whole Blackest Night came from a 25-30 year old story by Alan Moore, which is referenced here and I'm sure was all over the interwebs before:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/09/...lackest-night/ which I'm sure was Geoff Johns just including every little bit of continuity into his stuff rather than a swipe or anything, but still... |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by fujishig
(Post 11167147)
I'm more surprised by the whole Blackest Night came from a 25-30 year old story by Alan Moore, which is referenced here and I'm sure was all over the interwebs before:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/09/...lackest-night/ which I'm sure was Geoff Johns just including every little bit of continuity into his stuff rather than a swipe or anything, but still... There is a very detailed treatment that Moore cooked up for DC years before Kingdom Come, called "Twilight Of The Superheroes" which has many similarities with Kingdom Come. It's probably available somewhere on the Internet, it used to be hosted on some site. At the time that Alan Moore created it the DC suits were unwilling to go ahead with the project, even though the treatment is fantastic. At the time most thought DC was uncomfortable with how dark most of their star characters were in it. Today it almost certainly would have been published but those were different times. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I'm not surprised that Geoff Johns utilized a Green Lantern back up story for his BLACKEST NIGHT storyline. That's part of the allure of mainstream superhero comics, the continuity and reference to older stories.
I was surprised though, to find out that The Joker originally being the Red Hood, wearing a pill shaped mask, and falling into toxic chemicals was NOT made up by Alan Moore but was originally in a Silver Age Batman story. I think Alan Moore is a great writer. Miracelman, Watchmen, Promethea, Top 10, and V for Vendetta are great books. But this talk about Watchmen being the "one book" to save DC. THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS which came out prior to Watchmen was the first book of that era that got the non-comic press talking. I'm surprised that the interviewer says that nothing as good as Watchmen has come out since then. Sandman, We3, Flex Mentallo, Y: The Last Man, and Red Son are just some I can think of off top. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by brayzie
(Post 11168143)
I'm surprised that the interviewer says that nothing as good as Watchmen has come out since then.
Here's an interview from 2009 between the two: http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-refl...le_117413.html http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-refl...le_117529.html |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by brayzie
(Post 11168143)
I'm not surprised that Geoff Johns utilized a Green Lantern back up story for his BLACKEST NIGHT storyline. That's part of the allure of mainstream superhero comics, the continuity and reference to older stories.
I was surprised though, to find out that The Joker originally being the Red Hood, wearing a pill shaped mask, and falling into toxic chemicals was NOT made up by Alan Moore but was originally in a Silver Age Batman story. I think Alan Moore is a great writer. Miracelman, Watchmen, Promethea, Top 10, and V for Vendetta are great books. But this talk about Watchmen being the "one book" to save DC. THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS which came out prior to Watchmen was the first book of that era that got the non-comic press talking. I'm surprised that the interviewer says that nothing as good as Watchmen has come out since then. Sandman, We3, Flex Mentallo, Y: The Last Man, and Red Son are just some I can think of off top. Y: The Last Man is nowhere near Watchmen. Sandman, on the other hand, is better than Watchmen. |
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11168382)
Y: The Last Man is nowhere near Watchmen. Sandman, on the other hand, is better than Watchmen.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.